Forums » Spirituality & Philosophy

List of newest posts

    • April 7, 2017 12:34:49 AM PDT
    • I would say that I subscribe to the philosophy of Martin Buber - one cannot use religion to explain science, nor science to explain religion. I do not personally believe the two are mutually exclusive, and one also needs to keep an open mind where faith is concerned. Religious faith is a tricky thing. There are many faiths in the world. It is a trap to think one's own faith is the only one that can possibly have truth. To me, that's the beauty of science. It is "proven" using the scientific method. Subject to impartial scrutiny, it seeks a neutral, objective truth.

    • April 4, 2017 7:55:51 AM PDT
    • The previous post is not meant to be offensive but I do believe that line needed to be in the sand if not for the sake of truth then at least for the sake of academics. The second thing I would like to submit is a definition of science. What it is and what it is not. Science/ Scientific Meathod is the observation, testing, hypothesizing, and retesting of things within our natural world until we gain sufficient data from which to draw conclusions. This is how we learn it is how we discover. The natural human curiosity. To do away with it would be to do away with all logic and reason which I might go so far as to say would be wrong, evil even if pushed to a certain extent. Now, what science by definition is not. Would be the beliefs and opinions ( theories if you insist on applying this label to that which is untested and unverified) of the "scientific community". If anyone reading this watched the movie Expelled. Then you will have to admit the great ideological suppression of anything that would contradict the current views. Consequently I would also like to submit a few facts. The evolutionary theory taught to those who are now 40-60. Has been completely disproved that's right. Most of the disproving was done by secular scientists also. But we have a new group of theories now so That isn't important. Although large amounts of those disproven theories are still being taught in classrooms as fact. Problem? Idk I'm a religious person what would I know of such things. Even the original big bang theory that we are all so familiar with. The idea that nothing suddenly exploded into everything. Why would anyone believe that? Well because the math behind it is really complicated. Fair enough. However it was disproven. But rather than take it off the shelves it was amended so to speak. More than once. At the present time the theory does not even remotely resemble the one submitted by Mr. Steven Hawking. Kind of ruins the movie doesn't it. Also we have yet to observe a single mutation ( introduction of new genetic material due to coding error or any non intelligent outside stimulation)that is benifitial for the organizm. We can make mutants now that's a thing that is starting to come out of the closet. But we make them, and it's really difficult. Also there are no "transitional forms" (example: a fish with legs) anywhere in the fossil record. This alone disproves the whole thing but whatever. There are many fossils that are submitted as such but they are either disproven ( without being widely published as such) or they disappear or are not permitted to be examined. Seems a bit odd for something so important.

    • April 4, 2017 7:11:04 AM PDT
    • First I would like to submit a definition of Fundamental. It is what it says literally the fundamentals of something; literally the core elements of a thing that should be learned first and are indespensible. For Christianity such things would be: a literal six day creation of the world, the Virgin birth of Christ, the fact that the man Jesus Christ was God ( present during and responsible for creation) as He said he was. The fact that he died as a sacrifice in place of humanity and then redirected Himself by His own power. More could potentially be added to this list but none can be taken away. If someone does not believe these things then it would be a misnomer to label them as Christian. Based solely on definition. To obscure a definition is to obscure the thing itself. At the fundamental level is point at which any idea or concept can no longer be broken down any further without losing it's identity. This much is fact and not subject to opinions. One could believe differently but that would not change what Christianity actually is and their Venn diagram would fall outside the circle.

    • March 29, 2017 9:28:21 AM PDT
    • I feel that religion and science are actually natural partners. We are both spiritual and material creatures. Also, speaking as a person of faith, I think that people who feel the two are mutually exclusive are not really thinking; they're just reacting against anything that opposes their pre-existing views. If they're religious, then they've taken all the mystery out of God and reduced God to a being fully knowable and understandable by humans, which is arrogant, blasphemous, and puts God in a box---nothing more to see here, folks. If, on the other hand, they're atheist, then they are saying we have the perfect knowledge system for understanding everything. In my view, this is also hubris. The universe is vastly mysterious, and we've had to update our thinking myriad times as our scientific understanding deepens.

      I work at a National Laboratory with some of the world's smartest and most creative scientists, and almost all of them are also religious. In science, one must remain open and unbiased (impossible for humans, but we are obliged to at least try) to see the real results and possibilities, or the research is suspect at best. In religion/faith, we must be honest in saying that our texts and views of the spiritual are limited by our material condition, and that our religious texts are merely the written records of the human experiences with the divine.

      Neither presents a complete picture, each represents a specific system of understanding our world, and the questions they inspire together are an Avenue for a fuller experience of both. One without the other leads us to exclude questions that we either might not the answers to or don't think are important to ask. Either way, it limits our exploration and that thwarts us at the most basic level. After all, what are humans if not explorers and questioners? One-sided, fearful, and controlling. Only at the intersection of science (the exploration of the material world) and faith (exploration of the spiritual world) are authentic, unblinking questions possible; and that is where the really interesting and important discoveries are.

    • March 19, 2017 10:30:59 PM PDT
    • Science is just exploration with a purpose and a pen. Religion has many definitions. I fail to see how they are inherently incompatible. For some, science IS a religion. For me, there is nothing unscientific about caring for widows and orphans and living above the world's standards (the James 1:27 definition of religion).

      Now, obviously not all scientific opinions are going to align perfectly with all religious beliefs. But it's important to remember three fundamental truths about science and religion:
      1. Scientists can be wrong and frequently are.
      2. Religious people can be wrong and frequently are.
      3. Most scientists, including an overwhelming majority of history's most notable scientists, are religious, and see no conflict between their intellection and their faith.

      Another important thing to remember is that without conflict science cannot advance. If a religious belief inspires a person to take another look at a conventionally accepted scientific idea and think, "This just isn't adequate," that's a GOOD thing. Copernicus didn't find the geocentric model of the universe adequate. Neither did Kepler. Newton didn't find Kepler's laws of planetary motion adequate. All of these either changed or enhanced the accepted scientific view, because the previous one was inadequate. The Jewish Torah inspired germ theory when one doctor realized that conventional medicine wasn't adequate, and there was certainly conflict when he presented that idea. There is still a surprising amount of conflict among seismologists over exactly how subduction zones work, but there is also a lot of advancement being made in earthquake preparation, warning and response programs because of this conflict. So if religion challenges science to continuously improve, how is that a bad thing?

    • February 5, 2017 12:04:39 PM PST
    • There's a problem with cultural religious ideals hanving to do with being part of a community. Group think, while it links people together, can be very dangerous. It's means your identity and belonging has strong ties to what you think. Deviance mean that the connections are broken. For some people, questioning your religion mean that you have to question your community, your family, your loved ones, and everything that has been foundation to your life and who you are.

      I'm an atheist. I grew up with a christian background. There are scientific religious folk and religious scientists.

      I see science in it's ideal form as being unbiased. It just wants to search for the most logical answers. But sometimes those answers are scary for more traditional religious beliefs.

      Wish it didn't have to be so black or white for some people...

    • January 19, 2017 8:38:09 AM PST
    • Creationism is a literal interpretation of religious texts and thetefore, under his system, would be classified as fundamentalism.

      Apparently many scientists are deists. They believe God showed up, made the laws and the initial conditions, and left forever. But I'm highly scientific and also religious, and not a deist. I'm not sure what to classify myself, but I believe God is a provable and measurable phenomenon. God is defined as a non-material entity whose influence is proportional to the total faith in Him for a given community. This entity exists everywhere, is greater than any one person, yet every person contains a part of it. There is a well understood phenomenon that obeys these properties, and a number of other properties attributed to God: religion. And, to me, if religion obeys all the stipulations of what God should be, then it is God. So since religion is real, God is real.

      I also think it's interesting to note that for most religions and for most of history, science and religion were the same thing. Understanding the laws of nature was akin to becoming closer to God and God's design. It was actually rather recently that the Church began to openly disagree with science, and that was because discoveries of the time interfered with the symbology of the Church. Jerusalem not being the center of the world, white light being the least pure, etc. But the prior thousands of years where they were the same thing proves religion and science can coexist, and perhaps that they should

    • January 19, 2017 1:28:14 AM PST
    • What about creationism?

    • January 19, 2017 1:19:37 AM PST
    • I've reached the point where I consider this question is so elementary that I normally don't even consider it worth discussing.

      Religion and science don't contradict each other.

      Fundamentalism and science are what oppose each other. The only 'religious' people that have a problem with science are conservative ones that are stuck with a literal interpretation of the entirety of their religious text. It's simple-minded and foolish. The same goes for 'atheists' who make the same claim (that religion and science contradict each other). They're fundamentalists too. The reality is that religion makes moral claims. Its realm is that of meaning and philosophy. Science only enters into it via philosophy.

    • January 18, 2017 10:59:15 PM PST
    • First, I apologise if there is another topic similar to this one. Also, this is not intended to offend anyone I just want to form a structured conversation.

      So, I was raised in an Orthodox household and my parents are quite religious. I believe that every person is entitled to an opinion so it doesn't bother me that they don't believe in the big bang or evolution. I am well aware that religion and science oppose each other, but I'd like to read different people's opinions. I was wondering if there are religious people who believe in scientifical theories or any scientists that are religious.

    • February 14, 2017 7:44:03 PM PST
    • yes i think there have been studies on this topic actually. there was another four temperament theory born out of one of these studies.

      iNxx are known as the truth seekers and seen to be the most likely (correlated) type to be mystics or of mystical spiritual type thinking. it makes sense for sure when i think about it because all the iNxx i know do think most deeply about the nature of existence, in general.

    • February 5, 2017 7:17:16 PM PST
    • I believe I'm fucked up as a soup sandwich.

    • February 5, 2017 4:27:22 PM PST
    • I grew up in a non-religious society (as the majority as Scandinavia is) with agnostic parents. I identify as an atheist today and I try my best to base my beliefs on the amount of evidence for it and the scientific method.
      I do however find religions and religious beliefs very interesting and inspiring, and I like to hear why people believe in what they do (not to mention that the most beautiful buildings were constructed as religious monuments).

    • January 28, 2017 6:54:07 PM PST
    • I don't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.

    • January 21, 2017 7:44:50 AM PST
    • From a cursory analysis of this thread, there seems to be some correlation:

      INFJs tend to choose a spiritual doctrine whose moral principles line up with their own, but it's not clear whether they believe in the mythology of their chosen religion or not. But I would guess not.

      INTPs pick some kind of philosophical dogma either related to the interpretation of the universe or a simplified "best practices" algorithm. But not a religion. It seems most INTPs (this might be white-biased; I apologize) are atheists.

      ENTPs tend to be agnostic. Though from personal experience I would guess this is an oversimplification. If other ENTPs are like me in this respect, I imagine what's going on is that ENTPs have multiple beliefs simultaneously and that we are constantly engaged in an internal debate about which one is more valid and more elegant. Or, at least, we were the last time we had an interest in religion.

      INTJs... I don't have as much data as I would like. But it looks like INTJs, rather than subscribe to an existing religion or philosophy, tend to invent some belief system that extends measurable scientific principles into a philosophical and spiritual domain, whose elements are often derived from a mixture of personal intuition and inspiration from other religions

      INFPs capture the phrase "religious relativists" while often having very strong spiritual beliefs of their own. Unlike INFJs, as far as I can tell, INFPs are avid believers in the mythology of their chosen faith

    • January 20, 2017 6:20:09 AM PST
    • What would be interesting is to see if there's any correlation between personality type and belief. Or even at it's most basic, does personality type lend to tendency to believe in something?

    • January 19, 2017 11:15:46 PM PST
    • I guess I'm an agnostic. I don't really believe or disbelieve anything. I have my private suspicions based on my understanding of how the universe works, but that's all.

    • November 12, 2016 10:14:31 PM PST
    • I am a seeker and an agnostic.......I do believe in a Higher Power but have no idea what form S/He takes. I am currently an idealistic Unitarian Universalist, but in other periods I have considered myself a light wiccan/pagan.

    • October 27, 2016 7:29:19 AM PDT
    • Atheistic existentialism, but with more of a practical freedom than absolute freedom. Some people like to try and combine the spiritual with quantum physics, but there is nothing in quantum mechanics that validates any form of spirituality. It sounds good on paper, but as of now it is nothing but conjecture. The same could be said of atheism. Godel's Incompleteness Theorems actually states that there are things that are true and things that are false that we can never know. This also means that there are things people might believe to be true that are actually false, and things that we believe to be false that are actually true. The problem is if we don't know what we aren't able to discern as true or false, and these happen to be things that we cannot know are true or false, then there's not exactly a whole lot of resolution. Could there be a God? Godel's theorems say it's possible just as it's impossible. Whether it's something we can ever know is an entirely different matter. Even then, regardless of if the existence of God or free will can be proven to be entirely true or entirely false, there will still be people who will reject evidence in favor of what they believe.

      Or we could just go against what I was saying about quantum physics and spirituality, then go full-blown Schrodinger's Cat and say everything both is and isn't.

      Plus that experiment that the Australians recreated that proves that reality doesn't exist, at least on a very small scale, until it is observed is pretty interesting. It means the universe is full of potential. As for how far this potential reaches, it's up for debate.

    • October 20, 2016 1:28:48 AM PDT
    • I saw this question and it really made me think of what do I belive it? I was raised as a Christian and my faith was so strong I could literally move mountains. I could stay in (orthodox) church for like 4 hours in a row, hearing choir singing, smelling wondeful frankincense, watching candles buring, sunlight going inside the church while I was praying. I felt like Im part of something bigger: community, mankind, universe...(i was brought up in a really small community when on Sunday you were meeting everyone in church). When twice a year we had this overnight messes (Christmas and Easter) I just couldnt wait to experience it and even as a 8yo child I would just stay still 5-6 hours in a row and was sad when the mess was over. I tried to observe lent for as long as 8 weeks before and it made each Christmas/Easter amazingly wonderful experience. I was praying twice a day and had my own prayers. To that- I made friends with local priest's family and was visiting them often.
      With time and growing up something has changed. What it was? I am still not sure but I somehow lost it all. I am still a Christian. I still go to church and pray but is just way way different. Maybe its due to all those external factors and seing it now more as a religion and less as a faith and be able to see so many bad stuff in there...
      When it comes to faith I think I will always be a beliver. Faith helps me. I just cant exactly tell what Im beliving in right now. Maybe its energy, maybe people maybe God in a way. I just think there is omething one and above us all and it's more like energy or subconsciousness. Like a sphere where things are intangible and immortal, where there's the spirit and there are our souls. I wish I could experience it more.
      I do meditation but its not enought to reach this high energy and wisdom and soulful level.
      I hope onde day I will go back to what I had as a child....
      I'm still a beliver :)

    • October 9, 2016 11:20:21 AM PDT
    • Passionate worshipper of empiricism with a slight dose of existential nihilism when my procrastination gets the better of me.

    • December 7, 2016 11:15:11 PM PST
    • There are some great and very comprehensive answers on here already. My quick take is that spirituality, as far as people who describe themselves as "spiritual" means they adhere to something that is not of one of the major world religions, yet does agree there is something "out there" beyond the physical, something in the world, not just in us (or both); and that while it might be included in nameable religions, it doesn't really have a name.

    • December 7, 2016 11:12:11 PM PST
    • What is interesting to me is that both of your postings provide for a world that is confined and does not have anything that exists outside of itself: either it is physical and nothing else; or it is of the mind and nothing else. Interesting! Who are some of your philosophical mentors or inspirations, specifically? By the way, I love the title, "Philosophy, the New Religion." Possibly!

    • November 15, 2016 1:16:58 AM PST
    • If you are serious about philosophy, then you should start with metaphysics. Your entire post is begging the question of materialism.

      You make the claim that you are 'totally physical'. I assume this means you ascribe to materialism. You presuppose that worldview then. This is common, given that most of society and academia is materialistic. A problem arises when you don't question that worldview and why it exists. There are viable alternatives, and some do not require abandoning the wealth of knowledge science has provided us

      The biggest problem with materialism is known as the 'hard problem of consciousness'. To put it precisely: "Where do mental properties come from when physical things don't have them?" I encourage you to do some research into different perspectives, from people of different worldviews. It's an excellent debate.

      The worldview I've adopted is known as idealism. Instead of matter being 'real', Mind is what is real. Everything is a mental object, and what is physical is just a configuration of 'Mind'. Science is just as valid, it just doesn't tell us what reality is made of.

      Religion and spirituality is really not as simple as you make it out to be and is influenced by your materialistic worldview. Examine the problems with materialism and possible alternatives. Be a critical thinker. If you feel materialism stands up to the challenge, debate it. It's a great way to grow.

    • November 15, 2016 12:16:31 AM PST
    • I am the total accumulation of my neurons and cells. My thoughts,decisions and my life are governed by what I choose to do right here and right now. If I decided to throw a rock in the air, then the coming consequences will be exactly the same as every consequence that followed every movement I have ever made; the consequence will be mine and not that of any external force.

      Remember, I am now totally physical. In this context I have no spiritual. The Soul,Spirit,God,Heaven and Hell are non existent and are only manifestations created by physical beings to gain further control of other physical beings.

      How can a spiritual realm exist if all that exists is physical. Our world is governed by the movements of "Right" and "Wrong", physical Universals that should govern our existence.

      If we consider that Masters,Saints,Yogi and other individuals gained spiritual achievements we may use the physical makeup to understand their statements: Meditation is a tool to manipulate the brain and the mind ( There is no difference), living encumbered would have great affects on the brain in response to Hormonal Excretions.

      We then should consider that no amount of Religious work or Spiritual misdirections would create a better living environment on a global scale. Considering that a physical approach would be ultimately better to deal with a physical existence. An approach that deals with Principles and Morals on a global scale, a Philosophical approach with tangible results where control is internal based and easily measured through external approaches.

      The new heads of Religious Cults need now be removed from power and replaced with Philosophies and Philosophers ready to teach what would create global peace and Just. A society run on rules and regulations created by imaginary friends solely for the purpose of cattle herding is not a way of the future. A moral and principled global society is now what is needed, a society run on Universals where our Popes or whatever are the planet's Great Thinkers and Philosophers,Psychologist. We need now a Physical approach to a Physical problem.

      Thank You