Unification of Science and Religion

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes I can just see you and 100 atheists partaking in the scientific experiments which begins with the hypothesis that we will place a 25 to stone on top of two tall stones.

Then you have the problem of Coral Castle

http://coralcastle.com/

We invite you to tour our sculpture garden in stone, built by one man, Edward Leedskalnin. From 1923 to 1951, Ed single-handedly and secretly carved over 1,100 tons of coral rock, and his unknown process has created one of the world's most mysterious accomplishments. Open every day, the Coral Castle Museum welcomes visitors from around the world to explore this enchanting South Florida destination.

How was a 5' man capable of moving all this coral rock without notice? We don't know. The trouble with blind deniers is that they cannot accept that there may be interactions of universal laws that only a few are aware of.

Like I said, these apparent "mysteries" say more about your ignorance, than they do about the past. I imagine they are also about your lack of discrimination about the sort of TV you watch. Can I suggest you stop watching the "History Channel" - It's a croc of shite.

[Nick_A]

Hobbes wrote:

Like I said, these apparent "mysteries" say more about your ignorance, than they do about the past. I imagine they are also about your lack of discrimination about the sort of TV you watch. Can I suggest you stop watching the "History Channel" - It's a croc of shite.

Yes, a person may learn more about human nature by watching the Playboy Channel. Why deny the value of good rump? But that doesn't mean a man shouldn't strive for a variety of experiences in the quest for meaning

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hobbes wrote:

Like I said, these apparent "mysteries" say more about your ignorance, than they do about the past. I imagine they are also about your lack of discrimination about the sort of TV you watch. Can I suggest you stop watching the "History Channel" - It's a croc of shite.

Yes, a person may learn more about human nature by watching the Playboy Channel. Why deny the value of good rump? But that doesn't mean a man shouldn't strive for a variety of experiences in the quest for meaning

Yeah and some people think you can learn nuclear physics from the back of a cereal packet, but I'd not recommend it.

[uwot]

Dunno if anyone is familiar with Wally Wallington, but he has some interesting ideas on the subject: http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/
Nick_A, do you think your selective response to posts is part of your psychological defences?

[Nick_A]

uwot, Nick_A, do you think your selective response to posts is part of your psychological defences?

I don't know what I've avoided except for the assertion that "your momma sucks." This thread is about the unification of science and religion, fact and value, and why the obvious experiences so much resistance.

[Arising_uk]

Dunno if anyone is familiar with Wally Wallington, but he has some interesting ideas on the subject: http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/

Bloke looks like a genius home-engineer, pity he uses out-of-date video plugins.

Still, I'm gonna buy his dvd as I have to see how he does this.

[Greta]

This thread is about the unification of science and religion, fact and value, and why the obvious experiences so much resistance.

Problem 1: American fundamentalism and anti-science movements. There is n intellectual war going on in the US. This leads to tribal affiliations and deepening suspicion of the unorthodox. It's hard to be accepted as agnostic with many Americans today. They seem to always suspect you of "really" being with "the other side". That's war. Ho Hum.

Problem 2: Confusion due to the disconnect between the objective and subjective. Since we don't yet understand it we tend to either mythologise or deny the mysteries, or make assumptions about it. Yes, it is confusing, which is why I don't respect confident opinions expressed in this area.

Problem 3. Time. Humans have always taken short term views of life on Earth and humanity for efficacy's sake. Even in today's "enlightened age" we make the same mistake as the ancients, missing the lessons of history. Many commenting online (including here) are largely reciting today's usual materialist mantras - as though our exceedingly formative and primitive technology has almost cracked open the ultimate nature of reality.

We are still primitive, our technology in its infancy. Consider a civilisation just a thousand years more advanced than us - a negligible period in evolutionary time. They will consider us to be interesting savages and our orthodox views deeply flawed. Meanwhile, the universe has approximately a trillion or so years to produce a species whose discoveries will make our ignorance today so profound we would seem like bugs to them.

[surreptitious57]

We are still primitive our technology in its infancy. Consider a civilisation just a thousand years more advanced than us - a negligible period
in evolutionary time. They will consider us to be interesting savages and our orthodox views deeply flawed. Meanwhile the universe has approxi
mately a trillion or so years to produce a species whose discoveries will make our ignorance to day so profound we would seem like bugs to them

Absolutely so Greta. The universe may be fourteen billion years old but that is a mere fraction of its potential existence. From that perspective we are not all that advanced. Future civilisations shall be more advanced by comparison and this could apply to alien ones if they exist too. We only think of ourselves as advanced because we are measuring it relative to our own past and not instead to the life span of the entire universe

[Greta]

We are still primitive our technology in its infancy. Consider a civilisation just a thousand years more advanced than us - a negligible period in evolutionary time. They will consider us to be interesting savages and our orthodox views deeply flawed. Meanwhile the universe has approximately a trillion or so years to produce a species whose discoveries will make our ignorance to day so profound we would seem like bugs to them

Absolutely so Greta. The universe may be fourteen billion years old but that is a mere fraction of its potential existence. From that perspective we are not all that advanced. Future civilisations shall be more advanced by comparison and this could apply to alien ones if they exist too. We only think of ourselves as advanced because we are measuring it relative to our own past and not instead to the life span of the entire universe

Yes. It's interesting how long the lessons of history are taking to be absorbed. Every generation of humanity figured they understood reality and future generations have shown that not to be so. How can we even imagine the kind of conceptions beings a thousand years ahead of us will devise, let alone 10,000 years or more?

I'm chatting with a bloke on another site who claims with absolute conviction that physical reality is all there is. He says there is no causative link between brains and consciousness, and that consciousness does not exist, that it's illusory. It's apparently all just brains interacting with environment. He knows he is right, apparently.

Aamazing that humanity could work out the whole of this reality caper with just a few hundred years of science! You have to feel for future scientists; all they'll have to look forward to is filling in the tiny, unimportant details left over by us :D

[surreptitious57]

The Enlightenment may be only four hundred years old but we have been asking serious questions about the nature of reality for at least two thousand. First we had to possess the cognitive capability to do that which was acquired over evolutionary time. Still it is fascinating that we
have only recently been able to get accurate answers to such questions given how as a species we are one to two hundred thousand years old
Though even if we are totally alone in the universe our intellectual superiority over our ancestors shall fade in comparison to our descendants
whose own will fade in comparison to their own and so on. Right up until we eventually become extinct as a species. This is why I try to avoid
as much as possible having absolute views about everything although some first principles or axioms are however necessary. But too many and
they can be intellectually restricting as well as possibly wrong. So unless I am totally certain about something I maintain an open mind instead

[Greta]

The Enlightenment may be only four hundred years old but we have been asking serious questions about the nature of reality for at least two thousand. First we had to possess the cognitive capability to do that which was acquired over evolutionary time. Still it is fascinating that we have only recently been able to get accurate answers to such questions given how as a species we are one to two hundred thousand years old.

Fair points. Agree.

Though even if we are totally alone in the universe our intellectual superiority over our ancestors shall fade in comparison to our descendants whose own will fade in comparison to their own and so on. Right up until we eventually become extinct as a species.

In a sense we are "alone in the universe" anyway, no matter what kind of life may be out there. An amazing starfaring civilisation in a distant galaxy might as well not be present as far as we're concerned, for all the good it does us.

Still, here's different ways we can go extinct. We might just disappear or we might be supplanted by cyber-enhanced privileged minorities. The latter will not only be able to preserve our history, but perhaps eventually develop VR models of aspects of history.

This is why I try to avoid as much as possible having absolute views about everything although some first principles or axioms are however necessary. But too many and they can be intellectually restricting as well as possibly wrong. So unless I am totally certain about something I maintain an open mind instead

Agree. I don't see any point in nailing my colours to the mast. It's frustrating to realise that, we who are alive today will never get to understand what's really going on in life before we snuff it, but at least we understand a little more than those who came before us :)

[yiostheoy]

http://www.krishnapath.org/quantum-phys ... edantists/

The famous Danish physicist and Nobel Prize winner, Laureate Niels Bohr (1885-1962) (pictured above), was a follower of the Vedas. He said, “I go into the Upanishads to ask questions.” Both Bohr and Schrödinger, the founders of quantum physics, were avid readers of the Vedic texts and observed that their experiments in quantum physics were consistent with what they had read in the Vedas.

Consider the source, you... you devout fanatic. It's by the Krishnapaths. I need not say more.

I don't know what Vedantism is, but I bet you anything that if it's a religious sect, then Bohr, Schroedinger, et al, never even heard of it, let alone being devout believers or followers of that shit.

These religious shit writers write any shit, and followers keep repeating that shit. AAAAND they expect other people to accept that that shit is real shit.

And I don't mind if I get kicked out of this site for using the word "Shit", because I shall feel I died a martyr's execution in defense of truth from the shit the devout fanatics try to force on others.

All I hope for is some first warning or temporary disciplinary action instead of outright banning.

Well it looks like you are still alive.

I use the term "crap" a lot because it is simply a word derived from a name -- Thomas Crapper.

He was the first importer to America of the new British flush toilet back in the 1800's.

His name became associated with the machine itself -- called "the Crapper flush toilet".

Soon his name also became associated with the product as well -- "crap".

Funny how language works.

A lot of religion is pure crap.

A lot of modern science is pure crap too.

There is even crap in Philosophy -- always has been and always will be.

You are the most recent person to join this forum before me who has more than 1 single post.

I think the 10 post mod monitoring of new members loses a lot of people.

Looks like you have survived however. I congratulate you my brother Philosopher.

[yiostheoy]

The Enlightenment may be only four hundred years old but we have been asking serious questions about the nature of reality for at least two thousand. First we had to possess the cognitive capability to do that which was acquired over evolutionary time. Still it is fascinating that we have only recently been able to get accurate answers to such questions given how as a species we are one to two hundred thousand years old.

Fair points. Agree.

Though even if we are totally alone in the universe our intellectual superiority over our ancestors shall fade in comparison to our descendants whose own will fade in comparison to their own and so on. Right up until we eventually become extinct as a species.

In a sense we are "alone in the universe" anyway, no matter what kind of life may be out there. An amazing starfaring civilisation in a distant galaxy might as well not be present as far as we're concerned, for all the good it does us.

Still, here's different ways we can go extinct. We might just disappear or we might be supplanted by cyber-enhanced privileged minorities. The latter will not only be able to preserve our history, but perhaps eventually develop VR models of aspects of history.

This is why I try to avoid as much as possible having absolute views about everything although some first principles or axioms are however necessary. But too many and they can be intellectually restricting as well as possibly wrong. So unless I am totally certain about something I maintain an open mind instead

Agree. I don't see any point in nailing my colours to the mast. It's frustrating to realise that, we who are alive today will never get to understand what's really going on in life before we snuff it, but at least we understand a little more than those who came before us

Greta !! You must be the philosophy mod from the other forum !! Good to see you again !!

[yiostheoy]

Does the essence of religion and the truths which reconcile the Ways having initiated with a conscious source contradict scientific truths or reveal them? I agree with Simone Weil that the eventual unity of science and religion is of enormous importance for Man's future. Perhaps the fact that they often seem in contradiction is proof of our collective stupidity. Do you believe that the unification of science and religion is possible and even probable or will we remain forever lost in contradictory egoistic misconceptions? Simone wrote:

“I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science.” Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

I believe it is a fallacy to call anything in Religion or in Science "truths".

In my strict view of "truth", only Philosophy can determine what is truth or likely truth.

Religion is fraught with dogma.

Science is fraught with theory.

As the late Bertrand Russell labored to point out -- religion science and philosophy must be kept separate at all times.

They have nothing in common.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I use the term "crap" a lot because it is simply a word derived from a name -- Thomas Crapper.

He was the first importer to America of the new British flush toilet back in the 1800's.

His name became associated with the machine itself -- called "the Crapper flush toilet".

Soon his name also became associated with the product as well -- "crap".

Funny how language works.

A lot of religion is pure crap.

A lot of modern science is pure crap too.

There is even crap in Philosophy -- always has been and always will be..

The only thing that is 'crap' about this thread, is your contributions to it.

Middle English: related to Dutch krappe, from krappen ‘pluck or cut off’, and perhaps also to Old French crappe ‘siftings’, Anglo-Latin crappa ‘chaff’. The original sense was ‘chaff’, later ‘residue from rendering fat’, also ‘dregs of beer’.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=crap

Draw out yere sword, thou vile South'ron!
Red wat wi' blude o' my kin!
That sword it crapped the bonniest flower
E'er lifted its head to the sun!

[Allan Cunningham (1784-1842), "The Young Maxwell"]