Reply
Sat 24 Apr, 2004 06:02 am
Injustice walks proudly in the world today. The devil has a new name, and now it is him we worship. "God", says the true christian and recounts the things around him. High up on his tower of souls, where the foul things are suppressed to a minimum for comfortable denial. He leaves his filth to his community, and they will clean it up. Its what binds them together. Doing eacothers chores. But who can make friends in such a bargain? No one he really wants to be friends with, so he has companions. "Brothers in spirit", is their toast before they run to the battlefield. "God", they rave, and hell follows with them. In seach of true friends. Oh misdirection! How endlessly small the fragment of our continuation. It does not even encompass the entire effects of our existence. Yet the struggle is to diminish it, not increase it. "Proof denies faith", wispers the christian. "Who am I to judge the weight of words", he asks in his failing attempt to be humble. In learning the use of words man has once and for all outsmarted himself. The only true source of power behind any religion dwells in people's incapabillity to understand it completely, along with their stubborn denial of this fact. So god remains an entity, and people kill eachother in his various names. Man was created separately from the rest of creation and put in it when it was complete. How did this happen? Who can say? "Proof denies faith", the christian says. And here ends all science...
PS: This is not meant to be an attack on christianity. It is an attack on humanity, and my sword is not the sharp edge of scientific reason, but the soft and fumbling grace of poetry. After all, pride in our lie is the grain that sustains us...
true
I truly believe that the complexity and sublety of life cannot be totally encompassed by Science. Science can get some of it, but the most subtle and relevant aspects are best tapped by art and poetry. This was a wonderful example, Cyracuz.
By the way, I do believe that Bush is inspired by the one he calls God, and I call Satan. If you want to know which name is correct, look at the fruits of his actions.
I agree with you JL. But I also believe that if we examine both religion and science we will find that one completes the other. I have a sneaking suspicion that they are mutually dependent on eachother. Do you think we might say that science is a manifestation of our collective mind, and religion is a manifestation of the power of our hearts? I think it is a facinating idea anyhow.
And another curious coincidence: ART is a piece of HEART: (HE)ART...
truth
If I would dare to make such a generalization I would say that Science and some kinds of philosophy tend to take our experience apart, to analyze and dissect in order to understand how things work. Art, poetry, literature and some kinds of philosophy tend to synthesize, to put things back together again, to unify, to integrate and make whole, even if that whole remains mysterious. In the latter case the mystery is something positive, no longer a confusion in need of clarification and analysis. After years of academic life, in which I happily paid homage to rationality, empiricism, and intellectual caution, I've come to depend more and more on intuition, on the "method" of putting things together.
I better stop; I'm losing control.
truth
If I would dare to make such a generalization I would say that Science and some kinds of philosophy tend to take our experience apart, to analyze and dissect in order to understand how things work. Art, poetry, literature and some kinds of philosophy tend to synthesize, to put things back together again, to unify, to integrate and make whole, even if that whole remains mysterious. In the latter case the mystery is something positive, no longer a confusion in need of clarification and analysis. After years of academic life, in which I happily paid homage to rationality, empiricism, and intellectual caution, I've come to depend more and more on intuition, on the "method" of putting things together.
I better stop; I'm losing control.
I listened to Woodward a little today, and he was saying that Bush was the one questioning all the information being fed to him from all his advisers - Cheney and Rummie. Too bad he didn't insist on getting better intelligence info, because most of the info came from Iraqi expatriates that had a bone to pick with Saddam, and they never bothered to double check the info they got.
Listening, agree with you, JL. I am not quick to assign the word religion as a complement to science, cyracuz, but I understand how others can.
If you understand how others can ossobuco, then why don't you also? Maybe you don't understand so well after all.. In science you can only answer the questions you ask. In religion the answers come without the question. Both are essential for the learning of a purer perception.
Cyracuz wrote:If you understand how others can ossobuco, then why don't you also? Maybe you don't understand so well after all.. In science you can only answer the questions you ask. In religion the answers come without the question. Both are essential for the learning of a purer perception.
I did once, for a short while, think that my religious beliefs that I held then could coexist with my appreciation of the scientific method. In a while I no longer held religious beliefs and still do not, forty years later. I can understand your point of view since your answer might have been mine once. You do not seem to be able to understand my view though, but instruct me about it, giving your opinion of what is essential for pure perception.
I'm of the belief that true religion and true science can exist in perfect harmony. The purpose of science is to explain and relate natural phenomena to one another. It mainly focuses on how and why things are as they are from a natural point of view. This can be perfectly done without dismissing everything that is not scientifically provable or demonstrable as nonsense or fairy tales. Open-mindedness is very important for a scientist.
True religion on the other hand, does not deal with the natural, but with the spiritual. It teaches us that we are more than our bodies, and that our existence does not end with corporeal death. It teaches us how we should act towards our fellow human beings and what we should strive for in our lives. It teaches us to shun that which is evil and embrace that which is good. It teaches us about the futility of striving only for that which belongs to the world which is temporary, and encourages us to turn towards the spiritual, which is eternal. It gives us hope when everything looks dark. It gives us meaning when all we see seems futile. Ultimately, the purpose of religion is to bring man closer to God.
Thus, in my opinion, true religion does not in any way have to be contradictory to true science and vice versa. For as long as the scientist is open-minded and for as long the religionist sticks to that which is spiritual, and doesn't interpret everything he/she reads literally, these two could very well exist in unison.
Deveron, your slant on religion is a great advance over that of fundamentalism, but let me ask you: you say that our (spiritual?) existence does not end with corporeal death, but does our existence begin with corporeal birth? The devil in my question is the nature of "our existence." My more Eastern approach to religion perceives the individual to be one with the totality, it is truly non-local (only appearing to be so because of our focus), and our existence has neither beginning nor end; it is Eternal as is the totality which is its ground. This is, of course, a non-scientific, but not an anti-scientific perspective. It is alogical, but it is not illogical.
Personally I don't believe our existence begins with life in the body. It wouldn't make any sense to me. I can only assume that we are incarnated in our bodies. I also believe that we are one with the totality and that separateness is merely an appearance.
ossobuco, I cannot say that I truly understand your perspective, and it was not my intention to be disrespectful.
JL, when you say alogical, not illogical, do you mean that it is not in defiance of logic, merely so out of sync with the modern traditions of logic that it seems devoid of it, or independent from it? That is also how I see it. In my brief experience we find contradictions because we look for them. We are unbeknownst to ourselves searching for some justification for our views and our understanding. An example might be my reply to ossobuco's remark..
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace