How are RELIGION, SPIRITUAlITY and PHILOSOPHY different?

Derevon wrote:

Ok, let's just end this. There's simply no point in discussing this, since you don't believe in the kind of faith I've previously described. You're not even considering the possibility that it could be real, because it doesn't fit into your conception of the world. That pretty much makes you close-minded in my opinion.

Well, let's end it then, but don't try to foist this off as some failing on my part to understand you -- or on my being "close-minded."

I understand you quite well -- and I am a hell of a lot more open-minded than you are.

But apparently you have trouble understanding what I am saying -- or dealing with logic -- because you have got things ass-backwards.

I could not possibly care less about your FAITH -- and that is not what I have been discussing at all.

What the hell do I care what you are guessing.

And make no mistake about it -- when you speak of the stuff you "have faith in" -- you are talking about guesses you are making about REALITY -- and then insisting that those guesses are correct.

But apparently you either cannot -- or will not -- understand that.

So...peddle that guessing nonsense elsewhere. If you do it here, I am going to call you on it.

In the meantime, may you experience peace and contentment with whatever philosophy you choose to live. I wish you nothing but the best.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Deveron, Just another perspective on christian teaching of the catholic church. Many of their contemporary teachings have diverted 180 degrees from their teachings from 100 years ago, because they have found so many inconsistencies in the bible as to the creation of this earth and its inhabitants. A catholic priest even informed me that they don't even follow the seven day creation story of the bible. I think it becomes more difficult for christians to defend their position of their religious teachings simply because the bible cannot be defended in any way, and that's the primary source for their faith and belief system.

Yes, there are many inconsistencies in the bible. To look beyond these may not always be so easy. But I think an open-minded and honest person will judge the religion after that which is central in it: The teachings and life of Jesus Christ.

0 Replies

truth
Deveron, I agree with Joe: that WAS a very good answer. That we are simply not designed to understand some cosmological issues. We can't even ask the right questions (and I even feel that applies to astrophysics). An ant, no matter how smart, is not designed to understand what we are doing here. Yet,what bothers me about fundamentalism is that they are convinced that their minds are designed to understand the Grand Scheme (if there is one). I don't necessarily agree with your answer, but I admire it nevertheless.

0 Replies

Derevon wrote:

As I said, I don't believe there is any "before the universe was created". One simply cannot attack this problem from the perspective you're proposing. As for the creation of the universe and the things that happened before humanity turned up, it's of course speculation too, in the sense that it cannot be scientifically proven.

As for the creation narrative in the Bible/Torah, I don't think it was meant to be a historical account of the creation of Earth, but rather a description of something completely different, written using symbolism. What it really means, I don't know.

I believe you reffered to g-d as the creator (unless I'm mixing you up with firadaus.) In order to have creation, you have to have a beginning. How can you know g-d is the creator, but not know what it means? You profess to know this g-d, to know about him, even to love him, but it seems you don't know a great deal about the g-d in which you believe. What is it you know about g-d, and how/why do you base your conclusions?

I wouldn't call it pure speculation - we have geological and fossil evidence backing this up pretty thouroughly. Here's how science works: nothing can be ultimately "proven" because there is always the potential for new contradictory evidence. however, the more information and testing and data that supports a scientific theory - every time it is proven correct, it is stronger and has a stronger scientific reputation. If contradictory evidence is ever presented, the theory then dies or is modified to include this evidence.
For example, "The earth is round" would no longer be correct if evidence was presented showing the earth to be flat. However, there is lots of observation, evidence and testing (in the form of exploration) backing up the theory that the earth is round and is not flat.

The existance of life before humans is not ultimately proven (as nothing can ever really be), but it has a great deal of supporting evidence, and has not been scientifically contradicted in a valid manner - so it is not "speculation." You may want to look into the matter - go to a local science museum - it's pretty interesting.

0 Replies

truth
Portal, the earth IS round, but the meaning of that principle depend on one's point of reference. If you go high enough you see the roundness of the planet, but if you return to earth you'll perceive it as flat. If we perceived it as round while walking on its surface it would feel like walking over a small round hill.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Portal, the earth IS round, but the meaning of that principle depend on one's point of reference. If you go high enough you see the roundness of the planet, but if you return to earth you'll perceive it as flat. If we perceived it as round while walking on its surface it would feel like walking over a small round hill.

and your point is...

Our perception changes, but certain things remain constant. It is the constants that we percieve as fact. The earth looks flat from one angle, and we acknowlegde that in science - by the study of vision, the way the eyes & brain work together. This doesn't change the physical shape of the earth, it just says somthing about viewpoint and individual perception. I see no conflict.

Before the earth was officially "round" and not flat, people could see the sails if ships coming over the horizon before the rest of the ship. This is an attribute of that individual perception - even without having traveled - which supports the round earth theory.

And before someone else mentions it, no the earth isn't a perphect sphere - but it's generally round.

0 Replies

I'll bet dollars to donut that there are still many humans on this planet that doesn't know the earth is round. Perception is everything.

0 Replies

truth
Portal, my point was simply: Isn't the matter of perspective interesting? Of course the objective perspective is privileged because, intellectually we favor the objective case--and should. Nevertheless, in our mundane, everyday practical existence what matters most to ALL of us--even the objectivist--is our subjective experience. C.I., goes further: "Perception is everything."
A minor point.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

I believe you reffered to g-d as the creator (unless I'm mixing you up with firadaus.) In order to have creation, you have to have a beginning. How can you know g-d is the creator, but not know what it means? You profess to know this g-d, to know about him, even to love him, but it seems you don't know a great deal about the g-d in which you believe. What is it you know about g-d, and how/why do you base your conclusions?

In the Bible Jesus witnessed about God, and I believed in him. Eventually this belief became something totally different, when I received faith. Through this faith God truly became real to me. Through it I can feel his presence and love, and I can feel that he is my father, and I his son. I also feel the absolute purity in him, and understand that no evil could possibly come from him. I also perceive him to be perfect in every imaginable way, and wise beyond comprehension. When listening to beautiful music I can feel a very profound feeling that the beauty has a higher spiritual meaning. When reading about God I sometimes feel it as if what I just read was revealed as truth, and I somehow perceive that this truth is eternal and of God himself. When I see a person commit a truly unselfish act of goodness, it touches me very deeply, and I can feel that there is a higher spiritual meaning in it.

I can understand how all this may appear ridiculous to someone who hasn't experienced it himself/herself. I'm sure I would have thought that as well a year ago or so, but I can assure you, it's very real.

Quote:

I wouldn't call it pure speculation - we have geological and fossil evidence backing this up pretty thouroughly. Here's how science works: nothing can be ultimately "proven" because there is always the potential for new contradictory evidence. however, the more information and testing and data that supports a scientific theory - every time it is proven correct, it is stronger and has a stronger scientific reputation. If contradictory evidence is ever presented, the theory then dies or is modified to include this evidence.
For example, "The earth is round" would no longer be correct if evidence was presented showing the earth to be flat. However, there is lots of observation, evidence and testing (in the form of exploration) backing up the theory that the earth is round and is not flat.

The existance of life before humans is not ultimately proven (as nothing can ever really be), but it has a great deal of supporting evidence, and has not been scientifically contradicted in a valid manner - so it is not "speculation." You may want to look into the matter - go to a local science museum - it's pretty interesting.

That's not what I meant. I believe in evolution and that Earth is several billion years old. This does in no way clash with my faith. Anyway, I don't think it matters in the slightest to God how a person thinks the earth was created/formed. All these factual questions you keep referring to don't really have with religion to do in my opinion. Religion, as I see it, is about the personal relation to God and about doing his will, and not about eating or not eating certain things, or about ceremonies or rituals, or about wearing certain clothes, or about following a book to the letter, or about having an as correct factual concept of the world as possible etc.

0 Replies

If no contradiction of logic is going to influence you, no conversation we have is going to influence you either. I don't know what to say, so I won't.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

If no contradiction of logic is going to influence you, no conversation we have is going to influence you either. I don't know what to say, so I won't.

As I've said, I don't believe in the Bible as the infallible, written word directly from God. I believe it it has been written by humans, and that it has been distorted through misunderstandings etc. I don't see any contradictions between true science and true religion. Nothing in science contradicts the teachings of Jesus. I've never said that God created Earth directly. When I referred to God as the first cause, I was referring to God as the first link in the creator chain, i.e., the one who exists by himself, of himself. Without him, NOTHING. Nothingness is another one of those concepts which are pretty impossible to comprehend for the human mind.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

If no contradiction of logic is going to influence you, no conversation we have is going to influence you either. I don't know what to say, so I won't.

Are you suggesting that a logical contradiction can somehow "disprove" a metaphysical belief?

0 Replies

truth
Good technical point, Joe. Deveron's thesis is based upon PRIVATE evidence. Only PUBLIC evidence can be falsified and replicated for scientific evaluation. And Deveron's evidence is private, it can convince only him (and others who privately enjoy the same evidence). In the case of mysticism, of course, this is obviously the case, as you've seen earlier.
Portal, I agree completely that the Bible is written by humans. Christians would undoubtedly counter that those were God-inspired humans. What can you say to that? Just walk away. Mystics, on the other hand also wrote inspired texts, e.g., the great buddhist sutras and the Upanishads. But the origin of their inspiration was not supernatural revelation; they were purely human constructions, equivalent in that way to the insights of Newton, Einstein, Darwin, etc.) except, of course, that they were private in nature. From them you can either struggle to understand OR WALK AWAY. How frustrating that must be. We want the Christians and the mystics to come up with PUBLIC evidence, almost as a moral intellectual obligation. We challenge them to do so with indignation. But in the nature of their "knowledge" they cannot. But I think we must realize that that in itself does not--given the difference between public and private evidence--give logical justification for their repudiation--for better or for worse they are beyond scientific evaluation--and that does not make them true.

0 Replies

Since all man's decisions are subjective, it doesn't matter much whether it is private or public. Trying to apply logic or science to all our decisions is impossible.

0 Replies

truth
C.I., point well taken. ULTIMATELY all evidence is subjective. Sometimes that may be trivial, and sometimes it is not. Trivially, all experience (of evidence and all else) is experienced subjectively. Knowledge IS a function of the knower, just as is delusion. Evidence is not in itself "proof." It can be the basis for persuasion. But just about anything can be rejected, as we have seen in the case of Creationist when confronted by the soundest evidence available. And even present-day "truths" (a problematical term in itself) will be discarded in the future, that is to say if Science is progressive. By private evidence I include autobiographical experience that cannot be shared. Say, I witnessed some event in the distant past and there were no other witnesses or any physical traces of the event. I "KNOW" it happened (even if I'm delusional about the memory). I'm CONVINCED because of the memory. I can't persuade skeptics because there is no PUBLIC evidence to move them, or even to embarrass them. So, that's what I mean by the relevance of subjectivity regarding knowledge.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Since all man's decisions are subjective, it doesn't matter much whether it is private or public. Trying to apply logic or science to all our decisions is impossible.

There is no need to apply logic or science to all human decisions. That would be silly, unnecessary, and in-effective. Let me restate that this is a forum, in which we engage in discussion. Our discussion is one about g-d or g-d's, and their existance. When we are having a conversation about truth or non-truth, logic comes into play (almost by the very nature of having to translate personal experience into words and sentences). I do not care what personal beliefs people have as long as they don't infringe mine - but when people try to assert these beliefs as ultimately true, or undeniable, they enter the realm of logic in which we try to assume absolutes.

Perception is important, but I think it's silly to deny the consistency of laws and actions in our universe - there are clearly consistant governances throughout biology and what little we know about physics. It is through testing we confirm this knowledge, and testing, when done correctly, is not subject to individual viewpoint. (The interpretation of those test results are subject to individual viewpoint.) Look at math and physics - in relation to the world, there are constants and one must seek out these constants in order to do rational/scientific work.

Personal beliefs (if related to emotion and personal experience) can not be communicated. It is the assertion that individual personal beliefs are constant - such as - there is a g-d and "he" is everyone's g-d that are incorrect. That is taking personal viewpoint and asserting that it is common experience, or part of a shared space. This is why when people make these assertions, they are subject to debate.
Unfortunately, there is the great impass - person (individual) says their individual experience applies to all other people (especially when there is a book or manual making this experience a collective one - which is why religion takes root in novel/oral traditins.) It makes the individual experience an imaginary shared experience. But without collective evidence, it is not shared experience, it is shared knowledge of a work of fiction and the ideas surrounding it. That is why I am agnostic - there is no physical evidence, and probably will never be given the nature of the word and concept of "g-d."

Given that, I was trying to find inconsistiencies within personal experience, namely that of Devron. Because I was thinking that inconsistencies within her personal experience (not contradictions between personal and public experience) would both help me to understand her view and point out internal logical fallacies. Everytime I hit one of these, the conversation ended up being "I just know..." Which is not somthing where any kind of conversation (a shared experience in itself) can springboard. That is why I said I didn't know what to say - what can you say to someone who is not acknowleding internal contradiction and providing no new information? I think that signifies an end to all potential discussion and conversation.

0 Replies

Religions teach little kids how to sit quite in almost any environment, they also learn to come up with extraordinary thoughts just from the boredom. It's a sin to brainwash little kids with religion.

Spirituality? Little kids know this very well, until the religion washes it away. Mature & independent people revive it.

Philosophy seems to be nothing in itself but assists us in our ability to learn about and to analyze other subjects. Otherwise, the yak-yak-yak goes on adnauseum with nary an answer anywhere.

0 Replies

truth
Tex-Star Very Happy

How are RELIGION, SPIRITUAlITY and PHILOSOPHY different?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know