Prerequisites for Spiritual Knowledge

[(Q)]

So is a ritual not a learning process? Ultimately all knowledge is based on symbolic representation.

By definition, a ritual is a prescribed procedure for conducting religious ceremonies. There's nothing difficult about learning rituals and practicing them. It is the suspension of disbelief that ultimately makes the difference.

Whats wrong with ritual?

It means nothing when applied to religion, without the belief to prop it up.

 

[(Q)]

That is religion.

No, that is delusion.

 

[spidergoat]

The sky is not blue. We are neither up nor down.
The sky appears blue when light of a certain wavelength hits the cones in our eyes, and we percieve it as blue, although I cannot be certain that your subjective perception of blue is the same as mine.

Science makes assumptions, but unlike religion, they are only tentative, provisional, and open to change based on further knowledge.

The "simplest" questions of science are not inexplicable, meaning we can never know. Only supernatural things are inexplicable. As yet we don't know wether something can be eventually known or not, but science has a good track record so far. I think everything is explicable.

e.g. if you break down all things in the universe to the smallest base unit that it is comprised of, can we answer the question "what is life?"

There are no base units. Life is not clearly separate from non-life, it's a continuum.

Science can answer the what and to a very limited extent it can answer the how (which of course builds with every advance we make) but it can never really answer the why.

It can, and has. For some things the question why doesn't apply. It is a particular human trait to apply motive to phenomenon, and probably has an evolutionary origin.

And seeing as we are dissatisfied with incomplete equations,

On the contrary, only the religious are dissatisfied with incomplete equations. scientists love a good puzzle.

we can never be satisfied with a world where the why is incomplete.

The concept of intellectual satisfaction is conditioned into people by religion. Satisfaction is death. The persuit of knowledge is infinite. We seek patterns, but everything we find out reveals more mystery.

Yes, we are more than the sum of our parts, but if we become aware of the parts, how much more wonderous is that sum!

 

[S.A.M.]

By definition, a ritual is a prescribed procedure for conducting religious ceremonies. There's nothing difficult about learning rituals and practicing them. It is the suspension of disbelief that ultimately makes the difference.



It means nothing when applied to religion, without the belief to prop it up.

No, that is delusion.

You are not sufficiently trained for this conversation. Go away.

 

[spidergoat]

In the Talmud, it is admitted that Jesus performed miracles.

...No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish...

David Hume

 

[S.A.M.]

Science makes assumptions, but unlike religion, they are only tentative, provisional, and open to change based on further knowledge.

The "simplest" questions of science are not inexplicable, meaning we can never know. Only supernatural things are inexplicable. As yet we don't know wether something can be eventually known or not, but science has a good track record so far. I think everything is explicable.

I think thats a vast overstatement, because it assumes complete knowledge.

I don't believe that religion is a scientific realm, they simply do not address the same issues.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Science can answer the what and to a very limited extent it can answer the how (which of course builds with every advance we make) but it can never really answer the why.

The 'why' question is either a 'how' question (ex. "why is the sky blue") or it is a question of intent (ex. "why did he do that?"). The latter of the two questions is typically the one that science does not answer, but not because of some bizzare limitation... it's because the question doesn't objectively apply to many things people subjectively apply it too.

 

[(Q)]

You are not sufficiently trained for this conversation. Go away.

Cornered once again with your only recourse, as usual. lol

 

[S.A.M.]

The 'why' question is either a 'how' question (ex. "why is the sky blue") or it is a question of intent (ex. "why did he do that?"). The latter of the two questions is typically the one that science does not answer, but not because of some bizzare limitation... it's because the question doesn't objectively apply to many things people subjectively apply it too.

Correct. Which is why I believe that religion is not a scientific realm.

 

[spidergoat]

I think thats a vast overstatement, because it assumes complete knowledge.

It assumes that everything has the possibility of being explained, not that everything will at some point actually be explained.

I don't believe that religion is a scientific realm, they simply do not address the same issues.

That is possible. There is no science of poetry or art.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

LightGigantic produces an argument which, when considered, is actually rather intriguing...

Many fantasies are interesting and attractive. LG is trying to push the notion that knowledge magically causes a person to acquire new forms of sensory perception.

 

[S.A.M.]

Cornered once again with your only recourse, as usual. lol

Not cornered sweets, I am explaining it, but based on our past conversations I doubt your willingness to look beyond your prejudices and understand what I am trying to say.

One clarification: rituals are not always religious, they can also be be cultural, in fact religious rituals are cultural in nature, since people adapt them to existing cultural mores and beliefs.

Religion!= ritual, but ritual is an important part of the expression of theism.

 

[S.A.M.]

Many fantasies are interesting and attractive. LG is trying to push the notion that knowledge magically causes a person to acquire new forms of sensory perception.

What LG is doing is communicating the methods of ancient Indian philosophy in the expression of religion. Indian religious practices are an excellent example of the point I am trying to make, and yes, they are understood on a comprehensive knowledge of Indian scriptures. You might be surprised to know (or not) that Indian religions also embrace agnosticism and atheism.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Correct. Which is why I believe that religion is not a scientific realm.

Religion itself is a method of human relationship (and a very successful one at that) whereas science is a process for asking reality questions. So yes they are two very different beasts.

Religion tends to make some very objective assertions which reality does not support and in many cases outright contradicts.

 

[S.A.M.]

Religion tends to make some very objective assertions which reality does not support and in many cases outright contradicts.

Here you speak of Western religion.

Eastern religions do not conform to the same structure, so this qualification does not apply.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Here you speak of Western religion.

Eastern religions do not conform to the same structure, so this qualification does not apply.

Do the prevelant Eastern religions not assert the existence of 'God', 'Souls', 'Djin', 'Miracles', etc.?

 

[S.A.M.]

Do the prevelant Eastern religions not assert the existence of 'God', 'Souls', 'Djin', 'Miracles', etc.?

Of course, but they also recognise that the idols they use are representations, that these do not represent reality, but are a manifestations of something not understood.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

What LG is doing is communicating the methods of ancient Indian philosophy in the expression of religion. Indian religious practices are an excellent example of the point I am trying to make, and yes, they are understood on a comprehensive knowledge of Indian scriptures. You might be surprised to know (or not) that Indian religions also embrace agnosticism and atheism.

Those methods make an assertion about objective reality for which there is no evidence for and evidence against... the assertion being that knowledge creates new sensory perception.

 

[S.A.M.]

Those methods make an assertion about objective reality for which there is no evidence for and evidence against... the assertion being that knowledge creates new sensory perception.

What these methods do is explore the various points of view and examine their relative validities. They pass no judgment about any one POV but lay out all the possibilities that may be assumed to exist and supporting/dissenting opinions for each. These explorations are very comprehensive and extend across several thousands of years. Ultimately what they offer is choice, to accept in part or whole, the point of view which best echoes your own after an examination of the whole. In the absence of any evidence for/against an objective reality, that may be considered the best available option.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Of course, but they also recognise that the idols they use are representations, that these do not represent reality, but are a manifestations of something not understood.

Are 'God', 'souls', etc... being referred to as 'Idols' here? It wasn't clear if that was the case or if the statement was separate and referred to regular idols.

If it's the former then the religion is unclear to many of its followers that the assertions they hold as truth are place holders of speculation.