* ENLIGHTENED *.....by.....* SCIENCE *

Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by shawn, Sep 13, 2010.

  1. Snoopy

    Snoopy zennish

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,317
    Likes Received:
    45
    I can’t say that I’ve really read shawn’s other stuff; my response was based upon what he has said in this thread. I don’t know whether or not he’s an atheist but I do know in his OP he said:

    “What is the only system of thought that has been developed that is effective in distinguishing fact from fallacy, truth from myth, and reality from delusion?
    Science.
    All the truths we know, as opposed to beliefs which some choose blindly to adopt (as if the strength of their convictions could affect facts) have been revealed by the rational processes of applied scientific method.
    Science alone yields a basis for the formulation of beliefs whose validity can be proved because they predict results that can be tested.

    And yet,
    for thousands of years,
    the races of earth have clung persistently to their cults, their superstitions, their irrational dogmas and their impotent idols.
    They refused to accept what their eyes alone should have told them:
    That the magical and mystical forces in which they trusted and which they aspired to command......WERE FICTIONS, barren in their yield of results, powerless in prediction and devoid of any useful application.
    In a word, they were worthless”

    These seem to me to be the words expressing an overtly atheist viewpoint. It’s hardly surprising if that’s what people took him to be having read these words.

    I simply wondered how shawn could derive a morality from science.

    s.
     
  2. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    i would consider religion to *be* one of the normal (although not obligatorily so) facets of humanity integral in the human condition - and, unless i've really misunderstood him, that is what dan dennett thinks too. he just thinks that this is because of good evolutionary reasons, not because of any ultimate reality to religion or G!D or whatever. i'm fine with that, as it happens.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  3. shawn

    shawn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who said that was the case?
    It didn't come from religion either.
    It is hardwired into the very essence of what we are (whatever that really is).
    Religion is merely custom and tradition (local color/flavor) and is about as fundamentally meaningful as what language you speak.

    If people need religion to bring the good out, then why do we see people who are non-religious (even ones brought up in atheist countries who have never had a minute of religious indoctrination) and animals of all kinds display behavior which then gets labeled as being morally good, acts of kindness, selflessness, compassion, etc?

    The reason why the various respondents here seem confused about this stems from their own conditioning and their biased paradigms.
    That is the problem with religion...it is all about control of the mind.

    Here is a nice little video regarding a scientific experiment in animal psychology which illustrates this point:
    [youtube]KZeiSKnhOBc[/youtube]
     
  4. shawn

    shawn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem here is that people will place the credit into the domain of an idea.
    Ideas do nothing.
    I had an idea to connect with a forum and discuss things, but the idea did not follow through, rather a living being (me) inspired by the idea did the work.
    That is like saying Ford or GM built X# of vehicles last year.....when in actuality both entities are merely pieces of paper and the flesh and blood beings who work there in those factories did the actual building of said vehicles.
    Ford and GM built zero vehicles in their entire history, the people working there can take the credit.
    Likewise, religion can claim no credit for any good done as all the good (or bad) was again done by people who at the most can say that they were "inspired" by their religious ideologies.
     
  5. shawn

    shawn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ideas, but where did they come from?
    This is one of the main themes of this thread.
    How did these "ideas" get injected into our collective consciousness?
    We are aware of the traditional stories which explain this, but that is biased information and cannot be relied upon...it is only one witness...it needs corroboration.
    Based on my research and observations over decades I have formed the hypothesis which I have shared.
    And it (to myself...subjectively) seems more than just a hypothesis, but I cannot prove that to anyone.
    So I frame the idea into something which can be tested.
    Prove it or disprove it.
     
  6. shawn

    shawn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    As I said, I am not an atheist as I do believe there is a God and this being (or whatever God is) has an interest in us and influence over us (but we are not really aware of the rules of the game according to God).
    We have a variety of moral codes which state that they have come from God, but these are all questionable as to their authenticity and their accuracy.
    The motives of whoever injected these documents/ideas into human experience are not clear and so the ideologies need to be questioned.

    I am not "disillusioned" with religion....I see it for what it is - ideologies designed to control.
    I see that some good may come from the inspiration which is attained by study of these codes, but the good is to the credit of the people so inspired, who then made the conscious decision to act, and not the religion.

    I do not consent to being labelled as being an an adherent of any particular cult, but I do have an affinity for and an interest in the noahide code.
    But this is not very descriptive as the ideology which I have has been formed by my study of all the religions and traditions which I have partaken of in the past 30 yrs.
    How does one label that easily?
     
  7. parampara

    parampara New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some very interesting points made by everyone here. Certainly we can learn nothing if we think we know it all. A humble debate for the sake of education and enlightenment seems to be the only logical approach.

    We don't need to deny facts. Sure religious people have made mistakes on the strength of religion. That does not underestimate god. God is the goal and religion is the process. Not agreeing with an illogical idea seems fair. Denying a satisfactory explanation is ignorance. There are many religions and each offers a certain level of understanding. Unless we exhaust all the avenues of getting to god, we cannot say all religions are bad.

    If we do not understand parts of a certain topic, it's better to ask rather than pompously announce it's flaws with such confidence. The only thing apparent seems to be the persons ignorance. A kid stares at the driver behind the steering wheel and wonders why he is moving his hand here and there. Someone who knows though, knows the bigger picture. Rituals and idols maybe the driving force. If you don't see the bigger picture, ask.
     
  8. Dogbrain

    Dogbrain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, so what science do you actually practice PROFESSIONALLY?


    I have a low tolerance muddy-headed rubbish.

    Then don't use words like "enlightened", because that is the religious language of the cult of scientism.

    It is also a tool that can be used (which vs. that--look it up :D) for our benightedness and our collective detriment, and it can be quite effective in that purpose, if we apply it "correctly". The Third Reich made remarkable progress in both the applied social sciences and in medical science. After all, if you are going to control millions to billions of people, you had better understand how they tick.

    Science is a tool--it is JUST a tool, nothing more, nothing better than that. Science no more enlightens than nitrates feed the hungry.

    Claiming that science is somehow a special thing that will bring us all to enlightenment is blind, narrow-minded cultism. Science will not bring enlightenment. It will merely bring models. It will merely bring methods. It will merely bring physical explanations. None of these things will enlighten us. Enlightenment will remain, as it has always been, a matter of each individual's choices. There have been the enlightened in all ages, no matter how little science there might have been at the time. Indeed, as the application of science becomes more and more refined and personal physical comfort and pleasure become easier and easier to attain, I would propose that enlightenment will become less and less common.

    Enlightenment has almost never been engendered by comfort, plenty, and satisfaction. Enlightenment seems to follow on the heels of discomfort, want, and dissatisfaction.

    Anything that brings a great deal of individual comfort and self-satisfaction would discourage most people from bothering with difficult things like enlightenment. Instead, the vast majority will be far more content to sit back, tune in to the latest entertainment fad, and turn their minds off. Look at what happens to any culture when it attains a certain level of widespread material comfort.

    Thus, the only rational conclusion is that anyone who proposes that science will bring enlightenment is some kind of cultist who has blinded himself to the reality of human behavior.
     
  9. Dogbrain

    Dogbrain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    813
    Likes Received:
    0
    I had thought that such a silly Whiggish view of history had been finally tossed onto the rubbish heap of intellectual pursuits. Alas, I was wrong.
     
  10. shawn

    shawn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are free to have your own opinion ..... and if you wish to behave like a pompous ass then by all means carry on as you are doing a good rendition.
     
  11. shawn

    shawn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    It would not matter what field to such as you.



    Your usage of the word enlightenment and your interpretation of it is just that, your own. It has more to it than the narrow definition you suggest.

    If I go to a lecture and learn something, or do something new and it teaches me something I feel, by my definition, more "enlightened" than I did before.
    Nothing cultish about that.
     
  12. c0de

    c0de Vassal

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    2,237
    Likes Received:
    0

    Nothing scientific either.
     
  13. Snoopy

    Snoopy zennish

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,317
    Likes Received:
    45
    I apologise, I must have misunderstood you.

    Well my confusion stems me being unable to comprehend what you are trying to say. As this is your thread I’ll say adieu.

    s.
     
  14. citizenzen

    citizenzen Custom User Title

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,231
    Likes Received:
    3
    Science and religion were both born from the same seed... the desire to understand WHY.

    When it comes to answering that question, science over time developed into a standardized and rigorous discipline, while religion has remained stagnated in blind faith and superstition.
     
  15. Diagoras

    Diagoras Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is fine, but do you not think it makes more sense that the complexities of religion - that require a developed language ability - are an appendage that developed because of our much more ancient nature as co-operative social mammals ? Bonobo's and elephants can be kind to one another.
     
  16. Diagoras

    Diagoras Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes. (Is apparently too short a post).
     
  17. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Hare Krishna Yogi

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    115

    Science was born of: "Necessity is the Mother of Invention"
    Science ["The Scientific-Method"] was born of economic Necessity.


    Is this to say religion, ideally, should be "an absolute"??

    IE: The race-car-driver has blind-faith that:
    All those 'nuts-and-bolts' will hold together and that the rubber-wheels will stay intact etc etc . . .

    versus

    a first-hand absolute knowledge that "The crew has prepared for a winning gambit as best that a dedicated drew can be expected to".

    So it's like saying?:

    "Good Luck"?

    versus

    "Godspeed"?
     
  18. shawn

    shawn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]
    And you should know that I am just joking.
    ;)
     
  19. citizenzen

    citizenzen Custom User Title

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,231
    Likes Received:
    3
    I don't know.

    Since I rarely understand what you are saying.
     
  20. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Hare Krishna Yogi

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    115
    Are you absolutely sure you don't understand what I wrote?

    Or have you fabricated a mental-block?
     

Share This Page