runbei
New member
Posts: 1
|
 |
« on: September 28, 2007, 12:04:03 AM » |
|
Goodness - how will we ever know? Suppose religious claims could be tested scientifically. That is, experientially, empirically, using appropriate tools. (Is that not the scientific method? - As opposed to the reasonable twiddling of words?) And suppose the tools were prayer and meditation, and the "proof" again, experience. Subjective, yes, but nonetheless verifiable. Spiritual literature is a vast lab notebook in which the results have been recorded. The ones who can speak with authority born of personal experience about spiritual truth are the saints, not biologists, fundamentalist believers, or academics. Odd, that this "third way" never enters the discussion. But not so odd, considering that proof requires action, and talk is cheap. (On both sides, the ignorance of spiritual tradition is marvelous. Have none of these people read Autobiography of a Yogi?) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
spork
|
|
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2007, 04:36:29 AM » |
|
I like chocolate glazed donuts the best.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
a.k.a. gum-chewing monkey in a Tufts University jacket
"Please do not force people who are exhausted to take medication for hallucinations." -- Memo from the Chair, Department of White Privilege Studies, Fiork University
|
|
|
|
husqvarna
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2007, 10:09:25 AM » |
|
Spiritual literature is a vast lab notebook in which the results have been recorded. The ones who can speak with authority born of personal experience about spiritual truth are the saints, not biologists, fundamentalist believers, or academics. Odd, that this "third way" never enters the discussion.
Well, it does enter the discussion in religious places of learning. The problem isn't that it doesn't enter the discussion, but that certain parts of academia have chosen not to listen to the discussion going on in other parts of academia, for good and bad reasons. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I am not surprised that you are confused ... [t]hat confusion may well be chronic if not congenital. |
|
|
|
starfleet_grad
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2007, 10:17:38 AM » |
|
Oh, sacred texts are just a bunch of superstitious hocus-pocus used to keep the populace controlled and oppressed, unless, of course, it is my sacred text, in which case it is a shining beacon of truth to be followed by all clear-thinking people on the road to personal enlightenment and a better world. Now hand me that bag of fertilizer and those wires, will ya?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I'm a teacher, Jim, not a customer service representative.
|
|
|
2nd_career
Member
Posts: 184
There is no cuisine without cream and eggs.
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2007, 10:21:44 AM » |
|
Well, it does enter the discussion in religious places of learning. The problem isn't that it doesn't enter the discussion, but that certain parts of academia have chosen not to listen to the discussion going on in other parts of academia, for good and bad reasons.
There is some interesting collaboration on the saint/biologist side, e.g. the work of Andrew Newberg at Penn a few years ago. Probably not exactly what the OP had in mind though... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
zharkov
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2007, 07:45:01 PM » |
|
My favorite part was his description of meeting Boo-boo.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
__________ Zharkov's Razor: Adapting Zharkov a bit to this situation, ignorance and confusion can explain a lot.
|
|
|
invinoveritas
Lucretian Praefectus
Senior member
Posts: 538
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2007, 01:20:16 AM » |
|
Subjective, yes, but nonetheless verifiable. ?????
I think I am Jesus reincarnate. This is a 'subjective' belief of mine. Is it 'nonetheless verifiable'?
It is a shame that many academics still take such nonsense seriously.
If I really believe something despite any evidence to the contrary it must be true!
Halleluyah!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
polly_mer
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2007, 01:49:31 AM » |
|
If I really believe something despite any evidence to the contrary it must be true!
Today, I saw an interesting message on a church marquee. "Faith is not belief without evidence; it is trust without doubt." I have no idea what that means, but I thought I would share. One big problem that I see with religious "proof" is who gets to decide what constitutes evidence. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing this. A portion of courage lies in going on anyway.
--Robert Jordan
|
|
|
|
navydad
|
|
« Reply #8 on: October 01, 2007, 10:05:37 AM » |
|
No
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Aficionado of the public works of Puncher and Wattmann
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." Gandalf
|
|
|
dpocius
New member
Posts: 1
|
|
« Reply #9 on: October 01, 2007, 04:32:46 PM » |
|
The bit about atheists showing some restraint WRT sacred texts is nice and all, but the big religions are starting with a leg out already. Besides having been the dominant paradigm in the East and West since forever, the mandate to pester the non-believer is built in to most religions. Christians are exhorted to go out and evangelize (hence, Evangelicals), and Muslims, much worse. For an adherent to be a true believer, they must bother all non-believers, not just atheists, at every opportunity; otherwise, they fall short in the eyes of God/Allah. The next time your niece or nephew hits you up to support their mission trip to build water wells or distribute food to the less fortunate or whatever, understand it's all about saving souls. The material assistance is in reality secondary to the evangelical mission.
So what's the point of writing a book decrying the unhealthy influence of religion if one is to keep civil about it? I can understand the need to be polite when conducting cocktail party conversation and such, but isn't a book the proper place to tell it like it is? If not there, where?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
