The truth does not win; the truth is just what is left when everything else is wasted
Quote of the day
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes
NavigationOur writers |
 |
Is science a religion?Posts: Joined: 2004-08-17
In the philosophy of Frank Herbert in Dune, it emerges the concept that man is essentially a religious creature.
We can deconstruct this claim to the conclusion that man likes to have things simplified and explained, or in one word: absolutes. If one has no explanation to a certain thing, then we will fear it. We wouldn't like to fear the universe, do we?
Today many people appear to live without religion, but this is because science has replaced the role of religions in explaining things. While it is a novel approach, a good number of people don't receive the necessary formation to evaluate the correctness of the scientific explanations provided to them. Has such I might consider their acceptance has a matter of faith; they believe what others tell them, because the "others" are scientists. If you replace the word "scientists" by the word "priests", the outcome would be similar.
There is of course a difference. While the priests don't change often their body of knowledge, the scientists do.
(This contribution was originally in another forum. But since it was a bit of topic, I decided to post it here with a new thread so that we could discuss the subject.)
Submitted on Sat, 2004-12-04 17:27
Re: Is science a religion?
No, No, and no!
Religion relies on blind acceptance of a story told - science is dedicated to re-writing the story everytime new information comes to light.
Science welcomes, nay craves, peer review and criticism to drive it forward (not to hold things back).
It is easy to draw comparison between high priests and scientists, because in both cases they appear to have knowledge that the masses don't, and the knowledge to a degree is often taken on faith. The big difference with scientific knowledge is that it doesn't HAVE to be taken on faith - it can be tested, rejected, modified or replaced, and the process is endless.
High priests often got their power from some form of scientific knowledge - where it all went wrong is that they clung on to their power by excluding others from the truth.
They could not be more different - religion is ignorance institutionalised, science is the search for truth institutionalised. PLEASE don't draw any more comparisons, it is only fodder to the regressionists.
Submitted on Sat, 2004-12-04 18:41
reply Re: Is science a religion?
Paul--
I'm a bit reluctant to be part of this discussion, since I can barely keep up with the threads I'm already on. But since Edouardo invited me to take a look, I thought I might as well weigh in.
"They could not be more different - religion is ignorance institutionalised, science is the search for truth institutionalised. PLEASE don't draw any more comparisons, it is only fodder to the regressionists."
To my way of thinking, the impulse to say "us--good; them--bad" is essentially theological. Or rather (since that gives theology an unfairly bad name) it's a form of primary narcissism that all sorts of civilizing processes have to work hard to correct, including those that advise us to love our neighbors. (an admittedly unscientific attitude, since my neighbors, at least, are eminently unlovable)
I find it helpful, in discussions like these, to try to locate in myself the attitudes that I find most alien or disturbing, to see whether I could conceivably share certain ways of thinking or believing. So, rather than just labeling "religion" as "institutionalised ignorance" (which, as a label, keeps me from having to know anything further about it), I try to ask--what is it that the so-called religious think, feel and do that might be similar to my own experiences?
William James, whom I alluded to in the other thread, was no mean scientist himself. As a pragmatist, he defined truth as "the good in the way of belief," --a formula that has been widely misunderstood. Rather than discrediting religious experiences a priori, he asked what believers got out of those experiences they identified as religious, and what sorts of actions it led them to. If they seemed happier, more generous, more understanding or more committed to social justice, for instance, he thought there was probably something worth believing there.
For many people, involvement in science can be exhilarating and a source of wonder and generosity. For others, it reinforces tendencies to snobbery and self-importance, as well as propensities to attack others as somehow primitive or ignorant. Such attitudes can be found on both sides of the science/religion divide. The religious will often call them "sins," and struggle against them. I'm not sure what the scientific call them.
Submitted on Mon, 2004-12-06 02:05
reply Re: Is science a religion?
Paul Wilson,
You said,
" Religion relies on blind acceptance of a story told - science is dedicated to re-writing the story everytime new information comes to light. "
That is not exactly true. First, religions tend to change with time (more slowly then science); the holly books tend to be rewritten, old languages forgotten and oral tradition distorted. It is so common that nowadays the Catholics ask for reform to adapt the Church to the times.
The main difference is why religions change, usually is because the Clerics whish to end a theological division, to face a threat, or to stop the outflow of believers.
And you are right about science, it does tend to rewrite the story according to new information, and I did say that scientists where able to change their body of knowledge.
However, according to the same scientific principals you call, the majority of people should not accept what science tells them, because they haven't got the knowledge or tools to "test, reject, modify or replace" the knowledge presented to them.
And that is my claim, not than science IS religion or resembles religion, but that the majority of people treat it like religion.
As for religion being the "ignorance institutionalised", I do not I agree with you. Religion deals with matters not of this world, and until devise an experiment that unequivocally proves the inexistence of anything other then this world, you cannot claim (scientifically) that it does not exist.
You cannot even classify religions based on the explanation they give to the worldly things, because the exactness of the original message is so difficult to ascertain today has the quantum theory would be if explained to a 14th century person.
Submitted on Sat, 2004-12-04 22:05
reply Re: Is science a religion?
"The main difference is why religions change, usually is because the Clerics whish to end a theological division, to face a threat, or to stop the outflow of believers."
This is part of the story, but the main reason they have to change is to keep up with scientific progress, educational levels and increasing expectations of freedom. They have to change because their power base is under threat, but they only change reluctantly.
The scientific method (namely positivism) never assumes that a theory is correct, only that on current evidence it doesn't need modifying or replacing. The theory is accepted as a basis for action on the balance of probabilities, which is all man can ever do. Religion on the other hand offers no evidence, brooks no testing, and just expects blind (i.e. ignorant) faith.
"And that is my claim, not than science IS religion or resembles religion, but that the majority of people treat it like religion."
It can appear like this (we can't all be specialists) but they expect specialists to constantly question and expose on their behalf. They would balk at being told that wasn't permissible.
"As for religion being the "ignorance institutionalised", I do not I agree with you. Religion deals with matters not of this world, and until devise an experiment that unequivocally proves the inexistence of anything other then this world, you cannot claim (scientifically) that it does not exist.
You cannot even classify religions based on the explanation they give to the worldly things, because the exactness of the original message is so difficult to ascertain today has the quantum theory would be if explained to a 14th century person."
You seem to be claiming that we should just accept "the word" just because we haven't yet got the skills to either prove it or disprove it! Anybody could claim this position for any crackpot theory. Not being able to prove that something does not exist, is not the same as being able to make a case for it's existence - with no evidence no intelligent person should be asked to accept it.
The do so because in Religion ignorance is made a virtue and inevitability - how convenient for those wishing to subdue troublesome thinkers and maintain power.
"Do not question, just have faith."
"To doubt the word of your God is to be a heretic."
Like I said, institutionalised ignorance.
Submitted on Sun, 2004-12-05 23:19
reply Re: Is science a religion?
Hobbes,
Right to the point.
It is not the path that is to blame for the actions of the men who walk on it.
What we are missing in this world is more of that philosophy of yours.
Paul Wilson,
You said,
"[...] the main reason they have to change is to keep up with scientific progress, educational levels and increasing expectations of freedom. They have to change because their power base is under threat, but they only change reluctantly."
As I said, to face a threat.
"[About the majority of people treating science like a religion] It can appear like this (we can't all be specialists) but they expect specialists to constantly question and expose on their behalf."
Yes they do, and people blindly accept the specialist's answers. How does that differentiates from "[...] just expecting blind (i.e. ignorant) faith". If we cannot be all specialists why do we accept what we cannot experiment, test, evaluate or even understand? And don't say that we can study the subject to do all that. Nobody could study everything, or as you say "we can't all be specialists".
The question is, how should one deal with scientific facts that it cannot weigh? By your own words:
"You seem to be claiming that we should just accept "the word" just because we haven't yet got the skills to either prove it or disprove it!"
You are right, let us not accept what we cannot prove or disprove. Be that science or religion.
The heart of everything is asking: why do we need to accept or deny things? Is it our brain so limited that it cannot store several interpretations of the same thing? Is it so difficult to claim "I don't know, but there are these theories..." Why do we need to label things right or wrong?
Is it not one of the scientific method directives that every knowledge is just a theory and until you can prove it to be valid or invalid you cannot state anything?
Submitted on Mon, 2004-12-06 04:18
reply Re: Is science a religion?
Eduardo,
You said: -
"You are right, let us not accept what we cannot prove or disprove. Be that science or religion."
So let us accept nothing, do nothing and just talk until dawn.
When you walk out of a 100 storey building, you don't generally walk out of the 100th floor window, you take the lift or stairs and then out the front door. Why?
Because, on the balance of probabilities supported by demonstrated evidence you will probably die. Not because somebody several hundred years ago before 100 storey buildings were commonplace, said that the front door was better. We make these judgements every second of our lives, and they are a form of faith based on instinct and low-level mental probability evaluation (the animal side), modified by remembered experience (the bit humans are a bit better at).
We have to evaluate the validity of the pronouncements from prophets, philosophers, politicians and scientists all the time, and learned experience is informing (some of) us which ones to give the most weight to, while listening to all. You can take the 100th floor window if you want - I will continue to take the stairs, thank you...
"Is it not one of the scientific method directives that every knowledge is just a theory and until you can prove it to be valid or invalid you cannot state anything?"
No. Rather, a theory only stands until it is disproved, modified or replaced by one that fits the evidence better. In the meantime, where the measured evidence confirms the theory, behave accordingly - because the balance of probabilities suggests a positive outcome.
No theory is ever right - it is just the best so far.
Submitted on Tue, 2004-12-07 20:58
reply Re: Is science a religion?
Paul,
When you say:
"No theory is ever right - it is just the best so far."
There is little difference from my statement:
"[...]every knowledge is just a theory and until you can prove it to be valid or invalid you cannot state anything"
You can only say a theory is the best, never right. Or in other words: it is just a theory. But you certainly will not state if it is a good one or a bad one, right or wrong, without data.
Lets look at another of your comments:
I said: "You are right, let us not accept what we cannot prove or disprove. Be that science or religion."
You reply: "So let us accept nothing, do nothing and just talk until dawn."
Certainly these statements are not directly related. First, my comment (if you care to remember) is exactly your words from the previous post. I just add "Be that science or religion".
The "accept nothing" part seam healthy enough, since it leaves one with an open mind, and as I said we have a big enough brain to store several theories.
But the "do nothing" part is not healthy, and it appears to me that you are claiming that one needs to accept or deny things to act.
I can note that if you accept a wrong thing or deny the right thing, you will still be able to act and not necessarily wrong. I can further state, that even if you accept right things your actions can still result amiss. Because your mental configuration might influence your intents and performance, but cannot fully predict or control the outcome. You don't need to have a rigid notion of things to act, and it is healthier to have a flexible one.
Under your example of the 100th floor that is perfectly obvious.
If one person is convinced by a cult that it is possible to jump from the 100th floor, and it jumps to its death, it is obvious that it made the wrong decision. However, with that action, the remaining persons from that cult will certainly be convinced that it is not true. And while they have a closed mind (they accept the cults teachings and deny the notion that gravity works all the time at the hearth surface), and you could not convince them by arguing, it is certainly probable that they will be influenced by that death. So, that persons sacrifice turns out to be a good thing to many people.
Under that example you can see that it would be more healthier if those persons from the cult had not accepted the teachings they had. Once they accepted them as true, their judgment was hindered.
On the other hand, the denial of new knowledge will hardly take us anywhere. To that it will certainly be correct to state: "let us accept nothing, do nothing and just talk until dawn."
So, if it turns out that the metaphysical reality exists, and you had denied its existence by lack of evidence, what would be your knowledge about it?
It's the same things as disregarding the Einstein theory of the Cosmological Constant by principle, and suddenly it receives scientifically proof. One would be in the uncomfortable position of ignoring the theory. And if everybody would disregard that theory, it would never get that scientific proof.
The fact is that we study scientific theories that where proven wrong, just because those theories where proposed somewhere and they constitute knowledge. Sometimes those theories receive a different approach and turn out to be accepted again.
So, why not do the same regarding religious teachings?
Submitted on Wed, 2004-12-08 02:39
reply Re: Is science a religion?
Eduardo,
You missed my sarcasm..!
"So, why not do the same regarding religious teachings?"
Because even the most adventurous scientific theories are presented with clear reasoning for everyone to see. Also, they do not have to be accepted and there is no sanction if they are not. Next, they will be subject to rigorous scrutiny and modified, replaced or scrapped if new evidence doesn't support them (I thought we had done this...) Further, no-one is claiming they are "right", but if experimentation supports them they can be used to guide action (not support a whole worldview to the exclusion of all others.)
In contrast, religious doctrines are typically presented with no reasoned argument or supporting evidence, there are (often draconian) sanctions for dissent, scrutiny is not permitted and new evidence ignored as "false". More, the worldview they represent is often used to bolster a tyrannical political structure that leaves little room for individual variation and personal aspirations. None of these apply to science (except the "psuedo-science" occasionally promulgated by fascism and communism - themselves little different from religion).
Eduardo, you are obviously intelligent (although perhaps hasty reading of some of my logic is causing you to miss some obvious conclusions). I can only assume therefore that you are either defending some kind of personal faith, or are just winding me up for the sake of debate... ;-)
Message was edited by: Paul Wilson
Submitted on Wed, 2004-12-08 09:46
reply Re: Is science a religion?
Paul Wilson,
You said:
"Eduardo, you are obviously intelligent [...]"
Thank you.
"[...] (although perhaps hasty reading of some of my logic is causing you to miss some obvious conclusions). "
I did not miss those conclusions. I disputed that some of them are not so obvious. But if you care to present an example I am open to consider your charge of hasty reading.
"I can only assume therefore that you are either defending some kind of personal faith, or are just winding me up for the sake of debate... "
Neither. I do not endorse any faith, but I was raised catholic and certainly had my share of religious intolerance and indoctrination. In my childhood I experienced the "limitations" of intellectual freedom that are attributed to religious conceptions.
In adult I also entered a certain "school of thought" and became quite intolerant and closed to other ideas. My friends told me so, and I disregard their argument with the same intolerance. It happened that it was not in the school teachings that one should be intolerant and inflexible, by the contrary; they supported the notion that people have a tendency to have absolute opinions, and such way is harmful.
You might claim that my error was to enter such school to start with. But then I would have not learned so much, especially about myself.
What I learned is that, disregarding the teachings of the school I was adhering, I was behaving in the resemblance of any other religion. If I was to become important in the destiny of such school, my opinions would influence its teachings and I would select from their knowledge whatever supported my view. In a century time there would be little left of the original knowledge in the precepts of a new "religion". This would not mean that the knowledge was totally lost.
Therefore you can understand my position. While you are correct in condemning religious intolerance and the limitation of intellectual freedom, it is not the fault of religious teachings that create such situation. It is the human tendencies that have such responsibility.
If you blame religion and the adherence of religion for such human traits, you are missing an opportunity of self awareness. For it is not the scientific formation in itself that is going to prevent those intolerant attitudes, and I know that for personal experience.
Submitted on Thu, 2004-12-09 02:58
reply Re: Is science a religion?
Eduardo,
One example: -
["No theory is ever right - it is just the best so far."
There is little difference from my statement:
"[...]every knowledge is just a theory and until you can prove it to be valid or invalid you cannot state anything"]
The point I was making was that you can NEVER state absolutely that a theory is valid or invalid, just that it fits all available evidence to date and so, on the balance of probabilities, it is reasonable to base our actions on the premise of the theory.
To try and suggest that we should therefore give the same credence to a worldview with NO supporting evidence (because we have yet to prove the opposing scientific theories valid, or because we have yet to prove the religious worldview invalid), sidesteps the whole process of rational decision making and intelligent action. There is no qualitative equivalence with a well-supported scientific theory at all.
You say: -
[Therefore you can understand my position. While you are correct in condemning religious intolerance and the limitation of intellectual freedom, it is not the fault of religious teachings that create such situation. It is the human tendencies that have such responsibility.]
You seem to be forgetting that it is humans doing the teaching... The dangers lie in both the attraction of the teaching to the teachers (in terms of increased population compliance and power), and in the attraction to the taught of the compelling certainties, replacement of the burden of complex moral dilemmas and responsibilities with ritual and dogma, and the ready-made socio-political structures removing the need for development of something more wide-ranging and inclusive (much more difficult).
Of course these are all human tendencies, I am just pointing out that they are not our most helpful tendencies any more (pre-enlightenment they may have been the best available.)
[If you blame religion and the adherence of religion for such human traits, you are missing an opportunity of self awareness. For it is not the scientific formation in itself that is going to prevent those intolerant attitudes, and I know that for personal experience.]
Once again, this is not my logic; I am not blaming religion for the human traits, I am blaming the human traits which result in religion for much of the damage done by religion. Religion IS no more than the manifestation of a set of human traits.
In my opinion they represent an "easy way out" from the complexities of modern life, that does more harm than good (like other "opiates").
Of course science is not going to prevent intolerant attitudes, and it doesn't claim to. However, it is the only way we can debunk the claims made by religious leaders, and enlighten potential converts. Open, disciplined enquiry into the natural world (of which we and all our works are part) is the enemy of religion, and that is all science is.
Submitted on Thu, 2004-12-09 10:35
reply Re: Is science a religion?
Paul,
On one side you were right, but at the same time wrong. You were right to say that I did not follow you reasoning to the proper conclusion, but you were the one that failed to present the line of thinking until its conclusion. Therefore I would reach the conclusion only by guessing.
But essentially we got a misunderstanding. In my view we have scientific models that describe the operation of the physical world. Such models might be conceptually based on certain explanations, but are not, themselves, an explanation to facts. Thy must, whoever, be in accordance with those facts.
This idea is not mine, it was provided to me by my Physics teacher at the University. Physics, he said, does not "explain" things, it describes.
The misunderstanding part it that you where speaking about quantifiable aspects of the universe. Subjects that you could collect data to qualify a certain theory. Other aspects are not easily quantifiable, like the metaphysical areas.
Therefore you said that one should not use the scientific approach of adopting a theory on these metaphysical areas, since you cannot collect data to ascertain such theory. Therefore, if you wish to maximize your resources, you would conclude that it is more probable that such areas do not exist.
However I would like to point out a problem in that reasoning. In metaphysical areas there is an obvious way to collect data about its validity, and that way is to die. Of course you would not volunteer to such an experiment, but it will certainly happen. As such I will state that sometime in the future you, me, and everybody else, are going to have "quantifiable" data about metaphysical subjects. It is just a pity that one cannot write a paper on it afterwards.
If one wishes to maximize his resources, considering the odds of having the data and facing the "problem" (the odds are always 100%), I would suggest the study of this subject.
Of course one could claim that after dying, ones body is going to decompose and nothing more. In that situation you have gained nothing in studying metaphysical areas, and certainly you have no opportunity to process the information you gathered. However in this situation one would be working with a postulate.
Submitted on Thu, 2004-12-09 18:36
reply Re: Is science a religion?
Eduardo,
I don't expect anything to happen to me after I die, but if it does I will be in touch if I can. Although the fact that there are very few reports of such contacts from reliable sources, means I have to warn you not to hold your breath lest you join me prematurely.
By the way - from a naturalistic point of view, I would in no way discount entirely the possibility, however remote, of the mind becoming independent of the brain.
If the evidence builds, I will be open minded and intrigued - although it will not make me fall about in abject reverence; far too unseemly.
Submitted on Thu, 2004-12-09 19:46
reply Re: Is science a religion?
Paul Wilson
You say:
"Although the fact that there are very few reports of such contacts from reliable sources, means I have to warn you not to hold your breath lest you join me prematurely."
I sincerely hope so, and I return I promise not to bother you on the same situation.
"If the evidence builds, I will be open minded and intrigued [...]"
True words of a man of science.
"[...] although it will not make me fall about in abject reverence"
Why do you think it would be necessary? Maybe you are considering the external precepts of most religions, that are not necessarily what is required.
( I don't presume to know what is required, but at least I know that.)
Submitted on Thu, 2004-12-09 22:51
reply Re: Is science a religion?
Take a look around you from where you sit. You will notice that everything in the room is made: the walls, the upholstery, the ceiling, the chair where you sit, the book you hold in your hand, the glass on the table and countless other details. None of them happen to exist in your room of their own accord. Even the simple loops of the carpet were made by someone: they did not appear spontaneously or by chance.
A person who is about to read a book knows that it has been written by an author for a specific reason. It would not even occur to him that this book might have come into being by chance. In the same manner, a person who sees a sculpture has no doubt whatsoever that it was made by a sculptor. And not just works of art: even a few bricks resting on top of one another make one think that they must have been brought to rest just so by someone within a certain plan. Therefore, everywhere where there is an order either small or big a founder and protector of this order must also exist. If, one day, somebody came forward and said that raw iron and coal came together to form steel by chance, which in turn constructed the Eiffel Tower again by chance, would not he and those who believed him be regarded as insane?
The claim of the theory of evolution, the unique method of denying the existence of Allah, is no different than this. According to the theory, lifeless atoms formed amino acids by chance, amino acids formed proteins by chance, and finally proteins formed living creatures again by chance. However, the probability of a living creature being formed by coincidence is less than the probability of the Eiffel Tower being formed in the same manner, because even the simplest human cell is more sophisticated than any man-made structure in the world.
How is it possible to think that the balance in the world came about by coincidence when the extraordinary harmony of nature is observable even with the naked eye? It is the most unreasonable claim to say that the universe, each point of which suggests the existence of its Creator, has come into being on its own.
Therefore, there should be an owner of the balance visible everywhere from our body to the farthest corners of the inconceivably vast universe. So, who is this Creator that ordained everything so subtly and created all?
He cannot be any material being present within the universe, because His must be a will that existed before the universe and created the universe thereupon. The Almighty Creator is One Whom everything finds existence, yet Whose existence is without any beginning or end.
Religion teaches us the identity of our Creator Whose existence we discover with our reason. Through what He has revealed to us as religion, we know that He is Allah, the Compassionate and the Merciful, Who created the heavens and the earth from nothing.
Although most people have the capability to grasp this fact, they spend their lives unaware of it. When they look at a landscape painting, they wonder who its painter is. Later, they praise the artist at length for his beautiful work of art. Despite the fact that they face numerous originals of that painting the moment they turn around, they still disregard the existence of Allah, Who is the only owner of all these beauties. In truth, not even a lengthy research is needed to understand the existence of Allah. Even if one had to live in a room from the time he was born, countless pieces of evidence in this room alone would be enough for him to grasp the existence of Allah.
The human body so overflows with evidence that it could not be contained in many multi-volumed encyclopaedias. Even giving a few minutes of conscientious thought to it all is enough to understand the existence of Allah. The present order is protected by Allah and maintained by Him.
The human body is not the only food for thought. Life abides in every square millimetre of the earth, be it observable by men or not. The world overflows with many living beings, from unicellular organisms to plants, from insects to sea animals, and from birds to human beings. If you take a handful of soil and look at it, even therein you can discover manifold living creatures with diverse characteristics. The same is true also for the air you breathe. Even on your skin, there are many living creatures whose names are unknown to you. In the intestines of all living beings are millions of bacteria or unicellular organisms that help digestion. The animal population in the world is many times greater than the human population. When we also consider the plant world, we see that there is not a single spot on the earth where there is no life. All of these creatures that are spread over an area of millions of square kilometres have different body systems, different lives and different contributions to the ecological balance. It is preposterous to claim that all these have come into existence by chance with no aim or purpose. No living being has come to exist through its own accord or effort. No coincidental happening can ever result in such complicated systems.
All of this evidence leads us to the conclusion that the universe works with a certain consciousness. What, then, is the source of this consciousness? Surely it is neither the living nor the non-living beings in it. Nor can they be the ones that maintain the harmony and preserve the order. The existence and glory of Allah reveals itself in countless proofs in the universe. In fact, there is not even a single man on the earth who will not accept this evident reality from the heart. Yet they still deny it in iniquity and arrogance though their souls are convinced thereof as stated in the Qur'an. (Surat an-Naml, 14)
This book is written to point out this reality from which some people turn away because of its being at odds with their interests, and also to disclose the frauds and senseless deductions on which some untrue allegations stand. This is why many diverse subjects are tackled in the book.
Those who read this book will once more see the indisputable evidence of Allah's existence and witness that Allah's existence encompasses all things: the reason knows this. Just as He has created this all-pervading order, He is the One Who also maintains it incessantly.
http://www.harunyahya.com
Submitted on Tue, 2007-01-09 17:27
reply Re: Is science a religion?
Dear Zawa-je,
<< Religion teaches us the identity of our Creator Whose existence we discover with our reason. Through what He has revealed to us as religion, we know that He is Allah, the Compassionate and the Merciful, Who created the heavens and the earth from nothing. >>
God did not create everything from "nothing", he created all from himself... Even you, in your last statement believe man is separate from God...
One of the meanings... ( parables ) of the rib taken from Adam was the creation of our universe and ourselves... not just an equal companion - ( woman )... but the Icons of the masculine and feminine. Each spiritual book that is written will tell you this.
I agree with much you have said and I will add... Is not religion a scientific approach to God? Is it not an assemblage of spiritual knowledges in which we might inquire? Is not God limitless and boundless? Are there not one but several paths of this knowledge? God is greater than any book written about him... this includes the bible, the torah, the koran.... Yet in each book has not God revealed himself and from each book can we not see how over time how we have experienced him and also our own concept of him?. And from some books over many centuries.
<< No living being has come to exist through its own accord or effort. No coincidental happening can ever result in such complicated systems. >>
I agree God created us. Yet did he not give us consciousness as a tool from which to inquire from? And responsibility of what we each in our depths cherish the most? And do not these abilities lead at their best to spiritual advance? Are these things not expression of the self? and are these things not for self reliance? In other words free will. And if we are responsible about these things do we not 'create' a place for God in our lives?... instead of relying on the material as the first cause.
For God gave us these things... to be used, not neglected.
Submitted on Wed, 2007-05-02 01:00
reply Post new comment |
|
|
