Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Unveiled artist, Jan 14, 2022.
Who has the answers -- especially simple answers?
I guess it depends on the questions. I like how Wilke puts it in Letters to a Young Poet:
Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves, like locked rooms and like books that are now written in a very foreign tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.
You could check with me or Wil.
I think the answers are in understandable language. We can live all answers. True, there are questions whose answers will come in future, like how did it all crop-up.
This could be the problem: taking the word of those who not know what the energy is from which all nature takes its form, and whose science ends at timespace singularity, yet feel perfectly confident to instruct others to deny the existence in the universe of any ordering intelligence higher than men, lol
We do not understand a single blade of grass
I said in my earlier post, "True, there are questions whose answers will come in future, like how did it all crop-up". You don't have any better answer for that other than "Goddidit". If there was even a slightest evidence of a "higher intelligence", I would not have made that claim.
With science, we can.
There will be more questions. That men will ever know more than the tiniest part of the universe is a great assumption to make. Isaac Newton dared no such arrogance. Nor did Albert Einstein. They believed they were trying to decipher a little bit of the 'mind of God' and Richard Feynman was basically the same. Whatever ...
Anyone who can look at the Hubble deep field image of galaxies extending forever to infinity and still believe there is no higher intelligence then men is entitled to their own opinion.
Science can unravel a tiny part of the visible mechanism, starting with the universe of a single living cell.
The problem is instead of correctly insisting that religion should not be allowed to influence or dictate science, there has been mission creep with media scientists like Dawkins, Hawking (RIP), Krauss and De Grasse Tyson aggressively campaigning against the possibility of a higher organizing power of any description, beyond blind chance
RJM, religion and spirituality are two different things. Many atheists including myself are very spiritual. As for religions, monotheistic religions start with a totally wrong premise "Ahur Mazda told Zoroaster", or "Allah appointed this this and this person a his spokesperson in the world" or "Gabriel brought the message". No such thing could ever have happened.
Hinduism and Buddhism are better placed in this respect. We dissect our beliefs thoroughly before choosing the best available. 'Advaita' said 'it all began with a single material'. Buddha said 'get practical, it does not help you'. The laity may believe anything. We are not worried about that. For them, it is OK if they follow their duties (dharma/dhamma). They can have any view, any God or Goddess, they want. They can even worship Jesus (as a man of God, like a sufi saint)- some do. Hindus bowing when passing in front of a church is common (It is a house of God).
Wow! Why didn't I ever think of that, lol
What do you mean by "the best"?
Likely, possible. Sigma 5.9 or more. It does not concern any God or Goddess.
I believe it is ok for you to believe whatever you think is best...for you...unless it harms others.
Flying spaghetti monster is ok with me.
But I would not teach my kids it was.
Why should science be influenced or dictated by religion?
I think that's a really bad idea.
Case and point, according to the scientific method, it is almost certain that there is no transcendent Creator of the universe. The probability, according to our current data, is extremely low to the point of being virtually non-existent. Why should we assume that there is one, when all good reason and evidence indicates otherwise?
A universal ordering intelligence higher than man
We need to accept as concrete truth emperical human timespace evaluation of our cosmic state and position?
(as in ... not)
What do you mean by "intelligence" here? What would it mean to be "higher than man?"
Intelligence would be sentient although not limited to human or animal. I think the Earth is a living entity, as are other worlds. The Earth's intelligence is greater than that of the animal life-forms that inhabit. The universe is not just a lifeless mechanical oddity created by blind chance. I think life surrounds us in the universe, but it is not anything we can recognise with our limited animal senses, unless by some people with 'special' abilities.
I think all the worlds are inhabited, but not by the carbon-based animal life forms that we are capable of recognising or perceiving.
We are only able to empirically perceive what is available to our five human animal senses of hearing, sight and so so on. All our incredible scientific microscopes and telescopes and devices are really just genius extensions of our animal senses. I have huge respect for the capacities of science and for those clever people.
But we are only able to perceive and unravel nature. And nature ends where time/space ends. We cannot go beyond that singularity. But there is no reason to think the universe is limited to what human animal senses can perceive; the universe extends in myriad vibrations and dimensions beyond what we as animals will ever be able to perceive -- even in principle -- with our animal senses.
By 'higher than man' I mean there are perhaps infinite other worlds and states and dimensions, than this timespace dimension of nature that is our visible universe and animal world and human life -- that surround and interweave and merge and permeate. There are dimensional entities 'higher' than man, that move easily between worlds, that can choose to reveal themselves, or to be hidden from man.
Along those lines, lol?
What would you take them to mean?
Hey, His Sauciness (Pasta Be Upon Him) is most excellent at exposing political foolishness, like all Sacred Clowns are. I have no qualms about teaching my son this Sacred Clown role.
Separate names with a comma.