Scientific Forums


Pages: (188) [1] 2 3 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


> Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of, Science and Religion Now!
Mong H Tan, PhD
Posted: May 5 2006, 05:36 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 312
Joined: 18-April 06

Positive Feedback: 21.88%
Feedback Score: -49


Let's begin the Dialogue and Reconciliation of Science and Religion Now!


The schism: Epistemologically, the religious self-contradictory misgiving over science could be traced back in history to a time when Pope Urban VIII used the Church Inquisition on Galileo for Galileo’s emergence of Science and Reason, from their then total submission of Faith to Catholicism (or Religionism) in the early 17th century. Poignantly, such religious attempts to misdirect or derail the progress of science have had even reverberated today, notably Creationism vs. Evolution, in the United States—a most scientifically-advanced nation on Earth! (Please see the ongoing forum Why do Creationists pick on Evolution? next door)

By modern definition: The human inquiries (intellectual and spiritual; or those that embody disciplines of science, religion, arts, philosophy, psychology, et cetera) define our basic mentality and livelihoods worldwide. Since our humanity, Science (our technology and inventions) and Religion (our quest for meaningful survivorship) have been persistently building, growing, interweaving, and modulating our consciousness, conscience, and civilization as a whole on Earth, regardless of where they each might have had originated—in the East, West, North, South, or at the Middle East.

Whereas for the purpose of this forum, we must recognize the fact that all human inquiries, particularly Science and Religion, involve invariably the intellectual and spiritual dynamism of our Mind within: albeit the use, misuse, and/or abuse of our own mentality, as well as the behavior, character, that our Mind may—and will—readily emulate, simulate, assume, and control.

More often than not, we are first of all driven by our own inner impulses, emotions, dreams, visions, self-interests, experiences, and creativities, as necessary to survive, and, to grow better. Also, we are humankind of unbound intelligence: possessing the powers for analyzing, evaluating, improving, advancing, and expanding our own rationalized visions (as in Science) or dreams (as in Religion) to effect our livelihoods; and/or for solving problems that may—and will—arise from time to time, and under varied circumstances, whether hostile or hospitable; thrilled or tormented; widely ranged in our written history, even today and beyond, worldwide. These are the common observations of our humanity that we have just begun to understand and appreciate today, from a global perspective.

Needless to say, our global Mind is the most complex and powerful entity of life on Earth, since the evolution of humankind; a fact that no doubt warrants the special treatment of our upmost attention, respect, curiosity, inquiry, education, scrutiny, and admiration, at all time: be it in history, at present, or beyond.

Specifically, and psychologically, in both the intellectual and spiritual dynamism: Science and Religion represent the 2 very basic, active, and dynamic modes of human mental creativity within (among of course the many other forms of perceptivity; reflectivity; memory; et cetera), and they all can—and will—affect and influence our hearts and minds daily, in life and for life.

Religion is the most primal of all in our innate creativity (since the rock-art of shamanism over 50,000 years ago) that entails our deep emotions, diverse spirits, our evolved ways of survival: our religiosities or religious belief-systems which are often created through and by our intuitive, holistic idealizations; and/or immortalizations of our memories of past, tribal livelihoods, relationships, wishes, prophecies, and/or fantasies, that are usually indistinguishable from those of our legends, folklores, fictions, fairy tales; or any of literary creations that may still be found in the varied cultures, especially in those that had had been etched in the many, religious texts, traditions of the world today.

Whereas Science (and technology) with its constant evolution, and by our action and education is mainly derived from our innate yearnings for the common sense, cause and effect, within our curiosity, inquiry, order, harmony, logics, analytical observations, experiences, experimentations, and discoveries of the surrounding physical world—all as necessary for the grasping of our practical livelihoods (including our past, present, future expectations or imaginations); spirituality; survivorship; integrity; and progresses that we humans have had been able to achieve to date, especially since the spread of the European Renaissance just over 500 years ago.

As such, the Renaissance notwithstanding, while devoutly pantheistic or pan-dialectic in thought and/or in practice—and growing in polar opposite of each other—both Religion and Science are all the creative modalities and manifestations of our deepest conscience and our fast-growing intellectual and spiritual concepts of our own lives and time today: the civil growths and developments that have long been defining, shaping, and advancing our humanity, civilization, and consciousness as a unity and continuity on Earth.

Metaphorically, Religion and Science are both, in essence, and just, as integral and as fundamental as the fast-multiplying roots and shoots to the healthily-growing tree-system in entirety: which so like the vigor, rigor, and progress of our own vital humanity and civilization as a whole, without one or the other, the tree-system will neither strive nor thrive on Earth, let alone multiply.

Consequently, while lunging this forum, and only with our now finest realization: through and by our calm, balanced, and common beneficial creativities in Science and in Religion as a whole—not by denying or attacking each other; but by acknowledging our each other’s respective progress, evolution, check and balance, in history, in contrast, as well as in mutual learning, and understanding each other’s modes of action, merits, and pitfalls in our vast humanity as a whole—and only then, can we begin to unravel, uplift, and appreciate the very dynamism of our own holistic Mind (the spiritual and scientific, or the religious and intellectual kind alike), which until now has remained the most-misconstrued, tree-system of our humankind.

Thank you for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to discuss this forum. Best wishes, Mong 5/5/6usct12:35a; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006



--------------------
1) “Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now” a simple blog "Wishing all of us, living in harmony, creatively and constructively, in this beautiful World of Today and beyond—we Each are primed by our shared DNA and associated Molecules, having only one Life to live; one Heart to beat and love; one Mind to cherish responsibly worldwide. Thank you."

2) “Gods, Genes, Conscience” a 2006 book with self-explanatory subtitle “A Socio-Intellectual Survey of our Dynamic Mind, Life, all Creations in Between and Beyond, on Earth—or, A Critical Reader’s Theory of Everything: Past, Present, Future; in Continuum, ad Infinitum” will guide Readers to your own soul-searching Answers to the who/what/where/when/why/how Inquiries of the origins/creations/meanings of our life/mind/intelligence/compassion/selves, etc on Earth, today and beyond.

3) “Decoding Scientism” a book I’m working on now since July 2007; meanwhile wishing all “Happy reading, scrutinizing, enlightening at all times!”
Top
Knot of this world
Posted: May 5 2006, 09:06 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 439
Joined: 2-March 06

Positive Feedback: 72.73%
Feedback Score: 5


Hi Mong,

Best of luck with this!!!

I am yet to be convinced that reconciliation is even understood as a word, in these here parts, and that is such a shame. Better things are possible. You know it. I know it.

In my opinion ( rolleyes.gif ) the moment we 'choose a side', we un-choose its (perceived) 'opposite', and if 'Science' and 'Religion' are thought to be opposing one another then the only way to reconcile them is to understand that in Reality they do not oppose.
The reconciliation lies in the motivation. They are both trying to understand and connect to their One True Origin. The Science of Nature and the God of Intuition are (searching for) physical and spiritual 'proof' respectively.
We have to know what is 'True', Universally, to promote any kind of harmony in ourselves. (True also of the 'individual').

Our 'world views' are mostly formed when we are very small, and so to change these views when we are older takes a lot of personal work...

"If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" - Alexandr Solzhenitsyn.

I would propose a more reconciling school system, for one thing, and promote unity there, when it is still in the 'good idea' stage. How about a 'Science of Religion', or a 'Religion of Science' educationally based system? We could study such classics as 'The Tao of Physics' by Fritjof Capra, or maybe some of C. G. Jung's outstanding work?

One way for the 'older student' (of life) is to see everything as metaphor for the One True Thing, which, when you seriously think about it, simply has to be 'The One True Thing!!' There can only be one ultimate truth, but we can give it as many names as we can conceive of... I personally like the Zen/Tao approach, with the added 'twist' that we could accept a common 'name' for the 'ALL', if we were to concentrate on acceptance for the common good.

"WE are here to sense, and make sense of what we sense. And sometimes we have to know non-sense, so that we know what NOT to sense. If we know non-sense, then we also know sense. Do you sense any of this, or is it non-sense?"

- The wind only makes a sound when it hits something...

regards,
Steve.


--------------------
My purpose is to Untie myself, and Unite where I can...
Top
StevenA
Posted: May 5 2006, 09:54 PM


Forum counter-mafia
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2630
Joined: 20-February 06

Positive Feedback: 51.85%
Feedback Score: -70


Mong, I loved reading this post. I've been down the path of religion and hit a dead end and then turned to science and after quite a journey found the appearance of a merging of the paths. Like going full circle in what appears a different direction but ending up at a similar location but with a different perspective. On one hand, it's a bit unsettling to realize your entire existance is spent immersed in a universe that has so much unknown to it and only a limited scope in which you can view it, but on the other hand it's extremely pleasing to realize what reality is and can be, is to a much larger extent than most people recognize, up to individual control. It seems there are answers and solutions to almost anything imagineable and this can be intimidating in that with such abilities possible, there are always tradeoffs and consequences and it becomes a matter of foresight, values and knowledge in controlling these to achieve the desired results ... but then this changing emphasis from what's possible into what's desired, opens up yet another challenge more perplexing in many ways than simply learning how to do something ... should you do it, and in what manner, with what desired effects and what risks and consequences etc. These aren't easily analyzed by a computer program because a computer doesn't have an understanding of what it is to be human and how to fulfill human desires, it's simply one of those tools that provide this empowerment.

So I guess, in many ways science and technology are progressing along the lines of a magic genie that will able to grant wishes, in a sense. Now the question is whether the human/religious/spiritual side of this equation will be able to make the right wish when the opportunity is present.

Hopefully, a lot of conflicts will be resolved by the time we get there ... though exactly what evidence suggests this will be true I don't know. My guess is that we're going to experience a few lessons from the school of hard knocks somewhere along the line and that necessity with be the mother of invention in this regard, though it would be nice to at least see this not happen in an overly painful manner ... I guess time will tell.

Just for fun, and to sound a bit zen - The desired answers can be found, but you first need to ask the right questions.
Top
Mong H Tan, PhD
Posted: May 7 2006, 07:00 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 312
Joined: 18-April 06

Positive Feedback: 21.88%
Feedback Score: -49


Greetings, everybody and mind!

Specifically, Steve and Steven, your points are well said, and taken. Thank you! I hope more readers would be able to express their voices herein, too! smile.gif smile.gif smile.gif

Nonetheless, I would like to elaborate abit hereunder, regarding your nice posts above.

1) The evolution of Modern Mind: You’re right, Steve, we need to establish a common ground herein in Science and Religion, before any reconciliation can be made between these dynamically opposing lines of thinking in our mind. This is why we as modern thinking, feeling, human beings, need to understand the histories of Religion and Science, especially the comparative histories and evolution of religions and sciences, interdisciplinary, pluralistically and multiculturally, worldwide.

So far, none, in our written history, had had been able to do that inclusively—until now! Even if there had had been any thinkers who attempted to do that, they could only do it discriminately, partially, or locally, or at best, regionally. This is because they all had had been limited to their own local experience and observation; and that is why we now have all the fragmented philosophies of life and mind and religions all over the world—until today. As intellectual-spiritual beings ourselves, especially in the 21st century, we should now be able to sort, analyze, and reach a conclusion, and a reconciliation of our chiasmic Religion and Science, with an open Modern Mind, forever evolving and expanding with our knowledge of things!

2) The evolution and abuse of Religion: All the world religions (archaic or reformed)—including the Abrahamic Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—had had been organized initially by a few supernaturalists or cultists—the superstitious intellectuals of their times—in order to solve their survival problems and growing spirits, prevalent in their then still uncharacterized and segregated worlds on Earth.

Historically, once the organized superstitions and rituals became accepted—often times by force or coercion of the gullible—a consecrated or doctrinal religion was born; wherein the cultists now called monks or priests, would soon be able to wield enormous survival and spiritual power over their religious followers.

Specifically, by the influence of their survival successes during the hard times at the Middle East and Europe, both the followers (and converts) of Christianity and Islam have had been sheltered (as well as abused) by their religions since the 4th and 7th centuries, respectively.

In Christianity, we have witnessed the absolute power corrupted absolutely in the Catholic Church—as Martin Luther (1483-1546) dared to discover and expose with a good conscience!—whereas in Islam, most of the devout followers couldn’t (or even won’t) identify the fact that their own doctrinal belief-system could wield and have had indeed been wielding the absolute (sometimes abusive) power over them by their imams or mullahs—even today!

As such, the Muslim survival creativities, have had since been stumped by their own religion and opportunistic religionists, who have had often misled them by blaming others or the infidels for their own leadership inadequacy and failures in all human affairs of the modern times. The 9/11 attacks on the US notwithstanding, the world Islamic adverse reactions to the recent Danish cartoons were clearly agitated and manipulated by the imams, who were then too eager to show the world of their still “archaic and persistent mind control” power over the gullible Muslims!

Will the Muslim equivalents of Martin Luther, or Carl Jung, or Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, et al, stand up, for the renewal and defense of their now over-distressed and stressed out Islamic life and mind today? With this understanding, we—as educated modern human beings; intellectually and spiritually; empathically and sympathetically—must now help the impoverished Muslims to reflect and introspect themselves—may be in a small way through this global forum in the Internet—if they were to realize and help themselves to adapt to this evermore dynamic zeitgeist of the 21st century and beyond. May be Salman Rushdie and other Islamic thinkers will provide a lead in this direction!

As for other religions, superstitions, metaphysics, such as, paganism, Jainism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, etc; historically and presently, they are not as destructive as the monolithic monotheism as Christianity and Islam in nature; so, they would be able to adapt to the pluralistic 21st-century zeitgeist more easily and readily, so as to live and survive meaningfully on this diverse multicultural planet Earth!

3) The process of reconciling Scientific and Religious Thinkings: Last, but not least, Steven, I think I knew exactly what you meant—as a Japanese Zen master would say, you are reaching your “satori” soon, a subtle realization or illumination, in which you’ll have a complete sense of understanding and reconciling your knowledge and experience of Religion (concerning your heart) and Science (concerning your mind)! Or, Steve would say, the Infinite Unity! Congratulations to both of you! Happy reading and scrutinizing, as only by this active process, that we’ll keep our mind forever expanding and evolving in this Universe and beyond!

Thank you for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.

Best wishes, Mong 5/7/6usct1:59p; author Gods, Genes, Conscience and Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues 2006



--------------------
1) “Gods, Genes, Conscience: Global Dialogues Now” a simple blog "Wishing all of us, living in harmony, creatively and constructively, in this beautiful World of Today and beyond—we Each are primed by our shared DNA and associated Molecules, having only one Life to live; one Heart to beat and love; one Mind to cherish responsibly worldwide. Thank you."

2) “Gods, Genes, Conscience” a 2006 book with self-explanatory subtitle “A Socio-Intellectual Survey of our Dynamic Mind, Life, all Creations in Between and Beyond, on Earth—or, A Critical Reader’s Theory of Everything: Past, Present, Future; in Continuum, ad Infinitum” will guide Readers to your own soul-searching Answers to the who/what/where/when/why/how Inquiries of the origins/creations/meanings of our life/mind/intelligence/compassion/selves, etc on Earth, today and beyond.

3) “Decoding Scientism” a book I’m working on now since July 2007; meanwhile wishing all “Happy reading, scrutinizing, enlightening at all times!”
Top
StevenA
Posted: May 7 2006, 11:18 PM


Forum counter-mafia
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2630
Joined: 20-February 06

Positive Feedback: 51.85%
Feedback Score: -70


QUOTE (Mong H Tan @ PhD,May 7 2006, 07:00 PM)
1) The evolution of Modern Mind: You’re right, Steve, we need to establish a common ground herein in Science and Religion, before any reconciliation can be made between these dynamically opposing lines of thinking in our mind.  This is why we as modern thinking, feeling, human beings, need to understand the histories of Religion and Science, especially the comparative histories and evolution of religions and sciences, interdisciplinary, pluralistically and multiculturally, worldwide.

So far, none, in our written history, had had been able to do that inclusively—until now!  Even if there had had been any thinkers who attempted to do that, they could only do it discriminately, partially, or locally, or at best, regionally.  This is because they all had had been limited to their own local experience and observation; and that is why we now have all the fragmented philosophies of life and mind and religions all over the world—until today.  As intellectual-spiritual beings ourselves, especially in the 21st century, we should now be able to sort, analyze, and reach a conclusion, and a reconciliation of our chiasmic Religion and Science, with an open Modern Mind, forever evolving and expanding with our knowledge of things!

The terms "Global", "Humanity", "Unity" and "Oneness" etc. are mental simplifications of reality. Yes, humanity exists, but not as a single entity with a single purpose or desire.

I believe the reason why it is often seen as little progress having been made in uniting people globally, is simply because the typical vision of how his would be manifested is incorrect and unrealistic. An orchard needs tending, but a forest does not. An orchard is created from a single simple mental construction that isn't compatible with nature and continual outside intervention must occur to maintain this limited and unnatural state. A forest has many diverse aspects, including the ability to evolve and grow even more complex and resilient. Assexual reproduction hasn't been competitive because all offspring are basically cloned copies of the parent - a single virus can destroy the entire population. Sexual reproduction on the other hand benefits from diversity. Nature on a larger scale has even found greater use for diversity and specialization and is able to support life in most every corner of the world by taking this even further. Life and growth flourish when diversity is tolerated. Incorrectly applying the concept of a unity to humanity has caused many wars and led to stagnant and oppressive cultures as well (though natural pressures tend to diminish these over time, the destruction in the interim seems avoidable with enough foresight).

Now I'm not saying a unity in humanity can't be beneficial or that seeing it on a large scale is impossible, but I'm saying that it can only occur stably as a unity in diversity and individuality. I don't want to sound nationalistic here but simply want to use this as an example. When the United States was initially formed, there was much pride and love for the nation because it stood not for a nation only able to support a single culture but a creation that was simply a product of the mutual desires for independent colonies to defend their own independence. I don't believe much of this view is still retained though and internal conflicts over trying to mold the nation into an enforced collective with a limited tolerance for economic and social diversity has slowly eatten away at the benefits of individual liberty and the social and economic growths experience when diversity and peaceful competition in their respective spheres (which overlap to a large extent) is tolerated. There never was an "American Dream", there have been a wide variety of various dreams. The only real common thread was simply a desire to be peacefully allowed to pursue them. Of course, sometimes physical conflicts occur and that's where government has a legitimate role, as a peacekeeper and arbitrar and not a ruler. (Again, I apologize for specifically putting the U.S. in here when the subject regards a larger perspective but I think the analogy holds true at larger scales).

The "dream" for what humanity could be, IMO, is that a mutual recognition of the value of having human cultures be a smorgasbord of paths and options to pursue instead of a production line with a limited menu to select from. Greed and envy need to be overcome. This is a challenge because there are likely many legitimate complaints over injustices that have occured but at some point it seems the slate needs to be wiped clean and prior injustuces forgiven, as long as future, figurative, fences are respected.

There's a saying that "good fences make good neighbors" and also "a man is the king of his own castle". Of course this also implies that people are responsible for whatever state they keep their castle, as well as liable when their actions harm vested interests outside their own.

I don't believe there is any other long-term, peaceful and prosperous solution to the state of things than to simply see humanity as it truely and physically is - a diverse group of individuals with many and differed desires, dreams, traits, knowledge, goals and resources etc. When the use of the terms "society", "culture", "democracy" etc. are used to justify forcefully sacrificing the interests of individuals, then these conflicts result in a fracturing of that unity, a breakdown in the support, and a loss of peace and prosperity paying for the costs of these conflicts in a variety of ways. This occurs in many ways, but you have some trying to get ahead, not by creating their own value, but by coercively taking it from others, and you have envy trying to make everyone equal, not in terms of protection of rights, or freedom and liberty, but in terms of lifestyle, economics, social beliefs, education etc.

Some day, I believe, a growing desire for peace and independence will be commonly recognized around the world. Since WWII the generally accepted number of nations existing has increased significantly and this pattern appears to be continuing. In one sense, the world is more tightly knit than ever before but this has also removed many local physical barriers to independence and instead the issue has become more social and cultural. A landlocked town, 200 years ago had less of an ability to trade internationally and was more dependent upon trade arrangements with neighboring provinces or a close port city to maintain itself and grow. Now these physical dependencies are less critical as technology allows local areas, and even individuals to access global marketplaces and reduce the labor needed for basic needs like food and housing.

QUOTE
2) The evolution and abuse of Religion: All the world religions (archaic or reformed)—including the Abrahamic Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—had had been organized initially by a few supernaturalists or cultists—the superstitious intellectuals of their times—in order to solve their survival problems and growing spirits, prevalent in their then still uncharacterized and segregated worlds on Earth.

Historically, once the organized superstitions and rituals became accepted—often times by force or coercion of the gullible—a consecrated or doctrinal religion was born; wherein the cultists now called monks or priests, would soon be able to wield enormous survival and spiritual power over their religious followers.

Specifically, by the influence of their survival successes during the hard times at the Middle East and Europe, both the followers (and converts) of Christianity and Islam have had been sheltered (as well as abused) by their religions since the 4th and 7th centuries, respectively.

In Christianity, we have witnessed the absolute power corrupted absolutely in the Catholic Church—as Martin Luther (1483-1546) dared to discover and expose with a good conscience!—whereas in Islam, most of the devout followers couldn’t (or even won’t) identify the fact that their own doctrinal belief-system could wield and have had indeed been wielding the absolute (sometimes abusive) power over them by their imams or mullahs—even today!

As such, the Muslim survival creativities, have had since been stumped by their own religion and opportunistic religionists, who have had often misled them by blaming others or the infidels for their own leadership inadequacy and failures in all human affairs of the modern times.  The 9/11 attacks on the US notwithstanding, the world Islamic adverse reactions to the recent Danish cartoons were clearly agitated and manipulated by the imams, who were then too eager to show the world of their still “archaic and persistent mind control” power over the gullible Muslims!

Will the Muslim equivalents of Martin Luther, or Carl Jung, or Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, et al, stand up, for the renewal and defense of their now over-distressed and stressed out Islamic life and mind today?  With this understanding, we—as educated modern human beings; intellectually and spiritually; empathically and sympathetically—must now help the impoverished Muslims to reflect and introspect themselves—may be in a small way through this global forum in the Internet—if they were to realize and help themselves to adapt to this evermore dynamic zeitgeist of the 21st century and beyond.  May be Salman Rushdie and other Islamic thinkers will provide a lead in this direction!

As for other religions, superstitions, metaphysics, such as, paganism, Jainism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, etc; historically and presently, they are not as destructive as the monolithic monotheism as Christianity and Islam in nature; so, they would be able to adapt to the pluralistic 21st-century zeitgeist more easily and readily, so as to live and survive meaningfully on this diverse multicultural planet Earth!

...


It seems anytime too much power is placed in too few hands, this ends up as a focal point for corruption and people become seduced by power and then the sacrificing of individuals begins.

I don't encourage a forced redistribution to this, as this would be hypocritical and violate the intention of seeing a more peaceful and prosperous state exist, but I do encourage people to defend themselves and the value of their efforts and not be swayed or coerced into supporting or encouraging institutions that survive, not on their own merit, but by being forceful and destructively imposed on others.

I have nothing against religion itself and if a community desired to live according their own religious beliefs, that's fine. Even including things I might consider destructive to themselves. If they aren't holding people captive in this institution, then I won't claim to have an ability to impose my judgement on their beliefs, but their decisions can't justly extend to intruding into other communities without conflicts resulting. Ideally this concept should extend down to individuals, or at least family units as is natural when children are considered. Though realistically, some actions inevitably affect more than simply the person perfomring that action - dumping toxics into a river isn't an action solely up to individual discretion because this actions harms people outside that individual. If someone could pollute their own air and not have it harm others, they'd be free to do so, but this isn't the case in real life so obviously some form of government effectively exists on larger scales to resolve these disputes but I see this form of enforceable agreements as simply a reality that will always need to be addressed but not an ideal in need of being replicated whenever possible.

As usual, I tend to drift and ramble but again, thank you for posting this thread. Yes, I have some hope that there's a brighter future in store, but I also believe there will inevitably be costs paid getting there. If everyone suddenly had an insight tomorrow into what could be, things could change in a short time. There are few physical barriers in this regard, the limits are largely mental.
Top
Knot of this world
Posted: May 8 2006, 10:34 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 439
Joined: 2-March 06

Positive Feedback: 72.73%
Feedback Score: 5


Hi Mong, StevenA,

StevenA, you have provided an example here, of a subjective 'reality'...

[/QUOTE]"When the United States was initially formed, there was much pride and love for the nation because it stood not for a nation only able to support a single culture but a creation that was simply a product of the mutual desires for independent colonies to defend their own independence."[QUOTE]

- There was a highly civilised culture already on the soil, using it sustainably and gratefully, before the white europeans destroyed all but the idea. To do this it was necessary to employ the use of African slaves; another culture 'raped'. I think any 'pride and love' must have been of an unconscious denial kind. Probably still is?

The whole point about 'Unity' is that we must RE-learn to see ourselves as not just 'One race', but also a part of 'One life on this planet' (maybe the only 'life' there is in existence!) and that doesn't mean that we all have to be or think exactly the same. It means we have to learn what 'acceptance' really is.
It should not be a problem to understand the One True Thing, and still accept that different people simply give 'it' different names.
It must start with the individual. And when an individual truely 'connects' with Reality, he or she then truely understands their own part within it. There is no option but to 'accept'.
'Reality' is the only common denominator we have! All else is personal perspective, and though sometimes fantastic, is mostly abused, to the detriment of anything 'other'.
Man has trouble accepting how tiny and insignificant he truely is, especially when he has been taught to believe that he is in some way 'superior'. A deeply humbling experience can show an individual exactly how 'significant' they are, in the face of Infinite Reality.
My concern is that Humanity will wait until it suffers a 'deeply humbling experience' of its own making, before it is motivated to do anything about it. This WILL happen, if we remain unconscious, or in denial of Reality...



[QUOTE]Will the Muslim equivalents of Martin Luther, or Carl Jung, or Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, et al, stand up, for the renewal and defense of their now over-distressed and stressed out Islamic life and mind today?[/QUOTE]

- Mong, it's slow, but I think it is beginning to happen...

http://www.secularislam.org/skeptics/taslima.htm

...can't keep a good spirit down! wink.gif

regards,
Steve.


--------------------
My purpose is to Untie myself, and Unite where I can...
Top
howtothinklikegod
Posted: May 8 2006, 06:30 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 650
Joined: 15-February 06

Positive Feedback: 57.14%
Feedback Score: 2


QUOTE
The whole point about 'Unity' is that we must RE-learn to see ourselves as not just 'One race', but also a part of 'One life on this planet' (maybe the only 'life' there is in existence!) and that doesn't mean that we all have to be or think exactly the same. It means we have to learn what 'acceptance' really is.


Yup. Exactly. We all want to live a life that is our own. But we cannot. Because we only have one home and we live together with a billion people some of them are even like us. And to be able to live, we must consider each other too because the people we're living with is a very important factor. They can bring you either failure or success. Sometimes, those two depends on them completely.

So, the most important thing to do is to unite. Have one goal. Be one. This world is composed of one big happy family living together, experiencing things, going to different directions, but at the end, they will realize only one great thing.

But the sad thing is....we can't.

QUOTE
The terms "Global", "Humanity", "Unity" and "Oneness" etc. are mental simplifications of reality. Yes, humanity exists, but not as a single entity with a single purpose or desire.


Yup. We can't just exist as one. That's why war happens. Points of view came flying around, attacking their opponent side by side. But that doesn't mean that peace on earth will be impossible. We can live in peace even though we go to different directions.

I hope we can...
Peace on earth smile.gif


--------------------
To err is human. But to be a human is not to err...
Top
Knot of this world
Posted: May 8 2006, 10:16 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 439
Joined: 2-March 06

Positive Feedback: 72.73%
Feedback Score: 5


[QUOTE=howtothinklikegod,May 8 2006, 06:30 PM][QUOTE]

So, the most important thing to do is to unite. Have one goal. Be one. This world is composed of one big happy family living together, experiencing things, going to different directions, but at the end, they will realize only one great thing.

But the sad thing is....we can't.

[QUOTE]




Hi howtothinklikegod,

My friend, the absolute saddest thing of all is that we CAN, but we just let others make us believe we can't.... sad.gif


- "Be the change you wish to see in the world" - M.K.Gandhi

- "A true measure of stagnation is when you are given an opportunity to further life, but fail to do so." - Mr. Lemniscate wink.gif


steve.






--------------------
My purpose is to Untie myself, and Unite where I can...
Top
StevenA
Posted: May 8 2006, 10:45 PM


Forum counter-mafia
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2630
Joined: 20-February 06

Positive Feedback: 51.85%
Feedback Score: -70


QUOTE (howtothinklikegod @ May 8 2006, 06:30 PM)
QUOTE
The terms "Global", "Humanity", "Unity" and "Oneness" etc. are mental simplifications of reality. Yes, humanity exists, but not as a single entity with a single purpose or desire.


Yup. We can't just exist as one. That's why war happens. Points of view came flying around, attacking their opponent side by side. But that doesn't mean that peace on earth will be impossible. We can live in peace even though we go to different directions.

I hope we can...
Peace on earth smile.gif

I agree with you and believe these ideas are "memes" that will ultimately shift things in that direction.

People inevitably benefit from being part of a community, but paradoxically when this synergy is attempted forcefully, the clenched fist finds grains of sand slipping out from between the fingers. Whereas, it's difficult to turn down a relationship with others that has few costs and is viewed as mutually beneficial.

You can find many private organizations that arise, not out of coercion, or legal mandates etc but simply individual desires to be a part of that association. Though it may not be the best example, the Catholic church, for example is a worldwide organization that exists at least for the most part today from the voluntary desires of millions of people to be a part of it. There was no need for demarkating national boundaries and no police enforced attendance etc. Though some incidents in history have likely occured contrary to this, I'm only referring to the voluntary private aspects of it today.

Some people might say my comment regarding there not being a need to demarkate national boundaries for these to exist is in support of communistic ideals, but that's not the case. Capitalism doesn't require everyone to be part of different nations either, and is simply based upon individual rights, not national ones (which seem to often ignore individual ones).

Anyway, I truly don't want to sidetrack this thread with political details. There's little need for the large majority of social conflicts that are occuring today once people recognize the fact that not being denied control over your own life is 100 times as valuable as being able to deny others their freedom to do the same. The major social problem stopping this is that too many people feel entitled to control foreign affairs in other nations, or decide what healthcare people in other states are allowed or even what the neighbor watches on television in the privacy of their own home, and what subjects their children should be taught/indoctrinated into.
In one way, these sadly create a fracturing in society and conflicts that seem to never be resolved but on the other hand it's also a force that appears to be awakening people to more than simply the detailed conflicts but the larger social issue underlying all of it.

I have a feeling there will be a greater sense of global unity in the future, but it will come from a bottom up appreciation of the many relationships we experience and value, and a desire to continue these, as opposed to a top-down mandate to act as one.

Peace to you also smile.gif
Top
Knot of this world
Posted: May 9 2006, 09:48 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 439
Joined: 2-March 06

Positive Feedback: 72.73%
Feedback Score: 5


What is Science looking for? I mean, what does it hope to find eventually, ultimately? Where is it heading? And why does it want to know?

We can ask all these questions of Religion also. And we can do that because they have a common ground between them. They are both Human in origin. They both need to know.

The reconciliation is about finding this 'common ground'. It is about understanding ourselves, as individuals firstly, then as part of our 'families', our 'communities', our 'cultures', our 'races', our 'Humanity', our 'species'. At which point we discover that we are also part of a bigger picture. We are part of the animal 'world', and having discovered that, we see that the 'picture' keeps getting bigger and bigger the further you step back. We are a part of 'organic life'. We are a part of the whole of 'Life'. At this point we can clearly see that we are simply another part of the Earth. The Earth is a part of the solar system. The solar system is part of the milky way galaxy. The galaxy is part of the Universe.
'Common ground' stretches from the tiniest thing to the largest thing.

Science also looks the 'other' way. It attempts to see the smallest thing possible. This is a thing that Religion neglected to do; concentrating on the 'almighty' only. What about the 'all-tiny'?
'Science' exposes 'Religion's' weaknesses. But 'Religion' also exposes 'Science's' weaknesses, as 'science' neglects its 'intuition', which is, after all, its true link to its one true origin, and so they both regard each other as a threat. Both afraid to be exposed to the reality that they simply do not know what they claim to know.

A uniting of the intuitive with the physically obvious is the reconciliation. And it starts with our personal understanding.

We gather the 'information' and pick our personal perspective of 'Truth' from it. But we can only correctly determine what the 'Truth' is when we know how to see 'Truth', and not just someone elses idea of what it should be. Therefore we can only truely trust our own interpretations, and we must know, without a doubt, that our intuition is correct, which also means that we must know ourselves, and accept the 'bad' as well as the 'good'; accept that we don't 'know it all'; accept that we ALL have much to learn.

'Science' will never find any 'truth' while it denies half of Reality, and neither will 'Religion'. The acceptance of Reality must always include everything, otherwise it cannot consider its findings complete.

I am aware that this sounds 'arrogant' to someone who has already decided 'which side' they are on. I oppose neither 'science', nor 'religion'. Neither do I promote 'intelligent design', or 'new age mysticism'. I am interested in Reality only. One Thing, whatever you care to call it. I have no 'agenda'. Nothing to sell, except this idea. And nobody is paying me to express it.

I think it's time we ALL ushered in the age of REALISM... While we still have an 'age' at all...

Steve.




--------------------
My purpose is to Untie myself, and Unite where I can...
Top
StevenA
Posted: May 9 2006, 02:01 PM


Forum counter-mafia
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2630
Joined: 20-February 06

Positive Feedback: 51.85%
Feedback Score: -70


QUOTE (Knot of this world)
Science also looks the 'other' way. It attempts to see the smallest thing possible. This is a thing that Religion neglected to do; concentrating on the 'almighty' only. What about the 'all-tiny'?

'Science' exposes 'Religion's' weaknesses. But 'Religion' also exposes 'Science's' weaknesses, as 'science' neglects its 'intuition', which is, after all, its true link to its one true origin, and so they both regard each other as a threat. Both afraid to be exposed to the reality that they simply do not know what they claim to know.


This is an interesting perspective.

There do seem to be two opposing forces that at least in many people desire to find a common direction to go in order to resolve the conflict. On the one hand people desire change, or to be more than what they are currently, but they don't want this to alter their own identity into something that they aren't a part of. People want to grow, unite or otherwise empower themselves and I believe this correlates similar to an evolutionary natural pressure to survive. Whereas, on the other hand this apparent necessity for change is feared in that someone will lose themselves to it and be uncontrollable carried away or left behind. This is also a desire to survive, though it's more of a pressure to not be consumed by outside forces and a desire to remain distinct and retain a continuous sense of self in the process.

To rephrase it, we desire to exist, yet desire to become something else as well. Science deals more with understanding and defining our current existance, whereas religions tend to pursue the desires to become something else/more. Finding out how to achieve these desires while maintaining an existance, or to achieve and become a part of what you desire, while still maintaining a sense of yourself and personal accomplishment during the process is at least one of the conflicts.

There are likely many other analogies of this. For example, we can benefit from being part of a society and generally desire to do so, but we don't want this society to consume us and deprive us of independence in the process, or people many people may have a desire to alter the Earth in some fashion perceived as better, but fear living in a world that's altered by others beyond their control, or people wish to alter a career path but fear the unknowns to this change. People want to go to heaven but fear death etc.

Is this simply a simultaneous desire for change yet fear of possible unknowns and unintended consequences? Maybe on a larger scale, humanity takes larger steps when the desires are greatest and the fear of unknowns are smallest? Religions tend to work with leaps of faith more, and science prefers baby steps. Merging the two, maybe science can remove the faith component of making larger leaps?

(I'm just rambling as usual)
Top
howtothinklikegod
Posted: May 9 2006, 04:56 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 650
Joined: 15-February 06

Positive Feedback: 57.14%
Feedback Score: 2


QUOTE
My friend, the absolute saddest thing of all is that we CAN, but we just let others make us believe we can't....


We can't knotofthisworld. We cannot. We cannot be one. We cannot have one goal. We cannot.

I know that seems hard to accept but why drown yourself in total fantasy while living in a world of reality?? But yes, maybe we can. I want to keep an open mind. Maybe, we can. But not now. Now, there's a lot of chaos going on. But again, that's the time when people realize the importance of having peace.

Okay, so let's not limit ourselves to that. There's hope. Thanks, knotofthisworld. Thanks for still believing... smile.gif

QUOTE
Science also looks the 'other' way. It attempts to see the smallest thing possible. This is a thing that Religion neglected to do; concentrating on the 'almighty' only. What about the 'all-tiny'?


You already said that science exposes religion's weaknesses and vice-versa. So now, don't blame religion for focusing on the all-tiny. Anyways, that's the job of science. So science if for the all-tiny. And religion is for the almighty.


QUOTE
I think it's time we ALL ushered in the age of REALISM... While we still have an 'age' at all...


Yup. I guess it's the time. But with people who cares only about themselves and people who won't give a damn, I'm sure it will take a long time. We just have to wait. Like you said, while we still have the time.


--------------------
To err is human. But to be a human is not to err...
Top
soundhertz
Posted: May 9 2006, 07:29 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2250
Joined: 21-January 06

Positive Feedback: 91.3%
Feedback Score: 120


QUOTE (Knot of this world @ May 8 2006, 10:34 AM)
It must start with the individual. And when an individual truely 'connects' with Reality, he or she then truely understands their own part within it. There is no option but to 'accept'.

My concern is that Humanity will wait until it suffers a 'deeply humbling experience' of its own making, before it is motivated to do anything about it. This WILL happen, if we remain unconscious, or in denial of Reality...



Hiall, such a nice thread,

Knot, you are very wise. The Old Testament is a chronology of a very slow and tedious process of basically 'single' people attempting to raise the conscience and wisdom of an entire citizenry, using merely what little they had at their disposal - the concrete events of their time, and their own 'inspiration' - to inject new, untested abstract ideas to effect positive outcomes; outcomes which took longer to complete and enjoyed little initial support (persons are generally more impatient en masse than individually) as a 'cure' rather than the quicker 'suppressant'. This model showed the giant amount of time required for even modest success.

A single person cannot effectively raise the wisdom/awareness of the species. But a single person can raise it for themself, and through a bit of human osmosis, to some extent those around them. If enough people achieve this lofty mental state, the concurrent synergy of the species is automatically employed; in time, if we manage to continue, this natural synergy, so weak at the outset, becomes, like gravity, an overwhelming force, but spreading outward selflessly rather than crushing in selfishly. An idea gains strength and becomes legion as it is given away, and this snowballing effect will propel us to finally start learning how to touch the Face of Reality. And the basing of entire belief systems on discreet parts of the 'hidden whole' will necessarily fall away as knowledge erases perception.

This is a good lesson to learn. It demonstrates that we need each other, and indicates that unity, not seperateness, may not only be our outcome, but our heritage too.

Humanity works from a Phoenix mentality, due to apathy, complacency, laziness, weakness, envy, the sacrifice of the common good for self-gain, etc. All these attributes are selfish and crush inward, inevitably dragging us to the necessary 'humbling experience' and then we become Monday morning quarterbacks in our assessments. Of course we could have that asteroid hit, or the behemoth natural disaster do similar. But pie-in-the-sky is not staring us straight in the face, we are. And to our betterment, yes indeed "this WILL happen". No matter what, evolution progresses. It has crests and troughs, but in viewing it from as entire a perspective as we can, we can safely say that de-evolution does not exist. The Universe - the One Song - continues unassailed, and we with it.
smile.gif joe


--------------------
"Time's grey hand won't catch me while the stars shine down;
Untie and unlatch me while the stars shine"
Top
howtothinklikegod
Posted: May 9 2006, 07:42 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 650
Joined: 15-February 06

Positive Feedback: 57.14%
Feedback Score: 2


Welcome jaybee,

I thought you don't want the creation/evolution forum. Anyways, I hope you like it here...

Congratulations to knot. He's such a very talented man.
You should keep it up, bro!

Peace smile.gif


--------------------
To err is human. But to be a human is not to err...
Top
soundhertz
Posted: May 9 2006, 08:29 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 2250
Joined: 21-January 06

Positive Feedback: 91.3%
Feedback Score: 120


Yes that is basically true httlg, but anywhere I see StevenA posting I know it's a good read; he's probably my favorite poster, Good Elf not far behind. And Knotofthisworld is a perfect accompaniment to this discussion and new and welcome to me. My 'perceptions' are changing!


--------------------
"Time's grey hand won't catch me while the stars shine down;
Untie and unlatch me while the stars shine"
Top

Topic Options Pages: (188) [1] 2 3 ... Last »

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use