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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
can you please provide some kind of statistical evidence that shows this? I couldn't use the link you provided, but I just want to make sure more than merely scholarly opinion. I'm not doubting it at this point, but I need some kind of data to believe something like that. and obviously I would need the article to come from a secular rather than religious for obvious reasons. it just seems a little far fetched to me.
I'm sorry, but according to the op scientism does not mean that the scientific method is the only way of getting knowledge. it merely means that one views the scientific method as the best way to attain knowledge. read the definition provided and you will see I'm not intentionally confused. in fact it seems that you are.
thank you. Is there statistical data providing the numbers? I feel like that would be the only way to truly see which method of meditation it's actually more beneficial. when you say more by necessity it means there must be some kind of objective verification rather than someone's opinion on the subject.
Speaking as an experienced meditator and a mystic and quite knowledgeable in these areas, what you are saying here is not exactly accurate. If we are talking about actual meditation practice, and not merely "pondering an idea" sort of use to the word "to meditate upon an idea", but where one rather engages in a practice of sitting still and entering into altered states of consciousness through various techniques, the ones which involve focusing on deity forms and/or mantra chants is actually not the highest forms of meditation. They are powerful, to be sure, but on the scale of types of meditation practice, deity mysticism comes in second up on the ladder. First is nature mysticism, then deity mysticism above that, then causal mysticism above that, and finally nondual mysticism at the top.
It is to know and rest in the causal Source of all meaning, as opposed to hanging onto this belief or that belief as a substitute Ground. Very, very different meaning that what I hear you describe. This not at all the same as someone who calls themselves an atheist, debating about whether Jehovah God is real or not. It goes way beyond a debate about beliefs.If you hear them speak of "Emptiness", that absolutely does not mean a "blank" a "zero" or devoid of any meaning. It simply means it is Formlessness from which all forms arise. "It" is "empty" of value in the sense it is the Source of all value, not "a value". It is Truth itself, out of which all relative truths arise. That is not at all the same as saying the universe is meaningless!
Words are useful when not mistaken as Truth itself. A finger pointing to the moon is useful. But when we argue over which finger is right or wrong, then we miss seeing the moon. We have to hold our maps of reality with a certain open hand, otherwise they become reality for us. But if you are no resting in that Emptiness, then a map can be useful.
Science and philosophy are meaningless to speak to Absolutes, because they are partial pictures and relative to the culture or the individual. But on the other side of the Absolute, they are useful like the rays from sun heat the earth. But they are not the Sun itself.
Very interesting article. The article seems to suggest, however, that the benefits of R/S can be correlated with natural/physical stimuli. For example, prayer can be assumed to help people battling cancer. But, this is not necessarily or even reasonably associated with God helping the patient, but instead with the fact that prayer is beneficial physically to the patient (which is pretty common knowledge in psychotherapy). The act of communicating, the presence of hope, and the belief that life does not end at death causes a person to heal more quickly, not because of God's help (or at least we shouldn't just assume this without more evidence, as the benefits can easily be explained by medicine), but because a positive attitude can improve one's condition immensely. Just read The Secret and you will see countless examples of this.
There are actually various definitions of the term "Scientism". Apparently, like any other religion or world-view, there are various levels of adherence. Some define scientism as viewing the scientific method as merely the best way to obtain information. More extreme scientism claims that other sources of information should be ignored as irrelevent.
So, before when you were saying atheists deny that freedom exists, did you really mean adherents to scientism?
What she said ...
What's an interesting thought on this line of reasoning is that if our brains are hardwired to believe, either those who say they don't believe religiously are an aberration on the order of dysfunction, since nature selected it for the species as a whole, or... they actually are still believing religiously because they too are hardwired for it, but they are mistaken that not believing in God as a literal being means they aren't still believing religiously. That would be those who replace God with Science to put their faith into. Hence, science becomes Scientism. It's in the genes. It's still a religious belief. Science is the Answer to our quest for Truth!
I think any developmental studies will show that children with active imaginations are happier and healthier overall.
No, not period. If they feel better, they will be healthier. Period. How we think and how we believe very directly affects our health. This is well known nowadays. If you think dark and negative thoughts all day, you make your body ill through stress and a host of other chemical problems. If you are hopeful and optimistic, it reduces all of those and you have overall better physical health, as well as mental health. So, if it makes them feel better, then everyone should desire some point of view that does that too!
