Originally Posted by really
Well, the core of all beauty, awe and magnificence is Divinity/God, so well done for identifying those qualities already (ignoring "cheapens it").
You really should learn to put "in my opinion" in statements like this.
Your statement shows us nothing other than how you personaly see the world, it tells us nothing else about the universe we inhabit, It is purely opinion. Opinion is great and fascinating, but can you please try and not word it as if you and you alone know the truth. Or give us something other than your personal belief to demonstrate your opinions.
I would go as far as to say you are extrapolating too far.
As far as we know, the core of beauty, awe and magnificence are in fact:
ways in which human psychology processes and experiences its environment.
They are human emotions, they require no God.
And no It is not good enough to say "God created Psychology and the universe"... as you're just expressing belief again, unfounded in anything tangible.
Originally Posted by really
There is no reason to ignore or reject science, apart from the situation where it has no power, so lack of scientific evidence of God doesn't really mean anything. The main assumption is that Divinity/God is objective or "out there", when it is rooted in subjectivity as Reality. "Science" as a generality may have brought us these great images, however that doesn't negate their intrinsic beauty. Having said that these images are:
- Beautiful
- Magnificent
- Awe Inspiring
- Mind boggling
Would you go on to say that therefore science is invalid, or that these observations/impressions are invalid after science, or that both science and wonder are valid unto themselves?
No I don't see where you are gettng this conclusion from.
Why should the process of discovering our universe in a way that confirms its validity (science) negate the percived beauty in them? Or why should perciving beauty negate science? There is no foundation for this assumption.
They are not opposed, beauty can be just as much a part of the scientific world view as the religious. I would even say that in my opinion true beauty belongs more so in the realm of science, because it is science that reveals the truths of the universe to us.. only when we know something to be true can our minds be truelly overwhelmed by the awesomeness of it all.
Originally Posted by really
Both are valid in their own paradigm, and while science may seem to negate God, God does not negate science at all.
My rhetorical questions concerning our Divinity stems from a recognition that, essentially we are made of stars, that we are One with God, looking back at ourSelf. With the belief in separation, however, we believe that we are separate from the Universe and each of its parts - the infinite stretch of space, stars and planets. But this ignores our origin, and our Universe as our Body.
You make a LOT of unfounded statements.
Being made of Stars does not infer that we are "one with God"
We may well be the universe becoming aware and looking back at itself... but that again does not require a Divinity.
You say: we believe that we are separate from the Universe and each of its parts
Who is this we?
Do you mean the human race? How do YOU know what the human race believe as a whole?
I certainly have never considered myself seperate from the Universe. Which is exactly why I'm an Atheist. I came to terms long ago that being a temporary conscious part of the universe itself was essentially what I observed myself and others as. It required no additional "god" or "soul" or "life after death" it was simply something I could look out into the Universe and observe first hand.
I'd like to challenge your statement on a crucial aspect... that there is in fact no "I" or "We" in the first place to be "seperate from the universe". And that we are observably temporary combinations of processes, always in flux and changing.
So if there is no "I" then how can I be seperate from anything?
I is just a concept. It's a trillion changing processes that appear to be an enduring identity due to our unique perspective. Much like a film appears to move when in reality it is a million different frames.
Once you dispense with the concept of "I" then yes you can say that a human being is a temporary coagulation of processes in and of the universe, that create the illusion of a discreet identity. Those processes will disperse enough upon our death for the illusion to be shattered, but are in truth dispersing all the time, as well as reforming and changing constantly.
What we are made of is inherently tied up with the rest of the ancient (and perhaps eternal) universe. And should remain in one form or another, part of the Universe for the duration of the Universe.
Does this require a Divinity?
Only really If you are using a Pantheist definition of God. Otherwise the world "Universe as a whole" or even "Existence as a whole" (if you want to encompass what may or may not be before, after and outside the Universe itself)
BUT, why use such a loaded term as "God" when "Existence as a whole" and "the Universe" are already so much more straighforward and blatant.
You see it appears we really don't think all that differently.
Our interpretation of existence diverge at the word "God"
I don't like the word, because it is loaded with millenia of opposing ideas. People can lach onto it and distort it.
You may use the word God, and someone may think you both share the same definition, but you do not.
Why not just use the word "All" or say "All that is" then you don't box yourself up with the creationalists or the religious looneys who strap bombs to themselves. The word god glues you to them.
By not using the world God, you become a Philosopher rather than Religious.
It is much more liberating to do away with words that have so many many definitions that they become meaningless.
The difference between a Philosopher and the Religious, in my eyes is,
The former says "What If?" the latter says "This IS."
I think that a lot of people who consider themselves Spiritual are in fact far more inclined to the Philosophical. A philosopher is far more free to explore the possibilities than someone who calls themselves Spritual... as the latter is a much more loaded word, and implys a personal investment.
You can be a Philosophical Atheist... in fact, I'd bet a great deal of Atheists are.
I for example would consider myself currently a Philosophical Agnostic Atheist with a Scientific-Pantheist outlook.
But generally for the sake of simplicity I use the term Atheist.
The choice of words and labels we apply to ourselves, and our lives can either free us or chain us.
|
|
Bookmarks