I will have a look shortly. I agree that is what spirituality is, but I resent the term because it is often associated with religiosity.
You’re not the only one in this forum… But I belong to those few that think the concept of spirituality makes sense in a scientific world view. Spirituality refers to reflecting ones place in the order of things. These ‘things’ vary according the world view, if you are religious you would presume a god, if you are not it is everything in the universe. And such a reflection was already nicely described by you.
Doctor Bad Sign - 10 November 2010 06:08 AM
When saying “I am a spiritual person” - that generally is interpreted as being some kind of New Age type thing, and I’m not into that.
Me neither. It doesn’t need anything supernatural to have a meaningful life in a meaningless universe.
GdB
PS Are you a night bird, or are at home somewhere in Europe?
So how can you distinguish between religion and science? Both have authority, as long you are not the scientist yourself investigating on the subject. Is there no difference between the kind of authority? Is ‘AGW is taking place’ from the same order as ‘Christ is requiring this from you’? Do both reasons have the same kind of authority?
GdB
To the novice, yeah.
To me, in the sense you, I suspect mean Christ as the person of Jesus, no. Jesus is dead and isn’t requiring anything from anyone.
When one is young, a person almost falls into an acceptance of authority that depends more on circumstances then any rational thinking.
I can’t fault people for whom they’ve accepted as their authority figure, however I can encourage a person to question that authority, to test the validity of it.
When you trust authority you are trusting a person. Not religion or science, a person who is supposed to be knowledgeable and someone you can trust to guide you. You have to know somebody to know that you can trust them. Otherwise it is blind faith.
Contemplating science has brought me experiences that can be described as feeling almost religious. That sense of wonder that tingles to your bones when contemplating the sheer magnitude of our cosmos.
. . . As you say, the weight of their authority leads your conviction. That’s how religion works.
...
You may feel you have good reason to trust the authority that you trust. So does everyone else.
So how can you distinguish between religion and science? Both have authority, as long you are not the scientist yourself investigating on the subject. Is there no difference between the kind of authority? Is ‘AGW is taking place’ from the same order as ‘Christ is requiring this from you’? Do both reasons have the same kind of authority?
GdB
NO both do not carry the same authority!
Because, Christ and Jesus and salvation are all beyond any sort of physical examination - they absolutely and totally reside within our human minds.
AGW, or better our Climate Processes, are physical phenomena that are available to measurement and examination. And the voracity of a particular scientist’s study can be compared with other scientific studies. Whereas my own religious experience can never be know by, or compared to another’s.
Comparing religion to science is like. . .
Christ jesus faith-based stuff being akin to operating on Winnie the Poop -
Whereas science based examination of AGW is more akin to operating on a real human.
When you trust authority you are trusting a person. Not religion or science, a person who is supposed to be knowledgeable and someone you can trust to guide you. You have to know somebody to know that you can trust them. Otherwise it is blind faith.
. . . yea, and how often trust turns out to be misplaced.
When you trust authority you are trusting a person. Not religion or science, a person who is supposed to be knowledgeable and someone you can trust to guide you. You have to know somebody to know that you can trust them. Otherwise it is blind faith.
. . . yea, and how often trust turns out to be misplaced.
Unfortunately almost always. Probably why the Christian idea of everybody is a sinner is perceived as a reality to them. God is perfect so they figure they have one up on any concept of authority from non-believers.
Still for some reason I am still trying to fathom, people pick a person or thing or idea to be the holder of authority and cling to it even when it is not reasonable to do so.
I can’t fault people for whom they’ve accepted as their authority figure, however I can encourage a person to question that authority, to test the validity of it.
When you trust authority you are trusting a person. Not religion or science, a person who is supposed to be knowledgeable and someone you can trust to guide you. You have to know somebody to know that you can trust them. Otherwise it is blind faith.
So imagine you know just two kinds of people, religious on one side, scientists on the other side. For the rest both are equally nice people. Both are sure that they are right about topics like the (not) existence of heaven and hell, about the age of the universe, about the idea that AIDS is (not) a punishment for homosexuality. Which authority do you accept? On what grounds?
You can’t put religion and science on the same stance, just because their sociological status is the same, namely having power on basis of ‘knowledge’. There are inherent differences between religion and science, and you know them, even if you do not know all contents of them and evaluated them yourself.
When you trust authority you are trusting a person. Not religion or science, a person who is supposed to be knowledgeable and someone you can trust to guide you. You have to know somebody to know that you can trust them. Otherwise it is blind faith.
. . . yea, and how often trust turns out to be misplaced.
Unfortunately almost always. Probably why the Christian idea of everybody is a sinner is perceived as a reality to them. God is perfect so they figure they have one up on any concept of authority from non-believers.
Still for some reason I am still trying to fathom, people pick a person or thing or idea to be the holder of authority and cling to it even when it is not reasonable to do so.
Perhaps the authority offers “hope” (in spite of evidence). An ultimate equality for all, in heaven or what have you.
I agree with Mrianna. I don’t know why any non-religious person should fear being accused of “believing” in something anyway. At least in regards to the term, believe or its derivatives. If you know something, you are guaranteed to believe that it is true. But merely believing in something does not guarantee that you know it to be true! I believe in certain scientific things because I am certain that I know they are true. But I also may believe in my friend’s authority meaning that though I do not know something (s)he has to say is absolutely true or not, I gamble that it may be true for practical survival.
We should actually be questioning how we come to know something and be sure that when we use words like belief, we qualify it with a definition of which particular meaning we intend. This would be cumbersome in most everyday arguments but if you want to get into particular discussions where clarity is important, defining your terms is necessary.
