 |
Page: 1 2 3 Next > Jump to:  Bottom  Last Post
 hi2pi
Male, 30-39, Canada
 431 Posts
|
Thursday, October 29, 2009 5:29:28 PM
yes, i can see it happening. i can't see how any current religions could stand for much longer without undergoing significant change. i could perhaps refer to you the works of John Shelby Spong, author of "Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers In Exile". i will emphasize that even his works are too attached to old belief systems for my liking, but i find his ability to reflect on and seriously consider wholesale change to be a ray of hope in an otherwise stifling community of conservative retrobates. and don't worry too much about attacking my beliefs, since they aren't really anchored in any existing convention. i'm more interested in engaging open, honest discussion, as is happening here.
so, it's been a giggle, but i'm sure we're both ready to move on to another post, i'm sure we'll meet again. |
|
 The_Maddog
Male, 30-39, Europe
2792 Posts
|
Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:27:56 AM
>> change in the religious and spiritual outlook of lots of people for the two to become even remotly compatible!That said..your hope that the two would come together is not a bad thing but as I said..religion needs to change and can you honestly see that happening? |
|
The_Maddog
Male, 30-39, Europe
2792 Posts
|
Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:26:16 AM
>> says otherwise. The whole creationism vs evolution is probably the most recognisable of this. Many parts of science dispute (and often disprove) what religion is claiming. Geology, paleontology, cosmology etc..they all have aspects that disprove the creation storys in most religions.And thats just the beginning of a great big debate. Medical science often comes to blows with
those of a religious stance. The use of stem cells for example. A large amount of christians would claim its wrong! The simple use of a condom is a no no for catholics. I'm sure many in medical research would claim its a stupid stance for all the obvious reasons but the church isnt likely to change it's stance. Sure..you could claim it's a morality ethics issue
rather than science vs religion issue..but in many cases religion is responisble for setting certain "moral" standards. I honestly have hundreds of reasons why the two will never come together and it would take a major >&g |
|
The_Maddog
Male, 30-39, Europe
2792 Posts
|
Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:13:30 AM
>> or power at work. Dogma (and yes..it may not apply to you) is an absolute. It's all there, black and white. The answer to everything!As for meditation, yes it was part of my martial arts training program though I dont see that it has any relevance to the discusion. It's rather easy to alter the minds perception of reality. I could just as easily drop LSD and claim it was a spiritual encounter. Just to be fair, I'm not trying to trod on your beliefs here. My whole point was, from word go, was science and religion will never meld (and the hymn thing made me..WTF?..but I digress). Forget the whole "absolutes" debate because thats a diffrent argument anyway and not relevant. Now I agree..your idea of the two coming together is noble. I respect that but here's exactly why the two will never truely mesh. Science (again as a broad broad area) will allways be (and allways has) pushing against religion. It takes established doctrine and says..hold on..this evidence & |
|
The_Maddog
Male, 30-39, Europe
2792 Posts
|
Thursday, October 29, 2009 10:01:01 AM
I really dont get what your acctual argument is anymore! I've proven you wrong about hymns (wiki or no wiki..my point was allways valid). I'm stating science dosnt deal (for the most part) in absolute truths which it dosnt. As I've stated there is many diffrent types of science but when we are talking about visionary scientists, people like Carl Sagan, they do not deal in absolutes. They cant because it's all unkowable and its that "uncertainty of human knowledge" that drives them!
So please..disagree all you want but you know, as well as I know, that science (as one giant broad subject) is not absolute.
History has proven me right about science and religion being at loggerheads. Yes, I agree we are talking about the future but the two will never go hand in hand. Spirituality or religion..same thing. It's faith without facts! It's an absolute that there is a higher being >> |
|
hi2pi
Male, 30-39, Canada
431 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 28, 2009 8:14:45 PM
at any rate, i'm not going to convince you, and you are not convincing me. let's agree that there is a difference between science and spirituality. and, i think you'll agree, that people would benefit from incorporating more science into their everyday lives. and, though you may not agree, i'll continue to insist that the principles of science can (should) be incorporated into a modern, comprehensive, and helpful spiritual system - given that the spiritual aspect of life is not one that seems to be going away anytime soon (or ever, even, unless we engage in some pretty hardcore eugenics).
and i apologize for my attacking your use of wikipedia. as a scientist (and one that routinely has to scrutinize the scientific works of others and practice peer review) i tend to have a rather knee-jerk (FAIL) reaction to the use of that site. your point is a good one, though: if you cannot say it better yourself why not stand on the shoulders of giants (as we all do anyway). |
|
hi2pi
Male, 30-39, Canada
431 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 28, 2009 8:09:16 PM
you stating that science doesn't deal in absolutes does not make it so. you insisting that science and religion will always be at loggerheads does not make it so. i will agree that most of it is in our heads, but that does not make it fake. i agree that you will not find particles of good or evil or love or hatred in the physical realm, but that lack of simple location does not mean that these things do not exist. maybe inside our heads, but if we say that these things are in there then we have just stated that these things do exist; we do experience them. again, maybe not with simple location, but still part of the human experience. and it's the human experience that spirituality concerns itself with. i agree that the strength of science is that it opens itself up to testing and to verification. have you ever tried meditation? it's been tried, tested, verified many times over. practicing it has real effects. i wouldn't call it a scientific exercise, though. |
|
The_Maddog
Male, 30-39, Europe
2792 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 27, 2009 7:08:37 PM
>> I'm a realist when it comes to my view of the world.. If there is a higher power then it does not care. A christian is mostly to come from a christian family, same for a jew, muslim, hindu etc. Prayer makes no diffrence and good and evil are human concepts that ultimetly come down to the perceptions of the person you are speaking to.
Just to prove my point, you could grind the universe down but you wont find an atom of good or evil!The point is, most of it is in peoples heads. We as a species are damn good at making up and beliving storys to make ourselves feel better. This is where science succeeds in my eyes. A true scientist will come up with one of these storys (Lets say Darwin for instance) and every other scientist in the same field will set out to either prove or disproves said story. You cant do that with religion because its faith based. And yes, you are quite right about the wiki cut and paste as it said it better than I could, but it makes it no less vali |
|
The_Maddog
Male, 30-39, Europe
2792 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 27, 2009 6:58:33 PM
And as I said hi2pi, science and religion will remain at logger heads and I've explained why!
Your claiming that science is absolute which is wrong. As I stated, thats religion, not science!
However, just to simplify it you need to remember that science has many fields. Quantum physics and string theory are a lot diffrent from marine biology. The mating habits of a tuna may be absolute but wave–particle duality and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle are not (or at least not yet).
I have no idea what you do for a living nor is it relevant to the debate. You've been talking about spirituality, hymns and the merging of science and religion. You belive people to be "spiritual" in nature, I do not. This is why I mention dogma because I have no grounds on what to base your faith other than you think something exists that I do not. >> |
|
hi2pi
Male, 30-39, Canada
431 Posts
|
Monday, October 26, 2009 6:14:03 PM
i would venture that when Carl considered the cosmos, when he contemplated its ways, he experienced senses of awe, of calm and excitement, feelings that moved him deeply because he was, at least in his own mind, contemplating the Truth. that sense of awe and wonder is what i would call spirituality. an authentic, spiritual experience. i like your likening of a G.U.T. as a way of describing what God could be. that is an interesting thought. regarding the US and its high religiousity/high medication issue, i could venture to offer any number of ideas, but naahhhh, it's off-topic.
one more thing: whenever i see your posts i initially read your name as 'canuckssuck' rather than canusuck. and they did suck for the first few games,,,again, off topic. |
|
 canusuck
Male, 30-39, Canada
66 Posts
|
Monday, October 26, 2009 6:37:36 AM
OK-to me the unfortunate thing is that we are each looking at the same thing and seeing different results. It is tough for people to accept that maybe things are the way they are inspite of what we wish for. Is it sad that we are not pre-destined in any other way than to die. It is what we do in between that matters. I do not look at the awe inspired by this song and question anything from a spiritual sense, nor did Carl. Much like Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe." The word God in this sense, to me, is more or less an adjective to describe the grandeur of the universe to a single common point. So God could be the Grand Unified Theory when it is finally composed. A good question is this, if America is the country with the highest amount of religious practising Christians in the world why is it the most prescribed anti-depressant user in the world? Seems to me that spirituality doesn't fill the whole it creates it. Check mate!!! |
|
hi2pi
Male, 30-39, Canada
431 Posts
|
Sunday, October 25, 2009 7:24:00 PM
who's talking about dogma?
scientific 'theories' aren't defined the same way as common theories. they are regimented, testable, definable, and definitely slave to fact. and to say that i know nothing of science makes me lol considering my profession.
and way to go copy/pasting that definition of the word hymn, by the way. well wiki'd. you'll note that the whole gist of my posting here has been to argue for what should be, not was has been. new religion, new hymns, new spirit. married to science, but not devoid of soul.
so, enough of this. we're using different definitions and that's where our argument has become mired. |
|
The_Maddog
Male, 30-39, Europe
2792 Posts
|
Sunday, October 25, 2009 7:23:16 AM
If you belive science deals in absolutes then you knowthing about science. Whist it is true science has established a few "universal truths" which in themselves are absolutes, that is not what science is about. If that was the case then there would be no theorys (such as the theory of evolution) just facts. There wouldnt be hundreds if not thousands of scientists trying to disprove established ideas and beliefs about or universe and our place in it.Religious Dogma is an absolute however. It's final. It's all written down in black and white. Sure..some modern thinkers claim its open to interpretation but then thats defeating the object of said religious Dogma. Also If you think this little tune is a hymn then you obviously dont know what a hymn is or whats its purpose is.A hymn is a type of song, usually religious, specifically written for the purpose of praise, adoration or prayer, and typically addressed to a deity or deities, or to a prominent figure or personification |
|
hi2pi
Male, 30-39, Canada
431 Posts
|
Friday, October 23, 2009 8:30:04 PM
as for hymns...just happened, right here on this post. anyway, that's what i heard, and judging the responses of many on this post, that's what they heard.
also, re: absolutes. spirituality doesn't deal in absolutes. any good, resilient religion also has to abandon theirs as well. science, on the other hand, relies on absolutes. without absolutes the scientist tends to discredit a notion, which is not necessarily a bad thing. but i would point that out - absolutes are science's lifeblood. |
|
The_Maddog
Male, 30-39, Europe
2792 Posts
|
Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:53:54 PM
Not much better I'm afraid.
You are talking about spirituality and hymns. Ok..spirituality dosnt have to go hand in hand with religion but its still a search for an absolute or god whatever way you look at it and I dont buy into that. Religion deals in absolutes.Personally it would be nice if more people thought like you do but science and religion are not compatible and as for hymns...never gonna happen. |
|
hi2pi
Male, 30-39, Canada
431 Posts
|
Thursday, October 22, 2009 6:38:17 PM
trying to understand this cosmos. indeed, i'm sure you'll remember his line in the series cosmos, where he says with a shine in his eyes, the types you only ever see in the eyes of the born-again, something like: "truly, we are all made of starstuff". That line is one that convinces me that he is seeking his place in the cosmos just as fervently and spiritually as many in the past. learn what you can, and use it to enhance yourself. so, my original point (i think) is that our new hymns, the way we express our spirituality in the future, should be based on fact. just like this little tune. look at the cosmos. is there anything more holy or incredible that this? let's base our understanding of ourselves (spirituality) in our understanding or our cosmos. telescopes are good for looking out, but horrible for looking in. |
|
hi2pi
Male, 30-39, Canada
431 Posts
|
Thursday, October 22, 2009 6:30:41 PM
i would say that you are both seeing religion in a light that i do not see it in. it has been in opposition to science for a long time, but shouldn't be, and can't be for it to have any relevant meaning. spiritualism (which is perhaps the word i should have used) is not an illusion, it's a human necessity. we are (many of us) spiritual creatures. we understand our world (and our place in it) not just in terms of matter and energy and other measurable and quantifiable facts, but rather we also understand our place in the cosmos in terms of meaning, of value, in some sort of deeper way: in terms ineffable. just because we know that evolution is real doesn't suddenly make us soulless. My proposition is this: let us embrace what we know and let us strive to learn more. the more we know the easier (i think) spiritual fulfillment will be. and i would also point out that sagan, though he may not interpret it this way, was an immensely spiritual man. he spent his life trying to |
|
canusuck
Male, 30-39, Canada
66 Posts
|
Thursday, October 22, 2009 6:25:11 AM
Hi2PI-what disturbed me most about your first statement was "religion helps explain to us our place in the cosmos, right?"-this statement is completely against what these 2 men have strived their lives to accomplish without religions influence-religion is trying to get a free lunch and latch onto what these men have done whereas they didnt require religion to achieve what they have done-no flame wars required as religion does not get a free lunch with our place in the cosmos-i will always leave my sense of wonder to be stoked by scientific advances and the understanding of how insignificant we are-Pale Blue Dot |
|
The_Maddog
Male, 30-39, Europe
2792 Posts
|
Thursday, October 22, 2009 4:26:10 AM
You dont need to be a straw man. What your saying makes no sense. Religion (or most of them), by their very definition is an established set of ideas that attempt to explain the why's and how's of everything which ultimetly comes down to some supreme being who created everything who watches and judges everything we do!How ever..your talking about "true religion" which you claim to be modern? So whats the diffrence? Religion is religion, new or old. Theres only so much free thinking allowed in any religion. So please..tell me what religion you reffer to and i'll explain how wrong you are! |
|
hi2pi
Male, 30-39, Canada
431 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:48:45 PM
not what i said. i'm arguing for a new set of hymns, and saying that religion should work with science not against it. i don't recall saying anything about any book. i will not be your straw man. |
|
The_Maddog
Male, 30-39, Europe
2792 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 5:42:46 PM
In fact..screw it. Answer this!How can a "holy book" thats promoted the exact same ideas for centuries be even remotly responsible for "new thinking"? Delude yourself much? |
|
The_Maddog
Male, 30-39, Europe
2792 Posts
|
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2:14:09 PM
hi2piyeah...whatever man! |
|
hi2pi
Male, 30-39, Canada
431 Posts
|
Sunday, October 18, 2009 12:17:06 AM
canusuck:
i know is too late, and you probably won't read this but:
true religion (modern, new, meaningful) cannot be in opposition to science. your view of religion is a view of the dogmas of old. a religion of the years to come will not be as fearful and withdrawn and that which you describe. religion may subvert free thought in your paradigm, but for me religion is only worthy when it stimulates free thought, when it underpins deep reflection and truth. drop old religion. rediscover holiness through modern eyes. |
|
canusuck
Male, 30-39, Canada
66 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 6:11:55 AM
more importantly though that was a gorgeous song, beautifully done using Carl's own endearing voice-well done:) |
|
canusuck
Male, 30-39, Canada
66 Posts
|
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 6:10:37 AM
hi2pi-sorry to burst your bubble but religion and science are mutually exclusive-religion subverts free thought while science pursues the unanswerable-morals/spirituality are not exclusive to religions supposed domain |
|
Page: 1 2 3 Next >
|
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
