Religion and the Unkown.

Well, if you look at the history of the development of what we now call religion, it has appeared in a context of dealing with "great mysteries" and "unknowns"like the ceremony and artifacts associated with death (red ochre, shamanistic ritual,tomb artifacts etc). Other mysteries, like childbirth and food gathering also developed ritual, and became associated with Paleo religions . IMHO, the mysteries came first and the ceremony became the natural follow-on. Then religions replete with overbearing and meddling gods followed, finally followed by more loving gods who take part in human affairs.

However, Even as we learn to explain a world phenomenon by natural means,(eg, why the sun traverses the sky) in most cases, there already existed a spiritual/religious explanation that dealt with that (originally) unknown phenomenon. SO there were natural loggerheads that appeared between rational thought and religious doctrines.Through years of overwhelming evidence and irrefutable proofs of concept that the sun isnt moving, but that earth is, Most religions have grudgingly given ground to these natural explanations and have more or less begun doctrines of transcendent gods that dont piss about with daily events. However, still some present day religions (most of the Evangelical Christianity sects and ultra Orthodox Jews and Muslims) insist upon maintaining the strict doctrines of mystery and of "Revelations" associated with what science and physics have lately decoded about these mysteries. For these religions its more a matter of control of the laity, since , rather than developing a theology of accomodation and transcendence by the gods, these folks like to demand that their explanations are "Unquestionably True" by being a doctrinal revealed reality.They make it a "test" of their devotion.
Today we call that a worldview and it usually involves an entire litany of related and unrelated "Factoids" that , in order to be a good religious person, you must accept unquestionably.

It seems to me that all the Orthodox and Evangelicals are doing is demeaning their very god who, if she produced everything they see, and gave her "children" a brain that can figure it all out, why must these children demand on maintaining a high stndard of blind ignorance despite what evidence shows. I never could understand that part.

The use of "quantifying" leads to an interesting position, since the basis of all "measurement" is the "nominal level". So technically in order to quantify we must first be in a position to "name", or "assign set memebership". However, those who aspire to the "spiritual" would claim that the essence of spirituality is its "ineffability", i.e. its resistance to linguistic description. It follows (for me at least) that "spirituality" is not to be confused with "religion". The first cannot be "quantified" and the second loses its spiritual essence by attempts at quantification.

i had an epiphany when i was about 12, i was walking across a field near my home , just kind of staring at the sky as a kid might do, and i was suddenly overcome with an intense feeling of emptiness, ever since i've been convinced that we are utterly alone, no god, no aliens, no anything (i'd love to be proven wrong about the aliens though)

I've felt alienated most of my life.

Hmm. Yes.
That throws my theory out a bit.
I still think it 'shapes' what we do know in relation to what we don't. I might need to work out what i mean a bit more.

Do you think that that spirituality is innately ineffable, or do you you think it is only so because it is not an experience felt by everyone?
For example, if you took drugs you might describe yourself as 'coming up' which to another drug taker would be understood, but to someone who had never taken drugs it would mean nothing.

And Fresco, how long do I have to wait until I know as much as you know?

The key is to get rid of that I and you are there already ! You need to realise that "I" is evoked by "language"...it is an observational/classificatory mode of "being" which is actively segmenting "reality" according to social. psychological and physiological needs.
There are levels of being which can transcend that...which can transcend "the self".

"Fresco" can't have "knowledge" because there is no separate "Fresco" / "knowledge" for the "non-dualist". Actually there can be no "non-dualism" for the "non-dualist" either!

i was challenged to a non-dual once

Dueling Banjos for the non-dualist would be a non-event.

I thought I got that. But I think I 'get' it, as in understand the concept, but don't 'see' it.
It's not very pragmatic
How do you explain chumly's paradox?

There is no "explanation" required because there is no "problem". This fresco which communicates is at the duallist level of "self" and "world" in which such "problems" are posed. The essence is captured by a Zen koan or perhaps by Wittgestein's "silence".

For Wittgenstein By Joseph Duemer

1) To support your belief system only on a conditional, un-substantiatable, non-empirical basis
2) To use only imprecise language
3) To use nether the scientific method nor mathematics
4) To have your belief system unable to be falsifiabile or predictive

leaves much to be desired indeed!

Yes we could, though many contemporary theologians argue that we shouldn't. The key phrase you want to search the Web for is "God of the Gaps".

Chumly,

Speaking as a published scientist (experimental phonetics and psycholinguistics) with an interest in esotericism and philosophy I can merely point out that your "scientific points" are a serious impediment to your "understanding" of my position. In effect, you may be unaware that you are entrenched in a particular paradigm of "naive realism".
Such a paradigm is used by all "Westerners" for everyday purposes but one of the roles of philosophy is to question and subject that paradigm and those "purposes" to deconstruction.

Thus the Chumly who "desires" otherwise has already closed the door to the analysis of his "desire". Your "self integrity" may depend on a vested interest in "scientificism" which you are moved to protect. You resist the deconstruction of such a "self".

Chumly,

As an afterthought, ask yourself this.

Why would Wittgenstein later reject his own acclaimed works on logic and empiricism from his tractatus?
Why would Bohm, a celebrated associate of Einstein risk his career to publish a concept of "implicate order" which he admits (in collaboration with Krishnamurti) is synonymous with "cosmic consciousness" ?

You rely on the logical fallacy called an appeal to authority.

Further you supply nothing to support that your belief system is a function of either experimental phonetics or psycholinguistics or being published.

However as an interesting aside, given that you opened the door I would argue that:

1) Neither experimental phonetics, nor psycholinguistics, nor being published infers more than the use of a text based language (I'll assume English).

2) Text based languages are by their nature very imprecise.

3) Text based languages cannot alone be used as the basis for the scientific method in its whole as per: falsifiability, predictability, precision and the other requisite considerations, some of which I refer to above.

Chumly,

I am doing the opposite of "appealing to authority". I am pointing out that so-called "authorities" have been moved to question their own views of "science" and I am intrigued to know why.

Your constant appeal to " logic" is somewhat like an appeal to an "offside rule"
from a parochial game we call soccer, when in essence the subject for discussion is "game theory".

I apologise for citing that "authority" Niels Bohr in support when I offer his quote

I like the koan that goes,
"Does a dog have buddha nature?"
"Mu"

LOL. Yes...although that looks a dog's reply it actually means "Not Being".