Will Science and Religion ever be Reconciled?

Uh...politics plus religion equals hitler, like now in the US and islam. They immediately destroy each other and in fact, in fine do not reconcile....unless you're a dictator, tyrant etc.

 

Why the small 'I' for islam? We can see how people are loyal to democratic institutions instead of political networks by ideological choices.:sunny:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51Wg6k9cWhM"]Shirley Bassey - Goldfinger (Live at Royal Albert Hall) - YouTube

 

A serendipitous congruence only.

 

I would not call them one and the same. The institution involves structure---in fact, formal structure----and hierarchy, and a hallmark of authority. It shapes culture around it.

While tradition in some form or level is necessary to empower the institution, the institution is not necessary to empower tradition.

The institution is a sign of civilization. It is one of the key sources of objectivism within a culture and treats mankind as an object. Tradition can be both objective or subjective, but it is more often than not targeted at the subjective, and is experienced by man as the subject.

I actually agree, and feel that we create our own reality by the choices we make. It is just a little hard not to finger point right now, being that my wife and I are in the middle of a hell, even though we never did anything wrong. Also even if I was going to place blame, it is more than just him--there were many other players that took part, and a justice system that is abusing its power (apparently for profit).

 

The traditions of finding one's role for the Divinely differenced -- with the applied belonging-- were by the consequence of the Catholic church's constant referral to the Aristotelian closed systemic of final causation for Ethics (by institutions), as I mentioned in the purposeful reasoning before, the avant-guarde, radicalized tradition for openness, comes out within the plausible Hegel-Nietzche confrontation for full use of language for and by the creator establishment in the sacrificing into Selfishly proven living consequences. Hegel takes a more transcendental approach of concentrating on the intentional eidos directed by Linguistic forms within the contingency of Necessity in the body.
Openness in a tradition allows for the individual to belong to solely the self-created aspect of tradition as a rule of historical master/slavery. Though to Hegel this idea was more a metaphor for being in the called for caring relationship, the further developed openness of Nietzsche was being defined beyond care into the sensed dimension of authentic belonging by Time control and Creation. Eidos itself is desired to become as openness from one ideal member per biais to another. Interpretation is the determining of institutionality as a Human force in history as the terminal of end in the time. Thus the difference between traditions and institutions, the former being at openness and the latter at terminal ends for the common goal of organized work.

 

I am confused. While I did mean it as a compliment, I also meant it as a reflection of how you justified your own qualifications, based on experience, for giving the responses you did.

Are you saying that Christianity should be taken lock, stock, and barrel---dogmas and all---and to do otherwise is an anti-Christian bias? Must the individual unquestioningly give in to the crowd, and turn control of his life to the group? Is it wrong to seek the deeper spiritual side to Christianity that connects one directly to divinity?

The institution is a man-made structure it isn't perfect. Many churches are struggling today, and that is a problem that isn't necessarily tied to belief.

I've had too many debates since then. I remember you, but I forget who argued what in that thread----COincidentally I have actually wanted to go back and re-read that particular thread.

And I reread your posts on this thread and remembered that later I had more of an idea of what you were saying. But seriously---when I came back to this thread and saw the post with the Bible versus I was a little confused.

 

Believe me, before the universe began we did not have the meaning of gravity. This is the most up to date scientific view of ill-determined Laws of a Gravitational Nature. The Higgs Bosom is just the clump of mass then and there in the past abyss of doubting the diaboiicised for the temporal event of singularity. The universal Law way on the other hand must find the presence in the developing Past of Gravity Waves, the shear interference of really an uncertain gravitational constant. In Hegel's philosophy of Nature the Law of Gravity has been trivialized to non-exiztence. Talking about non-existence.:biker:

 

Hmmm, a lot of assumptions going on there.

Why can't the scientist view the sunrise, understand the physical process at work and still stand in awe and reverence at the grandeur of the universe??

I think you should read some Carl Sagan or other physicists and astronomers and astrophysicists, biologist. etc. and you will find out that many of them are far more spiritual and "religious" than even you are, often as a result of their scientific work.
Your viewpoint is so biased and naive'

It is you who misses the entire point my friend.:sunny:

 

Tradition at it's root means to trade away or betray
The founder of tradition is the hallmark of authority to anyone who believes that their own sense of direction is insufficient. Institutions mirror traditional hierarchies and do not represent progressive refinements.
Tradition is the law, blessed/taboo set, and institution the prison that subdues as the world is institutionalized via the usurped mind in the effort to concentrate effects.

I think there is a confusion here between what is and ideas about what should be. Tradition begins as an interpretation of what is and is then communicated and advanced as what should be. Understand that the perception of what is ends at that point as from that state we see only the past. An idea about what is that was conceived in it's entirety long ago, as you say a primordial decision, but perceived as the apprehension of now.

Tradition is the way a flash of illumination is commonly communicated period. The world as it is, is not communicated but beheld or held in being. Tradition cannot tame but the perception of real things quiets the beasts of anxiety.
We need do nothing.

We detect a level of hero worship in the veneration of our heroic forefathers and it is simply undeserved. A brother is deserving of loyalty to the extent he is loyal and an elder brother is deserving of respect for his greater experience
but another's experience cannot substitute for our own.

Your actual agreement is simply not of sufficient strength or you have not made the final choice for reality. That is you say you agree because you believe it is reasonably so not because you actually behold it true. Temptation is the desire that illusion be real. I can assure you it is easier to rely on the truth although it may not make you popular with those relying on sympathy for having nightmares about the world.

 

My "listing" my personal experiences was in response to Indie suggesting I spend more time "thinking on the deeper things" to illustrate that I "been there, done that".

And where in the Hell did you get all that "lock-stock-and barrel" crap??
That I'm confused about.
Seems you are filling gaps with your assumptions, and wrongly so I might add.

Why the confusion, you brought up the concept of "naming a thing brings it into existence", I was just pointing out that the Bible begins with that very concept, as you also mentioned, ya know, "let there be light".

So because I quoted some Bible verses and mentioned I have had "Christian" experiences you have categorized me as "Christian".
Why not call me a Wiccan, or a Buddhist, Hindu or a Satanist, even just a burned out druggy??
The information I provided could have placed me into any of the above groups.

Then you go on to offer advice to Christians further solidifying your condescending attitude towards them, as if YOU are in some loftier position to be offering advice that Christians should heed if the want to find "true" spirituality. LOL

Frankly, you have talked about participating in more ritual and religious proceedings with all the tradition and trappings than ANY of the Christians I have ever associated with, yet THEY are the ones "trapped" by religion?

You seem to be missing the very first step in this journey, "Know Thyself".

 

I'm sorry, you must have been thinking of Buddhism or Zoroastrianism, maybe Scientology, when you thought up the thread idea.
Sorry for the confusion

So what religion did you have in mind when conceiving the idea for this thread?

 

This just speaks to the insidious effect of traditions attempt to apprehend shadows or to fulfill some sentimental longing for our 'unfallen' state.

It is not so as Mountain Valley Wolf suggests that tradition informs culture it only informs traditional culture or enculturation. Once so cultivated it becomes crystallized in the mind through dendritic construction and crystals transduce energetic stimulus the same way every time, (habit.) The habitually minded walk around in a hypnotic sleep unable to pinch themselves into awakening save for consistent effort toward the desired aim or external shocks to the system. That means we need be constantly switching out alarm clocks as we tend to learn to sleep through them if they sound the same every time. You can say all the right things and be totally oblivious to the truth of it. So we can discuss things calmly on paper but take offense at real living!

 

Ever since you first posted on this thread the only thing that I feel from you is negativity. Almost every post you have here is a poorly concealed prod. If you choose to put others down and feel as though the majority of the "non-christians" are out to get you that is your choice to make. Each time you say something here it is clear that you do not actually take the time to read what you are responding too as is made evident by this post alone.

In essence what this means.......I am not here to argue with you about mine or your viewpoints. What you choose to believe is your decision to make and as such I will simply continue to discuss this thread with those who are here to discuss. If you wish to contribute your own opinions and you can keep those opinions civil then I will be more than willing to discuss with you aswell.

On a side note that will address your post simply out of courtesy, this thread was not meant to angle at one faith at all. It was designed to talk about the differences and possibly the similarities between all modern religion and science. As was self evident....

 

Just curious if it be self evident how could NoxiousGas be in error?

Both our religion and our science emerge from the night time sky. Predicting the movement of planets was demonstration of priestly power and it remains as well demonstration of scientific power.

 

I have to apologize---I am not completely on my game right now, as I am dealing with all kinds of things. When I answered about tradition, I was using it in a limited sense that the Lakota use it when speaking of their own traditions. I still stand by my previous post---but I would modify, for example, the following statement: 'but it is more often than not targeted at the subjective, and is experienced by man as the subject.' to read: but it can be targeted at the subjective, and is often experienced by man as the subject. (And by, 'as subject,' I am stating that man experiences it subjectively).

In this more limited usage, ritual could be replaced with tradition.

So I agree with your comments above--but only in the sense that it applies to tradition as it develops with civilization (which began with a planter culture group ethic). In an indigenous culture where their is less of a developed planter-culture ethic/zeitgeist.

To use the Lakota as an example, White Buffalo Calf Woman brought back the sacred traditions that the Lakota had forgotten for the most part, but it did not create any hierarchy--not in a human sense. The Chanunpa, (the sacred pipe) for example holds a place of authority in Lakota spirituality. The chanunpa that White Buffalo Calf Woman brought to the Lakota is still held by a family who was given it to carry. But this does not give them any authority over the chanunpa or over Lakota. (In fact there are Lakota who get uncomfortable when the family comes out and makes statements as if, or that seem to as if, they are an authority or some such thing. That is not how they are supposed to carry that chanunpa.

So how do people hold authority in traditional Lakota society? They are not elected, they can be chosen by spirit---but really it is about whether people follow them or not. And they would follow different people at different times. Some people are better in some situations, others are better in others. But it also is not a simple matter of who has the most friends. Chiefs gain followers not by popularity as much as by selfless acts. No one really wants to be a chief in Lakota society because it is a serious sacrifice, just as being a medicine man is. But there are people that are very selfless and do things for anyone and everyone. There are still people like that in Lakota society. I've talked about Kari before, but he is also a medicine man. There are several other people that are amazing in how they do so much. I don't know how they do everything they do in a day. They don't have much money, they don't ask for anything in all they do for others, but they always seem to be doing fine---and they are the ones that get results. One such person was the Chairman of the non-profit I work with (it's all volunteer work). He was going to be in California foe a while, so he resigned. He got so much done it was unbelievable. He is now back in Colorado, and the Chairman, that replaced him, and the rest of us too, begged him to come back on as Chairman again. He is now doing that again, and if anyone needs anything---he will take care of it---if he can timewise----he is always busy nonstop.

I do believe it to be true-----I just choose in this situation to vent---but after venting, I certainly know what is really happening here. I actually understand that my wife has some very important lessons to learn---and I have allowed myself to go along for the ride. I could choose not to, but I love her and will go along as she learns about belief and being positive, and how much control she has over her future. But that is a whole nother story that involves the Chanunpa.

 

I never said that Noxious Gas was in error. In fact I often stated that he and I were both in agreement in many things. Also as you have just said astrology is a common ancestor to both religion and science.

 

Really?

You make the statement all you get from him is negativity. This is a mis-perception about what we behold in the world. What we experience is our own nervous systems response to stimulus and we then interpret sensation. There is nothing you claim exists that you do not whole heartedly agree with being bound by your own claim. Even if NoxiousGas were upbeat you couldn't see it or otherwise transcend the boundaries of your own statement. The only way to apprehend the truth of any situation is to own all of it's elements and not project sensations of the inner or emotional landscape onto exterior causes.

Not what I said. Observation of the nighttime sky is the common denominator and the reason is the lunar gestation cycle of homo sapiens. Most species migrate or otherwise take advantage of local abundance during periods of strong daylight. Summer is breeding season. Human beings however can have children at high latitudes at any time of the year making them wakeful during many hours of darkness. Humans make hay however in the daytime so there is no time during the day to ponder these things.

 

It would seem as though perhaps I am not explaining myself correctly. I do not believe that Noxious Gas' views are negative, or that his opinion is in error. I did say that when he responds to my posts he seems to want to often use a negative attitude. I only started this thread to give people a chance to share their views and understand mine to a certain degree. It is hard however to share a view point, or listen to one, when one spends all their time trying to talk resonably to a single person. I recall this spat that you and OWB had a while back which wound up taking up almost half of a thread and eventually led to it being shut down. Neither of you had the time to share other viewpoints or listen to any one else because of it. I want to reconcile the seeming incongruities between myself and Noxious because I am more than ready to move on. This is something that I have said multiple times in posts responding to him.

Also I am sorry apparently I do not understand what you are referring to, if not the known astrology being part of both. Perhaps you would like to explain this further it does seem very interesting

 

I like this description and the effects you describe are from honoring the thoughts we share.

Forgive me then if your complicated choices lead me to the wrong impression.

It kinda feels like though absent any accusation when my sister used to say fuck you and when I complained she would say she was only teasing...

 

The measure we give is the measure we receive. I have time to discuss any view point. The reason those discussions seem dominated is because no one else cares to participate, that is all. The reason said thread was closed was because it appeared to the moderator to be a conversation between two people. I never limit my comments to the hearing of only one.

The best to reconcile incongruity is to be consistent in our statements.
If you notice my exchange with Mountain Valley Wolf, his inconsistent statements on the surface caused me some confusion concealing his deeper concerns.

If you must call night sky observation astrology, why not astronomy?
Observe the night time sky and see what comes up. Science and religion are crimes of opportunity.