PDA

View Full Version : Religion for scientists


The Norks
12-06-2005, 11:50:54
http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm

I saw this on another site and really liked it, I think it pretty much covers my beliefs in one sense, I just wondered how the scientists felt about it?

Lazarus and the Gimp
12-06-2005, 12:06:06
Gaian beliefs are associated with pantheism, though are focussed very firmly on our own planet rather than the universal pantheism covered there. That means I can appreciate the universe and be awed by it, but as I know very little about it, or if it contains life, it means that I'm not yet prepared to celebrate it.

The Norks
12-06-2005, 12:17:17
lol, whereas I'll take any excuse for a drink!

I'm not sure how they feel about the soul

Funko
12-06-2005, 12:19:59
They feeeeeeeeel good.

Provost Harrison
12-06-2005, 12:22:39
Yeah, whatever...

The Norks
12-06-2005, 12:56:47
I should have known better than to expect a meaningful conversation on CG :rolleyes:

Provost Harrison
12-06-2005, 13:16:07
Pantyism...now that's my kind of religion :D

Sweeper
12-06-2005, 13:19:31
Its not really religion though is it? It's just filler for people who believe nothing, based on the undeniable concept of "wow".

Provost Harrison
12-06-2005, 13:22:19
That is it I suppose. I was worried that it would be some sort of anthropomorphisation (longest word on CG of the month!) of nature and the universe, but it's not even that...seems a bit pointless. Yeah, it's all very big and all, and the countryside is pretty, but at the end of the day I am still an atheist and do not crave the structure of religion.

DaShi
12-06-2005, 13:47:51
You should join my backup religion.

The Norks
12-06-2005, 13:54:19
well its better than being a death cult

DaShi
12-06-2005, 13:56:18
Oh :(


;)

Lazarus and the Gimp
12-06-2005, 14:45:08
Originally posted by Sweeper
Its not really religion though is it? It's just filler for people who believe nothing, based on the undeniable concept of "wow".

Far from it. Why should I or anyone else accept your point that by extending the concept of "God" to include everything, that it...

A- ceases to exist?

or....

B- ceases to be worth deliberately celebrating?

Sweeper
12-06-2005, 15:03:08
I'm going to quote, because I'm lazy.

Scientific or Natural Pantheism - Pan for short - has a naturalistic approach which simply accepts and reveres the universe and nature just as they are, and promotes an ethic of respect for human and animal rights and for lifestyles that sustain rather than destroy the environment.

When scientific pantheists say WE REVERE THE UNIVERSE we are not talking about a supernatural being. We are talking about the way our senses and our emotions force us to respond to the overwhelming mystery and power that surrounds us.
That isn't extending the concept of God. There is no belief in there, it is simply an attitude, a philosophy. There's no ritual- it's not a celebration of everything, it's just an acceptance and a respect. It's almost the null religion, the one which is so 'true' that it ceases to be meaningful. It's a kind of pseudomysterousised admission that the universe is great. That's not a religion, it's a poorly worded statement of the obvious.

Provost Harrison
12-06-2005, 15:08:59
Pseudomysticised? :p

Sweeper
12-06-2005, 15:11:48
Yeah, that one.

Provost Harrison
12-06-2005, 15:13:21
But is it longer than anthropomorphise? :D

The Norks
12-06-2005, 15:18:03
I think there is a divine essence in everything that extends throughout the universe/world/everything.

Provost Harrison
12-06-2005, 15:46:28
My arse there is...

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
12-06-2005, 15:54:09
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian. And no I didn't have to look it up.

The Norks
12-06-2005, 15:58:35
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
My arse there is...

yes it even extends through your arse :)

Cruddy
12-06-2005, 16:45:00
So, should we all worship at PH's arse?

I hope not.

As for Pantheism, it's one thing to have a set of beliefs, it's quite another to subscribe to an organised religion.

I'm not too far from this, but I've had enough of organised religion to last a lifetime, thank you very much.

Lazarus and the Gimp
12-06-2005, 18:41:27
Originally posted by Sweeper
That isn't extending the concept of God.


Why not?


There is no belief in there


Why not?



There's no ritual


1- Why does faith need ritual?

2- What makes you think there are no rituals?


it's not a celebration of everything, it's just an acceptance and a respect.


What if it's actively celebrated?


It's almost the null religion, the one which is so 'true' that it ceases to be meaningful. It's a kind of pseudomysterousised admission that the universe is great. That's not a religion

Why not?

Sir Penguin
12-06-2005, 19:58:18
Originally posted by Sweeper
There's no ritual- it's not a celebration of everything, it's just an acceptance and a respect.
Originally said by 'Abdu'l-Baha
"When religion, ... shorn of its superstitions, traditions and unintelligent dogmas, shows its conformity with science, then there will be a great unifying, cleansing force in the world, which will sweep before it all wars, disagreements, discords and struggles, and then will mankind be united in the power of the love of God."

(Dr. J.E. Esslemont, Baha'u'llah and the New Era, p. 210)
SP

Sweeper
12-06-2005, 20:18:11
Why not?
Even at it's most encompassing meaning, a God is one who is worshipped. I don't see how you can extend it further without making it into some more vague "higher spiritual presence" or something like that. IIRC there's no worship because each individual is already part of "god", right?

Why not?
I don't understand "why not". Go to the Pantheist Beliefs page on that website, or better yet, this Belief Statement (http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm). All the points are either facts dressed up in spiritualism, or beliefs about political philosophy. If it is a religion, then it is one with hardly any supernatural element at all. If it is a religion, then practically any philosophical stance which affects one's way of life becomes a religion. Forgive me if I'm using a narrower definition than you.

1- Why does faith need ritual?
2- What makes you think there are no rituals?
Sorry; there's no mandatory ritual, according to various pantheist websites. I bring it up only to contrast with other religions. Yes, faith doesn't need ritual, but it needs to be a faith in something, surely. Faith in the universe's existence seems fairly pointless to me. It just is.

What if it's actively celebrated?

What if it is? Does living the "beliefs" make them religious?

Anything pushed far enough can be labelled religion. Some vague declaration of belief in something just strikes me as not a religion. I wouldn't class the Church of Reality or Taoism as religions either, but maybe I'm wrong. I don't wish to attack or belittle your beliefs Laz - I think the 'faiths' like pantheism, taoism, even discordianism are a far better thing in general than organised religion - I just class them separately. Maybe I'm wrong.

Sweeper
12-06-2005, 20:18:59
SP: I agree, and such a situation would be great. But it would not be religion any more. (edit: in my opinion)

Sir Penguin
12-06-2005, 21:25:52
Why not? Do you think that empty man-made rituals and traditions, performed just because people in the past did the same thing (and not because they're spiritually valuable) constitute the entirety of religion?

SP

Cruddy
12-06-2005, 21:30:26
You mean, like, sticking your initials on the end of every single post?

Lazarus and the Gimp
12-06-2005, 21:40:21
Originally posted by Sweeper
[B]Even at it's most encompassing meaning, a God is one who is worshipped. I don't see how you can extend it further without making it into some more vague "higher spiritual presence" or something like that. IIRC there's no worship because each individual is already part of "god", right?


Certainly not, and many pagans would disagree. We don't worship anything- we celebrate, and the difference is vital. Just because we believe in the presence of a unifying being or presence, it doesn't mean we're inferior to it. We're part of it. Why worship ourselves?


I don't understand "why not". Go to the Pantheist Beliefs page on that website, or better yet, this Belief Statement (http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm). All the points are either facts dressed up in spiritualism, or beliefs about political philosophy. If it is a religion, then it is one with hardly any supernatural element at all. If it is a religion, then practically any philosophical stance which affects one's way of life becomes a religion. Forgive me if I'm using a narrower definition than you.


I'm not a Pantheist- I'm a pagan (a Gaian Celebrant, to be more precise). To me, "God" is very far from super-natural- it's entirely natural. If that seems rational to you, why does the presence of rationality mean it's not a religion? Is it only a religion or faith if it's outlandish and a bit silly?


Sorry; there's no mandatory ritual, according to various pantheist websites. I bring it up only to contrast with other religions. Yes, faith doesn't need ritual, but it needs to be a faith in something, surely. Faith in the universe's existence seems fairly pointless to me. It just is.


Here's where we get technical. Having accepted the presence of an "all" (for want of a better word) what do you do with it?


Anything pushed far enough can be labelled religion.

You're quite right on that point. Therefore who has the right to say someone's religion is invalid as a religion?

Sweeper
12-06-2005, 22:15:52
Originally posted by Sir Penguin
Why not? Do you think that empty man-made rituals and traditions, performed just because people in the past did the same thing (and not because they're spiritually valuable) constitute the entirety of religion?
Yes. Empty man-made rituals is exactly what religion is. Religion is what is heaped into the gaping hole in the human psyche which people take to be a desire for spirituality in order to give it structure, and in order to make people believe that they can understand it.

Sweeper
12-06-2005, 22:31:31
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Certainly not, and many pagans would disagree.
Then I would disagree with their definition. Whatever.
We're part of it. Why worship ourselves?
Yes I get that. This is the part which (to me anyway) distinguishes it from a god. The whole point of a god is that he/she/it is apart and distinct from mortals.

I'm not a Pantheist- I'm a pagan (a Gaian Celebrant, to be more precise). To me, "God" is very far from super-natural- it's entirely natural. If that seems rational to you, why does the presence of rationality mean it's not a religion? Is it only a religion or faith if it's outlandish and a bit silly?
It's only a faith if it requires faith. Saying "the universe is great" does not. The distinction between your paganism and the religion presented through the link in the opening post, to which my argument is primarily directed, appears to be this point. You believe in something: you believe in the existence of a unifying presence among all things. Great. The "scientific pantheism" appears to say "we are all made of matter and energy, so let's be nice to each other".

Here's where we get technical. Having accepted the presence of an "all" (for want of a better word) what do you do with it?

Why do anything with it?

You're quite right on that point. Therefore who has the right to say someone's religion is invalid as a religion? [/B]
Everyone has the right to say it, and to believe it or not, but obviously not to enforce it. I think if you accept that everything could be a religion, you have to accept that for practical purposes a line has to be drawn between "is a religion" and "is not a religion", and it has to be left to everyone to draw his or her own line where they wish. Perhaps I should have dropped some more IMHOs in.

Sir Penguin
12-06-2005, 22:37:17
Originally posted by Sweeper
Yes. Empty man-made rituals is exactly what religion is. Religion is what is heaped into the gaping hole in the human psyche which people take to be a desire for spirituality in order to give it structure, and in order to make people believe that they can understand it.
I completely disagree, but fair enough.

SP

The Norks
12-06-2005, 23:01:41
I wish that I had something valuable to say, having started this thread, however I find myself way out of my depth. :confused:

MoSe
13-06-2005, 09:38:17
Make me one with everything, please

Funko
13-06-2005, 09:40:51
Mmmm. One with everything. *drool*

mr.G
13-06-2005, 10:38:33
:rolleyes:

hot
dog

you know, it is monday......................not wednesday

Funko
13-06-2005, 10:40:38
I was going to have breakfast this morning but the milk was off. :cry:

So I am very hungry.

Get me one with everything, stat!

MoSe
13-06-2005, 11:31:00
Originally posted by Funko
the milk was off. :cry:
So, you had to stray
from the milky way

Lazarus and the Gimp
13-06-2005, 17:51:14
Originally posted by Sweeper
Yes I get that. This is the part which (to me anyway) distinguishes it from a god. The whole point of a god is that he/she/it is apart and distinct from mortals.


It is, and at the same time, it isn't. The relationship, according to this theory, is symbiotic. It is distinct and has its own values, but I'm a part of it.


It's only a faith if it requires faith. Saying "the universe is great" does not. The distinction between your paganism and the religion presented through the link in the opening post, to which my argument is primarily directed, appears to be this point. You believe in something: you believe in the existence of a unifying presence among all things. Great. The "scientific pantheism" appears to say "we are all made of matter and energy, so let's be nice to each other".


Under Gaian theory, it's not just a force. It's an intelligence. That tends to change matters.

Everyone has the right to say it, and to believe it or not, but obviously not to enforce it. I think if you accept that everything could be a religion, you have to accept that for practical purposes a line has to be drawn between "is a religion" and "is not a religion", and it has to be left to everyone to draw his or her own line where they wish. Perhaps I should have dropped some more IMHOs in.

What would be the point of disagreeing? If I say it's my religion, who has the right to disagree? You might choose to argue over whether it has a scientific basis, or moral worth, but to declare it not to be a religion when people treat it as one seems pointless.

Sweeper
13-06-2005, 19:02:56
Yeah ok.

Maybe my religion should be fishfingers. I believe very strongly in them. Celebrate them even.

Lazarus and the Gimp
13-06-2005, 20:41:00
Cool. Spread the word and testament of the Holy Breadcrumb Coating, and be ye not tempted by the Batter Heresy.

Actually, it's quite deep, isn't it? How the bounty of our planet's oceans passes through the hell of the processing factory, and despite being coated in a libidinous and whorish breadcrumb coating it remains a nutritious and life-sustaining manna? Beats a dead Palestinian nailed to a couple of planks, anyway.

The Norks
13-06-2005, 21:22:08
Praise Captain Birds Eye, for he is merciful!

Lazarus and the Gimp
13-06-2005, 21:29:51
He has something of a messianical quality to him, actually. It stops him coming across as a bit of a kiddy-fiddler.

The Norks
13-06-2005, 21:31:09
lol, its all in the beard you see ;-)

Gary
14-06-2005, 08:39:32
Well the frying's quite deep anyway.

hmm <thinks> must read this thread sometime, it looks quite interesting.

Gary
14-06-2005, 09:51:36
Done so - nice discussion :)

Under Gaian theory, it's not just a force. It's an intelligence.Really ? I must have missed that when I read Lovelock's book. I couldn't work out whether he was espousing an actual intelligence or simply proposing that the whole world works as a single system. I concluded probably the latter.

Immortal Wombat
14-06-2005, 12:29:48
He was. His theory was reasonably sound science, but there are many variants on it from many other people who take it further.

Drekkus
14-06-2005, 13:00:16
I sense a disturbance in the force. Too many long poly quoting posts are popping up here at CG.

JM^3
14-06-2005, 15:32:25
as far as I see...

every religion that considers itself as being scientific is just as little scientific as the next..

JM

Lazarus and the Gimp
14-06-2005, 17:12:32
Originally posted by Gary
Done so - nice discussion :)

Really ? I must have missed that when I read Lovelock's book. I couldn't work out whether he was espousing an actual intelligence or simply proposing that the whole world works as a single system. I concluded probably the latter.

IW got it in one. There have been many expansions on Lovelock's original theory- I personally subscribe to the notion that the Earth has a form of collective intelligence, similar to that seen in the actions of hive animals, but on a much larger scale.

Sir Penguin
15-06-2005, 03:28:59
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
it remains a nutritious and life-sustaining manna?
It must be a religion, since all scientific evidence is to the contrary.

SP

Sir Penguin
15-06-2005, 03:30:45
Originally posted by JM^3
as far as I see...

every religion that considers itself as being scientific is just as little scientific as the next..

JM
One of the major parts of religion is that it's not scientific. Religions are meant to complement science. Science is already science, so it would be terribly inefficient if religion was also.

SP

JM^3
15-06-2005, 05:19:04
I agree...

JM
(you may have said it better)

Sir Penguin
15-06-2005, 06:41:10
Of course, I'm not saying that religion and science are mutually exclusive. Some religious beliefs have scientific explanations. For example, the Jews weren't allowed to eat pork, because all sorts of nasty stuff lived in pig meat and they didn't know how to cook it out. By Christ's time, cooking technology had advanced sufficiently that people could eat pork safely, so Christians were allowed to do so. Then Muhammad told his followers not to eat pork again, because they were wandering around in the desert and couldn't cook it properly. Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad couldn't say to their followers that there were bacteria or whatever in the pork, naturally, because their followers wouldn't have understood (even if you accept that the three understood, themselves), but it's a sensible way of getting people to do things that are common sense in this age of reason and knowledge.

SP