Deism- A Religion for the 21st Century?

by Big Jim 25 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  JanH

  Rochelle,
  

  What, exactly, is the point of throwing out the very possibilty that there are factors, approaches, possibilities and realities that we don't yet understand or know how to measure?

  
  Quite the opposite. Science is about discovering all these forces and energies, and it has been an extremely successful project in doing this.

  Science has a principle, though, that supernaturalists find it hard to accept: you need to test your beliefs, trying to find ways to falsify them (this means you need to find a test that would, if the theory was false, demonstrate it to be such). Supernaturalism simply rejects doubt, for emotional, not rational, reasons.

  If you see everything in black and white ("It's not proven yet, so it doesn't exist"), I believe you limit yourself just as much as people who only see the world through Bible-colored glasses. I just can't think that way.

  
  That is, I am sad to say, just a convenient straw man allowing you to not deal with the fundamental question, which is: What is sufficient evidence for accepting a theory? Supernaturalists consistently refuse to deal with this question, preferring cloudy slogans and foggy thought.

  Science is as far from black and white as you can come. Indeed, science only deals with degrees of probabilities.

  What you are de facto saying is that believing something just because you want to believe it is superior to requiring justification and evidence. How can you otherwise call it "black and white-thinking" to require some solid evidence for claims that are indeed quite extraordinary?

  - Jan
  --
  Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
• 

  Sunchild

  Jan,
  

  Quite the opposite. Science is about discovering all these forces and energies, and it has been an extremely successful project in doing this.

  
  Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well. That IS what I think science should be about, and I'm all for science. All I'm saying is that science hasn't discovered everything yet (even you must realize this), and I've found certain things that work in my life which might be considered "unscientific" by some for this very reason. Just because certain things aren't "scientific" according to this very narrow definition -- "It hasn't been discovered/studied/quantified, therefore, it doesn't exist" -- doesn't make them valueless. I guess that what I'm trying to say is that I don't trust anyone who seems to think they've found the only truth, especially if they expect all intelligent, sensible people to hold the same opinion.
  

  That is, I am sad to say, just a convenient straw man allowing you to not deal with the fundamental question which is: What is sufficient evidence for accepting a theory? Supernaturalists consistently refuse to deal with this question, preferring cloudy slogans and foggy thought.

  
  As odd as this may sound, I don't believe in the so-called supernatural. Everything is part of nature for me, including the things I don't fully understand and/or which haven't been fully explored or explained. I don't even know if it's possible for me to explain my views on this to someone whose perspective seems so far removed from it; it's about like... explaining "red" to a person who was born color blind. And no, I'm not saying this out of some sense of superiority or to convince you that my way is better than yours. I'm saying it because it's the clearest way to express my opinion.

  Regarding "sufficient evidence," though, that isn't a big concern for me. The only evidence I have or need for the validity my spiritual perceptions is that they enrich my life by giving me contentment and fueling my imagination. Life seems to make a little more sense when I light a stick of incense and meditate in front of my statuette of Isis; I find new approaches to my problems when I read tarot cards. I don't claim to know exactly how this works or why. Hence, I think of my spiritual life and practices as an "unknown factor."

  Maybe we could understand each other better if each of us knew where the other actually stood on these issues instead of just making assumptions, so I'd like to ask you a few questions. First of all, though, here are a couple of definitions of terms as used in the context of my inquiries.

  Science: The objective study of the natural world.

  Spirituality: An intangible aspect of nature/the universe (including humanity) that may or may not include belief in any deity, but which is merely a general sense that Something More is out there, and also within us. It has nothing to do with any specific system of belief.

  My first question is, Do you believe that science and spirituality are diametrically opposed, or do you believe they can work together to create a synergistic effect? Or do you believe something different entirely? Please tell me what you think in as much detail as you like, because I'm genuinely curious.

  *Rochelle.

  (Edited first for clarity, then edited to add another possibility.)
  ---------
  "Most men complacently accept 'knowledge' as 'truth'. They are sheep, ruled by fear."
  -- Sydney Losstarot, "Vagrant Story."
• 

  larc

  Sunchild,

  As the research psychologist Thurstone said, "Everything that exists, exists in some amount, and anything that exists in amount can be measured." I go back to the theme of my last post. The only way to bring the unknown into the known is through science.

  Regarding your special feeling while meditating with a candle and a statue of Isis and your card readings. These are simply nice ways for you to get in touch with yourself. If you believed that a can of beans had as much importance as a statue of Isis, you would get the same effect.
• 

  Sunchild

  I go back to the theme of my last post. The only way to bring the unknown into the known is through science.

  
  Yes, I know, and I kind of feel like I'm going around in circles with this.

  Again, I have no interest in all is supplanting science with spirituality and/or religion. I just don't understand why so many people seem to think that if you acknowledge one, you can't believe the other, too. To me, the concepts are not mutually exclusive.
  

  Regarding your special feeling while meditating with a candle and a statue of Isis and your card readings. These are simply nice ways for you to get in touch with yourself.

  
  Which is a likely possibility. However, I also think it's possible that there's something more to it, and I don't understand why some people seem so determined to exlcude that possibility. I don't see why anyone would want to. To reach for the Divine is to reach for your own highest potential... or at least that's what it is for me. Symbols and such are just useful tools for getting there.

  *Rochelle.

  ---------
  "Most men complacently accept 'knowledge' as 'truth'. They are sheep, ruled by fear."
  -- Sydney Losstarot, "Vagrant Story."
• 

  rem

  Which is a likely possibility. However, I also think it's possible that there's something more to it, and I don't understand why some people seem so determined to exlcude that possibility. I don't see why anyone would want to. To reach for the Divine is to reach for your own highest potential... or at least that's what it is for me. Symbols and such are just useful tools for getting there.

  So are all possibilities just as valid as others are? How do you differentiate between probable possibilities and ludicrous ones? What if I said the “something more to it” is an Invisible Pink Unicorn in my head? Would that not be just as valid a position in your view?

  Science helps us to sort through all of the chaff to get to the real gems. Gods of the gaps don’t have a very long life span in this age as science digs deeper to the root causes of phenomena. To me, spirituality is just an appreciation of life and the wonders around us; science explains those things.

  For things that we don’t yet understand, I don’t see any reason to create an ad hoc spiritual explanation. History shows that these superstitious explanations are always wrong. If there is a phenomenon, though, then science should be able to measure it. If it is not measurable, then it doesn’t exist – it is either a state of mind or a misunderstanding that will be cleared up by the scientific method in the future. If it truly is beneficial – or has any affect at all, then it should be able to be studied and measured otherwise how is the phenomenon beneficial (or any other affect)? This is where science comes in. In my view, adding a spiritual explanation would only get in the way and hinder real progress and understanding of the phenomenon. I believe history shows this to be true.

  Maybe that didn’t make any sense. :)

  rem
• 

  rutht

  Janh,

  I am a little confused with your analogy of God and Santa Claus. I know where the presents came from under my tree, but I have no idea how the Universe started or where it got the space to exist as it does.
  Thanks,
  Rutht
• 

  fodeja

  I am a little confused with your analogy of God and Santa Claus. I know where the presents came from under my tree, but I have no idea how the Universe started or where it got the space to exist as it does.

  I guess the point is this: can you accept that some questions are unanswered as of today and, maybe, forever -- or do you have to resort to making up an imaginary entity called "God" (who in many religions is simply a glorified reflection of people themselves) to explain your current gaps in knowledge?

  A lot of old mythology revolved around attempts to explain natural phenomena, bizarre rock formations, thunderstorms etc. which used to be interpreted as the footsteps of gods or angry fits of other gods, whatever. Nice stories, sometimes really wonderful literature, but also nothing more than that. Anyone can make up a dozen fantastic stories to explain lightning, possibly starring a bunch of fairies and demons and gods. Which one is true, if any?

  All this boils down to "explaining" complexity by inventing more complexity, and of course it still leaves you with the question, who created God? Even if you accept god as an explanation, you have no explanation how his existence started. The question is merely deferred, but not answered at all. And actually, book religions such as Christianity now have to spend an inordinate amount of time and effort to somehow cope with the growing gap between scientific discovery and their particular holy writ. Some people just try to find new and more metaphorical interpretations of scripture, others cling fiercely to their literal interpretations of obscure half-sentences and simply deny whatever science has to say if they sense conflict. It must not be true, so it cannot be true: welcome to the wonderful world of creationism, where "truth" is whatever we say it is.

  By smoking weed or other means, one may feel absolutely certain that he's found the answers to all the deep questions. Everything makes sense, everything is connected with everything, enlightenment, satori, whatever. Once he wakes up from his high, it turns out that he actually knows zilch. He cannot explain anything at all. He may feel that he does, and that people should know and listen to lengthy, nonsensical rants with lots of fantasy figures in them, lest they be punished by some of the more powerful fantasy figures. I think this kind of experience is responsible for lots of religions on this planet. A very good reason why people should stay away from drugs :-)

  To me, spirituality is just an appreciation of life and the wonders around us; science explains those things.

  I like that.

  f.
• 

  JanH

  Rutht,
  

  I am a little confused with your analogy of God and Santa Claus. I know where the presents came from under my tree, but I have no idea how the Universe started or where it got the space to exist as it does.

  
  An argument from ignorance: if you don't know how something came about, then God must have done it. Duh! Why God? Why not invisible green unicorns?

  But small children do not know where presents come from. They believe, perhaps, that Santa brought it to them. This failure should demonstrate how silly it is to postulate supernatural beings to explain what you don't understand.

  While you know very little about the origin of the universe, astronomers know a lot more. However, since the universe is by definition everything, it did not originate by an external cause. It came to be as an uncaused event. There is, by definition, no such thing as "before the universe came to be."

  - Jan
  --
  Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
• 

  Introspection

  Gee fodeja, what exactly does "other means" include? That's kind of vague isn't it, are you implying that anyone who claims to have some kind of insight by any means is high? I'm also not sure if you're trying to be funny or if you meant to say he's found the answers to the questions rather than questions to answers. (was that something they have in the back of Watchtowers?)

  I'm surprised that you would connect the goal of a serious mental discipline to smoking weed. Have you ever talked to anyone who REALLY practice meditation, whether it be Zen or some other school? Because it is a way to train the mind, serious meditators (not those that regularly take time to space out) tend to have very sharp mental focus. It isn't that they're endowed with exceptional neurology and speed of information processing, but it's simply a matter of concentration. They don't react to any opinion that doesn't agree with them, nor do they feel a need to convince you of anything. If you ask them for the "answers", they'll essentially tell you to go look for yourself. The same thing that gives them this concentration ability is what you have to practice, and that just means work.

  While there are no doubt those who are deluded, what can you claim to know as a certainty? Do you really know anything that isn't based on some kind of assumption when you get right down to it? Maybe the question isn't how much you know, but recognizing it.

  By smoking weed or other means, one may feel absolutely certain that he's found the questions to all the deep answers. Everything makes sense, everything is connected with everything, enlightenment, satori, whatever. Once he wakes up from his high, it turns out that he actually knows zilch.
• 

  fodeja

  That's kind of vague isn't it, are you implying that anyone who claims to have some kind of insight by any means is high?

  No. I do believe that meditation can make a lot of sense for those who practice it. I see no reason to believe that it can bring us knowledge in the sense that science does, but that's fine with me. Being human is fortunately much more than just acting "rationally" (even though that's the underlying assumption of most of economic theory, BTW :-)).

  I'm specifically referring to people running around chanting that they've found all the answers for everything in a dream or vision. Maybe some of them have, but if someone finds all the answers to everything, I'd expect the results of that to be a bit less pathetic than what we can see in the history of religions so far.

  I'm also not sure if you're trying to be funny or if you meant to say he's found the answers to the questions rather than questions to answers.

  Gee Introspection, I do make mistakes once in a while, and even more so when I'm not writing in my native language. OK?

  f.