The Key

[MagickMonkey]

I'm letting this one go. As usual, I can't make enough sense of what A-man is saying to make a response.

Am I really seriously that obtuse? I've been considering how I'm communicating these days, wondering if it is my use of words in sentences has begun to fall apart from before, or if it simply a matter of conceptual and experiential frameworks I'm looking at this in. In my mind it is a highly rational framework that includes and integrates many frameworks of understanding, I suppose you could call it a meta-framework. But to me that is simply what is necessary in order to begin to adequately and fairly deal with these questions, as opposed to simply making them black and white questions.

 

There are plenty of others who do track with this, so I don't know that it is my style so much, although that is something I can look at. What would help to make this make more sense? To break down each and every perspective that is being brought to bear on this, such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, linguistics, semiotics, physics, biology, religion, mysticism, evolution, cosmology, geology, art, music, philosophy, etc? I'm happy to try to explain more clearly.

 

I guess the concept of inner nature, inner exploration, and so forth baffle me for whatever reason. Also, when you strip the mythology from religion, what is left? Does what is left resemble philosophy more than religion?

[Guest end3]

Where I see the value and importance of science and other rational pursuits, beyond just opening understanding to the intricacies of the natural world, is because it can free the spiritual aspects from within religion from the framework of its supporting mythic structures in order to be understood and developed beyond them - just like the understanding of the natural world through the tool of science did. But the failing I see currently is that rather then trying to understand that nature of our humanity in an existential way, it is 'explained' by science and then left to dry out on top of the examination table as the corpse left behind after examining the mythic view of it in literalist terms.

 

Ain't no fun in scientifically dead mythic corpses on the table....

 

A harmonization is what is needed, which includes equally a growth in our inner nature through self-knowledge, as well as our scientific understanding of the world around us.

 

Well, a sticking point. Does nature need knowledge for a harmonious relationship? It seems vital that man does.

[Antlerman]

A harmonization is what is needed, which includes equally a growth in our inner nature through self-knowledge, as well as our scientific understanding of the world around us.

 

Well, a sticking point. Does nature need knowledge for a harmonious relationship? It seems vital that man does.

As man is nature, then apparently yes it does. In fact, to carry it further it also needs transcendence through us. What's the old saying, "We are nature's way of coming to know itself"?

 

And how can that happen if all we are looking at is outside us?

[Guest end3]

As man is nature, then apparently yes it does. In fact, to carry it further it also needs transcendence through us. What's the old saying, "We are nature's of coming to know itself"?

 

And how can that happen if all we are looking at is outside us?

 

How can it be fully with us if we have to learn to know it?

 

And this friend, goes to the "fullness" that it speaks of in the Bible, fwiw.....I will explain if need be....lol.

 

 

And it would seriously suck to understand all we are are pushes and pulls of forces.....(that kind of speaks to both sided of the discussion in itself).

[Antlerman]

As man is nature, then apparently yes it does. In fact, to carry it further it also needs transcendence through us. What's the old saying, "We are nature's of coming to know itself"?

 

And how can that happen if all we are looking at is outside us?

 

How can it be fully with us if we have to learn to know it?

I didn't mean to imply it was fully on us to do it, but rather fully within us to do it. If we blow it, we blow it for ourselves. The Universe carries on.

 

And this friend, goes to the "fullness" that it speaks of in the Bible, fwiw.....I will explain if need be....lol.

I believe mystic traditions the world over speak of this. The Bible is not without some truth to it, just as all other traditions also have truth. I think the error is to say since it speaks of any truth, it's now suddenly the Authority on all matters spiritual or otherwise. That's simply a created myth of Orthodoxy to control its flock under their management hierarchies. (A whole other conversation).

[Guest end3]

As man is nature, then apparently yes it does. In fact, to carry it further it also needs transcendence through us. What's the old saying, "We are nature's of coming to know itself"?

 

And how can that happen if all we are looking at is outside us?

 

How can it be fully with us if we have to learn to know it?

I didn't mean to imply it was fully on us to do it, but rather fully within us to do it. If we blow it, we blow it for ourselves. The Universe carries on.

 

And this friend, goes to the "fullness" that it speaks of in the Bible, fwiw.....I will explain if need be....lol.

I believe mystic traditions the world over speak of this. The Bible is not without some truth to it, just as all other traditions also have truth. I think the error is to say since it speaks of any truth, it's now suddenly the Authority on all matters spiritual or otherwise. That's simply a created myth of Orthodoxy to control its flock under their management hierarchies. (A whole other conversation).

 

Not wanting to break into a rant here, but how can you ignore a piece of literature that speaks to "one day knowing as we are known". This is verbatim what we are discussing. And to specifically represent such through a Man. Why do you dicount some Heavenly "war" that mirrors the smallest forces in our universe? The dichotomy that is played out in the natural is extremely similar to our spiritual understandings. Do you just believe this to be a coincidence? Shoot, we even give them the + and - signs.

[Antlerman]

I guess the concept of inner nature, inner exploration, and so forth baffle me for whatever reason.

It comes down to questions of the nature of truth, perception, and experience of living. People take for granted all the things that define reality to us, and largely ignore them assuming them as givens. To look at the nature of these 'givens' then to look beyond these to 'who' exactly is using all these offers insight into the nature of truth itself. Cite evidence all you wish, the subjective is still interpreting, translating, and building frameworks of reality to interface itself with it. And all of that is always in flux, never static "facts", as much as we might to solace in telling ourselves we have found Truth now.

 

If you understand more of the nature of self, the subjective viewer of all these external things, then a larger perspective beyond simple language and understanding begins to occur. And as that occurs, you begin to bring a larger or broader subjective vantage point to bear on all our sciences, and religions, and projects we create to define the boundaries of what we call 'reality' that we live out our daily live within, rather than simply taking them as givens.

 

To hold knowledge and truth lightly, is the beginning of Wisdom. That is a subjective exercise in harmony with the objective. The subjective is what is within, and all of that impacts what we see as external reality.

 

Also, when you strip the mythology from religion, what is left? Does what is left resemble philosophy more than religion?

No actually, I was just having this thought last night.. give me some time to put it together into something meaningful as a post in a little bit...

[Guest end3]

What would be nice is if you would elaborate on the "framework" that is outside the observable and orthodoxical/mythic (assumed corrupt)systems.....your words.

[MagickMonkey]

I guess the concept of inner nature, inner exploration, and so forth baffle me for whatever reason.

It comes down to questions of the nature of truth, perception, and experience of living. People take for granted all the things that define reality to us, and largely ignore them assuming them as givens. To look at the nature of these 'givens' then to look beyond these to 'who' exactly is using all these offers insight into the nature of truth itself. Cite evidence all you wish, the subjective is still interpreting, translating, and building frameworks of reality to interface itself with it. And all of that is always in flux, never static "facts", as much as we might to solace in telling ourselves we have found Truth now.

 

If you understand more of the nature of self, the subjective viewer of all these external things, then a larger perspective beyond simple language and understanding begins to occur. And as that occurs, you begin to bring a larger or broader subjective vantage point to bear on all our sciences, and religions, and projects we create to define the boundaries of what we call 'reality' that we live out our daily live within, rather than simply taking them as givens.

 

To hold knowledge and truth lightly, is the beginning of Wisdom. That is a subjective exercise in harmony with the objective. The subjective is what is within, and all of that impacts what we see as external reality.

 

Also, when you strip the mythology from religion, what is left? Does what is left resemble philosophy more than religion?

No actually, I was just having this thought last night.. give me some time to put it together into something meaningful as a post in a little bit...

 

Perhaps a difference in semantics is the root of my confusion. To me reality means objective reality. Then there is our perceptions and perspectives of reality. Of course, an individuals perception of reality may be much more relevant to that person than actual objective reality. I prefer having a perception of reality closely matches objective reality as much as practical. Of course, I have to accept that my concepts of reality will always be limited.

[Antlerman]

And this friend, goes to the "fullness" that it speaks of in the Bible, fwiw.....I will explain if need be....lol.

I believe mystic traditions the world over speak of this. The Bible is not without some truth to it, just as all other traditions also have truth. I think the error is to say since it speaks of any truth, it's now suddenly the Authority on all matters spiritual or otherwise. That's simply a created myth of Orthodoxy to control its flock under their management hierarchies. (A whole other conversation).

 

Not wanting to break into a rant here, but how can you ignore a piece of literature that speaks to "one day knowing as we are known". This is verbatim what we are discussing

How do you read in the above that I am "ignoring it"? I'm fully aware of its expression within this text and within other traditions as well. All I said that you might dislike, is that an expression that may speak a truth or higher truth within the text does not translate into the whole Bible suddenly being Authoritative on all these matters, which is the myth of Orthodoxy.

 

Why do you dicount some Heavenly "war" that mirrors the smallest forces in our universe? The dichotomy that is played out in the natural is extremely similar to our spiritual understandings.

That's not part of my way of framing an understanding. That's a mythic structure, which you certainly can use to help translate these things for you if it works well with the rest of your worldview. For me, I find it distracting. I don't see us caught in any war between heaven and hell. I see it more as the struggle to emerge into higher life, like a chick emerging from its present shell.

 

Do you just believe this to be a coincidence? Shoot, we even give them the + and - signs.

From my point of view you are approaching the question wrong. You start with the myth that the Bible is Authoritative, that it is "God's Word" as defined by the Catholic Church and adopted by its step-children the Protestants (and all their various offspring). That is a created myth by the bishops in the formation of the early church. From there then, you try to make the evidence fit that belief.

 

No it's not a 'coincidence'. I fully accept that you will and do find genuine expressions of mystical experience in the Bible, as well as other religious traditions of the world. It simply doesn't make the symbolism used to be the exclusive Truth, where the symbols embody the experience itself. These things don't need to even be a question of coincidence. It would be like asking is it just a coincidence a poem has expressions of poetry in it, or that music uses notes.

[Guest end3]

And this friend, goes to the "fullness" that it speaks of in the Bible, fwiw.....I will explain if need be....lol.

I believe mystic traditions the world over speak of this. The Bible is not without some truth to it, just as all other traditions also have truth. I think the error is to say since it speaks of any truth, it's now suddenly the Authority on all matters spiritual or otherwise. That's simply a created myth of Orthodoxy to control its flock under their management hierarchies. (A whole other conversation).

 

Not wanting to break into a rant here, but how can you ignore a piece of literature that speaks to "one day knowing as we are known". This is verbatim what we are discussing

How do you read in the above that I am "ignoring it"? I'm fully aware of its expression within this text and within other traditions as well. All I said that you might not take well is that an expression that may speak a truth or higher truth if you will within the text does not translate into the whole Bible suddenly being Authoritative on all these matters, which is the myth of Orthodoxy.

 

Why do you dicount some Heavenly "war" that mirrors the smallest forces in our universe? The dichotomy that is played out in the natural is extremely similar to our spiritual understandings.

That's not part of my way of framing an understanding. That's a mythic structure, which you certainly can use to help translate these things for you if it works well with the rest of your worldview. For me, I find it distracting. I don't see us caught in any war between heaven and hell. I see it more as the struggle to emerge into higher life, like a chick emerging from its present shell.

 

Do you just believe this to be a coincidence? Shoot, we even give them the + and - signs.

From my point of view you are approaching the question wrong. You start with the myth that the Bible is Authoritative, that it is "God's Word" as defined by the Catholic Church and adopted by its step-children the Protestants (and all their various offspring). That is a create myth by the bishops in the formation of the early church. From there then, you try to make the evidence fit that belief.

 

No it's not a 'coincidence'. I fully accept that you will and do fit genuine expressions of mystic experiences in the Bible, as well as other religious traditions of the world. It simply doesn't make the symbolism used to be the exclusive Truth. These things don't need to even be a question of coincidence. It would be like asking is it just a coincidence a poem has expressions of poetry in it, or that music has notes.

 

Ok, let's look at it differently. Suppose one "finds themselves" is some fully aware state. Where is that? What defines that? Feel free to flesh this out. Oops, another Bible reference.....my bad. Seriously, define, not the process, but the fully realized....and any additional info you would like to add to your framework.

 

Not pissy today,....just gets my blood pumping to constructively discuss....thanks.

[Antlerman]

Ok, let's look at it differently. Suppose one "finds themselves" is some fully aware state. Where is that? What defines that? Feel free to flesh this out. Oops, another Bible reference.....my bad. Seriously, define, not the process, but the fully realized....and any additional info you would like to add to your framework.

Good golly! Care to ask for a larger request?

 

In what little time I have I'll give an example of something I just read this morning, which of course will not satisfy those who "want to know" as it get's way ahead of any foundations, but here it goes... In the Vimalakiti-Nirdesh Sutra is a discourse on non-duality,

 

"Each of the assembled sages gives his or her definition of Nonduality: it is the non-twoness of nirvana and samsara, it is the non-twoness of enlightenment and passions, it is the non-twoness of the many and the one, and so forth. The "correct" answer is finally given by Vimalakirti, who responds with 'a thunderous silence'."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

[Antlerman]

Perhaps a difference in semantics is the root of my confusion. To me reality means objective reality.

Which then lends itself to what I say about how that language creates the boundaries of what we perceive as reality. You say "reality" and see the external world. That is real then to you. But what about your self-sense? What about what you tell yourself about that? Is that real? You live it and interact with it and through it as reality. But it too is a perception, an interpretation. And when you understand that the objective world, is itself an interpretation, a series of thoughts, contexts, words, culture, emotions all brought into the mix which then create a framework, an edifice, a structure on which we confidently say "this is reality", then frankly it opens the understand way outside of the boxes of "reality" we create.

 

Are these therefore unreliable, and untrustworthy? No, not so far as they provide structure to interact with the world around us through these understandings. This is why myth systems themselves, when everyone is involved in thinking of the world through that set of symbols is in fact valid and legitimate. They are trustworthy and reliable up to the point where they fail to translate the world any longer. Such was the downfall of myth, and frankly will in fact in the future be the failing of a rationalistic worldview. (That's not to say rationality is wrong, it is only to say there is more to come to be built upon that - in the same way that our current system incorporates the use of myths and symbolic languages into our present systems of thought).

 

The point is to say that if we look at how we understand and interpret the world in terms of absolutes, we are doing nothing different than those we criticize for seeing the world exclusively through mythic terms. Each way of looking at the world views its own perception as exclusively correct. Rather, it is like a ladder. Each higher rung takes in a different perspective on the landscape below. And as a rule, from your perspective on your rung you can understand what the person on the rungs below perceives as your higher rung took in the lower rung on your way up. However the lower rung cannot possible relate to your perspective of the landscape because they have never climbed up there yet and seen it. Anything you might say about it, will sound strange and foreign to them, like you're high on something or just crazy.

 

I think it's good to realize just how "not Absolute" any perception on reality is that we may have, and how there always have been higher perches in our climb out of the forest through our evolution.

 

 

Then there is our perceptions and perspectives of reality. Of course, an individuals perception of reality may be much more relevant to that person than actual objective reality. I prefer having a perception of reality closely matches objective reality as much as practical. Of course, I have to accept that my concepts of reality will always be limited.

Or completely overturned in how you think about it. Do you still view the earth as created by the god Jehovah?

 

All I can say is we have to be careful, and Wise enough, to not say, "Yeah, but now I really DO have the truth!". We did then too. It is fair enough however to debate what we consider in how we understand the world, and even why or how certain perspective are "better" or offer more within certain contexts. That's what I love about a free dialog not restricted by Dogma.

[Guest end3]

Well, supposing we could achieve this finished, fully aware state....or maybe it's just a theory.....and I have conflicting views.....but I see nature in one hand as non-dualistic, able to achieve a balance all the time, yet I believe that peace, Heaven, whathaveyou, for man, is on the love side of non-dual. So in other words, what evidence or framework suggests that non-dual is justified?

 

Edit:

 

What I am trying to say is that to me, unity resides not in a balace of a duality, but on one side......either unified good or unified bad. BUT, again, I think nature, IMO, presents a non-dual somehow....not sure how other than an extremely complex symbiosis. And I see our fully aware state as both, residing on the good side of a dual existance, but also unified within the same.

[Rev R]

In the Vimalakiti-Nirdesa Sutra

 

Studying the Mahayana now?

[Antlerman]

In the Vimalakiti-Nirdesa Sutra

 

Studying the Mahayana now?

Just about it in reference to various schools of thought about nonduality.

[MagickMonkey]

Perhaps a difference in semantics is the root of my confusion. To me reality means objective reality.

Which then lends itself to what I say about how that language creates the boundaries of what we perceive as reality. You say "reality" and see the external world. That is real then to you. But what about your self-sense? What about what you tell yourself about that? Is that real? You live it and interact with it and through it as reality. But it too is a perception, an interpretation. And when you understand that the objective world, is itself an interpretation, a series of thoughts, contexts, words, culture, emotions all brought into the mix which then create a framework, an edifice, a structure on which we confidently say "this is reality", then frankly it opens the understand way outside of the boxes of "reality" we create.

 

I really do not think that objective reality is an interpretation. We obviously cannot fully know objective reality, and our perception of objective reality will always be limited. That certainly does not mean that objective reality does not exist independently of our perceptions of it. The extent to which language limits our ability to perceive objective reality may depend on the extent to which one is a visual thinker rather than a "linguistic" thinker (can't think of the right term) - or perhaps a non-linquistic thinker rather than linguistic thinker (Is visual thinking the only other alternative? probably not). But certainly one's system of semantics limits how one can convey one's perceptions of reality and no doubt has an effect on how one actually perceives reality. Then again, I (and almost certanily all of us) have had concepts in my head that I didn't know exactly how to verbalize.

 

I know there is a tribe of indigenous people in South America (can't remember specifically where) that has no word for numbers greater than two other than a non-specific word for greater than two. Because of their limited language, the adults do not seem to be able to conceive of specific numbers greater than 2 no matter how hard you try to teach them. If you said there were twelve beers in the refrigerator, they would not be able to comprehend. Suppose all languages lacked specific words for numbers greater than 2. We would be unable to understand that 9^2 = 81. Does this mean that 9^2 would not = 81 simply because we would be unable to understand it? Of course, the mathematical language I just used to express this mathematical truth would be meaningless in this hypothetical situation, but the mathematical truth would still be true regardless of our ability to understand or express it.

 

Language can be both a limiting and an empowering tool. It certainly makes sense to have a system of semantics flexible to accommodate our growing understanding of objective reality, but if our language is overly flexible to the point to where words become meaningless, communication breaks down.

 

 

Are these therefore unreliable, and untrustworthy? No, not so far as they provide structure to interact with the world around us through these understandings. This is why myth systems themselves, when everyone is involved in thinking of the world through that set of symbols is in fact valid and legitimate. They are trustworthy and reliable up to the point where they fail to translate the world any longer. Such was the downfall of myth, and frankly will in fact in the future be the failing of a rationalistic worldview. (That's not to say rationality is wrong, it is only to say there is more to come to be built upon that - in the same way that our current system incorporates the use of myths and symbolic languages into our present systems of thought).

 

 

I really think there is a profound difference between myth and rationality. If you mean we might expand our means for understanding reality by not limiting ourselves to our current abstractions (am I even close to understanding what you are saying), perhaps. But it will not conflict with rationality, but rather perhaps expand the way we are rational.

 

 

The point is to say that if we look at how we understand and interpret the world in terms of absolutes, we are doing nothing different than those we criticize for seeing the world exclusively through mythic terms. Each way of looking at the world views its own perception as exclusively correct. Rather, it is like a ladder. Each higher rung takes in a different perspective on the landscape below. And as a rule, from your perspective on your rung you can understand what the person on the rungs below perceives as your higher rung took in the lower rung on your way up. However the lower rung cannot possible relate to your perspective of the landscape because they have never climbed up there yet and seen it. Anything you might say about it, will sound strange and foreign to them, like you're high on something or just crazy.

 

I think it's good to realize just how "not Absolute" any perception on reality is that we may have, and how there always have been higher perches in our climb out of the forest through our evolution.

 

 

That makes sense (I think). I think most rationalists will readily admit that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty and are willing to overturn their currently held beliefs in light of new evidence. Different beliefs are given varying degrees of probability. For instance, one can say that 2 + 2 = 4, and this can be regarded as absolute truth. Even though this truth is framed in mathematical abstraction, the truth reflected by this abstraction is absolutely true. If we expanded our perspective of mathematics, some things might be expressed in a fundamentally different way and still be true. We might find different ways of expressing the truths expressed in calculus. While the new way of expressing these truths might possibly be more useful for mathematicians, the validity of the truths reflected by the current calculus abstraction are still true. When one says that we evolved from other apes (why should we not consider ourselves apes?), we can say this with a high degree of confidence that it is true. In fact, we can basically express this fact as an absolute truth, even though it's not as certainly true as 2+2=4. Of course, this statement relies on the one making the statement and the one reading statement to have the same idea of what an ape is.

 

When rationalist say that a myth is false, they are challenging the assertions of the myth. It isn't that there is simply a different set of abstractions held by those who believe the myth. I have no problem with people who regard myths to be allegorical or otherwise useful in a non-literal sense. But of course, the fundies of many or most religions regard their myths as literally true. I believe the concept of religion as having myths that are considered to be literally true in addition to whatever might be considered religious or spiritual is the concept of religion used in the OP. I'll let Dethblight clarify this as he sees fit. Perhaps your concept of religion does not neatly fit into most people's concept of religion. Of course, there really isn't a good hard definition for religion. Perhaps your future post will better describe what your idea of religion is.

 

 

Then there is our perceptions and perspectives of reality. Of course, an individuals perception of reality may be much more relevant to that person than actual objective reality. I prefer having a perception of reality closely matches objective reality as much as practical. Of course, I have to accept that my concepts of reality will always be limited.

Or completely overturned in how you think about it. Do you still view the earth as created by the god Jehovah?

 

 

Nope. And when I abandoned that myth, my perception of reality moved closer to reflecting objective reality.

 

 

All I can say is we have to be careful, and Wise enough, to not say, "Yeah, but now I really DO have the truth!". We did then too.

Except we didn't.

 

It is fair enough however to debate what we consider in how we understand the world, and even why or how certain perspective are "better" or offer more within certain contexts. That's what I love about a free dialog not restricted by Dogma.

 

Trust me, I am much more careful about making statements with assertions of being absolutely true. Of course, I'll still make statements that I can consider to be basically as good as absolute. I might be wrong when I make them. I can say with absolute certainty that 2 + 2 = 4. If I am wrong about that, I'm fucked anyway.

[Rev R]

That certainly does not mean that objective reality does not exist independently of our perceptions of it.

 

Then demonstrate that it does Monkey. From where I sit it appears that "objective reality" is about as provable and real as this "God" people go on about.

[Dethblight]

Lol, only 10?

 

You laugh, but your claim is "religion (meaning all forms) impedes science." Your proof cites only one religion (Christianity), and still doesn't answer the request.

 

Care to try again? Or are you satisfied painting with your broad brush?

 

Okay, I concede your point, the brush is a bit over-broad. I would say however, that ANY metaphysical tradition impedes science at least in an indirect way. If there is a metaphysical explanation, why bother looking for a natural one? Here are two articles that examine science in the Muslim and Hindu worlds: http://www.meforum.o...-lag-in-science http://www.sanskrit....andscience.html

 

Edit: Perhaps it would be more accurate for me to say that religions who purport to have ultimate truth or knowledge impede science, whereas religions that encourage their followers to SEEK truth and knowledge work well with science.

[MagickMonkey]

That certainly does not mean that objective reality does not exist independently of our perceptions of it.

 

Then demonstrate that it does Monkey. From where I sit it appears that "objective reality" is about as provable and real as this "God" people go on about.

 

Really? If what we believed was reality, then how could one ever be proven wrong? Yet through out our lives, we are constantly proven wrong about whatever false beliefs we have. I think my my example of the tribe in South America demonstrates the independence of objective reality from their perception of reality. Many assertions are within our ability to test. Perceiving an assertion to be true before testing the assertion has no bearing on the outcome of the test. Try it yourself. See if any of your assertions turn out to be false despite your perception that they are true. I do this all the time when writing software. I write code that I perceive to be accurately written to accomplish what I want it to accomplish. I then test it, and often I find that the accuracy of the code I perceived to be properly written in fact has several mistakes, meaning my perception of reality did not in fact match objective reality. Of course, experienced programmers writing any significant amount of code assumes there will be errors and runs tests.

 

When my sister visited a doctor several years ago about her extreme weight loss (despite eating a shit load of junk food to gain weight), blurry vision, lack of concentration, and constant thirst, the doctor perceived that she was depressed. He was wrong. Luckily, her perception that he was full of shit was correct. She went to a doctor who discovered that she had Type 1 diabetes. If she accepted the first doctor's perception of reality (at least within the scope of his diagnosis) this would not have changed the fact that in objective reality, she would have died from her lack of insulin production. Luckily, the second doctor's perception of reality was much closer to objective reality, and she's been doing relatively well ever since she began treatment.

[Dethblight]

And most everyone has a belief system of some sort. No one is saying that believing in science is not a belief system.

I respectfully direct your attention to the quote below:

 

Science is not a system of beliefs. Science is a method for obtaining truth. How is it being presented as a belief system?

 

As we can see in the above comment that people do in fact not recognize it as a belief system. Your average Western thinking person will in fact bring a mode of thought with them in looking at the illuminations that science has brought to our understanding of the natural world and project upon it the 'belief' aspect that we had in Holy Mother Church (so to speak) as the Holy See of Knowledge of all things natural and spiritual, and make science, Science with a capital S. Spirituality is "explained" by Science, just as it was explained by Bible - which too was 'evidence'.

 

The problem I see is a systemic one rooted in a mode of thinking in terms of Answers with a capital A, and Authority to those Answers, be that Religion, or Science. And as I brought up in another thread, the dismissal of religion is on the terms of the past in Western mythological system. Most ensuing arguments about 'soul' or 'spirit' or 'God' or all matters 'spiritual' and then approached on those same terms, framing the argument on those terms and debunking them.

 

Exhibit A:

 

Most religions do not simply make metaphoric assertions but rather statements meant to be absolute fact. In many cases, religions make assertions that are absolutely known to be false. Perhaps this is what you call crude fundamentalism, but religion in general does not seem to be just a set of metaphors, aesthetics, and morals.

 

The above example shows a projection of Western religious thought in literalist/scientific terms and extends it to "most" religions, which frankly fails to recognize exactly how religion functions (using the tools of science for that understanding, I'll add) on the greater whole. Even though I do agree that religion in the use of myth did try to explain the natural world as part of the totality of their realities, this is simply not what it is all about, nor that everything within it operates or functions in absolutes. I hear a conflation of things like culture and tradition in their structures heaped under the umbrella term "religion".

 

Where I see the value and importance of science and other rational pursuits, beyond just opening understanding to the intricacies of the natural world, is because it can free the spiritual aspects from within religion from the framework of its supporting mythic structures in order to be understood and developed beyond them - just like the understanding of the natural world through the tool of science did. But the failing I see currently is that rather then trying to understand that nature of our humanity in an existential way, it is 'explained' by science and then left to dry out on top of the examination table as the corpse left behind after examining the mythic view of it in literalist terms.

 

As for finding beauty in nature through peering deeper into it through the tools of science, I not only applaud that but share in the experience as well. Not to repeat myself from another thread I'm engaged in right now, but I see the depth of that same experience moving even further than staring in the the deep field views of the early universe through the lens of the Hubble telescope, but looking deep into the fabric of being itself, through the deep field lens of inner exploration. That is likewise a tool that humans use to understand their world they live and participate within. But currently we mainly look outward to what is more 'material', since that is imagined as more 'reliable'. A harmonization is what is needed, which includes equally a growth in our inner nature through self-knowledge, as well as our scientific understanding of the world around us.

 

Haha, well, at the time when I said that, no one had made that claim in this particular thread And yes, you are right of course, science in and of itself is not a belief system. Perhaps I should amend my statement: I have a belief system that is built upon knowledge that science has given me. For example, I believe in gravity based on scientific evidence for it.

 

I hear a conflation of things like culture and tradition in their structures heaped under the umbrella term "religion".

 

Since religion so strongly shapes these cultures and traditions, can it not be said that aspects of them that are grounded in religious belief and tradition are ultimately religious constructs as well?

 

Where I see the value and importance of science and other rational pursuits, beyond just opening understanding to the intricacies of the natural world, is because it can free the spiritual aspects from within religion from the framework of its supporting mythic structures in order to be understood and developed beyond them

 

Agreed

 

- just like the understanding of the natural world through the tool of science did. But the failing I see currently is that rather then trying to understand that nature of our humanity in an existential way, it is 'explained' by science and then left to dry out on top of the examination table as the corpse left behind after examining the mythic view of it in literalist terms.

 

Here is where we differ. I view these spiritual aspects as products of brain function, but they are no less important for it. I feel a very strong inter-connection with all things natural. I very much feel kinship with the planet, everything on it, and everything beyond it. I believe that this feeling is a product of some brain function or another, but that makes it no less real or meaningful to me. My knowledge of science does not diminish this "spiritual" feeling of being one with the universe, rather it reinforces it. I fully accept that I am just one incarnation of the energy/ matter that the universe is composed of. All of my matter and energy will be reused and redistributed by both living and inanimate objects. Ultimately, I was born of the stars, and I will go back to them.

[MagickMonkey]

Here is where we differ. I view these spiritual aspects as products of brain function, but they are no less important for it. I feel a very strong inter-connection with all things natural. I very much feel kinship with the planet, everything on it, and everything beyond it. I believe that this feeling is a product of some brain function or another, but that makes it no less real or meaningful to me. My knowledge of science does not diminish this "spiritual" feeling of being one with the universe, rather it reinforces it. I fully accept that I am just one incarnation of the energy/ matter that the universe is composed of. All of my matter and energy will be reused and redistributed by both living and inanimate objects. Ultimately, I was born of the stars, and I will go back to them.

 

+1

[Rev R]

I think my my example of the tribe in South America demonstrates the independence of objective reality from their perception of reality.

 

It does not Monkey. Show me 9^2=81 existing independently of the mental constructs we use to classify and model reality. Show me any thing that exists independently of your mind.

 

Science is nothing but a mental construct, just like God. The only difference is that science is a useful method of creating models of reality and God is not.

[Galien]

I'm letting this one go. As usual, I can't make enough sense of what A-man is saying to make a response.

Am I really seriously that obtuse? I've been considering how I'm communicating these days, wondering if it is my use of words in sentences has begun to fall apart from before, or if it simply a matter of conceptual and experiential frameworks I'm looking at this in. In my mind it is a highly rational framework that includes and integrates many frameworks of understanding, I suppose you could call it a meta-framework. But to me that is simply what is necessary in order to begin to adequately and fairly deal with these questions, as opposed to simply making them black and white questions, i.e., "Religion vs. Science".

 

There are plenty of others who do track with this, so I don't know that it is my style so much, although that is something I can look at. What would help to make this make more sense? To break down each and every perspective that is being brought to bear on this, such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, linguistics, semiotics, physics, biology, religion, mysticism, evolution, cosmology, geology, art, music, philosophy, etc? I'm happy to try to explain more clearly.

 

What you say makes perfect sense. I am glad you have the energy and patience to explain it to people that I no longer have.

[Guest end3]

I think my my example of the tribe in South America demonstrates the independence of objective reality from their perception of reality.

 

It does not Monkey. Show me 9^2=81 existing independently of the mental constructs we use to classify and model reality. Show me any thing that exists independently of your mind.

 

Science is nothing but a mental construct, just like God. The only difference is that science is a useful method of creating models of reality and God is not.

 

The "God" methodology seems to work well when applied? Perhaps I is reading you wrong.