Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It bothers me because being advanced in technology doesn't necessarily mean being advanced in spiritual consciousness.
Humans have declared themselves superior to animals quite often, since technology began taking off. I don't think primitive humans felt that way, they respected other animals.
when a person paints with too broad a brush, they paint themself into a corner.
of course there are many people today who do respect animals, including many paths of religion and spirituality.
my observation is that it is a trait of advanced spiritual state, to respect animals.
and for instance refrain from harming, killing, or eating them.
when a person paints with too broad a brush, they paint themself into a corner.
of course there are many people today who do respect animals, including many paths of religion and spirituality.
my observation is that it is a trait of advanced spiritual state, to respect animals.
and for instance refrain from harming, killing, or eating them.
I never said no one today respects animals, did I? I said humans have declared themselves superior to animals quite often. I didn't say ALL humans.
Anyway you are confusing what I say, it's not worth trying to untangle.
If you only accept as real things that science has already discovered or confirmed, you cannot live. Most questions have not been asked by science, and of those that have been asked most have not been answered.
Worship of Science can lead to atheism, and distrust of one's own inner experiences.
That's not quite how I would put.
I think a better way to think about science is the a person (a person mind you) lays out what we and use those pieces to form the picture of our world view. Lets assume we are spiritual science people. And believe you me, there are.
Think of an incomplete picture of tiger in the jungle as our "spirituality". You only have some pieces and most of the puzzle isn't there.
Science/engineering minds sets don't point to a place with no pieces, or even a whole area of no pieces, and say "See, we don't know what's there so I say its a school of fish in a barrier reef". If you only accept the pieces then you cannot live.
we point to the pieces and say "That looks like a leaves. That looks trees. Those pieces there look like a paw and them there look like a nose. And that is clearly an eye.
Now we start our best guesses as to what the picture is that will be our spiritual world view.
We compare the claim:
1) Because there are no pieces right there, nobody knows for sure, so I think its a fish scene on a barrier reef.
vs
2) Due the the pieces the we do see. The green leaves, the possible tree thing, the eye, and the paw. I think its a forest scene and I think that paw looks like a tigers paw.
What one of those should we be teaching to. what one should we be defending? what steps (like rules and regs) would I need to take so that number one is the only choice people have. And is that even honest?
I would like to point out that some of us feel that atheist that are hiding behind "we don't have to say what the picture is" posts come off like chumps. People don't have to offer a claim, and quite frankly when we don't know enough about the topic its actually a more reliable default position. But to hide behind lack belief and they don't have to say anything while constantly telling spiritual people they are wrong is another issue to me. At some point, man up or shut up. To me that is.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 07-10-2021 at 05:05 AM..
I think a better way to think about science is the a person (a person mind you) lays out what we and use those pieces to form the picture of our world view. Lets assume we are spiritual science people. And believe you me, there are.
Think of an incomplete picture of tiger in the jungle as our "spirituality". You only have some pieces and most of the puzzle isn't there.
Science/engineering minds sets don't point to a place with no pieces, or even a whole area of no pieces, and say "See, we don't know what's there so I say its a school of fish in a barrier reef". If you only accept the pieces then you cannot live.
we point to the pieces and say "That looks like a leaves. That looks trees. Those pieces there look like a paw and them there look like a nose. And that is clearly an eye.
Now we start our best guesses as to what the picture is that will be our spiritual world view.
We compare the claim:
1) Because there are no pieces right there, nobody knows for sure, so I think its a fish scene on a barrier reef.
vs
2) Due the the pieces the we do see. The green leaves, the possible tree thing, the eye, and the paw. I think its a forest scene and I think that paw looks like a tigers paw.
What one of those should we be teaching to. what one should we be defending? what steps (like rules and regs) would I need to take so that number one is the only choice people have. And is that even honest?
I would like to point out that some of us feel that atheists that are hiding behind "we don't have to say what the picture is" posts come off like chumps. People don't have to offer a claim, and quite frankly when we don't know enough about the topic its actually a more reliable default position. But to hide behind lack belief and they don't have to say anything while constantly telling spiritual people they are wrong is another issue to me. At some point, man up or shut up. To me that is.
I think a better way to think about science is the a person (a person mind you) lays out what we and use those pieces to form the picture of our world view. Lets assume we are spiritual science people. And believe you me, there are.
Think of an incomplete picture of tiger in the jungle as our "spirituality". You only have some pieces and most of the puzzle isn't there.
Science/engineering minds sets don't point to a place with no pieces, or even a whole area of no pieces, and say "See, we don't know what's there so I say its a school of fish in a barrier reef". If you only accept the pieces then you cannot live.
we point to the pieces and say "That looks like a leaves. That looks trees. Those pieces there look like a paw and them there look like a nose. And that is clearly an eye.
Now we start our best guesses as to what the picture is that will be our spiritual world view.
We compare the claim:
1) Because there are no pieces right there, nobody knows for sure, so I think its a fish scene on a barrier reef.
vs
2) Due the the pieces the we do see. The green leaves, the possible tree thing, the eye, and the paw. I think its a forest scene and I think that paw looks like a tigers paw.
What one of those should we be teaching to. what one should we be defending? what steps (like rules and regs) would I need to take so that number one is the only choice people have. And is that even honest?
I would like to point out that some of us feel that atheist that are hiding behind "we don't have to say what the picture is" posts come off like chumps. People don't have to offer a claim, and quite frankly when we don't know enough about the topic its actually a more reliable default position. But to hide behind lack belief and they don't have to say anything while constantly telling spiritual people they are wrong is another issue to me. At some point, man up or shut up. To me that is.
Most things, including spirituality, have not been explained by science. Most questions have not yet even been asked by science.
And we use the word "science" without even defining it most of the time, or defining it incorrectly. Science is just our natural empirical way of knowing, as opposed to trusting authorities. Since humans have been on earth, they have trusted their elders for many things, because there was no other way to survive. But they have also learned and discovered through personal experience and trial and error.
Religion, mysticism, spirituality, all have an empirical component. Therefore, they are all partly scientific.
Science is more than just big random controlled trials paid for by big corporations or government agencies. Science is part of our natural way of learning and discovering. It is what we do whenever we try to go beyond the teachings of our elders. And we must go beyond the teachings of our elders in trying to understand our unique selves.
Most things, including spirituality, have not been explained by science. Most questions have not yet even been asked by science.
And we use the word "science" without even defining it most of the time, or defining it incorrectly. Science is just our natural empirical way of knowing, as opposed to trusting authorities. Since humans have been on earth, they have trusted their elders for many things, because there was no other way to survive. But they have also learned and discovered through personal experience and trial and error.
Religion, mysticism, spirituality, all have an empirical component. Therefore, they are all partly scientific.
Science is more than just big random controlled trials paid for by big corporations or government agencies. Science is part of our natural way of learning and discovering. It is what we do whenever we try to go beyond the teachings of our elders. And we must go beyond the teachings of our elders in trying to understand our unique selves.
In relation to the first para ...
Youre thinking top down. You start with "Most things, including spirituality, have not been explained by science." then move on to prove your point.
Scientist actually think the complete opposite. "Scientist" studies what they can study. That's all it does. And it is building up a data set for us to use to form beliefs.
It lays out what they have discovered and use that data set to form a belief off of. We all know it is woefully incomplete. It can predict less than 10% of our reality.
So my question stands.
Do we use the 90% we do not know to form our beliefs or do we use what we do have to form our beliefs?
When we have an unexplained event. Is it more reliable to compare it to things we do not know or do we compare them to things we do know?
With the understanding ... that when we find new information its ok to change our minds.
Your last two paragraphs are fine, but not exactly what I am asking you about.
Youre thinking top down. You start with "Most things, including spirituality, have not been explained by science." then move on to prove your point.
Scientist actually think the complete opposite. "Scientist" studies what they can study. That's all it does. And it is building up a data set for us to use to form beliefs.
It lays out what they have discovered and use that data set to form a belief off of. We all know it is woefully incomplete. It can predict less than 10% of our reality.
So my question stands.
Do we use the 90% we do not know to form our beliefs or do we use what we do have to form our beliefs?
When we have an unexplained event. Is it more reliable to compare it to things we do not know or do we compare them to things we do know?
With the understanding ... that when we find new information its ok to change our minds.
Your last two paragraphs are fine, but not exactly what I am asking you about.
As I tried to explain, science is more than just big expensive research studies paid for by big corporations and government agencies. It is unfortunate that the word "science" is now used to mean that. It is wrong. We should not, could not, restrict our beliefs to what the current high priests of science tell us is true, according to their research so far.
Exploring our own spirituality is an empirical project, and therefore it is scientific. No, we aren't doing double-blinded controlled experiments. But we are observing, trying, comparing, gathering data. It IS scientific.
Is there a current scientific consensus on whether the universe is conscious? Probably the majority of cognitive scientists are still saying no. But am I obliged to go along with that, if it contradicts my own experiences?
Should I ignore my own observations and obey the scientific priesthood? I don't think so.
Is there a current scientific consensus on whether the universe is conscious? Probably the majority of cognitive scientists are still saying no. But am I obliged to go along with that, if it contradicts my own experiences?
Probably no, but, there is growing thought that, human thinking (read - consciousness) may be forming reality and, that reality is existing only as it is thought of by humans. What is, actually, indirect proof to your question.
Probably no, but, there is growing thought that, human thinking (read - consciousness) may be forming reality and, that reality is existing only as it is thought of by humans. What is, actually, indirect proof to your question.
Well there are some scientists now who think the universe is made out of information. I believe that, and information could be considered thought. Therefore, some kind of infinite consciousness.
I do NOT agree with you that anyone thinks reality is existing only as thought of by humans! We just are NOT that special.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
