Are science and religion compatible, or oppositional philosophical approaches?
I am aware that there is a big debate on science on the forum at the moment. However, the question I am raising is a bit on the side of this. It is not purely about whether science is beneficial or not but, to what extent ideas can be fit into that context, and especially whether the divide can even be collapsed into the division between religion and science?
Part of my wondering is connected to the way in which I see that on this site, there are many advocating science, but, at the same time , threads on Plato and other writers who did not come from a scientific perspective are still of major significance. So, I am asking whether there are certain ideas which are relevant beyond all questions of historical knowledge and scientific developments in knowledge. I am aware that this could even connect to Plato's ideas of forms, but I am not certain to what extent this is the key aspect of my question.questions
I am raising the question of historical basis of philosophical ideas, and to what extent our interpretations of these are considered to be important. I think that scientific knowledge is part of this, but not convinced that it is the only aspect, because it is about whether there are ideas which override questions about science, especially as this is advancing and changing.
Part of my wondering is connected to the way in which I see that on this site, there are many advocating science, but, at the same time , threads on Plato and other writers who did not come from a scientific perspective are still of major significance. So, I am asking whether there are certain ideas which are relevant beyond all questions of historical knowledge and scientific developments in knowledge. I am aware that this could even connect to Plato's ideas of forms, but I am not certain to what extent this is the key aspect of my question.questions
I am raising the question of historical basis of philosophical ideas, and to what extent our interpretations of these are considered to be important. I think that scientific knowledge is part of this, but not convinced that it is the only aspect, because it is about whether there are ideas which override questions about science, especially as this is advancing and changing.
Comments (106)
It seems to me that historical context should be included in the process of idea evaluation to the degree depending on the goal of the evaluation, ergo your question seems a bit nebulous to me. Can you give us your take on it?
I am writing in 2021 and try to keep up to date with science and ideas in philosophical thinking, as I am sure that most people on this probably do. I am not saying that we, like have no basis f all human beings do are coming from a certain historical perspective. I am not trying to undervalue our knowledge, but do wonder how any human being at any point in history is able to say that, at that moment in time, they are at the supreme point of evaluation of all previous views. But, I am not really trying to point to such an ultimate point being impossible, but querying how we go beyond the specifics, and how we can look to exploring elements which go beyond historical limitations of interpretation.
I would add that I am not trying to go down the pathway of cultural relativism I am trying to think about ideas in a way which is able to transcend the dichotomies of the limitations of the specifics of varying cultural and historical contexts. This is more in relation to universal aspects or foundations of ideas and value systems, which are not restricted to the historical and cultural biases.
I think certain principles are valid regardless of context.
For instance art,aesthetics and religion/spirituality are valued in any era. The human condition is the same regardless of science,engineering or the political landscape.
I realise that you are almost completely new to the forum, so it is a privilege to engage with you and hope you continue to participate in the forum. I have just raised the question today because I like to think a bit beyond the tick boxes of current thinking, which just seems to be about the ongoing celebration of science. I am not against science and not even convinced of that the fierce battle between religion and science should be at the centre of philosophical debate.
I read the ideas from writers of many eras. I do realise that neuroscientists and other scientists capture important knowledge, and would not wish to underplay such ideas. However, when I look back at the history of philosophy, I do wonder how it all fits together, with a view to how we, those before us, and those to come will see it. Each of us comes with limits, but, even though I am only one voice on the forum, I believe that it is important to look at philosophy from the widest possible angles, not just in terms of science, but in connection with the history of ideas.
I am interested to hear that you have read posts of mine before joining. I am interested in meditation and I am a bit mystical by nature, but try to balance this with critical analysis, based on philosophy and other disciplines. I am still contemplating this title, and trying to edit it to open up the fullest discussion possible. Anyway, I welcome you to the forum, and hope it provides you with scope for thinking and raising of questions. I believe that each person who comes to the forum asks and opens up questions in a unique way.
How about,can philosophy reveal eternal truths that science cannot? That seems to be the gist of your title?
I must say I feel meditation can reveal eternal truths.
Modern science and philosophy don't even believe in eternity!
The question of eternal truths is an important area for discussion, and you may even wish to start a thread on the topic. I do practice meditation, but not as often as I think would be helpful. I often put off meditation until I feel up to it, but sometimes do it when I really don't know what else might help. When I was lying awake in the night, knowing that I had to go to work in the morning, even if I had not slept at all, was often the point where I turned to trying to meditate, even if it was in bed rather than sitting on a hard backed chair.
I will finish discussion for now, and you may find many interesting discussions beyond mine. Some may see science and religion as united in the quest for knowledge, whereas others may see it as being about opposition, but I will stop speaking and see if anyone is even interested in my question.
That is interesting as well. I actually wrote two threads already on religion already. You can look them up if you are interested, if you look at my profile and discussions. Really, I think that I am better at asking questions than answering them, but I do believe that both are important . But the three way opposition is important and it may be that you will ask the questions which will I have not yet vocalised.
Dialectics. Reductionism. And real religion being intuitive,mystical and meditative.
Science and philosophy do not adequately use direct human experience and seem to be obsessed with the misuse of the intellect.
Personal or mystic religion uses almost entirely the intuitive powers,personal experience and meditation.
Primary truth is never second hand. So it has to be first hand,which rules out science and philosophy.
I think that all the different approaches point to possible methods and conclusions. I see it as a very complex area, but others may not see it that way. Shortly, I will probably log off for today, but it will be interesting to see if anyone responds to you or to me. There are so many debates on the forum, so I would say that if no one else participates with us we should not feel too downcast, but I hope to interact with you again, and hope that you find many people to engage with. I think that there is such a variety of viewpoints available, and that is probably why I continue to engage on this site.
I would also recommend that you read the thread on the praise of science, because it the popular thread and it is possible that no one will ever look at, or make any comment, on the thread which I have which I have started because this site is extremely competitive, and I am sure that many on this site see me as a complete waste of space entirely.
However, if you wish to interact with me that is fine because I am willing to explore all areas, even if they are way beyond the scope of the popular areas of debate. My own interaction with the site is such that I think that the people who consider themselves as important on the site probably see me as of no significance at all. Nevertheless, I get loads of replies daily, and do my best to reply to them.
Theoretically compatible.
It is a good question to what extent they are compatible or opposed. I have seen some threads on the site which try to see religion and philosophy working together. However, on the other hand, I see so much antagonism between the two on the site. This makes me confused. I think that the whole area is the biggest muddle in philosophy, which is why I am raising it.
I think it was open to the Church, in 1635, to accept science as the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation - on the basis of St Augustine's, (or was it St Thomas Aquinas') assertion that divine truth and rational truth cannot be in conflict. If you believe reality is Created, and science is valid knowledge, then scientific knowledge is God's word - decoded by man, and religion would be an ongoing revelation. Technology would have been developed and applied in relation to this emerging understanding - as morally authoritative knowledge, and occurred as confirmation of God's blessings. Instead, Galileo's hypothetico-deductive methodology was decried as suspect of heresy, and science was rendered amoral - and abused by government and industry. Huge mistake that brings us to the brink of extinction.
I am sure that there have been great mistakes in the way the Church has interpreted science. My own perspective is really to try to especially in mistakes in understanding. This is essential to the development of strategies which focus on addressing the issues of our time, especially ecology and thinking about the wellbeing of future generations.
I'm not sure. Maybe it was necessary to science to make that absolute distinction between divine and rational knowledge. It's very difficult to walk the path not taken. I'm not a theologist, I'm a philosopher. I say "I think it was open to the Church..." But maybe this is how its meant to be. What is the WORD anyway?
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
I think that it is a very blurry line. Initially, I began reading Plotinus today with a view to discussion with @Apollodorus in relation to a thread which I began a few days ago. However, the more I I think about it, the whole question of thinking about the divine becomes more blurry. However, my own foreclosure on such matters remains because both the language of those who speak of the divine and those who speak of neuroscience seem caught up in knots.
@Madfool has already created a thread based on my own thoughts about philosophical knots and philosophical dangers, but, from my own perspective, philosophy, especially in connection between the areas arising in the area between science and religion is like being completely entangled in knots, and my own quest is about trying to see ways of disentangling these knots.
I'm trying to survive.
I am going to bed for today, but I will reply tomorrow.
Yes, I am trying to survive too, but logging out for today, and will see what discussion arises tomorrow.
Science and religion are different approaches to answering questions, and to that extent are incompatible (despite that some people turn to science for answers to some questions and religion to answers for other). But the domain of science is also narrower than that of religion, as in there are some questions that science offers no attempts to answer, while religion sometimes does.
Such as this very question. Science will give no answer to it, because it’s beyond the domain of science. Religion will give an answer to it, one that says to at least sometimes turn to religion. If one were to answer that one should not turn to religion on this matter, that would be an answer to a question beyond the scope of science, but also counter to the methods of religion.
I have just got home, but I am aware that my basic questions is how do we understand the basis of our knowledge about constructing experience of one experience of consciousness, and its source? I am not saying that this is a perfect question, but it does seem to me to be one which is relevant for thinking about who we are individually, in connection to a larger perspective about identity and life, from a any larger perspective, whether it is religious or scientific.
I am logging out for tonight, but I am thinking that the main issue to be addressed is the underlying source of consciousness, whether it is explained in religious or scientific terms.
"Consciousness" is a scientific problem. IMO religion provides nothing but dogmas – question-beggers not answers, and "solutions" to nothing but pseudo-problems. Thus, philosophy: the study of asking irrelevant (or pseudo) questions and dialectics of seeking relevant questions (which, when an empirical / informational threshold for answering is reached, become scientific problems). Weird scenes inside the gold mine, indeed!
Nothing really gets explained religiously, all of its answers are made up. Sure religion claims to have answers but there is no substance to the claim, no power for those answers to be demonstrated because its all imaginary, mythological.
Why would religions answer to consciousness be any different? It will just be made up, like everything else in religion.
No, the answer to your question is actually “neither”. Science nor religion explains consciousness, it is a mystery. Again, religion claims to explain it but it cannot demonstrate that knowledge any more than science can.
As to whether one or the other will eventually give us answers? I’ll bet you anything it will be science, a bet I would have won over and over and over throughout all of history...the first only time religion gives any answer to anything is when it relies on the same basic tool science utilizes: reason. They only get answers right when they apply reason, and do not apply religion.
Not necessarily irrational no...at least no more irrational than anyone else.
I don’t think science inoculates a person against being duped by emotional appeal which is what most religion is. The persons failure of reason on religion doesn’t mean their reason no longer functions.
I would say of these scientist who believe in religion that they are in error to doing so, but I can draw no conclusions about their general rationality.
What do you make of these scientists?
Ultimately I think whether a person is religious or not or science based depends on emotional belief factors.
I think rationality in terms of cold logic is a myth.
But that's not to say emotional belief is irrational per se or untruthful. But it can be. There are true beliefs and false beliefs. Deciding which is which is again a personal emotional decision.
The one aspect which I think is important is that when considering religion and religious experience is that it is essential that it is approached from the standpoint of rationality. I believe that this is essential for any serious philosophical consideration of religion. Otherwise I think that it really will be seen as being within the realms of nonsense, and be thrown aside by the vast majority of humanity.
Rationality has become a dogmatic dialectical tool,and a cover for sophistry.
I think you should try to alter your argument a little. I realise that your thread is focusing on pros and cons more specifically, than the actual discussion here. However, it is really focused on the same topic, which means that they are really almost in competition with one another. Ultimately,this is likely to mean that one is likely to fall and the other succeed. I don't wish to change my title again, especially as it is on its second page, so I am wondering if you could change your question a little. I am writing this here because I don't wish to spoil the start of your first thread. Of course, it is entirely up to you, and it could be that people would rather have a poll, and are sick of my writing.
Look as my thread as complimentary to yours.
In response to your view of rationality, I am not saying that it is the only way human beings approach life. However, if say a person has to stand up to any evaluation, it needs to be subjected and evaluated according to rationality. I don't think common sense is particularly useful because while we may use such an approach in our basic day to day thinking it does not in any way go to the critical level needed.
Quoting Zenny
Just to extend further what @DingoJones has said, here's a few quotes by religiously raised Nobel laureate:
[quote=Steven Weinberg, physicist, b. 1933]I have a friend — or had a friend, now dead — Abdus Salam, a very devout Muslim, who was trying to bring science into the universities in the Gulf states and he told me that he had a terrible time because, although they were very receptive to technology, they felt that science would be a corrosive to religious belief, and they were worried about it… and damn it, I think they were right. It is corrosive of religious belief, and it’s a good thing too.
One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment.
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.[/quote]
:fire:
So those scientists who are religious,they all live in the middle East?
Rationality is seen as a the main aspect of philosophy since the enlightenment. It is not as if every human being probably uses it, but if any discussion of religion is explored in a way within philosophy this is essential, or else we might as well just say absolutely anything. Anyway, I am about to log off for now, because I haven't got out of bed, and was really just checking my phone. I think that we will probably communicate a bit later.
I hope that our threads are seen by others as complementary, but you will have to bear in mind that the there is already a major one focusing on praising science and at least one on religion already.
Out threads are complimentary,don't worry.
I will just answer this really quickly by saying that it involves sound principles of logic. In particular, if one wishes to say that they believe in God, it is not enough from a philosophical point of view to say simply that one feels that way. Of course, that is not to say that one is not entitled to do that on a personal level, but that will not hold in the way of philosophical argument. Essentially, a major aspect of any tension between religion and philosophy is that science is based on facts, or, at least, what appear to be facts.
And clear explanations trump cold abstract dialectics and unnecessary reductionism. I mean philosophers don't even agree amongst themselves. So what has this sound logic achieved philosophically or practically?
Have an original thought chap!
I have thought about what I am trying to achieve in this thread. It is prompted by the way in which I am seeing so much opposition between the ideas of science and religion on this forum. Often, if I am involved in threads where it appears like a war is breaking out over these questions, I am inclined to get out of the discussion, but that is probably because I have a war over the issues within my own head in the first place.
I understand that you are an atheist and I am sure that you have come to that position based on your own searching. I am just surprised how people seem to get to a clear position because I see the debate between science and religion as being so mushy. I think that for many people Darwin's ideas are of key importance. I can remember as a child, going to school and having a teacher explain these ideas very badly and also being taught Biblical ideas at home and at church, which gave me so much grounds for confusion later. But, I think that there is so much potential for confusion and I believe that Darwin did not really come up with the idea of evolution to discredit religion in the first place.
I am aware that the differences between religious ideas and science goes way beyond Darwin. I am starting this thread with a view to some discussion about it, and it is quite likely that it may fizzle and die out before the end of the day. I would like it to be some kind of construction discussion about the topic, partly to sort out my own thoughts and I would like it to have this potential for others too.
If I am discussing religion with you I see it as being more than just defining the word religion and others. What I am aware of is the thread which you wrote several months ago on one of St Paul's letters, in which you were asking about whether being a Christian had to involve an emphasis on suffering. I did have very brief engagement with you on that thread and, at some stage in the thread you describe yourself as a default Christian.
I am probably in a similar position, but with a lot of niggles over it. I was extremely religious as a teenager. The real trigger for me questioning Christianity was due to a friend killing himself over his own angst, which I think was over this, although I had not seen him in the couple of weeks before he killed himself. But, on the last time I spoke with him he was reading St Paul's writings and he told me that he had smashed up a mirror because he was unable to live up to the life which involved following Jesus.
This lead me to really questioning the Bible, but I was beginning to do so anyway. I have never become an outright atheist, because something feels a bit wrong with it to me intuitively. Nevertheless, I see the biggest issue in trying to make sense of The Bible as being to what extent to take the ideas literally. I do often dwell on it, and wrote this thread in connection with how I am doing so based on the many different posts and threads on the forum for or against religion.
So, you are not sure about the nature of my question. The particular one comes in connection to my observations of some people who seem to think that religion and science can work together. For example, I know many people who work in the field of science and are Christians, or belong to some other organised religion. However, I am aware of other people who see the relationship between science and religion as involving an inherent clash.
I think that you are right to say that some aspects of life can be looked at by religion and others by science, but I don't think that it is as simple. I know that many people who are religious come to that by saying that they have faith. For many, this can even make it into a sin to question religious beliefs at all. But, I think sometimes the facts of science seem to glare in contrast to this. For example, I was taught to believe in the Virgin birth of Jesus, and many other supernatural beliefs. I could give up any kind of religious beliefs altogether and maybe I will. However, something seems a bit wrong with atheism. I was reading Plotinus yesterday before writing this thread and he was speaking about the soul and some of this seemed to resonate truth for me, and I think that perspectives of some who remove religion just seem rather flat.
I must have accepted the dichotomy way back when, and I still do; only reason, however, is of any use here and now – the "hereafter" will have to take care of itself if and when that time comes – as "faith" amounts to nothing more than (placebo-like anti-anxiety) make believe in the lives of most believers. After all, one can live by reason alone, without faith in g/G or mysteries as many (myself included) do, but no one can survive long, without reason, solely by faith. Their comparative worths, psychologically & empirically, are starkly unequal. Thus, the vast majority of believers rely for surviving and thriving on compartmentalized reason as an acquired add-on to their hereditary homespun faiths, and on occasion struggle with bouts of cognitive dissonance and self-sabotaging hypocrisy that often follow.
Philosophy's dog in this peculiarly (inaugurally) modern fight of "religion vs science" is genealogical, that is, religion-as-ancestor and science-as-descendant of philosophical inquiry (i.e. critique, doubt (epoché) + speculation). If the ancestors had sufficed there would not be any science. Likewise if religion had sufficed there would not be philosophy. From the seeds of religion have grown the roots system of philosophy which has flourished into the tree of arts and sciences that bears both medicinal and poisonous fruits. Earth is still covered in seeds and dirt, and roots must dig deeper and spread further in order to nourish the tree for it / us to continue to flourish.
Quoting Jack Cummins
The arts, especially music as (e.g.) Pythagoras, Bach, Beethoven, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Albert Murray, et al teach, render religion redundant. The numinous is everywhere (Thales, Blake) for those who patiently look and listen, play/create and wait (Beckett).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VlIyqiIJ98w :fire:
:death: :flower:
Have a read of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis. It ‘maintains that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science and that it inevitably leads to hostility’. There are some exponents of ‘the conflict thesis’ on this forum, and many in modern culture.
In my view, the conflict is generally between different varieties of dogma. Religious dogmatists tend towards fundamentalism or extremism. Anti-religious dogmatists tend towards materialism and scientism.
Freeman Dyson, an esteemed physicist, had this to say:
[quote=Freeman Dyson’s Templeton Acceptance Speech; https://www.edge.org/conversation/freeman_dyson-progress-in-religion] The universe shows evidence of the operations of mind on three levels. The first level is elementary physical processes, as we see them when we study atoms in the laboratory. The second level is our direct human experience of our own consciousness. The third level is the universe as a whole. Atoms in the laboratory are weird stuff, behaving like active agents rather than inert substances. They make unpredictable choices between alternative possibilities according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It appears that mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every atom. The universe as a whole is also weird, with laws of nature that make it hospitable to the growth of mind. I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension. God may be either a world-soul or a collection of world-souls. So I am thinking that atoms and humans and God may have minds that differ in degree but not in kind. We stand, in a manner of speaking, midway between the unpredictability of atoms and the unpredictability of God. Atoms are small pieces of our mental apparatus, and we are small pieces of God's mental apparatus. Our minds may receive inputs equally from atoms and from God. This view of our place in the cosmos may not be true, but it is compatible with the active nature of atoms as revealed in the experiments of modern physics. I don't say that this personal theology is supported or proved by scientific evidence. I only say that it is consistent with scientific evidence.[/quote]
There are other such thinkers who see a continuity between the scientific and religious vision. Even Einstein did in a way - he was completely uninterested in ‘churchianity’ or organised religion but he maintained that the order of the cosmos bespoke a higher intelligence.
[quote=Albert Einstein]I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I do not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God.[/quote]
(The last sentence was clearly mistaken, in that many will not agree with his sentiment, but the point remains.)
I will write a full response to you and Dingo Jones later, but I am going to do a few things and go to the shop. However, I think that the idea of you being an altarboy will make many on the forum smile. I have often wondered is the picture on the profile you as a child?
Thanks for the response, I will read it fully this afternoon.
I think that reason is essential to trying to understand any of the questions underlying religion. I think that it important to be able to step into the perspectives of the people who wrote the religious texts. We are in such a different position of information than certain other eras, but I definitely don't think that the ideas were just made up. I do think that people were searching for answers and, even now, I don't think that science provides all of them. It provides basic models but they should not be taken too concretely, just as literal interpretations of sacred texts often leads to misunderstandings.
I am willing to come up with my own working definitions. They are based on a mixture of my own reading and thinking.I would say that religion involves a certain set of beliefs about life, which is based on some belief in an underlying source or higher power, which human beings believe have been known through some kind of revelation. I would say that the philosophy of religion involves the exploration of the basic questions which are relevant for the rational exploration of the ideas which are the basis for individual and cultural religious ideas. This can be done through examination of religious texts. It can also involve drawing upon various other disciplines, such as the physical and social sciences to aid the critical discussion of the recurrent themes which occur in religion and it can include looking at comparative religion too.
The question of what does the Bible have to do with atheism involves that of whether one chooses to accept or reject the belief that the texts involve some divine revelation. The Judaeo- Christian worldview is a religious system which suggests that God revealed himself to mankind. However, this incorporates the ideas of the Old Testament, Jahweh, and the teachings of Jesus and the ideas of the other New Testament writers.
Religion can at times be internally consistent which creates the illusion of rationality, but outside the strict, self serving parameters of religious dogma the reasoning does not hold up.
Also, just because you feel science doesn’t deal with the “human experience” doesn’t mean you should just make up an answer which is what religion does.
Quoting Zenny
I just couldn’t disagree more. First, you yourself just submitted that some scientists are religious so obviously it’s not an either/or situation. I’m not sure what you mean by “emotional belief factors” but it sounds like you are trying to draw a classic false equivalence between the basis for believing in religion and the basis for believing in science.
It’s obviously not true that “rationality in terms of cold logic” is a myth. This, if you will forgive me for saying, is an attempt to ignore rationality in order to create legitimacy for religion by taking it away from rationality and by extension science. This is the false equivalence. Religious ideas have no real comparison with science, you know this, admit this and practice this every day in everything except religious ideas. You would never fix your car, plan a route to work, follow a recipe to make a meal, figure something out or any number of things on the basis of personal emotional decisions. You might have some emotions but the tool you rely on is rationality, logic. It’s only for religion this tool is suspended. If you didn’t suspend it, you would come to the conclusion that religion is false.
Everything you mentioned you do with feelings. You fix your car according to to the beliefs you have. Either do it yourself or if you don't feel able you ask a mechanic.
What you claim as logic is really memory of a task,plus some creative tinkering and pushed by your desire to fix your car.
Tell me,in meeting a partner do you get a tape measure and engage in dialectics and a DNA test to assess their suitability? In everyday life,very few use scientific logic or philosophy.
Of course it was made up...the bible is a man made text. Why would it be any different than other mythology? Zeus, Odin, Ra...these aren’t made up?
Yes religion was a first attempt at finding answers when we didn’t know anything but it wasn’t about the spiritual questions you imply religion is able to answer today...it was answers to many questions science came to answer. What’s going on with that volcano? What’s that big glowing ball of fire and how does it move across the sky? Why has this persons face broken out is sores and growing up blood? Gods, demons, Apollo were the answers religion had...and science gave us better, not made up answers.
You only shift the answers religion is for now because religion has had to give so much ground to science already. All that’s left is the gaps of science, the answers it doesn’t have, for the believer to insert their made up stuff.
I think that your point about the Bible being written by humans is important. It does involve considering how it was written is essential. We have to consider what got included and what was excluded. This involves the history of the Church, especially the climate of tension and what were considered to be Gnostic and, thereby cast outside, especially under the authority of Origen.The Gospel of John and his Book of Revelation, somehow made it into the canon of accepted teachings, whereas many other ended up in the collection which was discovered in Nag Hammadi.
But, apart from this we have to consider the migration of ideas, and the way in which ideas in the Old Testament, were drawn from diverse sources, probably including Egyptian ones. It is interesting to see how certain themes and symbolic ideas are similar in Christianity and other religious traditions.
However, I do believe that ideas cannot be dismissed simply because they are symbolic, because that is the language of the human psyche. In that way, I don't think that they should be seen as made up. It makes a big difference whether we see the ideas in the Bible, or in the sacred texts of other religions as literal or symbolic, but I think that we could still see the realisation of symbolism as being from a divine source, even if this involves some kind of juxtaposition of these ideas within the human mind. Also, we could ask how much is based on historical facts and how much on the symbolic interpretation of certain facts?That is where I think it gets rather difficult.
It’s not either or, it’s both. As I said, you experience emotions of course but your emotions are not what you are relying on when you fix your car. Really strong feelings don’t fix a car engine...to fix the car requires logic and rationality. That occurs simultaneous with emotions that a person feels. The reason you have for fixing the car might be emotional, but you aren’t relying on them to actually do it.
The emotions might be present, as they always are with humans, but they are not the means.
Quoting Zenny
No, there is memory of the task, “creative tinkering”, a desire to fix the car AND logic. Again, you are trying hard to ignore the presence of logic/rationality so that you can make a false equivalence, to try and take away the very solid ground science has so it can be considered the on the same (sorry, not trying to be rude) feeble basis upon which religion is based. Religion doesn’t give you answers, it gives you place holders for questions to which you have no answers. The correct answer to any questions you think religion answers is “I don’t know”.
Quoting Zenny
Yes, feeling emotions towards someone is an emotional thing. Obviously.
It comes off as pretty disingenuous to use an example like that. It should be obvious that I wasn’t claiming logic motivates people in situations which are explicitly not logical like falling in love.
The last point exposes your "rationality" . The most important thing that a human does is finding a partner and having a Family. And your claiming logic doesn't apply here. So when its something ultra important we turn to irrationality? Or is it that emotions are primary? Why abandon your number one tool,logic,when the going gets tough?
Sure, there is history and the churches cherry picking to consider but none of that makes the stories any less man made.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Why do we have to consider it? For what purpose?
I mean this is even worse, the made up stories were stolen Friday m other made up stories.
You didn’t answer my question. Zeus, Odin, Ra...are these made up? What’s the difference between them and any other god concept?
Quoting Jack Cummins
Sure...made up stories that have meaning, even deep meaning. Like most fairy tales. Symbolism...ya, like so many stories do.
It doesn’t seem difficult to me at all. None of that speaks to the truth of religion. Nothing you’ve said indicates to me a divine source.
Why do you think Christianity (for example) has a divine source but not Zeus or Odin?
Lol
Ya, and?
Do you mean a baseless assertion? I provided argument with my assertions, none of which you addressed.
Quoting Zenny
I don’t‘ think so, I think you failed to grasp the point I was making.
Quoting Zenny
It’s only your opinion that the most important thing is partner and family...speaking of baseless assertions. I said logic doesn’t apply when falling in love...you expanded/redefined that to finding a partner and having a family, then you used this thing I did not say to make an argument. That’s called a straw man argument, when you pretend I said something I did not and then argue against that pretend position instead of my actual one. No one said we should turn to irrationality either. Just stop, I’m not your enemy, I’m trying to have an honest discussion on which we disagree. There is no need for you to play “gotcha”.
When it comes to finding a partner and starting a family of course logic is involved. As I said before, logic and emotions are not mutually exclusive. An emotional desire to fix the car at the same time as logic is being applied to actually do it. Having a family requires planning and forethought (well, it should) and most of the time some sort of emotional connection like love.
Lastly, I was talking about falling in love and that isn’t something you have a tool for. Therefore it isn’t something in which I would be abandoning a tool like logic.
Now, I’m not sure why you ignored my actual arguments and instead focused on trying to conjure irrationality on my part but before we get lost in the weeds you should do so. I believe the points you ignored refuted your arguments. Show me where my counterpoints fail.
Yes, I have. I consider it due diligence to question all my positions and attachments that way.
Thanks for the link, as it was extremely relevant to the question which I raised. I think that the statement by Einstein is especially helpful. It does make me think of the progression of ideas which Frazer points to in 'The Golden Bough': myth, magic and science. My own feeling is that in some ways there are conflicts and in other ways there are potential unities. I don't really see the theory of evolution as being in conflict with religion because it is fairly easy to view the Book of Genesis as a mythic account and still hold onto other ideas, especially those in the Old Testament. One potential area which is not so easy to resolve is that of life after death.
It is interesting to think how Buddhism allows for more flexibility than Christianity or other theistic religions. But, in my own view, I think that if I really consider a belief in God, my own way of embracing such an idea would be very different from most orthodox ones. I definitely would not be thinking of God as some kind of father. Really, I am into wishing to hold onto certain elements of religious thinking, underlying all religions, more in the way Aldous Huxley spoke in, 'The Perennial Wisdom.' I am more inclined to think of Jesus and Buddha as more advanced in their thinking, like many others described by Richard Bucke. While I am not certain about reincarnation, I do wonder if it would be really possible for a person to achieve that kind of level of awareness within one lifetime.
Generally, I see dogmatiism of any kind as problematic insofar as it seems to be about the need to assert one viewpoint so strongly, as if one was writing in capital letters. I have friends who are atheists and ones who are religious, but they don't seem entrenched in dogmatiism. I have been a bit startled by many various threads which are being started with an emphasis on the extremes of being for or against religion. It is one of the aspects of this forum which I really dislike, and I believe that my real intention behind this particular thread is about trying to think beyond the extremes and rigidity.
I am glad that you can appreciate the numinous, especially the arts. I think that I know people who claim to be Christians or of other religious persuasion, but don't seem to have much appreciated for anything beyond the mundane. I also think a lot of people adopt religious beliefs but don't really reflect on them that much at all. I used to have really complex discussions with my parents, mainly as teenager, so I think that it was inevitable that I would question religion at some point. However, even though they engaged in discussion with me, as far as I am aware, they never really questioned in the way I have done. At the point where I really was questioning I stopped discussing religion with them at all, because I thought it would be too difficult for them and for me.
I am still thinking about your last reply. I will write a response tomorrow because I have written a lot of posts and my eyes are so tired that I am not planning to write any further ones today.
:up:
And very importantly,why doesn't logic include "falling in love"? A sign that logic is not primary???
Alright well if you will not respond to points against you then you have opted out of having a discussion and I won’t waste my time.
Problem is that people so invested in their ideology cannot dicuss the actual meaning of religion and spirituality. I appreciate many religious folks are exactly the same. So your both on the same level of dogma.
. First of all ... What is Science ?
. Science is the form of Knowledge which looks for the inner ... hidden power in matter ...
. Second of all ... What is Religion ?
. Religion is the form of Knowledge which looks for the inner ... hidden power in consciousness ...
. There is no conflict between religion and science ... in fact ... they are complementary to each other ...
. I'm all for Science ... I'm all for Religion ... I'm all for the whole ... I condemn the parts ...
. Science is the periphery ... and Religion is the core ... Together ... form an unity ...
. The periphery cannot exist without the core ... as ... science cannot exist without religion ... Both try to seek truth ... to know truth ...
. Any scientist who is not religious ... who is not in the pilgrimage of seeking oneself ... who is not in the inner journey ... in the discovery of oneself ... who is just in the outer journey ... know well ... he is not a scientist at all ... he cannot be ... by the very nature of reality ... I'm not talking about these stupid so-called religions ... in fact ... they're not religions ... they're just huge economical movements ... like Christianity ... and so on so forth ... they're just lies ... so you can be comfortably sleepy ... they're just opiums for the mass ... for the mediocres ... for the stupid mind ... I'm talking about self-fulfillment ... that's the true and the only religion possible ... my friend ...
. Religion means ... by it's very roots ... Metanoia ... Metanoia means ... to return to oneself ... to return to the very nature of oneself ...
. That's what Jesus ... in the new testament ... meant with Metanoia ... The inner alchemy of returning to oneself ... By Metanoia ... Jesus meant: " God is within oneself ... ", but you must know yourself ... you must return to yourself ... return to your very roots ... to your innocence ... you must become as innocent as a child is ... so you can become a God ... or according to Jesus ... enter to the kingdom of God ... Which is within you ... not in an outer Heaven ... but in your Heart ... but in your inner Heaven - "I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
. And unless you do it in a scientific approach ... self-realization ... won't happen. So ... Yes ... religion and science are complementary ...
. Religion can exist without science ... but science cannot exist without religion ... without a religious spirit ... the core can exist without the periphery ... but the periphery cannot exist without the center ...
. One must complement the Inner with the Outer ... one must complement Mind with Heart ... one must complement God with Devil ... one must complement the extremes ... because they are extremes of the same coin ... of the same reality ... of the same energy ...
. Religion and Science ... together ... they're a Whole ... they form reality ... and everything Whole ... is Holy ...
In the last decade or so, after respective lives filled with hardships and achievements, I've casually engaged them both separately on religious, or biblical, topics, always from my end emphasizing moral lessons that can be derived from scripture, etc. My brother has grown more speculative, maybe influenced by his third wife (a wonderful, thoughtful, and "empathic", former-Christian turned pantheist(?)), and thereby he's more willing to engage my 'irreligion and antitheism' somewhat charitably. I don't ever trouble my mom with my questions though; the prayerful life works for her and I see no benefit in disturbing such a (positive, active) peace of mind.
With my brother's children and stepchildren, all in their mid-to-late twenties, I've engaged them only when they've come to me with questions. Only two out of seven; the others accept the "beliefs" with which they were raised with varying degrees of complacency? conformity? (which might just be immaturity-related.) Nephew and niece who are "searching", however, try to pin me down as this or that type of "nonbeliever" and I encourage them to comparatively study religions and ethics while they are seeking. They seem to grapple better with the more affirmative position of 'pandeist' than the more critical 'antitheist' so I deemphasize the latter side of the coin with them.
It's mostly a lonely life to think for oneself, especially to think against oneself and all one has been raised, or taught, to think. Freethought, it turns out, while free of walls isn't free of abysses.
[quote=Twilight of the Idols]To live alone one must be either a beast or a god, says Aristotle. Leaving out the third case: one must be both – a philosopher.[/quote]
Totally agree. As I have said elsewhere, much religion functions as social club membership, belonging/social contact - and in my view many theists don't really take the idea of God seriously or even believe in a God.
In my experience, it is quite common for atheists to have a reverence for life and an intense relationship with the numinous (the arts, nature, reflection) and the 'spiritual' (however that looks for folk), while the religious folk are often deeply committed to acquisitive materialism and superficial ideas.
I've often posited to myself that theists may make better atheists and atheists may make better theists.
I agree that thinking can be a lonely life. For many, religious communities are the cement of their lives.The idea of thinking 'against oneself' also makes sense to me as I have as heated rows with myself, over ideas, as many taking place on this forum.
I still have not outrightly discussed my own kinds of questioning of religion with my mum, and my father died without me ever following through the discussions we had as a teenager. My dad used to speak of 'buying a ticket into heaven.'
I find it interesting that your mother was a psychiatric nurse, because that is my own work background. I worked with so many staff in nursing who were fundamentalist in psychiatric nursing. If I was on night shifts I used to frequently be next to staff reading their Bibles. I remember one time I was reading Marilyn Manson's autobiography how a member of staff was so bothered, and for a long time afterwards kept on and on about it. I can also imagine that you have experienced a difficult time as an atheist, in the black community, because a vast proportion of the nursing staff were from Africa and the West Indies. However, the evangelical people do seem to have a sense of enjoyment of life, and most of them love dancing.
After thinking it through, I don't really see the ideas of religion coming from a distinctly different place to those of ones such as Zeus. I believe that it could be called the divine, or that is the way many people view it, or it could be the collective unconscious. But, I think that it is a matter of people entering into a certain kind of dream consciousness, or 'tuning in ' differently to the way people do in everyday awareness. I know that some people find the idea of 'hidden' as a bit too much, and I am not sure that it is actually about hidden aspects of reality, but about just perceiving a bit differently.
Why do we think of believing in Zeus to be somewhat silly but not so for Christianity if they are both legitimate beliefs from the same source?
I am not aware of actually having said that I think belief in Zeus is silly at all. I do have some appreciation for accounts of the Egyptians and many early systems of ideas. One account which I think is extremely important for understanding ancient knowledge is Julian Jaynes, ' Origins of the Bicameral Mind", in which the author suggests that at some distant past times, human beings did not see the clear distinction between inner and outer experience that we do and thought that the gods, or symbols of the gods, were literal. I am not completely convinced of Jaynes' line of thinking, but it points to a possible way of understanding ancient thoughts and beliefs.
If you meet someone who believes Apollo pulls the sun across the sky you don’t think of that belief as foolish?
Have you ever heard the expression to keep an open mind but not so open your brain falls out?
Do you really think of belief in Zeus as on the same footing as Christianity? You take them both to be more or less equally justified/legitimate?
I understand the desire to be open to everyone’s way of looking at things but there must be limits or you will end up talking nonsense. Some beliefs are just ignorant and erroneous.
I have met all kinds of unusual ideas about aliens, fallen angels, devils and God, because my own work background has been working in psychiatric hospitals. I have also known people outside of hospital who have psychotic experiences, so I am definitely not in the position whereby I would suggest that I believe everyone's experiences as completely objectively true. I think that each person's suggestions have to be listened to but not with a view to believing them to be true.
I think that it is far harder to think about the ideas from the past in the exact same way as we think about the ones people describe to us. I think part of the problem is the reliability of the source material. Texts are written in various ways and I do think that if one tries to read them like they were newspaper texts it gets rather messy. I do know some people who try to do that and it doesn't really work because the overall world picture of the time they were written was so different. The biggest difference in the interpretation of the Bible is those who try to take it all so literally and those who see certain aspects as more symbolic truths. But, because there is so much which may be more symbolic it makes it hard to work out the basic facts. There is so little historical evidence apart from the texts, including those which were rejected from the mainstream, especially the Gnostic gospels.
Not sure you really answered my question there, but I understand what you are getting at.
What about modern religions? Scientology is newer than Christianity, let’s compare those then. Do you take Scientology more or less seriously than Christianity?
Maybe 'religiosity' is an atavistic, neurotic, reaction to the fear of contagion, particularly psychosis and (maybe) bad dreams, which parallels, or mutually reinforces, the fear of other existential (unknown) unknowns like mortality? (Epicurus) Terror management via ritualized magical thinking (E. Becker) – from shamanism, gnosticism & astrology down to Qabalism, theosophical angelology & UFOlogy and on to fundamentalism & millenarianism. :pray: A-effin-men. Philosophy from the beginning, however, (mostly) debunks and demystifies our 'night sweats', and thereby midwifes nascent arts & sciences as alternatives ways of perceiving-affirming our lives and more likely flourishing on that account than most of our haunted & blinkered ancestors.
Now, if I am awake, unable to sleep in the night like last night, I am not just worrying about the actual issues themselves, but how I am going to write about them properly in the various threads which I have started.
Of all the various groups and movements, Scientology is one which I am less familiar with. However, I am familiar with various new age kinds of ideas such as those of David Icke, or the ideas of the artist Benjamin Creme, who founded transmission meditation.
I went to the last ever talk Creme gave before he died in his 90s, and did go to some transmission meditation workshops. I did embrace some of his ideas, such as the idea of a divine hierarchy of masters, and the idea of channeling. However, the part at which I, and I think that many others too could not accept, was his suggestion that Christ, or Maitreya, was living in East London, waiting to emerge to the world. This would have been about 6 years ago, and, apparently Creme had been saying this for years. So, when I think religious ideas, I do with awareness of how I had some involvement with this particular set of ideas, and when I really decided that Maitreya was not about to appear to the world I felt rather let down.
Well I can respect that your on a spiritual journey of some kind, but I’ve never found any such beliefs to be convincing of their truth. Ups seem to be searching for meaning, most of us have been there.
Yes, I am a bit of a seeker.
Which describes you most accurately (or most often)?
If none, then explain.
I think that your question is to me, and I would argue that my answer would be neither a,b, or c, and probably more like:
Believing that x, y, z are possible explanations, with fluctuating per cent emphasises on any one of each from time to time, and probably no time when any of the three variables is ruled out completely. I don't see this as absolute, because it is even possible to bring in a v, and u occasionally
I think part of my own mind is such that when I read a book, from many perspectives, ranging from atheistic nihilism, to Christian, Greek or many kinds of writers is such that for a certain amount of time, I really feel able to become absorbed into that worldview. So, what we was trying to say is that I can usually see a variety of possible views and I juxtapose them differently. I don't know why but I probably have too much of an open mind. I always see things from various angles, almost at the same time. I think it was partly an approach which I cultivated but also the one which seems to come most naturally. I am just surprised by the way in which so many people do seem to keep fairly fixed approaches, religious or non religious.
In a way, I see such a process of selection as connected to the philosophical approach, because it is meant to be about really exploring ideas to their fullest, and going into deep and analytical engagements with them.
I had not thought about it as schizoid, but on some level it involves splitting. It is interesting though how people who become psychotic really go into the concrete interpretation of religious experience. I came across so many people with religious psychosis in mental health, and I have friends who have had breakdowns involving religious delusions. It is possible to lose all rationality really.
Anyway, I am about to log off for now, as it is about midnight...