Is it right to "try" other religions?

[wil]

Heehee... Don't you find it valuable in religious discussion to be aware of the religion and denomination of the person you are in conversation with?

It is of interest their religious upbringings (lifelong or converted) and current affiliations...it helps with understanding their perspectives.

 

[Richard Pickett]

Heehee... Don't you find it valuable in religious discussion to be aware of the religion and denomination of the person you are in conversation with?

It is of interest their religious upbringings (lifelong or converted) and current affiliations...it helps with understanding their perspectives.

I do indeed.

 

[Thomas]

I have asked which of my statements you oppose and why...

I don't oppose the sentiments Wil, within reason ... I just think raising issues is an impediment to interfaith discussion.

I am only talking about folks that are my way or the hiway...

I should think everyone feels that way about those kinds of attitudes?

I know, you know, and I am not saying all...

Maybe, but it is all you say, LOL!

I am pointing out the folks I have issues with and why...

Your issues are your issues... I'm not sure how useful they are in discussion... Not a promising foundation for interfaith dialogue, as it invites others to air their agendas as well ...

If it feels as if I am talking about you... (Any of you) that is your perception, not mine.

I don't think you're talking about me or anyone here, I think you're just grinding your own axes ...

I have asked which of my statements you oppose and why...

As to the why ... not very metta, mate ... in fact I'd recommend a course of metta bhavana!

On the flip side, I get the impression you're probably one of the nicest guys anyone could hope to meet, and full of surprises ... but as a Christian, and a Catholic, I would think there'd be a lot of ground-clearing necessary before we got close to anywhere real.

 

[Thomas]

We humans have so few abilities to 'know' our reality, that every one we do have is important to exercise to make the most progress towards the ultimate goal.

I'm not so sure. I think simple is the way to go in this sphere ...

And what is the ultimate goal to me, he asks?

Exactly!

As a deist is not a connection to a divine as defined as a god; what was lost is the concept that our understanding of reality is as all that there is. And as far as that goes it is a portion of what reality is, but just a very small portion.

I can see and appreciate that. As a theist, ontologically God is all there is. If we truly embraced that, be it my God or your Cosmos (if I may say that without intending insult), then that's all the 'knowing' we'd need. The nuts and bolts, be they Platonic, Aristotelian, Newtonian, Einsteinian, Quantum or whatever is all by-the-by when it comes to reaching out to one's neighbour.

I'm not a solid person, sitting in a solid chair, typing on a computer which sits upon a solid desk. On the quantum level none of that is true.

OK. But on 'this' level it is true. I appreciate what you're saying, but I am reminded of a very good friend of mine who veered frighteningly close to suicide because certain self-professed Zennies were so into 'it's all an illusion, man!' that he lost his grip on reality for a bit.

I remember speaking to a girl into Theosophy or something, who told me, bright-eyed, and with the biggest smile, 'we're all shits, and it doesn't matter!' Such a pity ...

What we lost is the sense that we are but tiny pieces of a humongous massive whole that makes up the entirety of the universe in which we exist. Simpler cultures in the past understood this to a small degree as they at least understood the cycles of nature, the interconnection between man, animals, environment and the planet. Most of modern humanity has lost even that little bit our ancestors knew.

Oh, shout it loud! Modernity removes itself further and further from nature and the real.

There is so much more beyond what our ancestors knew though.

Yes ...

That down at the deepest level, we are all energy. A thing that can not be created nor destroyed. That matter is but one form of energy, and that we have come from energy and we will to return to energy. That is how we are eternal.

I sometimes contemplate the notion that 'life goes on' which is the only eternity, much akin to what you're saying. That 'the afterlife' or 'reincarnation' is just sentimentalism and FOMO ... that volitive mean needs such carrots to enable him to overcome his own nature, what my Buddhist friends would call an upaya.

 

[Thomas]

There is the question if knowing anything is of any use for anything. I'm thinking that the Traditions if the world don't ask us to know or understand anything but to do or be, and to an extent to forget what we think we know.

Absolutely! There's a wonderful piece in the memoir of an Indian guru who was approached by a student, "I've read ... (a long list of names) ... which way should I go now?" "Back the way you came" was the reply.

 

[Thomas]

New patterns of observation and behavior is required to move closer to any ultimate truth.

Inasmuch as that's a metanoia, I would agree. Whether a 'new' body of knowledge would be the golden key, as it were, or just another body of knowledge, is something I wonder about.

There's a balance between putting food on the table and being grateful for the food on one's plate. I know bodies of knowledge are necessary for survival, but I think a sense of 'unknowing wonder' is a far better tool for the kind of 'knowing' we're discussing here than a body of knowledge – 'what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul?' (cf Mark 8:36).

Knowledge is the veil through which we filter the real, and the risk is we value the knowledge more than the real. I'm reminded of a firework display I was at recently, and as it started, a myriad hands went up holding phones, tablets, etc., as people recorded the event ... so they weren't actually there, they were looking at the event through their devices ... strange.

Nicholas of Cusa, who was very 'quantum-oriented' in his theology, would delight in modern science. 'Entangelent' and 'spooky actions at a distance' are right up his theological ally.

Cusa saw each individual being in relation to all being, and each being is a contraction of the whole, and the whole exists in and as each being in a finite or restricted sense – each individual being is a coalescence of the totality of being into a particular being – he proposed the idea of the cosmos as infinite and without centre, or rather infinite with the centre everywhere.

... and that latter is the proper modern understanding of what religion means when it says man is the centre of the cosmos. Physically, we are located on the third planet orbiting a sun on the edge of a spiral galaxy, among innumerable spiral galaxies, so we are 'out there' when we think of our location in reference to our galaxy, but that's not what we're talking about, and that data is irrelevant to the discussion.

We are the centre in the sense that the infinite coalesces into a finite, a singularity ...

... so rather than, as some might say, we should abandon the theological language of old and embrace, say, Quantum Physics, I'd say there's a much richer dialogue to be had if we embrace Quantum Physics and the theological language of old, because applying the ontological principles of that language, in their living essence rather than the reductive 'dead metaphors' of modernity, then there's whole worlds to be unlocked!

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I said "What we lost is the sense that we are but tiny pieces of a humongous massive whole that makes up the entirety of the universe in which we exist. Simpler cultures in the past understood this to a small degree as they at least understood the cycles of nature, the interconnection between man, animals, environment and the planet. Most of modern humanity has lost even that little bit our ancestors knew."

Thomas replied "Oh, shout it loud! Modernity removes itself further and further from nature and the real."

From your other statements, you seem to embrace simplicity instead of complexity. Acceptance instead of investigation. Yet you are completely in-line with my above statement that getting back to the knowledge base of our ancestors who were more in tune with the world within & without them. This seems to be a contradiction.

I would stipulate that what our in-touch ancestors were doing, and what in-touch folks in the modern world are doing is the same process. It is just that we have fancier toys to learn with than they did then.

Am I misunderstanding your point?

 

[Thomas]

From your other statements, you seem to embrace simplicity instead of complexity.

Depends on the context.

Acceptance instead of investigation.

No, that doesn't sound like me.

Yet you are completely in-line with my above statement that getting back to the knowledge base of our ancestors who were more in tune with the world within & without them. This seems to be a contradiction.

It doesn't to me.

I would stipulate that what our in-touch ancestors were doing, and what in-touch folks in the modern world are doing is the same process. It is just that we have fancier toys to learn with than they did then. Am I misunderstanding your point?

Human experience It's a multi-faceted issue, but I think there's a tendency to reduce all science to empirical investigation ... it's not. It depends what's being talked about. I think the ancientd were more mindful of that. When it comes to religion, the empirical methodologies really don't apply, but yet there's a blind faith in the empirical commentary as authoritative on everything. I don't think the ancients were as fixated as we are today.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If they require you to take part, if they kick you outta the house should you buy a Quran or visit aa Buddhist temple or take a yoga class .. That is what I have issues with ..

Yes, as Thomas said 'your issues are your issues'. But a difference of views does lead to strife. Sometimes it may lead to break-up (or it may be better to break-up). Even political views could do that. My son-in-law and myself have different political views. It is not nice when we are at logger-heads, but we make-up.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I am reminded of a very good friend of mine who veered frighteningly close to suicide because certain self-professed Zennies were so into 'it's all an illusion, man!' that he lost his grip on reality for a bit.

I think he misunderstood illusion. It is not that frightening at all. Actually, it is quite funny to realize, a pin getting blood out of the finger tip and nothing touching anything..

Oh, shout it loud! Modernity removes itself further and further from nature and the real.

Why Thomas? Uncertainty and Quantum Mechanics bring us closer to the 'illusion' theory.

That 'the afterlife' or 'reincarnation' is just sentimentalism and FOMO ... that volitive mean needs such carrots to enable him to overcome his own nature, what my Buddhist friends would call an upaya.

It is a good 'upaya' for those who do not understand, but since nothing ever dies (each atom of our body is just as active after death as in life), 'afterlife' unfolds with a new meaning.

Many points since I have returned after quite some time. Nice to meet you people again.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Hmmmmm. Is empirical commentary considered as authoritative on everything? Or on the subjects that applies to science. Scientists are usually the first to admit that they cannot prove/disprove the existence of gods; it is not a question science is capable of answering.

I think one of the reasons the ancients were more mindful of areas outside the scientific method is because it had not been invented yet! Nor did they have the tools to investigate much of anything beyond what our five senses tell us. They used what they had to work with. Which is what we use today. Back then they considered beyond this world because they did not have the knowledge to understand how this world works.

 

[Thomas]

I think he misunderstood illusion. It is not that frightening at all.

I know. The point was, the concept was misrepresented to him.

Actually, it is quite funny to realize, a pin getting blood out of the finger tip and nothing touching anything.

In one way of looking, yes. In another, no. The finger and the pin are as real as the energies that manifest them. The illusion bit, it seems to me, is simply a recognition of ontological relation.

Why Thomas? Uncertainty and Quantum Mechanics bring us closer to the 'illusion' theory.

Not in my book. Are not Uncertainty and QM as much part of the illusion as any other theory? They're just constructs to explain experience.

It is a good 'upaya' for those who do not understand, but since nothing ever dies (each atom of our body is just as active after death as in life), 'afterlife' unfolds with a new meaning.

Quite. But the point I was alluding to is that which the person associates with 'I' is, perhaps, ephemeral. I've heard people express the same sentiment, to mean that somehow 'they' live on in the cosmos. 'They' don't. The universal goes on, not the particular. The atoms of my body are not 'my atoms'.

 

[Thomas]

Hmmmmm. Is empirical commentary considered as authoritative on everything?

Well some, and not a few, would have you believe so!

Or on the subjects that applies to science. Scientists are usually the first to admit that they cannot prove/disprove the existence of gods; it is not a question science is capable of answering.

I think it's not scientists who are the problem, in that sense. It's those who think science will provide the answer. And there are some eminent ones. Hawkings might well be throwing out the odd soundbite, good PR. Prof. Brian Cox is beloved of the UK media and has, on occasion, dismissed religion as simply superstition in the face of the lack of scientific data. As ever, it's a case of a scientist who knows a lot about his field falling into the trap of thinking he knows a lot about everything.

I think one of the reasons the ancients were more mindful of areas outside the scientific method is because it had not been invented yet! Nor did they have the tools to investigate much of anything beyond what our five senses tell us. They used what they had to work with. Which is what we use today. Back then they considered beyond this world because they did not have the knowledge to understand how this world works.

Well there's two things there.

One is the tools and the other is the spirit of inquiry. I think they investigated many things and their commentaries still stand. Aristotle on language, for example. Plato on a whole raft of things. Again, it's the empirical sciences that have left them standing, we have tools to measure ...

But read the literature of the ancients and they understood the human condition. Many of their texts are as relevant today as ever they were, and in some cases have not been bettered.

So I'd say in the field of measurement we've moved beyond them – although they did come up with atomic theory, their ideas of optics were a bit wild (a ray coming out of the eye) – we understand better how the world works mechanically, although we're simultaneously faced with bigger questions, dark matter, et al ... but in other fields, and some relevant to this discussion, we've not really bettered them. We've just expanded their ideas.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Are not Uncertainty and QM as much part of the illusion as any other theory? They're just constructs to explain experience.

They are the laws of the universe.

The atoms of my body are not 'my atoms'.

How can they be, since the body and 'I' are ephemeral?

As ever, it's a case of a scientist who knows a lot about his field falling into the trap of thinking he knows a lot about everything.

The scientist is a human and not without experience of life. The only thing is whether one goes just by faith or investigates, thinks. Why should people not arrive at different conclusions?

.. we understand better how the world works mechanically, although we're simultaneously faced with bigger questions, dark matter, et al ..

Things take time. We have traveled so far from where we started. We will go much farther. Or should we stick to ideas thousands of years old? Is it not time to move forward?

 

[Thomas]

They are the laws of the universe.

The laws, as we construe them, of the empirical universe. We might be obliged to revise them, in which case even our laws are ephemeral.

We have traveled so far from where we started. We will go much farther.

Empirically, yes.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

One is the tools and the other is the spirit of inquiry. I think they investigated many things and their commentaries still stand. Aristotle on language, for example. Plato on a whole raft of things

Absolutely I agree. When it comes to the deeper mysteries, those we cannot explain through the scientific method, there are great works of the ancients that are as relevant now as they ever were. And there are today people who have found great insight into the human condition that, again, cannot be measured by any physical medium.

Things take time. We have traveled so far from where we started. We will go much farther. Or should we stick to ideas thousands of years old? Is it not time to move forward?

I completely agree with this as well. In the hard sciences, what people thought was the way of things thousands of years ago should be put aside. In other disciplines though, there is still room for some of the great thinkers of the ancient world.

 

[Thomas]

Absolutely I agree.

I completely agree with this as well.

On the one hand we have the hard sciences breaking barriers all the time – just yesterday it was announced a lab had performed the Quantum thingy of a bunch of particles existing in two places simultaneously – on the other we have works like Paul Ricoeur's 3-volume 'Time and Narrative', which opens with commentaries on Augustine (time) and Aristotle (narrative) and goes on to discuss how we explain the cosmos to ourselves ... all gob-smackingly good stuff.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The laws, as we construe them, of the empirical universe. We might be obliged to revise them, in which case even our laws are ephemeral.

Sure, no need for premature conclusions (such as that there is a God ).

– just yesterday it was announced a lab had performed the Quantum thingy of a bunch of particles existing in two places simultaneously –

Yes, that is interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition#Experiments_and_applications

 

[Devils' Advocate]

'Quantum thingy' is used here in the professional venacular.

 

[Jeehyd]

I really don't think there is anything wrong with exploring other religions if you feel the need to. infact, it is advisable.

 

[wil]

And this.. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1425009