Out of body religious experiences

[TomOfSweden]

How do you know I'm lying to myself? You sound like one of those commercials...4 out of 5 dentists recommend Dentyne sugarless gum....lol Scientists are not infallible. They're constantly changing their theories. They tell us something is bad for us and that we should avoid it. A few years later, they tell us that is isn't as bad as they first thought, and, in fact, there really was no danger. How foolish did everyone feel who had believed the earth is flat only to discover that it's round? I think people are drawn to religion because in a changing world their Bible, Koran, etc., remains the same.

WHAT?!?!? The fact that scientists change their theories all the time should add to their credibility, not retract from it. The fact that the world in the religious texts doesn't change, doesn't that indicate that they aren't open to new information and updates?

Off-course scientists aren't infallible. anybody claiming they are should be avoided like the plauge, (like the pope for instance hint hint)

[Flaming_Redhead]

WHAT?!?!? The fact that scientists change their theories all the time should add to their credibility, not retract from it. The fact that the world in the religious texts doesn't change, doesn't that indicate that they aren't open to new information and updates?

Off-course scientists aren't infallible. anybody claiming they are should be avoided like the plauge, (like the pope for instance hint hint)

People want something to believe in, and they don't want that something to be constantly changing. People like going to church and singing the same old hymns because it's familiar. It's a type of sanctuary from their hectic lives. They want God to be the same no matter what else is going on.

*smiles* The pope? Is he somebody special?

*wanders off muttering something about the whore of Babylon*

[TomOfSweden]

People want something to believe in, and they don't want that something to be constantly changing. People like going to church and singing the same old hymns because it's familiar. It's a type of sanctuary from their hectic lives. They want God to be the same no matter what else is going on.

*smiles* The pope? Is he somebody special?

*wanders off muttering something about the whore of Babylon*

This is two separate issues. One is that we want ever constant traditions and recognisable social patterns. I agree here. The other is just wishful thinking. We all know that the world is rarely the way we want it. Assuming it is because of lack of evidence either way is....children's logic.

[Guest 91108]

WHAT?!?!? The fact that scientists change their theories all the time should add to their credibility, not retract from it. The fact that the world in the religious texts doesn't change, doesn't that indicate that they aren't open to new information and updates? ...

I think the fact that scientific theories change is what makes them so shakey to start with. there is no fact in a theory. if it changes then the known "facts" were false and at best not complete. that "shakiness" is the same thing you get when someone spews out words with out having never given those words any thought.. and noone understands them .. it's not communication because they grunted....
science is just as fallible as faith.
In time .. they all can be shaken.

[Sir_G]

WHAT?!?!? The fact that scientists change their theories all the time should add to their credibility, not retract from it. The fact that the world in the religious texts doesn't change, doesn't that indicate that they aren't open to new information and updates?

Off-course scientists aren't infallible. anybody claiming they are should be avoided like the plauge, (like the pope for instance hint hint)

This is an interesting point you raise Tom, however, if I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone advocating science as their basis for life, and what they believe in I'd be a very rich man. They claim science is the answer to all the worlds problems. Some are very dogmatic, others almost fanatical about their belief in the science "GOD".

Here's a brief definition of religion:

Religion has been defined in a wide variety of ways. Most definitions attempt to find a balance somewhere between overly sharp definition and meaningless generalities. Some sources have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions while others have emphasized experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors.

Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”[4] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions. (Tom I note you have a Degree in Logic. Could it be that your primary world view is based on logic ie. it's your religion? And therefore you struggle with the idea of Faith etc. I know you are a Star Trek fan. Even the Vulcan's grudgingly accept that humans whilst highly illogical do have something going for them with their passions, beliefs, and emotions.)

There is no difference in believing that science has the answers than believing in, as you put it, some supernatural force. Scientists are just as fanatical as the next person. I've seen them turning blue in the face over a THEORY. A proven theory - no, just a theory. Einstein's theory of relativity is still that, a theory. We accept it as fact though today because string theory hasn't got enough disciples yet. No doubt the person who can give the most convincing argument there will become the new scientific messiah of this millenium. Religious texts may not change but they way they are interpreted certainly does.

(My Scientific God has just been shattered I just read that Einsteins theory of relativity is obsolete.) A lot of what science comes up with these days are THEORIES but we blindly say "OK I'll go along with that..." because they are scientists. Yet I can come up with a theory and be laughed out of my own house. What's the difference. Do numbers, degrees, and fellowships make them anymore or less credible than Saint Maria Francis Qui Gon Kenobi?

I think the bottom line is that we live in a changing world. Both science and religious beliefs will change and evolve whether we like it or not. One of my favourite quotes comes from the Matrix where Morpheus is on the mat before Commander Loch over his religious beliefs:

Loch: Dammit Morpheus not everyone believes what you do!

Morpheus: My beliefs do not require them to.

My goodness I'm talking around in circles I think I just disappeared up my own bum. It's ok though the string theory is hanging out I'll just pull on that and I'll be right.

Mung beans mortals!

G

[TomOfSweden]

This is an interesting point you raise Tom, however, if I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone advocating science as their basis for life, and what they believe in I'd be a very rich man. They claim science is the answer to all the worlds problems. Some are very dogmatic, others almost fanatical about their belief in the science "GOD".

Einstein was proved wrong a long time ago. Actually, he tried to work around the problems of his theories even before he'd published them.

I don't equate being religious with believing in anything supernatural at all. To me it's just a common set of rituals and values. Nothing wrong with that. I think it's very healthy. People who believe in the "super-natural" I call "super-naturalists".

[tessa]

My goodness I'm talking around in circles I think I just disappeared up my own bum. It's ok though the string theory is hanging out I'll just pull on that and I'll be right.

Mung beans mortals!

G

I appreciated all of your post, Sir G, but this part- priceless.

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
Here's a serious question. I've made an assumption of people who go to Church. I've made an assumption that they reject other religions. I've made an assumption that Christians deny that the Satanists may be right. Is that the case?

You seriously asked and I seriously answered. Then you replied with...

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
So basically you call yourself belonging to a religion without denying that it could all be bullshit?

Due to the phrasing, I'm not sure I correctly comprehend what you are asking here, so I will refrain from answering this question from you. However, I do know that I wouldn't include in my reply the comparison of anything with "bullshit", as I'm pretty sure it would be going against Forum rules to do so.

Originally by TomOfSweden
If we're to have a theological discussion, we need something to work with, don't we? Something we know is true.

What is true? How do we know it's true? Because it's been proven in a scientific manner? Anything can be "proven" scientifically given the right (wrong?) conditions. Because we see it with our own two eyes? Seeing is most definitively not believing. Ask the eye-witnesses to a crime what the bad guy was wearing and you'll get as many different answers as there are colors in the rainbow. Because our faith allows us to believe in it? Well, that's not one you particularly care to ponder, so I move on. Because it's what we perceive as true? Self-peception of what's true is as close as we mortals will get to it, in my opinion.

Or perhaps what's "true" is spoken as such because someone with too many letters after their name calls it a "proven theory"- what an oxymoron. Again, in my opinion.

Speaking of those type morons (will she, won't she?...will she, won't she?), here's another one for you from Tennyson's Idylls of the King:

"And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true."

It's a thought.

[TomOfSweden]

What is true? How do we know it's true? Because it's been proven in a scientific manner? Anything can be "proven" scientifically given the right (wrong?) conditions. Because we see it with our own two eyes? Seeing is most definitively not believing. Ask the eye-witnesses to a crime what the bad guy was wearing and you'll get as many different answers as there are colors in the rainbow. Because our faith allows us to believe in it? Well, that's not one you particularly care to ponder, so I move on. Because it's what we perceive as true? Self-peception of what's true is as close as we mortals will get to it, in my opinion.

Or perhaps what's "true" is spoken as such because someone with too many letters after their name calls it a "proven theory"- what an oxymoron. Again, in my opinion.

Speaking of those type morons (will she, won't she?...will she, won't she?), here's another one for you from Tennyson's Idylls of the King:

"And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true."

It's a thought.

So I finally had a quite moment to sit and ponder this thread. I'm sorry my answers have been a bit rushed here. I really shouldn't have even tried coming here earlier this week, but the library is such a addictive place.

Ok, truth. All methods of finding the truth aren't equally as good. When people say that science can't find all the answers and that just because nobody can fit god into a beaker doesn't invalidate it.

A major problem in science is that you often don't know what you're looking for until you've allready found it. People seldom find what they hoped they would. And often they think they find it and then 150 years later somebody turns the model the right way up. As they did with the now extinct creature Hallicinogensis.

Isn't the plain and painful truth is that we have no better method than science? We can't trust our senses or common sense. We can't trust our feelings either.

A problem that religious research faces is off-course that it's impossible for anybody to verify. So the Bible says that god and the angels communicates with to people. What is that based on? How do we know that the people who had these visions weren't just plain crazy or hallucinated? What I don't understand is under these circumstances anybody can take the leap of faith? I can understand if somebody wonders about freaky shit they've seen and can't explain. But that's all it is. Things that can't be explained. To extrapolate from this the extremely complex system of belief that Christianity is, is extremely far fetched.

I understand that we like seeing meaning in things happening. We all have the compulsion to create narratives for everything happening around us. So we like to be able to explain things. But that doesn't mean we really can.

If I hear my now dead grandmothers voice calling out to me in my head and telling me stuff I can from that draw very little conclusions This has actually happened to me.

It may indicate that somehow her spirit survived and is floating around and is trying to tell me things. Maybe. It may also be that she's become an angel and is communicating with me from heaven. Maybe. It may also be that she was reincarnated as a fly on the wall and because of our close connection she can somehow communicate with me. Maybe. She may have entered a dimensional rift and can speak to me through a rip in the space time continuum. Maybe. It may not be a supernatural occurrence at all. Maybe.

There really is no point for me to try to come up with my own scientific theory for how this happend since I'm not half as good at neuro science or psychology to come up with an explanation. I haven't asked any religious authority figure about it, but I doubt they could say anything convincing. How did they come to their insights? How do they know that what they're saying is the truth? My point is that I don't see any fault in admitting that I don't know. And I'm also totally open to the fact that it could be a third possibility, and whole paradigm of thought that hasn't sprung into existence yet.

The major problem with all the religions is that there's really no reason to believe any of their theories. And if there's no reason to adapt a theory then why do it? If it's only guesswork then why? Why have faith in something when it is blind faith?

[tessa]

How do they know that what they're saying is the truth?

They don't. It's called faith. And you have it just like I do, Tom. It's why you got married. Faith, hope and love...

My point is that I don't see any fault in admitting that I don't know. And I'm also totally open to the fact that it could be a third possibility, and whole paradigm of thought that hasn't sprung into existence yet.

And this is why I read what you have to say and learn something from it. And it's why I respect you a pretty good little bit, Mr. Tom.

Christianity has so many flaws, I won't touch that part.

Add the word "organized" in front of that (as Wolfscout did), and I'm in complete agreement. But one's own personal spirituality, yeah, that's where one needs to look for truth. Way to say that, Wolfie.

Isn't interesting that the greats of science and religion should think so alike?

Alex Bragi is brilliant!...she said for the umpteenth time. I should just make a sign...walk around with it and flash it as necessary.

Fabulous discussion/debate, people. Thanks for the learning!

tessa

ps. Still laughing over Sir G's "string theory".

[TomOfSweden]

They don't. It's called faith. And you have it just like I do, Tom. It's why you got married. Faith, hope and love...

Isn't that just sweeping the problem under the carpet. How can it make any sense to build a case for and against something. Weigh them together. Not being able to reach a conclusion, (who can?) and then pick one based on faith? That's not faith, that's willful self delusion.

[tessa]

Isn't that just sweeping the problem under the carpet. How can it make any sense to build a case for and against something. Weigh them together. Not being able to reach a conclusion, (who can?) and then pick one based on faith? That's not faith, that's willful self delusion.

Po-TA-to = Po-TAH-to.

Has everything really been said and discussed here?

Nope. I don't think so. Could it ever?