A Middle Path Between Religion And Atheism?

[Evolution_beyond]

As I've said before... I find the idea of a creator robs the universe of wonder. If it was all made, then fuck it, it's supposed to be impressive... but blind chance... now THAT is impressive...

 

Now when did I ever claim that there was a Creator?

 

I talked of a religious approach to life. I made it damn clear that this didn't necessarily involve any theism or belief in the supernatural.

 

CAINT YEW SEE AHM TESTIFYIN' HEYAH?

 

 

Hells teeth, you can't AGREE with someone without getting a new asshole ripped in this place....

 

Sorry about that. I immediately went on the defensive. Got to get this overactive paranoia chip checked out

 

I still love you in sordid ways involving strange, unfeasibly large, spiked vibrating devices and nipple clamps....

 

Ooh! Kinky! Don't happen to attend the local Munch do you? (that's a social gathering for bdsm folk, in case you didn't know)

[Evolution_beyond]

Thanks Jun - for the video suggestion, for the information that vegatarianism is not mandatory for a Buddhist and for your usual wise thoughts

[Evolution_beyond]

Buddhism, whilst not bad, still is one of these "Kismet" beliefs that makes the believer accept it's fate. Wouldn't it be better if we had one that channeled all our "fighting and pioneering spirit" into something that made th life of all in some way better and more fullfilling?

 

Just a thought, but thanks for the really cool post. It was good.

 

Spatz

 

I'm going to be echoing a lot of what other people have said here. But Buddhism does not claim that we are resigned to fate at all.

 

Even the forms of Buddhism that make a big deal about reincarnation - the whole point of gaining enlightenment is to be able to escape the round of rebirth, to undo the bonds of Karma, to take control of your life and achieve true happiness and contentment and freedom from the bondage of craving and perpetual rebirth.

 

The most rigorously rational forms of Buddhism are even more a matter of taking control of your destiny by learning to calm the mind and let go of cravings, the better to actually enjoy your life.

 

Buddhism is the very opposite of being resigned to fate.

[Jun]

However, if humans must have something to believe in. Something that defiens us, then shouldn't it be one that is supporting of what we witness i the universe? Something that inspires us as a species to greatness for ALL things?

 

Without getting semantic, there are actually NO beliefs in Buddhism. It's not a belief system. The Buddha didn't ask anyone to believe in anything.

 

Buddhism, whilst not bad, still is one of these "Kismet" beliefs that makes the believer accept it's fate.

 

No! Buddhism teaches that "fate" does not exist. Fate implies that you have no choice. Buddhism teaches that everything depends on you, that all choices are ultimately yours. Whatever happens is due to a cause or causes and not due to luck or fate. There can be no pre-ordained fate.

 

Thanks Jun - for the video suggestion, for the information that vegatarianism is not mandatory for a Buddhist and for your usual wise thoughts

 

You are welcome.

[woodsmoke]

Science simply hypothesises and tests what is real or what is not. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

It is human reflection upon the findings of science that brings the awe and the wonder. It is human experience of nature itself that brings the awe and the wonder.

 

It is outside the scope of science to provide us with a sense of wonder and reverance. It is not the job of science to do this. Science tries to examine reality, to give us a better idea of what is real. It does not set out to do anything else. If people happen to find a sense of wonder in what it reveals, then all well and good. But it is not science that caused us to reflect upon its findings in this way, neither does science attempt to do this.

 

Do not confuse the brilliant prose that is often written to communicate the findings of science to the layman with the scientific method itself. Any prose that outlines something, is a kind of writing and therefore a kind of art. It is the job of art to create the sense of wonder and awe. Also basic human experience and the spiritual yearning that humans have can also create this sense of wonder and awe.

 

Science can be the subject of the awe - but it is not the cause of it.

 

Let me get this straight. You're saying simply because it's not science's "job" to inspire us, we can't credit it with doing so?

 

That may well be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.

[woodsmoke]

Apologies for the double post; I had friends show up and have long since consumed enough alcohol to be even more apathetic than usual (in all aspects save my singleness ).

 

 

The First Noble Truth is what usually gets people. "There is suffering." Quite often we find it translated into English as "All life is suffering" but that is incorrect. The Pali word used is Dukkha (Pali was the language used by the Buddha and the first language used to record the Buddha's teachings). The Sanskrit term is Duhkha.

 

Now Dukkha has several meanings, imperfection, impermanence, insubstantial. In common usage it also means pain, sorrow, suffering or misery. It is obvious that the First Noble Truth as described by the Buddha was referring to the common usage of suffering or misery, but he also alluded to the meanings of imperfection, pain, sorrow, and impermanence when talking about the Four Noble Truths.

 

The Buddha never denied happiness or enjoyment in life, in fact he taught that we should embrace it by doing away with suffering. The Buddha when asked to explain the First Noble Truth said, "Whatever is impermanent is dukkha." What he means is "Whatever cannot last brings us suffering."

 

We try so hard to forget that all that we love and cherish will one day end. We try so hard to believe that we have all our loved ones and belongings forever, and that as long as we have them we are happy. When we are deprived of having our possessions, our loved ones, we suffer. I might add here that dukkha is a mental condition. It is not used in reference to physical suffering or pain. Physical suffering is a part of life, it is reality.

 

The cause of this suffering as explained in the second Noble truth is greed, or craving.

 

You know, that does an excellent job of altogether circumventing what had been my problem with Buddhist philosophy. The way it was described in my phil class last semester made it seem as if the Buddha thought there was nothing of sufficient value to merit an investment in life beyond simply surviving; essentially endorsing the same sort of self-denial preached by the most harmful monotheisms today. Even understanding the idea behind it, that just didn't sit right with me. There's just so much in this world to enjoy and wonder at; to deny oneself the countless myriad of experiences simply because they have a finite span is nothing short of ludicrous.

 

It's somehow freeing to know the Buddha wasn't some sort of aspiring Vulcan, believing it's better for humans to live without their humanity than embrace it and all the joys and potential sorrows that come with it. I still don't know that I'll describe myself as a Buddhist, but having that explained to me neatly solves the one problem I'd had with my skewed understanding of Buddhism previously.

[Evolution_beyond]

Science simply hypothesises and tests what is real or what is not. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

It is human reflection upon the findings of science that brings the awe and the wonder. It is human experience of nature itself that brings the awe and the wonder.

 

It is outside the scope of science to provide us with a sense of wonder and reverance. It is not the job of science to do this. Science tries to examine reality, to give us a better idea of what is real. It does not set out to do anything else. If people happen to find a sense of wonder in what it reveals, then all well and good. But it is not science that caused us to reflect upon its findings in this way, neither does science attempt to do this.

 

Do not confuse the brilliant prose that is often written to communicate the findings of science to the layman with the scientific method itself. Any prose that outlines something, is a kind of writing and therefore a kind of art. It is the job of art to create the sense of wonder and awe. Also basic human experience and the spiritual yearning that humans have can also create this sense of wonder and awe.

 

Science can be the subject of the awe - but it is not the cause of it.

 

Let me get this straight. You're saying simply because it's not science's "job" to inspire us, we can't credit it with doing so?

 

That may well be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.

 

Ok, I'll stop trying to prove a point just because I happen to find myself on that side of the disagreement - and I'll admit that I may have expressed myself poorly. Of course science can inspire us with wonder and awe about the Universe. It is quite a common experience to feel awe and wonder about what science can teach us about the natural world.

 

I guess I was trying to express something that I sense religions try to do which is truly outside the scope of science. It's hard to explain. But I suppose it is 'focus' or something - a focusing on certain types of reflections. Viewing things as connected, feeling a desire to 'connect' with this connectedness, an attempt to try and better oneself, to bring oneself more into harmony with the natural world and with other people, a focusing on humility and respect towards the natural order, a desire to humbly learn what wisdom the Universe has to teach (this is similar to Science's aims to humbly learn what the Universe has to teach - but I think the word 'wisdom' reveals the slightly different focus here)

 

Those are things that are outside of science's scope. And yet they would be lost if we got rid of the 'spiritual' approach to things.

 

I think it is good to throw out the bad metaphors - to reject belief in deity or in the afterlife. These things do not fit the evidence and are unscientific and it should be outside the scope of religion to tell us about what is real or what is not (like Dawkins said, the existence or non-existence of God would be a scientific question)

 

However, preserving the religious focus on and devotion to humility and reverence, sense of connectedness etc - I think this is vital to society. We don't want to become like Mao's Communists in our desire to stamp out all religions, even worthy ones like Buddhism. We just need to bring the 'spiritual' into harmony with atheistic, scientific rationalism.

 

just my opinion

[Jun]

The way it was described in my phil class last semester made it seem as if the Buddha thought there was nothing of sufficient value to merit an investment in life beyond simply surviving; essentially endorsing the same sort of self-denial preached by the most harmful monotheisms today.

 

If you wanted to learn to paint a portrait you wouldn't ask a plumber.

[Legion]

I don’t know. It seems to me that the aims of science and religion are somewhat different. I think when scientists are at their best, they are seeking understanding. However it seems to me that those who seek spiritual maturity are seeking communion.

 

I think the scientist is victorious when she can say, “ I understand.”

 

I think the spiritual person is victorious when he can say, “We are one.”

[Jun]

I think the spiritual person is victorious when he can say, “We are one.”

 

I don't know if I'm a "spiritual" person, but the objective of Buddhist practice is to see, to understand. So a Buddhist is "victorious" when he/she can say, “I understand.”

[Robbobrob]

I've come to the mind that what I need is to stop trying to imitate others, be it Buddha or Jesus or Crowley or any number of others, and find what works for me. It is, after all, my personal pursuit of whatever it is I am trying to pursue, or remeber I already have, or whatever.

 

Jesus said the road is narrow, because, unlike what Christians tend to believe, it is only wide enough for one person to travel. No one travels the exact same road to "a better feeling tomorrow". I've tried to walk other people's paths, but without success. Guess I need to be my own Hero and find my own Path.

[Grandpa Harley]

From what I've read on The Buddha, he'd prefer you to do bad Elvis impressions...

[Legion]

I don't know if I'm a "spiritual" person, but the objective of Buddhist practice is to see, to understand. So a Buddhist is "victorious" when he/she can say, “I understand.”

Okay Jun. That's cool. What then is understanding? What does a Buddhist mean when they say "understanding"?

 

I would assume that they mean something entirely different from what a scientist means. From what I can gather "understanding" to a scientist involves the employment of explicit models.

[Rev R]

I don't know if I'm a "spiritual" person, but the objective of Buddhist practice is to see, to understand. So a Buddhist is "victorious" when he/she can say, “I understand.”

Okay Jun. That's cool. What then is understanding? What does a Buddhist mean when they say "understanding"?

 

I would assume that they mean something entirely different from what a scientist means. From what I can gather "understanding" to a scientist involves the employment of explicit models.

 

I would argue that it means exactly the same thing. Questioning, testing, drawing conclusions, testing the conclusions, throwing them out when they don't apply, retesting, drawing more conclusions.

 

Like any good scientific theory, the surface language changes over time but the core principles behind it remain the same.

 

But I'm not Jun so my answer doesn't count.

R

[Legion]

But I'm not Jun so my answer doesn't count.

I welcome your response Rev.

[Grandpa Harley]

Rev is a Sex God...

[Rev R]

Oh so your wife showed you the video?

[woodsmoke]

Ok, I'll stop trying to prove a point just because I happen to find myself on that side of the disagreement - and I'll admit that I may have expressed myself poorly. Of course science can inspire us with wonder and awe about the Universe. It is quite a common experience to feel awe and wonder about what science can teach us about the natural world.

 

I guess I was trying to express something that I sense religions try to do which is truly outside the scope of science. It's hard to explain. But I suppose it is 'focus' or something - a focusing on certain types of reflections. Viewing things as connected, feeling a desire to 'connect' with this connectedness, an attempt to try and better oneself, to bring oneself more into harmony with the natural world and with other people, a focusing on humility and respect towards the natural order, a desire to humbly learn what wisdom the Universe has to teach (this is similar to Science's aims to humbly learn what the Universe has to teach - but I think the word 'wisdom' reveals the slightly different focus here)

 

Those are things that are outside of science's scope. And yet they would be lost if we got rid of the 'spiritual' approach to things.

 

I think it is good to throw out the bad metaphors - to reject belief in deity or in the afterlife. These things do not fit the evidence and are unscientific and it should be outside the scope of religion to tell us about what is real or what is not (like Dawkins said, the existence or non-existence of God would be a scientific question)

 

However, preserving the religious focus on and devotion to humility and reverence, sense of connectedness etc - I think this is vital to society. We don't want to become like Mao's Communists in our desire to stamp out all religions, even worthy ones like Buddhism. We just need to bring the 'spiritual' into harmony with atheistic, scientific rationalism.

 

just my opinion

 

I still think you're short-changing science and trying to give spirituality more credit than it's due. The entirety of that second paragraph describes science at least as well as it does any form of "feel-good" spiritual belief.

 

Science is a "focus" on the natural universe--everything in it and everything about it. Everything is connected through sharing various compositions of the same basic elements, through gravity and through myriad other scientific concepts. Studying science is a way of bettering oneself, and the more one understands about the universe--what it is, why it is that way, how it works, etc--the more able and I believe likely one is to live in harmony therewith.

 

I'm not trying to say people shouldn't be spiritual. If it works for them, and they don't go around bullying or harming others because of it, more power to them. What you seem to be doing here, however, is detract from science things that are legitimate, integral parts of it simply because you want them to be "special." What I'm trying to convince you of is they already are special without the added trappings.

 

Occam's razor. One doesn't need to be "spiritual" to seek and gain wisdom from the universe.

[Grandpa Harley]

Oh so your wife showed you the video?

 

Showed? I'm the one in the Gimp mask and genital cuff...

[Grandpa Harley]

Ok, I'll stop trying to prove a point just because I happen to find myself on that side of the disagreement - and I'll admit that I may have expressed myself poorly. Of course science can inspire us with wonder and awe about the Universe. It is quite a common experience to feel awe and wonder about what science can teach us about the natural world.

 

I guess I was trying to express something that I sense religions try to do which is truly outside the scope of science. It's hard to explain. But I suppose it is 'focus' or something - a focusing on certain types of reflections. Viewing things as connected, feeling a desire to 'connect' with this connectedness, an attempt to try and better oneself, to bring oneself more into harmony with the natural world and with other people, a focusing on humility and respect towards the natural order, a desire to humbly learn what wisdom the Universe has to teach (this is similar to Science's aims to humbly learn what the Universe has to teach - but I think the word 'wisdom' reveals the slightly different focus here)

 

Those are things that are outside of science's scope. And yet they would be lost if we got rid of the 'spiritual' approach to things.

 

I think it is good to throw out the bad metaphors - to reject belief in deity or in the afterlife. These things do not fit the evidence and are unscientific and it should be outside the scope of religion to tell us about what is real or what is not (like Dawkins said, the existence or non-existence of God would be a scientific question)

 

However, preserving the religious focus on and devotion to humility and reverence, sense of connectedness etc - I think this is vital to society. We don't want to become like Mao's Communists in our desire to stamp out all religions, even worthy ones like Buddhism. We just need to bring the 'spiritual' into harmony with atheistic, scientific rationalism.

 

just my opinion

 

I still think you're short-changing science and trying to give spirituality more credit than it's due. The entirety of that second paragraph describes science at least as well as it does any form of "feel-good" spiritual belief.

 

Science is a "focus" on the natural universe--everything in it and everything about it. Everything is connected through sharing various compositions of the same basic elements, through gravity and through myriad other scientific concepts. Studying science is a way of bettering oneself, and the more one understands about the universe--what it is, why it is that way, how it works, etc--the more able and I believe likely one is to live in harmony therewith.

 

I'm not trying to say people shouldn't be spiritual. If it works for them, and they don't go around bullying or harming others because of it, more power to them. What you seem to be doing here, however, is detract from science things that are legitimate, integral parts of it simply because you want them to be "special." What I'm trying to convince you of is they already are special without the added trappings.

 

Occam's razor. One doesn't need to be "spiritual" to seek and gain wisdom from the universe.

 

I still fail to see how the act of an intelligent creator makes things MORE special, than it happening because it couldn't not happen...

[Jun]

I don't know if I'm a "spiritual" person, but the objective of Buddhist practice is to see, to understand. So a Buddhist is "victorious" when he/she can say, "I understand."

Okay Jun. That's cool. What then is understanding? What does a Buddhist mean when they say "understanding"?

 

I would assume that they mean something entirely different from what a scientist means. From what I can gather "understanding" to a scientist involves the employment of explicit models.

 

I would argue that it means exactly the same thing. Questioning, testing, drawing conclusions, testing the conclusions, throwing them out when they don't apply, retesting, drawing more conclusions.

 

Like any good scientific theory, the surface language changes over time but the core principles behind it remain the same.

 

But I'm not Jun so my answer doesn't count.

R

 

Well said Rev.

[Rev R]

I welcome your response Rev.

and I thank you for listening.

 

Showed? I'm the one in the Gimp mask and genital cuff...

 

You are kidding. All I can say is...you were incredible...and so was I.

 

 

Well said Rev.

[Evolution_beyond]

Ok, I'll stop trying to prove a point just because I happen to find myself on that side of the disagreement - and I'll admit that I may have expressed myself poorly. Of course science can inspire us with wonder and awe about the Universe. It is quite a common experience to feel awe and wonder about what science can teach us about the natural world.

 

I guess I was trying to express something that I sense religions try to do which is truly outside the scope of science. It's hard to explain. But I suppose it is 'focus' or something - a focusing on certain types of reflections. Viewing things as connected, feeling a desire to 'connect' with this connectedness, an attempt to try and better oneself, to bring oneself more into harmony with the natural world and with other people, a focusing on humility and respect towards the natural order, a desire to humbly learn what wisdom the Universe has to teach (this is similar to Science's aims to humbly learn what the Universe has to teach - but I think the word 'wisdom' reveals the slightly different focus here)

 

Those are things that are outside of science's scope. And yet they would be lost if we got rid of the 'spiritual' approach to things.

 

I think it is good to throw out the bad metaphors - to reject belief in deity or in the afterlife. These things do not fit the evidence and are unscientific and it should be outside the scope of religion to tell us about what is real or what is not (like Dawkins said, the existence or non-existence of God would be a scientific question)

 

However, preserving the religious focus on and devotion to humility and reverence, sense of connectedness etc - I think this is vital to society. We don't want to become like Mao's Communists in our desire to stamp out all religions, even worthy ones like Buddhism. We just need to bring the 'spiritual' into harmony with atheistic, scientific rationalism.

 

just my opinion

 

I still think you're short-changing science and trying to give spirituality more credit than it's due. The entirety of that second paragraph describes science at least as well as it does any form of "feel-good" spiritual belief.

 

Science is a "focus" on the natural universe--everything in it and everything about it. Everything is connected through sharing various compositions of the same basic elements, through gravity and through myriad other scientific concepts. Studying science is a way of bettering oneself, and the more one understands about the universe--what it is, why it is that way, how it works, etc--the more able and I believe likely one is to live in harmony therewith.

 

I'm not trying to say people shouldn't be spiritual. If it works for them, and they don't go around bullying or harming others because of it, more power to them. What you seem to be doing here, however, is detract from science things that are legitimate, integral parts of it simply because you want them to be "special." What I'm trying to convince you of is they already are special without the added trappings.

 

Occam's razor. One doesn't need to be "spiritual" to seek and gain wisdom from the universe.

 

Fair enough. And I can see what you mean about everything I said also fitting science.

 

I still think that seeking and gaining wisdom from the Universe would be a somewhat spiritual approach to science, rather than something instantly apparent from science itself. I'd find it hard not to call such an approach 'spiritual', even though it doesn't involve any belief in the supernatural.

 

But perhaps this is a semantic disagreement rather than anything else

[R. S. Martin]

I still think you're short-changing science and trying to give spirituality more credit than it's due.

 

Woodsmoke, let's just admit it--we're not all the same. You are a very different person from EvolutionBeyond. Neither your posts nor EB's posts resonate with my personal experience of wonder and aw at the beauties of the universe. Does that negate someone's experience? Of course not! It simply confirms what we all know--that no two of us are the same. Just like Rob said.

 

Because of these personal differences in how we see and experience life and the universe we can't really speak for what "should" make sense or what "should" cause reverent aw. Awe is a feeling. Feelings are difficult to describe at best. Somehow we have to figure out what the other person means when he/she attaches a certain feeling label with a certain experience. The best I can do is use my own experience as a baseline and compare others against this baseline. That helps me understand others but it does not change my experience of life. I can have my own feelings, sensations, experiences. They are not better or worse than anyone else's, they're just different.

 

Religious experiences, or spiritual feelings, are feelings, too. And it seems, based on this thread, that we do not all experience spiritual feelings the same way. Doesn't devaluate anyone's experience or feelings. It just says we're different. I firmly believe that religious/spiritual experiences are caused by a stimulation of a certain gland in the brain. I can never remember what it's called other than the god spot. I know (hypothesize/suspect) from a variety of sources that we don't all experience the same amount of stimulation of this gland. I believe that is why there is normally only one medicine man or woman in a tribe of aboriginal people. They are probably the people who experience it much more strongly than the average human. Just my idea; no proven scientific experiment done on it that I am aware of.

[woodsmoke]

Fair enough. And I can see what you mean about everything I said also fitting science.

 

I still think that seeking and gaining wisdom from the Universe would be a somewhat spiritual approach to science, rather than something instantly apparent from science itself. I'd find it hard not to call such an approach 'spiritual', even though it doesn't involve any belief in the supernatural.

 

But perhaps this is a semantic disagreement rather than anything else

 

I can agree to that. Either way, it's been fun arguing about it.

 

Woodsmoke, let's just admit it--we're not all the same. You are a very different person from EvolutionBeyond. Neither your posts nor EB's posts resonate with my personal experience of wonder and aw at the beauties of the universe. Does that negate someone's experience? Of course not! It simply confirms what we all know--that no two of us are the same. Just like Rob said.

 

Oh, I'm fully aware of that. I'm just not going to let it good in the way of a good fight.

 

Seriously, if heterosexual men we can't show each other their penises argue incessantly about a stupid point of semantics, then what the hell are we doing here?