BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!

Subject: BS: Spirituality for the scienc-minded?!
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 02:23 PM

Found at this site: click HERE. Made me think of Wolfgang and BillD, right away.:-)

November 23, 2004
Our Creedless Creed

Note: to make this Creed more readable, some qualifiers have been omitted. So "God" signifies God/ultimate reality/final truth, not just a personal divinity. And "religion" signifies religion/spiritual path/philosophy, not just a mainstream theology.

There is no objective proof that any religion knows the truth about God. If there were such proof, most people on Earth would have converted to that faith long ago and all scientists would be believers.

Spirituality thus is an individual affair. Proof of any metaphysical realities that exist will be subjective, not demonstrable to others.

Every person has the right to pursue their own spiritual quest without interference, so long as he or she doesn't interfere with the rights of others.

Since the veracity of each and every religion is unprovable, equally unprovable are the moral and ethical tenets derived from any and all religious teachings.

Thus morality also is an individual affair. There are no absolute laws of right and wrong as there are absolute laws of physics. Subjectivity rules in ethics.

Individual ethical decisions may be formed into a collective codification of societal norms, or laws. These are purely human, not divine.

Science is the surest means of finding truth. Theory, experiment, analysis of data: such are the tools of science, whether directed toward knowing material or immaterial reality.

Religious teachings are hypotheses to be confirmed through individual research. As such, they must not be taken as gospel truth by adherents of a particular faith.

Religious doubters, skeptics, and heretics should be honored for their efforts to assure that unproven assertions about God are not put forward as solid truth.

Every adherent of a particular religion should say to himself or herself,"I could be wrong." If he or she won't do this, other people can say it for them: "You could be wrong."

This creedless creed of the Church of the Churchless also could be wrong. It needs to be reexamined and revised regularly.

Death provides the final answers (if only momentarily). The spiritual quest is to get answers ahead of time. But the big question is, "What are the questions?"

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Charmion
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 03:18 PM

Why don't some people just go ahead and spend their Sunday mornings in bed or watching TV or doing their weekend exercise routine, and stop bothering the rest of us with rationalizations? We're okay with that, really.

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 06:15 PM

You could be wrong. :-)

Or you could be right.

Or...

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 04:25 AM

"Proof of any metaphysical realities that exist will be subjective, not demonstrable to others."

As soon as a metaphysical proposition becomes capable of proof, it ceases to be metaphysical and becomes scientific.

One prime example of this was seen when the Fraunhofer lines were discovered in the spectrum of sunlight. Up to that time (1816), the composition of extraterrestrial objects was considered to be unknowable, and consideration their nature thus metaphysical speculation. But using the lines, it was soon proved that the sun, and then stars, were composed of the elements found on Earth (though one or two were found in spectra before being detected here).

My own creed would include the proposition that all people are of equal worth, more's the pity.

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 10:54 AM

I don't see why this should be spirituality for just the science minded. Shouldn't this be the way we are teaching religion and mythology these days?

My greatest fear is that we aren't educating the future generations based upon a set of principles like this little creed, and so we are sacrificing them to "the faithful" propagandists.

I like that last line best--that spiritual questing is sort of a cheat, really, to find out the answers ahead of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 11:49 AM

The problem there is that those answers often are not found even at the time, and you fond yourself slammed into another cycle 'round the wheel without having had chance to catch your breath and figger ita ll out. Sooner or later, though, if the winds are right, you'll find a way off it. We can always hope, anyway.

I would love to see these awful times give rise to a Church of Humanity, where all of homo sap felt welcome, and the best of Muslim wisdom, Taoist wisdom, Buddhist wisdom, CHristian wisdom, Shinto, Voodoo, Rastafarian, and the dervish dance were all well treated and portrayed with the hatred and small bitter corners all left out.

It would soar for the entire species, wide over all the nations, like a tower of Babel before the thunder, a harmonizing institute of good works and better thoughts, where any lost soul could find what she or he needed and any helper could find good work to do.

In my dreams.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 12:21 PM

The title has a question mark...I was not saying it HAD to be only for the science-minded, just that it might appeal to some of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 12:28 PM

It's called the Unitarian Church, Amos. My youngest son just joined one, and you don't have to believe in God to be a member. Your description of a dream church fits the Unitarian Church well. It's not the church for me, as I do believe in God and the divinity of Jesus Christ, but I am thankful that my son has joined the Unitarian Church because it has much to be praised for.

Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 12:34 PM

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." -- C. S. Lewis

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: John Hardly
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 12:53 PM

But not all religious (to use the same nomenclature layed out in the above thesis) propositions are equally in conflict with science. Some affirm scientific method and are affirmed by it (or at least not disproven by it).

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 08:55 PM

I recall a cartoon showing the usual cartoon evolutionary "progression" from amoeba, fishy thing, crawling out on land amphibious thing, mammal, ape, human, each with a little thought bubble. The amoeba's was empty; everything else was thinking "Eat! Survive! Reproduce!" except for the human, who was thinking:
"What's it all about?"
I don't see the point of spirituality, personally. Unless you mean fulfilment, and then why not say fulfilment. Or fulfillment, whichever looks more right to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Amos
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 09:38 PM

For the point is not so much the codified meaning attributed to the word "spirituality" , but a matter of not settling for untruth, or of things that do not align with a paradigm being dismissed as meaningless because they can't be understood using a particular paradigm.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 10:34 PM

Mrrsy - Isn't that fullfilament? Sort of like you're filled with a little light bulb kinda thing. Inner light and all that?

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: mack/misophist
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 12:57 AM

Spirituality is not needed to produce kindly, ethical people. Those who need it should have it, if possible. In general, though, why bother?

Some years ago I asked a minister for an over all definition of spirituality. He didn't have one.

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Amos
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 01:13 AM

Pretty poor sorta minister, you ask me! :)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: RichM
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 06:17 AM

Every path has truth and illusion.

Complete this sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 12:02 PM

There are much more pressing needs facing humanity than being "spiritual" or "religious". Things that the wealthy and powerful religious and spiritual leaders could actually have an effect on if they gave up the majority of their power, wealth, and charade that they have a monopoly on truth and decency.

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 07:53 AM

A few interesting thoughts on that site, some nonsense, but on the whole nothing for me.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 09:32 AM

I would suggest that claiming decency and truth has little to do with spirituality and more with the pantomime of it hoked up by organizers of religious morality plays. That fraud, mummery and totalitarianism have all taken to these garbs to stand in for the sake of control and profit means as little to spirituality as the domination by alchemic priests once might have meant to science. Bamboozle has nothing to do with the subject.

Spirituality centers on the whoness of you before you donned identities to play about with, and the endlessness of know that is your own center.

That's where you go to find it, in the still of a private dawn, unhampered by the social noises of the herd. In the final analysis, that is the only place you will find it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Pied Piper
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 10:54 AM

In a world defined by interaction between entities, individual salvation completely and utterly meaningless.

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:12 AM

"That's where you go to find it, in the still of a private dawn, unhampered by the social noises of the herd. In the final analysis, that is the only place you will find it."

Beautiful piece of writing, Amos.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:15 AM

You ar e sadly mistaken, Piers; each of those transactions has sources and each of those sources is informed by the knowing of the deep universe, badly filtered and distorted.

Your soul is afoot, deny it how you may, sir.

Knowing it helps survive the insults of ordinary travails.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:40 AM

You on a roll, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Stewart
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 12:32 PM

You might try reading Bertrand Russell "Why I Am Not A Christian". Personally, I believe in life BEFORE death!

Cheers, S. in Seattle

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 12:35 PM

Quantum physics says there may be no difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 12:40 PM

One does what one can, my friend, tho' the task seem beyond measure.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 12:47 PM

So do I, Stewart, so do I.

But that does not gainsay that it is an iterative cycle, rolling through the centuries in almost tedious redundancy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 12:51 PM

Indeed, dianavan, Quakers are full of inner light, LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 12:58 PM

Spirituality is the path of Self-knowledge. If one comes to know the Self fully, then one knows all others as well...because at that point there are no "others" any longer. The other becomes the Self. That results in compassion, acceptance, and Love.

The life of Jesus is an outstanding example of the achievement of Self-knowledge and its resulting effects on the behaviour of one human being. The life of Buddha is another example of such. And there have certainly been others.

If you want a scientific analysis of the process, read some of Sri Aurobindo's writings. You'll need quite a bit of time and patience for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: wysiwyg
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 02:14 PM

Ah yes, what people say and write about spirituality.... wunnaful stuff! How vexing that actually living it all is so very challenging and tends to defy credibility! Still, in this forum of words, we can take comfort-- most of us will never be challenged to actually show those beliefs to one another to any great depth, and risk being unmasked as the pretentious hypocrites we human beans so widely tend to prove ourselves!

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: GUEST,Guy Who Thinks
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 03:36 PM

I was once told that the reason there is no "objective proof" of religious truth is that 1) it would be pointless since many people are too arrogant and stupid to believe even objective proof, and 2) in others, it could hamper the free operation of the will to choose wrongly.

Are these good reasons or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 04:49 PM

GWT:

Excellent reasons. There is another, in addition. Spirituality in its nature is not an object, and thus cannot be objective. Trying to force what cannot be forced into the commons where it does not live is the reason why so many religions prove so deadly.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 05:27 PM

True, Susan. Most of us will never be challenged to live up to all the other stuff we yak about on this forum either. :-) Our romantic ideals, our political ideals, our artistic ideals, our ethical ideals...to say nothing of our spiritual ones.

When I write about spiritual matters, I am more writing on behalf of what I longingly yearn for than what I necessarily have at this point in my own spiritual progression. I've seen it, and I wish I had it. I wish I could play guitar like Mark Knopfler too, but I don't seem to have the self-discipline required to practice 4 or 5 hours every day...which is what I figure it would probably take to get to that level of expertise.

I've seen people with WAY more spiritual self-discipline than me, and I can only admire them for it.

You follow? I can write about guitar technique way beyond my own, because I've seen and heard it done by others. Same goes for spiritual accomplishment and application in the rigorous field of daily existence. I'm not there, I just wish I was, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: wysiwyg
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:10 PM

Oh yeah, LH, that's why I wrote in terms of "we." I understand autoharp can be played pretty well, too. :~)

One difference tho is that I can say pretty confidently that spiritually, I'm not a wannabe-- I'm a gonnabe. Not so for us all, and not for all our ideals, either; but there is for me the hope of eventual perfection (later). With significant help of course. :~)

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:13 PM

Oh, well, I figure everyone is going to get there eventually...but not necessarily in this term of bodily existence. I figure the whole Universe is going to get there eventually.

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:34 PM

"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure." -- Albert Einstein

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Amos
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 07:12 PM

Finely put, Albert and DTAM!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 10:59 PM

Yes!! Thanks for posting that, DtAM!

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:24 PM

I think that not only has the point of all physics been pretty well negated by Wile E. Coyote, but all spirituality has been called into serious question by Cheech Wizard.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:25 PM

The scientific explanation of "falling in love" is really tedious too. Listening to it is like eating day-old oatmeal.

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:37 PM

It's a question of horses for courses. Science can't really comment on subjective emotional experiences like falling in love. But on the other side of the ledger, the religious explanations for the world being here and operating as it does are absurd in the extreme.

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:37 PM

That's one of the numerous reasons that I hate Cheech Wizard with a passion. No fate would be too awful for that disgusting, egomaniacal bastard Hat!!! He deserves to die, and die in ways too horrible to even describe, and then die all over again, and again, and again! Destroy Cheech Wizard! Cheech Wizard must die! Expunge Cheech Wizard! Liquidate Cheech Wizard! Annihilate Cheech Wizard! He is worse than Groo!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:44 PM

They are quite likely absurd if taken literally, Ohh-Ahh, but what if taken metaphorically? Just because the World is full of twits who take religious metaphor literally, why blame the metaphor? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:46 PM

That's what I mean Hawk. I was talking to the poor little orphan girl and Cheeech has totally corrupted her young mind and left her alone and without hope. She said to me, "He told me he was God, but he never done a trick."   Oh what has da' Hat wrought?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:47 PM

Excuse me...Ooh-Aah2, I should have said. (I still say it sounds like the title of a porno film...)

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 11:51 PM

Yeah, Spaw. He is so totally sick and disgusting. Oooooo...I just hate him with a passion! Too bad his lizard helper did not succeed in destroying him. I was very saddened by that whole series of episodes, as I longed to see the Hat turned into ground up dog food after being beaten up, humiliated, shot and p*ssed on.

(you may guess that I sort of identified with the lizard helper, not the stinkin' Hat)

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 02:31 AM

Jeeze, guys, you done augured this thread right on in!! What the hell is this bizarre fiction you are sharing?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 05:16 AM

Sounds like Cletus been passin round too much of the corn mash and home brew fillosofy spirit Amos ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 07:45 AM

Amos, perhaps THIS will help...........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 09:51 AM

Thanks, Pat. I think I understand your strange success here much better now. I am most impressed with the style of your guru....wotta guy. He needs a better class of sycophants, though...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 11:00 AM

well...I done come back from vacation to find a page on a left-handed, inside-out version of spirituality with little 'ol me (and Wolfgang) mentioned as candidates..*grin*

Sorry, kat, me love, but the very concept of a church 'specially for those who don't need churches has my head spinning. I just ain't 'spititual', no matter what Little Hawk says....*wink*.... Seems to me that if I want to hang out in the company of interesting people who have diverse ideas and opinions about the universe, with free flowing debates....why, I have it right here in the First Mudcat Congregational Brotherhood of Latter Day Iconoclastic Rambunctiousness.

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Amos
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 11:19 AM

Bill:

And so it is, and so it shall be. Long live the FMCBLDIR, known colloquially to its adherents as Famicballdur, for convenience's sake. They are busy people, you know, engaged in the world and much too taken up with time, space, material and the thinking of thoughts to go to the trouble of reciting such a long name, or to find spirituality beyond the thorny pale of their words and objects. Such is life. Congratulations on being a Prime Charter Founder Iconoclas, or PCFI (pronounced peekuffie). Your subscription bill will be in the forthcoming mail.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: jeffp
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 01:31 PM

So let it be written! So let it be done!
(in a deep, resonant, Yul Brynner-type voice)

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 02:01 PM

"a" Prime Charter Founder Iconoclas?-how many are riding my coattails already?

shore don't take long for it to go from off-the-cuff whim to "the bill is in the mail", huh? Just so's you're aware, we peekuffies don't pay NO dues!

Subject: RE: BS: Spirituality for the science-minded?!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 03:25 PM

My hatred of Cheech Wizard is so extreme that it throws my spiritual system totally out of whack. I would be happy to never hear of Cheech Wizard again. I would be happy to go back in a time machine and see that something happened to Vaughn Bode (the author) so as to prevent the comic from having ever come into being in the first place. I have to admit though, that the art was good, and some of the one-liners were quite funny.

And, God knows, there were MORE disgusting comics in the 70's than that one...

I found most of the "hippy" comics disgusting...but I liked the Furry Freak Brothers and Fat Freddy's Cat.