|
Our discussion forum is open for business. Come say hello. |
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Darfur Genocide and Religious Apathy
After the Shoah, or Holocaust, most of the world said, "Never again." But, of course, genocide has happened several times since then and is happening now in Darfur. For a news story about what's happening there, click here. It should be no surprise that American Jews are a leading voice against the violence in that section of Sudan and are prime movers behind an April 30 rally on this issue on the national mall in Washington, D.C. For background on the issue from the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, click here. For information on the rally itself, click here.
It's amazing to me how American religious institutions have been so quiet about Darfur. I know the Pope has spoken about it quite a bit, but in America, that doesn't seem to concern too many religious people.
It's entirely possible I'm just out of the loop, but until this article talking about Jewish involvement, I haven't heard much about this terrible situation. I wonder why that is.
Monday, April 17, 2006
The Zahir
Submitted by Lee from South Carolina
Thought this was interesting...its from a book titled "The Zahir" by Paulo Coelho. He wrote about what a terrible punishment crucifixion was. People suffered very much before they died. And yet today, people use the cross as a charm on a necklace and put it on walls as a decoration. They see it as a religious symbol instead of an instrument of torture....
"For two thousand years we have kept Jesus on the cross by emulating and reenacting his crucifixion in our lives -- a practice entirely in contradiction of his teachings. I think the 2000 year point would be a perfect opportunity to finally take Jesus down from the cross, and ourselves along with him. We do not have to create a drama of suffering to earn salvation; we need simply to acknowledge the perfection within and around us."
Thought this was interesting...its from a book titled "The Zahir" by Paulo Coelho. He wrote about what a terrible punishment crucifixion was. People suffered very much before they died. And yet today, people use the cross as a charm on a necklace and put it on walls as a decoration. They see it as a religious symbol instead of an instrument of torture....
"For two thousand years we have kept Jesus on the cross by emulating and reenacting his crucifixion in our lives -- a practice entirely in contradiction of his teachings. I think the 2000 year point would be a perfect opportunity to finally take Jesus down from the cross, and ourselves along with him. We do not have to create a drama of suffering to earn salvation; we need simply to acknowledge the perfection within and around us."
Saturday, April 15, 2006
The Illusion of the False Self
Submitted by Bill Monks from: Fairview NJ US
THE ILLUSION OF THE FALSE SELF
(The hole in the doughnut)
Please lend me your ear as I jump into the hole in the doughnut .
Let me share a few thoughts on man’s mystifying an unknown foe the false self; sometimes referred to as the hole in the doughnut. The self is an illusion created by man to support his vanity and pride.
I believe the one greatest error in the catechesis of any Church was the neglecting the enormous importance of Jesus’ words “You must deny your very self” In his command “If a man wishes to come after me, he must deny his very self, take up his cross and follow in my steps.” (Mark 8:34)
By believing in a false self, man’s vanity and pride sustains his refusal to recognize his nothingness . Yet there is no other way to follow Jesus without denying our grand illusion, the false self. Do we actually believe we have a choice?
In the last half of the twentieth century Americans have given birth to an extremely narcissistic culture. Psychoanalysts suddenly took intense interest in the study of narcissism, Man’s concentration on the false self they believe to be the immediate cause of social breakdown and empty Churches.
The growth of Narcissism was actually the false self coming into full bloom. Let me delve into the very function of man in order to try and understand this enigma of our time. The nebulous quality of “the false self” invites a more penetrating search into its nature, to the extent of challenging certain aspects of its supposed existence. What is the false self’s source? What is its meaning? What is its end? Is it friend or foe?
We have striven to know the self per se through the disciplines of Theology, Psychiatry, Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, and even the physical sciences. Though we have studied man’s behavior this way, and his genetic composition, we still cannot project with certainty and individual’s reaction to a given stimulus. There is still something enigmatic about the self of man.
A healthy approach to understanding man’s behavior would be to attempt to find out what is his function. If his function or role were determined it would certainly shed light on the reason why he behaves in a given way.
If a native found a watch in a remote jungle, eventually his curiosity would force him to take it apart to see what made it tick. After studying the parts and how they interacted, he would conclude that he had solved the mystery. He is basing his judgment upon observation of its behavior, with no reference to its function. And now that he knew how it ticked, he would probably give it a place of honor in the tribe’s artifact museum; never knowing that merely watching its behavior would not reveal its function.
But isn’t that exactly what the social sciences do? They observe a cross section of mankind, analyze, synthesize, collate, predict, and manipulate all of the statistics, without ever adverting to the fact that they are merely watching behavior, without searching for function. In effect they have put man into the museum of artifacts, as did the jungle native, although the erudite process tends to hide this.
To what does it avail us to know the mental processes and behavior of the child, if we are not aware of the child’s function? What is the value of the analyses of adolescent and adult behavior, if no effort is made to discover the purpose behind such behavior? Knowing the “why” of the adult the end product of growth, so to speak should give insight into the behavioral patterns of the child, as well as the adolescent and adult.
But to know man, we must look elsewhere than into his physiology and psychology. If the false self were our Being, then the attempt to comprehend it would be a contradiction. It is like analyzing a tool by using that very tool to do the analysis.
The nature of scientific study depends upon an outside agent acting upon the item to be investigated. One cannot be inside an outside of the mirror. One cannot study something objectively if all of the people who do the study approach it as subjects, that is, subjectively. One cannot say that the sun rises and sets objectively, simply because subjects by the thousands have seen it rise and set. A subjective experience, no matter how often repeated, cannot give objective information. Our scholars are hunting for treasure in the cave of shadows? Hence their accepted definition of self as the total, essential aspect or being of a person, of an individual, must be denied.
I think the definition of “nebulous” would more fittingly describe the self. It is cloudy, misty, or hazy; lacking definite form or limits; vague.
It is my hope to demonstrate that the self is not Being, but an illusion rooted in metaphysics, or in spiritual concepts, or in moral presumptions, or in epistemological assumptions.
Please don’t accuse me of doing the very thing I am denying, analyzing the self is like analyzing the hole in a doughnut. Its inch diameter, three inches in circumference, colorless and penetrability are not qualities of something that exist, but of a nonexistent entity; yet one which our language can describe, always recognizing that the hole is not a thing, not a being, but a mental concept.
The hypothesis is that man became aware of his “false self” when he first made the determination in Eden, that he would possess the knowledge God had, and separate his being from the will of God. This illusion, as Genesis indicates, was inspired by the evil one, and was conceived by man’s will. At the moment of the fall, this illusion was accepted as reality. The grand deception was in place. Man, therefore, acted in vanity. Man believed that he was a self, an independent being. Since this new concept was the hole in the doughnut, he became for all practical purposes, a slave to an empty concept, and slave to an illusion. Vanity and pride was to be its bulwark.
This illusion became his master, which is the process that the evil one desired, in attempting to destroy the will of God within him, (Man’s Conscience). An illustration might help. God was vehement against the false gods made by human hands. Why? Because they were “nothings” as Jeremiah indicated, “scarecrows in a melon patch”; however the subjects who approached them mentally gave power and life to them. In other words, they were not alive “eyes that do not see, hands that do not touch” but the subject accepted them as being superhuman, and powerful as well. Under this slavery, he was easily manipulated by evil forces, which penetrated his mind and judgments.
Man in his ignorance sought to be like God. He denies his dependence and seeks an independent self. He denies his nothingness and that which should have limited the self. He focused on the hole in the doughnut, a false reality, that had no meaning, a measurable emptiness). Since it was an illusion in the first place.
His focus on the illusinery false self can only lead him nowhere.. He has fled reality. To continue the analogy, the stripping of the inner side of the doughnut expands the hole, but it abuses the doughnut, reality. He is fleeing the hound of reality into hell.
Thus the master of deceit smiled at his achievement, Man has the impression he has created a self by denying his conscience. Narcissism was now to be man’s hidden nemesis. He was alone with an illusion.
Even though emptiness is nothing, and therefore changing its dimensions amounts to nothing, still that part that gets modified in order to produce the illusion of expansion or creativity, suffers from the loss
How does this distortion happen? We may suspect that the legitimate desire for sufficiency, when modified to suit the “creativity” of this false self becomes greed.
By observation we may also conclude that the fruits of hate, loneliness, pride, scandal, jealousy, covetousness, isolation, suspicion, slander are also malformations of legitimate desires of the soul that have yielded to the stripping process (to continue the analogy).
What appears to be a positive action, the expansion of the False self, the enlarging of the hole, is in reality a negative action, the mutilation of the legitimate reality that a person has, the stripping of the inner side of the doughnut. This phenomenon ,the concentration upon the hole and ignoring of the reality shows up in two Greek stories: Aesop’s “Dog with a Bone” who sees the reflection of his bone in the quiet water under the bridge, and in pursuit of the illusion, drops his real bone; and in the king Midas story, in which the proliferation of gold destroys his daughter.
Less clearly Jesus referred to it in his terse expression: “He who saves his self loses it”. By concentrating upon the hole in the doughnut and seeking to expand and enhance it, one destroys the doughnut itself. In what way are the vices mentioned above, and the pursuit of the emptiness of the false self, connected?
It is noteworthy that persons, who have a high level of self-awareness in this independent, separate, self-creative sense, also have a high level of anger. The connection should be clear. If we contemplate the above “ fruits” of the “False Self” we must conclude that it is the antithesis of love, a negation of being, the great divider, a descent into the hell on earth. The “False Self” is the source of man’s inhumanity to man. The false self can only rein alone.
Let us show how love and the false self cannot co- exist.are
“Love is patient “ “Self is impatient”
“Love is kind” “Self is hateful”
“Love does not envy” “Self is jealous”
“Love does not boast, “Self is vainglorious”
“Love is not proud” “Self is haughty”
“Love is not rude” “Self is arrogant”
“Love is not self-seeking “Self-love”
“Love is not easily angered” “Self is obstinate”
“Love does not delight in evil “Self is deceitful”
but rejoices in the truth.”
“Love always protects” “Self concern”
“Love always trusts” “Self-reliance”
(I Cor, 13.4©7) Paul of Tarsus knew the “False self” for the foe it is. The “I” of Paul’s soliloquy (Rom. 7:18©25) is the true Paul speaking (the willingness to be one with God) in the only true self. Paul describes the false self, as the enemy within. “I know that no good dwells in me, that is in my flesh; the desire to do right is there but not the power. What happens is that I do, not the good I will to do, but the evil I do not intend. But if I do what is against my will, it is not I who do it, but sin, which dwells in me. .
God’s love in man is our true and only self. This Self God offers man to share. Only if as Jesus says in (Mark 8:34) If a man wishes to come after me, he must deny his very self, take up his cross and follow in my steps.”
Our true self is in the oneness of God.
AMEN
THE ILLUSION OF THE FALSE SELF
(The hole in the doughnut)
Please lend me your ear as I jump into the hole in the doughnut .
Let me share a few thoughts on man’s mystifying an unknown foe the false self; sometimes referred to as the hole in the doughnut. The self is an illusion created by man to support his vanity and pride.
I believe the one greatest error in the catechesis of any Church was the neglecting the enormous importance of Jesus’ words “You must deny your very self” In his command “If a man wishes to come after me, he must deny his very self, take up his cross and follow in my steps.” (Mark 8:34)
By believing in a false self, man’s vanity and pride sustains his refusal to recognize his nothingness . Yet there is no other way to follow Jesus without denying our grand illusion, the false self. Do we actually believe we have a choice?
In the last half of the twentieth century Americans have given birth to an extremely narcissistic culture. Psychoanalysts suddenly took intense interest in the study of narcissism, Man’s concentration on the false self they believe to be the immediate cause of social breakdown and empty Churches.
The growth of Narcissism was actually the false self coming into full bloom. Let me delve into the very function of man in order to try and understand this enigma of our time. The nebulous quality of “the false self” invites a more penetrating search into its nature, to the extent of challenging certain aspects of its supposed existence. What is the false self’s source? What is its meaning? What is its end? Is it friend or foe?
We have striven to know the self per se through the disciplines of Theology, Psychiatry, Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, and even the physical sciences. Though we have studied man’s behavior this way, and his genetic composition, we still cannot project with certainty and individual’s reaction to a given stimulus. There is still something enigmatic about the self of man.
A healthy approach to understanding man’s behavior would be to attempt to find out what is his function. If his function or role were determined it would certainly shed light on the reason why he behaves in a given way.
If a native found a watch in a remote jungle, eventually his curiosity would force him to take it apart to see what made it tick. After studying the parts and how they interacted, he would conclude that he had solved the mystery. He is basing his judgment upon observation of its behavior, with no reference to its function. And now that he knew how it ticked, he would probably give it a place of honor in the tribe’s artifact museum; never knowing that merely watching its behavior would not reveal its function.
But isn’t that exactly what the social sciences do? They observe a cross section of mankind, analyze, synthesize, collate, predict, and manipulate all of the statistics, without ever adverting to the fact that they are merely watching behavior, without searching for function. In effect they have put man into the museum of artifacts, as did the jungle native, although the erudite process tends to hide this.
To what does it avail us to know the mental processes and behavior of the child, if we are not aware of the child’s function? What is the value of the analyses of adolescent and adult behavior, if no effort is made to discover the purpose behind such behavior? Knowing the “why” of the adult the end product of growth, so to speak should give insight into the behavioral patterns of the child, as well as the adolescent and adult.
But to know man, we must look elsewhere than into his physiology and psychology. If the false self were our Being, then the attempt to comprehend it would be a contradiction. It is like analyzing a tool by using that very tool to do the analysis.
The nature of scientific study depends upon an outside agent acting upon the item to be investigated. One cannot be inside an outside of the mirror. One cannot study something objectively if all of the people who do the study approach it as subjects, that is, subjectively. One cannot say that the sun rises and sets objectively, simply because subjects by the thousands have seen it rise and set. A subjective experience, no matter how often repeated, cannot give objective information. Our scholars are hunting for treasure in the cave of shadows? Hence their accepted definition of self as the total, essential aspect or being of a person, of an individual, must be denied.
I think the definition of “nebulous” would more fittingly describe the self. It is cloudy, misty, or hazy; lacking definite form or limits; vague.
It is my hope to demonstrate that the self is not Being, but an illusion rooted in metaphysics, or in spiritual concepts, or in moral presumptions, or in epistemological assumptions.
Please don’t accuse me of doing the very thing I am denying, analyzing the self is like analyzing the hole in a doughnut. Its inch diameter, three inches in circumference, colorless and penetrability are not qualities of something that exist, but of a nonexistent entity; yet one which our language can describe, always recognizing that the hole is not a thing, not a being, but a mental concept.
The hypothesis is that man became aware of his “false self” when he first made the determination in Eden, that he would possess the knowledge God had, and separate his being from the will of God. This illusion, as Genesis indicates, was inspired by the evil one, and was conceived by man’s will. At the moment of the fall, this illusion was accepted as reality. The grand deception was in place. Man, therefore, acted in vanity. Man believed that he was a self, an independent being. Since this new concept was the hole in the doughnut, he became for all practical purposes, a slave to an empty concept, and slave to an illusion. Vanity and pride was to be its bulwark.
This illusion became his master, which is the process that the evil one desired, in attempting to destroy the will of God within him, (Man’s Conscience). An illustration might help. God was vehement against the false gods made by human hands. Why? Because they were “nothings” as Jeremiah indicated, “scarecrows in a melon patch”; however the subjects who approached them mentally gave power and life to them. In other words, they were not alive “eyes that do not see, hands that do not touch” but the subject accepted them as being superhuman, and powerful as well. Under this slavery, he was easily manipulated by evil forces, which penetrated his mind and judgments.
Man in his ignorance sought to be like God. He denies his dependence and seeks an independent self. He denies his nothingness and that which should have limited the self. He focused on the hole in the doughnut, a false reality, that had no meaning, a measurable emptiness). Since it was an illusion in the first place.
His focus on the illusinery false self can only lead him nowhere.. He has fled reality. To continue the analogy, the stripping of the inner side of the doughnut expands the hole, but it abuses the doughnut, reality. He is fleeing the hound of reality into hell.
Thus the master of deceit smiled at his achievement, Man has the impression he has created a self by denying his conscience. Narcissism was now to be man’s hidden nemesis. He was alone with an illusion.
Even though emptiness is nothing, and therefore changing its dimensions amounts to nothing, still that part that gets modified in order to produce the illusion of expansion or creativity, suffers from the loss
How does this distortion happen? We may suspect that the legitimate desire for sufficiency, when modified to suit the “creativity” of this false self becomes greed.
By observation we may also conclude that the fruits of hate, loneliness, pride, scandal, jealousy, covetousness, isolation, suspicion, slander are also malformations of legitimate desires of the soul that have yielded to the stripping process (to continue the analogy).
What appears to be a positive action, the expansion of the False self, the enlarging of the hole, is in reality a negative action, the mutilation of the legitimate reality that a person has, the stripping of the inner side of the doughnut. This phenomenon ,the concentration upon the hole and ignoring of the reality shows up in two Greek stories: Aesop’s “Dog with a Bone” who sees the reflection of his bone in the quiet water under the bridge, and in pursuit of the illusion, drops his real bone; and in the king Midas story, in which the proliferation of gold destroys his daughter.
Less clearly Jesus referred to it in his terse expression: “He who saves his self loses it”. By concentrating upon the hole in the doughnut and seeking to expand and enhance it, one destroys the doughnut itself. In what way are the vices mentioned above, and the pursuit of the emptiness of the false self, connected?
It is noteworthy that persons, who have a high level of self-awareness in this independent, separate, self-creative sense, also have a high level of anger. The connection should be clear. If we contemplate the above “ fruits” of the “False Self” we must conclude that it is the antithesis of love, a negation of being, the great divider, a descent into the hell on earth. The “False Self” is the source of man’s inhumanity to man. The false self can only rein alone.
Let us show how love and the false self cannot co- exist.are
“Love is patient “ “Self is impatient”
“Love is kind” “Self is hateful”
“Love does not envy” “Self is jealous”
“Love does not boast, “Self is vainglorious”
“Love is not proud” “Self is haughty”
“Love is not rude” “Self is arrogant”
“Love is not self-seeking “Self-love”
“Love is not easily angered” “Self is obstinate”
“Love does not delight in evil “Self is deceitful”
but rejoices in the truth.”
“Love always protects” “Self concern”
“Love always trusts” “Self-reliance”
(I Cor, 13.4©7) Paul of Tarsus knew the “False self” for the foe it is. The “I” of Paul’s soliloquy (Rom. 7:18©25) is the true Paul speaking (the willingness to be one with God) in the only true self. Paul describes the false self, as the enemy within. “I know that no good dwells in me, that is in my flesh; the desire to do right is there but not the power. What happens is that I do, not the good I will to do, but the evil I do not intend. But if I do what is against my will, it is not I who do it, but sin, which dwells in me. .
God’s love in man is our true and only self. This Self God offers man to share. Only if as Jesus says in (Mark 8:34) If a man wishes to come after me, he must deny his very self, take up his cross and follow in my steps.”
Our true self is in the oneness of God.
AMEN
Monday, April 10, 2006
Religious Belief
Submitted by Tara
Religion and science are two very different arenas of thought. The ways that conclusions are reached in each area are incredibly different, so much so that it is often hard to compare the two. Science is often seen as cold and mechanical and religion as something more emotional and otherworldly. I don't know how accurate these depictions are of them, but they truly do highlight the different perceptions of both ways of thinking about the world. However, even though they may be perceived as being incredibly different from one another, the focus of each is not truly all that different. Both are working towards a common goal, that is to develop theories about reality that are logical, believable, and hopefully true.
In science, one builds an argument based on personal observations. Then, after observing the results of an experiment, the scientist attempts to analyze the data based on other theories which have become widely accepted. Scientific theories go through stringent tests before they become accepted. They have to coincide logically with other beliefs that are widely held unless they present overwhelming and valid evidence that would discount such previously held beliefs. If they do not mesh with the ideas currently held by the scientists and by society, they are not likely to be held as true.
I don't think that anyone would argue with me over my definition of the way science works. It follows the scientific method that is taught in schools. However, what is surprising at first is that such an example of science really isn't limited only to science. In fact, I think everything I just said about science can also be attached to religion. Religious arguments are built on personal observations, those of the disciples who knew Jesus, for example, or the readings of texts that are supposed to be inspired by or written by or dictated by God or some other divine or transcendent being. Then, the religious person attempt to analyze the data the best they can based on what they already know about the world, in a way that would not conflict with their current beliefs. Religious theories also would not be accepted on a whim if they are in opposition with other widely held beliefs. New religious ideas must be in harmony with existing religious ideas in order to be taken seriously unless they have extraordinary amounts of evidence to the contrary of the existing theories on the topic.
It becomes clear, then, that religion and science have many commonalities in the way they approach the search for the truth about reality. It seems that both earnestly want to find answers to questions that have been nagging the human conscious for thousands of years. They even go about it in similar ways. Each are seeking to find a way to explain the questions without completing upsetting or destroying the basic picture of the world that we have now. No one seems quite willing (or even able) to rewrite all of the ideas that humans hold about the world as we think it is today. Neither camp really seems to keen on the idea of throwing out old ideas that seem to be true and seem to make sense in exchange for answers to other questions. In this way, they seem very similar.
The similarities I have presented here may not be so strange as what they seem at first. Both fields religion and science appeal to the logic of humans. Human beings find both sets of explanations for the world to be attractive and sensible. There is something uniquely rational about the way science and religion approach the explanations of the world. What human would find it rational to throw out old, seemingly realistic ideas about the world in favor of new, untested, untried ones? I don't think any sane person would find this to be the way to approach finding new conclusions. Human beings have the need to preserve as much of their own beliefs as possible at any given time. While we are occasionally willing to give up minor aspects of their web of beliefs (that is, the network of interlocking beliefs that they hold pertaining to everything they know and think), we rarely like to give up the larger pieces of our web without substantial reason. This is the way the human brain works which is in turn the way it reacts to both scientific and religious explanations. This explanation of why we approach conclusions the same way whether they are based in religion or science takes away much of the shock value of the similarities between religion and science that exists upon first glance. Still, though, it is obvious that religion and science cannot be one and the same. If they were, there wouldn't be so much controversy or arguments about which one is to be held in higher regard.
I hold that the idea that science is testable is the one main difference between religion and science. Scientific proofs are based on logical steps that follow one after another. It is easy to trace the connecting points from one idea to another in order to see the progression of thought. One can (nearly always) repeat an experiment that a scientist does and get the same, or very similar, results in order to come to the same conclusion. In religion, one is often observing facts of reality and then interpreting them in a transcendent way, that is, in a way that goes beyond reality. A religious person is bound to attach religious meaning to a possibly ordinary experience, and thus bias the results. Now, this is not to say that science is without bias. It's not. However, in science, many different scientists can view the same data and independently come to the same conclusions. Also, scientists frequently take much care to prevent bias to the best degree they possibly can.
When a religious person tries to take empirical data and give it a religious meaning, I think that they are often making a fatal mistake. One cannot approach religious theory using the scientific method, no matter how striking the similarities may seem at first. Religious belief requires the willingness of a person to accept that a transcendent realm exists, even though there seems to be no clear evidence that this is true. I say that there is no clear evidence of it because anything that I can think of that might imply the existence of a transcendent realm has a corresponding scientific explanation.
It is impossible to test whether or not a transcendent realm truly exists. For example, say a religiously-inclined person claims that such and such will happen if the transcendent truly exists. Then, it happens. Does this really prove that the transcendent exists? No, because it could very easily be a coincidence. Or, it could be something that the person knew was going to happen through other means. But likewise, it is impossible to prove that it does not exist, because in the same manner, if it does not happen, can you actually say that proves that it does not exist? No, of course not, because what if the transcendent being does not want to be discovered, or does not wish to comply to your test?
At the same time, however, I do not think this lack of scientific testability really can be equated to meaninglessness. Science is not the be all and end all of our society. In fact, life has functioned for hundreds of thousands of years (according to science) without any real form of science at all. There is not only one way to test theories. I would equate trying to test religious theories according to scientific rules to trying to score an ACT by the SAT standards. There is on true way to compare them. Sure, you can see if the results are similar and in what ways they are different, but you can't score one according to the standards of another.
To take the analogy one step further, it is not necessary to believe that either the ACT or the SAT is valid. One can accept the validity of both at the same time, even though they may yield different results. The same is true of religion and science. Religion and science do not always produce the same theories, but this does not mean that you have to value one over the other. It is possible to test each against their own standards and decide which of the two conclusions is more valuable for you. Conflicts between the two does not imply that one must be right all the time, and the other wrong all the time. For if this were true, science itself could not possibly be true because it has conflicts within its own field. Really, religion frequently has the same problem. Sometimes theories within the same religion seem to contradict themselves to the point where the religious believer must work to interpret and analyze the data to make a judgment of what is right for them.
As a result, I think that both religion and science can have substantial meaning, but that it is up to the individual to interpret the data presented to them in order to decide which explanation of the world they count to be true for them. It is not required that a person choose one over the other and it is quite possible to simultaneously accept both views as logical and legitimate. The debate of science versus religion does not have to end in an either/or choice. A person does, however, need to realize that you cannot hold religion to scientific standards and neither can you hold science to religious standards. They are ideologies that are working from very different view points and measuring different data. One must examine the world from within their current set of beliefs and see which explanations make the most logical sense to them.
Religion and science are two very different arenas of thought. The ways that conclusions are reached in each area are incredibly different, so much so that it is often hard to compare the two. Science is often seen as cold and mechanical and religion as something more emotional and otherworldly. I don't know how accurate these depictions are of them, but they truly do highlight the different perceptions of both ways of thinking about the world. However, even though they may be perceived as being incredibly different from one another, the focus of each is not truly all that different. Both are working towards a common goal, that is to develop theories about reality that are logical, believable, and hopefully true.
In science, one builds an argument based on personal observations. Then, after observing the results of an experiment, the scientist attempts to analyze the data based on other theories which have become widely accepted. Scientific theories go through stringent tests before they become accepted. They have to coincide logically with other beliefs that are widely held unless they present overwhelming and valid evidence that would discount such previously held beliefs. If they do not mesh with the ideas currently held by the scientists and by society, they are not likely to be held as true.
I don't think that anyone would argue with me over my definition of the way science works. It follows the scientific method that is taught in schools. However, what is surprising at first is that such an example of science really isn't limited only to science. In fact, I think everything I just said about science can also be attached to religion. Religious arguments are built on personal observations, those of the disciples who knew Jesus, for example, or the readings of texts that are supposed to be inspired by or written by or dictated by God or some other divine or transcendent being. Then, the religious person attempt to analyze the data the best they can based on what they already know about the world, in a way that would not conflict with their current beliefs. Religious theories also would not be accepted on a whim if they are in opposition with other widely held beliefs. New religious ideas must be in harmony with existing religious ideas in order to be taken seriously unless they have extraordinary amounts of evidence to the contrary of the existing theories on the topic.
It becomes clear, then, that religion and science have many commonalities in the way they approach the search for the truth about reality. It seems that both earnestly want to find answers to questions that have been nagging the human conscious for thousands of years. They even go about it in similar ways. Each are seeking to find a way to explain the questions without completing upsetting or destroying the basic picture of the world that we have now. No one seems quite willing (or even able) to rewrite all of the ideas that humans hold about the world as we think it is today. Neither camp really seems to keen on the idea of throwing out old ideas that seem to be true and seem to make sense in exchange for answers to other questions. In this way, they seem very similar.
The similarities I have presented here may not be so strange as what they seem at first. Both fields religion and science appeal to the logic of humans. Human beings find both sets of explanations for the world to be attractive and sensible. There is something uniquely rational about the way science and religion approach the explanations of the world. What human would find it rational to throw out old, seemingly realistic ideas about the world in favor of new, untested, untried ones? I don't think any sane person would find this to be the way to approach finding new conclusions. Human beings have the need to preserve as much of their own beliefs as possible at any given time. While we are occasionally willing to give up minor aspects of their web of beliefs (that is, the network of interlocking beliefs that they hold pertaining to everything they know and think), we rarely like to give up the larger pieces of our web without substantial reason. This is the way the human brain works which is in turn the way it reacts to both scientific and religious explanations. This explanation of why we approach conclusions the same way whether they are based in religion or science takes away much of the shock value of the similarities between religion and science that exists upon first glance. Still, though, it is obvious that religion and science cannot be one and the same. If they were, there wouldn't be so much controversy or arguments about which one is to be held in higher regard.
I hold that the idea that science is testable is the one main difference between religion and science. Scientific proofs are based on logical steps that follow one after another. It is easy to trace the connecting points from one idea to another in order to see the progression of thought. One can (nearly always) repeat an experiment that a scientist does and get the same, or very similar, results in order to come to the same conclusion. In religion, one is often observing facts of reality and then interpreting them in a transcendent way, that is, in a way that goes beyond reality. A religious person is bound to attach religious meaning to a possibly ordinary experience, and thus bias the results. Now, this is not to say that science is without bias. It's not. However, in science, many different scientists can view the same data and independently come to the same conclusions. Also, scientists frequently take much care to prevent bias to the best degree they possibly can.
When a religious person tries to take empirical data and give it a religious meaning, I think that they are often making a fatal mistake. One cannot approach religious theory using the scientific method, no matter how striking the similarities may seem at first. Religious belief requires the willingness of a person to accept that a transcendent realm exists, even though there seems to be no clear evidence that this is true. I say that there is no clear evidence of it because anything that I can think of that might imply the existence of a transcendent realm has a corresponding scientific explanation.
It is impossible to test whether or not a transcendent realm truly exists. For example, say a religiously-inclined person claims that such and such will happen if the transcendent truly exists. Then, it happens. Does this really prove that the transcendent exists? No, because it could very easily be a coincidence. Or, it could be something that the person knew was going to happen through other means. But likewise, it is impossible to prove that it does not exist, because in the same manner, if it does not happen, can you actually say that proves that it does not exist? No, of course not, because what if the transcendent being does not want to be discovered, or does not wish to comply to your test?
At the same time, however, I do not think this lack of scientific testability really can be equated to meaninglessness. Science is not the be all and end all of our society. In fact, life has functioned for hundreds of thousands of years (according to science) without any real form of science at all. There is not only one way to test theories. I would equate trying to test religious theories according to scientific rules to trying to score an ACT by the SAT standards. There is on true way to compare them. Sure, you can see if the results are similar and in what ways they are different, but you can't score one according to the standards of another.
To take the analogy one step further, it is not necessary to believe that either the ACT or the SAT is valid. One can accept the validity of both at the same time, even though they may yield different results. The same is true of religion and science. Religion and science do not always produce the same theories, but this does not mean that you have to value one over the other. It is possible to test each against their own standards and decide which of the two conclusions is more valuable for you. Conflicts between the two does not imply that one must be right all the time, and the other wrong all the time. For if this were true, science itself could not possibly be true because it has conflicts within its own field. Really, religion frequently has the same problem. Sometimes theories within the same religion seem to contradict themselves to the point where the religious believer must work to interpret and analyze the data to make a judgment of what is right for them.
As a result, I think that both religion and science can have substantial meaning, but that it is up to the individual to interpret the data presented to them in order to decide which explanation of the world they count to be true for them. It is not required that a person choose one over the other and it is quite possible to simultaneously accept both views as logical and legitimate. The debate of science versus religion does not have to end in an either/or choice. A person does, however, need to realize that you cannot hold religion to scientific standards and neither can you hold science to religious standards. They are ideologies that are working from very different view points and measuring different data. One must examine the world from within their current set of beliefs and see which explanations make the most logical sense to them.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Testing Your Faith?
Over the most recent few weeks, several developments have occurred that might test the faith of some. Namely, the following come to mind:
- The discovery of Judas's gospels seem to indicate that the relationship between Jesus and Judas was different than history has portrayed, namely, that Jesus asked Judas to betray Him, for unknown reasons. (Read full details of how the document was found, treated, tested for accuracy, etc. here).
- Fossil discoveries have scientists pointing to the "missing link" that, as they see it, proves evolution is right.
- A study showed that people who were ill and were prayed for by others, actually showed more complications than those who didn't have prayer on their side (we actually posted about this before right here.)
Do these events in any way shake your belief system?
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Prayer to get rich
There's a sucker born every minute, so the saying goes, and it seems to me this company is trying to finding them among the religious. Does anyone in their right mind really think this works:
Have you been searching for a way to think and pray that really works for bringing Financial Blessings into your life?There's so much more on this page, if you're interested. Hey, it only costs $19.95. You would think the time it takes them to sell this stuff they could be praying themselves rich, no?
Are you tired of praying only to have your Financial Prayers remained unanswered?
Are you ready right now to begin dramatically accelerating your mental ability to connect with God and start living a RICHER life?
Backed by proven results for thousands of users - our proprietary Prayer Power audio technology - placed on CD's with soothing baroque classical music - will help you get results faster and with less effort than you ever dreamed possible...
When you listen to this DOUBLE CD set for 21 consecutive days ~ it will get you closer to God and in tune with His RICHES! Start attracting the FinancialBlessings God wants for you ~ quickly and easily!
