Some things about Religion i have observed

No offence, I guess this just makes me dumb, but I don't get it.... are you asking me to explain my previous post in more detail?

I can, if you wish..... I've said all the parts of it many times though, and you're always in this type of thread, I'm sure it will look familear to you. I'll grab a bite to eat and do it in a little while, though.

 

You do get it. Perhaps it took longer than you are accustomed to.

 

I should know better than not to comprehend you thedope! I think it must be my linguality that has me only view contribution via the experiential. ;D

 

I will have to agree with thedope...I don't think I understand you and further elaboration would be appreciated.

I don't believe I made any statement about "Western religion" so you will have to demystify that statement particularly.

 

Roughly in order:

Science is powerful, for reasons that I will explain in a moment. Religion may be powerful, but by it's very nature, without very much reason, other than to reinforce itself.

Lies about science can be used to control people, or science might merit legitimate control, such as requiring that people do not dump toxic chemicals or pollute. But science itself is not some sort of alternate answer, it is totally neutral, both to religion and to control. Science is a method of applying common sense to what we see, and building models to better understand the world around us. Religion, by WESTERN nature, works in the opposite direction, you start with ideas and then make the world fit those ideas.

So you could tell lies about scientific findings to manipulate people, but it is not possible to use science to manipulate. Religion, though a broad field, involves matters of faith, and faith is believing with NO reason other than that you believe. You can point at a book or teacher, but other than that, there is NO evidence, or none that can be proven, only alleged. So religion is controlling, often incorrectly, even if it is a religion shared by NO other person. Religion causes irrationality even without others to induce it. (again, this is mainstream western religion that I'm talking about)

No, religion is not a method of looking for anything, it is simply what is there. It clouds vision. Science cannot lie-it can be misread, but it is not something that you can put together as anything other than hard, factual evidence of the nature of the world around us.

You say religion and science are useful for different things, and that you don't put much stock in science-so what do you put stock in, complete irrationality? It's not something you can choose to not believe in, without divorcing yourself from the world around you.

As far as you being influenced by western religion, the religion/mix that you cite does not discount science or say it's useful within the realms of it's applicability, many religions that have grown in areas not heavily influenced by european religion have no problem with science, and can even be altered with new scientific findings, which is the only way to have a religion that does anything close to seek truth. If the church had created annotated, corrected bibles, and allowed it to be archived but also be a living enclycopedia of what we know to be true, it would not be set at odds with reality, and you would not be looking at the religion you claim as yours in the way that you do.

So I think you view another religion through a western lens that causes you to misunderstand it.

In the end I answered the post of yours that I originally quoted, but have not gone back to quote it in this text. I trust you know what you said.

This isn't the most complete, correct, or direct answer to what you have said, but I can be clumsy with language and it's application to my ideas. I also didn't proof read it, so my apologies if I repeat myself or leave things out.

 

There are two ways to consider man, that is as he finds himself, or what he may potentially become. Religion seeks to unleash human potentiality.

 

Some does.

Religion used to be science. But it ceased to be so quite a while back.

Potentiality is best learned and pushed by learning, with the scientific method.

 

thedope:

While science seeks to rein it in. Which really only means science has the better if not bigger conscience. lol

Religion is a mute beast before the intellect.

 

You mean like seek and you shall find?

 

The way of a yogi

 

Hey RooR,
Thanks for further clarification. I think you make your points eloquently.

When did I ever say I "don't put much stock in science"? I put enormous stock in it! I trust it with my life every day. You are confusing my statement that science has limits to its validity with some kind of outright rejection.

What we are arguing is simply a question of metaphysics. I completely agree that science is the best tool we have for apprehending the physical reality around us. This is its "realms of applicability": the entirety of Nature and the physical world. Do not assume that I was discounting or putting-down science by suggesting its realm of validity is limited. In fact, by opposing this view you are setting up the (extremely consequential) assertion that science's realm of validity is INFINITE, that Science (which I will specifically limit to the science-making faculty of the human brain) is THE superior mode of apprehending reality in all cases. That is the NECESSARY conclusion that follows from the assertion you are implicitly making that science does not ave any limitations on its validity.

You don't really know enough about me to judge whether I have an authentic understanding of the tradition I lay claim to...I would suggest, with all respect, that I have been intimate with the tradition long enough to understand what it says about these matters--and more importantly than ascribing to a doctrine with societal validity, I CERTAINLY know what I myself believe and don't need to be instructed in it. If anything I think your assertions about what it "accepts" and "rejects" are an extremely oversimplified "textbook" understanding and indicate a less-than-intimate familiarity with the actual spiritual and metaphysical tradition. For you to claim that I "misunderstand" my own beliefs is borderline-offensive.

Let me tell my story: I grew up in a (liberal) Christian household, and rejected ALL religion as a teenager. I went through a phase of militant positivist, materialist, scientific atheism. I read up on everything anyone had to say about the subject and I understand all the arguments in favor. Even when I began studying Buddhism I thought of it as a psychological discipline and had very little time for matters of spirit or (what I then deemed) "the supernatural." My views have evolved through all these stages. In every stage I was an avid reader as well as a self-searcher. It is with that background that I now claim the worldview that I do.

You very accurately claim that "Science is a method of applying common sense to what we see, and building models to better understand the world around us." That is a very reasonable statement. On the other hand, to go from that to "science has no limitations on its validity" requires a gigantic leap of logic. In fact, you MUST assert, in order to complete that argument, that our common sense, and our model-building faculties, are COMPLETELY ACCURATE tools for getting at the nature of reality. In other words, you must trust our rational faculty, the reliability of our data-gathering, and our synthesizing/explanatory faculty SO MUCH that you believe that any and all phenomena can be subjected to their functioning. This is the fundamental assumption of scientific materialism: that the things which we can apprehend, observe externally, cognize, and explain represent reality, that anything outside of that realm is "imaginary," that is, NOT-real.

As you can see, metaphysical assumptions come to light and questions that science can't answer (because they are meta-physical, that is, they regard the assumptions on which the physical sciences depend) spring up very quickly. For instance, what is Real? Most concepts of reality are definitional. Science defines real as "subjectable to science," that is, observable and verifiable. Anything that is not observable and verifiable is, by this definition, not real. Most people don't recognize that that line of reasoning is not an established fact but is an unquestioned assumption. When the assumption comes under question, science is at a loss to support it except by (a) dismissing experiences that don't fit this definition of reality as pathological and incorrect or (b) resorting to a pragmatic approach, which claims that Science MUST make these claims of reality or else it doesn't function. (A) does nothing to address the fundamental insubstantiality of the definition of reality, whereas (B) itself admits that science is limited: anyone who is a pragmatist is by definition uninterested in reality, since they only need a model that suits their aims.

Now, IF we DO accept all the metaphysical assertions/assumptions that underlie Science, then science is a perfect means of exploring reality within those frameworks. In fact, there is no better way. I love science!

"Religion" is a terrible term for what I am trying to favor, and I am now wishing I had not put myself in the position of defending religion-qua-religion. Most of the evils you very-correctly assign to Religion (being fundamentalist, putting ideas before evidence, denying reality, being controlling/manipulative or self-serving) are not in fact evils of what I would call religion, but are evils of the human institutions by which Religion is co-opted. I have to agree that most Churches and religio-social structures have great capacity to be harmful. If you were wanting to clash with me on that question, I'm afraid I can offer no defense.

What I do defend, and what I put forward as the counterweight or adjunct of material Science, is what one might call the "Spiritual approach." The Spiritual approach merely takes a slightly different tack from science. It merely says that "reality" is not a phenomenon "out there" which is best apprehended by observation and verification, but instead allows for the possibility that "reality" is a construct in which we participate. The Spiritual approach does NOT take as its basic assumption that observable and verifiable occurences are more real than, say, subjective experiences. It does not assume that external reality is MORE REAL than the mind. Consciousness, in this view, is either an active participant in, or the ground of, reality. By this view, the fact that a certain occurrence can't be observed or verified by sensory/consensual means does not make it false. Indeed, because consciousness constantly participates in the construction of reality, the outward phenomena are not even necessarily more trustworthy than the inward or unseen phenomena. Again, the questions are metaphysical, they cannot be "proven" in the scientific sense, nor can they be "disproven." They are therefore OUTSIDE the purview of the observing, verifying scientific faculty. Does this therefore make them unreal?

On the other hand, the Spiritual approach is quite terrible at predicting outward phenomena: non-rational (e.g. spiritual, intuitive, etc) modes-of-knowing are quite terrible at guessing the cycles of the moon, or even knowing the schedule on which the garbageman comes. Participation with the outward reality REQUIRES science-making at some level. Perhaps this is what you meant by "without divorcing yourself from the world around you." I choose instead to acknowledge the equal truism that Spirituality ALSO has a limited field of applicability.

Your assertion that "religion is not a method of looking for anything, it is simply what is there." PERHAPS this holds true of religion-as-religious-doctrine, but as I have hopefully made clear, any particular doctrinal formulation is not what I view as religion. What I am arguing for is simply a particular lens (read: set of metaphysical assumptions) which apprehends or translates the raw data of Experience (both external and subjective). When looked at in this light, "religion" is absolutely a method of looking for something.

Shortened version: different modes of knowing are required for apprehending different segments of reality. Any single mode of knowing by necessity falls short. To conflate the reality available to any particular mode of knowing with the Absolute Reality is foolish. Science is just one mode of knowing.

I'll end with a quote from Joseph Campbell:
"But now when one says 'truth' as a scientist, one is being sentimental. Because, really, the wonderful thing, and the great challenge, of the scientific revelation is that Science itself does not pretend to be true. It doesn't pretend to be final. It is simply an organization of working hypotheses." -Joseph Campbell

 

I think as we progress in science and the ability to measure things...I believe we will be able to measure so-called "metaphyisics" in a way that we cannot now prove there is MUCH that we cannot (physically) see (but for a second, if we are lucky) nor touch.

Furthurmore, I believe that true science, in dadblame spite of the church, will prove biblical teachings and/or accounts of things to be correct and accurate.

 

Thank you for the reply-I shall pursue it at more length later, right now I'm procrastinating and should be doing other things, but let me mention one thing:

I think that it is a mistake to forget that the mystical, and thoughts, and feelings, and all that sort of thing, they're all physical things, chemical reactions. WE are "just" chemicals, and remember that that's not a bad thing, and it doesn't demean us, but it can remind you how many-layered we are and how such simple things can have such a direct affect on us-I'm fascinated by consciousness and all it's parts being the product of chemical reactions, we're the one place in the universe that we know of where 2+2=something that has nothing (that we can immediately see) to do with numbers-we don't even have an innate understanding of ourselves.

I'm rambling..... laundry/bed time.

 

As to the constitution of both science and religion.

Everything is represented spectrally, that is as range of intensity within a certain bandwidth. We have ascending/descending states of matter from solid to liquid to gas to plasma. All of these states are possible for any one element. However these states are so dramatically different in appearance and behavior as to seem like alien representations when compared to each other.

Just a light has visible and invisible frequencies to the naked eye, science and religion both have generally tangible aspects but they also have esoteric aspects. In order to see or measure certain wavelengths of light, you need to develop special sensory equipment. This can be accomplished through mechanical apparatus or biologically by refining attention.

Before technological advances all of our science/religion emerged organically through refining attention, observation, self discipline. All of our weights and measures and charts and statistical analysis emerges from the mind.

We find both religion and science in practice to serve and protect at one end of the spectrum and at the other to threaten with annihilation. in science we have vaccines and nuclear/biological weapons. In religion we have recapitulation and genocide.