faith, belief, truth and reality, how to?

[juantoo3]

This is hard to do without establishing a basic foundation. So I have to ask you if you can accept this basic premise that most secularists cannot. Do you believe in the possibility of "objective quality?" If the earth and everything on it including Man on it were destroyed by a collision with a huge asteroid, would objective quality still exist? Is there a qualitative connection, a relative scale of being itself, that connects the Absolute with the lowest scale of being within creation by a cosmological ladder or levels of reality?

If you can accept this then the purpose of the higher emotions as making us aware of objective quality explains a great deal and we can see how levels of being could be mathematically defined. If however you believe that objective quality is meaningless since everything is the same in quality, then whatever I would write as to the relationship between the inner and outer man, religion and science, would seem foolish.

I'm afraid I do not understand.

Is this a variation of Teleology?

As for my specific beliefs, I don't see how that would be relevent to the discussion. I am attempting to remain as aloof and observationally distant as I can for this discussion.

I can allow as much as that I have experiences in my life that lead me to believe "G-d" in some manner exists. To my way of understanding at this moment in time that is the only objective reality that I see.

There are other matters that may or may not be, or more likely have an objective component to them but are not strictly or completely objective.

Many things in life seem foolish to the unobservant. Even so, the wise reserves the right of critique...it would be foolish not to.

If you care to share, it is welcome. If not, it is OK.

 

[citizenzen]

These aren't even the people who concern me. It's the pretenders, the "hangers-on," the faithful disciples that speak with unequivocal reassurance that what they have to preach is fact, and as such unquestionable and undeniable reality.

Could you please provide me with one example of these people who concern you?

 

[nativeastral]

hi been listening to podcasts via seattle pacific uni on the relationship between science and religion - fine-tuning/anthropic theories which validate intelligent therefore? intentional creation by many scientists who are maybe more than we think coming round to a,lets not say theistic, but a deistic way of explaining the miraculous manifestation of all that has occurred on this planet. If l had been inculcated early on or moved to explore and be more open to a personal creator 'relationship' to 'myself' then no doubt l would be a raging/rampant/rapturous [literal or symbolic] follower of an organised 'religion', or at least more spiritually aware than l seem to be! ln this respect l am agreeing with citizenzen's comment that they are not incommesurable. personally l have always LIcKED mystery; astrology axiom is as above so below- we are stardust. yeh, the ancient wise men still speak volumes, pity l dont have the time in this 3 second sound byte era to get through them all.plato and his soul charioteer with body/mind horses are as valid then as now and why authoritative texts are necessary for those who need that validation/confirmation/affirmation/inspiration/consolidation. ever had your'e astrology chart done? oldest science/religion around!!

 

[Nick_A]

I'm afraid I do not understand.

Is this a variation of Teleology?

As for my specific beliefs, I don't see how that would be relevent to the discussion. I am attempting to remain as aloof and observationally distant as I can for this discussion.

I can allow as much as that I have experiences in my life that lead me to believe "G-d" in some manner exists. To my way of understanding at this moment in time that is the only objective reality that I see.

There are other matters that may or may not be, or more likely have an objective component to them but are not strictly or completely objective.

Many things in life seem foolish to the unobservant. Even so, the wise reserves the right of critique...it would be foolish not to.

If you care to share, it is welcome. If not, it is OK.

By objective quality or quality of "being" I mean for example that a plant would have a greater objective quality or quality of being then a mineral. in turn a lower animal would have a higher quality of being than a plant and a higher animal such as a mammal would have a higher quality of being then a reptile for example. The quality of being is defined by the inner vertical distance its essence is from the source of being within creation.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Well, in many cases I think it provides a false sense of self-importance bouyed by the smug congratulatory confirmation of supposed fact...emphasis on "supposed." In that sense it is really not much different than the triumphalism exhibited by some religions.

In religion there is the added advantage that disconfirmation is not an option.

This is largely true in political propaganda, too. If the assertions are sufficiently vague and generalized, they'll become essentially meaningless characterizations that are not subject to rational disproof.

An empiricist would never be comfortable in politics and would feel like an imposter.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

The first thing to recognize, I think, is the frailty of investing in whole systems. No one theory explains it all.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Secondly, belief is a narrative tool. We make up stories about ourselves. We become by envisioning and telling. That's how culture evolves. Belief is part of the creative process where we make and embody our myths.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Here's a question: Is God to be feared? Because if not then Calvinistic impulses sorta fly harmlessly out the window. And what does that leave? A kinder, gentler American Protestantism appropriate to the age of Obama?

Chris

 

[Nick_A]

The first thing to recognize, I think, is the frailty of investing in whole systems. No one theory explains it all.

Chris

If true, it will really be a shame. Mathematics measures and compares quantities quantity. 2+3=5 is a relationship of quantity. We may not understand math but that doesn't mean it cannot explain relationships of quantity as our understanding of math grows.

If there is no similar relationship of objective quality that we don't understand it would mean that neither the dharma or wisdom exists other than as subjective interpretations. No objective "meaning." What a horrible thought.

It makes more sense to me that such a whole sustem must exist that we have to grow in inner quality in order to understand

 

[juantoo3]

Thanks to everybody, some really good stuff coming across!

It seems to me that once a certain stage of understanding is reached we will see the value of the different memes and the apparent conflict will dissipate like the mist that it is made of.

I don't know that I am consciously striving for this, but maybe I am and don't realize it.

I see value in memes...I really don't see how a human mind can function successfully without at least one operating meme.

I think with the glut of knowledge and information that crams inside our minds, we often end up with multiple memes...even competing memes...even contradictory memes. How do we reconcile these?

 

[juantoo3]

Buddhism is a very "scientific" religion. Everything is rooted in cause and effect. There's no magic, no miracles. In the end, there's really no enlightenment at all, merely the ability to accept what is.

I confess to a rather thin understanding of Buddhism, the 8 fold path, a few other similar pronouncements...and a curious tendency to myth for explanation, little different from other religious paths. How 500 or so people could cram into a tiny room to hear a wise man speak, and then be astonished that he said nothing seems to me as unscientific, magical, and miraculous as so very many other wisdom stories in so many other faiths.

Not to say that Buddhism is a bad thing...it is quite evidently a very beneficial teaching tool. Just as there are so many other evidently beneficial teaching tools in the world.

 

[juantoo3]

It doesn't matter when the universe began.

But to so very many people it *does* matter, which is why they insist the universe is 15 billion years old. This illustrates my point.

From where I sit, there is no way to confirm the age of the universe. What we have is an educated guess.

 

[citizenzen]

Not to say that Buddhism is a bad thing...it is quite evidently a very beneficial teaching tool. Just as there are so many other evidently beneficial teaching tools in the world.

I totally agree. It's why Baskin-Robbins sells 31 flavors.

The most interesting dilemma we face today is not finding the teaching tool that you like on your sugar cone, but finding a way to combine these different methods in a world that is becoming more multi-cultural.

We can't pretend Islam doesn't exist or should stay in their little corner of the Middle East. Likewise muslims must find a way to accept christianity and not see it as a threat to their culture. And of course my favorite, we can't ignore role and value of science.

In other words we're going to have to grow up a little and get smarter. And that's just going to take some time.

 

[juantoo3]

hi been listening to podcasts via seattle pacific uni on the relationship between science and religion - fine-tuning/anthropic theories which validate intelligent therefore? intentional creation by many scientists who are maybe more than we think coming round to a,lets not say theistic, but a deistic way of explaining the miraculous manifestation of all that has occurred on this planet.

Cool!

...yeh, the ancient wise men still speak volumes, pity l dont have the time in this 3 second sound byte era to get through them all.plato and his soul charioteer with body/mind horses are as valid then as now and why authoritative texts are necessary for those who need that validation/confirmation/affirmation/inspiration/consolidation. ever had your'e astrology chart done? oldest science/religion around!!

From what I can tell memes develop and change over time and culture. I'm not so sure astrology is the oldest science, but it certainly ranks among the oldest. Scientists today tend to be loath to admit as much, but astrology was one of humanity's earliest attempts to explain the world they knew.

 

[juantoo3]

I totally agree. It's why Baskin-Robbins sells 31 flavors.

The most interesting dilemma we face today is not finding the teaching tool that you like on your sugar cone, but finding a way to combine these different methods in a world that is becoming more multi-cultural.

We can't pretend Islam doesn't exist or should stay in their little corner of the Middle East. Likewise muslims must find a way to accept christianity and not see it as a threat to their culture. And of course my favorite, we can't ignore role and value of science.

In other words we're going to have to grow up a little and get smarter. And that's just going to take some time.

I agree.

 

[citizenzen]

Scientists today tend to be loath to admit as much, but astrology was one of humanity's earliest attempts to explain the world they knew.

Oops. Back to disagreement

Scientists aren't loath to admit that astrology was one of man's earliest attempts to explain the world, just as scientists aren't loath to admit that flaked obsidian was one of man's earliest attempts at tool making.

What is "loathsome" to science is that people cling to this belief despite a lack of evidence that it is valid. But please, don't get me wrong. If any of you fine and intelligent people are able to prove astrology is valid through scientific testing, you will be included in the pantheon of great discovers. And who wouldn't want to be enshrined in a pantheon?

 

[juantoo3]

By objective quality or quality of "being" I mean for example that a plant would have a greater objective quality or quality of being then a mineral. in turn a lower animal would have a higher quality of being than a plant and a higher animal such as a mammal would have a higher quality of being then a reptile for example. The quality of being is defined by the inner vertical distance its essence is from the source of being within creation.

OK, this does sound remarkably like Teleology to me.

 

[juantoo3]

Oops. Back to disagreement

That's OK, the world would be mighty dull if everybody agreed all the time.

Scientists aren't loath to admit that astrology was one of man's earliest attempts to explain the world, just as scientists aren't loath to admit that flaked obsidian was one of man's earliest attempts at tool making.

What is "loathsome" to science is that people cling to this belief despite a lack of evidence that it is valid. But please, don't get me wrong. If any of you fine and intelligent people are able to prove astrology is valid through scientific testing, you will be included in the pantheon of great discovers. And who wouldn't want to be enshrined in a pantheon?

Ah! I take it then that you believe science did not begin until the age of Enlightenment in Europe...give or take 1600 AD?

Any way one slices the pie, astrology was being used quite early in human history...probably even in prehistory. Guaging by some early astronomical tools found in some prehistoric sites, I think it is reasonable to surmise that humanity has had a vested interest in star gazing for many thousands of years. Modern scientists, and New Agers too, tend to confuse the "fortune teller" aspect with the astronomical aspect. But it is known that early astronomy was called astrology.

What I see is yet another meme for another day and age and culture. I don't have to agree with it or follow it. I am trying to understand it for the value it holds for those who do believe.

 

[juantoo3]

In religion there is the added advantage that disconfirmation is not an option.

That's pretty much what I was hinting at when I said "Other than the margin of allowable error, I see little difference in the mental mechanisms behind the faith / belief between scientific and religious truths."

On an individual level though, there *is* the option of trading in for a different model...at the risk of being branded an heretic.

This is largely true in political propaganda, too. If the assertions are sufficiently vague and generalized, they'll become essentially meaningless characterizations that are not subject to rational disproof.

An empiricist would never be comfortable in politics and would feel like an imposter.

Rationality and reason are low order motivators, people just don't respond to these things. If you want to really move people, strike them in their emotions. John B. Watson and the entire Behaviorism school of psychology clued us in on that. Even in Maslow's hierarchy, the highest priority needs are physiological and emotional...one doesn't worry about rationality and reason until all these other needs are met first.

 

[juantoo3]

Hey Chris!

The first thing to recognize, I think, is the frailty of investing in whole systems. No one theory explains it all.

Agreed.

Secondly, belief is a narrative tool. We make up stories about ourselves. We become by envisioning and telling. That's how culture evolves. Belief is part of the creative process where we make and embody our myths.

Well, yes, maybe...but I think there is more to the story. It requires as much faith / belief to believe Darwinian evolution as it does to believe Sufi whirling dervish. One may place an emphasis on the state of reason or on the state of "ecstacy" induced by spinning in circles, but the gist is that each gets something of value out of their belief systems...or else they wouldn't believe to begin with. An atheist requires as much belief...in a necessarily different direction...as a theist. Both believe as they do because there is a value of some kind attached to that belief.

Here's a question: Is God to be feared? Because if not then Calvinistic impulses sorta fly harmlessly out the window. And what does that leave? A kinder, gentler American Protestantism appropriate to the age of Obama?

Feared in the OT sense? In which case it can be more appropriately translated into English as "reverently trust." If you mean "fear" in the more common modern sense of cower before, then I would answer "no," but that would not be accurate Biblically. We really do have to be careful to maintain context...that is where some of my hugest "ah-ha!" moments have come is when I am able to establish the context.