Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 15341 - 15360 of total 23145 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
MH2

climber
Jun 13, 2013 - 02:08pm PT
Jake says arf!
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Jun 13, 2013 - 02:17pm PT
This is a cat!
No, no, it isn't. I'm just being rude to the ten-masters.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 13, 2013 - 02:40pm PT
Now that is a cat with some rather excellent muscle and bone development in the front legs. This is a cat that climbs a lot and gets plenty of exercise . Note the triceps on that front leg.
jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 13, 2013 - 03:05pm PT
Jake says arf!



I told Jake Corgi (who lives with us) about this and he says arf! also.


;>)
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 13, 2013 - 03:14pm PT
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 13, 2013 - 03:16pm PT
This is patently absurd; but whoever wishes to become a philosopher must learn not to be frightened by absurdities. (Bertrand Russell)

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. . . . Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth. (Mahatma Gandhi)

Truth, like light, blinds. Falsehood, on the contrary, is a beautiful twilight that enhances every object. (Albert Camus)
rectorsquid

climber
Lake Tahoe
Jun 13, 2013 - 03:26pm PT
Science is a way of doing thing. A vampire would be a magical creature that lived while being dead but you could still use science to predict that a stab to the heart will kill it. You can still use science to discover that a werewolf only shows up when there is a full moon (if you didn't know it already from the movies).

The idea that there are boundaries to science is absurd until there is something in the world that followed no rules and has no patterns and yet is not random.

If God has a plan and the plan has not changed then it would be easy to use science to measure it and evaluate it and predict things from it. Not knowing it doesn't make it outside of science for science is supposed to deal with things we don't know. That's the idea.

It is only when the thing in question follows no rules that it is beyond science. It's okay if it doesn't follow the rules that we currently know about. We'll eventually find out those other rules. Or maybe we won't but that does not mean that a thing follows no rules just because we cannot figure them out.

Our personalities might live on after out body dies and since we all seem to have that ability in us, according to the religious spiritual people, there seems to be some predictability in it. Some sort of rule that says that all humans have a soul. Maybe all dogs do not. It's still a set of rules that can be analyzed and that's science.

Maybe the arguments here should be less about what is and what is not in the realm of science since all things are in the realm of science. The argument should be about how some people want to try to find the cause and effect of things and learn about how things work and why they work and some people want to try things out without caring about how or why. The non-scientists are happy without explanation but that is not a flaw of science.

Meditating to gain spiritual enlightenment is science. It's an experiment. It's an attempt to do something to get an outcome. Only when it ends up being random and completely unpredictable would it be outside of science and then what good would there be in it? Meditate and have random sh#t happen? That does not sound like enlightenment at all.

In the end, the arguments on this thread are about some of us assigning a probability to things based on what we can figure out, predict, and share with others. Some other people assign probabilities to things based on some sort of gut feeling or desire and based on what others tell them regardless of what can be reproduced, predicted, and shared with others in a physical sense.

Dave

P.S. I am now worshiping John Frum. The cargo will be here soon.

BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 13, 2013 - 03:52pm PT

exactly what Christians are talking about concerning God and faith and a meaningful life of virtue.
A virtueous life certainly has its rewards. So far, my understanding in being a "Christ follower"
has everything to do with loving God with all ur heart and mind first, and second to love thy brother as thyself. Those are the "rules". I've been meditating on this since you posted. I feel like God took me to John 8. When the scribes took the woman caught in adultery to Jesus
looking for judgement. They said, the Law of Moses says she is to be stoned to death. Jesus ignored them. When they persisted. Jesus said, those of you without sin start throwing. They all left. Jesus was alone with the woman, and asked her, "where are those accusers of yours?
Has no one condemned you? She said "no one, Lord" and Jesus said to her, "neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."
Here Jesus makes no reference to the sin of adultery. Only to the fact that she caused her neighbors to condemn her thus commiting murder in their hearts. This is the sin I believe Jesus told her not to repeat. Now do I think adultery is ok? Of course not! It's NOT very virtue ish. But we all break the Law everyday. And are easily forgiven through the blood of Christ.
Doing "good" deeds and leading a virtue ish life is a sign of Good faith. But it's not what Jesus taught to get into heaven..
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 13, 2013 - 04:54pm PT
The idea that there are boundaries to science is absurd until there is something in the world that followed no rules and has no patterns and yet is not random.
----


This is a common misconcetion, believed heart and soul by those who haven't yet discovered how attention works - from the inside. I charted out a pretty easy to understand version of how the discursive might must, without exception, narrow it's bandwidth, so to speak, to concentrate on one thing, excluding others, in order to quantify. In other words, science and quantifying and discursive reasoning itself is exclusionary by nature and demand. We cannot quantify a quality without borders because there are no limits, no shape, no dimension, no edges for our numbers to relate; and even if are talking about relations, those relations pertain to forces, amplitudes, energies exerting influence on the whole. This underscores Kurt Koffka's original phrase, "The whole is other than the sum of the parts." The discursive mind says this is strictly impossible. This is the stanard external view.

The mistake many make is in assuming that techniques that work on specific things on the outside will work with the very same effect on the borderless qualities (the whole) we find on the inside.

Again, he says: The idea that there are boundaries to science is absurd until there is something in the world that followed no rules and has no patterns and yet is not random (ins word, is not mechanically determined). All this author would has to do is get started on some interior work, be instructed to detach from all content, and over time he would discover "somethng in the world" (actually in his own experience) which is exactly as he described, starting with raw awareness itself. But without the internal view of things, such talk is indeed "absurd."

H said: Meditating to gain spiritual enlightenment is science. It's an experiment. It's an attempt to do something to get an outcome. Only when it ends up being random and completely unpredictable would it be outside of science and then what good would there be in it? Meditate and have random sh#t happen? That does not sound like enlightenment at all."

"Meditating to gain spiritual enlightenment" is part of the baggage that most beginners must give up to make any headway in the internal realm. This is simply dragging into the work a "goal" that your discursive mind has decided makes the most sense and that will insure a positive outcome. Again, a very common mistake for beginners in the work, likewise believing that some thing, random or otherwise, is the aim. This is looking at meditation as a kind of task-oriented gig aimed at an outcome. Never works. It's also instructive to see this poor dood attempting yet again to say, What you're really doing here is science, it's just that you don't know it, and you don't know that you're doing it poorly as well. So listen up and I'll set you straight."

As mentioned 100 times, it would be interesting to hear about this person's direct experiences with the work to learn by what means he arrived at his conclusions. 1,000 to one it's speculation based on external methodologies.

JL
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Jun 13, 2013 - 07:13pm PT
This is looking at meditation as a kind of task-oriented gig aimed at an outcome. Never works.

I'm afraid that I've become dangerously addicted to my daily dose of Largoism. Thanks for the fix.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 13, 2013 - 07:36pm PT
A great meditation is to allow yourself to make no effort. None. Do not concentrate on something. Do not move towards or away from something, any thought, feeling, impulse, desire, etc. Don't try and figure out something. Don't vegitate (keep a good but relaxed posture and eyes open and be present) and don't try to relax, be wise, enlightened.

What you find at first is that you have almost no idea how your awareness flits around to the thing with the highest voltage, and second, you have almost no control over the aperature-like vascilations of your awarenes, which zooms in on things before you know it.

JL
MH2

climber
Jun 13, 2013 - 08:53pm PT
What is the third thing you find?


Apologies for using the word 'thing.'
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Jun 13, 2013 - 08:59pm PT
jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 13, 2013 - 09:18pm PT
This is the stanard external view

Should be Stannard. Maybe it's not his external view?

I'm afraid that I've become dangerously addicted to my daily dose of Largoism

It is damn compelling . . .
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Jun 13, 2013 - 09:48pm PT
I believe Buddha himself taught that one should meditate to end suffering.
Is that not a goal?
WBraun

climber
Jun 13, 2013 - 10:34pm PT
And one must first understand the real cause of suffering ........
MH2

climber
Jun 13, 2013 - 11:06pm PT
"The whole is other than the sum of the parts."


The math involved may go beyond addition. Depends on what you are talking about.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 13, 2013 - 11:55pm PT
"The whole is other than the sum of the parts."

The math involved may go beyond addition. Depends on what you are talking about.


MH2. You give every indication of having a brain but I can't remember anyhwere where you had the sac to actually aasert an idea of your own. It's like waiting for someone to sneeze. We trust thre is something in there beside snide little digs and road apples chuckd from the sidelines, but verily, where are YOU in your own conversation? Someone with yur background would quite naturally have some interest in the inner workings of the human mind, but I haven't gottne the impression that you've taken up any of this work, whatsoever. For instance, it seems you are intrigued with the concept of no-thing. What is your sense of what poeple have been talking about, given that this is a concept that has been around for centuries.

JL
MH2

climber
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:29am PT
You are not listening to what I say, JL. Or not hearing. Or not understanding.
WBraun

climber
Jun 14, 2013 - 12:42am PT
By mere academic qualifications one can never understand the absolute truth.

Thus the academics will remain perpetually in their theories and mental speculations in relative understandings, bewildered and puffed up in their limited knowledge .....
Messages 15341 - 15360 of total 23145 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews