Science and Religion Converge

[jarofthoughts]

@jarofthoughts

I've thought about your posts today. You win this argument hands down of course... i don't disagree with your POV - because it is the only sensible one.

I also agree that mysticism is pretentious. Its extremely so!

I applaud you honesty and integrity for that.

But it is Real (for some people).

I strongly hold that something is either true or not, at least when we're talking about how the universe around us works.

Its not Religious, super-natural non-sense, its an advanced form of meta-cognition and mental reprogramming.

Fair enough, but as a teacher I do stuff like that every day without the use of mystical terms.

I also agree that to use terms like magic &c sounds stupid to some people. I am stupid for thinking that using these terms with people who do not understand my definitions is foolish and will always amount to confusion and miscommunication. I should know better - but this has been interesting for me - I have learned my lesson: Communication is only possible between people who speak the same language.

The Oxford Online Dictionary provides these definitions:"the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces" or "having or apparently having supernatural powers".
I think that is what springs to most people's minds when you use that word.
Of course there is also the metaphorical use of the word or as used in the term, "stage magic", but that is not what we are talking about here.
To avoid confusion I would advice that you stick with dictionary definitions.

You have called me delusional, but I assure I am not so.

Only in the sense of believing in something supernatural. If that is not the case then you may disregard that comment.

My second vocation is the study and practise of Western Occult Science. All 'occult' means is 'hidden'. What I study are the schools, systems and techniques that have been employed in the West since BC era, but have become 'hidden' and thus 'occult' due to the Christian occupation of this part of the world.

If that is what rings your bell, have fun. But don't claim those systems to be in any useful sense true or factual. For that you need evidence.

The western system mirrors that of the East. Like Buddhism or Taoism its a Philosophy or way of life, not a Religion or even a belief system.

That really depends on the sources you use. Many of them are tied up with religious concepts like angelic names and a soul, and a lot of them imply something supernatural.

Its a language, a map and a set of tools.

The same can be said about science and so far it is the most successful system we have.

Have you ever been to a monestry in somewhere like Nepal? If you stare into a monk's eyes they sparkle and smile at you with this look of 'knowing'.

No, but I have practised Japanese martial arts for over a decade and I have trained with some of the masters within those systems.

All the Scientific Knowledge in the world doesn't make you happy...

My interest in science has most certainly contributed to my happiness. However, that is not the point. A shot of the recreational drug of your choice will make you happy beyond your wildest dreams, at least for a while. That does not make it a worthwhile pursuit.

Is having a Physics PhD the only way you'll ever understand the nature of reality, are we all condemned to never really 'get-it'?
I think there needs to be a way for the laymen to understand Truth without having a doctorate in Math.

There are now a massive amount of science books available on just about every subject that are intended for the layman, such as myself. I do not hold a PhD in anything but I have found that having a keen interest and a willingness to make an effort can take you quite far.

Science tells us How (up to a fraction of a second).. but it doesn't tell us Why.

THIS is the Truth I talk about.
Why are YOU here?

Science can't answer this. Religion can't answer this (truthfully). Only YOU can answer this.

And that is why there is no ultimate meaning to life. Everyone has to decide for themselves what their lives should be about. For me, I am happy to have been given the opportunity just to be here and see it all. And I do my best to instil that sense of wonder and amazement to my pupils. Reality is interesting enough without us trying to mystify it and there is more real knowledge than can be learned even in several lifetimes. Let's not make it more difficult by muddling the waters.

But if you did care, and you wanted a model to work with, mysticism would be the one to go for. Its solatory, its experimental and you are you're own labrat. 'Success is thy proof' n all that.

Again, each to his own but my position is that science (actual science) is the best way to go in every respect.

If you're happy, strong and successful in everything that you do - then its working.

Everything is a harsh measure, but I think science has proven to be both a strong and a successful method. Whether it makes you happy...well, that is for each to decide.

I don't see what is so wrong with this. Ultimately, its just a model. If it works for you - use it.

People can believe in anything the like for all I care. Just don't call it "truth" or "fact" or "evidence based".

 

[Autodidact]

This is mainly directed at the people who align themselves with science. I don't profess to have a certain side, but I'll explain more at the end.

Why is it that atheists so vehemently reject all God and religion? As I see it, religion, science, and philosophy are all facets of the same gem trying to convey the same point and message. I'm aware that there are certain elements of religion that are incompatible (from an atheists viewpoint) with science and philosophy and logic, because there is simply no evidence for it. By this, I am mainly referring to the presence of "noun-gods." The monotheistic or polytheistic religions that claim a God that can intervene in our worldly realm. But why do these approaches have to be taken literally? I see them out-right rejected by atheists, rather than interpreted for their metaphorical meaning and message. I'm all for debate, but these concepts are too quickly scrapped. Religion should be a highly individual path -- often religious teachings are distorted through history by "authorities" who know no more than the average person.

Science and religion are pointing in the same direction. That is, the Oneness, the Ultimate Reality of everything. Science approaches it by explaining it, breaking it down mechanically, rationally, logically. Religion has a myriad of approaches to explaining reality. But in general it is trying to convey that reality "just is." The Ultimate Reality, the Universe just is. How is that wrong or different from explaining it scientifically? They two different ways of saying the same thing. The Universe speaks to people in different ways. There are 6 billion of us on this planet -- you cannot expect everyone to realize TRUTH by the same method. Let's take a micro example. We're sitting on chairs. Science may describe the solidity of the chair by explaining particle theory, etc. How is that different from saying it "just IS"? Macro-mize (I know, not a word) and it applies to the Universe as a whole. Religions can be distorted and skewed in their meaning. They are adapted through history based on social and political conditions. But the underlying message runs through ALL religions, and through SCIENCE. It simply takes on a different path. I have no issue with religions being refuted, disproved, etc., but in doing so, so many people ignore the UNDERLYING current and profess themselves atheists too quickly.

From my experience, atheists reject God, and then proclaim that particular religion invalid because of that. Religion has more purpose than just the existence of God(s). Science is not flawless either. Look at the inductive problem, for example. And if a scientific theory is thought to be proven, but in the end new discoveries bring us new knowledge that proves the theory obsolete, people do not instantly proclaim all of science to be wrong. Religion is looked at too narrowly. People reject religious views, but fail to explore it on their own -- which is ultimately where real meaning can be derived from.

It's not the refutation and arguments against dogma and other burdens on spirituality that I have a problem with. Those things SHOULD be refuted. They get in the way of actual meaning. I just want to clearly state that.

This post is slanted in view of religion against science, but it's for purpose of debate. The argument could easily be flipped around. (I just don't like the attitude of atheists in general.) Religion is just as guilty as rejecting science, and not realizing that science is trying to point at the same thing religion is trying to point at. World religions are stunted by dogmas and fallacies that I do believe should be eliminated through argument and debate. I hope this makes sense. It makes a lot more sense intuitively where it comes together in my head. It's very hard to find the right words to convey what I'm trying to say, and I am not convinced I did it adequately. It would take a book to do that, I imagine. As for me personally I don't take on a theistic view. I have a highly personalized view that combines pantheism (verb Gods), Oneness, Ultimate Reality, Science, and Philosophy. So I guess I'm not a theist in the "traditional sense". But I understand how all religions are trying to say the same thing.

The goal should be unbiased search for truth!

Science is an unbiased search for truth.