| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/14/2015 11:58:39 PM · #226 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are sensing the Numinous and for many it represents the gateway rather than the destination. |
Doc, I know you don't mean it this way, but can you take a step back to realize how incredibly condescending you sound here? |
I don't agree that Doc's reply sounds condescending. I guess it's a personal thing... |
I too would have to agree with my friend  Bear_Music on this one since this is simply Doc being himself... a well read and erudite debater.
The words of Carl Sagan seem so apropos at this juncture: "If sensing the numinous is at the heart of religion, who, pray tell, are the more reverent...the "People of the Book” or the people who study the stars?
Ray |
|
|
|
02/15/2015 01:25:16 AM · #227 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are sensing the Numinous and for many it represents the gateway rather than the destination. |
Doc, I know you don't mean it this way, but can you take a step back to realize how incredibly condescending you sound here? |
That wasn't the intention. Rather it was an attempt at finding common ground. A big reason why I shoot nature photography is because I feel God when I do so. Jagar senses the same thing although he likely has a different interpretation on what it means to him. |
|
|
|
02/15/2015 03:16:17 AM · #228 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are sensing the Numinous and for many it represents the gateway rather than the destination. |
Doc, I know you don't mean it this way, but can you take a step back to realize how incredibly condescending you sound here? |
That wasn't the intention. Rather it was an attempt at finding common ground. A big reason why I shoot nature photography is because I feel God when I do so. Jagar senses the same thing although he likely has a different interpretation on what it means to him. |
Didn't find it in the least condescending.
Being in nature, stargazing, listening to the birds outside on a spring morning, these things like many others make me feel the wonder in letting go of my small confined little self, they give me faith that beyond all this self inflicted agitation there is something perfect in play. You would probably call that perfection "God" therefore classifying the experience as religious, I would call that perfection the natural state of things when our small self lets go, therefore classifying the experience as spiritual. As soon as you call the experience God (something other than yourself) you've created a dualism, it's these dualisms that stop us from being that perfection in the first place. |
|
|
|
02/15/2015 10:27:25 AM · #229 |
| Alright, alright . . . maybe you both are just too "erudite" for a simple biped, like myself. ;) |
|
|
|
02/15/2015 11:13:24 AM · #230 |
| FWIW at least some of the news media seems to now be using the term "anti-theist" for those few who don't simply lack a belief in God (atheists or agnostics), but are actively opposed to (organized?) religion. |
|
|
|
02/15/2015 03:31:54 PM · #231 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Being in nature, stargazing, listening to the birds outside on a spring morning, these things like many others make me feel the wonder in letting go of my small confined little self, they give me faith that beyond all this self inflicted agitation there is something perfect in play. You would probably call that perfection "God" therefore classifying the experience as religious, I would call that perfection the natural state of things when our small self lets go, therefore classifying the experience as spiritual. As soon as you call the experience God (something other than yourself) you've created a dualism, it's these dualisms that stop us from being that perfection in the first place. |
And to just accept it all with no boundaries........that's what it's all about to me.
I don't need someone to tell me from whom, or why. I didn't ask, and really don't care.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2015 03:32:35 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
FWIW at least some of the news media seems to now be using the term "anti-theist" for those few who don't simply lack a belief in God (atheists or agnostics), but are actively opposed to (organized?) religion. |
Can I just go with frequently annoyed because someone feels they have to save me?
|
|
|
|
02/15/2015 09:42:32 PM · #233 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are sensing the Numinous and for many it represents the gateway rather than the destination. |
Doc, I know you don't mean it this way, but can you take a step back to realize how incredibly condescending you sound here? |
That wasn't the intention. Rather it was an attempt at finding common ground. A big reason why I shoot nature photography is because I feel God when I do so. Jagar senses the same thing although he likely has a different interpretation on what it means to him. |
Didn't find it in the least condescending.
Being in nature, stargazing, listening to the birds outside on a spring morning, these things like many others make me feel the wonder in letting go of my small confined little self, they give me faith that beyond all this self inflicted agitation there is something perfect in play. You would probably call that perfection "God" therefore classifying the experience as religious, I would call that perfection the natural state of things when our small self lets go, therefore classifying the experience as spiritual. As soon as you call the experience God (something other than yourself) you've created a dualism, it's these dualisms that stop us from being that perfection in the first place. |
You could look up panentheism and see if that gets at being a descriptor of how you feel. |
|
|
|
02/16/2015 02:49:43 PM · #234 |
| Just a question for Doc - do you think the the awe and wonder inspired by observation of the universe and the natural world was the end "destination" for Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, Charles Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan, and other such scientists? I'm pretty sure that they would describe that awe and wonder as the "gateway" to their desire for further study and exploration. |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 12:33:12 AM · #235 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Just a question for Doc - do you think the the awe and wonder inspired by observation of the universe and the natural world was the end "destination" for Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, Charles Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan, and other such scientists? I'm pretty sure that they would describe that awe and wonder as the "gateway" to their desire for further study and exploration. |
You'd have to ask them, but I'd wonder if "awe and wonder" are only the stepping stones to "control and understanding". i think scientists have a great deal of curiosity, but I don't know if that group would ever feel at home with the idea that something would be so far beyond them as to have no hope of explaining it in detail. To me, awe and wonder are best invoked by something of that nature. If you think that ultimately we, as humans, have the capacity to eventually explain everything there is, can we truly be awed? |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 01:27:59 AM · #236 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Just a question for Doc - do you think the the awe and wonder inspired by observation of the universe and the natural world was the end "destination" for Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, Charles Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan, and other such scientists? I'm pretty sure that they would describe that awe and wonder as the "gateway" to their desire for further study and exploration. |
You'd have to ask them, but I'd wonder if "awe and wonder" are only the stepping stones to "control and understanding". i think scientists have a great deal of curiosity, but I don't know if that group would ever feel at home with the idea that something would be so far beyond them as to have no hope of explaining it in detail. To me, awe and wonder are best invoked by something of that nature. If you think that ultimately we, as humans, have the capacity to eventually explain everything there is, can we truly be awed? |
By calling it a religion you are like those scientists trying to explane it in detail, maybe that is not the letting go that awe and wonder are trying to teach.
Message edited by author 2015-02-17 01:29:49. |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 08:22:48 AM · #237 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you think that ultimately we, as humans, have the capacity to eventually explain everything there is, can we truly be awed? |
Awe does and will continue to exist until such time as the subject matter can be explained. At that juncture one would move on to something else that inspires "awe".
Ray |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 09:34:14 AM · #238 |
| Understanding how something works make me feel even greater awe. |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 09:41:05 AM · #239 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
Understanding how something works make me feel even greater awe. |
Often times this is VERY true.
I think that, despite the claims of the religious, scientists are often much better at appreciating 'creation', if only because we're looking with our eyes fully open.
Religion seems to want to remove the awe and mystery more than any scientist - so much so that you have no problem accepting 'answers' 'truth' 'facts' that are anything but, it seems the philosophy of religion abhors a mystery and strives to fill every tiny gap with an explanation (even if only 'God did it, because God")...
|
|
|
|
02/17/2015 10:36:00 AM · #240 |
| Beauty will not cease to awe me because I know how it was created/came to be. |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 11:10:02 AM · #241 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
Understanding how something works make me feel even greater awe. |
Often times this is VERY true.
I think that, despite the claims of the religious, scientists are often much better at appreciating 'creation', if only because we're looking with our eyes fully open.
Religion seems to want to remove the awe and mystery more than any scientist - so much so that you have no problem accepting 'answers' 'truth' 'facts' that are anything but, it seems the philosophy of religion abhors a mystery and strives to fill every tiny gap with an explanation (even if only 'God did it, because God")... |
^^^^ pompous statement of the year right there. |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 11:13:03 AM · #242 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Just a question for Doc - do you think the the awe and wonder inspired by observation of the universe and the natural world was the end "destination" for Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, Charles Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan, and other such scientists? I'm pretty sure that they would describe that awe and wonder as the "gateway" to their desire for further study and exploration. |
You'd have to ask them, but I'd wonder if "awe and wonder" are only the stepping stones to "control and understanding". i think scientists have a great deal of curiosity, but I don't know if that group would ever feel at home with the idea that something would be so far beyond them as to have no hope of explaining it in detail. To me, awe and wonder are best invoked by something of that nature. If you think that ultimately we, as humans, have the capacity to eventually explain everything there is, can we truly be awed? |
By calling it a religion you are like those scientists trying to explane it in detail, maybe that is not the letting go that awe and wonder are trying to teach. |
This is an important point not lost on me. The term "religion" does get used in a negative sense even among Christian circles (though not always). (They will say something like "I'm not religious. I have a relationship.") Many people have what I call a "pocket god". They keep their god in their pocket to be pulled out when they need something, but these gods make no demands and are blind to our poor choices. In this way the adherent, in their mind, is the one in control.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2015 12:04:04 PM · #243 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Just a question for Doc - do you think the the awe and wonder inspired by observation of the universe and the natural world was the end "destination" for Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Stephen Hawking, Charles Darwin, Stephen Jay Gould, Carl Sagan, and other such scientists? I'm pretty sure that they would describe that awe and wonder as the "gateway" to their desire for further study and exploration. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You'd have to ask them, but I'd wonder if "awe and wonder" are only the stepping stones to "control and understanding". i think scientists have a great deal of curiosity, but I don't know if that group would ever feel at home with the idea that something would be so far beyond them as to have no hope of explaining it in detail. To me, awe and wonder are best invoked by something of that nature. If you think that ultimately we, as humans, have the capacity to eventually explain everything there is, can we truly be awed? |
Originally posted by jagar:
By calling it a religion you are like those scientists trying to explane it in detail, maybe that is not the letting go that awe and wonder are trying to teach. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is an important point not lost on me. The term "religion" does get used in a negative sense even among Christian circles (though not always). (They will say something like "I'm not religious. I have a relationship.") Many people have what I call a "pocket god". They keep their god in their pocket to be pulled out when they need something, but these gods make no demands and are blind to our poor choices. In this way the adherent, in their mind, is the one in control. |
In control? Of what? Awe & wonder? What happens today? How we'll die? What happens afterward, if anything?
I'm not in control over anything except the decisions I make and the actions I take. I don't blame anyone, nor offer up anything like "God's Will" if the sh*t hits the fan. Sometimes, it just is what it is. And if I made the mess, I'm gonna face the music and do everything I cxan to clean it up.
I'd more like to think that those of us who do not subscribe to any organized religion have the responsibility to live within society harmoniously without the stigma of looking for the reward, or punishment at the end.
I need neither a carrot dangled, or threat of final judgement to live my life as a decent soprt, and I don't need any explanation, nor a designated creator to appreciate beauty and splendor.
|
|
|
|
02/17/2015 12:12:52 PM · #244 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I think that, despite the claims of the religious, scientists are often much better at appreciating 'creation', if only because we're looking with our eyes fully open.
Religion seems to want to remove the awe and mystery more than any scientist - so much so that you have no problem accepting 'answers' 'truth' 'facts' that are anything but, it seems the philosophy of religion abhors a mystery and strives to fill every tiny gap with an explanation (even if only 'God did it, because God")... |
You seem to have a very distorted view of religion. Maybe you hang out with the wrong religious people.
True religion shouldn't conflict with science. After all, if science is used to explain the universe, then it would also explain the Creator (the original reason science was established).
If science and religion conflict, there's something wrong with the religion or the science.
EDIT: Usually where science and religion conflict is those who think the bible is a scientific book - it's not.
Message edited by author 2015-02-17 12:14:30. |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 12:21:49 PM · #245 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
EDIT: Usually where science and religion conflict is those who think the bible is a scientific book - it's not. |
it usually also differs when morality concerns come into play, eg. cloning or genetic modification.
fwiw, we need both as they both keep each other in check, science affords us the ability to not just accept things at face value and to always ask and understand, religion or theology encourages us to ask if we should.
edit:spelling
Message edited by author 2015-02-17 14:22:30. |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 01:37:57 PM · #246 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Nullix:
EDIT: Usually where science and religion conflict is those who think the bible is a scientific book - it's not. |
it usually also differs when morality concerns come into play, eg. cloning or genetic modification.
fwiw its worth, we need both as they both keep each other in check, science affords us the ability to not just accept things at face value and to always ask and understand, religion or theology encourages us to ask if we should.
edit:spelling |
Surely you aren't suggesting that atheists are immoral are you?
As a side question, how exactly does cloning or genetic modification impact on morality?
Ray
|
|
|
|
02/17/2015 01:44:24 PM · #247 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
If science and religion conflict, there's something wrong with the religion or the science.
EDIT: Usually where science and religion conflict is those who think the bible is a scientific book - it's not. |
Not only is it not a scientific book, but there are many who would argue that is it is not historically correct in many areas.
The question that begs to be answered is which interpretation of reality is the correct one. One which can be reviewed, analyzed and proven to be correct, or that which is based on hearsay, supposition, oral history and grandiose tales of floods, people turned to salt and the storing of two of every species of everything known to mankind.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 02:00:44 PM · #248 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The question that begs to be answered is which interpretation of reality is the correct one. One which can be reviewed, analyzed and proven to be correct, or that which is based on hearsay, supposition, oral history and grandiose tales of floods, people turned to salt and the storing of two of every species of everything known to mankind.
Ray |
I think you have singlehandedly thrown out all of history. :P
BTW, you keep asking about atheists and morality. You keep asking if atheists are IMmoral and the real word you want is whether atheists are Amoral. However, whenever you hear that argument people are making a distinction and their argument would be that atheists have no access to a moral structure larger than themselves (and to them this is the only framework worth considering). The atheist's morality is either constructed by themselves or by other humans. They could not point to a morality that exists independent of human thought. |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 02:03:44 PM · #249 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
They could not point to a morality that exists independent of human thought. |
And you can? |
|
|
|
02/17/2015 02:37:55 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The question that begs to be answered is which interpretation of reality is the correct one. One which can be reviewed, analyzed and proven to be correct, or that which is based on hearsay, supposition, oral history and grandiose tales of floods, people turned to salt and the storing of two of every species of everything known to mankind.
Ray |
I think you have singlehandedly thrown out all of history. :P
BTW, you keep asking about atheists and morality. You keep asking if atheists are IMmoral and the real word you want is whether atheists are Amoral. However, whenever you hear that argument people are making a distinction and their argument would be that atheists have no access to a moral structure larger than themselves (and to them this is the only framework worth considering). The atheist's morality is either constructed by themselves or by other humans. They could not point to a morality that exists independent of human thought. |
Really now. Perhaps you would be so kind as to demonstrate exactly how it is that the morality of theists differs significantly from atheists.
No one operates in a vaccuum and unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I would suggest that morals are not the exclusive domain of the religious, and that the mores of a society are relatively constant in any given milieu, regardless of the fact that some practice faith or not.
Deviance from the norm is normanlly shunned by both parties.
Ray |
|
