[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

Perhaps you should start by giving your definition of one.

But I have. Repeatedly in this thread. Repeatedly in threads over the past years. I must not once again explain what I mean by "religious" and "spiritual", yes?!?!

My definition would be a person who seeks to serve both God and his fellow humans without reservation.

That already excludes atheist religions like Buddhism which does not have a conception of a god. It also exlcudes polytheistic religions which believe in more than one god. Not to mention pantheism. "Religion" is not limited to monotheism only. What you mention, is the monotheistic dogma. It's one amongst so many religious dogmas possible.

It is commonly called 'practicing' your religion. In Christianity it is even more sharply defined. Serve God and others even to the detriment of your own well being. I'm not one of those people but I know some. If you had the nerve to ask these people if they considered themselves 'spiritual' I think you would be insulting them.

For the x-th time, I gave my defintion of terms like relgion and spiritual, and why I use them in a different way than most people do: to be able to call by two single names two concepts that are mutually exclusively to each other. I explain that once ion a conversation, so that the pother knows what I speak of and refer to when saying "religion" and "spirituality". Read again what I said in this thread, it is not that difficult to understand. Not at all.

Religious dogma, yes. Religion as a practice and lifestyle, no.

Religious lifestyle and practice is based on dogma. A spiritual person as I defined it doesnot care neither for religious dogma, nor a stylish life. Regarding the social environment, such a person lives by the golden rule. You do not need religion to define the golden rule. The golden rule is a product of reason, and you can come to its conclusions even if you never received any religious teaching.

Not so in the strictest sense.

But certainly and very much so! Again, it bases on the two concepts that I call religion and spirituality, which i have explained before, repeatedly.

In fact any study of Christianity, and my own experience is the exact opposite. The whole idea is to find out who you are and why you are here. The religious/spiritual quest is based on knowledge, acquired both by learning and experience. The fact is the term 'spiritual' is almost meaningless today. Every rock star, actor and teenage girl claims to be 'spiritual'.

You either learn by studying theory. In the context of this matter, that would be studying religious dogma. You memorize what others have said and written down. It can or cannot have a relation and value for your real life, but since relgion sevres to cointrol the masses and to secure the power and privilige of the elite, it more or less is an ikagined knowedge that is not so much knpowing something real, but beolieving to know something. And as said earlier already: he who believes to know, in relaity believes esylcuisvely. That is the reaosn why theology and relgion in general , also Islam, should not have a seat in the canon of academic branches at university. At best they are object of historic studies only.

Or you learn by not trusting or not caring or not wanting to learn existing dogma, instesad want to base on what you experience yourself. That can be introspection, that can be meditation, that can be life experience in general. I have been meditation trainer for almost ten years. You can imagine that I got some expoerience about what states of mind and what attitudes are people in when looking for such things, and what walls they often run into. I hd around 200 to 250 trainees in those years. Just one or two of them I am sure broke through to a really deeper understanding of himself, to another (=deeper) awareness and understanding of life and reality. Maybe there was a third person, but I am not certain, when she left, it was too early to predict her path for sure, but I saw a promise in her. the other two were a couple and last thing I heard many years ago was that they now do their own trainings after the returned to America.

To understand spirituality, I remind - once again - of this very famous passage from the Buddhist Kalamas Sutra. It makes a a strict difference between real own experience, and dogmatic belief and unfounded faith. You do not give trust in advance in order to be rewarded with "evidence", that is not trust but unfounded credulousness. You trust because evidence or empiric justification has come first.

From the Kalamas Sutra:
Do not put faith in traditions, even though they have been accepted for long generations and in many countries. Do not believe a thing because many repeat it. Do not accept a thing on the authority of one or another of the sages of old, nor on the ground of statements as found in the books. Never believe anything because probability is in its favour. Do not believe in that which you yourselves have imagined, thinking that a god has inspired it. Believe nothing merely on the authority of the teachers or the priests. After examination, accept only that which you have carefully examined and tested tested for yourself, and found it reasonable and to be in conformity with your well being, and that of others.

Combine it with the golden rule: do not upon others as though do not want to be treated by them, and there you are: all moral and ethics you could ever need. Without any religion.

The scientists I was referring to do not belong in that group. A quick search shows an extensive list of people who had/have faith and do not let that faith interfere with the scientific process. Some have won Nobel prizes in their chosen fields. I know the group you are referring to but I wasn't.

Once these scientists you mean deal with an object that brings their scientific methodology into conflict with their religious belief, they necessarily either have to decide for the one, or for the other. The ones you mean, either have not touched upon such controversial objects, or they have corrupted reason and logic and necessarily have corrupted scientific standards as well by trying to establish religious superstition beside them, calling it the reconciliation of science and religion. It isn't that, not by a lightyear's distance - it is always the corruption of scientific standards, of reason, of logic.

Sorry, I take no prisoners there. Not a single one.