59 replies to this topic

[jans]

Bible talks of giants - today we find giant bones and analyse thir DNA

Scientists now use the 4th dimention they can not fully yet comprehend things any more in just rough matter.

I think the further science develops, the more we realize true principles that are impossible to explain today but will be science in the future. I think religion or believing in something involves faith, like science fiction seems to have some good principles, but you can not prove it, at least not yet.

What do you think?

[DJS]

Bible talks of giants - today we find giant bones and analyse thir DNA

By making this statement it appears to me that you are trying to make some type of veiled connection between the paleontological record and the rather ambiguous stories ("data") put forward in the bible. [glasses]

It is easy to find "evidence" to back up a belief, but if you are going to be really "scientific" about it then you shoud be actively searching for evidence to refute the biblical accounts. And in most instances this is impossible to do, precisely because religions make claims that are largely unverifiable. Unfortunately for Christianity, it did not foresee the comprehensive explanatory power of future scientific knowledge and proceeded to construct (evolve?? -- is religion a "non-thinking" memetic entity?) its own very unique creation story about the early earth. These claims can in fact be falsified, which leads many more "enlightened" (ie; less fundamentalist) Christians to retreat to the position that much of the old testament is "metaphorical". Of course, for a strictly rational person this maneuvering is rather painful to watch, but the majority of people do need their faith...after all. [sfty]

So that's my first point: that there are portions of the bible that can be outright falsified if read literally. Of course, this makes me wonder why the people who view the old testament as metaphorical (ie, fictional) do not just read the entire bible as such. There appears to be logical inconsistencies in their thought processes.

Second, the remainder of the major metaphysical claims that are made are entirely unfalsifiable -- which means that they have no place in the scientific discourse.

This does not however, mean that maintaining a theistic world view is in any way unrespectable. Stephen J Gould, considered by many to be America’s unofficial evolutionist laureate, had theistic leanings; and a significant portion of the western world believes in some form of "theistic evolution". In many ways, the claims made by religion and science are separate and exclusive from one another -- one is metaphysical, one is empirical.

If you're a purely rational person however, this kind of logic really doesn't float. Simply put, there is no "reason" to believe the fairy tales told in the bible. Pardon me for being so blunt about this, but the bible really is just a bunch of made up stuff. And if you want me to believe other wise then I demand that you provide convincing evidence to back up your claims

I think the further science develops, the more we realize true principles that are impossible to explain today but will be science in the future. I think religion or believing in something involves faith, like science fiction seems to have some good principles, but you can not prove it, at least not yet.

This is known as the "God fills in the Gaps" view. If you prefer to view things in this way then, eh, that's your perogative. IMO though there is really no point in having reverence towards the unknown...unless, that is, you perceive the unknown as being (or being created by) God. This view however, is not rational.

[armrha]

Of course it's fine for a scientist to be religious, extremist, fundamentalist, anything he wants. That's the whole purpose of the scientific method; It removes the human bias from the end result, and gives something anyone can test. No scientist can (or should) be an emotionless drone. They should desperately want something to be true or false, something that drives them. But what they discover has to be reproducible, that's the whole idea. Something to add to the global knowledgebase totally free of bias or subjectivity in the end.

[jans]

to: DonSpanton

I like what you said. If you don't mind I will ramble a bit more.

The question is can science be totally rational? How many scientific facts have been disproved? Proven fact has been a fact untill someone reproves it with a new one. Is it possible, that religion may be rational as well thus part of the equation? If so then noting can be absolute, nothing can be out-ruled as a possibility, nothing can be fully proven, as it is based on faith.

Metaphors like wine literally turning in to blood on ones lips can not pass as rational, or the bread turning literally in to the flesh of Christ - it must be false doctrine of them who desire to exercise power over the rest to get gain. Christ walked on water - is this the same- definitely false, -healing with a touch after having faith in him, or is this something we don't know how he does it as science.

The creation story, 7 days - clearly a metaphor
1, creation Adam is born, that is like an egg, able to do nothing, 2 supposedly the two yoked egg becomes 2 creatures man and woman, 3 the 2 sexes have to follow rules and become one again, 4 if they become one bound with the law of 'God' they will be something more then servants or angels in the hereafter being able to have offspring (egg) as 'god'. In this case death is also a birth, but we don't know it unless we try it. Adam supposedly lived over some 900y but he still did not desire to die, so the other individuals in the story. Today we believe people can live 1000y, they can be designed bigger, smaller, and smarter...

Do we know why the proton is stable? Why the world stands, and does not run down, as by the second law of thermodynamics suggests. What is it that runs against that law? I think there is a force out there that the nature and we we tap in to but can not say what it is. Is it quintessence or something else, something more I have no idea. I do have things clear to me, as I fill in the gaps with faith from 'fairytales' but you can not do that, you are not allowed to enter in to that type of thought and don't believe as you need to be rational.

Let’s take the city of Enoch. Supposedly God took these people up somewhere, separated them because they chose to keep the law He gave them. Other people on earth also wonted to go there started building the Tower of Babel. Our gap is that we don't know what was hanging from the sky at that time, maybe it was some cylindrical object they wonted to reach, and that’s why they could build a tower tall enough to reatsh it.

I read a lot of the things that are out of the bible as well, the dead sea scrolls, the Nag Hammadi, early pagan etc. it is possible to refute it yet why is it all a system from the earliest times on why did they mostly just record the religious things from the earliest times on. Why that gap filling faith was so important, or was it just a lie?

Gilgamesh was supposedly a giant, went on the search for eternal youth, but did not find it, at the same time Bible Isaiah writes that there will be a time when people wish to die but can not because death can not be found - everything is a matter of interpretation.

Enuma Elish http://www.sacred-te...m/ane/enuma.htm is an interesting writing: supposedly gods are making man before the earth was, it is a whole other world for a lot of people divided in 2 - for Kingu and for Marduk

The riddle is why don't they show it to us if they want us to know about it?

Why faith not just fact? Or why fact and no faith?

[thughes]

How many scientific facts have been disproved

None. You can't disprove a fact.

The question is can science be totally rational?

Science, as a process, is rational. Thats not the same as saying all its conclusions are right, since they are frequently based on limited evidence. The nice thing is that its conclusions will approach right as time goes on and more evidence is gathered. Wheee.

Is it possible, that religion may be rational as well thus part of the equation?

I'm sure there are religious views out there that are not internally self contradictory. As to whether these are rational...

Here's an odd thought. Some trust in authority could be viewed as rational (if those authorities had a good success rating). Also, an untrained mind with no knowledge of statistics or human psychology is likely to see proof in coincidences and in patterns that just aren't there due to the mind's peculiar ability to make patterns in just about anything... Given these plus warm fuzzy feelings (thats the lack of knowledge of psychology there) religion might be rational... right up until you know better. So I guess its a rational approach for a lot of the 3rd world.

Once the evidence of how statistics and the human brain work is available to you, I don't think its rational anymore.

That doesn't mean its irrational to hold the theory that there might be something out there, and keep looking. Its probably irrational to *believe* it, because you set yourself up to ignore the evidence that way. Not healthy. Of course if you've experienced non-reproducable proof that you believe doesn't fall into warm fuzzies and psychology, then it would be rational for you to have some faith in your theory. But not for anyone you told, just for you.

But currently, there's not enough evidence to say religion is part of any equation. It doesn't seem to affect anything measurable, besides internal brain states of people (you can get a lovely placebo effect going with prayer I've heard).

Why is it all a system from the earliest times on why did they mostly just record the religious things from the earliest times on.

People like to understand the world. The people back then had no other tool than religion to do this, for the most part. Its completely understandable, even if its all 100% wrong.

The riddle is why don't they show it to us if they want us to know about it?

Well lets make some theories that fit the facts.

(1) They only want certain people with certain mental characteristics to figure it out. They don't care about the rest of the human race.

(2) They don't want you, or anyone, to know about it.

(3) They all killed each other off and there's nothing left.

(4) They don't exist.

(5) we're all in a holodeck and some cruel ensigns are torturing us

- Mey

[susmariosep]

Try this angle...


The title of the thread is "It is okay for scientist to be religious?"

I will come back to this thread, but allow me to post a reaction quickly:

I can't see how being religious can in any manner compromise the work of a scientists.

You must know that being religious is a very almost infinite domain of man's mind and heart, so that a scientist can be very religious in one meaning of being religious, which other religious people cannot challenge as not of religion.

Susma

[Infernity]

jans,
Do you mean religious believer or a person which find a scientific reason to the belief itself?
If the second option applies- I agree since he is not called religious, he is just analysing the religion and most of them are doing it for showing people the real reasons for how did it come from and why it has rolled the way it did...

Yours
~Infernity

[vortexentity]

Individuals within the science community do strive to deconstruct religious thought and promote a more materialist point of view. The dead in spirit can only speak for the dead. Those scientist who are living in the Christian spirit are the rare commodity I am certain.

The idea of Christ is that we will live forever, not by our scientific wit but by the grace of God. This kind of smacks all the hard work of the rationalist realist in the face and thus is condemed by them as unscientific or even as unreasonaing as though it were against the orthodox church of old. Blasphemy.

[eternaltraveler]

Bible talks of giants - today we find giant bones and analyse thir DNA

The word in the bible translated as "giant" is nephilim. It refers to the beings brought about through the union of angel and man. Not necessarily giant in size.

[jans]

I think we are all right until some new fact comes about and further develops a cretin theory.

Infernity. Finding Reason to a belief or belief to the reason? Can it be either way? I think it can. If you have no faith in a theory to be right you wouldn't have reason to work at it. If you have a faith or belief on something wonderful, and you don't know what it is that makes it work, and makes it good, then I would like to bring reason to it.

It is probably a lot like a cause and effect what is first - good mood, or smile, reasoning it out, and forcing oneself to smile can for a short bring a good mood, smiling because of good mood not even thinking about it seems to be more right. So

I wouldn't have all the facts, I like to take long leaps of faith and sometimes I fall because of that, but more often I make more progress when believing in something that is greater then my power to reason it.

I think religion means to accept some higher intelligence person or God out there who cares for us to progress as we are his/her offspring, parents seem to wish good for their kids, this makes for me the involvement of God positive. I think it would be chaos without physical laws without life if there was no God. He/She must be good, and more good to some.

I must stay away few days, but have fun with it!

[Infernity]

What's real is what after you stop believing at- remains real.
Err, I don't remember who said it, I embraced it though...

Well all we do is believing.
Even when we know we are right, and we are so sure, and that's just the way it is- - some will argue and will be the same way sure on the contrasting argue- and both will be somewhat based- and non have proves.

So all we know is what we believe in. That's terrible. heh.

However, rationality says that 'God' is a humanistic inspiration since it is fitting the human mind possible creation, and they have supposedly good reasons to.

Yours
~Infernity

[DJS]

Jans

to: DonSpanton

I like what you said. If you don't mind I will ramble a bit more.

Thanks

The question is can science be totally rational? How many scientific facts have been disproved? Proven fact has been a fact untill someone reproves it with a new one.

Now here you are opening up a big can of worms. [lol] I believe that you misspoke because zero scientific facts have ever been disproven. A fact is a fact is a fact. The validity of results have been disputed because of things such as methodological flaws, etc. But what I think you are trying to say is that scientific theories (a scientific hypothesis that has been extensively verified and reverified) have, in the past, been over turned.

I would respond by saying - not quite, or rather, not entirely.

In my initial post I brought up the idea of falsification. This idea has become central to the practice of modern science (ie, the scientific method) and its prominence can largely be attributed to the philosophical ponderings of Karl Popper.

However there is one scientific philosopher in particular who I believe is even more important than Popper (if such distinctions are to be made), and that is Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn was the first scientific philosopher to truly develop the notion of the "scientific paradigm" and in many ways these do possess a subjective element to them because they consist entirely of human minds. IOWs, they are constructs of the human mind, the scientific mind to be specific, and these paradigms will not "shift" until there is a concensus amongst the entire (or at least a majority) of the scientific community that the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the new and competing paradigm.

Yet none of this is meant to imply that the old paradigm is utterly demolished by the new paradigm. In fact, in modern times this is hardly ever the case. Instead, the new paradigm usually builds off of the paradigm that already exists. The classic example of this world be the transition from "classic" Newtonian physics to Einstein's general relativity and finally quantum mechanics developed under Heisenberg, Bohr and other giants.

[DJS]

It is also interesting to apply the idea of "paradigms" to biomedical progress and the philosophy of Immortalism. By examining this particular issue one will see that there are various sorts of paradigms and that often they are interconnected with one another.

For instance, let's say that we were able to achieve robust mouse rejuvination. Aubrey would argue that this would change the consensus view in the biogerontology community towards the recognition that engineered negligible sensescence was not only possible, but probably. Once concensus was reached by this scientific community, Aubrey would further argue that public opinion will follow. A paradigm shift in public opinion would result in larger scale funding in age related fields of medicine, which would consequently further the acceleration of society toward true negligible senescence.

A scientific paradigm (within a given scientific community) influences the public paradigm which in turn influences the broader scientific paradigm. Or, as it is right now, the pessimism in a given scientific paradigm reinforces the pessimism in the public paradigm which in turn retards the progress of the larger scientific paradigm -- this is what Aubrey refers to as the "vicious cycle".

Edited by DonSpanton, 27 April 2005 - 06:07 PM.

[DJS]

Jans

The question is can science be totally rational?

I'm not sure that any human endeavor can be truly "rational" or entirely sealed away from flawed logic/reasoning.

Is it possible, that religion may be rational as well thus part of the equation?

No. I do not begrudge people their right to worship freely, but I do not recongize religion or "faith" as being rational. It is not.

Rationality implies that one reason in a logical manner and --- AND --- that they alter or replace a given opinion/hypothesis if facts dispute that hypothesis.

The problem with religions is that there is no initial logical reason for excepting their premises to begin with. One would be accepting a position for no *reason*.

If so then noting can be absolute, nothing can be out-ruled as a possibility, nothing can be fully proven, as it is based on faith.

Just because nothing is absolute does not mean that tenative hypotheses can not be formed which are based on observed empirical evidence... while at the same time reserving the right to change one's "belief" if subsequent evidence comes to bear which proves a given hypothesis incorrect. A large part of being rational is in having a great deal of flexibility in your reasoning abilities and only a conditional amount of allegiance to particular beliefs. IOW, my beliefs do not define me, I define my beliefs.

[DJS]

Individuals within the science community do strive to deconstruct religious thought and promote a more materialist point of view. The dead in spirit can only speak for the dead. Those scientist who are living in the Christian spirit are the rare commodity I am certain.

The idea of Christ is that we will live forever, not by our scientific wit but by the grace of God. This kind of smacks all the hard work of the rationalist realist in the face and thus is condemed by them as unscientific or even as unreasonaing as though it were against the orthodox church of old. Blasphemy.

*chuckle*

Readers of this thread, please not that this individual supplied his opinion, but offered no facts to back it up.

Stating a position without providing corroborative evidence -- blasphemy! [lol]

[Infernity]

(Don)
my beliefs do not define me, I define my beliefs

If that would have been the way everyone would refer it- there were no wars on religion...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[susmariosep]

Cognitive vs emotive.


My interest is more into the emotive mood of people who maintain if there be such that science and religion cannot go together.

I mean theirs is a kind of antagonism against religion.

In history there are certainly many reasons to be antagonistic toward religion.

But when we are really cognitive about religion, prescinding from history, we can proceed on religion and science without antagonism toward religion.

I think what I am trying to say is that religion is just like art.

Science and art are different, but people in science are not emotively antagonistic to art; yet some people in science are conspicuously antagonistic to religion.

This analogy is based on the consideration of religion as art. I am inclined to believe that religion and art go together, maybe even to the extent that religion is a department of art, in the understanding that art is basically concerned with emotions, with the emotive world.

Not saying things clearly and precisely, I am afraid.

Anyway, people who are antagonistic to religion in the name of science, I invite them to search into their heart and mind for their personal history, to perhaps come to a discovery for the emotive causes for their antagonism.

As for me, my religion is rational, provisional, and optional. I am a postgraduate Catholic, by my own label.

Post as in past and graduate as on graduation day we march off literally from the safety and security of the campus into the world of risks, uncertainty, questions awaiting answers, personal decisions, all of which require liberty and free inquiry, and they all make a most thrilling adventure of the mind and heart.

No, I don't have any qualms, I can live with science and religion together.


And it is because I have the right notions of religion and science.


Susma

[DJS]

Science and art are different, but people in science are not emotively antagonistic to art; yet some people in science are conspicuously antagonistic to religion.

Art does not, at least explicitly, make meta-physical claims about reality; religions do. There in lies a major difference Susma.

[DJS]

No, I don't have any qualms, I can live with science and religion together.

Hey Sus, to each his own. I've admitted numerous times that I did, in the past, hold a grudge against Christianity. I have made a sincere attempt to disabuse myself of this bias. This does not however mean that I am "pro-christianity", only that I have adopted a more "live and let live" mentality.

No. Christianity, with all of its dogmatic tenets, is definitely not a rational world view. You can claim that it imparts hidden moral truths, that it helps people to better understand compassion, or that it is necessary for social cohesion -- but you can not adequately support the claim that it is a rational belief system, though I invite you to try. )

Edited by DonSpanton, 28 April 2005 - 02:54 PM.

[stranger]

Pardon my intrusion, you all,


Don,

Did you, by any chance, mean to say tenets?
"No, Christianity with all of its dogmatic tenants, is definitely not a rational world view."

I think maybe you did.

Anyway. I think the confusion here stems from the fact that not all of us here define the word 'rational' in the same manner. You hold a very scientific point of view,thus, rational ,to you has to be absolute,or tangible,whereas, for the religious-minded ones,the term rational is a little more flexible. Just like you described the ' hypotheses with empirical evidence.' The religious or spiritually inclined base their 'reason' on the effects of their proposed subjects. Just like with fire, one doesn't need to see the it, to feel the heat. Same with Spirit, they may be invisible to our primary senses, that doesn't necessarily render them non-existent.
The problem is that they exist in a different dimension from the one we're in,although, the two dimensions do occassionally intertwine.

As far as humans possessing a 'sixth sense' is concerned,well, that is a little more complex,but yes, we all do possess such a sense,except that in most of us it is quite dormant.

I know the topic is whether science and religion can co-exist. I think they can,and they do,although a lot of conflicts arise from time to time. But like you said, it'd be better if they each minded their own business.

My qualm is different. I don't like it when the Catholics want to hold the upper hand when it comes to Christianity. And I don't like it much,either,when the 'other' Christians want to evangelize the whole world. It is a silly proposition for a Christian to want to convert a Muslim to Christianity, like some were trying to do in Afghanistan a couple of years back.

The greatest misconception ever has been the belief that there is only one God.
There is only one Supreme Lord,but it is not the one the Christians claim,nor is it the one the Muslims claim either.

The saying,''There Is Only One God'' ,actually means, '' Worship your own God.''
Just like Jehovah Himself said it. ''Thou shall have no other gods before me.''
He was, of course, addressing His own people. His own people took it out of context,though,when they tried to tell the whole world that their God was the only one. And it has been like that ever since, within the world's religions. Everyone thinks that they're the ones that have got it right.

The ones everyone considers religiously 'inferior' (the Hindus) are actually closer to the truth. Some,not all. Even some Hindus are still confused within their own religion. The Southern Baptists once claimed the Hindus to be in the 'greatest darkness',for worshipping the various Gods and Demigods. Actually, they were condemming all the other religions.

Don, you should understand that those are man-made dogmas. And that is the problem with religion, they make things up without having any experience with the transcendental Spirit.

Those false dogmas are what give religion a bad name. The problem is, correcting them, because no one listens. I'm gonna mind my own business,and let them fight it out among themselves. My business is to deal with Spirit itself and find out for myself what is true and what is not.


thanks,

stranger


the Christian that is allowed to talk to the Muslim and Hindu Gods,etc.

Crazy, but it's true. Whether it is rational,or not, it is up to one's own interpretation.

[stranger]

Susma,

Yes, Susma, science and religion do mix. And art also. You forgot music.

Hell, in the past, you have supported theism and atheism almost simultaneously.

Wonders never cease.

Long time no see.

stranger

[stranger]

Vortex Entity,

I know you don't think much of my crazy talk,but I do understand what you're trying to say. And what you do say.

Don't mind Don Spanton so much for his views. He's actually not that bad.

I know religion is not anywhere near his cup of tea,but he's got a point.

If we (religionists,spiritualists) cannot convince him, that's our problem,not his.


later,

stranger

[Infernity]

Hey vortexentity, calm down...! [huh]
Heh I'd say another example for our thread of 'Emotions'.

Yours
~Infernity

[knite]

The word in the bible translated as "giant" is nephilim.  It refers to the beings brought about through the union of angel and man.  Not necessarily giant in size.

And THIS is the reason I think you have to be very careful about religion, the bible has been translated so many times, simplified in some parts, changed, been the victim of politics virtually since its creation, right now that sucker is a hodge podge of CRAP. I personally believe in a God, I dont think im really religous however, mostly because organized religion as we know it today was born from power struggles and money.

[DJS]

Hey Strang

Did you, by any chance, mean to say tenets?
"No, Christianity with all of its dogmatic tenants, is definitely not a rational world view."

I think maybe you did.

Yep, for some reason it seems those two words often get juxtaposed by my subconscious and evade my quality control...this is probably the third time I have made that same quirky mistake...uggh. I've corrected it.

Anyway.  I think the confusion here stems from the fact that not all of us here define the word 'rational' in the same manner.

But of course. I have been more or less inviting the more spiritual among us to dispute how I have been defining my terms. You are the first to come forward.

You hold a very scientific point of view,thus, rational ,to you has to be absolute,or tangible,whereas, for the religious-minded ones,the term rational is a little more flexible.  Just like you described the '  hypotheses with empirical evidence.'

Yes.

The religious or spiritually inclined base their 'reason' on the effects of their proposed subjects.  Just like with fire, one doesn't need to see the it, to feel the heat.  Same with Spirit,  they may be invisible to our primary senses, that doesn't necessarily render them non-existent.

Well you know Stranger, we have had this conversation before and you know my position quite well: freedom of belief. You also know that I do not have these kinds of spiritual experiences (I actually did have a "spiritual" experience once, but it would probably be quite different from what you are use to ) ) Why, or rather how, could I believe something which I did not experience or did not have evidence of? That just wouldn't make sense now would it? The other thing is that people's experiences are just so diverse when it comes to the spiritual. This to me would imply that spiritua experiences are mostly subjective in nature -- yes, I know your response, there is an underlying "uniformity" to them. Again, we have very different perspectives.

Don, you should understand that those are man-made dogmas.  And that is the problem with religion,  they make things up without having any experience with the transcendental Spirit.

Oh, I understand quite well. Religion and spiritualism are two very different things...yes yes, we've been through this.

----------------------------------

There is an issue I wanted to address however and it is very germane to the thread topic.

Let me pose this question to my spiritual friends: do you subscribe to evolutionary theory?

Your answer to this is an important one and it directly ties into the idea of a "theistic scientists". In many ways it is its mirror image -- the "scientific spiritualist". VortexEntity seems to have this going for him, but in general I find most spiritual people to be deficient in the sciences (much as I am deficient in spiritual matters). But my query is not just in terms of abilities or interests, but *beliefs*. You see, the theory of evolution forces the individual to appraise the world from a very different perspective and it is not as easy as some here may claim to reconcile naturalism with spiritualism.

In my own experience, the hard core spiritualist (jhershierra for example) will usually deny the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE for evolution in its entirety. The theory simply creates too much cognitive dissonance for their belief structure and they are forces to explain (or deny) libraries full of data that point to a very specific conclusion.

THIS is the phenomenon that physicalists/naturalists like myself have a hard time understanding. How can someone deny such solid evidence? How can they not wake up to the fact? Obviously not everyone who denies the validity of evolution is dull. In fact many are very bright. How can they explain away the evidence so matter of factly? Now, if you wanted to really see where I draw a line in the sand, it is at this very issue. People who deny evolution are not, IMHO, rational.

[Infernity]

And THIS is the reason I think you have to be very careful about religion, the bible has been translated so many times, simplified in some parts, changed, been the victim of politics virtually since its creation, right now that sucker is a hodge podge of CRAP.

Luckily knite, I can read it in the original language
Unfortunately- the language is very difficult. An ancient superior language.

I tend to agree with you Don...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[susmariosep]

Glad to see you back!


Stranger, welcome back. I was feeling quite lonely without you around. Before we get slapped with the charge of derailment for going into social exchange, let me put some materials here to justify this post.

You say that you find me amazing that I can talk favorably of theism and atheism in the same message.

As a matter of fact, I am a theist, an atheist, an agnostic, a deist, a skeptic, and what have you, all rolled into one. It all depends on the script I am playing or acting on at the time or in the context of discourse.

What's that about life or all the world is a stage and all the men and women are mere players. For me we are all players or actors, but not mere: because we can't just walk off the stage of life unlike in the stage of the theater or playhouse.

And I find you also amazing that you can be to my impression perfectly and completely rational and yet communing with spirits. It takes all kinds to make up mankind.

Anyway, at least we both, or if you decline then for me only, have our two feet on terra firma; so that when it is a matter of not stepping off the 20th floor of a building, we are all agreed that we have to submit to that script of the senses pure and simple -- if for no other reason than to remain relevant and active in all other scripts, like religion, politics, arts, and of course philosophies. This means for me the primacy and priority of science.


Now back to some social exchange.

Do you know whether the water meter has a built-in one way check valve preventing the water already in the house plumbing from getting out again through the meter?

I just had a water tank set up on a tower in answer to El Nino coming soon, and I now worry that my precious water might just slip out to my neighbors' homes once the water pressure from source is extremely low or even no water is being supplied by the water company.

I had a separate one way check valve installed; but horror of horrors, the stupid plumber notwithstanding all my reminders to him to be careful, just the same installed the check valve in the wrong direction, that is for the water inside the house to go out, preventing the water from outside, from the source company to flow in.

When that son of his mother left, we were left without water inside the house. So I had to put in some more hours to my working day, to make a bypass with a garden hose, connecting with the hose the first garden outlet faucet -- the one between the water meter and the wrongly installed check valve, with an outlet faucet located after that wrongly installed check valve.

What do you think about the water meter, does it have a built in one way check valve in its entrails to prevent water from flowing outward?

This information will enable me decide to either rectify the direction of the check valve or to get rid of it altogether.

Susma

Susma,

Yes, Susma, science and religion do mix.  And art also. You forgot music.

Hell, in the past, you have supported theism and atheism almost simultaneously.

Wonders never cease.

Long time no see.

stranger

[stranger]

Don Spanton,

Before I begin, I just want to commend 'Mr. Knite' for his keen observation regarding the present day state of organized religion.

"I personally believe in a God, I don't think I'm really religious,however, mostly because organized religion,as we know it today, was born from power struggles and money."

Maybe it wasn't born from that, but it sure did attract a lot of unsavory characters.
And that's what it's become-- a center for the acquisition of imaginary power and the control of untold millions of dollars-- a business.


I think this statement also more than clarifies why the new Pope didn't want to be picked as a successor to the late John Paul II. The Pope is nothing more than a front for the 'machine'.

----------------------------------------------

Don,

You say that you once did have a spiritual experience. I'm just curious.
Of one thing,though, I am pretty certain. One day, I don't know when, you will somehow experience or witness something that will not ,in any way, conform to the laws of physics. When it does, don't be too surprised. There are forces outside of this reality that occassionally manifest within it. Don't be alarmed,though, it might just turn out to be your guardian spirit letting you know that you don't always walk alone. Don't worry,either, the guardian spirits never interfere with one's own free will.

You also stated the following.

"Why, or rather how, could I believe something which I did not experience or did not have evidence of? That wouldn't make sense now, would it?"

I don't think so. But as a human, you are still entitled to one day perceive more than what is normally only within our sight. For now, don't be too concerned with it. I know that you have more important things to attend to. You are attracted to your profession for a reason.

You also commented.

"The other thing is that people's experiences are just so diverse when it comes to the spiritual. This, to me, would imply that spiritual experiences are mostly subjective in nature."

Yeah. Sometimes, even I,am surprised by others' experiences.
By 'subjective', do you mean that we witness what we subconciously,or unconciously, desire? It would seem so,but,actually, in my own experience, I have been contacted by entities(benevolent) of whom I had no prior knowledge of.

And last...

"Do you subscribe to evolutionary theory?"

I know this is for all the readers here,so, I will abstain for now.


later,

stranger

[stranger]

Susma,

Thank you for your kind welcome. Actually, I never left. I have been around,although, I haven't felt a need for making any kind of comments.
Didn't think you would miss me,though. Thanks.

You had this to say;

"I find you amazing that you can be,to my impression, perfectly and completely rational,and yet communing with spirits."

I don't blame you. People still think that when someone talks to spirits, it is probably because they are in delusion. I assure you,though, I am not experiencing any kind of neurosis or psychosis.

I told you once that it had been my intention to obtain a degree in psychology. At the time, I was quite mystified by the workings of the brain and by the mind itself. But it was more from a desire to study parapsychology as a psychologist that I enrolled in college in the first place. The nuances of writing essays for my sophomore literature course was what kept me from getting my associate's degree.
The introductory courses in my major were pretty interesting,but analyzing writers' style and such in my literature class were deathly boring. I put off those six hours of literature for later. It was while away from college that I encountered the ones teaching me a little bit about parapsychology. I have not only studied it(informally) I became a participant.

Also, I was more interested in spirit than religion. They have taught me a little bit about both. And yes, they agree, the current state of the organized religions is pure disarray. My advice to you,since you are a little bit religious; Practice it in your heart,don't worry too much about attending church. If you like the church atmosphere,well, that's fine by me.

----------------------------------------------------

Susma, about the check valve in the water line. I am no expert on that,and I am not all-knowing,but you answered the question yourself.

You say that the plumber installed the secondary check valve backwards preventing the water source from reaching the water tank. Don't you think then that it is possible that the main check valve is truly a one way valve also?(it should be,otherwise it wouldn't be a check valve)

later,

stranger

[susmariosep]

Subjective vs arbitrary


Thanks, Stranger for your kind words.


I like to share with you my useful distinction between what is subjective and what is arbitrary, or to put it in noun forms, what is subjectivity and what is arbitrariety.

Many people dismiss subjectivity as not worth acceptance on the grounds of scientific reliability. For example, in your communings with spirits, people tend to dismiss them as being subjective, or to be more concrete, they are all in your mind.

However they forget to realize or they don't at all realize that we are for being conscious beings incapable of being anything else than subjective in all our operations and cognitions.

As a matter of fact, we are all subjects, whether active or passive, and therefore all our actions on anything and perceptions of anything whether outside our being or within our being itself, in our body and in our mind, cannot otherwise be than subjective, namely, peculiar to ourselves, distinctively, shall we use the word, proprietary; so that it is namely the experience completely our very own, different from a similar experience in others whether humans or animals, or even in your case, spirits.

Subjectivity then is the only thing we are and we have as the basis of our being, operation, and perception. But subjectivity is not arbitrariety.

Take this example of arbitrariety: there is that traffic cop who stops you and wants to see your license and car registration; you ask him why and he answers back, "Because I say so". You ask him further for what reasons aside from his power to stop motorists and ask for documents, and he replies, "Because I don't like your face".

Now that is arbitrariety. But why are people inclined to arbitrariety? It's the emotions, or the what we learned in schools, Catholic ones, about the seven capital vices: pride or vanity, sloth, envy, gluttony, covetousness, lust, anger.

Subjectivity is in our essence, the groundwork of our actions and perceptions, but arbitrariety is to act, to speak, to view the world on naked emotions, specially those founded upon any of the seven capital vices, instead of being inspired and ruled by reason.

About your communings with spirits, it is and cannot be otherwise than real for yourself, insofar as you are a subject and such communings are operations and perceptions of your conscious self. I would not dismiss them as illusions or delusions or hallucinations, even though I have told you and said so several times in public postings here that they are all in your mind.

Now, if you and others like you with similar encounters with spirits, however subjective they be, would just get together and draw up what might be the common threads of your experiences, then we might have some kind of a science of communings with spirits -- understanding science as the process of arriving at knowledge by observations and experimentations, in your case of your communings with spirits however such be in your minds. We can observe and experiment with occurrences in our minds, can't we?

Susma