So we laugh at them

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I wouldn't call it arrogance. When science can't explain something, it has no need to assume the supernatural can explain it better. It waits for answers and proof. That's the way science should work.

in the assumption that the universe is an empty void, and we represent the pinnacle of life in the universe. thats where the arrogance comes to play

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

in the assumption that the universe is an empty void, and we represent the pinnacle of life in the universe. thats where the arrogance comes to play

But that's how faith works, not science. Science must test and predict, you can't do that with assumptions that something might exist. Certainly science believes there is more, but it simply admits it doesn't know. Right now, all we know is that we are the pinnacle of life in the universe. What evidence or science do you have that shows otherwise?

[GoldenRivet]

muh UFO shows!

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

muh UFO shows!

Don't know if you saw my old ghost thread, but as much as I jested about it, I still remain baffled because I have no way to explain what I experienced, except some strange pictures that may or may not be something.

The universe is utterly amazing, so much so that science cannot grasp it. I look in the heavens and think there must be something more. Life does seem to hold an amazing complex energy source at its core.

As for God, I was for years a dedicated fundy Baptist, but that evolved over and over. I view my faith as a beautiful house of cards that for years as I asked questions, I had to pull a card here, replace one there....over and over. I tried always to leave the house standing, but one day I pulled one and the house came down. It didn't lead me to unbelief, but became more agnostic.

I spent 1000's of hours of study trying to figure out if God exist, which religion has it right. My biggest problem is if one religion has it right, it basically condemns the mass of humanity for no other reason than the culture they're born into. I have a hard time accepting any religion that condemns failed human beings to any type of torture and claim love....and that somehow it's my fault if I end up there.

I hear many say that religion is different than being spiritual, but I've never been able to separate the two. All spiritual belief stems from religious doctrine that have evolved over and over.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

(on spirituality)

Agree. Completely.

(on religion)

Disagree, with certain reservations. Dogmatic religious beliefs are certainly antagonistic but the list of scientists who held/hold religious/spiritual beliefs is extensive. The two fields are not mutually exclusive but rather somewhat different disciplines. Any attempt to explain a scientific theory with purely religious dogma is a mistake. In my opinion. Spirituality on the other hand is a personal quest that basically sets all other opinions aside. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. It's too personal for that.

To me you sound confused there, because you try to work around this difference that I made when keeping spirituality and religion, as terms, and thus end with trying to see religion and science as less mutually exclusive as they are. If using my "definitions" of the terms, as I explained them in order to be able to call two different concepts by a simple name, then you should see that you cannot have it all at the same time. The scientists you refer to, I also divide into two groups. There are those religious scientist, and since they are religious, they try to put faith and belief beside knowledge, reason and scientific methodology - corrupting all the three latter that way. On the other hands, guys like Heisenberg or Einstein in my book are not to be called religious, but sprititual. None of the two believed in simple superstitious explanations, or deities, nevertheless they stood in awe before the universe, realising that there is more to it and to themselves than they could ever know, but wanted to know.

To me, as I explained both terms, spirituality and religiosity are mutually exlcusive. You cannot be relgious AND spritial at the same time. But since we are mortal and sooner or later reaölsie that our time is limited, we start to ask those big questions. Therefore I would say that man is a sportual being by birth adn essenmce, and even cannot escape to be that. I would just hope he would stop trying so hard to be religious. Many people claim that to be a win. To me, it is a loss of a natural, inbuild quality that we have, due to our ability to be intelligent more or less, self-aware, and to reflect about ourselves and the cosmic context we are embedded in, may it be for our better or our worse. The more spirutual you are, the more you are a heretic to relgious dogmas. The more religious and believing you are, the less you want to know yourself by own experience, the less spiritual you are. You cannot be both. Hence my statement that science and spirituality can come together, but not science and religion, and also not religion and spirituality.

Sounds counter-intuitive, because many people do not draw that difference between what I call spiritual and what I call religious, and think of both as just one and the same. But I think that is a mistake, and that difference is vital and utmost important.

For the same reason, I have come to label myself - when I got asked occasionally - not as an atheist, but as a "spiritual atheist". And I knew many anti-religious but nevertheless spiritually-feeling atheists in my life as well. I think the difference I make is less rare and less exotic as it may sound. When doing some voluntary counseling job myself long time ago, I often had to deal with people who also refused dogmas and religion and tradition, nevertheless were sometimes desperate about trying to find a convincing meaning in life again. You know, it can happen that there rises this existential hunger for meaning in man, and when it cannot be tamed, then it can push man into deep desperation, and even clinical depression. Man needs a meaning in life, whatever it may be. For some, religious dogmas are good enough, but for others who dig deeper and are not easily to be satisfied with pre-produced answers, that is not good enough. They want more, and thus they become - necessarily - heretics. That can be good for their soul, but since it is a threat to the cult of their social environment, it also can be bad for their bodies - when they are being dragged to a stake to burn them, that is. Religions are a formidable excuse to turn out the worst in man, and they have a splendid historic record of violence and brutality carried out in their name, they breed supremacism to the outside and submission to the inside of a society, and poison human minds with tunnel-view syndrom, hate and intolerance. But truly spiritual people you will seek in vein in such historic recordings. Selbsterkenntnis just does not serve well as an excuse for trying to submit the outer world.

So let's keep the reason and logic of the scientific mind and religion separate, therefore, for the first is the natural enemy to disclose the irrationality in the latter - something which the latter never will forgive the first. These two must be enemies, and no way there is that I would want it any different.

[BrucePartington]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

in the assumption that the universe is an empty void, and we represent the pinnacle of life in the universe. thats where the arrogance comes to play

Although I might call it "innocent arrogance", stemming from a millennia old notion that we were all that existed. Along with the Earth being flat. All perception induced errors, leading to a tunnelled vision of the world.

As a civilisation, we're finally coming out of the tunnel. The engine has already exited, but some cars are still in the tunnel. And science is the driving force.

(https://www.google.pt/#newwindow=1&q=science+etymology)

science
ˈsʌɪəns/
noun
noun: science

1. 1.
   the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
   "the world of science and technology"
   synonyms:branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information/facts, area of study, (...)

Origin

Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know’.

[Sailor Steve]

My path closely parallels that of Armistead, from believer to questioning believer to believing questioner to just asking questions, and seeing fewer and fewer answers until I finally see no answers at all. I'm not an atheist, since I don't discount the possibility of a Supreme Creator, but I'm also not an agostic, since that implies by definition the belief that we can never know whether there's a God or not. The most I can assert is that I don't know, and no one has been able to show me that his belief is justified by anything more than his belief. Unlike the assertions of some others, I don't consider myself spiritual at all.

I also agree with Armistead about the question of other life in the universe. If it's arrogant to assert we are alone, it is also unscientific to assert that we are not. I don't discount it, but I also will withold believing we aren't alone until I see some real evidence. Until then, as always, I don't know.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

My path closely parallels that of Armistead, from believer to questioning believer to believing questioner to just asking questions, and seeing fewer and fewer answers until I finally see no answers at all. I'm not an atheist, since I don't discount the possibility of a Supreme Creator, but I'm also not an agostic, since that implies by definition the belief that we can never know whether there's a God or not. The most I can assert is that I don't know, and no one has been able to show me that his belief is justified by anything more than his belief. Unlike the assertions of some others, I don't consider myself spiritual at all.

I also agree with Armistead about the question of other life in the universe. If it's arrogant to assert we are alone, it is also unscientific to assert that we are not. I don't discount it, but I also will withold believing we aren't alone until I see some real evidence. Until then, as always, I don't know.

I use agnostic more as a term, but I agree, I say I don't know. I know many of my christian friends say if I applied myself or had faith there is evidence for the one true God. That's the problem, I have. If God exist and our souls depend on it eternally then I think God would've been so clear with evidence that we could know and make a proper decision as failed human beings. Instead we're left with cultural indoctrination. If all of us were born in Iran, we'd have a a 90% chance of following Islam. Historically religion has done nothing more than separate humanity into fractions that war with each other.

If faith is the key, basically belief without proof, then any religion should be good enough for God. One of the best debates I've watched is Bart Erhman vs. William Lane Craig on Jesus. Craig tried to prove his points that the bible is a correct historical source with numerous witnesses and sources that Christ did miracles and rose from the dead thus it is true. Erhman correctly pointed out several other Gods or religions had numerous witnesses, books and sources that their savior of God did miracles or rose from the dead. Simply, if you applied Lanes logic, then it verified numerous saviors or Gods over history.

I do think faith is a strong force that can be used for good or bad. It certainly gives people hope. Course, if things go wrong then they can rely on it was Gods will or plan for them, that way God is always right or in control. I know a lot of my FB friends always posting about prayer for some of the silliest things. I peod several off when I said I don't pray for stuff or even health. I told them before I would expect God to waste his time on me, I'd prefer he feed the 4 million children that die from starvation every year.

To me, there's nothing more dangerous than the closed indoctrinated mind.

[Dread Knot]

I for one, also think that we are not alone in the universe. There likely are other civilizations out there. I just don't subscribe to the belief that we are currently being visited by any of them.

In the course of 60 years since the first saucer sightings, the UFO "research" movement is no closer to knowing anything about more alien visitations than when they started. In that time, real science has discovered DNA, put a man on the Moon, conquered the atom, gone to the deepest oceans, and revolutionized how we inform ourselves and interact. That is what we can do when we set about to do practical things. When we set about instead to indirectly argue a pet theory for which there is no evidence, we'll do that until he cows come home. Frankly, I think the methods of the UFO research crowd are geared not toward finding an answer, but toward endlessly perpetuating the debate. Why? Because these endless go-arounds are profitable for the UFO authors and lecturers. What about the rank and file? I think most believe because they want to. Most seem to have a lack of faith in mankind or human institutions (who can blame them?) and see aliens as some sort of otherwordly saviors. There are some strong parallels to religion there.

What I find interesting was that in the past one in fifty people carried a camera and today forty out of fifty people carry a camera, we should expect to see more UFO photos today than we did in the past, a lot more (we certainly get to see more photos of things that do exist, things like kittens and fast cars and phone distracted people waking into fountains)... unless of course those things which were being photographed in the past are now easier to identify in the photos and are therefore not reported as UFOs anymore.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

To me you sound confused there,

I'm confused alot.

To me, as I explained both terms, spirituality and religiosity are mutually exclusive. You cannot be religious AND spiritual at the same time.

I'm sorry but that is just not true. Of course, your definition of a religious person and mine or anyones for that matter may vary greatly. Perhaps you should start by giving your definition of one. My definition would be a person who seeks to serve both God and his fellow humans without reservation. 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.

The more spiritual you are, the more you are a heretic to religious dogmas.

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

The more religious and believing you are, the less you want to know yourself by own experience, the less spiritual you are.

Not so in the strictest sense. 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 cannot be both. Hence my statement that science and spirituality can come together,

The world is full of people who believe this and some of them have some very strange beliefs.

but not science and religion

The scientists you refer to, I also divide into two groups. There are those religious scientist, and since they are religious, they try to put faith and belief beside knowledge, reason and scientific methodology - corrupting all the three latter that way.

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.

So let's keep the reason and logic of the scientific mind and religion separate, therefore, for the first is the natural enemy to disclose the irrationality in the latter - something which the latter never will forgive the first.

I would rephrase that ...So let's keep the reason and logic of the scientific mind and religious dogma separate...,

There is a difference, a huge difference.

[Armistead]

Well, at least UFO research is based on science and logic.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

I for one, also think that we are not alone in the universe. There likely are other civilizations out there.

Why? Based on what evidence?

Originally Posted by Armistead

Well, at least UFO research is based on science and logic.

What science and what logic, exactly?

[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.

[AVGWarhawk]

I believe I'll have another drink.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Why? Based on what evidence?

He said "likely", and so speaks about probability being in his theory's favour. Probability calculations making such statements, base on cosmological models. These models are theories in themselves, sometimes more and sometimes less well-founded. "Evidence" is a probability that is so high that it leaves no doubt, not the smallest one: probability has turned into certainty, into 100.000...% Since he mentions "likely" and thus argues from a position of thinking in probabilities, he must not give you "evidence". What he says is: by current cosmological models, probability is in favour of assuming that we are not alone.

What science and what logic, exactly?

Systematically (if the research is done serious) collecting and analysing data and reports on sightings, and trying to find patterns in them that lead to the possibility of formulating theories. Necessarily, always all serious UFO research is and cannot be more than descriptive data collection. Too many die-hard negators and easy-minded wanna-believe-enthusiasts out there who both violate even most profound standards of scientific work process. And that work process curreently can only be limited to observing what reports are given, when, where and in what quantity, and trying to filter out the many that can be explained with natural phenomenons, unserious witnesses, and human technology "interacting" with the clueless observer on the ground. The very low rate of unexplained events is where it becomes interesting, but since we cannot approach and have no access to these events, we currently can only collect their report, store their files, and go into standby mode, refusing to make any further conclusions for or against their causes and origins.

Your attitude of keeping in mind that one does not know anything for sure, proves to be very healthy on UFOs.