What do we know

Started by dadudemon4 pages
Originally posted by Mindship
I should be more clear what I mean by benefit. When discussing consciousness in its broadest sense, from a mystical POV one inevitably broaches the subject of "higher" consciousness and "God." Since no one really, truly knows whether or not "God" exists (for the moment leaving the definition of "God" open), I choose to assume "He" does because this gives me an expanded map of reality, a larger explanatory framework, one which includes but is not limited to a purely empirical POV. Am I deluding myself? Maybe. Maybe not. In the interim, I enjoy this expanded map. It's also been my experience (in working with people who have experienced trauma) that belief in a "higher power" is a tremendous source of hope and strength, of healing and comfort. Placebo? Again, maybe, maybe not.

I can agree with the idea that. Adding a dash of "God" in science has its benefits.

But...

Wasn't it the fault of having "God" in the "scientific equation" that damned scientific discovery in the first place? After western humans started thinking outside the constraints of the absolutes set forth by the leaders of Christianity, we started to make some real scientific progress. Without this scientific "exodus", we would not be having this conversation to begin with. (I’m using exodus a bit loosely because it was more like a trickle at first 😄 )

Originally posted by dadudemon
I can agree with the idea that. Adding a dash of "God" in science has its benefits.

But...

Wasn't it the fault of having "God" in the "scientific equation" that damned scientific discovery in the first place? After western humans started thinking outside the constraints of the absolutes set forth by the leaders of Christianity, we started to make some real scientific progress. Without this scientific "exodus", we would not be having this conversation to begin with. (I’m using exodus a bit loosely because it was more like a trickle at first 😄 )


You're right. Religionism (an ego-serving, self-contradicting corruption of religion) was used to subordinate, if not entirely replace science in order to fortify political power. Religionism is still alive and well today, and I suspect it will be around for centuries until that "multi-dimensional paradigm shift" occurs (if ever).

In the interim, genuine religion and empirical science need not be mutually exclusive, IMO, and both can enhance the quality of life as long as one is not used to do the other's job.

At the very least, it's a personal choice.

Originally posted by Mindship
In the interim, genuine religion and empirical science need not be mutually exclusive, IMO, and both can enhance the quality of life as long as one is not used to do the other's job.

At the very least, it's a personal choice.

Well said.

Now if we can only talk the rest of the world into this...