'Religion' in our lives.- Page 7

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 12:17pm

Ah b12b, this is an interesting side to you. You keep throwing in the "why are we here?" as if it is an unanswerable question. But saying there is simply no answer doesn't make it true that there is no answer. Very often basic biological events and principles are tarted up as unanswerables and given a mystical gloss because human understanding didn't progress fast enough.

For example, the "light at the end of the tunnel" that people often experience as "near death experiences" and come back relieved that there is an afterlife are actually just experiencing a biological process, the dropping of oxygen levels in the brain.

There is a straightforward biological reason why we are here. It's no mystery. It's a process. And Mistress Overdone, there are these new things called libraries wherein one may borrow a book and not have to buy it.

"The Selfish Gene" is a landmark book published in 1970. I recommend it for people who actually feel satisfied when complicated aspects of life are demystified.

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 12:25pm

Boy, you're prickly today (today?), Namo.

I'm finding a more interesting side to you and others who seem to want to force an intolerant, "organized," "one true" answer to these unprovable questions. It's such blatant hypocrisy for those who claim to cringe (or get angry) at organized religions or various religious theories that are basically doing the exact same thing you are here. You must believe as I do!!!

Yes, I'll reduce this to grade school terms.

"Prove it!"

These scientific theories aren't as straightforward as you think. They offer no concrete, universal proof. They go as far as they can with plasma, energy and mass, and then they stop short of a provable answer.

Obviously you have "faith" in these scientific theories. Good for you!

I have faith in my theories as well. And I won't force them on you, either.

[Jane2]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 12:27pm

I thought this was a really interesting thread-let's not get argumentative about something no one knows the answer to.

I'm learning and am very interested by the different points of view. And I don't care who wrote what book, they're only writing their opinion.

No one knows.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 12:33pm

I'm not trying to force anything. I just can't stand by watching somebody make questions that have factual, real world answers all "mystical" and "unanswerable."

It seems as if you're preferring to be willfully uninformed. "Prove it!" Prove what? That over millennia genes have evolved with one role, to ensure they are passed on? What's so hard about that? What's so unprovable about that?

I love when people toss around the word "theory" as if scientific "theory" is just as farfetched as the romantic folderol that passes as "faith" anywhere along the spectrum from "individual loosey goosey spirituality" to "hardline religious fundamentalist."

Gravity is just a theory too. But it's just as demonstrable as genetics.

And the really, really cool thing about scientific theory, is that if further information comes along that provably refutes it, the knowledge base increases and that original "theory" is disregarded.

This is what's so funny about the cult of the "unanswerable." For a long time, many of these questions WERE unanswerable but once explanations are laid out, people refuse to give up their dreams of ignorance. Rather like a person in their 20s believing in Santa Claus.

[jasonf]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 12:38pm

Sister George - 42 was my first thought too!

Here's my warped thought process on the "why" question: Most people assume there has to be a "why" of existence. Maybe there is no why -- maybe we just "are." If that's the case, then doesn't that make religion pointless? I think that if we, as humans, need to feel so self-important as to have a "why" to our existence other than to just accept that we are (like animals), then we NEED to give ourselves a higher purpose. That higher purpose is religion. Since the answer of "why" is of course unanswerable, that makes religion nothing more than comfort food for our egos. To me, the very doubt of there being a "why" is enough for me to conclude that religion MUST have come from people and not a "higher" source.

[Jane2]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 12:39pm

I understand and accept what you posted, Namo. It's logical to me.

My only question which i don't think is answerable, is how did it all start before there was anything at all.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 12:47pm

Well, I'll tell you how it didn't start. There wasn't a being that started it all. Because, quite logically, that doesn't explain what started the being.

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 12:48pm

Go ahead then. Cling to your scientific answers "religiously."

By the way, I never said these questions were "unanswerable." There are many answers, including yours. Including mine. Just look at the answers here on this thread alone!

I said they weren't provable. I stand by that.

The scientific explanations you offer don't work for me. No need to get upset about it! They only go so far, and then they fall short of reliable, unquestionable proof. For example "infinity" is used in mathematical and scientific equations. Yet it can't be proved. Infinity is an intangible "theory" defined by a solid, iconic symbol, so it can be used in "practical" science.

But "forever" can't be proved, either scientifically or religiously.

Does that mean it's unanswerable? No, on the contrary! There are MANY answers.

And these conflicting answers are very personal. They help deeply define who we are as living beings. And when our "personal answers" to these bigger questions don't align with others, people begin to feel threatened for some sad reason. They lose all ability to tolerate different answers.

This kind of hostile behavior has caused epic wars and suffering throughout history.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 12:52pm

My two cents, for what they're worth:

Not all theories bear equal weight within the scientific community. But even so, I don't think you guys are going to get any further with this discussion than you have because to those preferring a scientific approach, religion can play no part, and to those preferring a religious approach--but without a fundamentalist bent--scientific theory is not incompatible with their belief.

A great example of the latter is the original proponent of the Big Bang Theory, Georges Lemaitre--a Roman Catholic priest.
Updated On: 10/15/08 at 12:52 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 12:53pm

This kind of hostile behavior has caused epic wars and suffering throughout history.

So has religion!

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 1:00pm

Oh, Phyllis, that's exactly what I meant!

Was I really writing this in a foreign language or were you just reading it too fast?

The intolerance I mentioned is a human issue, not a religious or scientific issue.

Here, read it again:

"And these conflicting answers are very personal. They help deeply define who we are as living beings. And when our "personal answers" to these bigger questions don't align with others, people begin to feel threatened for some sad reason. They lose all ability to tolerate different answers. "

There is no mention of religion or science there. I'm talking about the lack of tolerance in ALL people trying to answer the questions, whether the answers to these questions are religious or scientific.

Updated On: 10/15/08 at 01:00 PM

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 1:04pm

Updated On: 1/12/09 at 01:04 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 1:07pm

Bottom line for me:

I don't feel threatened or upset if you tell me there is no God. Or you're not sure about it. Or you need proof. Or you have a different god or religion or faith than I do.

I DO get upset and feel threatened when you tell me my beliefs have to be the same as yours, or I'm somehow a lesser person than you are if I don't see it your way.

It's hypocrisy at its finest. That kind of ugly intolerance scares me and makes me angry. Whether it's a religious zealot or a scientific zealot.

You don't have "the" answer. You have "an" answer.

Updated On: 10/15/08 at 01:07 PM

[jasonf]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 1:14pm

I just want to add as a side note this may be my favorite thread ever.

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 1:19pm

By the way, I'll add that I haven't shared my answers with any of you. If you think you know them, you only presume.

My answers are personal, and they work for me. I was born and raised Episcopalian, but my father and his family are Jewish. I was never "forced" to go to church, and I went to many different churches, when I was growing up. I also stayed home a lot and thought organized religion was scary. My answers to the "bigger questions" have changed over the years. I imagine they will continue to change, as I continue to doubt, question, learn, grow, and experience life.

And LePetite and Jasonf---I also realize that for many people these answers of faith are a way of comforting them into believing that we (as the human race) are somehow more important than anything else in the universe.

(By the way, what's outside the universe? And what's outside that?)

I realize that if you go back as far as science will allow us to go, human beings... or even all life on earth... or even the earth itself... have only been around for a tiny fraction of time.

How could we possibly be *that* important?

Oh, and I love how Enstein's theory of relativity pretty much changed forever our understanding of time. It's not linear at all, go figure!

That's why I look at today's scientific answers the way I look at a color blind dog's answer to the color "red." They see only what they can see. They understand only what they can understand. Humans do too.

...until one day, someone like Einstein comes along and turns the scientific world on its ear.

Just like someone named Buddha, or Christ or Mohammed has done the same thing with religious theory.

Updated On: 10/15/08 at 01:19 PM

[jasonf]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 1:24pm

Now, this may be a completely ignorant answer, but I don't understand from a semantic point of view how there can be more than the universe. The definition of the "universe", according to dictionary.com, is:

the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos

Doesn't that pretty much include EVERYTHING? The word itself means ONE. I think if scientists want to say there's more than a "universe" out there, then they damn well better come up for a better word than what they're currently using!

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 1:30pm

The uber-Universe?

The Universe Bonus Disc?

The Universe - Part II, the Prequel?

[Sister George]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 1:34pm

I agree with a lot of what you say and I'm very happy to admit that I only joined the thread after i made what I now 'presume' to be an incorrect presumption on your 'religious' beliefs, but for many reasons I do get wary about the suggestions we know nothing because it could all be turned on it's head.

Whilst this is true, and here I'm happy to say that 'organised science' in the main would always welcome and accept these developments in a way organised religion rarely does, it does start to lead towards to an absolute of an 'all has equal merit value system' (which in the grand scheme of things of course is true) but for the here and now I'm not comfortable with equating what limited scientific 'fact' we do have with only being objective as religious 'fact'.

[best12bars]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 1:37pm

"Whilst this is true, and here I'm happy to say that 'organised science' in the main would always welcome and accept these developments in a way organised religion rarely does..."

I agree with that. It's one of my biggest problems with organized religion, Sister George.

[miss pennywise]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 1:43pm

There is a big difference, for me, between a "religion" that worships a man whom they claim to be the one, true God sent to earth by his "almighty father" -- creator of heaven and earth -- to die for the sins of all mankind and a "religion" that has no deity at all.

One seems to reject science and the other does not.

[LePetiteFromage]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 1:45pm

Updated On: 1/12/09 at 01:45 PM

[Sister George]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 1:49pm

Jasonf - I'm not sure this will answer your question from a semantic point of view but I think it touches upon the notion of multiple universes, best12bars colour blind dog notion and I think Namo may approve as let's face it the most intelligent thing to come out of a computer often comes from Stephen Hawking....

According to this theory [strong anthropic principle], there are either many different universes or many different regions of a single universe, each with its own initial configuration and, perhaps, with its own set of laws of science. In most of these universes the conditions would not be right for the development of complicated organisms; only in the few universes that are like ours would intelligent beings develop and ask the question: "Why is the universe the way we see it?" The answer is then simple: If it had been different, we would not be here!

[Sister George]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 1:55pm

...'There is a big difference, for me, between a "religion" that worships a man whom they claim to be the one, true God sent to earth by his "almighty father" -- creator of heaven and earth -- to die for the sins of all mankind and a "religion" that has no deity at all.'.....

I agree but I think agin, purely on semantics that religion is synonomous with a deity -

Maybe if we come to think of 'religion' as a belief or faith without a deity we could then come up with a new word for a belief and faith based on a deity - a 'palin' perhaps?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 2:12pm

I was reading it tongues, best!

(I did misread you on that previous one, though, so mea culpa!)

[jasonf]

Posted: 10/15/08 at 2:35pm

Sister George - I understand the "concept" - just saying the words used aren't really correct. Universe should encompass all the "universes" mentioned in your post.