PDA

View Full Version : Theists and atheists



kowalskil
April 4th, 2011, 02:54 PM
Theists and Atheists

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between theists and atheists. But comments collected at several websites prompted me to compose a short on-line paper at:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo_sci.html

It can probably be used to initiate an interesting discussion here. Please share this link with those who might be interested.

Ludwik Kowalski
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA

BlueStar
April 4th, 2011, 07:12 PM
Thanks Ludwik, I will be sure to check that out - it is a fascinating topic and I will pop back to share some thoughts :)

Lion Spirit Walker
April 5th, 2011, 12:30 AM
Started to read the essay which looks of real interest. But my cockatoo, Psy is saying, "Ummm. No." So I'll have to return to the reading after her bedtime.
My initial response is 'Yes', 'Yes', and 'By remembering that inherant wisdom of our species.'
But I'm certain I'll have more to share after a full read of the essay. Ty for sharing it Ludwik.

Lion Spirit Walker
April 5th, 2011, 12:40 AM
As an additional note, I strongly believe that all perspectives are valid when they are truthfully expressed as an individual perspective. I do not believe anyone or one group/groups of individuals hold a monopoly on the understanding of reality. As we are each an aspects of reality, each of us has a very valid and unique perspective of reality.
Only you can see what you truly see. ;)
Yet if we share our perspectives equally with one another we achieve a greater understanding of Reality than either of us alone can achieve.

MystEerieUsOne
April 6th, 2011, 12:10 AM
Whatever label anyone projects onto it, whether theism (including ANY of its sub-isms), atheism, science of ANY sort, mathematics, etc., or no label at all, each is inescapably a subjective journey...toward the objective Ultimate Universal *One* Answer.

The only way to resolve the conflicts between them is for each person choosing any of those labels to step outside themselves (aka trust themselves, value their truest worth and worthiness, which most religions and science "preach" against, adding to the fear) enough to move toward Enlightenment. Consciousness/Enlightenment is the realization of the *Core* physics moving and motivating everybody and everything, everywhere.

The truth of it all, at the *Core,* isn't about what you want it to be, but about what it *IS!*

Rarely does anyone actually *get there,* though, because the subjective journey is always far more valued than the actual objective Answer. People get afraid that that word "objective" will take their personal choices and control away from them, but that is precisely where the problem is...to *access* that objective Ultimate *One*/*Core* Answer, he or she must relinquish all their projections, to become *empty* of all the distractive chaos he or she created for and brought upon themselves, to be able to be in a *place* of *pure observation,* where the truth of it all/awe reveals and proves itself without question, without a doubt, and because letting go of all their traditions and vested interests to get *there* feels like death (actually only of their not previously taking responsibility for themselves, but that part is conveniently left out), they get scared instead and run away from it. Much of that very fear is behind the relentless warring against allowing themselves to become more highly evolved. And...warring against anyone who tries to Enlighten them!

Why...the good *Ones* disappear! :Buddha:

kowalskil
April 6th, 2011, 01:34 PM
... Yet if we share our perspectives equally with one another we achieve a greater understanding of Reality than either of us alone can achieve.

Yes indeed. Thank you.

Lion Spirit Walker
April 6th, 2011, 03:01 PM
Myst, I agree in part with your comments. However generalizing, the 'One' that you speak of can only be 'Growth'. All else requires the initiative of desire.
If I had no desire to continue living with AIDS, I would not live with AIDS.
The ultimate goal of Life is a bit different from whether or not we might see eye to eye.

BlueStar
April 6th, 2011, 07:47 PM
As an additional note, I strongly believe that all perspectives are valid when they are truthfully expressed as an individual perspective. I do not believe anyone or one group/groups of individuals hold a monopoly on the understanding of reality. As we are each an aspects of reality, each of us has a very valid and unique perspective of reality.

Absolutely agree! :)


Whatever label anyone projects onto it, whether theism (including ANY of its sub-isms), atheism, science of ANY sort, mathematics, etc., or no label at all, each is inescapably a subjective journey...toward the objective Ultimate Universal *One* Answer.

The only way to resolve the conflicts between them is for each person choosing any of those labels to step outside themselves (aka trust themselves, value their truest worth and worthiness, which most religions and science "preach" against, adding to the fear) enough to move toward Enlightenment. Consciousness/Enlightenment is the realization of the *Core* physics moving and motivating everybody and everything, everywhere.

The truth of it all, at the *Core,* isn't about what you want it to be, but about what it *IS!*

Rarely does anyone actually *get there,* though, because the subjective journey is always far more valued than the actual objective Answer. People get afraid that that word "objective" will take their personal choices and control away from them, but that is precisely where the problem is...to *access* that objective Ultimate *One*/*Core* Answer, he or she must relinquish all their projections, to become *empty* of all the distractive chaos he or she created for and brought upon themselves, to be able to be in a *place* of *pure observation,* where the truth of it all/awe reveals and proves itself without question, without a doubt, and because letting go of all their traditions and vested interests to get *there* feels like death (actually only of their not previously taking responsibility for themselves, but that part is conveniently left out), they get scared instead and run away from it. Much of that very fear is behind the relentless warring against allowing themselves to become more highly evolved. And...warring against anyone who tries to Enlighten them!

Why...the good *Ones* disappear! :Buddha:

Wow this is a great post, a different perspective and one I can relate to and understand. What you are speaking about is enlightenment - by surrendering to what is. 'Subjective' being what we want reality to be, or what we think it should be, and 'objective' being reality as it is. 99.9% of people aren't ready for this, because it requires a total surrender. That surrender isn't possible when we still have elements of our lives we want to control and direct, or elements of the world we want to manipulate and alter. Both theism and atheism are two sides of the same coin in my view - attempts to understand with the mind, attempts to control.

I remember someone (Ramana Maharshi perhaps?) musing that atheists and theists both argue doggedly, but don't even know (really know) what they're arguing about. Religious adherents passionately argue the existence of their God, and atheists aggressively argue against it - and neither side really understand what they're talking about. The mind can't understand it. They're arguing about ideas in their minds; mental abstractions and concepts which bare only the palest shimmer of reflected reality.

The truth of reality is beyond words, beyond concepts and therefore cannot be discussed or argued. It can be pointed to - but it can only be experienced. You can't talk about it without tarnishing it, you can only BE it. "The Tao that can be spoken is not the Eternal Tao" - or in other words, the moment we start to put a name to it and think we understand or know it, we've lost it. So that's my thought on the atheist/theist argument. I hope it makes some sense.

Interesting article and great topic Ludwik - thanks for sharing :)

kowalskil
April 18th, 2011, 06:44 PM
... What you are speaking about is enlightenment - by surrendering to what is. 'Subjective' being what we want reality to be, or what we think it should be, and 'objective' being reality as it is. 99.9% of people aren't ready for this, because it requires a total surrender. That surrender isn't possible when we still have elements of our lives we want to control and direct, or elements of the world we want to manipulate and alter. Both theism and atheism are two sides of the same coin in my view - attempts to understand with the mind, attempts to control. ...

The "two sides of the same coin" phrase begs for a comment. In a short note submitted to a theological journal (about ten days ago) I wrote:

"... The purpose of this note is to address conceptual conflicts between theists and atheists, avoiding the word “religion.” To discuss religion one would have to address differences between religions, political exploitation of theism and atheism, etc. Such important topics are certainly worth addressing, but not in a short note. Some authors believe that the path toward a world without aggressive confrontations is in cooperation between theologians and scientists (2). I tend to disagree. Cooperation may or may not develop in the distant future; what should be done first is conceptual separation. ...

The idea that theism and science are two "non-overlapping magisteria" is not original; it was formulated by Stephen Gould (4). He wrote: “The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty).” Informal cooperation between the two camps will always exist; many scientists are also theologians and many theologians are also scientists. They will certainly know which methodolgy of validation is appropriate in each of the two worlds, material and spiritual. ...

References

1) Collected Internet comments, http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo_sci.html

2) Robert John Russel, “Bridging Science and Religion: Why it Must be Done” ?
at http://www.ctns.org/about_history.html

3) Ludwik Kowalski, “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality”
at http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

4) Gould, S. J. (1997). "Nonoverlapping Magisteria." Natural History 106 (March): 16-22.
at www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html "

===========================================

Both scientists and theologians will need decades of separation to prepare for possible cooperation. What do you think?

By the way, the journal to which my note was sent was not the one in which (2) was published. Will they accept it? That remains to be seen. Which journals would possibly be interested in publishing articles on science-theology topics?

Ludwik Kowalski
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University
.