Theology IV

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Aristotle puts it well:
"But if life itself is good and pleasant (...) and if one who sees is conscious that he sees, one who hears that he hears, one who walks that he walks and similarly for all the other human activities there is a faculty that is conscious of their exercise, so that whenever we perceive, we are conscious that we perceive, and whenever we think, we are conscious that we think, and to be conscious that we are perceiving or thinking is to be conscious that we exist..."

And how do you know that you're conscious that you're perceiving or thinking or existing? This is rather like the old, debunked Descartes position, "I think therefore I am." You have to take it on faith (perhaps supported by evidence) that your brain is operating in a manner that is fully functional. You're trusting something no matter what.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And how do you know that you're conscious that you're perceiving or thinking or existing? This is rather like the old, debunked Descartes position, "I think therefore I am." You have to take it on faith (perhaps supported by evidence) that your brain is operating in a manner that is fully functional. You're trusting something no matter what.

Clearly you seem unable to comprehend that there is quite a leap between having faith that one exists and having faith in a God or Gods.

But I don't really expect someone who operates under the assumption that, until proven otherwise, there is a God, to comprehend this.

It's frankly laughable that you lable atheists as irrational, as if we were born on this Earth with strong, religious faith (Pun!) That atheism is irrational because atheists cannot disprove God, when it's perfectly obvious that one can neither disprove the existence of the Toothfairy. But please, go ahead, disgard reason for fantasy Opium for the people..

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Jon S.

Here's my theological thought of the day:

Jesus Christ was a community organizer.

Pontius Pilate was a governor.

Think.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Atheism is one of the most notable belief systems for the fact that it has zero evidence supporting it. It is the blindest blind faith outlook I've ever seen, because all its adherents have only their own opinions that there is no God, and not the tiniest shred of evidence that there is no God. They never can have any evidence at all that there is no God, because it is impossible to prove a negative.

OTOH, brownjenkins, you may have a point there.

AToothFairyism is one of the most notable belief systems for the fact that it has zero evidence supporting it. It is the blindest faith outlook I've ever seen, because all of its adherents have only their own opinions that there is no Tooth Fairy, and not the the tiniest shred of evidence at all that there is no Tooth Fairy. They never can have any evidence at all that there is no Tooth Fairy, because it's impossible to prove a negative.

Hey, this is fun- anyone want to do the Great Pumpkin? the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Zeus, Father of Gods and Men?


[/QUOTE]

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Clearly you seem unable to comprehend that there is quite a leap between having faith that one exists and having faith in a God or Gods.

You're missing my point. My point was that everything we believe is based on faith, including the legitimacy of the Human Rights Charter. You were pushing the Human Rights Charter as an example of a belief system that requires no faith. Your belief system, though, relies on human thought and opinion, supported in some cases by evidence, and in other cases (atheism) not. In both cases, it's faith. In one case, it's blind faith, in another case, it's what I like to call seeing faith.

People often criticize Christianity for the faith element of the religion, but I'm pointing out the absurdity of this. If it was blind faith, the criticism would be warranted, but seeing as Christianity is actually seeing faith, faith based on evidence (of which personal, interactive relationship with the divine is a crucial part), it falls into the same category of beliefs that we hold to all over the world. Whether scientific theories or social stability theories or other. It's faith based on evidence, reasonable, seeing faith, not blind faith. It is pure ignorance to accuse it of being in the blind faith category, because there is so much evidence supporting it.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

But I don't really expect someone who operates under the assumption that, until proven otherwise, there is a God, to comprehend this.

This misunderstanding of my position makes me wonder if you're listening to what I'm saying.

No, I am not saying that one should assume there's a God until proven otherwise. I'm saying that one should say, "I don't know if there's a God or not," unless confronted with good evidence pointing either way.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

It's frankly laughable that you lable atheists as irrational, as if we were born on this Earth with strong, religious faith (Pun!) That atheism is irrational because atheists cannot disprove God, when it's perfectly obvious that one can neither disprove the existence of the Toothfairy. But please, go ahead, disgard reason for fantasy Opium for the people..

Your atheistic beliefs are purely blind faith, so of course they're irrational! There's no reason in them. You don't have any way of knowing whether there's a God or not, but you hold an opinion very strongly without any evidence whatsoever. That's the definition of blind faith.

As for the Tooth Fairy (and this is to GrayMouser too), that's a different matter because no one believes she exists but children, and parents all over the world admit to making up that story, like Santa Claus, as a good fiction.

Comparing that to religion is ludicrous. Religious believers DON'T admit to making up their experiences with God as a good fiction, and hundreds of millions of ADULTS around the world believe they know Him because of their own, interactive personal experiences with Him.

Not to mention all the objective historical or scientific evidence for the reality of the Christian God.

Comparing the two is absolutely laughable .

[Curufin]

Wow, people are getting mean in this thread.

Why, people? Are we not all adults who can participate in civil discourse without ad hominem attacks? Grow up, all of you haters.

LIEF: No, I am not saying that one should assume there's a God until proven otherwise. I'm saying that one should say, "I don't know if there's a God or not," unless confronted with good evidence pointing either way.

I agree with this completely. I've always thought that having the confidence to say "I don't know" makes a person more trustworthy than those who must always have an answer one way or another.

But doesn't that scare you at all? Because, you know, you define what causes "harm", which you avoid doing, yourself, if no one legitimately controls you. And many other people in the world define it differently. So many people feel they're not doing real harm when they are, like (and I know this analogy has been beaten into the ground a billion times for a billion purposes) the Nazis killing the Jews, feeling they were simply getting rid of nasty parisites "feeding on the body of the people." People define harm so differently, from one person to the next. How do you know what's good or bad?

You only wind up with your own opinion, which could easily be wrong. It's one opinion in a sea of billions, and there have been billions before you and there will be billions after you, and vast numbers of them will differ from you. So how can you possibly know you're right?

You can't- it's just your opinion. It's not an absolute. But that's scary, because it means it hasn't gotten a solid foundation and you might be the good guy or the bad guy. You just don't know. Ignorance about such important matters as evil is terrifying, for it is one of the key causes of evil.

No, it doesn't scare me at all. Because when I spoke of it being only me who controls me, I was speaking in terms of other humans involved in my religious experience, not of dieties. I know you are a devout Catholic and will disagree, but I'm looking at this from a much more 'protestant' perspective - that my relationship with God doesn't need intermediaries to translate for me - that I'm perfectly capable of doing this myself. Of course I can make mistakes - anyone can. But I have the same faith in my religion being true as you do that yours is true, and have had deep personal experiences with my dieties.

And on a very non-religious manner, I do not believe that there is any possible way that I am 'causing harm' to anyone. I live my life in such a way that if I have ever harmed anyone (even animals, for that matter, as I'm a devout vegetarian) that it was entirely accidental.

Comparing that to religion is ludicrous. Religious believers DON'T admit to making up their experiences with God as a good fiction, and hundreds of millions of ADULTS around the world believe they know Him because of their own, interactive personal experiences with Him.

Just wanted to point out that you don't have to be Christian to have these experiences...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Curufin

No, it doesn't scare me at all. Because when I spoke of it being only me who controls me, I was speaking in terms of other humans involved in my religious experience, not of dieties. I know you are a devout Catholic and will disagree, but I'm looking at this from a much more 'protestant' perspective - that my relationship with God doesn't need intermediaries to translate for me - that I'm perfectly capable of doing this myself. Of course I can make mistakes - anyone can. But I have the same faith in my religion being true as you do that yours is true, and have had deep personal experiences with my dieties.

I believe you.

But how do you know your deities aren't deceiving you, may I ask?

It seems that a lot of people's deities must be deceiving them, in view of the vast variety of contradictory religious beliefs that are out there, which people often come to hold because of supernatural experiences.


I had a dream about you last night, by the way. I dreamed that you went into the sea in search of your husband, but were kidnapped by a Greek God. He rode away with you into the sky, in a chariot.

I take it to refer to what you told me earlier, about how you originally sought intimacy with the Christian God, but ended up in a pantheistic/polytheistic worldview. Of course, the dream could just be my own psychology talking to me. I don't think so, though.

You see what I mean about contradictory religious experiences?

Originally Posted by Curufin

And on a very non-religious manner, I do not believe that there is any possible way that I am 'causing harm' to anyone. I live my life in such a way that if I have ever harmed anyone (even animals, for that matter, as I'm a devout vegetarian) that it was entirely accidental.

Well, we'll differ on this one, because I think saying it can be fine for people to have sex outside of Christian matrimony harms people who believe you or who you confirm in their belief. Millions of people die through STDs because people ignore the Scriptural position on this.

I don't remember what you said about your position on abortion, when we discussed it last , but if you support the legality of that (if I recall correctly, you do), that would be another big one.

You see what I mean about people defining harm, and righteousness vs. evil, differently?

Originally Posted by Curufin

Just wanted to point out that you don't have to be Christian to have these experiences...

That's why I used the term "religious believers," rather than "Christians."

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Aristotle puts it well:
"But if life itself is good and pleasant (...) and if one who sees is conscious that he sees, one who hears that he hears, one who walks that he walks and similarly for all the other human activities there is a faculty that is conscious of their exercise, so that whenever we perceive, we are conscious that we perceive, and whenever we think, we are conscious that we think, and to be conscious that we are perceiving or thinking is to be conscious that we exist..."

Sounds vaguely familiar...is it De Anima? Or the Ethics?

"Opium for the people". So true.

And thus, we see Coffee's preferred (and it seems, only reliable method; express derision and contempt. If someone is beneath you, you don't have to answer them.

Originally Posted by Lief

I don't know that I'll be here long. I'm getting less interested in debating, at least of late. There are happier things to do

I feel much the same way, which is why I haven't posted in this thread very much for quite some time. I'm not going to convince anyone, and they are not going to convince me. The absolute most I can hope for is that someone will come along who will, even if disagreeing with me, take me seriously, and we can have a civil discussion.

Of course, that doesn't always happen.

This is rather like the old, debunked Descartes position, "I think therefore I am."

There's nothing debunked about that. If you think, you are. You might be thinking poorly, but you are thinking. If you are thinking, then you. Therefore, you are.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Just a side note: "Deity" means "Godness". The reference to God as "Deity" arises from Thomistic conception of the simplicity of God making his being the same as his essence, such that God (Deus) and Godness (Deitas) are the same thing. Thus, since the essence of Godness and the perfectly simply God are the same thing, this conception of God=Deity (which is the translation of Deitas) is one that actually presupposes a monotheistic worldview. Which all amounts to: speaking of "deities" doesn't make too much sense.

[Curufin]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I believe you.

But how do you know your deities aren't deceiving you, may I ask?

It seems that a lot of people's deities must be deceiving them, in view of the vast variety of contradictory religious beliefs that are out there, which people often come to hold because of supernatural experiences.

The thing is that it comes down to faith. Because I could say the same thing about you - turn your exact argument around on you - that you're the one being deceived. And you could say "no, not me, it's you being deceived, because the Bible and the Church says so" and I could say, "well, I don't believe in the Bible and the Church, and my experience of the holy tells me that you're wrong, etc. etc. So arguing this point is going to be a bit like slamming heads into the wall.

Personally, I'm of the belief that 'there is more than one way to the top of the mountain' - that all Gods tha

t we worship are the same God (or aspects of the same God) and everyone, because we are different people, simply sees it differently. But that's just me.

I had a dream about you last night, by the way. I dreamed that you went into the sea in search of your husband, but were kidnapped by a Greek God. He rode away with you into the sky, in a chariot.

That actually sounds rather cool.

I take it to refer to what you told me earlier, about how you originally sought intimacy with the Christian God, but ended up in a pantheistic/polytheistic worldview. Of course, the dream could just be my own psychology talking to me. I don't think so, though.

You see what I mean about contradictory religious experiences?

I don't think it's contradictory. I would prefer to say 'complimentary.'

Well, we'll differ on this one, because I think saying it can be fine for people to have sex outside of Christian matrimony harms people who believe you or who you confirm in their belief. Millions of people die through STDs because people ignore the Scriptural position on this.

I don't remember what you said about your position on abortion, when we discussed it last , but if you support the legality of that (if I recall correctly, you do), that would be another big one.

Yes, I'm pro-choice, but this isn't the abortion thread, so we'll not waste time on that. But again, I could turn this around on you. I could say that religious taboos on sex and refusing to speak about it or teach sex ed in schools is hurting people beause ignorance is leading to more teen pregnancies and more STDs. I could say that forcing mothers to have unwanted children raises the rate of child abuse. It's all a matter of opinion what 'harm' is.

You see what I mean about people defining harm, and righteousness vs. evil, differently?

Of course I understand - that's what keeps the world interesting.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Personally, I'm of the belief that 'there is more than one way to the top of the mountain' - that all Gods tha

t we worship are the same God (or aspects of the same God) and everyone, because we are different people, simply sees it differently. But that's just me.

I have to say, I'm somewhat intrigued by this idea. I've heard it many times before, of course, but it just occurred to me that I don't really know what it means. Could you elaborate? How exactly are Jesus Christ, the Dagda Mor, Pluto, Bacchus, Loki, Athena, and all the others "the same God"?

I could say that religious taboos on sex and refusing to speak about it or teach sex ed in schools is hurting people beause ignorance is leading to more teen pregnancies and more STDs.

It seems that it's really the refusal to speak about it that could be blamed, more than religious taboos. One might be inclined to say that the refusal to speak about it is caused by the religious taboos, but if anything, I'd be more inclined to say it the other way around, or to say that both have the same cause.

[Curufin]

Well, I think of it this way. Let's say ten people are standing around a prism. Everyone is going to see the light refracted differently, even though at its core, it's the same beam of light in its essence.

In the same way, people see the truth reflected differently - that doesn't mean that at its base it's a different truth.

[Coffeehouse]

Lief, there's a reason it's called faith. It basically means it isn't evidence-based, as an obvious fact. It means having faith. It means trusting in things that no one really can prove to you. That's faith! You're just making things up when you try to elevate your faith to the evidence- and reason-based level of science.

I think you need to read a bit about Atheism because it's getting tedious reading the ignorant views you hold about it. Actually I suspect you know perfectly well what atheism is, but your rigid religious beliefs are trapping you.

As to your comments Gwaimir, I can't really help you. Spare me the 'If-only-this-debate-was-more-civil'. That you don't understand the message behind the words and arguments I've written so far will have to be your own problem. There have been countless instances where I've passed the ball to the other side of the court, but you've not chipped in on this thread and answered some of the questions I've posed to the Catholics in here.

Here's a neat little summary of my views in this thread, in a song (written by a Swedish musician), to show my view of the pompous extravagance of the Vatican:

"A man stands up on the hillside..

..He has body, he has soul, he has life
And he takes care of all three
He can chase, and he can feel
He can go up on the hillside and pray
He doesn't need any cathedrals
He has his temple right where he stands
He doesn't need any cardinals
He only needs the wind in his hair

Do you want to see a miracle?
Do you want to see a miracle today?
Go up on the hillside, go up on the mountain
Go up there and stand there each day
You don't need grand processions
You don't need gold-braided capes
You don't need orgel music
to go up and meet God"

[D.Sullivan]

Coffeehouse,
I've enjoyed much of your posts on this subject so far. I think the value you put on an individuals experience is very important and I also very much agree with your view on the harmful aspects of organized religion. But I also think that you take it a little far and that you fall into something called the pre/trans fallacy, as described by the current philosopher Ken Wilber. Check out his Wikipedia entry for more info on the pre/trans fallacy, or maybe look into getting one of Wilber's books, if you're interested, which I think you might be.

It seems to me that although I do think it rather silly to say "you can't disprove the existence of God because Science doesn't work that way, so he must exist!", I think that by the same token it's mislead to say that since you have no scientific evidence of God you know for certain that God doesn't exist. Science, as I think you know, is always and has always been deepening it's own understand of the universe. We learn more all the time. So, logically speaking, if we are able to learn more all the time, there must be something out there that we don't already know that is able to be known to find, if you follow me. Our knowing about it is not, I believe, what makes it true. Three hundred years ago the idea of an atomic bomb would have sound silly and probably very unscientific. Does that mean science shouldn't believe it today?

So keep an open mind, mate. Tomorrow we might split open an atom and Whoosh! out pops Satan. Probably not. But maybe in a couple hundred years science will prove the idea of reincarnation. Or maybe it won't. There very well may be a stopping point for how far science can know. But does that really mean there's nothing beyond that? I believe, as a Buddhist, that human consciousness itself is actually the most profound tool for exploring the universe. I think it's capabilities actually go beyond reason and faith, and you can leave them both behind for something transrational: Pure, enlightened intuition. But that's just me.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

Dear Coffeehouse,
I've enjoyed much of your posts on this subject so far.

Thanx Sullivan.

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

I think the value you put on an individuals experience is very important and I also very much agree with your view on the harmful aspects of organized religion.

I'm a bit unsure as to what you mean by individuals experience. As in faith as a personal relationship?

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

But I also think that you take it a little far and that you fall into something called the pre/trans fallacy, as described by the current philosopher Ken Wilber. Check out his Wikipedia entry for more info on the pre/trans fallacy, or maybe look into getting one of Wilber's books, if you're interested, which I think you might be.

Thanx for the tip. I read the Wiki. I guess it's quite possible that I do commit that fallacy, but I am trying to be conscious of not doing it, and not too sound too absolutist on existentialism, though I admit that my wording doesn't always give room for the nuance that it's supposed to convey.
I found this part interesting (from the Wiki on Ken Wilber):
"Wilber describes the current state of the "hard" sciences as limited to "narrow science", which only allows evidence from the lowest realm of consciousness, the sensorimotor (the five senses and their extensions). What he calls "broad science" would include evidence from logic, mathematics, and from the symbolic, hermeneutical, and other realms of consciousness. Ultimately and ideally, broad science would include the testimony of meditators and spiritual practitioners. Wilber's own conception of science includes both narrow science and broad science, e.g, using electroencephalogram machines and other technologies to test the experiences of meditators and other spiritual practitioners, creating what Wilber calls "integral science".[citation needed]

According to Wilber's theory, narrow science trumps narrow religion, but broad science trumps narrow science. That is, the natural sciences provide a more inclusive, accurate account of reality than any of the particular exoteric religious traditions. But an integral approach that evaluates both religious claims and scientific claims based on intersubjectivity is preferable to narrow science."

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

It seems to me that although I do think it rather silly to say "you can't disprove the existence of God because Science doesn't work that way, so he must exist!", I think that by the same token it's mislead to say that since you have no scientific evidence of God you know for certain that God doesn't exist.

Yeah, and it would seem that I do exclude the possibility. But I really don't. My line of reasoning is that until evidence that really is overwhelming shows up, my view in life will be that we are indeed alone, in a Godless Universe. I don't know though, and that's why I use words such as absurd, unlikely, inconsistent when I describe the possibility of a God/Gods. But impossible, no, I just might be wrong.

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

Science, as I think you know, is always and has always been deepening it's own understand of the universe. We learn more all the time. So, logically speaking, if we are able to learn more all the time, there must be something out there that we don't already know that is able to be known to find, if you follow me. Our knowing about it is not, I believe, what makes it true. Three hundred years ago the idea of an atomic bomb would have sound silly and probably very unscientific. Does that mean science shouldn't believe it today?

That's a very progressive view of science, one which I agree whole-heartedly with. Who knows what science will unravel in the future?

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

So keep an open mind, mate. Tomorrow we might split open an atom and Whoosh! out pops Satan. Probably not. But maybe in a couple hundred years science will prove the idea of reincarnation. Or maybe it won't. There very well may be a stopping point for how far science can know. But does that really mean there's nothing beyond that? I believe, as a Buddhist, that human consciousness itself is actually the most profound tool for exploring the universe. I think it's capabilities actually go beyond reason and faith, and you can leave them both behind for something transrational: Pure, enlightened intuition. But that's just me.

I know hehe, that's actually a very beautiful sentence: "Pure, englightened intuition", and I think that's an healthy approach.
That the human consciousness is the most profound tool for exploring the universe is I think, quite right. One of the more appealings sides of Buddhism is the focus on transcending, and not because of a God or to reveal a closer relationship with that God, but to transcend for the sake of inner clarity (the jumpboard to a good life). Not transcending out of fear of Hell, nor transcending one's mind and heart because it is written somewhere, but doing so because it reveals so many of the ingenious ways of the mind, freeing from in-the-box constraints that often bog down human beings: taking a birdsview (is healthy) of everything in life, including scientific reasoning: which is after all the product of man, the best understanding we have, but fallible.

You say that I may be taking it a bit too far, and yeah, I think you're on to something. Let me explain though, if I understand your criticism right, why I judge the Catholic Church the way I do.
All my (extremely short!) life I've been fascinated by history and what it can teach us here in the modern-day world. I therefore think in a historican context when I look at the larger religions in the world, Christianity and Islam, and try to see how right they were duing different points in time, and what decisions were made by prominent followers of the religion. So to speak setting up a check-list between what these religions say they do and are, and what history has shown them to doing and being. Don't know if that made sense That means that when I look at Catholicism I hold it to the standard that it itself has imposed, namely that it alone holds the true word of God, and thus holds the universal truths. That it alone holds the true ear to God. Thus, what the religion says it is, the conveyor of God's message. So from the Bible we can deduct from the ten commandments a set of rules, according to the Catholic faith the true word of God if we are to believe them, and we look at these rules. In these rules I see messages that are seemingly quite healthy; don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat: a.k.a. don't do onto others what you wouldn't want others to do to you.
What I realized though was that there are so many times in history since the advent of the Catholic Church, in times where it has held great sway, where it has committed errors, murders, injustices, social oppression, psychological oppression, aggressions that in no way stand up-right in the face of the rules and messages that the Church itself has outlined as its grander theme: love under one God. Therefore, despite the fact that there are many Catholic priests in the world who probably do alot more good than they do harm, and that there are many instances in the history of Catholicism where it has promoted good things in the face of very bad things, I can't help but conclude that this Church just doesn't live up to its promises. It has shown that it's justice isn't infallible. It has shown that it has been wrong on some of the most fundamental aspects of how the world works and how human beings works. The choice is simple: For all its good-natured sides, the Catholic Church must be held to its own standards, and since it fails these, then the only thing to do is move on, look elsewhere. Where am I today? I am an atheist.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Where am I today? I am an atheist.

An atheist is just as likely to be a morally good person, or morally bad person, as anyone of any faith is. That really says it all.

Personally, I've found morality to have a lot more to do with one's parents than one's religion.

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Thanx Sullivan.




I'm a bit unsure as to what you mean by individuals experience. As in faith as a personal relationship?

Let me rearrange some of those words to make my point clearer.

I appreciate the value you put on the experience of the individual and how you believe it's important that people really look for themselves to find the answers to all the questions religion says it can answer for us. Basically, I appreciated this:

"A man stands up on the hillside..

..He has body, he has soul, he has life
And he takes care of all three
He can chase, and he can feel
He can go up on the hillside and pray
He doesn't need any cathedrals
He has his temple right where he stands
He doesn't need any cardinals
He only needs the wind in his hair

Do you want to see a miracle?
Do you want to see a miracle today?
Go up on the hillside, go up on the mountain
Go up there and stand there each day
You don't need grand processions
You don't need gold-braided capes
You don't need orgel music
to go up and meet God"

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Thanx for the tip. I read the Wiki. I guess it's quite possible that I do commit that fallacy, but I am trying to be conscious of not doing it, and not too sound too absolutist on existentialism, though I admit that my wording doesn't always give room for the nuance that it's supposed to convey.
I found this part interesting (from the Wiki on Ken Wilber):
"Wilber describes the current state of the "hard" sciences as limited to "narrow science", which only allows evidence from the lowest realm of consciousness, the sensorimotor (the five senses and their extensions). What he calls "broad science" would include evidence from logic, mathematics, and from the symbolic, hermeneutical, and other realms of consciousness. Ultimately and ideally, broad science would include the testimony of meditators and spiritual practitioners. Wilber's own conception of science includes both narrow science and broad science, e.g, using electroencephalogram machines and other technologies to test the experiences of meditators and other spiritual practitioners, creating what Wilber calls "integral science".[citation needed]

According to Wilber's theory, narrow science trumps narrow religion, but broad science trumps narrow science. That is, the natural sciences provide a more inclusive, accurate account of reality than any of the particular exoteric religious traditions. But an integral approach that evaluates both religious claims and scientific claims based on intersubjectivity is preferable to narrow science."

Yes, exactly. Pretty interesting fellow, no?

Yeah, and it would seem that I do exclude the possibility. But I really don't. My line of reasoning is that until evidence that really is overwhelming shows up, my view in life will be that we are indeed alone, in a Godless Universe. I don't know though, and that's why I use words such as absurd, unlikely, inconsistent when I describe the possibility of a God/Gods. But impossible, no, I just might be wrong.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. And I actually quite agree with you. I believe skepticism is a good thing - I don't think taking for granted that you know something to be true is ever a good thing. I just wanted to make sure you weren't taking the truth of your skepticism for granted.

I know hehe, that's actually a very beautiful sentence: "Pure, englightened intuition", and I think that's an healthy approach.
That the human consciousness is the most profound tool for exploring the universe is I think, quite right. One of the more appealings sides of Buddhism is the focus on transcending, and not because of a God or to reveal a closer relationship with that God, but to transcend for the sake of inner clarity (the jumpboard to a good life). Not transcending out of fear of Hell, nor transcending one's mind and heart because it is written somewhere, but doing so because it reveals so many of the ingenious ways of the mind, freeing from in-the-box constraints that often bog down human beings: taking a birdsview (is healthy) of everything in life, including scientific reasoning: which is after all the product of man, the best understanding we have, but fallible.

Thanks! I believe you also have a very healthy outlook on life, from what I've read here. As well as a fairly good understanding of Buddhist practice. Thanks for your thoughts on that.

You say that I may be taking it a bit too far, and yeah, I think you're on to something. Let me explain though, if I understand your criticism right, why I judge the Catholic Church the way I do.
All my (extremely short!) life I've been fascinated by history and what it can teach us here in the modern-day world. I therefore think in a historican context when I look at the larger religions in the world, Christianity and Islam, and try to see how right they were duing different points in time, and what decisions were made by prominent followers of the religion. So to speak setting up a check-list between what these religions say they do and are, and what history has shown them to doing and being. Don't know if that made sense That means that when I look at Catholicism I hold it to the standard that it itself has imposed, namely that it alone holds the true word of God, and thus holds the universal truths. That it alone holds the true ear to God. Thus, what the religion says it is, the conveyor of God's message. So from the Bible we can deduct from the ten commandments a set of rules, according to the Catholic faith the true word of God if we are to believe them, and we look at these rules. In these rules I see messages that are seemingly quite healthy; don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat: a.k.a. don't do onto others what you wouldn't want others to do to you.
What I realized though was that there are so many times in history since the advent of the Catholic Church, in times where it has held great sway, where it has committed errors, murders, injustices, social oppression, psychological oppression, aggressions that in no way stand up-right in the face of the rules and messages that the Church itself has outlined as its grander theme: love under one God. Therefore, despite the fact that there are many Catholic priests in the world who probably do alot more good than they do harm, and that there are many instances in the history of Catholicism where it has promoted good things in the face of very bad things, I can't help but conclude that this Church just doesn't live up to its promises. It has shown that it's justice isn't infallible. It has shown that it has been wrong on some of the most fundamental aspects of how the world works and how human beings works. The choice is simple: For all its good-natured sides, the Catholic Church must be held to its own standards, and since it fails these, then the only thing to do is move on, look elsewhere. Where am I today? I am an atheist.

Excellent! I completely agree about religions needing to be held up to their own standards. Nothing is more frustrating to me than a hypocrite - except maybe a hypocritical organization made up of hundreds of millions of people.

But as much as I have an aversion to certain forms of organized religion, I feel that too often people, especially atheists, put religion and spirituality in the same boat, which I think is generalizing things too much. I feel that my spiritual practice is very important to me, and though I largely practice it in a religious context, I still don't really feel like the claims of atheists about horrors of religion really apply to me and my practice, but they're sent my way anyway. I find that troubling. Oh well, I suppose.

That also makes me wonder...why go right to atheism after rejecting Catholicism? Is there nothing else? No in-between?

I read a book about a Christian Mystic once, and I remember him saying something I really liked. I believe it was something along the lines of:

"I'd rather have a conversation with an open-minded atheist than a closed-minded religious person."

I think you've verified that for me.

Thanks for your reply, Coffeehouse.

An atheist is just as likely to be a morally good person, or morally bad person, as anyone of any faith is. That really says it all.

Personally, I've found morality to have a lot more to do with one's parents than one's religion.

I quite agree. I've always been quick to defend atheists whenever someone's tried to imply they somehow can't be ethical because of their atheism. Pretty silly idea if you ask me.

[Curufin]

Hey, atheists often have it easy next to pagans.

At least atheists only get attacked from one side.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Just a side note: "Deity" means "Godness". The reference to God as "Deity" arises from Thomistic conception of the simplicity of God making his being the same as his essence, such that God (Deus) and Godness (Deitas) are the same thing. Thus, since the essence of Godness and the perfectly simply God are the same thing, this conception of God=Deity (which is the translation of Deitas) is one that actually presupposes a monotheistic worldview. Which all amounts to: speaking of "deities" doesn't make too much sense.

Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Main Entry:
deity
Pronunciation:
\ˈdē-ə-tē, ˈdā-\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural de·i·ties
Etymology:
Middle English deitee, from Anglo-French deité, from Late Latin deitat-, deitas, from Latin deus god; akin to Old English Tīw, god of war, Latin divus god, dies day, Greek dios heavenly, Sanskrit deva heavenly, god
Date:
14th century

1 a: the rank or essential nature of a god : DIVINITY: god 1, supreme being
2: a god or goddess <the deities of ancient Greece>
3: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful

Along with a bout a million other similar definitions and uses of "deities".

Rules of Linguistics: Synchronicity tops diachronicity; or, usage tops etymology.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

Yes, exactly. Pretty interesting fellow, no?

Yeah, and I was suprised that I hadn't heard of him before.

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

Ok, thanks for the clarification. And I actually quite agree with you. I believe skepticism is a good thing - I don't think taking for granted that you know something to be true is ever a good thing. I just wanted to make sure you weren't taking the truth of your skepticism for granted.

You're right, and it's a fallacy trap easily to falter into, being overconfident of what isn't there.

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

Thanks! I believe you also have a very healthy outlook on life, from what I've read here. As well as a fairly good understanding of Buddhist practice. Thanks for your thoughts on that.

Likewise man, and the reason I mentioned that part was because I think Buddhism manages what many other walks of life and religious faiths don't do, getting the message across of how to achieve inner peace, especially in the larger monotheist religions that get caught up in webs of intricate rules and can't-do's. At least that's my view of it.

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

Excellent! I completely agree about religions needing to be held up to their own standards. Nothing is more frustrating to me than a hypocrite - except maybe a hypocritical organization made up of hundreds of millions of people.

A hypocritical organization made up of hundreds of millions of people.. Yeah it's a test of patience when powerful religious leaders deny some obvious, f.ex. medical truths, and misguide people with little possibility to verify what they hear.

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

But as much as I have an aversion to certain forms of organized religion, I feel that too often people, especially atheists, put religion and spirituality in the same boat, which I think is generalizing things too much. I feel that my spiritual practice is very important to me, and though I largely practice it in a religious context, I still don't really feel like the claims of atheists about horrors of religion really apply to me and my practice, but they're sent my way anyway. I find that troubling. Oh well, I suppose.

I think you're right. Many non-religious do that yeah, rounding up spirituality and religious faiths into one coffin, and dumping it out to sea in the name of reason.
They might be wrong, and it's also counter-productive because what I f.ex. am against isn't the belief in God or Gods, or a spiritual world co-existing with one's material world, but like I explained earlier, the ugly face that rigidly organized religion often exhibits.
It might not seem like it, but I think there's a certain spiritual level in my own life, though I'm still struggling to define it. Which leads me to your question,

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

That also makes me wonder...why go right to atheism after rejecting Catholicism? Is there nothing else? No in-between?

, and yeah it sounded like I looked at Catholicism and decided, nope!, I'm going for atheism Though that's not exactly how I've ended up being a non-believer.
Being a Norwegian I've been raised in a family that, although not very practicing, is of the Lutheran faith, and that goes for most of the Norwegian population. So I've been baptized, and confirmed when I was 15 (although by then I was pretty much an atheist already).
What did it for me was when my Science teacher touched upon Evolution when I was 13 years old and the bubble just burst, though that was only the trigger.
I've believed in God, but I turned more and more sceptical seeing that there were many things that just didn't fit with what the faith asserted. Having lived in Brazil for two years reinforced that image, seeing the weird conflict between Protestants and Catholics there, trying to convert one another's followers (like missionaries coming from Europe, trying to convert Catholic to Protestantism). Seemed absurd.
It's a big puzzle of reasons I can't really explain (would take hours upon hours!), but the bottom-line is that reading and watching about all sorts of religions, and their past, from Christianity to Islam to Hinduism to New Age (the latter admittely not one religion), I have too many disagreements with them to accept any.
What I've ended up with is a humanist approach, with a positive focus on what the human mind is capable of. I'm also a staunch supporter of the rule of law! (But that has much to do with my own nation's history and position in the world. Norway is a rich, but small and pretty much defenseless nation that is totally dependent on good relations with the rest of the world) I don't view myself as a die-hard atheist that denies that any spiritual world can exist. But I'll remain sceptical until further

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

Thanks for your reply, Coffeehouse.

You too!