[afx114]

[quote=CricketOnTheHearth]If anything, the more we know about how such things work, the more we can fall in awe of them, and to me that is spirituality.[/quote]

I agree with your take on the “awe” of the world, and I suppose by your definition that would make me spiritual. Unfortunately “spiritual” has a root word that is difficult for me to reconcile. I find beauty in the fact that something like an ant can come to exist without the hand of a magic “spirit” making it be.

[afx114]

[quote=CricketOnTheHearth]If anything, the more we know about how such things work, the more we can fall in awe of them, and to me that is spirituality.[/quote]

I agree with your take on the “awe” of the world, and I suppose by your definition that would make me spiritual. Unfortunately “spiritual” has a root word that is difficult for me to reconcile. I find beauty in the fact that something like an ant can come to exist without the hand of a magic “spirit” making it be.

[afx114]

[quote=CricketOnTheHearth]If anything, the more we know about how such things work, the more we can fall in awe of them, and to me that is spirituality.[/quote]

I agree with your take on the “awe” of the world, and I suppose by your definition that would make me spiritual. Unfortunately “spiritual” has a root word that is difficult for me to reconcile. I find beauty in the fact that something like an ant can come to exist without the hand of a magic “spirit” making it be.

[afx114]

I am not meaning to knock your beliefs, I am trying to understand them. I was not comparing you to astrologists, I was simply using them as one of many examples of the flaws of faith. Don’t take it personal. I am asking you to explain your beliefs to me, while at the same time explaining my beliefs to you. You’ve claimed that faith and science are mutually supportive, but you haven’t shown how.

Perhaps we are using different definitions of the words. What is your definition of faith? To me, faith is a default position to fall back on when one is unable to prove something. In other words: something is true because I believe it to be, even though I can’t prove it. I fail to see how me believing that something is true has any bearing on whether or not it is actually true.

I can have faith that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth or that 1+1=3, but science will dispute those faiths.

I can have faith that the earth is round or that the earth revolves around the sun or that 1+1=2, but science transforms those faiths into facts. Once my “faiths” are proven as facts, faith no longer serves a purpose. Faith is not needed for facts, because.. well.. they are facts. They are true whether I believe them or not.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]There is a divine “spark” in all of us, an undeniable yearning to know, which is what confirms the existence of God, since that quest for knowledge is a desire to unite with our creator.[/quote]

Are you arguing that human desire for knowledge is proof of God? Maybe there’s a simpler answer. Maybe our quest for knowledge is an evolutionary mechanism for increasing our chances of survival. eg: our knowledge of agricultural techniques didn’t arise because of some spiritual “spark” within humanity. It arose because we needed more food in order to survive as a growing population.

Like religion, I believe that curiosity is a biological tool used to help us cope and survive in a very dangerous world and universe. I will agree with you that we have a special yearning to know and understand our place in the cosmos, but I believe that this is a fundamental part of our survival rather than a quest to get closer to our supposed creator.

[afx114]

I am not meaning to knock your beliefs, I am trying to understand them. I was not comparing you to astrologists, I was simply using them as one of many examples of the flaws of faith. Don’t take it personal. I am asking you to explain your beliefs to me, while at the same time explaining my beliefs to you. You’ve claimed that faith and science are mutually supportive, but you haven’t shown how.

Perhaps we are using different definitions of the words. What is your definition of faith? To me, faith is a default position to fall back on when one is unable to prove something. In other words: something is true because I believe it to be, even though I can’t prove it. I fail to see how me believing that something is true has any bearing on whether or not it is actually true.

I can have faith that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth or that 1+1=3, but science will dispute those faiths.

I can have faith that the earth is round or that the earth revolves around the sun or that 1+1=2, but science transforms those faiths into facts. Once my “faiths” are proven as facts, faith no longer serves a purpose. Faith is not needed for facts, because.. well.. they are facts. They are true whether I believe them or not.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]There is a divine “spark” in all of us, an undeniable yearning to know, which is what confirms the existence of God, since that quest for knowledge is a desire to unite with our creator.[/quote]

Are you arguing that human desire for knowledge is proof of God? Maybe there’s a simpler answer. Maybe our quest for knowledge is an evolutionary mechanism for increasing our chances of survival. eg: our knowledge of agricultural techniques didn’t arise because of some spiritual “spark” within humanity. It arose because we needed more food in order to survive as a growing population.

Like religion, I believe that curiosity is a biological tool used to help us cope and survive in a very dangerous world and universe. I will agree with you that we have a special yearning to know and understand our place in the cosmos, but I believe that this is a fundamental part of our survival rather than a quest to get closer to our supposed creator.

[afx114]

I am not meaning to knock your beliefs, I am trying to understand them. I was not comparing you to astrologists, I was simply using them as one of many examples of the flaws of faith. Don’t take it personal. I am asking you to explain your beliefs to me, while at the same time explaining my beliefs to you. You’ve claimed that faith and science are mutually supportive, but you haven’t shown how.

Perhaps we are using different definitions of the words. What is your definition of faith? To me, faith is a default position to fall back on when one is unable to prove something. In other words: something is true because I believe it to be, even though I can’t prove it. I fail to see how me believing that something is true has any bearing on whether or not it is actually true.

I can have faith that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth or that 1+1=3, but science will dispute those faiths.

I can have faith that the earth is round or that the earth revolves around the sun or that 1+1=2, but science transforms those faiths into facts. Once my “faiths” are proven as facts, faith no longer serves a purpose. Faith is not needed for facts, because.. well.. they are facts. They are true whether I believe them or not.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]There is a divine “spark” in all of us, an undeniable yearning to know, which is what confirms the existence of God, since that quest for knowledge is a desire to unite with our creator.[/quote]

Are you arguing that human desire for knowledge is proof of God? Maybe there’s a simpler answer. Maybe our quest for knowledge is an evolutionary mechanism for increasing our chances of survival. eg: our knowledge of agricultural techniques didn’t arise because of some spiritual “spark” within humanity. It arose because we needed more food in order to survive as a growing population.

Like religion, I believe that curiosity is a biological tool used to help us cope and survive in a very dangerous world and universe. I will agree with you that we have a special yearning to know and understand our place in the cosmos, but I believe that this is a fundamental part of our survival rather than a quest to get closer to our supposed creator.

[afx114]

I am not meaning to knock your beliefs, I am trying to understand them. I was not comparing you to astrologists, I was simply using them as one of many examples of the flaws of faith. Don’t take it personal. I am asking you to explain your beliefs to me, while at the same time explaining my beliefs to you. You’ve claimed that faith and science are mutually supportive, but you haven’t shown how.

Perhaps we are using different definitions of the words. What is your definition of faith? To me, faith is a default position to fall back on when one is unable to prove something. In other words: something is true because I believe it to be, even though I can’t prove it. I fail to see how me believing that something is true has any bearing on whether or not it is actually true.

I can have faith that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth or that 1+1=3, but science will dispute those faiths.

I can have faith that the earth is round or that the earth revolves around the sun or that 1+1=2, but science transforms those faiths into facts. Once my “faiths” are proven as facts, faith no longer serves a purpose. Faith is not needed for facts, because.. well.. they are facts. They are true whether I believe them or not.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]There is a divine “spark” in all of us, an undeniable yearning to know, which is what confirms the existence of God, since that quest for knowledge is a desire to unite with our creator.[/quote]

Are you arguing that human desire for knowledge is proof of God? Maybe there’s a simpler answer. Maybe our quest for knowledge is an evolutionary mechanism for increasing our chances of survival. eg: our knowledge of agricultural techniques didn’t arise because of some spiritual “spark” within humanity. It arose because we needed more food in order to survive as a growing population.

Like religion, I believe that curiosity is a biological tool used to help us cope and survive in a very dangerous world and universe. I will agree with you that we have a special yearning to know and understand our place in the cosmos, but I believe that this is a fundamental part of our survival rather than a quest to get closer to our supposed creator.

[afx114]

I am not meaning to knock your beliefs, I am trying to understand them. I was not comparing you to astrologists, I was simply using them as one of many examples of the flaws of faith. Don’t take it personal. I am asking you to explain your beliefs to me, while at the same time explaining my beliefs to you. You’ve claimed that faith and science are mutually supportive, but you haven’t shown how.

Perhaps we are using different definitions of the words. What is your definition of faith? To me, faith is a default position to fall back on when one is unable to prove something. In other words: something is true because I believe it to be, even though I can’t prove it. I fail to see how me believing that something is true has any bearing on whether or not it is actually true.

I can have faith that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth or that 1+1=3, but science will dispute those faiths.

I can have faith that the earth is round or that the earth revolves around the sun or that 1+1=2, but science transforms those faiths into facts. Once my “faiths” are proven as facts, faith no longer serves a purpose. Faith is not needed for facts, because.. well.. they are facts. They are true whether I believe them or not.

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]There is a divine “spark” in all of us, an undeniable yearning to know, which is what confirms the existence of God, since that quest for knowledge is a desire to unite with our creator.[/quote]

Are you arguing that human desire for knowledge is proof of God? Maybe there’s a simpler answer. Maybe our quest for knowledge is an evolutionary mechanism for increasing our chances of survival. eg: our knowledge of agricultural techniques didn’t arise because of some spiritual “spark” within humanity. It arose because we needed more food in order to survive as a growing population.

Like religion, I believe that curiosity is a biological tool used to help us cope and survive in a very dangerous world and universe. I will agree with you that we have a special yearning to know and understand our place in the cosmos, but I believe that this is a fundamental part of our survival rather than a quest to get closer to our supposed creator.

[afx114]

Of course science doesn’t provide all the answers — science is the process of finding them. A never-ending process. There isn’t some magical “science” that we eventually arrive at the has all the answers. Science is a continual, never-ending process.

Allan, what is your definition of spirituality? It sounds to me as if you can assign the term to any arbitrary thing that we don’t know much about or we can’t yet explain.

The moon was spiritual for millennia, but now that we know that it’s simply a big hunk of rock floating around our planet, the moon isn’t so exciting in the spiritual sense any more, is it? Bummer for the moon.

Ditto for the sun and the stars. Now that we know what stars really are, what say you about astrologists who use their “spirituality” to tell your fortune based on what animal shape some stars make in the sky? How is their spirituality any different than yours, or mine, or Pat Robertson’s or the Pope’s?

Did atoms and electrons and protons and DNA all fall within the realm of “spiritual” before we had them figured out? Probably. Now we see them as nothing more than cogs in our understanding of how the world and the universe works. My hunch is that string theory will eventually suffer the same fate. And then there will be another unknown that the spiritualists cling to as proof of a higher being until it too gets cast aside as a simple rule inherent to the operation of our universe.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to knock your or anyone else’s personal beliefs. I believe that religion plays a purpose (both good and bad) for humanity. My grandma goes to church every Sunday and it brings her a sense of purpose and peace, and that’s all that really matters. But in the grand scheme of things, I believe that it all ends up being a veil over the truths that people are either too lazy or scared to find out. The truth that we could be wiped out at any moment by an asteroid, gamma ray, galaxy collision, or a million other ways and all of our beliefs and spirituality will be wiped off the face of the universe along with us. Poof – back into the primordial space dust from which we all came.

Wait a minute… ashes to ashes, dust to dust. HOLY SHIT! Now I get it!!! 🙂

[afx114]

Of course science doesn’t provide all the answers — science is the process of finding them. A never-ending process. There isn’t some magical “science” that we eventually arrive at the has all the answers. Science is a continual, never-ending process.

Allan, what is your definition of spirituality? It sounds to me as if you can assign the term to any arbitrary thing that we don’t know much about or we can’t yet explain.

The moon was spiritual for millennia, but now that we know that it’s simply a big hunk of rock floating around our planet, the moon isn’t so exciting in the spiritual sense any more, is it? Bummer for the moon.

Ditto for the sun and the stars. Now that we know what stars really are, what say you about astrologists who use their “spirituality” to tell your fortune based on what animal shape some stars make in the sky? How is their spirituality any different than yours, or mine, or Pat Robertson’s or the Pope’s?

Did atoms and electrons and protons and DNA all fall within the realm of “spiritual” before we had them figured out? Probably. Now we see them as nothing more than cogs in our understanding of how the world and the universe works. My hunch is that string theory will eventually suffer the same fate. And then there will be another unknown that the spiritualists cling to as proof of a higher being until it too gets cast aside as a simple rule inherent to the operation of our universe.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to knock your or anyone else’s personal beliefs. I believe that religion plays a purpose (both good and bad) for humanity. My grandma goes to church every Sunday and it brings her a sense of purpose and peace, and that’s all that really matters. But in the grand scheme of things, I believe that it all ends up being a veil over the truths that people are either too lazy or scared to find out. The truth that we could be wiped out at any moment by an asteroid, gamma ray, galaxy collision, or a million other ways and all of our beliefs and spirituality will be wiped off the face of the universe along with us. Poof – back into the primordial space dust from which we all came.

Wait a minute… ashes to ashes, dust to dust. HOLY SHIT! Now I get it!!! 🙂

[afx114]

Of course science doesn’t provide all the answers — science is the process of finding them. A never-ending process. There isn’t some magical “science” that we eventually arrive at the has all the answers. Science is a continual, never-ending process.

Allan, what is your definition of spirituality? It sounds to me as if you can assign the term to any arbitrary thing that we don’t know much about or we can’t yet explain.

The moon was spiritual for millennia, but now that we know that it’s simply a big hunk of rock floating around our planet, the moon isn’t so exciting in the spiritual sense any more, is it? Bummer for the moon.

Ditto for the sun and the stars. Now that we know what stars really are, what say you about astrologists who use their “spirituality” to tell your fortune based on what animal shape some stars make in the sky? How is their spirituality any different than yours, or mine, or Pat Robertson’s or the Pope’s?

Did atoms and electrons and protons and DNA all fall within the realm of “spiritual” before we had them figured out? Probably. Now we see them as nothing more than cogs in our understanding of how the world and the universe works. My hunch is that string theory will eventually suffer the same fate. And then there will be another unknown that the spiritualists cling to as proof of a higher being until it too gets cast aside as a simple rule inherent to the operation of our universe.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to knock your or anyone else’s personal beliefs. I believe that religion plays a purpose (both good and bad) for humanity. My grandma goes to church every Sunday and it brings her a sense of purpose and peace, and that’s all that really matters. But in the grand scheme of things, I believe that it all ends up being a veil over the truths that people are either too lazy or scared to find out. The truth that we could be wiped out at any moment by an asteroid, gamma ray, galaxy collision, or a million other ways and all of our beliefs and spirituality will be wiped off the face of the universe along with us. Poof – back into the primordial space dust from which we all came.

Wait a minute… ashes to ashes, dust to dust. HOLY SHIT! Now I get it!!! 🙂

[afx114]

Of course science doesn’t provide all the answers — science is the process of finding them. A never-ending process. There isn’t some magical “science” that we eventually arrive at the has all the answers. Science is a continual, never-ending process.

Allan, what is your definition of spirituality? It sounds to me as if you can assign the term to any arbitrary thing that we don’t know much about or we can’t yet explain.

The moon was spiritual for millennia, but now that we know that it’s simply a big hunk of rock floating around our planet, the moon isn’t so exciting in the spiritual sense any more, is it? Bummer for the moon.

Ditto for the sun and the stars. Now that we know what stars really are, what say you about astrologists who use their “spirituality” to tell your fortune based on what animal shape some stars make in the sky? How is their spirituality any different than yours, or mine, or Pat Robertson’s or the Pope’s?

Did atoms and electrons and protons and DNA all fall within the realm of “spiritual” before we had them figured out? Probably. Now we see them as nothing more than cogs in our understanding of how the world and the universe works. My hunch is that string theory will eventually suffer the same fate. And then there will be another unknown that the spiritualists cling to as proof of a higher being until it too gets cast aside as a simple rule inherent to the operation of our universe.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to knock your or anyone else’s personal beliefs. I believe that religion plays a purpose (both good and bad) for humanity. My grandma goes to church every Sunday and it brings her a sense of purpose and peace, and that’s all that really matters. But in the grand scheme of things, I believe that it all ends up being a veil over the truths that people are either too lazy or scared to find out. The truth that we could be wiped out at any moment by an asteroid, gamma ray, galaxy collision, or a million other ways and all of our beliefs and spirituality will be wiped off the face of the universe along with us. Poof – back into the primordial space dust from which we all came.

Wait a minute… ashes to ashes, dust to dust. HOLY SHIT! Now I get it!!! 🙂

[afx114]

Of course science doesn’t provide all the answers — science is the process of finding them. A never-ending process. There isn’t some magical “science” that we eventually arrive at the has all the answers. Science is a continual, never-ending process.

Allan, what is your definition of spirituality? It sounds to me as if you can assign the term to any arbitrary thing that we don’t know much about or we can’t yet explain.

The moon was spiritual for millennia, but now that we know that it’s simply a big hunk of rock floating around our planet, the moon isn’t so exciting in the spiritual sense any more, is it? Bummer for the moon.

Ditto for the sun and the stars. Now that we know what stars really are, what say you about astrologists who use their “spirituality” to tell your fortune based on what animal shape some stars make in the sky? How is their spirituality any different than yours, or mine, or Pat Robertson’s or the Pope’s?

Did atoms and electrons and protons and DNA all fall within the realm of “spiritual” before we had them figured out? Probably. Now we see them as nothing more than cogs in our understanding of how the world and the universe works. My hunch is that string theory will eventually suffer the same fate. And then there will be another unknown that the spiritualists cling to as proof of a higher being until it too gets cast aside as a simple rule inherent to the operation of our universe.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to knock your or anyone else’s personal beliefs. I believe that religion plays a purpose (both good and bad) for humanity. My grandma goes to church every Sunday and it brings her a sense of purpose and peace, and that’s all that really matters. But in the grand scheme of things, I believe that it all ends up being a veil over the truths that people are either too lazy or scared to find out. The truth that we could be wiped out at any moment by an asteroid, gamma ray, galaxy collision, or a million other ways and all of our beliefs and spirituality will be wiped off the face of the universe along with us. Poof – back into the primordial space dust from which we all came.

Wait a minute… ashes to ashes, dust to dust. HOLY SHIT! Now I get it!!! 🙂

[afx114]

I will let Saint Sagan do the talking:

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying… it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.

If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?….For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy.

[afx114]

I will let Saint Sagan do the talking:

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying… it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.

If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?….For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy.

[Author]

Posts