How are RELIGION, SPIRITUAlITY and PHILOSOPHY different?

Perhaps all the more to be feared.

truth
Yes, indeed, C.I.

wheeeeww....don't check in for a day, and see all that I miss! Portal Star, I only posted about the article i read because I found it humorous...and if there was anything i took from the article, it was that, science aside...living with a faith in the One Creator/God/Ultimate Reality would most likely mean that you live a humble life, and strive to have good qualities and actions....which can't hurt anyone, can it?

Luckily, the Creator, has given us more than only one path to Him/Her. So, it's up to each of us to(or not to) seek Him and find the path that works for us. It really isn't about which path you choose, but, about what your intention is (seeking God, seeking the world, seeking the ego, seeking scientific rationalization, etc...). What you seek is what you will find. For those of us seeking the One God/Reality, etc...with sincerity, the we will find the path for that...as God sent Prophets to all lands and people, in different times with the same message (my belief...you don't have to believe it if you don't want to), the Oneness of God/Creator/the Friend/Allah/the Great Spirit (whatever name you use). It's no surprise that over time, the practices of that beleif/message manifested itself in different ways. But, It's really all the same....it's like if you want to go from NY to LA...your intention is to get to LA, so you could take a plane, a train, drive a car, hitch-hike, ride a bike, etc... Obviously same destination, different path to get there. Maybe it floats someones boat to ride a bike, and they believe thats the best way to go... Right on! for them. If that is a journey they want to experience, let it be.

I feel like just as I've seen people standing on the streets wearing big signs about God, and Jesus...yelling at people and quoting scriptures to convince people....on the other side there are people who equally want to preach to people about the impossibility to prove there is a God. Why don't people just live and let live? You know, I, and Deveron, and others can have strong faith/beliefs....and it doesn't mean we damn anyone/everyone who doesn't agree with us.

Portal Star, one other thing, and I could be wrong here....but it's my understanding that Jewish people don't write out the name of God. Is this true/why you don't? explain?

There are some people proclaiming that we really don't know if there is a God or if there are no gods -- and that any supposed communication with various gods may simply be self-delusion.

All things considered -- all the people who say they are seeking the truth ought to consider that -- and consider it very, very carefully.

IT IS THE TRUTH!

The people who suppose there are no gods MAY be right.

The people who suppose there is a God MAY be right.

The people who acknolwedge that they do not know either way and that there is not enough evidence to persuade in either direction...

...ARE RIGHT!


Truth seekers take note.

Re: truth


Yes, I realized that was putting my toe over a boundry after I wrote it, but didn't feel it was enough of a boundry to edit it. Frankly, I was hoping no one would notice. You're right though, personal statements are not relevant to the greater conversation - and I was frustrated. I wrote that right after I walked past a guy talking about conditions in which people go to hell on the street, with a large crowd listening to him & news coverage. I was thinking about how religion serves a personal need in those who it works for - and was hoping to point out this difference in relation to custom-tailored religion - fitting personal needs. Do you think I should edit my post?

I was raised Jewish. I was taught that it was very disrespectful to spell out the name of g-d, and it stuck. It is not out of respect for g-d, so much as respect for those who believe in one, and habit. I was scolded so many times it just feels so wrong to write it the other way! So even though I catch a lot of flack for it, I figure that people can still understand me so it's not somthing I need to psycologically train myself to alter.

"science aside...living with a faith in the One Creator/God/Ultimate Reality would most likely mean that you live a humble life, and strive to have good qualities and actions....which can't hurt anyone, can it? "

No, it can't hurt - they are good qualities to have. The humility part is arguable - I don't think people should be humble all the time, but yes - humility in the right situations is good.
Religion doesn't necessarily give you these qualities. I wouldn't even say it usually gives you these qualities - look at people who bomb abortion clinics, lynch gay people, participate in the crusades, etc. They do these things, but their religion does not sanction their violence.
Religion certainly isn't required to have these qualities.

The main problem I have is that this information takes the guise of a study- somthing that is supposed to follow science.

truth
Portal Star, edit your statement? Nah. Your explanation settled that matter completely. I remember feeling very aggressive toward Christian fundamentalists when one of my Bob Jones relatives wrote to me shortly after my atheist father's death informing me that my father was now burning in Hell but it was not too late for me. Compare that to Deveron and Firdaus. By the way, to me humility has nothing to do with self degradation. I have conducted empirical studies of the political use of humility (actually institutionalized humility) in the politics of ethnicity in southern Mexico, i.e., how Indians are trained to deprecate themselves as humilde (humble) because it is "virtuous" to do so. I remember Nietzsche writing "The trodden worm curls up, thus reducing its chances of being stepped on again. In the languge of morality--humility." Humility as a pose intended to avert attacks may often be pragmatic, but usually at too high a price. Nevertheless, I do value the humility that reflects no more than the individual's realistic sense of personal worth, neither inflated nor deflated.

I take it that you by evidence mean scientifical evidence. If so I agree with you. But why are you so certain that truth can only be sought through science? How did you arrive at this conclusion?

You "take it" wrong that by evidence, I mean scientific evidence. I mean any kind of evidence. I usually use the expression "unambiguous evidence" -- and really should have in this comment.

I mean something that can be counted on to truly point in one direction or another -- not merely something that can be used to rationalize a position.

If you have evidence of any kind -- put it forth for discussion.

In any case, if you are truly seeking the TRUTH (which you say you are) you really should consider "I do not know and the evidence, such as there is, really does not point in one direction or the other."

Surely if there is a GOD, and if the GOD is worth worship, the GOD will understand and respect the truth.

How about all the millions of people in faith who can testify about God? Oh, I forgot, they are all delusional. Anyway, how do you know that you're not the one who is delusional in believing that there is no point in believing in God because there is no rational evidence?

As Firdaus said, if God would turn out not to exist, you will have lost nothing from believing. If on the other hand God really does exist, your efforts will not have been in vain.

In the end it's always about hope and faith. Either you have hope of and faith in that God will take care of us, or you acknowledge that there is no purpose with our existence other than the ones we create for ourselves.

Jesus testified about God and that he and God were one etc. Everything he said and did seemed consistent and reasonable to me, so I made a "leap of faith" and believed him. What evil could possibly come out of love and goodness?

Eventually this belief became something much more than mere belief, but since I've already discussed that in previous posts, and since you don't believe in it anyway, I don't see any point in elaborating any further on it.

Derevon, I think your strength in your belief is admirable. Keep the faith. I'm an atheist. c.i.

Try to stay focused, Derevon.

I have not mentioned anything about any "beliefs" of mine -- and your guesses about what you suppose to be my "beliefs" are wrong.

I have never said nor intimated that "there is no point in believing in God because there is no rational evidence?"

Try to stick with what I actually say -- rather than what you want me to say. (That must be a habit you picked up from your Bible study!)





Oh really! And what if the god you supposedly "believe" in is absolutely nothing like the God that actually exists.

In any case, I do not really care what you "believe." If you want to "believe" you can teach an elephant to pole-vault -- go for it. You will get no static from me.

On this particular issue, however, keep in mind that it is quite possible a God exists -- and the God might respect people more for being truthful and acknowledging that they did not know if the God existed -- than the people who pretended they did.

So line of reasoning Firdaus is pursuing, which is really just a perversion of the already perverse Pascal's Wager, really goes nowhere in this discussion.





No it is not always about hope and faith. Sometimes it is about honesty and truth.

One can simply live as reasonable and ethical a life as possible and stop all this silly worry about whether or not there is a God "to take care of us" -- or about the "purpose" of life.

AND IF ONE IS GOING TO INSIST HE/SHE IS INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH -- one should really grab at the truth when it walks past.

The truth for me is that I do not know if there is a God or not. That is the TRUTH. If there is a God -- nothing has been lost because I have acknowledged that truth. And conversely, if there are no gods, nothing has been lost by me acknowledging the truth either. Either way - nothing has been lost by sticking with the truth.

MY GUESS is that you do not know if there is a God or not -- but you simply cannot be truthful enough to acknowledge that fact.





You are quite right, Derevon, no evil can come out of "love and goodness." But a whole hell of a lot of evil can come out of making the "leap of faith" you mentioned -- and a whole hell of a lot of evil has in fact come out of it throughout the history of Christianity. (I am not saying that evil MUST come of it, but to suppose no evil can come of it is absurdly naïve.)

"Love and goodness" are not a function of any leaps of faith. "Love and goodness" are human functions entirely divorced from any notions of religion. And love and goodness can exist even if there are no gods - or if there is not a God such as you envision.

In any case, most of the religious fawning you do seems to be more a function of your fear of gods - rather than any true love of a particular god. That is, in my opinion, more deviation from the truth you say you are seeking.




Once again the truth eludes you. You really ought to stop searching for it. It is sitting on the tip of your nose. You don't have to find it -- you merely have to acknowledge it.

Perhaps some day you will.

I wish you luck in that.

Peace.

truth
Frank, your very rational position has never been expressed so clearly as in post 448824.

Frank and Deveron, I think the difference between no-evidence and unambiguous evidence should include another cross-cutting dichotomy: public and private evidence (both can be absent and both can be unambiguous). Science rightly accepts only public (reproducible) evidence, while mysticism would accept it if that were possible, but must content itself with private evidence--so long, I should think, as it is unambiguous. The mystic is never ambivalent.

Deveron, I do not agree that one has nothing to lose by believing in a false doctrine. If one believes, not because he has private evidence that is convincing, but only because he is coerced into it by family and community or the promise of eternal reward, he has a lot to lose: his freedom of thought and investigation. I would not like to sacrifice my intellectual freedom for what I consider to be the false hope of an eternal afterlife. I believe I have ONE life (even though it's not, strictly speaking "my" life). That life is far too precious to bargain away for what I consider to be non-existent (because I do not FEEL it to be real--for you that's another matter). But I do believe that Pascal, in his famous "wager," tried to induce us to the cowardly way.

Good observations, JL.

I have been a staunch opponent of the notion of Pascal's Wager in a dozen or more threads. The very notion is so illogical -- it is amazing it has so much surface appeal.

I liken it to two other statements with surface appeal that really have no depth.

Winston Churchill's famous: If a man is not a liberal as a young person, he has no heart; if he is not a conservative as an older person, he has no brain.


Madelyn Murray O'Hair: An agnostic is an atheist with no guts.

truth
Frank, thanks for the concept of "surface appeal". Now that I know it I will be recognizing them all over the place. Just like when I learned the word, "euphemism."
It would appear that the above indicates that words are little windows onto the world. But I still insist that they are little constructions (in the sense of shapers) of experience.

Well, this is kind of long....but...it relates to Scientific study/proof of Quran/proof of it's Divine source/God...not a short and sweet subject. This is a breif overview in fact....but very interesting.


RELIGION and SCIENCE have always been considered to be twin sisters by Islam and today at a time when science has taken great strides, they still continue to be associated. Furthermore, certain scientific data are used for a better understanding of the Qur'anic text. In a century where, for many, scientific truth has dealt a deathblow to religious belief, it is precisely the discoveries of science that, in an objective examination of the Islamic Revelation, have highlighted the supernatural character of various aspects of the Revelation.

After a study which lasted ten years, the famous French physician Maurice Bucaille adressed the French Academy of Medicine in 1976 and expressed the complete agreement of the Qur'an and established findings of modern science. He presented his study on the existence in the Qur'an of certain statements concerning physiology and reproduction. His reason for doing that was that "our knowledge of these disciplines is such, that it is impossible to explain how a text produced at the time of the Qur'an could have contained ideas that have only been discovered in modern times".

Decades later a noted embryologist Keith L. Moore and expert in his field, upon being presented with the statements made in the Qur'an regarding the stages of the formation of the embryo from the mixing of the male and female gametes up to the embryo's full development remarked "It has been a pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Qur'an about Human Development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God or Allaah because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later." Professor Moore presented his findings to scientists at several conferences. Several Canadian periodicals published many of Moore's statements and in addition he presented three television programmes in which he highlighted the compatibility of modern science with what has been revealed in the Qur'an 1400 years ago. Consequently, he was asked: "Does this mean that you believe that the Qur'an is the word of God?" to which he replied "I find no difficulty in accepting this."

In fact Professor Moore was so amazed at the accuracy of the descriptions and the terminology used for the various stages of the development of the embryo that he modified his own textbook on the subject. He incorporated all the relevant Qur'anic passages and authentic statements of the Prophet Muhammad into his book, The Developing Human: Clinically oriented embryology with Islamic additions, which was published by WB Saunders in 1987 and was a standard university textbook in the United States. The book now contains passages of the Qur'an and the Hadeeth (verified statements of the Prophet Muhammad) for every stage of development and Professor Moore has also adopted the classification used in the above two sources.

Consider also the statement of Tejatet Tejasen (Professor at the Dept. of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mei University, Thailand) after his study on the Qur'an passages dealing with embryology: "From my studies and what I have learnt at this conference I believe that everything that has been recorded in the Qur'an 1400 years ago must be true. That can be proved the scientific way". Also the statement of E. Marshal Johnson (Professor and Chairman, Dept. of Anatomy, Daniel Bough Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA) when he became aware of such statements in the Qur'an and investigated them: "The Qur'an describes not only the development of external form but emphasizes also the internal stages - the stages inside the embryo of its creation and development, emphasizing major events recognized by contemporary science... If I was to transpose myself into that era, knowing what I do today and describing things, I could not describe the things that were described... I see no evidence to refute the concept that this individual Muhammad had to be developing this information from some place... so I see nothing in conflict with the concept that divine intervention was involved..."

Upon being presented with hadeeths (verified statements of the Prophet Muhammad) concerning dominant and recessive characteristics Joe Leigh Simpson (Professor of Obstretics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, Illinois, USA) said: "... these Hadeeths could not have been obtained on the basis of the scientific knowledge that was available at the time of the'writer'... It follows that not only is there no conflict between genetics and religion (Islam) but in fact religion (Islam) may guide science by adding revelation to some of the traditional scientific approaches... There exist statements in the Qur'an shown centuries later to be valid which support knowledge in the Qur'an having been derived from God".

Consider also the statement of T.V.N. Persaud (Professor and Head, Dept. of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Manitoba, Canada): "Muhammad was a very ordinary man, he couldn't read, didn't know how to write, in fact he was an illiterate... were talking about 1400 years ago, you have some illiterate person making profound statements that are amazingly accurate, of a scientific nature... I personally can't see how this could be mere chance, there are too many accuracies and like Dr. Moore I have no difficulty in my mind reconciling that this is a divine inspiration or revelation which lead him to these statements".

These are just a number of quotes from the "Scientific Community" regarding the nature and the origins of the Qur'an. In fact the Qur'an and Hadeeth do not just talk about embryology but hundreds of other phenomenon including the earth and sun being round, spinning around their own axis and following their own orbits, the origin and formation of the universe, the two types of seas between which is a barrier, the role of mountains in stabilising the earths crust, the formation of milk in cows, the cause of sexual diseases, the  location of pain receptors within the body, the expansion of the universe, the precise nature of the water cycle, the change in atmospheric pressure at high altitudes, the gender of the bee which is responsible for producing honey (female), the stars consuming themselves via the combustion of their gases and this being the source of their light and many more.

Explaining all these statements by chance alone is something which has been resorted to, surprisingly by those deemed to be possessors of intellect and erudition. However this is not tenable as the following demonstration will show. When you make a guess regarding the true nature of something (in an accurate and precise manner that is) there are only two possibilities. Either you are right or wrong. If you make another guess then you only have one chance in four of being correct both times. If you make a third guess then you have one chance in eight of being correct all three times and so on. The chances of correctly describing, lets say, ten phenomena are 1 in 1024. Another point to bear in mind is that the greater the number of things you describe, the chance of being wrong is greater and thus the risk you are taking of being discredited gets bigger and bigger. The Qur'an and the Sunnah (Authentic sayings of the Prophet (sas)) make statements on literally hundreds of phenomenen and at the same time openly calls the scientific community to verify them. If one from the scientific community was to make hundreds of new claims regarding his particular field and was then to call all his fellow specialists to prove him wrong he would know without doubt that he is standing on an undermined sand cliff which is ready to crumble with him. How then for the one who makes statements about the specialities of others?

One will be surprised to learn that such a scientific approach has been commanded in the Qur'an with the objective of ascertaining its truthfulness.

     Do they not carefully consider (investigate) the Qur'an or are there locks upon their  hearts. [Surah 47:24]

     Do they not carefully analyse the Quran. If it had been from other than Allaah then  surely they would have found many discrepancies therein [Surah 4:82]

So religious (that is Islamic) beliefs are not based upon blind acceptance as many have generalised to all religions and thus falsely attributed to the Qur'an and Islam. This has been the experience of Europe in the past 3-400 years in which scientific advancement and its findings were seen as heretical, its proponents ridiculed and often exiled and tortured. Islam has never had that experience.

It is true that peoples academic capabilities differ and thus some will be unable to ascertain the truth of it and therefore may accept it blindly. But again they have the opportunity to ask the people of knowledge, those who are in a position to make such a judgement, like those quoted above. It is from the principles of wisdom and justice that when you don't know you don't make a judgement yourself but rather consult one who is in a position to do so. In fact this is something Allaah has also commanded:

     Never did we send a message before you but through a man, whom We inspired. If you do not know, then ask the keepers of the oracles of God. [Surah 21:7] and He has also said

     And those who have been given Knowledge know that that which has been revealed to you from your Lord is the Truth [Surah 34:6]

This is a clear proof of the lack of the dependance upon dogma, superstition and personal experience and an indication of the obligation to research, ascertain and to verify in a scientific manner the credibility of religious (Islamic) belief. Fortunately there are those who have done exactly that like Keith Moore and his scientific colleagues but there are others who have invented lies and slanders in order to discredit the Qur'an and the Prophet. However when these lies and slanders are put to the test scientifically they fail miserably and their irrationality and bias becomes evident. Some of the common claims are that Muhammad was possessed or was an eloquent poet or was a magician or was one who was brainwashed or was a soothsayer. In fact all of these have been denied and rebutted in the Qur'an itself in numerous places and numerous times. It is even more strange that these were the very same claims made by the people who belied the Prophet during his lifetime, and they are the only ones that are resorted to today. What a great advancement!

     In fact We strike the truth against the false, which shatters it, and it disappears. Woe to you for what you attribue(to Him)! [Surah 21:18]

Amjad Rafiq
The Islamic Society University of Essex November 1994.

Note : All quotes have been taken from a video in which after having been presented with the statements in the Qur'an and Hadeeth and given the chance to investigate, the various scientists were questioned as to their opinion regarding the Qur'an.

A rather different view regarding the information posted by firdaus:

Western Scholars Play Key Role in Touting "Science" of the Quran

truth
I have never thought that prophecy was in any way a measure of scientific prowess. Just lucky guesses, and often they are so vague they are subject to multiple interpretations. Precise knowledge allows for no degrees of freedom such as this.
But, muslim culture has had a reputation for great scholarly and scientific advancement in earlier times. Science as we know it (as a Western phenomenon) has no monopoly on knowledge. The accumulation of technical skill and empirical knowledge has gone on from the beginning of human existence. We would not have made it this far otherwise.

You believe I'm lying about my faith? Or just that faith is dishonest?



I don't know how you define evil, but I meant evil in the sense of deliberately doing something that goes against your consciousness and faith/life philosophy. The leap itself could never be evil, but of course it could indirectly result in some kind of evil. To attribute the evil to the leap itself would be unfair in my opinion.



I disagree. True love of God is nothing like material love.



I really have no idea what you're talking about. "You shall love the lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" and "You shall love your neighbour like yourself" are the cornerstones in my faith. Please tell me what you base my "fear of gods" on.



You sure place a lot of trust in that "truth" which you recite all the time (one cannot know whether God exists or not because there are not enough proof in either direction). Has it ever occurred to you that you may be wrong, and that it may be possible to know things in ways you didn't realize possible?

Prophecy is funny because sometimes people get things right, and then everything they predicted wrongly before that is forgotten. Just look at nostradamus! He's very hit-or-miss, but followed by many. An intelligent person can make predictions, anticipate future happenings based on history (which does, sometimes, repeat itself.) They've got to be right some of the time. I'll bet I could make some pretty good prophecy. The world as people know it will end. America will decline and fall. The Russians will rise to power within the next 300 years. (Let's see how many I get right.) Why can't prophets see anything specific during their lifetime? Is there some kind of time-limit specificity ban on prophecy? There is a million dollar prize for someone who is a real psychic of prophet (tested under clinical conditions)- many have tried, but no one has won yet.

The writers of religious texts were/are not ignorant or oblivious to the world around them. I think of religious books like I think of the Illiad and the Odyssey - Part of them is true, but that doesn't conclude that all of the information in them is non-fiction.

People's minds (in the past) were not less capable than today's minds - it could be argued that in certain ways they were more stimulated. Gene patterns were discovered by studying peas (without g-dly intervention) by Mendel. Why would it be any different for a doctor to observe gene patterns in another place and era? I think Mendel was also religious - wasn't he a monk? I see no "clear proof" of divine interference - only observation and testing. Mendel did very good scientific observation and testing, and kept good records. It is because of this his work is still useful to us today. G-d didn't whisper into his ear - he used his cognitive functioning to note and record logical consistincies.