Pope warns of 'seductive' science

Both have seductive elements. But you can only be seduced if you fail to see the whole picture.

reply to post by Zanzibar


We will have to agree to disagree on that.For me, morals come from religion, our teachings. If people do not think there is an athourity behind those teachings, whats the point.

People always do stuff for selfish reasons, even loving another person is selfish, and only really about themselves.

From what i understand souless people are the way to judge what you just wrote. We only have empathy for people when we feel we have a connection with them. Faith gives us that reason to believe we are all connected, science says that we are just our 3d bodies.

I will tell you a story whether you believe or not. American scienctists tests that we have a soul in the following way.

They took people into labs, and did the following, they told people they were going to kill them, but after they died they would go into another room and move an object or some other task, after they left there bodies. After a certain amount of time, they brought them back. Did the fact that eventually they got the person to do what they said, through practise, show us that there is a soul.

What does science say about what that proves, does it prove that we have a soul, that we exist after death of our bodies, or do you think science will say its something else.

I know some will say its not true and some will say it is, but what does an experiment like that prove to you?


[edit on 1/29/2008 by andy1033]

reply to post by andy1033



Andy: I think it is even more interesting to look at the way quantum physics is heading off into metaphysical territory. There are now supposedly 27 or so official dimensions and they keep finding more. Reality, it turns out, has more in common with a hologram than with a hard matter of fact reality. Our consciousness or intent seems to play a role in shaping it. All of this for me points to a time in the future when religion and science will have to come together to agree that they are both only a small part of a much bigger story. This, I think, will be the birth of a more mature spiritualism on this planet. I hope we make it there.

reply to post by Silenceisall


I can see that you can think outside the box, which is good. I agree that one without the other is pretty much useless.

Its just a shame that most of these understandings, we will never hear of as thats always goingt o be kept secret. Like the stuff that happens after death, will be dangerous info, and there will be those who keep that sort of info for themselves, so they can control others.

reply to post by andy1033


Andy, I would not agree that what happens after death is dangerous info. There is only dangerous disinformation.

Originally posted by Silenceisall
reply to post by andy1033

 

Andy, I would not agree that what happens after death is dangerous info. There is only dangerous disinformation.

You miss understand me, if someone know the truth to that, they could control others, who want to know. Its how secret societies are brought about, isn't it. Some group has special knowledge, and they control others because others want that knowledge too.

Thats what i meant.

Andy: My feeling is that experiencing an OBE or a NDE is a transformative experience. Once you leave the body (I believe) you merge with the universe and the unified consciousness. There is no way after that that you can willingly misuse that information to harm others or for your own personal gain. The experience is too powerful and too meaningful.

"Think of a world without religion, of how great a place it would be, so many wars would be averted, so much adversity abolished."

I don't think this is really valid. If not for religion, people would wage war over other things.

Why? Because people want power over other people. Organized religion is a means to that end, but then again so are a lot of other things. The argument can be made that, yes, religion fuels many wars, but what is really at the heart of most wars? Greed and power, and religious, political, and socio-economic concerns are the means to that end.

In the religious context the leader is a deity, the authority a holy text and the "or else" the Inquisition. In a secular context the leader may be Hitler, the authority "Main Kampf" and the "or else" the Gestapo.

The root problem is that any ideology which must be obeyed without question, will inevitably lead to atrocities. Organized religion is merely one means of the primary concept of totalitarianism.

The way forward is genuine free thought, critical thinking, and a healthy amount of skepticism for what "those in power" tell us.

Those who find comfort and meaning in spirituality should be allowed to do so without persecution, while those who don't should be allowed the same freedom. This is the very essence of freedom. People who cry out "do away with religion; ban it, it's the cause of all the worlds woes," are no better than those who cry out "the atheists will burn!"

[edit on 29-1-2008 by sanctum]

reply to post by BlaznRob


That's it.

Originally posted by budski
The protest was at a university in Rome if memory serves, and was a backlash against something the pope said about galileo, not to mention copernicus.

The RCC has never been a friend of science, if that science threatens them in any way, shape or form.

Hmmm...shades of the Catholic Inquisition, or what? Religious extremeism seems to know no bounds these days.

J.

Originally posted by BlaznRob

"Think of a world without religion, of how great a place it would be, so many wars would be averted, so much adversity abolished."

I don't think this is really valid. If not for religion, people would wage war over other things.

Why? Because people want power over other people. Organized religion is a means to that end, but then again so are a lot of other things. The argument can be made that, yes, religion fuels many wars, but what is really at the heart of most wars? Greed and power, and religious, political, and socio-economic concerns are the means to that end.

In the religious context the leader is a deity, the authority a holy text and the "or else" the Inquisition. In a secular context the leader may be Hitler, the authority "Main Kampf" and the "or else" the Gestapo.

The root problem is that any ideology which must be obeyed without question, will inevitably lead to atrocities. Organized religion is merely one means of the primary concept of totalitarianism.

The way forward is genuine free thought, critical thinking, and a healthy amount of skepticism for what "those in power" tell us.

Those who find comfort and meaning in spirituality should be allowed to do so without persecution, while those who don't should be allowed the same freedom. This is the very essence of freedom. People who cry out "do away with religion; ban it, it's the cause of all the worlds woes," are no better than those who cry out "the atheists will burn!"

I'd like to hear what you have to say about this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 29-1-2008 by sanctum]

reply to post by BlaznRob


Very true. But religion and politics should never the twain meet. Mythological beliefs do not really effectively promote good logical debate. Flawed logic makes for dangerous policy.

J.

At this point in time it seems science has the answer to everything. Answers to everything are very seductive. In reality we can understand very little of our existance with science. Religion has all the answers, even if some of them are wrong.

Originally posted by earthman4
At this point in time it seems science has the answer to everything. Answers to everything are very seductive. In reality we can understand very little of our existance with science. Religion has all the answers, even if some of them are wrong.

Huh? How can an answer 'be wrong'? That makes absolutely no sense at all. The answer is either correct or not. Organised religion NEVER questions it's own premises; and most of those premises are thousands of years old and deeply flawed. Nope - religion does not have any answers at all. Far from it.

J.

reply to post by BlaznRob


Very fair point there my friend.

So there would be other wars, over power, money, oil or whatever but at least a lot of people would be free to live their lives how they choose. Governments could no longer hold religion over citizens heads as a scare tactic.

For example, there was an issue of National Geographic a few months ago (2 I believe) and there was an article, I think on either Jerusalem or Bethlehem. Forgive my ignorance, just can't remember which.

But the point is, the city's divided, Jews against Muslims, Muslims against Christians and so on. There was an account of some school children being brutally murdered by, what the families believe, was a Jew. Now because of this, any Jew who ventures into their 'territory' will be killed.

'Whether it's with a rock, gun or a stick' is what I think one of the residents said. This is because of religion. A petty difference in belief and people are being senselessly and mindlessly slaughtered over it.

War will never cease, it's a base human instinct, to take what you want with brute force and cunning. We may not find it desirable but I don't think, after thousands of years of war, it'll ever change. An inconvenient truth, but one that people simply have to deal with.

But I like to think that with religion out of the way, there will be fewer wars and that they will be far less brutal than they have been.

reply to post by jimbo999


Jimbo: I would say that putting too much stock in cause and effect logic threads is equally dangerous. Also dangerous would be dismissing shamanic cultures as barbaric and depraved, or assuming that old mythologies are the meaningless product of primitive imaginings. Science is evolving and I see it opening up to more possibilites along with Western culture, but there is still a tendency in the hardcore to dismiss everything that cannot be proven ( I would cite Dawkins as an example). Science should maintain its standard of proof, but it should also look outwards.

reply to post by jimbo999


ok then, many of religions answers are deeply flawed. But at least the participant has an answer and the mind can go on to other questions. I'm not saying that religion is the answer to the world's problems, but it does opiate the masses well.
I like a world full of opiated people rather than a world full of frensied seekers.

reply to post by Silenceisall


I agree. Science should maintain those standards - but if 'religion' wishes to be taken 'on par' with science, it too must accept the same priciples of proof. As we all know of course, it's incapable of such. Hence the mockery of people like Dawkins (who I agree with for the most part).

Christians seem to forget that long, long before their 'God' even 'existed' - millions of people on this planet equally fervently worshiped other 'Gods' - sometimes for many centuries, perhaps millenia. So - where exactly was this Chritian 'god' while all this was occurring? Simple. He hadn't yet been invented by the small tribe of goat herders in northern Egypt that eventually DID create him.

Simple logic that disproves 'God' in just one paragraph.

Now that was easy huh?

J.


[edit on 29-1-2008 by jimbo999]

reply to post by earthman4


Religion is too formulaic in my opinion. I you do A,B,C and dont transgress against E, then you get into heaven. Congratulations. My feeling is that the actual situation is way more complicated than that.

Originally posted by jimbo999
So - where exactly was this Chritian 'god' while all this was occurring? Simple. He hadn't yet been invented by the small tribe of goat herders in northern Egypt that eventually DID create him.

You would not begin to imagine how many times I've said that and watched the person I'm talking to stop and falter. To be fair, my secondary school RE teacher just told me to leave the room.

Absolutely hilarious in a sick, crushing their spirits kind of way.