OK. I think I’m getting to know what you mean a little better. So now, let me ask you a question: Do you have any idea how many recipes for stew there are in the world? Damn! I would venture to guess that the number boggles the mind. It wasn’t enough for someone to invent the stew in the first place. Some other people, a lot of other people just had to go and screw with it, ad this and that, take away this or that, on and on ad nauseam. Who ever invented it decided it was perfect the way it was. Why screw with it? So you stop adding stuff to yours while I add different and extra stuff to mine. The point here is that even though it’s perfectly fine to stop searching, asking or wondering, my feeling is that it’s really not our nature. Applying your logic in one respect it seems to me that it would never have occurred to people to get behind the guy (maybe a collective guy) who dared to think that we should go to the moon. I can hear the conversation: “You want to spend how much?” “It’s going to take how long before we actually land?” “You mean people can die doing this?” “You’re telling me that after all that we’re only going to bring back some rocks?” “Screw that!”
I think this insatiable desire to know is implacable in the human race. It will always exist. While you may be content to just contemplate the moon on a clear and cool Texas night, in the Houston Space Center the majority of people are probably wondering what life will be like when humanity reaches the middle of the Galaxy. They won’t be here when that happens, but it doesn’t stop them from wondering and helping with advances that may one day make it possible.
I don’t think you would agree that going to the moon resulted in “… spend[ing] billions on it without a practical end in sight?” I can’t begin to list for you the technological benefits that you presently enjoy which resulted directly from the research and discoveries that resulted from the “moon project”. If you were to look in every corner of your house, I’m almost certain you’ll probably find something that you can attribute to what resulted from the “moon” project. Going to your physician and realizing what it is that may keep from dying will probably yield the same result.
Let me tell you why we should bother since I’ve often thought about what sort of thing could significantly change the entire world as we know it. Actually, I’ll give you two examples: 1) Do you remember all the hype about “Cold Fusion”? It stood to revolutionize the way we get energy. It would be cheap and relatively easy to make. Well, just think – If we could come up with a way to produce energy independently, I mean a way that mom and dad could produce sufficient energy to run an entire house and meet all the energy needs of the family, cities would disappear. One of the major reasons we congregate in our modern Babels is because of the infrastructure it provides (water, sewage, electricity, gas, etc). The manufacturing sector would also radically change. There would be so many things that would not need manufacturing which are now necessary if you live in city. People could grow their own food a lot easier having energy to pump water in places that were previously inaccessible. We could really redistribute the population of the Earth and cause less of an impact on the environment. Do you think this is not possible or too far-fetched? Sometimes I feel we’re on the verge of it, judging from the experimentations that go on around the world. So, it may not matter to you that “…smashing itty bitties together at blinding speeds and ‘observing’ the vanishingly fast pieces” in order to find the Higgs boson is a holy grail of Science. But, others think that finding it could lead to unimaginable benefits.
2) OK. How about those “Supernatural” dimensions? As a young child, I was really into science fiction and wondered what it would be like to go into another dimension. After taking Calculus in college I realized that the stuff of fiction was really not the result of over-active imaginations. I learned about imaginary numbers; I learned about a two dimensional object with only one side; I learned about a torus which lead to the n-torus or an “n-dimensional compact manifold”; I learned that mathematicians had been playing with multiple dimensions since the 1800’s and could add and subtract them. Do you really think we’re that far away from at least understanding what that could be? Think about how transportation would change, not just here on Earth but in the universe if we found a way to transport ourselves around by just crossing through another dimension. We think the portal is there because we can already do it with “itty bitties” in a particle accelerator. Now if I could only get the consumer version of that, I wouldn’t even have to say “Beam me up, Scotty”.
I understand if you don’t want to know and don’t place much importance in the kind of research that is so removed from us that it won’t make a difference in our lifetime, perhaps even several lifetimes beyond ours. It really doesn’t affect me here and now either. However, it’s inevitable. And while I’m not a researcher or a scientist, I think some of those guys have balls as big as church bells for daring to trudge on in their quests when no one else thinks it’s worth it.
Etude.
Posts by Etude
-
41Why believe in the SUPERNATURAL?
by Terry inwhat is meant by the supernatural?
supposedly, a realm that transcends nature.. what is nature?.
nature is existencethe sum of that which is.. it is usually called nature when we think of it as a system of interconnected, interacting entities governed by law.. so nature really means the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities.. what, then, is super-nature?.
-
-
Etude
-
41
Why believe in the SUPERNATURAL?
by Terry inwhat is meant by the supernatural?
supposedly, a realm that transcends nature.. what is nature?.
nature is existencethe sum of that which is.. it is usually called nature when we think of it as a system of interconnected, interacting entities governed by law.. so nature really means the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities.. what, then, is super-nature?.
-
-
Etude
Terry:
How do you know there isn't a "supernatural" force that is causing your foot to wag and pull the sheets off you that's the force behind it all?
Hey man, I’m just messing with you. I couldn’t resist. But to address the issue your raised (“Why believe in the Supernatural”), I take it you raised it only to tear it down, since you question the very significance of Supernaturalism. Yeah, it’s just another place to hang up your hat if you can’t explain certain things in logical or verifiable terms. But let me throw a ringer at you. You believe in a physical universe with causes and effects. I suppose you accept everything you conceive is in it and you need no elaborate explanations that define what is observable either through sight or experimentation, hence Occam’s razor. So, the simplest solution is usually the right one and one doesn’t need a more elaborate one to explain an event or question. OK. I’ll buy that. Is that the answer each and every time? Well, we need to leave room for more.
Here’s the kicker. I thought once that Science could progressively find sufficient answers so we could “build” the universe from scratch, I mean at least on paper as a theory. I expected that the discoveries and refinements of natural laws (gravity, electromagnetism, etc) would eventually lead to an orderly progression of what really makes up the universe and why it works the way it does. The problem is that we end up in quandary. If we come up with a theory or set of rules based on some deductions, we are inevitably drawn to come up with another theory (a meta-theory) that explains the rules we came up with in the first place and then we need a meta-meta-theory, etc, etc. It’s like having sex without an orgasm. While that sounds good, it’s very frustrating.
So it was that we had a great theory in Quantum Mechanics. But as we kept “looking” deeper and deeper into the subatomic, we found that the very laws we used to peer with just broke down and made no sense at all. The behavior of particles becomes totally chaotic. Now what? I guess we have a choice to forget about everything that’s considered progress in physics and just keep going on to our jobs and watching TV or whatever and not be concerned at all with the big issues. Well, that’s one way to do things and I don’t knock it at all. For others, in order to know the implications of what we examine in the quantum and to make sense of it all, a new explanation is needed. Enter Super Symmetry! Let me state before I go on (since a comment was made that I don’t agree with) that my understanding is that “String Theory” is resolved and is a viable postulate. There were several version of a “String Theory” but they were finally united because of Super Symmetry (SUSY). The problem is that current top String Theory cannot be verified. Verification (experimentation) is the hallmark of any Natural Sciences. Now, there seems to be another theory that proposes to explain the problems in Quantum Physics and marry the esotericism of String Theory to the “familiar” properties of Quantum Physics. It is called the “Wave Structure of Matter” or WSM. Among one of the dichotomies it does away with is the Jekyll and Hyde characteristic of the photon, being both a wave and a particle. While I’m personally intrigued by this, it will be a long time before we move away from our current understanding and accept this new thing. I’ll be long dead by then. The point is that it never stops and it shouldn’t. If we ever have all the answers then Science ceases to exist and there will be no more questions to ask. You could say that SUSY and WSM are “Supernatural” explanations in for the nature of matter since they are presently outside the realm of any verifiable experimentation. So, do I believe in the Supernatural? In that sense: yes.
There was a time when the world explanation of matter was that everything consisted of four “elements”: water, fire, earth and air. If you really think about it, you can still say that this is mostly true about almost everything we observe that’s physical. But we didn’t stop there. And, while Newton was a brilliantly outstanding dude, he was wrong about things that had tremendous implications. Einstein kicked some major intellectual ass but may have been wrong in certain areas since some evidence shows that the speed of light is not constant relative to the observer. Oh shit, the universe is going to blow up!
Mindmelda mentioned that many things that were once considered magical (supernatural) are now explainable and acceptable in physical terms. If we choose to think that some of the mysterious appearances and sightings people claim as supernatural are actually the result of events transpiring between gaps into our dimensions from another as-yet identified dimension, then that’s a legitimate plausibility. I don’t think that when scientists suggest extra dimensions they are being whimsical. Today, there’s no doubt left that when you physically separate a particle form its anti-particle and inject into one some energy, the other will “instantly” increase by the same amount, which is faster than the speed of light. A possible way this happens is via “linked” dimensions. Is that “supernatural”? Well, in a sense yes. We just have to leave the hocus-pocus-stick-it-up-your-chokers aspect out of it. And just to keep things into perspective, Mathematics, which we dearly love and trust, is not a Natural Science because it cannot be experimented upon. In that sense, it’s just as legitimate as Super String Theory.
Etude. -
61
can spirituality replace religion?
by make yourself ini was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
-
-
Etude
Terry:
You make a good point. Still I think he (GW) would not have made it that far into the race if it hadn't been for the "born again" contingent.
Etude.
-
61
can spirituality replace religion?
by make yourself ini was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
-
-
Etude
Hi streets:
But why would you have to label that sensation as "spirituality" ? Why not just pure "wonderment" or "awe" or "wow" ?
I don’t. But I suppose that we have to call it something. I can only summarize what I found while looking up the definition (not just a dictionary definition but also a current vernacular understanding of the term). From the word itself we can infer that it has something to do with “spirit”. This suggests an intangibility or etherealness of what it deals with. The term is usually applied to things that are non material or are beyond the ordinary. For example: We don’t term feelings of love for parents or even for children as spiritual. We don’t say that an awesome rock concert was a spiritual experience (unless there’s some sort of illegal substance involved). We don’t think of country music as spiritual, although we know that some music can evoke spiritual feelings or can help us achieve a higher state of “spirituality”. No, the meaning is reserved for things that are “of the spirit” and are out of our usual everyday experience; the type of sensation or experience that has a particular sense of “wow” for us. This doesn’t have to be an extreme experience but it is usually one described as very personal and introspective. Perhaps it has to do with the profundity of the experience for the individual, even if it’s triggered by something ordinary. I have personally never experienced it, but I’ve heard people talk about a sexual experience in the same terms, the “Earth moved” for them. That’s quite extraordinary. Is that why some people call: “Oh God!” during sex? Is that why there have been sex-based religions in the past? There’s something to that. Sex for me is pretty good on a regular basis but it doesn’t quite rise to that level. I would rather concentrate on the type of spirituality that deals with the most unanswerable feelings and realizations that I can experience. You could say that “spirituality” is an umbrella word that covers a more or less similar range of sensations (awe, wow, wonderment, etc) of a particular order, the experience of which are very subjective and individual.
Etude. -
61
can spirituality replace religion?
by make yourself ini was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
-
-
Etude
Misocup:
Let me start by saying that you make some significant observations, many of which I have grappled with for some time and which have given me a good deal of difficulty to explain. Secondly, let me say that the picture on your profile is quite disturbing. The guy really creeps me out. It is a bit painful and unnerving. I’m envious. I wish I’d thought of it.
Now let’s see; you bring up the question of why there are scientists who in spite of the scientific theories to the contrary still believe in God while the majority is rabid in its pursuit to convince the rest who still “believe” that they are wrong, almost to the point of ridicule. You question why they don’t just live and let live if people’s delusions don’t hurt anybody.
OK. I have observed that very thing, but mostly in the field of Evolution. There are natural sciences that don’t present such controversies, except perhaps in one particular way that relates to Quantum Mechanics. Since scientists are pretty convinced that the Universe had a beginning, being scientists can only force them to ask not “what was there before?” but why it is the way it is; how did the universe end up being this way (being able to support life, our type of life) and did not end up differently. It’s too exhausting to get into it, but they have come up with a theory for that and it’s called the “Anthropic Principle”. There are a few variations of it (the weak and strong) and a lot of controversy about it. In comes a physicist name Paul Davies who suggests that such a theory reveals that scientist must accept certain things about Science with the same faith that a religious person accepts God. Well that sort of thing pisses of people like Richard Dawkins. It irritates him enough to mention it in his books but he doesn’t have the balls to formally refute Davies. Davies is well versed in the Anthropic Principle and is a very respected scientist
If you put Dawkins and others like him in one camp (the pissed off atheists) and people like J. P. Moreland (an apologist and scientist) and other religious fundamentalist in another, there is still room for people like Paul Davies and Clancy Martin (all world-class scientists) to fit somewhere else. It seems to me that they are in a camp that neither criticizes nor defends. They do not abandon their beliefs but are not so quick to label others as lunatics either, especially Clancy Martin. Although a self-declared agnostic, he believes that religion is fine because it serves a purpose to provide hope and comfort to the people who have it. He wouldn’t want people to lose that or have to give it up. He simply feels that they should at least consider that what they hold close may not be the reality they think it is.
Presently I’m reading a book called “Patience With God” by Frank Schaeffer. He was a fundamentalist Christian who abandoned that to flirt with Atheism but is now neither. He suggests that the New Atheists (the radicals) agenda is to get rid of religion altogether without taking into account that, whether they like it or not, the majority of people are spiritual beings. In their quest, they have set themselves up as a quasi-religion equipped with prophets and gurus with the goal to return to ideas before postmodernists (to Modernism) and form theories to eradicate our current perception of religion. In other words, they want to explain away and interpret everything in terms that do not include any mention of God. This makes sense since two of the most significant figures during the era of Modernism were Charles Darwin and Karl Marx (not that I’m suggesting that Darwin set out to do that). On the other hand I don’t recall a time when religious fundamentalism has been as rampant as today. Hell, it got George Bush elected. So, I think it cuts both ways.
My impression is that at this time in our history both religious and atheistic camps are on the rise. Yes, there are more people in the world. But what I think is happening is that more people are taking sides because they are being polarized. The rise even puzzles Richard Dawkins in light of the fact that people are increasingly acting to the influence of certain “memes” for which there appear to be no evolutionary mechanisms or even a necessity for, in terms of Natural Selection. I do see that people will be whatever they will be whether their opinion points to one pole or another. I can understand if there’s a perception that the scientists are more forceful in their message. But if you really think about it, so have the evangelicals for a very long time. Perhaps the situation is that scientists have the more prominent pulpit right now.
One last thing: I do believe that we are the sum of our parts. This was clearly the thinking in the Bible in the book of Ecclesiastes. That idea does not have to exclude other possibilities that accommodate some of the precepts of religion or even cast in doubt on the idea of God. One of the problems I observe with individuals like Richard Dawkins is that, in his book “The God Delusion”, he uses a lot of bad acts and inconsistencies on the part of religion in order to indict the idea of God. His book should have been called “The Religion Delusion” instead. He fails to see that religion and God have effectively very little to do with one another. This is why a person can be spiritual without having a religion.
Etude. -
61
can spirituality replace religion?
by make yourself ini was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
-
-
Etude
Mindmelda:
Somehow I had missed your earlier comments in this thread. I hope you’re still reading because I think what you wrote smacks of a well-crafted essay on a very elusive subject. You got game! So, I noticed a few things that I need clarification on and would also like to make a few observations.
I take it that by “transcendence” you mean an experience that could be termed "spiritual", while the manifestation of that experience (or many of them) is codified in what we may term as “religion” or ritual. I also understand that the “transcendence” a person experiences is unique to that individual (and therefore subjective) and can’t actually be shared. So, you can only share a ritual or practice that emanates from a transcendent experience. Is that about right? If this is correct, I agree with you 100%.
Still, this leaves a lot of room to explore the nature of transcendence. The research I mentioned about the “G” spot is demonstrating that although experiences are unique, they manage to have some commonalities in some fundamental ways. For example: Most people experience déjà vu. I can’t imagine that there are or have ever been two individuals who have experience having been in the same place before. I mean that both were in the same spot the other was in, in the same mall, at the same time of the day. That would make it a shared experience that would not be unique or transcendental. The commonality is the “déjà vu” itself; the very ability to have such experiences. So, I’m inclined to think that the state achieved during deep meditation or “spiritual communion” by a shaman, yogi, priest or nun, or a worshiper of Sacred Poles (although I think they partied more than anything), or anyone who can profoundly contemplate is individual but has a commonality in that it results in similar feelings and reactions. In addition, what the clinical examinations reveal is that in those cases there is a stimulus of a particular region of the brain. I won’t insinuate that anyone (as far as I know) fully understands the range of such feelings and how they influence us to act. But there is something concrete that is happening and we already know what can happen when it’s out of whack.
So, the discoveries in neurology are suggesting clear pathways in the brain that are responsible for our actions and ideas, and yes sensations of wonderment and “otherness”; something that Psychology could only guess through the interpretation of behavior. Therefore, I personally need to allow room for spirituality, however nebulous it seems, and allow it to be an entity. If we call it by another term, say “the ability to transcend”, I still think that it is a quantifiable, measurable (in descriptive terms) and a reproducible effect that involves a particular part of our brain and is not simply a behavioral anomaly.
Etude. -
61
can spirituality replace religion?
by make yourself ini was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
-
-
Etude
Streets76:
I guess you take “spirituality” to mean an affectation, like seeing ghosts or seeing auras around people’s heads. Since not everyone experiences that and spirituality falls in that realm, you really don't believe that there's is such a thing as spirituality in the first place. Well you are right and you are wrong. I'm not challenging your belief. But the thing is that, whether you're in one camp or the other depends on what your interpretation of spiritually is. In my case, spirituality appears to me to be a sensation that can give one a sense of wonder that fixates on things greater than everyday life. It could be as simple as the admiration I would have to see a small piece of nature, like the blazing colors of the bougainvilleas in my neighborhood or being overwhelmed with awe while attempting to conceive the vastness of space. So, I don’t think there’s anything mystical or super-terrestrial about spirituality. It’s just another function of the “flesh, bones and blood” you mentioned. So, you are right in a sense.
Animals have the spark of life. But, there’s no indication that they have the peculiarity of not only self-awareness (with a few exceptions), but also of a “sense of other” that makes some want to reach to God. That’s the importance of the “G” Spot. A neurological pathology studied by Dr. Ramachandran involved a young man in his 20’s who experienced grand-mal seizures which disrupted the mechanisms which suppress or keep in check the “G” spot. The brain runs a delicate balance of chemicals. Consequently, for a period of time after the seizures the man felt he could walk on air and almost died when he tried to jump out of a window. In an overwhelming euphoria, he felt he understood everything and perceived all things at once. He felt as one with the universe. The man thought he was Jesus Christ or at times he was God himself, equipped with all the power and knowledge of everything. Under a cat scan, the “G” spot area lit up like a flare.
It’s possible then to entertain the idea that people like Joan of Arc, Joseph Smith and yes maybe even the prophet Isaiah or the apostle John might have had similar conditions, since cannabis and LSD where not common in their time. I’m not trying to be sacrilegious and offend people who are still religious and can’t contemplate such possibilities. But the reality is that a good argument could be made for such visions as being the result of brain pathology for one reason or another. Bottom line is that we have a capacity that like any other bodily function (which includes the brain) may need some tending-to, perhaps some nurturing. And it also tells me that when it’s not working right you create groups like the JWs. When it’s cleverly manipulated, you end up with a bunch of “other sheep”.Etude.
-
61
can spirituality replace religion?
by make yourself ini was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
-
-
Etude
Hey Terry:
At the risk of repeating myself repeating myself, I was browsing through my old posts and found a thread I started on the subject of the "G" spot. You posted some interesting comments. Check it out (http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/95534/1/Do-you-stimulate-your-G-spot). Looking back, it all still makes sense to me. But damn, can I go on and on and on judging from the lengths of my posts. I had a verbal hemorrage and I'm bleedding to this day.
Etude.
-
61
can spirituality replace religion?
by make yourself ini was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
-
-
Etude
Terry:
The point is not that we (as individuals) don't exist. The problem is that if we embark on a way or means to prove with any degree of certainty that we do, we have a serious problem. I believe I exist. I just can't formally prove it. That's what the philosopher (Rene Descartes) brought up a few centuries ago. In spite of that, I go on and (in order to continue the argument and accept that you exists as well even if I can't prove it), I continue to exchange ideas with people so that I don't end up in that padded cell (even if it's imaginary) like misocup suggested. That's why I acknowledge that we have a brain and that it has something that may be responsible for what we term "spiritual" feelings. I realize that for some this amounts to a bunch of esoteric bullshit, but that’s the way of the world if we dare to keep asking the really tough questions, even about the nature of our own existence.
Etude. -
61
can spirituality replace religion?
by make yourself ini was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
-
-
Etude
It’s amazing to find people with the intellectual cojones to admit some tough conclusions, namely that we are physical beings and not the result of some shadow that lives inside of us. Did I get that right from you misocup and streets76? That was not easy for me to admit. Yes, I’m a monist as well. And I was not attempting to justify “spirituality” as something more significant than being left-handed. By mapping it to the brain, it simply means it’s another function (though a higher one in the sense that it involves thought) like feeling pain or wanting sex.
Misocup: You’re right about not crossing into the philosophical line of whether we exist or not. It kinda leads nowhere. But like the man said: “Cogito ergo sum”. That’s hard to argue with even if we can’t prove that anything else exists. So, I was presenting the idea that there’s a consistent commonality within our delusions of life, that poking around in the supposed part of the brain will consistently yield a common delusion. I had to make some basic assumptions. Otherwise, I would never have contributed to this thread and suggest that religion is one thing and spirituality (whatever it means and with all that it encompasses) is another. While I can’t say for sure that any of you exist or that I’m even writing this tidbit and not dreaming it, I must continue to continue to pretend.
Etude.