Can we agree on truth if Science explains is?

[radarmark]

Psedonymous,

Some of the best Quakers are atheists. Hartshorne aand Whitehead were too, and those two are responsible for "Proce3ss Theology".

Pax et amor vincunt omnia. radarmark

 

[Vajradhara]

I entirely concur. This is of course heretical to atheists, whose dogma only permits empirically derived facts and equates this with the truth of reality.

Suchness is not data.

yet i am an atheist in the common derivation of the term and i don't find such ideas to be heretical at all.

given that facts =/= truth i can imagine any being that conflates those ideas, irrespective of any thing else about them, will come to some strange conclusions.

metta,

~v

 

[Snoopy]

yet i am an atheist in the common derivation of the term and i don't find such ideas to be heretical at all.

given that facts =/= truth i can imagine any being that conflates those ideas, irrespective of any thing else about them, will come to some strange conclusions.

metta,

~v

I suppose I mean materialist atheist if that fine tunes it? I describe myself as non-theist - further pedantry!

 

[Vajradhara]

I suppose I mean materialist atheist if that fine tunes it? I describe myself as non-theist - further pedantry!

LOL

perhaps that is so however given that the bulk of beings with whom i dialog hold the idea of monotheism i tend to denote myself as an atheist...even though i acknowledge the existence of their deity. given that i do not accord it "creator" status it is tantamount to denying it's existence.

on a related note, i'm having a difficult time reconciling the idea that experience equals intersubjective truth in any manner. whilst i readily agree that such defines and even gives shape to subjective truths that idea, however, doesn't seem to be the thrust of the OP.

to paraphrase something i read once...

when a being's vision is clear the whole universe appears as a lotus blossom.


metta,

~v

 

[seattlegal]

I suppose I mean materialist atheist if that fine tunes it? I describe myself as non-theist - further pedantry!

Which is more likely to give better results--being rational about the external world first, and shunning the inner world as "irrational subjectivity," or also working on transforming your subjectivity into a more rational configuration? (realizing it is more rational to feel mudita rather than jealousy, etc.) Anger, jealousy, pride, etc. can blind and skew your vision.

 

[Lunitik]

So tell me about your practice, and what it was like for you when you became enlightened.

My practice is merely to relax into this moment, without distraction of past or future. I do not stop to pray or stop to meditate, for what? It would be that I am stopping worship to go and worship, stopping meditation because I must go and meditate. Both are the constant situation, so it makes no sense to set about scheduling these things. Just gratitude for this moment, thankfulness for whatsoever this moment brings. Not through words, though, from my very core - words are easy to formulate, but how many can genuinely permeate it?

As for my experience of enlightenment, through most religions, you are taught to repress an entire part of your whole. They teach that only half of reality is holy, so you must avoid the other half entirely. My experience came from accepting both halves, knowing that all opposites are totally necessary to manifest the other. I began combining each pole of a given extreme and throwing it away until I was left with me alone. I realized this too was a an opposite - this and other. When I cancelled these as well, something amazing happened, it can only be called miraculous. I was no longer confined to this body, each cell had felt like it has exploded and now I could feel the lizard on the wall 10 feet away as if it was crawling on my skin. I could feel the wind blowing over the leaves of the plant a few feet to my side as if it was my hair flowing in the wind instead. Everything glowed, such beauty was all around. The feeling of it, such tranquility and ecstasy. This is the only true "I", the whole, but you must accept the whole to know it. In this acceptance, you are not longer a part, although you are still not omnipresent. There is no limit to what you are, but it is still from the perspective of where the body was, it remains the vehicle necessary to explore.

I do not know how useful this is, it cannot express the experience very accurately because I am explaining something with limited language, and then you are trying to comprehend it that limited expression. You have asked though, so I have attempted to explain.

 

[Lunitik]

i suppose that my argument is with the OP's initial premises that science, as a lingua franca, can or is even concerned with "truth"...however without defining what truth may mean in this case it's hard to be more specific.

Truth is one, there cannot be multiple conclusions of truth. I had not even thought to define how truth is intended because it is my understanding that it cannot be different. If you draw incompatible truths, it is not possible that your truth is genuine.

Science isn't concerned with truth. Science is concerned with observable, measurable facts of the universe in which it operates and leaves the ideas of truth and such for other disciplines that have the tools, means and methodologies to investigate truth claims.

What they describe and observe isn't true? Of course Science is concerned with truth, but you have pinpointed exactly why they can only find partial truth as well: they are limited to one perspective, and their particular tools. So, Science has not found a complete truth, but they are taking humanity towards truth as a whole.

it is true, for instance, that water runs downhill. it is a fact, however, that water can run uphill. the two ideas are not the same and conflating them cannot do anything but muddle the issue even more than it already is for a great many beings.

Science knows this, so it is a bad example. If there is enough pressure to counter gravity, the stream will not be concerned with the hill at all. Perhaps it is a bad example?

thus i would completely agree with the OP if it stated "can we agree on facts if Science explains it?" whereas i must reject the OP as it currently is.

This is why I restrict it to a particular topic where religion and science are actually discovering the same facts. The problem is that few religious people bother to try to discover this for themselves, they are content to trust and take advice. They are prepared to depend on another which doesn't know himself because it is easier than experiencing it themselves. Science is concerned in the other direction, rather than trust, they absolutely refuse to take anything which cannot be shown through experiments. For me, this is a better method, spirituality is merely the experiential journey within, where Science explains what is without. Neither can be separated, both are true, but many insist on disputing this.

 

[Lunitik]

Why group yourselves in either atheist or theist?

Both are true, and neither is complete. They are both as wings of the bird of truth, and are both necessary for the bird to fly. The theist is correct, there is something higher which might be called God, the atheist is correct because it is not a being. When you combine them, you can get an idea of truth, but separate, they are simply not useful at all in deciphering the true situation.

 

[Paladin]

My practice is merely to relax into this moment, without distraction of past or future. I do not stop to pray or stop to meditate, for what? It would be that I am stopping worship to go and worship, stopping meditation because I must go and meditate. Both are the constant situation, so it makes no sense to set about scheduling these things. Just gratitude for this moment, thankfulness for whatsoever this moment brings. Not through words, though, from my very core - words are easy to formulate, but how many can genuinely permeate it?

As for my experience of enlightenment, through most religions, you are taught to repress an entire part of your whole. They teach that only half of reality is holy, so you must avoid the other half entirely. My experience came from accepting both halves, knowing that all opposites are totally necessary to manifest the other. I began combining each pole of a given extreme and throwing it away until I was left with me alone. I realized this too was a an opposite - this and other. When I cancelled these as well, something amazing happened, it can only be called miraculous. I was no longer confined to this body, each cell had felt like it has exploded and now I could feel the lizard on the wall 10 feet away as if it was crawling on my skin. I could feel the wind blowing over the leaves of the plant a few feet to my side as if it was my hair flowing in the wind instead. Everything glowed, such beauty was all around. The feeling of it, such tranquility and ecstasy. This is the only true "I", the whole, but you must accept the whole to know it. In this acceptance, you are not longer a part, although you are still not omnipresent. There is no limit to what you are, but it is still from the perspective of where the body was, it remains the vehicle necessary to explore.

I do not know how useful this is, it cannot express the experience very accurately because I am explaining something with limited language, and then you are trying to comprehend it that limited expression. You have asked though, so I have attempted to explain.

I think you explain that quite well. I agree you cannot cut life in half and only call part of it holy. The term "spiritual" is kinda funny that way. As if you could really separate spiritual and not spiritual. What I have found is that there is a complete world within the obvious that needs exploring. Meditation for me doesn't stop after I leave the cushion, which is why I say enlightenment is overrated. Not in itself but in the conceptualization that keeps seekers seeking, never just being. After all we aren't human doings are we?

 

[Lunitik]

Truth is like a mirror that accurately reflects reality in sincerity.

As for skeptics, a truly honest skeptic is my (or any scientist's) best friend. If you are after truth, it's the way to go. However, if you are after victory rather than truth, honesty is often the first thing to go out the window.

Yes, the mirror metaphor is very popular.

Skepticism is not trusting, it is better to trust all but depend on your own experience. Skepticism is concerned with mind, it is another name for sorting; "I believe it", "I do not believe it". I say belief is useless in discovery of truth, it is not a knowing, it is a mere acceptance of another's proposition.

 

[seattlegal]

Why group yourselves in either atheist or theist?

Both are true, and neither is complete. They are both as wings of the bird of truth, and are both necessary for the bird to fly. The theist is correct, there is something higher which might be called God, the atheist is correct because it is not a being. When you combine them, you can get an idea of truth, but separate, they are simply not useful at all in deciphering the true situation.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

~Albert Einstein​

 

[seattlegal]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

~Albert Einstein​

lol, I quoted the wrong post, but it still works

 

[Lunitik]

I think you explain that quite well. I agree you cannot cut life in half and only call part of it holy. The term "spiritual" is kinda funny that way. As if you could really separate spiritual and not spiritual. What I have found is that there is a complete world within the obvious that needs exploring. Meditation for me doesn't stop after I leave the cushion, which is why I say enlightenment is overrated. Not in itself but in the conceptualization that keeps seekers seeking, never just being. After all we aren't human doings are we?

Enlightenment is merely the unceasing experience of what I have described, the constant situation of meditation. This is the problem, though, the conceptualizations are of mind, and the ego is still the one seeking. It is a strange paradox that exactly this seeking is what ensured you will not find - it only happens when you understand that your search is pointless.

I have a problem with the statement "there is a complete world within the obvious that needs exploring", only because it is the wrong way around. The obvious, the perceived is within the real. It is a particular experience of reality, it is just not the highest reality. The perceptions are very necessary for functioning, but clinging too much to the perception creates a very disgusting situation. We cannot war when we experience reality, we cannot hate, when we are complete these things are absurd. We cannot be against our own leg, it would be a very strange thing. This is why I say many faiths do it the wrong way around - first discover your true nature, and then laws are unnecessary because the morals arise of themselves. This is not a situation of repressing half of yourself, you are just realizing ramifications of your true whole.

It is always that organizations enforce the rules, but this only shows they do not know. They do not understand why the master has said these behaviors are holy. They are holy because they reflect the ramifications of being the whole, but they are the cause of creating divisions within the individual itself. The individual begins fighting with themselves, they want something but it is not permitted. Of course, if you are always engaged in this battle, when is there time for something else? Obsession will arise, and eventually you will have to follow through simply to maintain sanity. It is completely a warped way to be, such an ignorant understanding of what has been said. You only need to observe and see why this feeling has arisen, when you can understand it, you can embrace it in a more healthy way and it will not become an issue at all.

 

[Vajradhara]

Truth is one, there cannot be multiple conclusions of truth. I had not even thought to define how truth is intended because it is my understanding that it cannot be different. If you draw incompatible truths, it is not possible that your truth is genuine.

without understanding what you mean by the term "truth" there is really no chance of meaningful discourse.

What they describe and observe isn't true?

no, they are facts and truth and facts are not the same. IF, however, one were to define "truth" as "that which science can test and measure" THEN what science is doing could be considered in such light. i don't happen to have that understanding and thus conclude that science is in the business of science not the business of truths.

Science knows this, so it is a bad example. If there is enough pressure to counter gravity, the stream will not be concerned with the hill at all. Perhaps it is a bad example?

perhaps.

This is why I restrict it to a particular topic where religion and science are actually discovering the same facts.

perhaps we have a different understanding of science as a lingua franca then for it is my view that those two fields of endeavor are focused on different aspects of reality.

The problem is that few religious people bother to try to discover this for themselves, they are content to trust and take advice. They are prepared to depend on another which doesn't know himself because it is easier than experiencing it themselves. Science is concerned in the other direction, rather than trust, they absolutely refuse to take anything which cannot be shown through experiments. For me, this is a better method, spirituality is merely the experiential journey within, where Science explains what is without. Neither can be separated, both are true, but many insist on disputing this.

perhaps it's just a semantic quibble however in my lexicon truth does not equate fact and truth.

i like tools. i tend to use tools for the purpose in which they were designed so whilst it is true that one can drive a nail with a wrench it really isn't, in fact, same thing as a hammer.

metta,

~v

 

[Lunitik]

no, they are facts and truth and facts are not the same. IF, however, one were to define "truth" as "that which science can test and measure" THEN what science is doing could be considered in such light. i don't happen to have that understanding and thus conclude that science is in the business of science not the business of truths.

For me, truth is truth, there cannot be aspects of truth, only expressions which point towards it. Dividing truth only creates fallacies, and incompleteness. I used the word "true" for a reason, however, science points to truth by making various statements which are true. Science paints a picture of the external, just as spirituality explores the internal. Truth cannot be anything but an expression of both, however.

 

[Vajradhara]

hi lunitik,

i suspect we're having a lexical difficulty in our communication.

may i ask from what source you derived your ideas about how science works and what it is concerned with?

my own views on this subject are, by and large, Popperian in origin.

metta,

~v

 

[Lunitik]

hi lunitik,

i suspect we're having a lexical difficulty in our communication.

may i ask from what source you derived your ideas about how science works and what it is concerned with?

my own views on this subject are, by and large, Popperian in origin.

metta,

~v

I have not accumulated my information from scientific areas, and to be honest I think science in general is over-thinking things - which is of course inevitable since it is their method. I have no views, and certainly no ideas, nor am I interested in anyone elses. I have been directed towards various scientific theories since experiencing ultimate reality, and can see they are going in the right direction. They cannot arrive at something different, there is only one reality and thus there can only be one truth, although science is getting close.

My whole interest is in the ability to appeal to other trains of thought as to how they might experience ultimate reality as well. I do not find half truths or theories appealing at all, but if they are going in the right direction, if they at least hint towards the truth, I will use it to explain that.

 

[luecy7]

The feeling of it, such tranquility and ecstasy. This is the only true "I", the whole, but you must accept the whole to know it. In this acceptance, you are not longer a part, although you are still not omnipresent. There is no limit to what you are, but it is still from the perspective of where the body was, it remains the vehicle necessary to explore.

The feeling of an ultimate orga-ism.

 

[Lunitik]

The feeling of an ultimate orga-ism.

Yes, every cell has the most sublime orgasm you can imagine, this is what I have termed "ecstasy" in that statement. Most materialists chase sex because of its quality of ecstasy, but it cannot compare to that felt on the spiritual pursuits culmination. Mocking is very easy, but it only displays your ignorance of the experience. There is nothing wrong with that, but to mock what you do not understand is very closed minded.

Many will tell you that enlightenment utilizes the life energy, this is actually the sex energy. In its lowest form it is very centralized when it explodes, but at its highest quality it cannot be imagined.

 

[Vajradhara]

. I have no views, and certainly no ideas, nor am I interested in anyone elses.

such an attitude seems to be a rather serious impediment to conversation and the raison d'etre of the forum.