tell that to a gnostic

Why do we need peer reviewed evidence for the most obvious phenomena you could possibly observe? It's a scientific way of thinking, to take the stance that everything is connected in some way, even the empty space is conceptually something isn't it? You can't prove that is not the case but you can prove it IS the case by observing everything that we can possibly observe. Therefore, to the best that we can define a piece of truth, this is truth.

How best can I simplify this... Everything we have ever observed is spacetime and energy, is that not scientific truth? And remember, a scientific 'truth' can always yield to new theories should new evidence contradict what came before. There is absolutely nothing religious about such a stance.

Also, just because you believe in something does not mean that it is merely belief and not based on a valid truth, IMO. I would say I believe I am typing right now, does that mean it's not true, even though every single scrap of observable evidence tells me this is the case ?

Any belief that brings hope to living and allows you to grow is good. And for some thats religion.

It seemed blatantly obvious not too long ago, to some people without much astronomy knowledge, that the sun orbits the earth. I mean think about it-as anyone with eyes can see by looking up, it circles around the world once a day, just like the moon and all of the stars (whatever those dots even are). Its understandable why the idea that the earth actually is spinning and orbiting the sun would be immediately dismissed because the sun going around the earth is "the most obvious phenomena you could possibly observe"

My point isn't that we should wait until everything is peer reviewed before believing in it (i'm very critical of that whole system, having participated in it, and am annoyed at times by people who don't consider anything until its been peer reviewed), but that just because something may seem obvious to us doesn't mean that its the truth, or that we should believe in it because its "probably true".

We litereally don't perceive the world at all...We experience our minds interpretation of a teeny tiny part of the perceivable universe, which is itself a teeny tiny part of the actual universe... We could be so completely and utterly wrong about our understanding of the universe that it will have seemed laughable in a few thousand years...sort of like an Ant claiming to have summed up all of existence into a few sentences, and believing them to be truth.

Although i agree with you here, if anything, the eternal/universeal oneness energy is just a metaphor for what actually 'is'. I probably say it ad nauseum around here, but the map isn't the territory.



In some ways, yes. But you could just as easily say that science is the study of breaking things down (literally and conceptually) into the study of a things smallest constituents, while too often disregarding the complex connections between interacting whole systems.



(not aimed at you)But there is something distinctly religious in flavor about people who dogmatically cling to a particular scientific model with such conviction that it mine as well be a belief system, especially if that model has been overturned by evidence; which is something that has been seen countless times throughout its history. But we had that argument before in the sheldrake thread so lets not have it again lol

Anyways I think what steppa was getting at was in the spirit of Robert Anton Wilson: our internal reality-tunnels of the world are fictions, not the world as it "is"... and when you give into believing in them, and confuse your internal symbols with the world itself, it mine as well be like your own personal religion.... Most people don't use the word religion that way, but I see where he's coming from

AMEN!! lol

Impressive how you better know what I think than me. Chapeau! This is indeed, where I'm coming from. Maybe I should read Robert Anton Wilson.

Is the sun orbiting the earth a fair comparison when we are talking about existence itself ? Lets say science is proven wrong and that there are big gaps of absolute nothingness between stuff (as we know right now empty space is not empty at all). Is that nothingness not then part of the universe? Are we not all simply existence itself? How can you ever possibly hope to prove this wrong? No matter what you do this will always be proven right. Therefore it's a perfectly logical and completely non-religious stance without dogma. It's more logic than anything. I struggle to find any kind of mind-bending abstract way for this to be false. To be scientific means I should probably try to, but such a thing seems to require something higher than human cognition, at which point everything breaks down and you are left with neither science nor religion nor any kind of hunch, all would be invalid and you might as well never say anything at all.

Yes that is true - my badly worded post. Shouldve written non physical consciousness...

Hug the unconscious

I neither need more have a religion.

But yeah,i just may drop dead were it not for that I havea relationship with a divine creative force that I callGod.

But that's me, I'm a weak little human who has to wade chaotic waters that occasionally swell with freak waves straight from hell.

My God is the ground I walk, the sky above, the thoughts in my mind that flow through the breath in my body to be expressed in the language of love and gratitude that flows from my mouth.

Amen.

Just to clarify, my point was never that I think its wrong to see the universe as one interconnected energy, because i don't think its wrong. There is many useful ways to see it, and many ways to express them through language... it was the clinging and certainty that i have problems with. My point was simply that Belief itself, and absolutist thinking, is not necessary and often counterproductive IMO when thinking about this. I don't personally see the point in me thinking that we've figured out the real truth of what it All Is and believing in it as The Truth, but if people do then thats fine, their choice, and I should just agree to disagree. To me it just seems closed minded to ever be so absolutely certain about the validity of a conceptual model of the existence to the point where you think that it is absolutely true with no chance of evidence emerging to the contrary.

It is always possible the universe could be a simulation, or a thought in another dimensional being who is outside of time in a sort of eternity, or a dream, or a sliver sticking out of a fractal multiverse that is beyond spacetime and energy as we know it, or a bubble in a vast empty nothingness thats filled with other bubbleverses, or any number of possibilities that we aren't even capable of imagining that contradicts the idea that everything is spacetime and energy as we think of it. It could be though, who knows.

I refrained from jumping in here because these threads tend to run the same course, and the answer to the original question seems patently obvious... at least it is obvious the answer that would be given here.

No. People don't need religion.

But need is a strong word, and religion has a few different definitions:

1) a) belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe
b) expression of such a belief in conduct and ritual
2) a) any specific system of belief and worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy: the Christian religion, the Buddhist religion, etc.
b) any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system: humanism as a religion

(according to my Websters)

People who are quite anti the 1st definition tend to be more okay with the 2nd... and generally follow some form of 2b. 2b describes the Constitution... and as much as people don't like to hear it... it also fits the system of peer-reviewed science. Definition 2 has nothing to do with the divine.

I don't think anyone needs any of these things, but they can be useful.

People who are anti Theism tend not to realize that even the belief in oneness, inter-connectivity and so on that people are discussing on this thread... is a type of Theism. Pandeism for instance describes the belief system of many scientists who assume themselves to be atheists. Even belief in a mindless material Universe is a type of Theism.

But we have done this discussion as well.

So what is there to add here?

I will just say that the founders of various religions very rarely were members of the religions that grew around them. Religions are the ossified dogmatic institutions that grow out of the awe people have for the great mystics who serve as their inspirations, prophets, saints and whatnot.

Mysticism is not religious. The mystics of any religion have more in common with each other than they do with the masses of their own religion... and a huge number of mystics have no religious affiliation whatsoever. Newton was a mystic. Descartes, Da Vinci, Ben Franklin, Tesla...

Mystics, whatever their cultural milieu or field of expertise... are experientialists. They strive to have direct experience of the grand mystery of Life. They experiment and strive to achieve personal communion with ultimate truth. Kabbalists, Dervishes, Shaman, Yogis and Kung Fu masters are all mystics.

Some definitions of mysticism talk about using the mind or meditation to achieve unity with G*d or understanding of the divine. But as we have established, in many branches of Theism, the term divine is interchangeable with Universe... Theoretical Physics is thus a kind of mysticism.

I don't expect anyone here to agree with me, but what many of you are calling "individual spirituality" is basically what I mean when I use the term mysticism... only mystics tend to be dedicated and active, while many "spiritual" people are kind of apathetic.

But to wind this up, I don't think people "need" mysticism either. They tend to need mystics though. Everyone is not going to get off their ass and explore the cosmos, but someone has to do it. And those that come back with goodies tend to change the world. Even if it is just their immediate world, these people bring glorious things to light. Peace, wisdom, systems of healing, works of genius... beauty. Jimi Hendrix was a mystic. Bob Marley was one as well. John Coltrane, Bach, Alex Grey, Terrence McKenna, Yogananda, Crowley, and nearly every saint, guru, holy man... and great scientist.

Mysticism is not a religion... though it doesn't preclude people from practicing any or all religions. Mysticism doesn't preach or tell people what the answers are. It encourages people to go out and find out for themselves.

In this way, I think all pschonauts are mystics... whether they know it or not. We all go out and thrust ourselves into the great mystery of the Omniverse and come back with experiences that make us feel more connected to all that is. We find wholeness and holiness in our journeys into realms that other people not only find incredible and unbelievable... but unimaginable as well. In this way, we are like Ezekiel and Enoch. In this way we are like Zoroaster and Lao Tzu.

Feel free to disagree with me, but that is my feeling.

Be well my brethren... my beloved colleagues in delving into the mysterious cosmos.

HF

Nice discussion here. Most of my thoughts have already been expressed by others.

Whether people need religion or not, it's there/here. It can be a source of moral and ethical guidance and motivation for some, and something to justify abuse and opposition by others.

I like some of what the Dalai Lama has to say about the need to move 'beyond' religion in to the domain of a global secular ethic.

“What we need today is an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without: a secular ethics.” Dalai Lama

I also kind of like the idea of the Perennial-Philosphy and religious-pluralism when it comes to understanding the paths and discourses that are taken in exploration of truth/god/understanding etc.

[both from wikipedia]

"The Perennial Philosophy (Latin: philosophia perennis), also referred to as Perennialism, is a perspective within the philosophy of religion which views each of the world’s religious traditions as sharing a single, universal truth on which foundation all religious knowledge and doctrine has grown."

"Religious pluralism is the philosophical concept that states that various world religions are formed by their distinctive historical and cultural contexts and thus there is no single, true religion. There are only many equally valid religions. Each religion is a direct result of humanity’s attempt to grasp and understand the incomprehensible divine reality. Therefore, each religion can hold an authentic but ultimately inadequate concept of divine reality, producing a partial understanding of the universal truth, which requires syncretism to achieve a complete understanding as well as a path towards salvation or spiritual enlightenment."

Maybe what people require to start discussing anything is one simple undeniable truth which you can't break with a mere human mind. From that platform of a 'truth' you can develop a system of belief, otherwise you stand for absolutely nothing. I used to be sort of that second type, but to me it felt like it leads nowhere, it's like I can't have an opinion on anything because I don't believe in anything. I might as well just never talk If I believe nothing... I started to feel almost apathetic towards the goings on of everything around me. Why comment? Why even bother thinking about it? Everything is completely invalid. But since the whole interconnectedness thing seems undeniable to me, I can see myself in a massive system, and AS a massive system but consciously operating as a small part of it.
I think religion tries to do exactly the same, so it's almost logical, but since it's based on profitable lies from a really old book... it's a bit meh...

What a complicated question!

I distinguish between religion (as an organization or institution) and spirituality (belief system related to the origin of life, a concept of self in relation to others, and a code of conduct for successful living within different cultures or groups).

No, I dont think people need a formalized spirituality but it isnt necessarily a bad thing either. Scientific discoveries have their own mythology that co-exist with or fulfill roles that religion and culture play/have played. Either way, people find ways of explaining and predicting in their environments regardless of how accurate it actually is and seem to get along just fine.

Yes, I think religion as an organization is necessary when groups get large and need/want to communicate over vast distances and formalize and mark boundaries in beliefs. When you start managing resources and communication, you need some sort of structure or system to get things done and preserve memory of the past.

Do I think people to belong to an organized religion, no but not everyone has that luxury depending upon where they find themselves. Participation in communities is largely voluntary where I live but religion and political structures can be very blended in parts of the world making participation sometimes defacto. This is especially true in places where access to basic resources is regulated through religion. So it can be a privilege to be able to separate the two conceptuality and in practice.

Lots of deep thoughts in this thread! Good discussion everyone!

No, what they DO need is critical thinking skills.

absolutely









































NOT!


scientific discoveries are based on evidence and reproducibility, not blind faith.