[walford]

The debates that have arisen here and elsewhere that assume that there is a natural conflict between science/religion, faith/knowledge are pointless.

Those who have made their life’s work to study the physical world and to discover the laws that govern typically express awe at the magnificence of the universe and a conviction that the more we find out, the more we learn how little we know of the Greater Whole.

Long before the technological means of proving our theories, those of our ancestors who were committed to finding the truth and were humble enough to seek it without preconceptions did indeed find ways to apprehend reality well enough to ensure that we would be here today.

One thing that the surviving tribes had in common is that they discovered that they have a stake in the world they leave behind; that we are each a part of an interconnected whole. We have the potential to find the answers we need within us, but we must look outward. And, most importantly, we don’t make the rules here and thus cannot fashion a reality that suits us.

Dogmatists from the secular and religious worlds argue otherwise. The former hold that man can create a set of rules and impose it upon the rest of it – it will work if only we believe in it. Those who do not are a threat and should thus be destroyed. The latter claim to be Chosen to deliver God’s Will, when in fact they are blasphemously postulating their own as such. Those who do not accept this are Infidels and should thus be destroyed.

Is it no surprise then at the rivers of blood that have been spawned as a consequence? Whether it in the laboratory or at the altar, perhaps we should consider our own limitations and purpose before lashing out at others who do not accept our respective man-made constructs.

When we Westerners hear of Eastern mystics advocating surrendering self in favor of a greater consciousness, it seems absurd. What they were in fact talking about was abandoning our artificial preconceptions – even if they have been reinforced by centuries of habit and tradition – a pure form of objectivity, if you will.

Such objectivity requires that we accept that we are not equipped to have more than a small hint of the Big Picture and must therefore trust that there is something larger than us running the show.  

[the invisib1e hand]

I confess to only skimming, as this thought was forming: the more untethered people become from the truths the great classical scientests honored (God, mainly), the more bizarre (it's aliens!) and less humane the field will become. Again.

"The inspired man will be thought a lunatic."

[MonroeDNA]

As long as nobody confuses God with religeon.

[microgood]

Until very recently, science has never been associated with Truth. Science is about what is useful and what works to produce technology and better mankind.

Somewhere in the 50s or 60s it became associated with Truth, but since Truth is a constant and scientific theories ("truths") constantly change, they really are completely different. Science is the latest "truth", subject to change tomorrow.

[Coyoteman]

Too far out for me.

[RobbyS]

Why are westerners drawn to eastern mysticism when they have a whole mystical tradition in the West. Eastern Christainbity is at least as "mysticaL" as Buddhism, except that it anchors the spirit in the flesh through the doctrine of the incarnation. My impression is that Buddhism that is known to westerners is a buddhism that has been invaded by western concepts; otherwise, it would not be intelligible to westerners. Reminding me of what happened to the "Native American" religions.

[Fester Chugabrew]

ping

[Intolerant in NJ]

Bump.....

[ARridgerunner]

ping

[Phil Southern]

You could have had an excellent post......if you just left 3/4 of it out........

-p

[Allan]

"...A human being is a part of the whole, called by us 'Universe,' a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation, and a foundation for inner security," wrote Albert Einstein in 1950...

What a lot of drivel!
Worthy of Madonna, or perhaps the Maharishi.
Outside the field of physics Einstein's opinions are about as worthwhile as those of my old aunt Hazel.

Don't forget he was a supporter of every loony left wing cause
and probably a communist sympathizer as well.

As for Dr. Bohm, he was a follower of the charlatan, Krishnamurthi.

[Allan]

Heisenberg, Bohr, Schroedinger, Eddington, Einstein—all held a mystical, spiritual view of the world.

Einstein's view of God is that He is some kind of cosmic auto-mechanic. Better than no God, I suppose, but not much.