H
Hello all,
I'm coming to you all with a more societal set of questions, rather than religious, but please answer this in which ever way comes naturally to you.
I have seen a rather puzzling and escalating issue between the champions of the Religions and the Sciences and I think this may be down to responsibility of 'who can say what about what'.
Through my short time here I've seen a number of strength varied opinions and story's on the big questions. Life, Existence, Morality and Social Cohesion and each has there points and reasons which they may or may not follow to the letter. I find a hindering ambiguity in this as neither side can actually prove or disprove the weaker side of their arguments.
I'll explain what I mean here,
Religion has a firm grasp on the 'Why' aspect of modern understanding; the reason we exist, the reason we have choice, the reasons to make the right choices and finding direction in the realms of the unknown etc.
Science on the other hand tackles the 'How' aspect of modern understanding; the laws of physics, the evolution theory, human and animal psychology and how one projects these systems and conditions to create concepts of good and evil, but there's no reason 'Why' in all of that, just a solution that rests.
It fails to complete the basic human thought process which I've come to understand as - State/Problem -> Journey/Method -> Meaning/Solution.
This is got me thinking..
Throughout the internet and in your standard communities there is a turmoil between the advocates of each and I think the entire problem cannot and will not end until each understands what exactly it's own purpose is.
Like I said Religion focuses on Why and Science goes with How so surely when put face to face they are inherently incompatible and should, for all intents and purposes, stay off each others turf.
In a sentence it works perfectly, peace to all men. But this isn't reality because both sides feel an incessant need to pose as each other. Best example of this is Life, Creation vs Evolution. Now many religious people, as individuals, accept the theory and make them work together within themselves but as a whole it's incompatible institutionally. Religion, being the tool used to forge today's society has earned its place as a benchmark of guidance and community.
However, in it's current state religion is slowly alienating itself in the younger generation and the cynics and may have to rethink it's place in the world (Which might I add has already had to re-evaluate itself on a number of occasions as a result to discovery) and turn away from the methods and absolutes it suggests in the scripture.
Buddhism I find is a wonderful philosophical based set of teachings, focusing on the self and the meaning one can find in life. It's not a teaching I personally follow but this framework feels right and doesn't have part in or encourage some of the worst situations this world faces today.
The questions, after the kind wall I've just presented, is;
Would you agree that in order for all minds to have the best chance of prosperous collaboration should the religions of the world become non-punishing philosophies and guide those without a hand of force (hypo - if its possible)?
Can Christianity carry the same weight of appeal and influence without it's account of the creation (Matter and Life), in it's current state?
and lastly, Would those here on the forum accept a Church that, in this day and age, proceeded in a wholesale overhaul on text and interpretation of your scripture via the Vatican for example?
These lead on to a place where physical and spiritual truths are deemed acceptably different and should remain within their realms, moral choice is based on grand opinion seeded by teachings and the physical world and it's 'How''s are left to the world of Science.
I do truly hope these questions and this post do not offend, it's not meant in that way, I merely wish to see what the opinion is, I have tried to be as neutral as possible while reflecting and compiling my inquiry. Humanities built in connection with belief is fascinating and I see none better to ask than the believers themselves. Also, I have wrote this is a fairly intellectually fatigued state after quite a bit of reading so if I am required to delve further into a section of this because I've articulated poorly, please ask.
If I am permitted, after this initial post, I would very much like to follow up with other scenarios for all of your review. Enlightenment has many forms
All the best,
Chris
UK
I'm coming to you all with a more societal set of questions, rather than religious, but please answer this in which ever way comes naturally to you.
I have seen a rather puzzling and escalating issue between the champions of the Religions and the Sciences and I think this may be down to responsibility of 'who can say what about what'.
Through my short time here I've seen a number of strength varied opinions and story's on the big questions. Life, Existence, Morality and Social Cohesion and each has there points and reasons which they may or may not follow to the letter. I find a hindering ambiguity in this as neither side can actually prove or disprove the weaker side of their arguments.
I'll explain what I mean here,
Religion has a firm grasp on the 'Why' aspect of modern understanding; the reason we exist, the reason we have choice, the reasons to make the right choices and finding direction in the realms of the unknown etc.
Science on the other hand tackles the 'How' aspect of modern understanding; the laws of physics, the evolution theory, human and animal psychology and how one projects these systems and conditions to create concepts of good and evil, but there's no reason 'Why' in all of that, just a solution that rests.
It fails to complete the basic human thought process which I've come to understand as - State/Problem -> Journey/Method -> Meaning/Solution.
This is got me thinking..
Throughout the internet and in your standard communities there is a turmoil between the advocates of each and I think the entire problem cannot and will not end until each understands what exactly it's own purpose is.
Like I said Religion focuses on Why and Science goes with How so surely when put face to face they are inherently incompatible and should, for all intents and purposes, stay off each others turf.
In a sentence it works perfectly, peace to all men. But this isn't reality because both sides feel an incessant need to pose as each other. Best example of this is Life, Creation vs Evolution. Now many religious people, as individuals, accept the theory and make them work together within themselves but as a whole it's incompatible institutionally. Religion, being the tool used to forge today's society has earned its place as a benchmark of guidance and community.
However, in it's current state religion is slowly alienating itself in the younger generation and the cynics and may have to rethink it's place in the world (Which might I add has already had to re-evaluate itself on a number of occasions as a result to discovery) and turn away from the methods and absolutes it suggests in the scripture.
Buddhism I find is a wonderful philosophical based set of teachings, focusing on the self and the meaning one can find in life. It's not a teaching I personally follow but this framework feels right and doesn't have part in or encourage some of the worst situations this world faces today.
The questions, after the kind wall I've just presented, is;
Would you agree that in order for all minds to have the best chance of prosperous collaboration should the religions of the world become non-punishing philosophies and guide those without a hand of force (hypo - if its possible)?
Can Christianity carry the same weight of appeal and influence without it's account of the creation (Matter and Life), in it's current state?
and lastly, Would those here on the forum accept a Church that, in this day and age, proceeded in a wholesale overhaul on text and interpretation of your scripture via the Vatican for example?
These lead on to a place where physical and spiritual truths are deemed acceptably different and should remain within their realms, moral choice is based on grand opinion seeded by teachings and the physical world and it's 'How''s are left to the world of Science.
I do truly hope these questions and this post do not offend, it's not meant in that way, I merely wish to see what the opinion is, I have tried to be as neutral as possible while reflecting and compiling my inquiry. Humanities built in connection with belief is fascinating and I see none better to ask than the believers themselves. Also, I have wrote this is a fairly intellectually fatigued state after quite a bit of reading so if I am required to delve further into a section of this because I've articulated poorly, please ask.
If I am permitted, after this initial post, I would very much like to follow up with other scenarios for all of your review. Enlightenment has many forms
All the best,
Chris
UK