Religion/Science An Overview

[Spiratio]

Note: This post will be linked to a wider thread of information. A line "______" like so denotes a suggested memory retention/rest point, to avoid Info Overload...always go with your own impulses however. Religion / Science - An Overview Synopsis: To lay the foundation for the epiphanies and spiritual notions which will be emphasised in later threads, one of the foremost topics of relevance is religion in general, and Science. All religions explored here in further detail at later points, will receive the same objective treatment. The intention is not to convince anyone that a particular religion is a “wrong” way of living, but merely to offer an overview of the potential pros and cons of each from the unbiased perception of a non religious and inquisitive mind. This is to entail that it is not intended to be a guide for those seeking to find the “right” religion. Nor is it judging those of any given faith by pointing out objectively perceived flaws or contradictions in the writings of their faith. Whether the perceived pros or cons of any faith via the opinion of the author are entirely accurate or not is beside the point, where compassion is concerned the challenging nature of these notions will serve to test any follower of a mentioned faith of their level of compassion for others. Generally speaking people have flaws and they are loved regardless of their flaws. So bear in mind if one does not agree with every story, spiritual/moral value or historical event regarding a particular faith they are not necessarily condemning those who believe totally in that faith (or version of that faith when different sects are concerned). At the end of the day it is what was written and that which was written came from the hands of a person. It is up to each individual to decide for themselves whether or not they trust that all of the words of a given scripture were written by one in alignment with the divine, and that the interpretation has been preserved through generation upon generation of translation, as well as the evolution of contextual meanings that the given languages have undergone as the ages progressed. As stated this is simply the objectionable opinion of the author's take on the subject for the sake of laying forth reference regarding the notions of spirituality that are to proceed, highlighting the necessary facets of religion relevant to the spiritual proponents that will be unveiled in later discussions. __________________________________________________ ______________ Analysis: Religion is based primarily on received "knowledge" which is why religions have acquired the collective label of "Belief Systems", for if you did not receive the information directly yourself, you can never from a rational standpoint be absolutely sure that it is 100% true. Hence it is a belief. Of coarse this applies to a wide range of received information not just religion. This thereby brings one to the question... "what exactly is a belief?" Where metaphysical notions are concerned it could be said that a belief is strong resonance with a concept that cannot or has not yet been proven. It can also be said that what is already “known as fact”, in the context of science, is also a belief when it cannot be proven to be the only possible interpretation of those “facts”. i.e. science's beliefs regarding the limitations of what is possible, do not entitle those who adhere to it as a basis to reinforce atheism (a religion/philosophy), as having the right to claim that what is currently “known” (because it is directly observable and reproducible) is the only valid say/explanation for what is and is not possible. While true that it is the foremost logical explanation, there is yet higher philosophical viewpoints which cite sciences very own discoveries regarding the phenomenal anomalies surrounding consciousness's role in quantum physics, to support the esoteric logic and reasoning which further validates these metaphysical views. Thus rather than being a religion/school of thought base on a philosophy of limitation, science's true purpose as being purely a field of study has shone through in providing a common ground between both the material and the metaphysical. As such what was accepted as possible yesterday is not necessarily going to remain a constant. This also raises the notion that science and religion are equally in the same boat regarding uncertainty as to what the degree of moral irresponsibility is where exclusive influence upon impressionable minds is concerned. As such it therefore seems reasonable to say, that if one has a belief, they are thereby automatically accepting that it is not something that can be known for a fact is true. Having said this however, there are many sub beliefs within religion. Which is to say that what it is being implied here, is that If there was already evidence that what is claimed in any given religious text in its entirety, is true, then faith would not be a result of its effect. Faith is a feeling, it pertains to the heart and the intuitive right brain. When one knows something is true the left brain labels and categorises it, even if it is something outside the conventional realm of reasoning if a person thinks they know something that is absolute and pertaining to spirituality then the left brain is at work. The left brain seeks conclusiveness it yearns for a point of arrival, such is the result of the act of thinking one knows something absolute. Every religion has in some way an element of mystery, something that inhibits an evident certainty of knowing it is 100% true. This is why religion is a method of inducing faith. Considering the primary nature of religion is based on a transaction of speculative digestion and reception via faith, then it is a particularly tedious task to decide which religion is the truth or 100% correct where moral values are concerned. Given that any religious text is something that is written by a human being and not literally manifested by the one true Creator, then it isn't hard to see that the fact that all religions claim that what their disciples have channelled from the God the source etc. is the be all and end all of absolute truth to be reckoned with. Therefore renders religion in general as a fallible system of disseminating wisdom. The evidence is clear in the conflict that disagreements between various faiths have caused, when it leads people to set aside the very core moral values that all spiritual religions unite on, being "Love thy neighbour" & "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". __________________________________________________ ________________________ Note: this thread will be linked to another wider thread of interwoven topics. For this reason I am not guaranteed to respond to posts which beckon debate, until given poster addresses the full perspective presented in the mother thread (which will noted as such when it is made) In the mean time I ask that one instead keeps a list of all thoughts that they feel inclined to express so as that they may be more efficiently integrated into the potential discussions of the wider picture. Thus a more productive flow of discussion can occur. If a posters words tend toward inculcating the assumption that they have not taken the time to read all of the threads, then I will state that as my belief and ask that they do so and or rephrase their post in a manner which does indicate that they have. Otherwise I may simply cite a reference to a certain section of the thread/s, or I may not respond at all if it is blatantly obvious that one is not interested in reading the whole stream of threads. One time statements which are heavily biased and offer no open ended incentive to contend with a rebuttal will be treated this way. I say these things because I am certain that if one reads the entire perspective placed forth then they will have very few if any contestable points. How I know this is through having posted on various other discussion boards across the net, whereby at the end of the day individuals could only criticise my method of delivering the information as an “unscientific approach” rather than the nature of the information itself. Which is irrefutably incontestable and even possible to prove to oneself via sovereign esoteric means, so long as one is totally open and honest with themselves regarding the advocated methods.