| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
ExittheLemming 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
 Posted: September 22 2009 at 03:03 |
Although the following mildly itches my own atheist ears (i.e. the God part) I do think the existentialist thinkers (theistic and atheistic alike) eg Sartre, Camus, Heidegger, Schopenhauer, Jaspers and Kierkegaard do firmly nail my own colours to the mast here:
What I really lack is to be clear in my mind what I am to do, not
what I am to know, except in so far as a certain knowledge must precede
every action. The thing is to understand myself, to see what God really
wishes me to do: the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die.
... I certainly do not deny that I still recognize an imperative of
knowledge and that through it one can work upon men, but it must be
taken up into my life, and that is what I now recognize as the most
important thing.
Soren KierkegaardIrrespective of your spiritual/secular orientation, what the quoted text makes abundantly clear is that certitude is illusory and that removing God from any theory does not remove the moral realm of ACTION (in harness with knowledge) Contrary to popular misconception, the existentialists have no truck with either a nihilistic or purely materialistic world view, as they all posit the need for an individual to find their own reason for living and for that reason to have a moral foundation. As interesting and practical are the reasons for growing our teleological knowledge of species, they shrink in urgency to that of a more pressing need to act morally (with or without empirical scientific data - which will only serve to confirm the actions of those who consider themselves above morality - history and graveyards are bulging with the handiwork of such types) Existence precedes essence - you cannot separate the knower from the known Hey ho, time for bed everyone
|
 |
mystic fred
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 13 2006
Location: Londinium
Status: Offline
Points: 4252
|
Posted: September 22 2009 at 04:05 |
without Science there would be ignorance
without Religion there would be chaos
though the two seem diametrically opposed, one cannot exist without the other...Religion is designed to create order and control in society, but like Science it should be a growing, changing thing always open to debate and discussion, and be able to change ideology without sticking to old outdated ideas.
Too many religious devotees are living in a little box, are blinkered and are opposed to any other kind of opinion or ideology, time many of them climbed out and smell the coffee! 
|
 Prog Archives Tour Van 
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
Posted: September 22 2009 at 05:07 |
 mystic fred wrote:
without Science there would be ignorance
without Religion there would be chaos
though the two seem diametrically opposed, one cannot exist without the other...Religion is designed to create order and control in society, but like Science it should be a growing, changing thing always open to debate and discussion, and be able to change ideology without sticking to old outdated ideas.
Too many religious devotees are living in a little box, are blinkered and are opposed to any other kind of opinion or ideology, time many of them climbed out and smell the coffee!
|
Slightly off tangent to the evolution 'thang' but the world would be a damn site better ordered place without organised (sic) religion and the latter is culpable in the creation of more chaos than a toddler with a pin on a bouncy castle. Yes, you are correct that religion is a control mechanism, but for those who are either unwilling or unable to control themselves. Ask yourself why gruesome serial killers habitually turn to the 'good book' and repent their sins ? It's a cop out for those who refuse to take responsibility for their actions/choices. BTW Satan made me type this post. 
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: September 22 2009 at 09:48 |
I personally believe that there is an objective truth, but that all of us see it from different perspectives. The old proverb of the elephant and the blind men. That we must find our own personal window to the light, and accept both its insights and limitations is part of accepting our selves.
Organized religion gets beaten up about abuse of power and misuse of spiritual motivation to control people. But those abuses are far from unique to religion. Many, if not all, in power will use all methods at hand to maintain their elevation above the commoner. Right now financial class is used to justify these power differentials.
Religion has many positive functions, but it is a human institution prone to human shortcomings.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: September 22 2009 at 11:35 |
mystic fred wrote:
without Religion there would be chaos
...
Too many religious devotees are living in a little box, are blinkered and are opposed to any other kind of opinion or ideology, time many of them climbed out and smell the coffee! |
While I agree with your second opinion, if religions would be better for society if their adherents were more open-minded toward other worldviews, it completely diminished your virst point, that without religion there would be chaos. If religious people become more open minded, the role of religion as a serious social adhesive falls apart, as no cosmopolitan (re: diluted, ineffective, arguably meaningless) religious system is nearly as effective in maintaining social cohesion as either a single, strict, dictatorship-religion or a cosmopolitan social system based on good philosophy and shared values, but without superstitious baggage.
|
|
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
Posted: September 22 2009 at 14:56 |
stonebeard wrote:
mystic fred wrote:
without Religion there would be chaos
...
Too many religious devotees are living in a little box, are blinkered and are opposed to any other kind of opinion or ideology, time many of them climbed out and smell the coffee! |
While I agree with your second opinion, if religions would be better for society if their adherents were more open-minded toward other worldviews, it completely diminished your virst point, that without religion there would be chaos. If religious people become more open minded, the role of religion as a serious social adhesive falls apart, as no cosmopolitan (re: diluted, ineffective, arguably meaningless) religious system is nearly as effective in maintaining social cohesion as either a single, strict, dictatorship-religion or a cosmopolitan social system based on good philosophy and shared values, but without superstitious baggage. |
These are good points well expressed certainly. However we would have to go back to medieval times before we met again a European country where the clergy had any meaningful leverage in a nation's affairs or the behaviours of its people. Similarly, we would have to return to the soviet bloc era in Europe before we encounter the last totalitarian political regime. Therefore it seems abundantly clear to me that religious dogma as a control mechanism has long been consigned to the past and no longer constitutes a credible scenario for the future. Are you implying that the 'social cohesion' that results from either unyielding religious dogma or a liberal democracy is tantamount to the same thing ? This cannot be the case surely ?! ( I dearly hope I have misunderstood your post) Otherwise, ain't that the recipe for ruin that Anthony Burgess outlined in A Clockwork Orange ?
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: September 22 2009 at 15:07 |
ExittheLemming wrote:
Are you implying that the 'social cohesion' that results from either unyielding religious dogma or a liberal democracy is tantamount to the same thing ?
This cannot be the case surely ?! ( I dearly hope I have misunderstood your post)
|
No they're not the same at all. Just because a society doesn't fall apart and its people kill each other doesn't mean it's healthy. The social cohesion provided by religious dogma is fragile, intolerant, and cruel (and probably a lot of other bad adjectives too). Liberal democracy has negatives as well, but it certainly outweighs a dictatorship in the long run (I may say dictatorships can possibly be a good thing, so long as they're brief, benevolent, and just. They hardly ever are.) But any good that can come out of a religious dictatorship can be done in a regular politically based dictatorship, without adherence to unprovable superstition, though the cult of the leader might just be a religion anyway. But in the end, cosmopolitan religion cannot be a basis for governing at all, as I can't see how it would ever be effective. Unless history has proven me wrong...
|
|
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
Posted: September 22 2009 at 15:22 |
stonebeard wrote:
ExittheLemming wrote:
Are you implying that the 'social cohesion' that results from either unyielding religious dogma or a liberal democracy is tantamount to the same thing ?
This cannot be the case surely ?! ( I dearly hope I have misunderstood your post)
|
No they're not the same at all. Just because a society doesn't fall apart and its people kill each other doesn't mean it's healthy.  The social cohesion provided by religious dogma is fragile, intolerant, and cruel (and probably a lot of other bad adjectives too). Liberal democracy has negatives as well, but it certainly outweighs a dictatorship in the long run (I may say dictatorships can possibly be a good thing, so long as they're brief, benevolent, and just. They hardly ever are.) But any good that can come out of a religious dictatorship can be done in a regular politically based dictatorship, without adherence to unprovable superstition, though the cult of the leader might just be a religion anyway. But in the end, cosmopolitan religion cannot be a basis for governing at all, as I can't see how it would ever be effective.  Unless history has proven me wrong...
|
Exactly, you have neatly outlined the plot of Burgess fabby tome i.e. A brainwashed conformist can be just as bad as a violent anti-social thug. Agreed, neither do I Time for beer and those pastry funnel things with the green squishy stuff in the middle
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 22 2009 at 19:06 |
I have to admit that I was apprehensive when I saw Jay's title for this thread, for once the discussions turned to 'Spirituality' I felt I would have nothing to contribute, and I sense that is still the case.
Science is about uncertainty and understanding empirical data, Religion is about belief and faith - the two have no business meddling in each other's affairs because they are incompatible systems (not opposing or alternative systems).
Science is there to be doubted, to be questioned - in science nothing is certain - it progresses by continuous questioning and testing, changing and adapting with time to fit new data as it is discovered. Scientists don't prove anything - they test things - if it fails the test then it is proven false, if it passes, they do more tests. In the 1950, 100 years after the publication of the Origin of Species, David Lack's study of Darwin's Finches did not prove that Darwin was right - all it showed was that he wasn't wrong.
Religion is the absence of doubt, it is ineffable, immutable and infallible - if something threatens or challenges belief, it cannot adapt or change to absorb the new data, it has to counter and refute it.
|
|
What?
|
|
Visioner
Forum Newbie
Joined: September 21 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 10
|
Posted: September 22 2009 at 22:00 |
Dean wrote:
I have to admit that I was apprehensive when I saw Jay's title for this thread, for once the discussions turned to 'Spirituality' I felt I would have nothing to contribute, and I sense that is still the case.
Science is about uncertainty and understanding empirical data, Religion is about belief and faith - the two have no business meddling in each other's affairs because they are incompatible systems (not opposing or alternative systems).
Science is there to be doubted, to be questioned - in science nothing is certain - it progresses by continuous questioning and testing, changing and adapting with time to fit new data as it is discovered. Scientists don't prove anything - they test things - if it fails the test then it is proven false, if it passes, they do more tests. In the 1950, 100 years after the publication of the Origin of Species, David Lack's study of Darwin's Finches did not prove that Darwin was right - all it showed was that he wasn't wrong.
Religion is the absence of doubt, it is ineffable, immutable and infallible - if something threatens or challenges belief, it cannot adapt or change to absorb the new data, it has to counter and refute it.
|
I found your views very interesting and I’m trying to understand your definition of religion because your interpretation seems to be different from what I’ve familiar with, based on any of the religions I’m acquainted with.
From the rabbi to the priest to the B’hai practitioners to the Hindis to the Buddhists to the 20 or so ministers I’ve known from about 8 different variations of Christianity, they have all agreed that our minds were given to us to question, to challenge, to interpret and reinterpret the evidence as presented to us by writings, people, reason and experience. That’s what revelation is all about. Some basic canons are written in stone, but the religion as a whole can change and adapt.
If we see religion as a set of beliefs and practices, then in some religions those beliefs and practices certainly do evolve due to the absorption of new data. For example: scientifc explanations of homosexuality led to the ordination of gays in churches that previously would have declared that to be incompatible with church teachings; scientific support of the theory of evolution has led some sects of Christianity to adjust their view of the Genesis concept of creation, stating that it is illustrative rather than literal, and some sects have deemed both creation and evolution to be truth--that they work in harmony not opposition. New discoveries (the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 20th century) or new interpretations of the original language of texts can be incorporated into the religion and reflected in updated practices and redefined beliefs.
I have to disagree with your the conclusion that science is never sure of anything and that religion never doubts anything. I find science and religion not only compatible but often complementary and totally supportive of each other. Sometimes one even corroborates the other.
Oh, how I've rambled. OK. I'm finished. I'll be quiet now. 
|
|
Look beyond the obvious or you will see only the mundane.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: September 22 2009 at 22:28 |
Visioner wrote:
If we see religion as a set of beliefs and practices, then in some religions those beliefs and practices certainly do evolve due to the absorption of new data. For example: scientifc explanations of homosexuality led to the ordination of gays in churches that previously would have declared that to be incompatible with church teachings; scientific support of the theory of evolution has led some sects of Christianity to adjust their view of the Genesis concept of creation, stating that it is illustrative rather than literal, and some sects have deemed both creation and evolution to be truth--that they work in harmony not opposition. New discoveries (the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 20th century) or new interpretations of the original language of texts can be incorporated into the religion and reflected in updated practices and redefined beliefs |
But if religion is to have any validity, then some things have to be objectively true. If, in the case of Christianity, a literal interpretation of Genesis was irrefutable and 100% believed among many people for 1500+ years, then you can't hope to turn 180 degrees and claim otherwise and hope to still be telling the truth. One interpretation was right, one wasn't (or maybe both weren't). Sure, scientific progress and religion can work in harmony, as long as one doesn't think to hard about one's ever-evolving religious beliefs.
|
|
|
|
BaldJean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
Posted: September 22 2009 at 23:06 |
stonebeard wrote:
Visioner wrote:
If we see religion as a set of beliefs and practices, then in some religions those beliefs and practices certainly do evolve due to the absorption of new data. For example: scientifc explanations of homosexuality led to the ordination of gays in churches that previously would have declared that to be incompatible with church teachings; scientific support of the theory of evolution has led some sects of Christianity to adjust their view of the Genesis concept of creation, stating that it is illustrative rather than literal, and some sects have deemed both creation and evolution to be truth--that they work in harmony not opposition. New discoveries (the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 20th century) or new interpretations of the original language of texts can be incorporated into the religion and reflected in updated practices and redefined beliefs |
But if religion is to have any validity, then some things have to be objectively true. If, in the case of Christianity, a literal interpretation of Genesis was irrefutable and 100% believed among many people for 1500+ years, then you can't hope to turn 180 degrees and claim otherwise and hope to still be telling the truth. One interpretation was right, one wasn't (or maybe both weren't). Sure, scientific progress and religion can work in harmony, as long as one doesn't think to hard about one's ever-evolving religious beliefs.
|
I don't think this is necessarily true. a placebo does have its validity, even though there is nothing true about it at all. mark that I am not saying that religion is nothing but a placebo; I am only saying that it would still have its validity if there was nothing true about it. it is, by the way, very interesting to see that many people automatically seem to assume that spirituality necessarily has to go along with religion, and once they arrive at religion they automatically think of Christianity. a bit short-sighted, if you ask me. religion does not necessarily have to be opposed to science at all. it is perfectly possible to believe in a deity and in science; I have no problem with that at all. my believe actually is the more science discovers the more proof of the existence of a deity there is. this is quite contrary to the common belief that science explains away God. however, I do not believe in a deity which is forever unchangeable; on the contrary, the deity I believe in is an evolving one. this is quite contrary to the common concept of "God", who is forever unchangeable and the same. God is a process; the common concept of God is a stagnant one. God is also not the "wandweaver". by that I mean that one should not expect God to make anything happen which is against the laws of nature. this is by no means a limitation of God, by the way. on the contrary, I would see it as a limitation if a deity had to interfere in such a way with its creation. what a poor deity that would be indeed!
|
 A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
|
Visioner
Forum Newbie
Joined: September 21 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 10
|
Posted: September 22 2009 at 23:20 |
stonebeard wrote:
Visioner wrote:
If we see religion as a set of beliefs and practices, then in some religions those beliefs and practices certainly do evolve due to the absorption of new data. For example: scientifc explanations of homosexuality led to the ordination of gays in churches that previously would have declared that to be incompatible with church teachings; scientific support of the theory of evolution has led some sects of Christianity to adjust their view of the Genesis concept of creation, stating that it is illustrative rather than literal, and some sects have deemed both creation and evolution to be truth--that they work in harmony not opposition. New discoveries (the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 20th century) or new interpretations of the original language of texts can be incorporated into the religion and reflected in updated practices and redefined beliefs |
But if religion is to have any validity, then some things have to be objectively true. If, in the case of Christianity, a literal interpretation of Genesis was irrefutable and 100% believed among many people for 1500+ years, then you can't hope to turn 180 degrees and claim otherwise and hope to still be telling the truth. One interpretation was right, one wasn't (or maybe both weren't). Sure, scientific progress and religion can work in harmony, as long as one doesn't think to hard about one's ever-evolving religious beliefs.
|
I agree that some things within a religion must be a constant in order for the religion to be valid. Everything can't blow with the wind. And within the religion, some basic tenets must be held as objectively true. And they are.
But as science evolves and reveals new facts, religion identifies those as revelations of a deeper truth than what was understood before, appropriate for the time in which it is revealed. The Genesis story, if you take the references to night and day poetically, bears a remarkable resemblance to the actual sequence and process of evolution. But that initial knowledge was placed in a format that the people of that time could comprehend. Ergo, it's not that one was true and then it becomes false when another seems true, or that neither was true, but rather that BOTH are true. Larger pieces of the puzzle are seen, but that doesn't mean the smaller piece was false, just less complete.
That said, I don't think all religions are created equal. Some are closer to the objective truth than others are. Some sects within a religion are closer to the truth than other sects within that same religion. You can't just lump them all together, and you can't write them all off. Discern them by their results.
Religions can't be perfect because they are practiced by humans, who can't be perfect. But....do the practitioners of that certain religion now--generally--seek to make the world a better place, not just for themselves but also for others? And does their religion help them try to become better individuals, better members of Team Human? In essence, to play nicely with others? Not that it makes the religion perfect or the people perfect. But that it makes them better than they would be without it. You could say THAT is what determines it's validity.
Ultimately, religion evolves and science evolves and people, individually and collectively, evolve. The "creation" is continuing....
|
|
Look beyond the obvious or you will see only the mundane.
|
|
Visioner
Forum Newbie
Joined: September 21 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 10
|
Posted: September 23 2009 at 00:33 |
BaldJean wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Visioner wrote:
If we see religion as a set of beliefs and practices, then in some religions those beliefs and practices certainly do evolve due to the absorption of new data. For example: scientifc explanations of homosexuality led to the ordination of gays in churches that previously would have declared that to be incompatible with church teachings; scientific support of the theory of evolution has led some sects of Christianity to adjust their view of the Genesis concept of creation, stating that it is illustrative rather than literal, and some sects have deemed both creation and evolution to be truth--that they work in harmony not opposition. New discoveries (the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 20th century) or new interpretations of the original language of texts can be incorporated into the religion and reflected in updated practices and redefined beliefs |
But if religion is to have any validity, then some things have to be objectively true. If, in the case of Christianity, a literal interpretation of Genesis was irrefutable and 100% believed among many people for 1500+ years, then you can't hope to turn 180 degrees and claim otherwise and hope to still be telling the truth. One interpretation was right, one wasn't (or maybe both weren't). Sure, scientific progress and religion can work in harmony, as long as one doesn't think to hard about one's ever-evolving religious beliefs.
|
I don't think this is necessarily true. a placebo does have its validity, even though there is nothing true about it at all. mark that I am not saying that religion is nothing but a placebo; I am only saying that it would still have its validity if there was nothing true about it.
it is, by the way, very interesting to see that many people automatically seem to assume that spirituality necessarily has to go along with religion, and once they arrive at religion they automatically think of Christianity. a bit short-sighted, if you ask me.
religion does not necessarily have to be opposed to science at all. it is perfectly possible to believe in a deity and in science; I have no problem with that at all. my believe actually is the more science discovers the more proof of the existence of a deity there is. this is quite contrary to the common belief that science explains away God.
however, I do not believe in a deity which is forever unchangeable; on the contrary, the deity I believe in is an evolving one. this is quite contrary to the common concept of "God", who is forever unchangeable and the same. God is a process; the common concept of God is a stagnant one.
God is also not the "wandweaver". by that I mean that one should not expect God to make anything happen which is against the laws of nature. this is by no means a limitation of God, by the way. on the contrary, I would see it as a limitation if a deity had to interfere in such a way with its creation. what a poor deity that would be indeed!
|
Since the thread is about evolution, the comparison to a commonly held Christian interpretation of creation is a natural inclination. Plus, since Christianity has the most adherents in the Western hemisphere, which is where most progarchive participants seem to be from, and hence its scriptures are more commonly known than many of the other religions' texts, it's not unusual that discussions veer in that direction in order to illustrate a point in a way most likely to be understood. But to mention one religion does not mean that it particularly came to mind automatically or exclusively. To make such an assumption would indeed be shortsighted.
Regarding religion versus spirituality, I am trying to get a grasp on what the thread's posters consider to be definitions of both. Would like for you to share your thoughts on that.
I loved your observation that the more science discovers the more likely it will be that it lends proof to, rather than refutes, the existence of the Divine. Several scientists have already stated the same. (Yes, some of the most intelligent, scientific individuals on the planet believe in God.) I also found interesting your thought about the "process" God. While I personally do not think that God is a process, I find helpful the reference: "God is spirit. And they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." I add that thought here because I think that's why so many people get tripped up on thinking they have to choose science or spirituality. They think, but they do not feel. They use the mind, but don't use their spirit in seeking the truth. They limit themselves by not using all the aspects of the self that are available to be tapped into.
|
|
Look beyond the obvious or you will see only the mundane.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 23 2009 at 05:03 |
Visioner wrote:
Dean wrote:
I have to admit that I was apprehensive when I saw Jay's title for this thread, for once the discussions turned to 'Spirituality' I felt I would have nothing to contribute, and I sense that is still the case.
Science is about uncertainty and understanding empirical data, Religion is about belief and faith - the two have no business meddling in each other's affairs because they are incompatible systems (not opposing or alternative systems).
Science is there to be doubted, to be questioned - in science nothing is certain - it progresses by continuous questioning and testing, changing and adapting with time to fit new data as it is discovered. Scientists don't prove anything - they test things - if it fails the test then it is proven false, if it passes, they do more tests. In the 1950, 100 years after the publication of the Origin of Species, David Lack's study of Darwin's Finches did not prove that Darwin was right - all it showed was that he wasn't wrong.
Religion is the absence of doubt, it is ineffable, immutable and infallible - if something threatens or challenges belief, it cannot adapt or change to absorb the new data, it has to counter and refute it.
|
I found your views very interesting and I’m trying to understand your definition of religion because your interpretation seems to be different from what I’ve familiar with, based on any of the religions I’m acquainted with.
From the rabbi to the priest to the B’hai practitioners to the Hindis to the Buddhists to the 20 or so ministers I’ve known from about 8 different variations of Christianity, they have all agreed that our minds were given to us to question, to challenge, to interpret and reinterpret the evidence as presented to us by writings, people, reason and experience. That’s what revelation is all about. Some basic canons are written in stone, but the religion as a whole can change and adapt. |
Religions can change - they have done several times in very major ways over the past xxxx thousand years, the diversity of christian religions is documentation to that fact, but Religions themselves are resistant to change - the Reformation did not change the Catholic Church, even the initial Church Of England after the break with Rome was resistant to changing religious practises - it remained Catholic in all but name and didn't become a Protestant religion until much later. The result was two seperate religions with different practises, but the central belief system is (still) the same.
Visioner wrote:
If we see religion as a set of beliefs and practices, then in some religions those beliefs and practices certainly do evolve due to the absorption of new data. For example: scientifc explanations of homosexuality led to the ordination of gays in churches that previously would have declared that to be incompatible with church teachings; scientific support of the theory of evolution has led some sects of Christianity to adjust their view of the Genesis concept of creation, stating that it is illustrative rather than literal, and some sects have deemed both creation and evolution to be truth--that they work in harmony not opposition. |
The ordination of homosexuals does not require scientific justification, any more than the ordination of women does.
However changing practises, ritual and modus operandi isn't what I was getting at - it was the fundamental beliefs that cannot change - for example the central tenet of christianity is the belief of the resurrection of Jesus - change that and the religion can no longer be called christianity.
Visioner wrote:
New discoveries (the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 20th century) or new interpretations of the original language of texts can be incorporated into the religion and reflected in updated practices and redefined beliefs.
|
The dead sea scrolls are not "new" data - they are old data re-found - all of which was known when the Tanakh and the Old Testament were originally compiled and purposely ignored or removed - much of the Apocrypha as been known (and published) since the 16th century - none of it has changed practises or beliefs.
Visioner wrote:
I have to disagree with your the conclusion that science is never sure of anything and that religion never doubts anything. I find science and religion not only compatible but often complementary and totally supportive of each other. Sometimes one even corroborates the other.
Oh, how I've rambled. OK. I'm finished. I'll be quiet now. |
|
|
What?
|
|
Tony R
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: July 16 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 11979
|
Posted: September 23 2009 at 06:03 |
BaldJean wrote:
stonebeard mentioned that he as an atheist does not see how spirituality enters. that is a very interesting remark indeed; it seems to mean that what atheists really deny is the existence of spirit, not the existence of God. atheists indeed are usually materialists; the believe there is nothing but "solid matter". they could not be more wrong.
Stonebeard does not speak for all atheists. Atheists by definition do not believe in God. Your assertion that "atheists are usually materialists etc" is a wild generalisation with nothing to substantiate it whatsoever.
Therefore the following is irrelevant...
first of all, the so-called "solid matter" is not so solid at all. an atom is mostly empty space, through which lots of virtual particles run this way and that. an atom is a process, and indeed all of matter is nothing but that: a process. a process, however, is not material at all. everything in the world is a process.
As for the following
so is our consciousness, of course, or our spirit, to let that word enter the discussion. this spirit is, due to its nature as a process, not material at all.
will the spirit somehow survive after we are dead? I don't believe so, since many of the sub-processes which are responsible for its creation end with death. but that does by no means mean the spirit does not exist. it is indeed a stranger notion to say so; how could you utter that statement if it did not exist?
one might as well speculate as to how Santa Claus gets all the presents for all the children in the world onto his sleigh...
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: September 23 2009 at 08:23 |
Tony R wrote:
BaldJean wrote:
stonebeard mentioned that he as an atheist does not see how spirituality enters. that is a very interesting remark indeed; it seems to mean that what atheists really deny is the existence of spirit, not the existence of God. atheists indeed are usually materialists; the believe there is nothing but "solid matter". they could not be more wrong.
Stonebeard does not speak for all atheists. Atheists by definition do not believe in God. Your assertion that "atheists are usually materialists etc" is a wild generalisation with nothing to substantiate it whatsoever.
Therefore the following is irrelevant...
first of all, the so-called "solid matter" is not so solid at all. an atom is mostly empty space, through which lots of virtual particles run this way and that. an atom is a process, and indeed all of matter is nothing but that: a process. a process, however, is not material at all. everything in the world is a process.
As for the following
so is our consciousness, of course, or our spirit, to let that word enter the discussion. this spirit is, due to its nature as a process, not material at all.
will the spirit somehow survive after we are dead? I don't believe so, since many of the sub-processes which are responsible for its creation end with death. but that does by no means mean the spirit does not exist. it is indeed a stranger notion to say so; how could you utter that statement if it did not exist?
one might as well speculate as to how Santa Claus gets all the presents for all the children in the world onto his sleigh...
|
|
The last statement in red is pointlessly argumentative with little to do with the statements it addresses.
It would be much more interesting for the conversation if you stuck to something --- "Stonebeard refers to atheists this way, yet I am an atheist of this sort." And then explain you position. A little throwing of stones from a position of safety going on.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Visioner
Forum Newbie
Joined: September 21 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 10
|
Posted: September 23 2009 at 10:48 |
Dean,
I know people who would disagree with your definition of Christianity. They still consider themselves Christian even though their brand of Christianity does not hinge on a singular belief in one particular tenet, even one you define as necessary--they assign different criteria to ascribing to their faith. The fact that there are so many different denominations shows that the defining beliefs, even core ones, are not agreed upon entirely.
I was not making the statement that the Dead Sea Scrolls are new data... I said, as you quoted me, they were a recent discovery. As such, they offer fresh corroboration that there have not been many errors in the years from the early writings to today's translations. I was using that as an illustration of how we humans are continually uncovering information that can have an impact on people's decisions to believe something.
Regarding the ordination issue.... I am pointing out that some churches have changed their beliefs based on scientific data. Being born male or female was never considered a choice, but many churches saw (and some still do) sexual orientation or gender identification as strictly chosen behavior rather than biologically determiined. Recent medical studies about the complexities involved in the gender/sex spectrum have caused some churches to change the way they adhere to their scriptures.
Church leadership in many mainstream churches also looks at the way cultural influences and accommodations at the time scriptures were written may have been misinterpreted as foundational ordinances. Hence, most Protestant churches now ordain women when some previously didn't.
You appear to have updated your original thought about religion: "if something threatens or challenges belief, it cannot adapt or change to absorb the new data" to your later position: "Religions can change - they have done several times in very major ways over the past xxxx thousand years." I agree with your thought that religion resists change. And isn't that a good thing? It can't be a valid religion if it's willing to easily toss out some beliefs and add on others. It takes some major thinking, soul searching and Divine Will seeking for leadership to finally say, "let's change this." Vatican II is an example of such a major shift.
We each on our own individual level have to do the same thing--examine, think, seek, experience the Divine. The result may be choosing to believe in a faith when we previously didn't, because the evidence makes it the logical thing to do.
This has been an enjoyable discussion with you.
|
|
Look beyond the obvious or you will see only the mundane.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 23 2009 at 11:25 |
Visioner wrote:
Dean,
I know people who would disagree with your definition of Christianity. They still consider themselves Christian even though their brand of Christianity does not hinge on a singular belief in one particular tenet, even one you define as necessary--they assign different criteria to ascribing to their faith. The fact that there are so many different denominations shows that the defining beliefs, even core ones, are not agreed upon entirely.
|
They may consider themselves Christian, but their beliefs would not be shared by the "mother church" - I would be curious to know of Christians that do not believe in the resurrection - the other (non-Christian) religions who accept Jesus as a prophet or saint do not believe in the resurrection (though I think Muslims do believe in the Ascension).
Visioner wrote:
I was not making the statement that the Dead Sea Scrolls are new data... I said, as you quoted me, they were a recent discovery. As such, they offer fresh corroboration that there have not been many errors in the years from the early writings to today's translations. I was using that as an illustration of how we humans are continually uncovering information that can have an impact on people's decisions to believe something.
|
Accepted - I was simply pointing out that most of the scriptures contained in the DSS were not new or even unknown.
Visioner wrote:
Regarding the ordination issue.... I am pointing out that some churches have changed their beliefs based on scientific data. Being born male or female was never considered a choice, but many churches saw (and some still do) sexual orientation or gender identification as strictly chosen behavior rather than biologically determiined. Recent medical studies about the complexities involved in the gender/sex spectrum have caused some churches to change the way they adhere to their scriptures.
Church leadership in many mainstream churches also looks at the way cultural influences and accommodations at the time scriptures were written may have been misinterpreted as foundational ordinances. Hence, most Protestant churches now ordain women when some previously didn't.
|
Most, not all - and even then there is a limit on how far they can progress, however, I do not think that "science" has been the driving force behind those policy changes.
Visioner wrote:
You appear to have updated your original thought about religion: "if something threatens or challenges belief, it cannot adapt or change to absorb the new data" to your later position: "Religions can change - they have done several times in very major ways over the past xxxx thousand years." I agree with your thought that religion resists change. And isn't that a good thing? It can't be a valid religion if it's willing to easily toss out some beliefs and add on others. It takes some major thinking, soul searching and Divine Will seeking for leadership to finally say, "let's change this." Vatican II is an example of such a major shift.
|
Nope. My two statements stand alone and do not conflict or contradict. The first deals with "belief" the second with "practise" - and in the examples I was alluding to the change has resulted in a break-away church - but not a change in beliefs.
Visioner wrote:
We each on our own individual level have to do the same thing--examine, think, seek, experience the Divine. The result may be choosing to believe in a faith when we previously didn't, because the evidence makes it the logical thing to do.
This has been an enjoyable discussion with you. |
|
|
What?
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: September 23 2009 at 11:28 |
Thanks so much for joining the conversation visioner.
My original idea that made at least one other poster uncomfortable was talking about cosmology, origin mythology, and personal ideas about philosophy and / or spirituality and lumping both religious and scientific contributions in one discussion.
But given that religion and science are the two major sources we currently use to base those three things, I feel like they must be discussed together. Origin theories based on scientific observation are still very limited and a product of imagination / creative synthesis. What's on the other side of the big bang? As a singularity, it is likely impossible to know. To us it's a dead end in terms of our ability to gather data. But it doesn't mean nothing happened prior to that. Certainly the idea of wave like expansion and contraction of the universe seems very plausible. But even if it consistent with scientific information, it is likely that we will never be able to have data to confirm or deny that. Kind of like Santa Claus? And we are firmly in the territory of current scientific cosmological thought.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Evolution and Spirituality Thread