Why do you believe in YOUR religion

[Celeritas]

Yet it is a professor who grades your absorption that has the power to help you remove your smokescreens... that NO textbook ever will.

I will mirror your comment: I see how science is a religion. A faulty religion that helps the adherents to prop themselves up with duplicitous definitions and assertions as they utilize it to fake an understanding of self and their relationships with others.

science is not about the self. pure science has nothing to do with the "self". there are no "duplicitous definitions in science, more like conceptions that exist in of themselves as a challenge, saying "Prove this idea wrong. if you try and succeed you have thankfully eliminated faulty science, if you try and fail, you have provided another rock for the concept to stand on."

science is nothing more than a tool. it has no metaphysical repercussions. science provides no moralistic or spiritual guidelines. in fact in many cases it raises moralistic questions but does nothing to answer them. example: you work to develop nuclear power because you wish to provide and energy source. but nuclear power is EXTREMELY dangerous. but it's not, never has been and never will be the responsibility of science to solve these kinds of paradoxes.

and it is NOT the professor who grades the absorbtion into the sciences. the professor gives you the tool called science. if your ideas and theories and hypotheses don't fit with what is taught, the very nature of science calls for you to test both the scientific establishment and your own ideas, subject them to immence scrutiny. though often when professors get old, they tend to putter around in the lab as opposed to work.

I call your attention to our most famous physicist Albert Einstein. a patent clerk. not a professor. in fact he could not get a job as a professor during his most prolific year. why? because his science was pure. observation, experiment, and analysis to the exclusion of all else.


to compare science to religion is to compare apples to oranges.

science is a process. a method.

 

[Celeritas]

Scientific conclusions and faith have different criteria for "truth."

yes. very true. faith requires one thing, science requires another. are you implying that they cannot peacefully co-exist? because they can and do. and i'm not speaking of creationism here either. I have a faith of my own. I believe in a very specific spiritual ideal, that being a passive one, but is a spiritual one nonetheless. this has nothing at all to do with my scientific study.

a good book on this subject is the Meaning of it All: thoughts of a citizen-scientist by richard p. feynman.

 

[Bandit]

I'm happy for anybody's good thing. If you like your religion that's great...for you. I find religion completely unnecessary. I find organized religion to be a repository of patently ridiculous nonsense. Utterly stupid, anachronistic crappiola that by all rights should have been disgarded centuries ago. But that's just me.

Chris

I'm happy for anybody's good thing. If you like your religion that's great...for you. I find religion completely unnecessary. I find organized religion to be a repository of patently ridiculous nonsense. Utterly stupid, anachronistic crappiola that by all rights should have been disgarded centuries ago. But that's just me and you and....



tao

I'm happy for anybody's good thing. If you like your religion that's great...for you. I find religion completely unnecessary. I find organized religion to be a repository of patently ridiculous nonsense. Utterly stupid, anachronistic crappiola that by all rights should have been disgarded centuries ago. But that's just me.

 

[Bandit]

Freedom from religion is way more awesome & beautiful than any freedom of religion will ever know.

 

[cyberpi]

yes. very true. faith requires one thing, science requires another.

The problem I see with having faith and science as opposites is that either faith has been twisted into a self-willed belief rather than being the faith in the will of another, or that science has been twisted into a self chosen practice that can teach or prove everything rather than simply being the fruit of those who will teach and learn from each other. Perhaps both... it seems like those who see the two as opposites think merely in terms of a self-willed belief or practice.

I submit the smartest most evolved scientist growing up all alone on a deserted island will gain no more knowledge than a caveman who will be lucky if he ever discovers fire... and to be free of the religion of others requires the solitude like that of one growing up all alone on a deserted island. Definitely not opposites... very similar.

 

[Celeritas]

The problem I see with having faith and science as opposites is that either faith has been twisted into a self-willed belief rather than being the faith in the will of another, or that science has been twisted into a self chosen practice that can teach or prove everything rather than simply being the fruit of those who will teach and learn from each other. Perhaps both... it seems like those who see the two as opposites think merely in terms of a self-willed belief or practice.

I submit the smartest most evolved scientist growing up all alone on a deserted island will gain no more knowledge than a caveman who will be lucky if he ever discovers fire... and to be free of the religion of others requires the solitude like that of one growing up all alone on a deserted island. Definitely not opposites... very similar.

no. not opposites. far beyond opposites. to use an analogy(i don't literally think this.) they are in completely different dimensions of thought.

Pure science deals with the physical and is driven by nothing more than curiosity. there is no "belief". there's *theory*. a *theory* is an idea or statement that describes an aspect of the universe. it provides repeatable test results or observations if it is a sound *theory*( <all this means is that it hasn't been disproven yet)

there is NO belief driving pure science. because the first and fundamental aspect of pure science(and by pure science I mean those processes remaining separate from a scientist's personal life) is DOUBT. you cannot start with a belief. you have to start with disbelief.

example
current science states x concept as the accepted *theory* of y universal phenomenon. well I challenge x theory on these grounds and present an alternative for rigorous consideration.


and as for your island...I am a complete layman studying theoretical physics on my own. I am actually a high school dropout. my current science project is building a betatron which is basically an atom smasher.

and look into human developmental science. My experience says that your island assumption contradicts. I would write more but my fingers are tired and I need to get to work.

=)

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Freedom from religion is way more awesome & beautiful than any freedom of religion will ever know.

Yes. Freedom from religion is deliciously honest. More broadly, freedom from the compulsion to defend forms and systems as if they were Truth is priceless, and ever so dangerous.

Chris

 

[Nick_A]

When I was younger I thought I was pretty good with contemplating hidden realities behind abstract ideas. My trouble was that I not only could see the flaws in philosophy but also in my own. And for there to be a God telling me what to do was just an absurity. It isn't so easy when one has the mind of a chess player and a heart with an interest in "meaning."

Then at some point I discovered my path which humbled me. In truth I understood nothing yet the universe existed as could be described as a living whole. All my past recognition of contradictions now were just normal and now could be considered in the light of human conscious potential. I learned I was an idiot but it is a welcome experience in the presence of real knowledge.

 

[17th Angel]

First of all welcome to CR Nick!

You learnt you were an idiot? How and why did you come to that conclusion?

 

[Nick_A]

First of all welcome to CR Nick!

You learnt you were an idiot? How and why did you come to that conclusion?

I could think I was a pretty good chess player and if I lived in a community with bad chess players and I win my games, it would be logical to conclude I was a good player.

However, if someone like Kasparov visits my town and continually blows me away, I learn I am really an idiot at chess compared to my potential for understanding the game.

Life is the same. When I learned of real Men, I saw that I was an idiot compared to this quality of their conscious perspective especially considering I never understood or experienced a conscious perspective.and was oblivious of the whole thing and still fighting windmills. So I saw the value of quitting bitching and becoming open to actually try and understand in a new way or to put new wine into new wineskins.

 

[Quahom1]

Yes. Freedom from religion is deliciously honest. More broadly, freedom from the compulsion to defend forms and systems as if they were Truth is priceless, and ever so dangerous.

Chris

Is it? Or is it to be unshackled from the morals that such religious adherences force upon one?

Anarchist's Guide to God? That would be an interesting book to read indeed...no base, no plot line, no conclusion, in fact, no substance.

Chris, God is an absolute, freedom from God's ways is suicide...eventually.

 

[17th Angel]

I could think I was a pretty good chess player and if I lived in a community with bad chess players and I win my games, it would be logical to conclude I was a good player.

However, if someone like Kasparov visits my town and continually blows me away, I learn I am really an idiot at chess compared to my potential for understanding the game.

Life is the same. When I learned of real Men, I saw that I was an idiot compared to this quality of their conscious perspective especially considering I never understood or experienced a conscious perspective.and was oblivious of the whole thing and still fighting windmills. So I saw the value of quitting bitching and becoming open to actually try and understand in a new way or to put new wine into new wineskins.

So in the land of real men... If someone clearly has more experience and is better than you at an activity that makes you an idiot?

 

[Quahom1]

So in the land of real men... If someone is clearly has more experience and is better than you at an activity that makes you an idiot?

No, that makes you a "recruit"...lol

 

[17th Angel]

No, that makes you a "recruit"...lol

Just when he said he was an idiot I had to ask... Calling oneself an idiot.. I find is upsetting, We are amazing beings.. And to a degree we need to moderate our egos sure lol... But, that goes both ways high and low... to downgrade ourselves may make us not realise our abilities/potentials. So yeah this russian guy comes and if he beats me at chess fair one.. But hell I am not an idiot lol... He was just better at chess then me... I am sure there are many subjects/games/situations where I would be the better man if pitted agaisnt him. Or if I just wanted to play chess be prepared more next time.. Study the opponent get in his head, know how he thinks lol...

 

[Quahom1]

Just when he said he was an idiot I had to ask... Calling oneself an idiot.. I find is upsetting, We are amazing beings.. And to a degree we need to moderate our egos sure lol... But, that goes both ways high and low... to downgrade ourselves may make us not realise our abilities/potentials. So yeah this russian guy comes and if he beats me at chess fair one.. But hell I am not an idiot lol... He was just better at chess then me... I am sure there are many subjects/games/situations where I would be the better man if pitted agaisnt him. Or if I just wanted to play chess be prepared more next time.. Study the opponent get in his head, know how he thinks lol...

Indeed...

we all have our talents, and wise it is not to waste them...

 

[Nick_A]

Just when he said he was an idiot I had to ask... Calling oneself an idiot.. I find is upsetting, We are amazing beings.. And to a degree we need to moderate our egos sure lol... But, that goes both ways high and low... to downgrade ourselves may make us not realise our abilities/potentials. So yeah this russian guy comes and if he beats me at chess fair one.. But hell I am not an idiot lol... He was just better at chess then me... I am sure there are many subjects/games/situations where I would be the better man if pitted agaisnt him. Or if I just wanted to play chess be prepared more next time.. Study the opponent get in his head, know how he thinks lol...

Actually I just submitted a thread on just this issue called "Interfaith and the Transcendent Unity of Religions." It is a separate question so didn't want to hijcak the existing thread. I was told it would have to be read before being admitted.

If it does appear, I'm beginning to think similar problems may arise as before. We shall see.

 

[Nick_A]

So in the land of real men... If someone clearly has more experience and is better than you at an activity that makes you an idiot?

I used chess as an example. But the real question was what it means to be a Man. If a person comes to see that they are not, then they are an idiot compared to their potential.

You cannot call a person a pianist until they can play piano regfardless of speeches. You cannot call a man a MAN until you define what the term means. But we rarely consider the question so the idea of admitting ones idiocy appears absurd and insulting to our egotism.

 

[Quahom1]

I used chess as an example. But the real question was what it means to be a Man. If a person comes to see that they are not, then they are an idiot compared to their potential.

You cannot call a person a pianist until they can play piano regfardless of speeches. You cannot call a man a MAN until you define what the term means. But we rarely consider the question so the idea of admitting ones idiocy appears absurd and insulting to our egotism.

Actually, it is absurd period. A man is just that. He is born that way. Perfect before any extraneous trappings, he just is, a man.

 

[17th Angel]

Actually, it is absurd period. A man is just that. He is born that way. Perfect before any extraniest trappings, he just is, a man.

That is along the lines I was gonna reply... You're born with no choice in the matter... You are a man, Q is a man, I am a man... From different lands from different backgrounds, different faiths, beliefs, values, hobbies, opinions, individuals yet still all men... I just didn't want to carry on floating this thread off down the river but seeing Q did it I can hopefully get away with it too

 

[Quahom1]

That is along the lines I was gonna reply... You're born with no choice in the matter... You are a man, Q is a man, I am a man... From different lands from different backgrounds, different faiths, beliefs, values, hobbies, opinions, individuals yet still all men... I just didn't want to carry on floating this thread off down the river but seeing Q did it I can hopefully get away with it too

Which brings us right back to religion and man...

we seek what we need to be the "man" we are, in this universal existence. And once we find it, we "religiously" fight to keep it...make sense now?