Good article six! My favorite part:
"All religions, including Buddhism, stem from our narcissistic wish to believe that the universe was created for our benefit, as a stage for our spiritual quests. In contrast, science tells us that we are incidental, accidental. Far from being the raison d'tre of the universe, we appeared through sheer happenstance, and we could vanish in the same way. This is not a comforting viewpoint, but science, unlike religion, seeks truth regardless of how it makes us feel."
That pretty much sums up my feelings on religion. I also like this part:
"Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped."
This is another problem I have with organized religions, they are male centered and treat life as if it is a test to get to the next level. There is no Great Reward to get to, LIFE is the great reward!
However I'm just a atheistic secular humanist with a bent for hedonism so take my words with a grain of salt.
Thanks for the article six!
This statement, taken from the subject article, "This is not a comforting viewpoint, but science, unlike religion, seeks truth regardless of how it makes us feel." is utterly in error.
Science seeks fact, not truth, and there is a world of difference between the two. Who ever wrote that statement is ill-informed about science and unmoved by truth it would seem. Appealing to an atheist for a scientific viewpoint about religion makes about as much sense as appealing to a JW for a spiritual viewpoint about the Catholic Church. Not exactly what I'd characterise as unbiased.
Thankfully, scientists are very well aware of what they're up to and don't require insipid articles in failed webzines by semi-aware columnists to define for them what they're up to. And seeking truth ain't one of those things.
truth is simply catagorized fact.
Science is nothing if not about finding truth. Deal with it.
The author has an idea of what its about. His idea is foolishness because he has never experienced the core of Buddhism. Very short sighted and self promoting. The facts of science are relative and cannot describe the real world which is absolute and can only be experienced directly. That experience is what he is missing.
"This is not a comforting viewpoint, but science, unlike religion, seeks truth regardless of how it makes us feel."
That pretty much sums up my feelings on religion.
Aztec, if you don't mind I would just use these statement as an example - not to pick on you but just because this already happens to be in the thread, and it is a common response from many even if not always explicitly stated as you did above.
These two statements, being so close together reveals precisely how most people view any thought system. The bottom line is, a person may say they are interested in truth, but when you get down to it often it goes back to how they feel. Mind you, I am not making a judgement here, but just pointing to what is plainly written in the above quote. (I do respect it when someone plainly admits that is the case) The religious attitude and narcissism is something that is a subjective experience by an individual. In the same way, you can bitch all you want about peace, for example, but just because the words spoken are about peace that certainly doesn't mean you are at peace.
Again I quote:
Why I gave up on finding my religion.
I don't think I have to say much more about this, actually. Of course, anybody who follows anything religiously is pretty much going at it blindly, that includes but is not limited to religions. This could very well apply to a person's strong opinion against religions. The fact is, though, a person can be a part of a religion but not follow it religiously, whereas someone who is anti-religion can adhere to their views religiously. People fail to realize it is a matter of their state of mind. Just because some guy got published it doesn't mean what they've got to say automatically makes sense or that they (let alone the readers) understand it, it just means that's what they have to say. If someone actually want the facts, there's plenty of information out there without turning to some other guy's opinion about the facts. Hey, atleast that way you can form your own opinions - but of course it will still just be opinions.