« What does it mean to be “spiritual”? | Main | Meditation as a work out »

July 10, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

As I have said multiple times (and like you don't feel like repeating it all), religion and god are not the same thing. It's easy to find fault with religion but to try to disprove god is just as hard as proving. Evolution is as very viable theory for how life began here as there is evidence, but it does not explain from where life came. There is a lot it does not explain but that's no reason to dismiss what can be proven. Existence is frankly unknowable (scientifically or spiritually). We know we are here-- or do we? The fact that we exist at all seems pretty illogical. So if we leave it unknowable and tend to what we can know, we can have a good life.

What I find humorous (in the wry sense) is how people, who believe in dust to dust, put down anyone who has had an experience with the other side (ghosts, angels, demons, whatever word you want to use for the spirit realm). So only one kind of evidence can be entered into the equation (whichever side you are on). There are so many people who have had supernatural experiences and that are similar to others experiencing the same thing but those who have faith we are only biological beings dismiss all of that as it does not suit their preconceived conclusions. For me, it's leave it mystery, live as best you know, and we'll all find out someday... or we won't and we won't care.

Isn't there a big difference between what is real and what is true? I mean, a text can give us truth without providing the reality behind the truth - a movie can be "about" reality, but when we see that movie, the reality is just that, a movie.

So in science, the principle of verifiability hangs on the presentation of the truth, but not necessarily on the real. I think that this applies to what Rain expresses, "There are so many people who have had supernatural experiences...". The real is not always verifiable, but that does not mean it is not true.

Not to get too bogged in mumbo-jumbo, it seems to me that science requires at minimum the belief that verifiable truth tracks to what is objectively real. The realities reported by literally thousands of years of anecdote are vastly different from how scientific truth is presented.

One example: where is color?

Dear Edward,

When is the "real" not "true"?

Robert Paul Howard

I am really wearing a wig. Do you know this to be true?

Or wait, that question is dismissable as unverifiable by you.

For that very reason, the real is always true.

Just because I do not have the experience of the reality that is Robert Paul Howard "in situ" does not mean that the rumor of your existence is not true.

That is the essential dilemma of the proseletyzer. No one can convince me that what is real to me is false, they can only hope to convince me that it is unreal.

The same with Brian's poking at the god v science issue. There is no gainsaying the truth of a belief. The hope is that a cogent argument of the structure of reality will show such belief to be more than idle: perhaps dangerous, perhaps inhuman.

Edward,

I truely believe that you are wearing a wig. I have much faith in its reality. I am still confused, "What role does wig wearing play in the Big Bang and Evolutionary theory?" Please respect my feelings on this matter, I have a true desire to learn.

Roger, I wrote:
"I am really wearing a wig. Do you know this to be true?"
in reponse to the question posed by RPH
"When is the "real" not "true"?"

My intent was to show that when I use the words "real" and "true" they refer to different assumptions of validity.

The bearing this has on the overall discussion is that we can all live in a world where the implications of science are true, including the underlying principles of the theory of evolution, and yet the entire method of thought can be considered unreal.

That I am wearing a wig is equally true and not true. The wig itself is unreal.

Edward,

You are correct. I understood the point that you were making. I was in a Saturday morning silly mood. I just wrote a little sarcastic smirk, nothing directed at you. Hopefully, you took it that way. I am not sure if you are a new Edward, or the Edward that has been writing comments here for over a year. Best wishes....Roger

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.