Skip to main content

Topic: The Awesomesauce with Religion (Read 114318 times)

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
The Awesomesauce with Religion
I suppose we need one of these.

Edit (20-02-2014): maybe a more positive title will make some difference? :)
  • Last Edit: 2014-02-20, 18:13:52 by Frenzie

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #525
Probably it doesn't always appear to be so, but for me people's beliefs, philosophical commitments, life stories, etc. are absolutely distinct from their mundane existence, behaviour of the moment, life situation at hand. In terms of world view, Sam Harris is a mind-control-advocating irrational anti-religious extremist militant fundie.

Perhaps I disagree with your largely irrational assessment of Sam Harris? For instance, if we're all puppets then Harris is one too; it's rather illogical to conclude that he would be a puppeteer instead.

That being said, even if I mostly agreed with you I don't really see how it affects anything. I argued that he was correct about some part or most of the Bible being immoral or something along those lines; it was a while ago. That doesn't mean he's a "Good Guy". It means he's correct about something. Even Mohammed must've been right once or twice in the Qur'an.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #526

Probably it doesn't always appear to be so, but for me people's beliefs, philosophical commitments, life stories, etc. are absolutely distinct from their mundane existence, behaviour of the moment, life situation at hand. In terms of world view, Sam Harris is a mind-control-advocating irrational anti-religious extremist militant fundie.

Perhaps I disagree with your largely irrational assessment of Sam Harris? For instance, if we're all puppets then Harris is one too; it's rather illogical to conclude that he would be a puppeteer instead.

But I was not assessing him. I was summarising his plans, ideals and ambitions, straightforwardly I think. Not so long ago I quoted his blog here directly on the mind-control bit.

Naturally, I have no reason to conclude that he is an actual puppeteer for our planet. Just pointing out that based on what he's said he seems to hope to become one.


That being said, even if I mostly agreed with you I don't really see how it affects anything. I argued that he was correct about some part or most of the Bible being immoral or something along those lines; it was a while ago. That doesn't mean he's a "Good Guy". It means he's correct about something. Even Mohammed must've been right once or twice in the Qur'an.

This is all okay, except that without a moral basis or standard you cannot coherently assess anything as moral or immoral. Still, nothing can stop you from doing it incoherently.

My favourite part of Qur'an is Sura 18, The Cave. Yours? (If it isn't too odd to ask an atheist's favourite parts of the Bible and Qur'an...)

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #527
This is all okay, except that without a moral basis or standard you cannot coherently assess anything as moral or immoral. Still, nothing can stop you from doing it incoherently.

At some point you have to accept some axiom. That's not incoherent.

My favourite part of Qur'an is Sura 18, The Cave. Yours? (If it isn't too odd to ask an atheist's favourite parts of the Bible and Qur'an...)

That's not an odd question at all. However, I quite disliked the Qur'an. I thought it was derivative, tedious and repulsive. One of the most repulsive parts was Mohammed's reaction to some Jews pointing out how he was messing up and corrupting their stories -- something immediately obvious to any reader even vaguely familiar with the Tanakh.

My favorite parts of the Tanakh are probably in the Torah (some of Genesis, mostly Exodus) and (decent chunks of) Ketuvim.

  • jseaton2311
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #528
I readily believe that JS's emotional attitude plays out as slick social competence in his daily life, but this won't change the fact that his typed expression stands no logical scrutiny. He's like an ID evangelist who learned the wrong material and now blindly spreads the gospel.


I have a personality that is easily likable because I somehow put all types of people at ease with me right from the get-go.  People open up easily to me (for the most part), but I don't consider that as having any kind of charisma on my part.  This is simply what I've been told by enough people to think it is a natural characteristic of mine which is surely the antithesis of slick.  I really don't think I could do 'slick' because I've seen slick in others and I doubt if I could pull it off. 

But enough of that, I had a mystical moment.  At least I imagine that is what many people (certainly you), would call it and that is certainly better than calling it anything divine or religious. 

I was meditating to the soft sprinkle of Japanese music and I imagined myself floating in the universe (nothing new).  I looked around and saw galaxies slowly twisting and dancing around each other, I looked into the stars and saw them as nature's machines--churning out the life-giving ingredients of life, I looked into a dust cloud and saw the lightening-quick fundamental bits of all things working together as ants building a colony.  Then, I had the sudden realization that the entire universe was itself a real living thing and it was at that moment that I felt and heard the universe heave a big sigh. 

I had a tremendous sense of awe that broke the spell of my meditation, causing me to open my eyes and stare blankly into space.  My first awake thought was that I was a part of this living universe, made of the exact same stuff, unable to be destroyed and in that sense, immortal--at least for the next trillion years or so (which is probably all the immortality I could stand anyway). 

Was that mystical or was I slowly putting things together in a different light?  I had no sense of anything divine, it was simply a stimulating insight--although not entirely unique in that I have felt tremendous awe before, as when I dove the coral reef (a living thing), of San Andres.  I am certainly, not the first person to see the universe as a living thing of course, it just never struck me so deeply (that sigh).  However, I'm afraid that I am too pragmatic to get too carried away with this, which is indubitably, certainly, truly what separates you from me the mostest.   :knight:  :cheers:
  • Last Edit: 2014-08-15, 02:08:23 by jseaton2311
James J

  • Sparta
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #529
Sir ersi , lemme tell you something about that thingy .

A Great Lier can make their victims Feels Happier .
and Do everything for the one Who Deceive  them .



  • jseaton2311
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #530
You mean like Jim Jones and Charles Manson?   :knight:  :cheers:
James J

  • Sparta
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #531
indeed

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #532

However, I quite disliked the Qur'an. I thought it was derivative, tedious and repulsive. One of the most repulsive parts was Mohammed's reaction to some Jews pointing out how he was messing up and corrupting their stories -- something immediately obvious to any reader even vaguely familiar with the Tanakh.

Derivative as in borrowing from the Tanakh? But this should not have come as a surprise, unpleasant or otherwise. Messing up and corrupting the Jewish stories? If you believe in heavily crooked revisory history of the Bible, as atheists normally do, then isn't the Tanakh itself already a corruption and derivation of e.g. the Babylonian mythology?

I find some derivative works extremely useful, such as Zohar compared to Tanakh. Knowledge of traditions of exegetic commentaries are valuable to understand not only how to interpret scriptures, but also how to identify scriptures, to tell them apart from non-scriptures. "Derivative" in that sense is therefore not a criterion. "Tedious and repulsive", indeed the writing should be emotionally and intellectually manageable, but then again it should be a special effort to familiarise oneself with its style. Without the effort, much of the meaning would go lost.


...I looked into the stars and saw them as nature's machines--churning out the life-giving ingredients of life, I looked into a dust cloud and saw the lightening-quick fundamental bits of all things working together as ants building a colony.  Then, I had the sudden realization that the entire universe was itself a real living thing and it was at that moment that I felt and heard the universe heave a big sigh. 

I had a tremendous sense of awe that broke the spell of my meditation, causing me to open my eyes and stare blankly into space.  My first awake thought was that I was a part of this living universe, made of the exact same stuff, unable to be destroyed and in that sense, immortal--

Among the different reasons and purposes to meditate, attunement (in the broadest and finest sense) is supreme. Attunement or harmony between us and the universe is possible at all because we are all made of the same elements, all elements from the physical to the spiritual. This is mysticism 101. I don't think you missed this course. More likely you deliberately ignored what was said there.

Among other reasons to meditate there are expectation of visions, insights, sense of calming or rest, but these are selfish reasons and can be misleading if not employed for the broader and finer purpose of universal attunement.


Was that mystical or was I slowly putting things together in a different light?  I had no sense of anything divine, it was simply a stimulating insight--

And what is the difference between a stimulating insight and divine? What should/would divine be, according to you?

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #533
Derivative as in borrowing from the Tanakh? But this should not have come as a surprise, unpleasant or otherwise. Messing up and corrupting the Jewish stories? If you believe in heavily crooked revisory history of the Bible, as atheists normally do, then isn't the Tanakh itself already a corruption and derivation of e.g. the Babylonian mythology?

It didn't bother me, beyond being somewhat tedious and extremely badly organized even within Surahs, until Mohammed was such an unforgivable ass about it. "You don't like my fanfic? Soldiers, kill them, kill all their relatives, kill all of their faith you can find in this city!" Or something along those lines. It's badly written repulsive derivative trash. Vergil is purposefully derivative of Homer, yet he is masterfully and respectfully derivative (even if I find him somewhat boring). Even while killing off all the Philistines for practically no reason whatsoever the Tanakh never even approaches the levels of rapaciousness of the Qur'an. It's the vilest work I ever read.

I find some derivative works extremely useful, such as Zohar compared to Tanakh.

A work that is derivative is not a derivative work. The Zohar is not a bad facsimile of the Tanakh. More to the point, I still find an obvious C&C clone like KKnD enjoyable, although perhaps that is a good facsimile.

isn't the Tanakh itself already a corruption and derivation of e.g. the Babylonian mythology?

That is actually relevant, but my answer is simply de gustibus non est disputandum. I also happen to find Robinson Crusoe one of the most boring novels ever written, at least within the first 30 pages or so before I decided to stop wasting my time. The fact that much of the Tanakh is internally derivative doesn't bother me much either. I find the fact that Genesis confusedly mixes at least two different flood and creation stories fascinating rather than tedious. Yaweh is a repulsive character, yet the works themselves are not repulsive. The Qur'an emanates a special kind of insufferable glib superiority while proclaiming inanities. That, I imagine, is what you call the style. I happen to find it repugnant.

PS This is not an issue with any other mythological text I've ever read, and suffice it to say I've read loads from all over the world, so I don't think it's unfair to ask whether it's me or the Qur'an.

PPS One Thousand and One Nights is a million times more enjoyable even though it also keeps blathering on about merciful Allah.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #534

The Qur'an emanates a special kind of insufferable glib superiority while proclaiming inanities. That, I imagine, is what you call the style. I happen to find it repugnant.

Right, style is a matter of taste. My view is that style is something you simply have to tolerate. Patiently suffering the inevitable just might lead you to the valuable kernel :)

In other news, Robert Grosseteste's De Luce (c. 1225) has been translated into English, and scientists are amazed at how a writing by a theologian, authored centuries before Newton, could propose something like gravity, and even more centuries before the Big Bang theory, could speak of the origin of the universe as if an explosion, and even more centuries before field and string theories, could describe the fundamentals of the universe in mathematical terms.

In turn, it makes me wonder how one gets to be a scientist without any basic reading of historical texts. We have internet at our fingertips, but those so-called scientists fail to look up every once in a while whose theories they are poorly mimicking. We would have been spared some reinventions of the wheel, or at least the reinvention would go faster.

There's nothing new under the sun. All scriptures say this in some form. How does one get to be a scientist without knowing this? Or is it required to forget tradition and common sense when entering the scientific circles? The usual saying goes that the Middle Ages were dark, but it very much looks like these days are much darker.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #535
Right, style is a matter of taste. My view is that style is something you simply have to tolerate. Patiently suffering the inevitable just might lead you to the valuable kernel :)

Well, besides better understanding writing by e.g. Kader Abdolah and Salman Rushdie I'm not convinced there was much of one. That suffices for me, but some kind of abridged version would probably do the trick just as well if not better.

In other news, Robert Grosseteste's De Luce (c. 1225) has been translated into English, and scientists are amazed at how a writing by a theologian, authored centuries before Newton, could propose something like gravity, and even more centuries before the Big Bang theory, could speak of the origin of the universe as if an explosion, and even more centuries before field and string theories, could describe the fundamentals of the universe in mathematical terms.

Perhaps they forget that Newton, too, was a theologian? But more basic, in the Middle Ages to have an education (and therefore the means to express such things mathematically) pretty much meant to have a clerical education.

The usual saying goes that the Middle Ages were dark, but it very much looks like these days are much darker.

I'd never actually heard the term "dark ages" before I learned English. Btw, I don't know what "scientists" you refer to, but it sounds like they have just about zero historical sense. Like that Archimedes already invented calculus (admittedly in a previously lost manuscript neither Newton nor Leibniz could have known about). But this is really more related to that other topic. What did the scientists, if any, actually say? :)

  • tt92
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #536
We live in troubled times.
I would never be brave enough to say anything negative about Islam or its holy book.
Seriously.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #537

I'd never actually heard the term "dark ages" before I learned English.

Where I grew up, various fairly recent times were called dark too. And I don't hesitate to call our times dark.


Btw, I don't know what "scientists" you refer to, but it sounds like they have just about zero historical sense. --- What did the scientists, if any, actually say? :)

It's an article in Nature, titled A medieval multiverse

It's possible to interpret it as something mildly enthusiastic with zero historical sense, or as some unenthusiastic overview of medieval mediocrities, dead boring for the author of the article, but veiled as a journey of thrilling discoveries - and the sense of history went lost in the process of conjuring up the veil.
Quote

Grosseteste's De Luce, available in English since the 1940s, opens by addressing a problem with classical atomism: why, if atoms are point-like, do materials have volume? Light is discussed as a medium for filling space. Grosseteste's recognition that matter's bulk and bulk stability requires subtle explanation was impressive. Even more intriguing was his use of mathematics to illuminate his physics.

A finite volume, he writes, emerges from an "infinite multiplication of light" acting on infinitesimal matter. He draws an analogy to the finite ratio of two infinite sums, claiming that (1+2+4+8+...)/(0.5+1+2+4+...) is equal to 2. He does not articulate carefully the idea of the limits one needs to make this rigorous, but we know what he means[...]

In an impressive final stroke of unification, he postulates that towards the centre of the cosmos, the remaining unperfected matter becomes so dense and the inwardly radiating lumen so weak, that no further perfection transitions are possible. He thus accounts for the Aristotelian distinction between the perfect heavens and the imperfect Earth and atmosphere.

To our knowledge, De Luce is the first worked example showing that a single set of physical laws might account for the very different structures of the heavens and Earth, hundreds of years before Newton's 1687 appeal to gravity to unite the falling of objects on Earth with the orbiting of the Moon. [...]

The possible existence of more than one universe was indeed a live issue of the period, and a highly contentious one -- appearing, for example, in the Papal edict of 1277 that banned a list of scientific teachings. But it was a debate that Grosseteste apparently chose to avoid.

So, mathematics of the basic substance called light, yielding concepts of density, gravity, structure of heaven and earth, i.e. a complete cosmology, with hints of multiverse. A theory of everything. Ain't that awesome. Whereas for me, having read a bunch of enlightenment dudes, medievals and millennia-old writings, it's pretty hard to recall anything that did not present a theory of everything in one form or another. There are even writings that present a host of cosmologies page after page, as if the relevant thought experiments were part of ordinary high school curriculum in old times. It's an insult to intelligence if this is forgotten by modern science writers.


We live in troubled times.
I would never be brave enough to say anything negative about Islam or its holy book.
Seriously.

We are still not big and diverse enough forum. We don't yet have our own resident Muslim. Not even a resident Buddhist, even though those are easier to obtain than Muslims, I think. ID-ists are probably silently lurking here already, but they would be merely annoying. Frenzie has read the Qur'an but he is not doing good apologetics of Islam.

Qur'an has done a good job creating a civilisation out of those desert nomads. Their civilisation was ahead of Europe for centuries and kept up ancient Greek and Latin traditions that went nearly exinct in Europe for a while. Islamic civilisation is still ahead in terms of hygiene :) Solid teachings of hygiene and a civilisation that holds people together tighter than Christianity does is not a small feat, but I'm not quite sure how much of this is directly attributable to the book.

  • Sparta
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #538
Theory of Everything is awsome .

because, it is simply there is no Theory of everything yet .  :yes:



  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #539
[...] it makes me wonder how one gets to be a scientist without any basic reading of historical texts. We have internet at our fingertips, but those so-called scientists fail to look up every once in a while whose theories they are poorly mimicking. We would have been spared some reinventions of the wheel, or at least the reinvention would go faster.

There's nothing new under the sun. All scriptures say this in some form. How does one get to be a scientist without knowing this?
(underlining added)
In an eatery near you is a dishwasher who blathers... Shouldn't our best and brightest converse with him, because he may say something profound -- something that they wouldn't think of?

That ancient thinkers had scattered or coherent thoughts that presaged what the hard work of science has given us isn't surprising. What's surprising is that a modern educated man so easily succumbs to the "Ooh! Wow!" factor that snake-oil salesmen depend upon...
There is much that is new under the sun! But most people would rather think not (...both senses!) because they aren't comfortable with the style and level of argument refuting such would require.


Of course, ESP and telekinesis, ghosts and past lives, and mind-reading is -like- for sure, really, like, real. Ya know? :)


Ask your local dishwasher what emendations Hawking should make to his theory of black holes, to save it from the problem of information and the event horizon... Your conversation may be a great deal of fun! It may even give you some ideas.
But it won't do, as science.


It will do, as mysticism, though. That's your bag, isn't it? :)
--------------------------------------
But you can still read and enjoy this...
  • Last Edit: 2014-08-19, 07:28:27 by OakdaleFTL
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #540

Of course, ESP and telekinesis, ghosts and past lives, and mind-reading is -like- for sure, really, like, real. Ya know? :)

Are you comfortable with the style and level of argument required in refuting these? If yes, go ahead and do it. If not, you are just blathering as per usual.

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #541
Bad Eliza:
Given your conception of Truth, only grokking counts... You'd have to say, for instance, that Grosseteste didn't "discover" anything; at best, he tripped over something, and then continued on his merry way!
Or do you now credit brilliant invention? Have you been converted? :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #542
@Oakdale
You say, "There is much that is new under the sun! But most people would rather think not (...both senses!) because they aren't comfortable with the style and level of argument refuting such would require."

I.e. the claim "There is much new under the sun!" should be refuted, if it is to be disbelieved.

At the same time, the claim "There is nothing new under the sun" and "ESP and telekinesis, ghosts and past lives, and mind-reading" should be disbelieved without refutation. Do I need to point out obvious double standards?

And your latest post consists totally of your merry misconception of the process of communication of knowledge without me having said anything about it here, neither converting from what I've said in other threads nor confirming. If you want to make it a topic, be sane and coherent about it.

Edit: You quoted and underlined something I said earlier, but what you said about it was sheer blather and does not merit a response. Get a hold of yourself, will you?
  • Last Edit: 2014-08-20, 03:22:29 by ersi

  • OakdaleFTL
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #543
I'm sorry: I thought I was talking to a person... My bad!
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
No one listens to me as much as I do and even I have my limits...
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman

  • jseaton2311
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #544
It's hard to be more ridiculously self-contradictory than you already are, but I'm sure you can do better.


I can admit that the supernatural is a logical possibility, but it is little more than that.  The success of methodological naturalism and the complete failure of other systems (theistic, mystic or supernatural), to empirically or even reasonably explain anything, makes it logical to assume that naturalism is the reality of this universe.  Nothing else in human experience and knowledge has come anywhere close to the ability of science to predict, understand and control the world around us.  Science hasn't answered all the questions yet (certainly not yours), but since there has always been a very real and natural explanation for everything science has discovered so far, there is no reason to doubt science answering all questions pertaining to the nature of this reality. 

Metaphysical/quasi-physical substance such as ideas, values, logic, information, mathematics and intellect can be reduced to a physical account in nature and science is working to explain exactly what that is, therefore, your claim that science needs a stronger metaphysical foundation is simply premature.  However, when it comes to metaphysics, I'm sure you don't expect science to embrace the spiritual or supernatural as explanations because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful and result in scientific dead ends and god of the gaps theories.  Moreover, never has an empirical scientific discovery been deemed wrong and replaced by a more convincing mystical/supernatural explanation.   :knight:  :cheers:
James J

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #545
In words of sage Kapila, devotion and knowledge are not contradictory. They are mutually supportive. The same way, I don't see nothing in science to exclude religion and nothing in religion to exclude science. Instead, science and religion provide proper perspective to each other.

With such false dichotomies, James, how do you reconcile your meditation experiences with sciences? It looks like you don't do it at all. You don't care about such reconciliations, because you don't even see the conflict, even though you dispute and argue as if conflicts were all over.

  • Sparta
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #546
Sir, half truth is never good ..

i have seen enough shit from   that thingy ..

just wait 'till they claim if Earth is the Axis of universe .

all i can say , Neo Dark ages .



Sciences will Always one step ahead,  than religion .
Since Science will always invent Something New .
While Religions just waiting  for the New Inventions,  then   they  - Claim it .

  • jseaton2311
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #547

In words of sage Kapila, devotion and knowledge are not contradictory. They are mutually supportive. The same way, I don't see nothing in science to exclude religion and nothing in religion to exclude science. Instead, science and religion provide proper perspective to each other.

With such false dichotomies, James, how do you reconcile your meditation experiences with sciences? It looks like you don't do it at all. You don't care about such reconciliations, because you don't even see the conflict, even though you dispute and argue as if conflicts were all over.


They certainly are not mutually supportive.  Religion can make room for science and will even make concessions to science, but science can never make room for any kind of religion because of its controversial and non-falsifiable supernatural nature.  Science today, simply has no perspective on religion and never will have despite your wishes and dreams of a unification.  Individuals can embrace certain aspects of both religion and science that are not mutually contradictory to them, but who would ever concede creation in contradiction to what they truly believe? 

"You don't care about such reconciliations", au contraire, mon ami!  I have thought much of this apparently mystical revelation and have concluded that it was not a veridical experience of God and therefore, not at all a hint of a supernatural realm.  There is a scientific explanation which rules out, or makes unlikely, the supposition that God had anything special to do with the occurrence of this mystical experience.  http://www.bidstrup.com/mystic.htm 

Your predictable comeback will be that even though science has uncovered physical or psychological mechanisms which underlie mystical experiences, these do not exclude a divine cause which would underwrite peoples' claims of them being veridical perceptions of a supreme being.  Which is all true and good, but as for myself, I simply don't feel the need or wish to waste the time, looking down a rabbit hole for an explanation of what I felt, when a perfectly logical, satisfactory and reality-based explanation is available to me.   :knight:  :cheers:
James J

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #548

They certainly are not mutually supportive.  Religion can make room for science and will even make concessions to science, but science can never make room for any kind of religion because of its controversial and non-falsifiable supernatural nature.

Here you are argumentative and antagonistic, not reconciling anything.


"You don't care about such reconciliations", au contraire, mon ami!

Here you are contradicting what you just previously said.


I have thought much of this apparently mystical revelation and have concluded that it was not a veridical experience of God and therefore, not at all a hint of a supernatural realm...

And here you just fall back to one side again and refuse to reconcile anything.


Your predictable comeback will be that even though science has uncovered physical or psychological mechanisms...

Science has not uncovered anything in this area. It was all uncovered already by the first literate mystics. Modern scientists are merely rewriting the story in vastly inferior reductive terms. Inferior in the scientific sense, mind you, because they miss at least half of the phenomenally describable reality.

  • jseaton2311
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #549
Inferior in the scientific sense, mind you, because they miss at least half of the phenomenally describable reality.


Science explains, not describes.  Science can explain green by its wavelength, but cannot explain your perception of it...quite yet.  Science can (potentially at least), explain everything.  Furthermore, its ways of trying to understand the universe by asking questions of it, do not leave any reality-based areas off-limits, including perception.  Science's methods of curiosity, openness, inquiry, theory building, hypothesis testing and so on can be adapted and developed to explore and try to scientifically explain anything.   :knight:  :cheers:
James J