Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What problem is perhaps not there? I did not understand that sentence. What angles to consider? Perhaps you can be clearer?
I said NO problem for scientists who are in it for their career and paycheck, also for the love of what they do with science, who excel in it, many teach science, science and their religion sit very well together, without any problem of conflict. Is that clearer? I know several of them who chant religious verses with a group on weekends, worship together, and are very devoted. Most of the group are scientists - engineer, pharma, technology, PhDs. They are also very nice, cheerful and friendly people. Did I make it clearer?
Can you clarify No problem with politics and what exactly? How do you fill in the blanks? Poetry? I don't get it.
Sorry. You've lost me...
Has not the problem and/or many problem(s) been fairly well pointed out by me and others in this thread already? If you don't think so, do please have another look.
Again science does not have the tools or methodology to validate religion. It also has no tools to invalidate religion. That is not the business of science, science is.
Perhaps we define religion differently. If all you are talking about is the mythological stories and "history" as religion, then we are far apart. Religion is not that, it is a way of understanding your own inner essence and its relationship to the world. You, LearnMe, is only a mirage, your existence is the only truth, and there is only One Single Existence. This can be validated by your own experience and logic if you have the proper tools.
You never answered my question. Have you read anything by Rupert Spira? I know you said you read a lot. Try it.
I suspect the problem here, or the bridge of understanding we're struggling to cross is this...
What you seem to have in mind when you describe what science does or does not do is not what I have in mind. Or, it may be that what you seem to have in mind when you refer to religion is not the same thing I have in mind when I refer to religion. Religion is all the above. Can be anyway. Not just what you decide to exclusively focus upon for whatever your personal reasons.
Let me try to use an example to demonstrate where and why we seem to be talking about two different things here. The Bible, the holy book for Christians, explains how all was created, how long ago and over the course of so many days. Science HAS been able to invalidate these sorts of religious claims. I could go on and on with similar examples, but I'm sure you know this.
Though you are right this isn't "the business of science" per se, we might better agree that at least part of the "business of science" is to establish the truth of these matters if/when we want to better understand the truth of these matters in a manner most adult reasonable adults can agree upon. Whether it be to better understand nature, or the universe, or our own bodies.
Fair?
No, I have never read anything by Rupert Spira. I mostly read biographies, auto-biographies and non-fiction. I'll give Spira a look next visit to the library...
I'm not Tzaphkiel ("Oh no, far from it" to borrow from Bob Seger). But just in case she doesn't see this request, I did find the statistic you asked about in the Pew report. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion...the-afterlife/
If you scroll down to the major subheading that states "Fewer than half of Americans believe in reincarnation, fate," you will find two tables. The second table contains the survey result in question, and the last para of text in that same section reads:
Having found it, I'd be interested in knowing exactly how the survey question was worded... and how the respondents understood it? For example, I might well answer YES if I thought I was being asked about things that cannot CURRENTLY be explained by science or natural causes, of which there are many. That doesn't mean I think they could never be explained, as more information becomes available. Using an example from the present thread, I would put NDEs in that category of not currently explainable, but with no reason to think that equates to supernatural causes.
Thank you very much...
I didn't think to look under the heading about reincarnation, but sure enough there it is, and it's interesting that Tzap didn't include the full quote as you do in your reply here. Your question is also a good one. I would be curious how an atheist would explain their belief that they believe things happen that cannot be explained by science or natural causes. Is the presumption they believe in supernatural phenomena then? And 34%?
I am with you. I would love to better understand this statistic and what it actually means, or what these atheists are thinking, believing.
I filled out a questionnaire just yesterday that also had some questions that I could answer a few different ways depending on how the question might be clarified, but since there was no one there to clarify the question, I answered one way. If I were able to better understand exactly what the question was asking me, I could very likely answer a different way.
Like you, if asked about things that cannot be explained by science or natural causes, I might not only answer the way you do for the same reason, but I would also like to ask for an example or two.
For example, I don't consider NDEs inexplicable either, so I would not see that as an example of something that cannot be explained by science. Or by other than science.
"An even larger majority of Americans (83%) believe things happen that cannot be explained by science or natural causes. Atheists are again a notable exception, with only a third (34%) saying they believe things happen that cannot be explained by science or natural causes." is a little more than halfway down the third page of the article, right below a chart.
Thanks to you too, and I don't think there is much doubt "mankind has shifted" away from religion to figure things out. Now science has become better able to help us understand what before we did not understand. Lots of things of course, but the typical religious person likes to focus on what science can't do for somewhat obvious reasons.
So far science has not been able to help us understand why we're all here for example. There may come a day when science can help us understand how we got here however. Knowing this would probably offer some significant clues as to why we are here too. Either way, seems best we just take advantage if not promote what science can do for us along these lines and to whatever extent someone wants to rely on religion or unscientific explanations instead, that's up to them of courses. If faith or whatever else is as they choose instead, they are certainly not alone.
My impression was that in speaking of darkness he was not talking about physical darkness, but what I will call 'emotional darkness'. Only they can see it because they are special .
Indeed. The chief likes to use metaphors that tend to confuse these issues more than just a little bit. Much like the Bible, we're called upon to understand the metaphors rather than read or take the explanations literally. As I too tried to address before. What are "matters of the heart" is a very different subject from what the heart is in physical form as the organ that pumps our blood throughout our body.
Confuse and/or intermix the metaphors with the actual literal explanations about what's going on around us (or in us) and you are basically "mixing apples with oranges" which can get a little frustrating when trying to distill the actual truth of these matters. When trying to distinguish fact and reality (apples) from what is not fact or reality (oranges).
I suspect the problem here, or the bridge of understanding we're struggling to cross is this...
What you seem to have in mind when you describe what science does or does not do is not what I have in mind. Or, it may be that what you seem to have in mind when you refer to religion is not the same thing I have in mind when I refer to religion. Religion is all the above, not just what you decide to focus upon for whatever your personal reasons.
Let me try to use an example to demonstrate where and why we seem to be talking about two different things here. The Bible, the holy book for Christians, explains how all was created, how long ago and over the course of so many days. Science HAS been able to invalidate these sorts of religious claims. I could go on and on with similar examples, but I'm sure you know this.
Though you are right this isn't "the business of science" per se, we might better agree that at least part of the "business of science" is to establish the truth of these matters if/when we want to better understand the truth of these matters in a manner most adult reasonable adults can agree upon. Whether it be to better understand nature, or the universe, or our own bodies.
Fair?
No, I have never read anything by Rupert Spira. I mostly read biographies, auto-biographies and non-fiction. I'll give Spira a look next visit to the library...
I think we have finally crossed that bridge. Thank you for your response.
The Bible can be read many different ways, as can almost any written word. Once the word is out there the author is dead, it is the reader who brings his intellect, awareness, his experiences to those words, no matter what the author intended. This is one of things one understands in creative writing.
In many ways religious texts are like creative writing. The writer struggles to express all that he wants say and feels by manipulating words. Some do it well and others poorly. Spirituality is to be experienced AND understood. Words alone are inadequate, it requires the engagement of the reader. And readers bring all kinds of capacities to the work.
The same piece of writing could inspire one to see what he was blind to so far, and another can only see the words.
Reading is a two way street.
Science does not deal with metaphors and similes. Only the mind can do that. Metaphors are complex, to make and to understand. So to rely on science to read a spiritual work is like using a hammer to peel an orange.
Why? Religious scientists have no problem between science and religion. Religious non-scientists have no problem with science. The Religious who see there is Only God have no problem with science because science is IN God.
There are atheists who see problems with science. There are non-atheist and non-relgious who see problems with science.
So what?
I wonder if we might be able to come up with other examples that seem similarly contradictory...
For example, are there astronomers who are also astrologists?
Has not the problem and/or many problem(s) been fairly well pointed out by me and others in this thread already? If you don't think so, do please have another look.
there is no problem with religion and science.
the vast majority of people have no problem with this.
the problem is the cognitive distortion that is dichotomous thinking.
Or with improper understanding of the purpose of religion. The purpose of religion is to know one’s true nature and essence, and to know what one is not, and understan one’s identity with God which is pure existence, all existence, all the time and across all space.
Granted this is not discussed here in these forum, because it is not easy to grasp without the proper tools.
Are you of the impression the purpose of religion is universally agreed upon by all religious and/or non-religious people?
For example, what do you think Joseph Smith might have said was the purpose of the religion he started and promoted? Or the Buddha. Or their followers. Just for starters...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But just in case she doesn't see this request, I did find the statistic you asked about in the Pew report. 
.