Looncall
Well-Known Member
The aims of religion are to provide a living for clerics and to give lazy people a way to outsource their thinking. The rest is just window dressing.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science and Religion Converge
- Thread starter PivotalSyntax
- Start date
The aims of religion are to provide a living for clerics and to give lazy people a way to outsource their thinking. The rest is just window dressing.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Your Idolatry of the Bible, as shown in your posts, does not change with your claim of being an atheist.
Octavia156
OTO/EGC
Good question.
As you highlight, documents like the bible tell us HOW, not WHY. But shouldn't we all be asking why?
i think you have stumbled on an important distinction here.
Its something all organised exoteric religions have in common - they tell their followers what Truth is and how to live by it.
When I refer to True Religion - I guess I mean the more Gnostic or the inner esoteric forms of religion, the main goal of which is a personal communication with whatever god you seek, and an experiential and gnostic understanding of what Truth is.
Priests and Priestesses of the Inner Sanctum, the Community of the Elect. &c
I don't think True religion was ever meant for the masses
Last edited:
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
I think you are 100% correct at an exoteric level. At an esoteric level I am always surprised and how many of the experience of mystics around the world agree at some level. There can be a lot of agreement between the mediative experience of a Quaker at the turn of the last century and a Buddhist monk 2000 years ago.
Last edited:
McBell
Admiral Obvious
*climbs up onto pontoon boat*
Skwim
Veteran Member
:yes: I was about to say essentially the same thing.
Octavia156
OTO/EGC
I totally agree -good point.
This is the essence of Theosophy and the work of the Theosophists was primarily in the area of Comparative religion.
This is what I meant by the Inner Sanctum &c. If you look at most if not all religions there is a mystic arm. Usually a priestly class who had access to the secrets &c.
Even more profound you can see how muost exoteric schools have mystic schools attached to them - Judaism has the Kabbalists; Islam, the Sufis; Christianity has its Gnostics and its obvious that the Eastern religions have their inner schools practised by Lamas and monks.
If you compare THESE philosophies you will be surprised to find how similar they are.
Its all about personal enlightenment - This is the aim of True Religion
There can only be one Absolute Truth... - that's why its called Absolute - but by this very nature it cannot be known or communicated, it has to be experienced and understood.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Absolute rubbish... it's only called "Absolute" to provide a sense of superiority to those who claim it.
wa:do
Dear PivotalSyntax
My only problem with your post is that you group everyone together all atheist's believe all religions are the same. We all have one direction.
I as an atheist see it as all of us unique no 2 people believe the same thing no matter what religion, science or non-religion. We have some commonallity's but even they are different.
As to my support of science I see it as a good read like much of the bible, tso or any new age book I read, some good points, some bad points. Science like religion has its place in the world but no one should give it full credence like no one should give religion full credence.
It is best to follow your own beliefs and not group with the herds just for the protection.
My only problem with your post is that you group everyone together all atheist's believe all religions are the same. We all have one direction.
I as an atheist see it as all of us unique no 2 people believe the same thing no matter what religion, science or non-religion. We have some commonallity's but even they are different.
As to my support of science I see it as a good read like much of the bible, tso or any new age book I read, some good points, some bad points. Science like religion has its place in the world but no one should give it full credence like no one should give religion full credence.
It is best to follow your own beliefs and not group with the herds just for the protection.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Seconded.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Thirded
Noaidi
slow walker
Fourthed.
"The aim of religion is to find the Absolute Truth"? That'll only happen when / if god decides to show his face to everyone, thus removing any doubt. Until then, I think we can safely say that religion is a human construct based on faith and belief - and there is no "absolute truth" in faith and belief.
Octavia156
OTO/EGC
who said God was Absolute?
If Absolulte is the numbers 1,2 and 3, God would be 4.
I'm not talking about God when I talk about the Absolute - far from it.
I'm talking about THAT which is not of the two but ONE.
Octavia156
OTO/EGC
This point is meaningless.
Its called absolute because there is no-thing less that it. It is indivisible. It has nothing to do with God or religion or superiority. Its a numerical concept.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
The idea of absolute truth is meaningless.
And those who claim to have it/know it/know the way to it use the concept to create an illusion of superiority. In that sense, it is very similar to the concept of god and religion where those who are "higher" up the "spiritual" ladder gets to call the shots for those who are "lower".
bain-druie
Tree-Hugger!
Well, my two cents is that science and religion do peacefully and harmoniously co-exist for me. They are not the same, but they overlap without doing one another any discourtesy. In applying medical science, I find that the principles of Druidry help me to focus, to draw strength from what is greater than myself, and so forth. I also find that what I learn on a spiritual level has a level of agreement with science; if it doesn't, I throw it out.
I believe that science is a methodology designed for this realm specifically; it understands and applies natural laws as far as it is able to. It is designed to answer certain kinds of questions: what and how in particular. Religion to me is designed to answer other kinds of questions: why and who in particular.
I believe that science indicates the flimsy nature of this realm, and points to a much deeper reality. Atomic theory, for instance, reveals that what appears solid and static to our eyes is in fact largely empty space and constantly in motion. In other words, our 'reality' is in fact largely 'illusory'.
Science tells us that the Universe is made up of matter and energy, which can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter, in fact, is a form of energy itself. We are quite limited in our understanding of energy; but we know that there is a wide variance in type and application of energies. The old dualistic paradigms have been thrown out: the old argument over whether light was particle or wave is obsolete, because now we know it is, in fact, BOTH.
Given the fact that in applied sciences (such as medicine, my own field) we *MUST* keep in mind that what we know is flexible, constantly growing and prone to changes - even total about-face changes - I find it a little arrogant when people use science as the sole trustworthy measuring stick for Truth. Science does not measure truth; it measures certain qualities and quantities we have assigned to this natural world we live in.
There is evidence apart from the scientific kind; in a courtroom, for instance, testimony is accepted as firsthand evidence. In fact, the testimony given by a witness is quite valuable. In religion or art, I call this kind of evidence experiential. I think the two situations are comparable because what is being measured in both cases is one person's *perception* of what they see, hear, touch, smell, taste, and otherwise experience. It is of necessity subjective; in a court this is recognized, and it is understood that what the individual witnessed is not NECESSARILY the exact truth of what occurred, but is their perception of events. Perception varies from person to person, but its variance does not discount it.
I believe in reincarnation - why? Because Delilah the Fortune-Telling Psychic told me so for a mere $19.99 on my MasterCard? No. I believe it because I have experienced what I perceive as past-life memories, and because in observing nature I see spirals everywhere; from galaxies to seashells. We are always circling, repeating a pattern, yet progressing to some eventual goal. Morning becomes noon becomes night becomes morning; Winter becomes spring becomes summer becomes autumn becomes winter. The plants spread their seed, die, and are reborn, then grow to spread their seed, and die, and are reborn.
Is that sufficient evidence? It is for me. It is not for many others, and I have no problem with that. It doesn't bother me if you find reincarnation to be an unrealistic concept that has no relevance to you personally; just don't get on some high horse and try to tell me I'm silly because I find it a realistic concept that DOES have relevance to ME.
Science does not have anything to say to religion in some areas; in the areas in which they do meet, I find them congenial. When and if they disagree, I have always sided with science, because this is the realm I am in and this is the place I can learn most about universal law. I do not believe in the supernatural; I believe all things are natural, but much of nature is still beyond the scope of science. I don't think it will always remain so, but for now it is. And that's perfectly OK with me.
I believe that science is a methodology designed for this realm specifically; it understands and applies natural laws as far as it is able to. It is designed to answer certain kinds of questions: what and how in particular. Religion to me is designed to answer other kinds of questions: why and who in particular.
I believe that science indicates the flimsy nature of this realm, and points to a much deeper reality. Atomic theory, for instance, reveals that what appears solid and static to our eyes is in fact largely empty space and constantly in motion. In other words, our 'reality' is in fact largely 'illusory'.
Science tells us that the Universe is made up of matter and energy, which can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter, in fact, is a form of energy itself. We are quite limited in our understanding of energy; but we know that there is a wide variance in type and application of energies. The old dualistic paradigms have been thrown out: the old argument over whether light was particle or wave is obsolete, because now we know it is, in fact, BOTH.
Given the fact that in applied sciences (such as medicine, my own field) we *MUST* keep in mind that what we know is flexible, constantly growing and prone to changes - even total about-face changes - I find it a little arrogant when people use science as the sole trustworthy measuring stick for Truth. Science does not measure truth; it measures certain qualities and quantities we have assigned to this natural world we live in.
There is evidence apart from the scientific kind; in a courtroom, for instance, testimony is accepted as firsthand evidence. In fact, the testimony given by a witness is quite valuable. In religion or art, I call this kind of evidence experiential. I think the two situations are comparable because what is being measured in both cases is one person's *perception* of what they see, hear, touch, smell, taste, and otherwise experience. It is of necessity subjective; in a court this is recognized, and it is understood that what the individual witnessed is not NECESSARILY the exact truth of what occurred, but is their perception of events. Perception varies from person to person, but its variance does not discount it.
I believe in reincarnation - why? Because Delilah the Fortune-Telling Psychic told me so for a mere $19.99 on my MasterCard? No. I believe it because I have experienced what I perceive as past-life memories, and because in observing nature I see spirals everywhere; from galaxies to seashells. We are always circling, repeating a pattern, yet progressing to some eventual goal. Morning becomes noon becomes night becomes morning; Winter becomes spring becomes summer becomes autumn becomes winter. The plants spread their seed, die, and are reborn, then grow to spread their seed, and die, and are reborn.
Is that sufficient evidence? It is for me. It is not for many others, and I have no problem with that. It doesn't bother me if you find reincarnation to be an unrealistic concept that has no relevance to you personally; just don't get on some high horse and try to tell me I'm silly because I find it a realistic concept that DOES have relevance to ME.
Science does not have anything to say to religion in some areas; in the areas in which they do meet, I find them congenial. When and if they disagree, I have always sided with science, because this is the realm I am in and this is the place I can learn most about universal law. I do not believe in the supernatural; I believe all things are natural, but much of nature is still beyond the scope of science. I don't think it will always remain so, but for now it is. And that's perfectly OK with me.
Noaidi
slow walker
Can you explain what you mean by that, please?
Octavia156
OTO/EGC
]
Sounds like your ego is making you feel inferior.
Its got nothing to do with a pecking order. I thinks its more about courage and ability to get out one's armchair and start studying.
And yes it is meaningless to a degree because its unity is inconceivable by dualistic mentality.
Octavia156
OTO/EGC
Somthing that is dimesion-less - or oustide of dimenions. a single point
Absolute is unity - everything that exists is dualistic.
Black-white, light-dark... good-evil life-death everything that 'exists' around us in material can be negated by an opposite
In the Absolute realm there are no opposites, just One. Its rather like quantum superposition - its neither exists nor not exists, but both and niether at the same time.
I can appreciate its hard to grasp intellectually - it is supposed to be. But it is the essence of all mystic schools - to find one's negation and annihilate oneself into the Absolute.
God is a dualistic concept - so it cannot be Absolute.