The Thinking Man's Religion/Spirituality

[Greta]

Nature-based spirituality was rational, aside from sacrifices and the like. Why not revere the Earth and Sun? They are everything to us.

... but when you think about it, Jupiter and Saturn were essential to attract asteroids, and all the planets played their part in chaotically putting the Earth into the habitable zone. To complicate matters, our solar system is in a habitable zone of the galaxy, and the galaxy itself protects its entities when it moves through nebulae with its magnetic field.

Who/what to worship? Who/what's the boss? Given the way the systems embed within one another, it's understandable that people will speculate about the ultimate system, the prime mover or initial cause.

[Systematic]

. Dubious and Systematic
There certainly doesn't seem to be a link between the two things that a mind in the habit of employing reason would accept as legitimate.

Yes! absolutely, but that was the system for almost two millennia. Legitimate it was, if you didn't agree you were consigned to the ash tray. It was also brilliantly logical in the way all the bits and pieces were consigned to yield only one conclusion but reasonable it wasn't except for the leitmotivs of power and profit. A great story can last for a long time especially if you're part of the drama as soon as you're born.

I think you have it backwards. The "logic" was purely catholic, in that it began with the conclusion and every evidential thing else was shoe-horned to fit. That's why catholic thinking is associated with deduction, rather than induction. Worst still it was "of the Pope says it" then you do it.

The conclusion was "god done it", and everything else was tailored to fit; all evidence was seen in the light of that conclusion.
The Reformation was the start of the destruction, to counter the abuses of the Pope, the Bible was seen as primary evidence, as was the book of nature. The former gave us Protestantism, but the latter eventually gave us the Enlightenment, science and atheism.

I just wanted to add that there is nothing wrong with deduction so long as you pick correct premises. Catholic dogma doesn't count as correct premises. It was error in deduction—not deduction per se—that caused so much trouble.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Yes! absolutely, but that was the system for almost two millennia. Legitimate it was, if you didn't agree you were consigned to the ash tray. It was also brilliantly logical in the way all the bits and pieces were consigned to yield only one conclusion but reasonable it wasn't except for the leitmotivs of power and profit. A great story can last for a long time especially if you're part of the drama as soon as you're born.

I think you have it backwards. The "logic" was purely catholic, in that it began with the conclusion and every evidential thing else was shoe-horned to fit. That's why catholic thinking is associated with deduction, rather than induction. Worst still it was "of the Pope says it" then you do it.

The conclusion was "god done it", and everything else was tailored to fit; all evidence was seen in the light of that conclusion.
The Reformation was the start of the destruction, to counter the abuses of the Pope, the Bible was seen as primary evidence, as was the book of nature. The former gave us Protestantism, but the latter eventually gave us the Enlightenment, science and atheism.

I just wanted to add that there is nothing wrong with deduction so long as you pick correct premises. Catholic dogma doesn't count as correct premises. It was error in deduction—not deduction per se—that caused so much trouble.

Depends. Deduction leads to no new knowledge and works from the general (in this case the Pope is always right) to the particular (in this case you do what the fuck he says).
Conversely Luther used the Bible as a source of evidence inductively to understand how we should live our lives. This is evidential thinking and lays the intellectual ground for the Enlightenment.
Induction works from the particular evidence to what general rules you can unpack from it.

Deduction only works to expound what you already know. It has provides definitive reflexions.

[osgart]

darwin is a religion and lacks any evidence. Read undeniable by douglas axe, an honest scientist not conjuring or relying on appeal which is what evolutionists do. Mankind will always make religions to cope and thats a pseudo intellectuals dream evolution is. An honest pursuit of things is for the humble and is becoming rarer and rarer that people embark on knowledge pursuits honestly. Evolution like christianity has a ton of self deceptions and their is no standards for evidence in them. People long on memory and short on sense love to hear themselves spout off and propagate their prejudices with things like evolution. So they can justify their immorality. A thinking mans religion is to employ logic and science to come up with a truly reliable religion with no corrupt agendas that drive pompous prejudices.
Reality is either spiritual or not and the case for spirituality can be pragmatically made. Yet all the rampant pseudo intellectualism in todays world undermines serious honest intellectuals.

[Justintruth]

It's not so different, in a way. When everyone believed that the Sun and the Moon were pushed around the heavens by the hand of God, they probably felt they had an understanding of what they were observing. Now, we think we understand how the laws of physics is doing the job. The thing is, understanding is just an illusion. I may believe in the laws of physics rather than in God, but I don't know how the laws of physics make things happen and neither does anyone else, the only thing the scientists can discover is what happens, they can never know why. They may be able to tell you what kind of force a particular sub atomic particle possesses but they don't know how it came to posses it. When we look at the world and beyond and think we have an understanding of how and why things are the way they are, I imagine that sensation of understanding we experience is pretty much the same as that of those whose only available explanation was "God dun it".

Rarely do I see a post that makes as much sense as this one.

Sometimes progress in understanding occurs when we realize that what we thought we knew we didn't. We realize how baseless our claims were. We didn't find some other answer, we just justifiably lost one we only thought we had.

And sometimes progress occurs when we cease to know and realize that we don't, won't, can't on principle know certain things.

But awareness of the mysteries is subtle causing calous boredom and cynical dismissal in some - a callous disregard of even considering the questions - and wonder in others.

That capacity to wonder as opposed to asking in a tecnical sense, or we might say that bringing to real asking that is not satisfied by answers that are essentially non sequitors, can be an awareness of how some questions are just not answerable.

It is ridiculous the claims that are made for science and reason these days. A man limited to science and reason ignores sense; and is truly ignorant and impoverished - and NOT because he lacks other "answers" from religion but because his misconstual of science as providing any answers at all is surpassed only by his missinterpretation of religion as providing alternative answers instead of an understanding of the limits of answers and a sense of the significance of that.

I agree with Heidegger IN A SENSE when he says: "Science does not think". But I literally study science virtually every day. I'm no genius but I was able - and so proud of myself - when I was able to calculte the fine structure of the hydrogen atom's emission spectrum. I am working on calculaing the advance in the perihelion of Mercury and am trying to understad wave structures on compact manifolds - and I love it! I m just not so stupid as to belive it explains anything of what happens.

That is just simple non sequitor.

Its description for crying out loud, nor do I think that Religion is to somehow replace that void and provide alternative answers. What religion does is allow you in the face of the necessary absence of explanation to hear the voice at the heart of it all. To hear the speaking. And it is the heart of intellect that kind of knowing.

Many of the claims of science are wrong technically but the problem is that often they are not just wrong technically. The are like someone trying to wield a bat as a club. They are a mask for arrogance. And a failure to just listen to the truth of the contradictions in what they are saying. Truth then, philosophy itself , becomes rhetorical and worse. Things become Fox-news-ified and the outrageous claims come at so fast and furious a pace that you end up with a Jerry Springer show instead of a presidential debate.

Its no longer about the truth. Its about winning.

It disgusts me and my understanding of primate behavior is such that it also scares me.

[Justintruth]

... Worst still it was "of the Pope says it" then you do it

Yea but you can't confuse the soap salesman with the soap, the theologian with the pope, and the saint with any of them.

Religion is not theology. And the political or economic uses of religion are not religion.

The real thing is to understand why religion can be used - how it functions as fetish and more - not that it conveys authority but why and how it is used.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Here I list some musings which I had today about a new possible religion/spirituality for those who wish to be both rational and spiritual:

---Liberty for self and others are highly recommended.
---Science should not only be invited and revered, but also be an integral part of religious study.
---Questioning one's own religion, spirituality, and mundane life are highly recommended.
---The most advanced and useful faculty of humanity is their ability to think rationally, therefore any religion which seeks to thwart that faculty is deeply flawed.
---The divine are guides to humanity, and are not to be followed, but rather consulted for advice as one would consult a friend.

I believe those two (i.e. religion and reason) to be highly compatible, or perhaps it is merely my hope. Both are in need of the other. Religion requires thought the way that medicine requires thought. And thought requires religion, because thought is presently demoted to the station of atheism's handmaiden.

... Or better still don't have a religion at all.
Religion is dogma. Dogma is the antithesis of science.
Religion "binds" people together. Bondage is the antithesis of liberty.
Spirituality is fantasy.

[Lacewing]

Spirituality is fantasy.

Is there anything that isn't?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Spirituality is fantasy.

Is there anything that isn't?

You can't argue with a speeding bullet or a hear attack.
That fact that you will die if you don't breath or don't eat.
Yeah. Plenty of things.

[Lacewing]

Spirituality is fantasy.

Is there anything that isn't?

You can't argue with a speeding bullet or a hear attack.
That fact that you will die if you don't breath or don't eat.
Yeah. Plenty of things.

Okay... I see your point... but how do you know that spirituality isn't real? How do you know that it isn't pulling all sort of strings for the world that you think of as solid and real?

(I'm not being combative... I'm just interested in exploring this.)

[Hobbes' Choice]

Is there anything that isn't?

You can't argue with a speeding bullet or a hear attack.
That fact that you will die if you don't breath or don't eat.
Yeah. Plenty of things.

Okay... I see your point... but how do you know that spirituality isn't real? How do you know that it isn't pulling all sort of strings for the world that you think of as solid and real?

(I'm not being combative... I'm just interested in exploring this.)

If you can say what spirituality is, then I can explain to you why I think it is fantastic.

[Lacewing]

If you can say what spirituality is, then I can explain to you why I think it is fantastic.

Okay, how about this: It is all that is not dense and weighted down in material forms. You have to admit that weighted down material forms are not all there is, right?

Of course spirituality defies an ABSOLUTE description in the dense and weighted down world of material forms because it is NOT THAT. However, there are many things/experiences that continually point to it. The FANTASY is in any definitive definitions that are claimed in regard to it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

If you can say what spirituality is, then I can explain to you why I think it is fantastic.

Okay, how about this: It is all that is not dense and weighted down in material forms. You have to admit that weighted down material forms are not all there is, right?

Of course spirituality defies an ABSOLUTE description in the dense and weighted down world of material forms because it is NOT THAT. However, there are many things/experiences that continually point to it. The FANTASY is in any definitive definitions that are claimed in regard to it.

You are saying what it is not, not what it is. Nor are you saying what work your theory does.
All concepts are immaterial, even though they might refer to material things. Is politics, philosophy, or anthropology 'spititual', as by your definition is seems they are.

[Lacewing]

You are saying what it is not, not what it is.

Okay, I give up... I can't describe the non-material to you. Apparently only material forms are supposedly "real"... and the non-material is fantasy. Groovy. Go with it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You are saying what it is not, not what it is.

Okay, I give up... I can't describe the non-material to you. Apparently only material forms are supposedly "real"... and the non-material is fantasy. Groovy. Go with it.

Now, now, don't get huffy! An idea is not material. Does that make it spiritual?

What about "anthropology', or any ideas? Why are they not "spiritual"?

I think the truth is that spiritual is just another fantastic idea, as real as Gandalf.