Spiritual but not religious?

fretmeister

ourmaninthenorth said:

Drew_TNBD said:

ourmaninthenorth said:

Drew_TNBD said:

I really hate the logic of 'my experience leads me to questions' - just because you cannot answer something doesn't mean the answer is automatically of a spiritual or supernatural nature.

Why, doesn't your existence lead you to question anything?

No. I already have all the answers.

Ok, what number am I thinking of..? 

27.

Now I need you to admit you are wrong.

ourmaninthenorth

Fuck me.

You'll have to take it on faith that that was actually the number I was thinking of....

It's a miracle....

fretmeister

Then I command you to make me a meatball sandwich. With melted cheese.

That shall be your tithe!

ourmaninthenorth

fretmeister said:

Then I command you to make me a meatball sandwich. With melted cheese.

That shall be your tithe!

Any chance you could send me some bread? oh and a bit of cheese.

Commands is commands. 

Tithe? is that neck wear for the lisping classes? 

Roland

Sambostar said:

Roland said:

beed84 said:

I'd consider myself to be either a torn atheist or an open-minded spiritualist. I don't believe there is a god per se; however, I find it hard to believe that this complex universe happened by accident.

Isn't that the Goldilocks Syndrome? We don't know any other universe, so it's difficult to conceptualise one, but that doesn't mean that our is a priori unique

Racist feckin bastard.

Pissed again last night were we?

Chalky

Chalky said:

@Megii said "But can we really choose what to believe? And should we if so?"

Of course you can. Even people who believe in science are making that choice.  Science is not only a belief system, but a very recent one too.  It is the latest truth. When you consider modern man has existed for about 200,000 years and civilisation for 7,000 years, its amazing that we got all the way to a few hundred years ago without any science!

@Megii - I knew this would bait the science diehards, as it has done in the past on other threads. @fretmeister and @Sporky kindly obliged, with @Sporky maybe even spotting my ruse.

My point is that whatever knowledge you wish to gain will be coloured by whichever belief system through which you choose to investigate. Science likes to believe it is the perfect and only true prism through which to analyse the world - learn about the great religions and you will see that science's claims are more zealous than some! Science is largely, though not solely, an evidence-based belief system, as opposed to authority-based (e.g. Catholicism) or experience-based (e.g. modern spiritual beliefs).  This evidence and reproducibility has had a profound impact on the world and explains science's meteoric rise as a belief system.  But for many reasons, science cannot explain the human condition satisfactorily - it is as if its measurements are on a perpendicular plane to a large part of our perceptions of life. So some folks stay with or return to the reassuring authority of Catholicism or Islam, whilst others have turned to more personal belief systems, like New Age views. This is not new - some Victorians rekindled Roman Stoicism - and the point is that there have always been people who wish to search for knowledge, but no single belief system has been shown to have ALL the answers.  You just gotta explore and choose what works for you.

holnrew

Chalky said:

holnrew said:

That's fair. I just think that intelligence, thoughts and feelings are more advanced than they should be for the natural order of things. That's why we're destroying the planet, have mental illness and other such things. We'll destroy ourselves (and a lot of other things sadly), because it's against the order of things. Star Trek is just a dream. Human nature isn't natural.

All this is IMO of course. I don't mean to state anything as fact. Thanks for making me think though, it's interesting figuring this stuff out.

One of the biggest things that Darwin did was to demonstrate that there is NO natural order or balance of nature or natural harmony. Nature is "red in tooth and claw". Evolutionary theory has randomness as its essence. Saying Mankind upsets the balance of nature is anti-Darwinian, and is simply replacing the religious God with the spiritual 'Nature'.

But you could argue that we're fighting that randomness by imposing our own order. Weak people like me should be dead but I'm not because of medicine.I don't plan on passing on my genes, but many people are. When I say "natural order" I don't mean it's an actual order of things, just a set of parameters in which anything can take place. I might be replacing god with nature, but I can't see anything more powerful out there, and it's actually tangible and observable. 

Sporky

Chalky said:

@Megii - I knew this would bait the science diehards, as it has done in the past on other threads. @fretmeister and @Sporky kindly obliged, with @Sporky maybe even spotting my ruse.

Ruse? I just spotted that you were posting something provably untrue. I don't get what you're trying to achieve here; science is not a belief system any more than golf is a cheese.

fretmeister

A ruse requires something far more clever than an outright and easily destroyed falsehood. Such a "ruse" inevitably causes concern as to the mental abilities / educational standard of the person presenting it.

In fact I think your excuse is the real ruse. Please rest assured it is entirely permitted and indeed admirable to admit you were wrong. If you wish to take that path, I will do you the honour of never reminding you of your earlier position.

If, in the alternative, you prefer to admit you have no talent at creating a ruse then I am unable to assist in the same way. You mal-ruser.

Chalky

Sporky said:

Chalky said:

@Megii - I knew this would bait the science diehards, as it has done in the past on other threads. @fretmeister and @Sporky kindly obliged, with @Sporky maybe even spotting my ruse.

Ruse? I just spotted that you were posting something provably untrue. I don't get what you're trying to achieve here; science is not a belief system any more than golf is a cheese.

Like any other person with a deeply-rooted belief, you wish to defend it.  Is the scientific answer to a question also the truthful answer? Is the scientific answer ever untrue?  This is part of the philosophical problem of science.

Sporky

Chalky said:

Like any other person with a deeply-rooted belief, you wish to defend it.  Is the scientific answer to a question also the truthful answer? Is the scientific answer ever untrue?  This is part of the philosophical problem of science.

If you're going to start using logical fallacies to support a provably untrue position then you're just being ridiculous.

Teapot ennui polar monkfish. I WIN!

octatonic

Sporky said:

Chalky said:

Like any other person with a deeply-rooted belief, you wish to defend it.  Is the scientific answer to a question also the truthful answer? Is the scientific answer ever untrue?  This is part of the philosophical problem of science.

If you're going to start using logical fallacies to support a provably untrue position then you're just being ridiculous.

Teapot ennui polar monkfish. I WIN!

LOL. Awesome.

Drew_TNBD

Chalky said:

Sporky said:

Chalky said:

@Megii - I knew this would bait the science diehards, as it has done in the past on other threads. @fretmeister and @Sporky kindly obliged, with @Sporky maybe even spotting my ruse.

Ruse? I just spotted that you were posting something provably untrue. I don't get what you're trying to achieve here; science is not a belief system any more than golf is a cheese.

Like any other person with a deeply-rooted belief, you wish to defend it.  Is the scientific answer to a question also the truthful answer? Is the scientific answer ever untrue?  This is part of the philosophical problem of science.

I will never understand how you can be so level headed on a whole range of topics, but whenever this one comes up you steadfastly refuse to take any other viewpoint into account.

fretmeister

Chalky said:

Sporky said:

Chalky said:

@Megii - I knew this would bait the science diehards, as it has done in the past on other threads. @fretmeister and @Sporky kindly obliged, with @Sporky maybe even spotting my ruse.

Ruse? I just spotted that you were posting something provably untrue. I don't get what you're trying to achieve here; science is not a belief system any more than golf is a cheese.

Like any other person with a deeply-rooted belief, you wish to defend it.  Is the scientific answer to a question also the truthful answer? Is the scientific answer ever untrue?  This is part of the philosophical problem of science.

You show your misunderstanding.

"Answers" from science are not true or untrue. They are only results. Those results can be expected or unexpected. They can be useful or useless. Or they could be (quite often in fact) entirely neutral to the question at hand. Those results are then interpreted. Those interpretations can be varied but that doesn't change the result of the application of the method.


Using your own incorrect terminology - If the method is properly (so that it can be repeated ad infinitum with the same result)  applied then the answer is ALWAYS true, but your interpretation of the answer may not be. The UNDERSTANDING and APPLICATION of the answer may also change. But the answer / result doesn't.

fretmeister

Sporky said:

Chalky said:

Like any other person with a deeply-rooted belief, you wish to defend it.  Is the scientific answer to a question also the truthful answer? Is the scientific answer ever untrue?  This is part of the philosophical problem of science.

If you're going to start using logical fallacies to support a provably untrue position then you're just being ridiculous.

Teapot ennui polar monkfish. I WIN!

Bravo!

Russell would be proud.

TheBlueWolf

Drew_TNBD said:

Science is the only thing that has saved millions of lives. Religion hasn't done that, and spirituality hasn't done that.

GO SCIENCE WOOO HOOOO!!!

@Drew_TNBD ;

I totally understand where you're coming from but just to clarify my  way of thinking.....

I'm not particularly religious but I do believe in 'God', although it's more of a concept that there's a higher power or similar forces at work in our huge universe that, as yet, isn't quantifiable or proven with backed  up research.

That *doesn't* mean I dismiss science and all the good it does. I've no plans to go all David 'Avocado' Wolfe lol 

We can politely agree  to disagree on other stuff though

Drew_TNBD

TheBlueWolf said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Science is the only thing that has saved millions of lives. Religion hasn't done that, and spirituality hasn't done that.

GO SCIENCE WOOO HOOOO!!!

@Drew_TNBD ;

I totally understand where you're coming from but just to clarify my  way of thinking.....

I'm not particularly religious but I do believe in 'God', although it's more of a concept that there's a higher power or similar forces at work in our huge universe that, as yet, isn't quantifiable or proven with backed  up research.

That *doesn't* mean I dismiss science and all the good it does. I've no plans to go all David 'Avocado' Wolfe lol 

We can politely agree  to disagree on other stuff though

It just means you're a hippy mate. Don't worry, I wont throw any beef your way. I'm generally over the whole religious discussion flamewar thing - bigger gives to shit!!

Plus your girlfriend would probably cut me up into tiny pieces. mwahaha.

holnrew

fretmeister said:

Sporky said:

Chalky said:

Like any other person with a deeply-rooted belief, you wish to defend it.  Is the scientific answer to a question also the truthful answer? Is the scientific answer ever untrue?  This is part of the philosophical problem of science.

If you're going to start using logical fallacies to support a provably untrue position then you're just being ridiculous.

Teapot ennui polar monkfish. I WIN!

Bravo!

Russell would be proud.

I am

Sporky

I wasn't sure who Fret meant - I'm awful with real vs screen names.

It has fair warmed my heart to be reminded that he meant you, Holn.

fretmeister

I meant Bertrand, actually.