Establishing an ethical relationship between Science and Religion.

[Eclogite]

MagnetMan, your last post is extremely offensive. It is filled with presumptions about my beliefs, most of which are wrong. I see no point in continuing a discussion with someone who oozes arrogance from every pore.

 

Your definition of religion, as delivered, is significantly different from any standard definition of religion and as such is bizarre. Repeated denial of this by yourself will not alter that. You are of course free to use any definition you wish, but my original admonition stands: if you wish to use such a non-standard definition it would be appropriate to lay it out at the begining of the discussion and not part way through.

 

I just reread your post for a third time, hoping to find some positive note on which to end. It merely strengthened my distaste for what you have written. The only way I can envisage you arriving at such a twisted, inaccurate perception of my beliefs is if you are so wrapped up in your own little world that nothing any of us are saying to you penetrates its dark interior. That is your loss.

[ughaibu]

I think I've now understood Questor's position.

The universe is the manifestation of a primal intelligence, as such, that intelligence is now invested in and spread throughout the universe, it is a dynamic entity, not constant and unchanging. Human beings are just one aspect of this manifestation, as are quantum effects, viral mutations, apoptosis, etc, etc. The manifestation is one of all and only natural laws, it has no bias beyond itself, no supernatural effects, angels, demons, heaven or hell, it performs no miracles and doesn't respond to prayers or rituals. Questor arrived at this position by considering otherwise unexplained observations, and while I still dont agree that there is any evidence, I can see more clearly why he would find these observations suggestive, after all, the known universe is a construct of human perception and thinking, intelligence, one might say. Moreover, Questor holds this view as his presently prefered explanation but is open to arguments or observations that will sway him to a different position. If I've understood this correctly, I can see what he means about the creative intelligence not being a god and about his position not being a religious one.

[MagnetMan]

. The only way I can envisage you arriving at such a twisted, inaccurate perception of my beliefs is if you are so wrapped up in your own little world that nothing any of us are saying to you penetrates its dark interior. That is your loss.

Eclogite you have me completelu confused. If you are a metaphysician my post cannot offend you. If you are scientist, I am only re-stating that general position, and that too should not and was not meant to be offensive If you are neither of these two, what is your religion and how have I offended it?

 

As to Questor's enquiry about defining the Creator.Humans are a super-natural expression of Divine Creation. It is Divine because it is uniformly Good and Ordered. The Creator is consciously intelligent because we are living expressions of that consciousness and are evolving towards ever-highers states of God-Consciousness. At the moment all views of the Absolute remain immature and poorly formed. All discusion is pseudo-intellectual for we barely know what we are talking about. While this mystery remains, we are free to choose to believe what we want and not fear that we will fry in hell for denying anythging. All will arrive at the ultimate Truth inevitably - our struggle against gravity and evolutionary forces will ensure that.

 

It all boils down to personal choice - what makes one feel most dynamic about life. If I was an odds maker, all my money would be on those who choose to believe in God. If I put my monrey on an atheist, I stand to loose all of it. If he is right, I will not exist to collect my winnings. If he is wrong, I loose my bet anyway. So it is lose/lose. I have at least a 50% chance of winning if I back a theist. If he is worng too bad. If he is right, I am in the money and I also win eternal life. So its win/win.

[questor]

Ugh, by God YOU'VE GOT IT!!! after all this time, somone who finally has a handle on it. i've never said i know the answer, merely that my senses and obvious evidence point to intelligent creation. i'm ready to hear reasons why this could not be so. something is responsible for this whole ball of wax and something is holding it together. if some one has a better explanation of that something, let's hear it.

[MagnetMan]

Ugh, by God YOU'VE GOT IT!!! after all this time, somone who finally has a handle on it. i've never said i know the answer, merely that my senses and obvious evidence point to intelligent creation. i'm ready to hear reasons why this could not be so. something is responsible for this whole ball of wax and something is holding it together. if some one has a better explanation of that something, let's hear it.

What is holding it together is called LOVE. It has irresistable attraction, and even the meanest among us feel its infinite eternal pull. Hate is the replusive dynamic and even that yearns for LOVE.

[Racoon]

What is holding it together is called LOVE.

 

Love is hard to prove scientifically.

 

But nevertheless, It make life worth living.

and suffering for! :)

 

Science helps you along the voyage we call "existence"

 

:shrug: :confused:

[questor]

Mag M, since you are tuned in to the metaphysical would you give a little explanation of how you view the connection between the universe, life, humankind, good and evil?

[Eclogite]

MM, before I invest (or was that waste) anymore time please give me your definition of metaphysics.

 

Here are the inaccurate statements based on unwarranted presumption made by you about me. My comments are in red:

1.Your religion is physics [which it is not]..

2. ..you practise religiously.[which I do not.]

3. Your religion denies the metaphsyical implications of atomic radiation that allows you to experience consciousness. [My religion has no opinion on this matter.]

4.My God is infinite. Your God is finite. [I have no idea what dimension or scale my God has.]

5. My time span is eternal. Yours lasts three score and ten. [Presumptuousness can often hold the appearance of blatant rudeness.]

6. Your universe is bounded and therefore ultimately boring [Says who? You? You don't appear to know my Universe at all.]

7. ... and eventually gets incinerated or swallowed up in a black hole. [Perhaps you've been reading too many popular science works.]

8. Mine is unbounded and eternaly interesting. [You imply mine is not. I haven't been bored by it yet.]

9.You believe that when you are dead, that is the end of you. [There you go with your presumptions again.]

10. You have your choice and you have chosen to limit yourself.[And again.]

11. I had that same view once and I abandiooned it for something unlimited and more meaningful. [Patronising and offensive.]

12. I have been in your shoes ...[No you have not.]

13. ...and know as much about science as the average man. [As little as that! I shall keep that in mind during our future discussion.]

14. Unless you have had mystical contact, you can have no idea of what i am talking about or what other domension of reality I am busy exploring. It is far from bizarre. [The internal contradiction is inherently humourous.]

[MagnetMan]

Mag M, since you are tuned in to the metaphysical would you give a little explanation of how you view the connection between the universe, life, humankind, good and evil?

 

Let us say God was fully self-realized in a universe previous to this one. His cycle ends and He is compressed into a singularity. Then we have the Big Bang and He is reborn and can no loger remember His previous self. He falls from Grace. An organic evolution begins. He rediscovers Himself via human consciousness and returns to Grace.

 

This diagram illustrates my bird's-eye view

 

[Boerseun]

Let us say God was fully self-realized in a universe previous to this one. His cycle ends and He is compressed into a singularity. Then we have the Big Bang and He is reborn and can no loger remember His previous self. He falls from Grace. An organic evolution begins. He rediscovers Himself via human consciousness and returns to Grace.

So what you're saying is that God is a Galactic Hindu, being reincarnated every few billion-odd years, but He's stuffing up something along the way because He never quite makes it to Nirvana.

 

Besides that, He's obviously not omniscient, else He would've remembered His previous 'life'. Obviously not omnipotent either, because if He was omnipotent, He'll work things so that He won't die every time things really start to get interesting. Unless, of course, He does so intentionally - which will come down to suicide. And this being a cycle that continuously repeats itself, it seems that God is a serial suicide case.

 

Your 'birds eye-view' of 'psyche-genetics' is impressive, but it seems to me your sole reason for participating here at Hypo is just to pimp your book. I still don't understand how you arrived at the name, though. It sounds kinda cute, but is utterly meaningless in the context you're applying it when the actual meaning of the words 'psyche' and 'genetics' are taken into account.

 

'The sound of one hand clapping' as a signature describing 'psyche-genetics' is actually quite apt, in my honest opinion.

[MagnetMan]

So what you're saying is that God is a Galactic Hindu, being reincarnated every few billion-odd years, but He's stuffing up something along the way because He never quite makes it to Nirvana.

I think He makes it every time - and each time the ecstatic orgasm is higher than previously.

As to Him not remembering his previous life, everybody knows that realization has no dynamic unless it is preceeded by ignorance. That is why you and are also born without previous memory

 

Your 'birds eye-view' of 'psyche-genetics' is impressive, but it seems to me your sole reason for participating here at Hypo is just to pimp your book.

No not my sole reason. As the title of this thread states, I am primarly concerned with the disrespectful relationship between science and religion. I believe it is a major obstacle in human relations - which includes the diivide between Church and State - which is resulting in a general decay of moral behavior - not only among politicians and special interst groups, but also among school children who are cheating in increasing numbers at examinations.

 

My second reason is that I have eight children and I am concerned about the fact that they will spend their whole lives in the 21st Century and that science continues to steadily erode our Faith in God.

I also feel the same about domatic religionists, who are misrepresenting the universal Nature of God - which includes all that science has to offer.

 

My book was written as an attempt to bridge the widening gap between the disagreements of science and religion. Your questioning my integrity underlines the the type of disrespect I am trying to address. If you claim to be a scientist I am automatically expected to respect both your personal honor as well as the altruistic intent that underlies the scientific discipline you claim to have mastered. Yet when i claim to be a metaphsyician, you automatically assume I am charleton with ulterior motives, and feel quite free to insult my personal honor as well as the Godlly precepts I am trying to uphold and obey. When you stand back from it, that attitude is not only disgraceful, it demeans both of us - and taken in its broader context, demans human relations in general. There are scoundrels in both science and religion who take people for their money - but one cannot tar all with the same brush.

 

One of he foundations of the human intellectual development is based on the introduction of Holy Scriptures. It was in learning how to read, in how to construct sylables into words and words into grammatical sentences, that mankind first developed an intellectual appreciation for scientific exactitude. If it was not for tens of thousands of pius priests who underwent all manner of trials amnd tribulations in order to bring the Holy Word to every isolated corner of the world and teach callow youths how to read, the world of science would never have happened. For that alone, science owes reverence, not only to Religion, but to its ministers as well - good and bad alike.

 

I still don't understand how you arrived at the name, though. It sounds kinda cute, but is utterly meaningless in the context you're applying it when the actual meaning of the words 'psyche' and 'genetics' are taken into account.'The sound of one hand clapping' as a signature describing 'psyche-genetics' is actually quite apt, in my honest opinion.

 

Psyche is the Goddess of Soul. Genetics is the science of heredity.

My book intergrates soul with body and states that without soul, intellect can only be a pseudo expression of reality no matter how much scientific data it has memorized and analyzed - without soul, one cannot experience the warmth and compassion of Grace.

 

When the world is filled with graceful scientists, Utopia will be within reach.