Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?

[Dubious]

lobotomy

Trepanation is better.

You do yourself a disservice. It should be a lobotomy preceded by a craniotomy! That way you can put the lid back on to preserve whatever is left...and perhaps, by a low probability, make the residue more functional. Since the unused part also requires energy, it's best to dispense with it and instead apply it to the remaining sum after the requisite subtractions, now no-longer eclipsed by dead matter.

[henry quirk]

Hold on, I thought you were talkin' about AJ needin' a lobotomy.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If there is going to be genuin’ insultin’ then I’ll be the one t’do it.

Y’all’re amateurs.

[Alexiev]

A lobotomy isn't such a bad idea. True: the one time expense is considerable. But think how much you could save on drugs and alcohol over the course of a lifetime.

[popeye1945]

I agree, Popeye, except that what I call determinism amounts to "We are subjects of the greater whole, our fate or destiny uncharted, plastic if you like in an unending journey." Determinism is "the greater whole".

Hi Belinda,
Interestingly, we are determined to follow the lead of the indeterminate, through the plasticity of both. We follow that which has no goal, no ultimate intent and is forever new. I am going to play with that one for a while. I am back. No, I don't believe the relation between the cosmos and that of the earth are separate things, thus the earth and its creatures are no more determined than is the cosmos in which we belong. What are your thoughts on that?

Popeye,I must ' believe in God' , as they say. I believe the Cosmos is one great huge Law.

I also believe God as one great huge law is far too complex to understand, for me anyway. This ineffable character of God is why we needed and still need wise men, prophets, and seers to throw some light on how to harmonise with the Cosmos.

Laws infer constancy, and in a limited timeframe, indeed, it seems so. I, however, don't believe there is anything like sameness to the cosmos outside a limited timeframe. The cosmos doesn't have time; that is a cognitive perception, and without it, of course there is no such thing as time. If the laws of the universe are for you, God, which is how many physicists term it too, then God has no goal, no direction.

[Belinda]

Hi Belinda,
Interestingly, we are determined to follow the lead of the indeterminate, through the plasticity of both. We follow that which has no goal, no ultimate intent and is forever new. I am going to play with that one for a while. I am back. No, I don't believe the relation between the cosmos and that of the earth are separate things, thus the earth and its creatures are no more determined than is the cosmos in which we belong. What are your thoughts on that?

Popeye,I must ' believe in God' , as they say. I believe the Cosmos is one great huge Law.

I also believe God as one great huge law is far too complex to understand, for me anyway. This ineffable character of God is why we needed and still need wise men, prophets, and seers to throw some light on how to harmonise with the Cosmos.

Laws infer constancy, and in a limited timeframe, indeed, it seems so. I, however, don't believe there is anything like sameness to the cosmos outside a limited timeframe. The cosmos doesn't have time; that is a cognitive perception, and without it, of course there is no such thing as time. If the laws of the universe are for you, God, which is how many physicists term it too, then God has no goal, no direction.

It would be consoling to believe that God is not only history but also future , and that, like a human parent He has an end , a final cause, in view. I prefer Teresa of Avila who said, we are the hands and eyes of Christ. I don't quote St Teresa from any intention to quote from authority but because St Teresa makes sense.

Christ has no body but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world,
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good,
Yours are the hands, with which he blesses all the world.
Yours are the hands, yours are the feet,
Yours are the eyes, you are his body.
Christ has no body now but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
compassion on this world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

Teresa of Avila quotation

[popeye1945]

Popeye,I must ' believe in God' , as they say. I believe the Cosmos is one great huge Law.

I also believe God as one great huge law is far too complex to understand, for me anyway. This ineffable character of God is why we needed and still need wise men, prophets, and seers to throw some light on how to harmonise with the Cosmos.

Laws infer constancy, and in a limited timeframe, indeed, it seems so. I, however, don't believe there is anything like sameness to the cosmos outside a limited timeframe. The cosmos doesn't have time; that is a cognitive perception, and without it, of course there is no such thing as time. If the laws of the universe are for you, God, which is how many physicists term it too, then God has no goal, no direction.

It would be consoling to believe that God is not only history but also future , and that, like a human parent He has an end , a final cause, in view. I prefer Teresa of Avila who said, we are the hands and eyes of Christ. I don't quote St Teresa from any intention to quote from authority but because St Teresa makes sense.

Christ has no body but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world,
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good,
Yours are the hands, with which he blesses all the world.
Yours are the hands, yours are the feet,
Yours are the eyes, you are his body.
Christ has no body now but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
compassion on this world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

Teresa of Avila quotation

This reminds me of a Joseph Campbell quote, we are the eyes and ears of the world, the conscious witness of the world. I don't really have a high opinion of Mother Teresa. The above sounds a little egocentric, consciousness itself provides all meaning to all organisms, and is not particular to one species.

[henry quirk]

A lobotomy isn't such a bad idea.

If IQ enhancement is the goal, it's a terrible idea.

Trepanation, now that's the ticket.

Increased blood flow thruout the (feedin' all the hungry neurons), an opened 3rd 👁 (to perceive the Invisible World): that's the stuff!

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't quote St Teresa from any intention to quote from authority but because St Teresa makes sense.

What an interesting statement!

What “makes sense” has authority. That when sensible ideas are realized their authority is revealed. That authority definitely exists.

It is curious then to examine “rebellion” against “authority”.

[Alexiev]

[
This reminds me of a Joseph Campbell quote, we are the eyes and ears of the world, the conscious witness of the world. I don't really have a high opinion of Mother Teresa. The above sounds a little egocentric, consciousness itself provides all meaning to all organisms, and is not particular to one species.

Mother Teresa and Teresa of Avila are different people, separated by 400 years.

[Belinda]

Laws infer constancy, and in a limited timeframe, indeed, it seems so. I, however, don't believe there is anything like sameness to the cosmos outside a limited timeframe. The cosmos doesn't have time; that is a cognitive perception, and without it, of course there is no such thing as time. If the laws of the universe are for you, God, which is how many physicists term it too, then God has no goal, no direction.

It would be consoling to believe that God is not only history but also future , and that, like a human parent He has an end , a final cause, in view. I prefer Teresa of Avila who said, we are the hands and eyes of Christ. I don't quote St Teresa from any intention to quote from authority but because St Teresa makes sense.

Christ has no body but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world,
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good,
Yours are the hands, with which he blesses all the world.
Yours are the hands, yours are the feet,
Yours are the eyes, you are his body.
Christ has no body now but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
compassion on this world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

Teresa of Avila quotation

This reminds me of a Joseph Campbell quote, we are the eyes and ears of the world, the conscious witness of the world. I don't really have a high opinion of Mother Teresa. The above sounds a little egocentric, consciousness itself provides all meaning to all organisms, and is not particular to one species.

You seem to mistakenly think Teresa of Avila is the same as Mother Teresa. They are two different people. I don't think compassion is egocentric quite the opposite.

[popeye1945]

It would be consoling to believe that God is not only history but also future , and that, like a human parent He has an end , a final cause, in view. I prefer Teresa of Avila who said, we are the hands and eyes of Christ. I don't quote St Teresa from any intention to quote from authority but because St Teresa makes sense.

Christ has no body but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world,
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good,
Yours are the hands, with which he blesses all the world.
Yours are the hands, yours are the feet,
Yours are the eyes, you are his body.
Christ has no body now but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
compassion on this world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.

Teresa of Avila quotation

This reminds me of a Joseph Campbell quote, we are the eyes and ears of the world, the conscious witness of the world. I don't really have a high opinion of Mother Teresa. The above sounds a little egocentric, consciousness itself provides all meaning to all organisms, and is not particular to one species.

You seem to mistakenly think Teresa of Avila is the same as Mother Teresa. They are two different people. I don't think compassion is egocentric, quite the opposite.

Yes, it appears I have jumped to the wrong conclusion confusing identities. I don't see actual compassion in the above, just another way of formulating the God complex. Compassion only arises when one can identify with one's self in another. I am reminded of a statement in the Upanishads, " The self in one, is the self in all." From my experience of friends who had become born-again Christians, I think that being a believer might involve personality types. Some people are academically inclined while others are intellectually inclined, not that they are mutually exclusive, but if they are opposed to one another, it makes dialogue of ideas in general, difficult if not impossible.

[Belinda]

This reminds me of a Joseph Campbell quote, we are the eyes and ears of the world, the conscious witness of the world. I don't really have a high opinion of Mother Teresa. The above sounds a little egocentric, consciousness itself provides all meaning to all organisms, and is not particular to one species.

You seem to mistakenly think Teresa of Avila is the same as Mother Teresa. They are two different people. I don't think compassion is egocentric, quite the opposite.

Yes, it appears I have jumped to the wrong conclusion confusing identities. I don't see actual compassion in the above, just another way of formulating the God complex. Compassion only arises when one can identify with one's self in another. I am reminded of a statement in the Upanishads, " The self in one, is the self in all." From my experience of friends who had become born-again Christians, I think that being a believer might involve personality types. Some people are academically inclined while others are intellectually inclined, not that they are mutually exclusive, but if they are opposed to one another, it makes dialogue of ideas in general, difficult if not impossible.

I most often agree with you Popeye and am sorry to disagree but compassion can happen in the absence of any warm sympathetic feelings. There is a limit to one's emotional energy, but reason, and reasoned faith which has been cultivated in solitude, can act to carry on the good work.

[popeye1945]

You seem to mistakenly think Teresa of Avila is the same as Mother Teresa. They are two different people. I don't think compassion is egocentric, quite the opposite.

Yes, it appears I have jumped to the wrong conclusion confusing identities. I don't see actual compassion in the above, just another way of formulating the God complex. Compassion only arises when one can identify with one's self in another. I am reminded of a statement in the Upanishads, " The self in one, is the self in all." From my experience of friends who had become born-again Christians, I think that being a believer might involve personality types. Some people are academically inclined while others are intellectually inclined, not that they are mutually exclusive, but if they are opposed to one another, it makes dialogue of ideas in general, difficult if not impossible.

I most often agree with you Popeye and am sorry to disagree but compassion can happen in the absence of any warm sympathetic feelings. There is a limit to one's emotional energy, but reason, and reasoned faith which has been cultivated in solitude, can act to carry on the good work.

Can you expand upon reasoned faith?

[Belinda]

Yes, it appears I have jumped to the wrong conclusion confusing identities. I don't see actual compassion in the above, just another way of formulating the God complex. Compassion only arises when one can identify with one's self in another. I am reminded of a statement in the Upanishads, " The self in one, is the self in all." From my experience of friends who had become born-again Christians, I think that being a believer might involve personality types. Some people are academically inclined while others are intellectually inclined, not that they are mutually exclusive, but if they are opposed to one another, it makes dialogue of ideas in general, difficult if not impossible.

I most often agree with you Popeye and am sorry to disagree but compassion can happen in the absence of any warm sympathetic feelings. There is a limit to one's emotional energy, but reason, and reasoned faith which has been cultivated in solitude, can act to carry on the good work.

Can you expand upon reasoned faith?

Socrates, Jesus, Nietzsche, Confucius, Spinoza, Marx,

From my own introspections , reasoning from personal experience tells me when I think about effects of causes I find that effects do follow causes. e.g. the parables of Jesus are life enhancing personally and politically. In these parables, effects followed causes ,they are narratives. I also enjoy the example of Jesus who had the courage of his convictions, I mean his compassion never wavered even while his friends failed him and his emotional energy was dying. I think many completely obscure individuals behave likewise. The medics who work in Gaza hospitals come to mind.

By "reasoned faith" I positively don't mean a dogma swallowed whole administered by a magisterium. For instance, Unitarians are teased about being the worst congregations at hymn -singing because individuals refuse to sing a line before thinking about the truth of it.