quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub

Hey there you are. I thought you had abandoned this thread and was missing you.

The word "religion" comes from the Latin, re + ligio, and means to bind together, to reconnect, the particular with the Universal. Our current definition, which of course reflects how we use the word, misses that essential point entirely, as does much of what passes for "religion" these days. Up until around the 1500s, to speak of your religion meant what you practiced, not what you "believed". Without practice, without discipline, no religion can be understood, because that which is universal cannot, by definition, be defined in terms of the particulars it subsumes.

All religion is symbolic, and symbolism is excluded from religion only when religion itself perishes. ~Radhakrishnan

To believe in the literal truth of some book is, in religious terms, idolatry. Only the practice of a religious discipline can lead to an understanding of that which is embodied in the varied symbologies of our religions. A study comparing Carmelite nuns, who practice contemplative prayer, with practitioners of Buddhist meditation found the same patterns of brain activation in both groups. The apparently irreconcilable differences between theistic and non-theistic traditions are meaningless from the point of view of an absolute that is simultaneously both and beyond both.

K.

quote:

Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang

quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub
science has proved many of the bible's statements to be wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub
I cannot understand why people who have the resources available to them but ignore the information continue to stand firm that religion is the truth when in any other field of understanding they would do the exact opposite.

quote:

anthrosub

In short, whether something is true or not does not depend on simply saying so or choosing to believe it. But that's the position a lot of religious people take either knowingly or not. I think people like me (and I hope a lot more) are at the point of saying it's time to sort this stuff out once and for all and put the fantasy aspects to rest.

I can understand the church's reason for not admitting that science has proved many of the bible's statements to be wrong. I can understand why people who have little or no education believe in religion. I cannot understand why people who have the resources available to them but ignore the information continue to stand firm that religion is the truth when in any other field of understanding they would do the exact opposite.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Who brought him up?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
My thoughts about Harris... ahem... are not kind. He is arrogant, and thats the nicest thing i can say about him. I dont put too much stock into someone who feels the need to be superior by way of telling others how inferior they are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Attacking the idea, not Harris. Huge difference.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
specificity

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
I can understand why people who have little or no education believe in religion. I cannot understand why people who have an education and presumably some intelligence ignore the resources available and stand firm that religion is false without ever having undertaken any of the study and practical discipline that would enable them to grasp what the symbolism of these traditions represents.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub

Science on the other hand makes every effort to be accurate and is completely up front about any areas where it is not... In short, whether something is true or not does not depend on simply saying so or choosing to believe it.

Some food for thought then:

Michael Cremo (video, ~60 minutes, French introduction)

Archive Freedom

quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub

I can understand why people who have little or no education believe in religion. I cannot understand why people who have the resources available to them but ignore the information continue to stand firm that religion is the truth

I can understand why people who have little or no education believe in religion. I cannot understand why people who have an education and presumably some intelligence ignore the resources available and stand firm that religion is false without ever having undertaken any of the study and practical discipline that would enable them to grasp what the symbolism of these traditions represents.

The typical religion thread around these parts attracts either an argument from so-called "scientific" materialism, which is, of course, philosophy in a clown suit, not science, or else an argument from a literal reading of the Bible, which is, of course, theologically illiterate nonsense.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub
science has proved many of the bible's statements to be wrong.

Oh? Which ones?

quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub
I cannot understand why people who have the resources available to them but ignore the information continue to stand firm that religion is the truth when in any other field of understanding they would do the exact opposite.

That is a very complicated issue. Generally it is folklore, i.e. cultural memories / truths that are passed on from one generation to the next. As the folklore is passed on, it is reinterpreted according to the contemporary cultural state, errors may occur, and information may be lost, eventually resulting in a form that might be scarcely recognizable by the people who originally experienced said folklore.

Another aspect of it is that nearly all humans are creatures of habit that are programed by their culture and unable to make up their own minds. Only extraordinary events, 'miracles' such as Jesus resurrection, or traumatic events such as war or the loss of a loved one or an accident, can shock people out of their old cultural habits and cause them to accept new cultural habits.

Otherwise, only the very rare people who are able to think outside of the box, can shake off their cultural conditioning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic

So the Pope, God, and an Explosion walk into a bar.......

:D

It feels as if I have walked into the class late.

I appreciate the discussion that you have mustered so far anthrosub. That also goes out to all of the other participants as well.

In my B(elief)S(ystem) the almighty power induced being we aptly call God decides to destroy itself to answer a question. Seeing how God knows everything can God indeed know everything if God destroys itself?

So.... BAM....

the act of the big bang is choice. Everything after is chance. Eventually the simple dust of the kosmos reconstructed itself into higher orders until eventually we get to this conversation in which we are aware of an almighty being.

The reconstruction of God is-by our frail standards-far off but the mere fact that we are conceptualizing God means something.

I have nothing against the religious or the scientists, atheists, agnostics, christians, muslim, buddhist, or whatever path people decide to walk.

We speak of higher powers and it is inevitable to do so.

I know I could be wrong but I know these parched lips will always require more knowledge. My beliefs are never absolute or static. They are my delusions alone and I won't force them on any other.

To those that know me I know that I sound like a broken record.

As to the pope....

it simply does not matter. In the grand scale of things-one thousand years into the future-what the pope says will be inconsequential. We all think the same thoughts right?

Am I entirely insane at this conjecture or am I overly tired?

:3

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

anthrosub

In short, whether something is true or not does not depend on simply saying so or choosing to believe it. But that's the position a lot of religious people take either knowingly or not. I think people like me (and I hope a lot more) are at the point of saying it's time to sort this stuff out once and for all and put the fantasy aspects to rest.

I can understand the church's reason for not admitting that science has proved many of the bible's statements to be wrong. I can understand why people who have little or no education believe in religion. I cannot understand why people who have the resources available to them but ignore the information continue to stand firm that religion is the truth when in any other field of understanding they would do the exact opposite.

Religion insists an unverifiable leap to truth via faith. In order to maintain some coherence it is forced into all kinds of exotic claims (miracles, creation, transubstantiation etc) that are guaranteed to get sceptical minds offside. This logic seems to hold whether one interprets religious texts and/or claims symbolically or literally.

For religion, the absolute can be accessed only at the cost of abandoning reason.

Science alas fares no better. While science is certainly the most reliable and successful investigation method humans have yet devised, it is reliable only until a singularity (eg the Big Bang) is reached. By definition it cannot investigate any further. Strictly speaking science has no concept of truth, or to put that slightly differently, scientific 'truth' is always provisional and arbitrary.

So science by definition can never access the absolute.

Ultimately, if science and religion are the methods adopted, the search for absolute truth leaves us doomed to a choice between the impossible and the unverifiable.

That's not a choice that I find enticing.

quote:

Kirata

To believe in the literal truth of some book is, in religious terms, idolatry. Only the practice of a religious discipline can lead to an understanding of that which is embodied in the varied symbologies of our religions. A study comparing Carmelite nuns, who practice contemplative prayer, with practitioners of Buddhist meditation found the same patterns of brain activation in both groups. The apparently irreconcilable differences between theistic and non-theistic traditions are meaningless from the point of view of an absolute that is simultaneously both and beyond both. (my emphasis)

quote:

ORIGINAL: anthrosub


Well put. I know science is ultimately another "explanation" of the unknown. The difference, as you have pointed out, is that it has the ability to be tested (down to a point). At the macro level, I think there is no question of the accuracy of science but reduce things down to a certain micro level and science too is confronted with some pretty hazy phenomena (I think string theory would be a good example).