Any religion or person who claims to be in possession of the truth

[stopschoolpaddling]

about God, enlightenment or whatever you want to name it, hasn't got it. This should be obvious but apparently it isn't. For myself, I've studied all kinds of religions and spiritual practices and found that the only thing I learned from it is if I want to get farther away from the truth there are many practices, places and people to do that with. With that, I can tell you I know absolutely nothing about God or enlightenment but I'm much happier this way.

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. Furthermore, they will seek to control you & your money.

[LiberalFighter]

35. That was the original purpose of religion back in the caveman era.

They could blame anything bad on god's will including not believing enough or not providing goods.

And Constantine needed just one Christian religion so it would be easier to control those under his rule instead of all the different sects that existed.

Naturally, the televangelists only interest is getting the viewers to send in their money to them.

[tama]

46. Not quite

Religio is a latin word, organized religion is a civilized thing. "Primitive" peoples who civilized people should not condescend to but see what they could be learned from (like living in balance with the ecosystems they belong to), don't have religion as such. They have their various worldviews and rites and ways of lives that cannot be understood by projecting western concepts over them.

[greyl]

2. Closer to fine, eh? nt

[pnwmom]

3. I agree. No one can claim to be in possession of an ultimate truth.

(And this also goes for any non-religious person's certainty that there is one truth -- the physical world, as set out and measured by science -- and that this is provable.)

[Jim__]

5. I agree - n/t

[trotsky]

6. Because science is just another religion, right?

:rofl:

Sorry reality doesn't match up with your beliefs. Truly, I am.

[pnwmom]

8. No, science is not a religion. It is completely outside of and separate from

anything that can be talked about from the point of view of religion.

[trotsky]

10. On the contrary, whenever religion makes a claim about the physical world,

science can have a look and evaluate the claim.

If your religion's claims are solely within your own mind, then you're safe.

[pnwmom]

11. I agree with your first statement. But it doesn't lead to the second.

Religion can refer to a "truth" that is neither confined to the physical world nor to an individual mind.

[trotsky]

12. Yes, that's a belief of your religion.

So it fits within what I said.

[pnwmom]

22. It's a religious belief that cannot be disproven scientifically, because the two areas

of thought are located in different spheres. Science makes statements about the material world. Religion makes statements about an immaterial world beyond the material world.

[trotsky]

25. You have a cartoonish notion of what science is.

And what precisely is the difference between "an immaterial world beyond the material world" and your own imagination?

[rd_kent]

16. Then that is not a "truth", now is it?

The thing about "truth" is that it is like a digital signal, it is either yes or no, there is no gray area. Religion deals with gray area, and as time has gone by, science has cleard up much of that gray area. What was once considered a religious "truth" has be shown to be false by science.

[pnwmom]

23. Sorry, but it is only your opinion that the only kind of truth is

scientific or material or literal truth.

Science, since it deals solely with the material world, can neither prove or disprove the existence of an immaterial reality.

[Silent3]

27. How do you know there is anything other than the material world?

What exactly would constitute "truths" one could discern about this supposed "other world"?

Can anyone be wrong about what they claim about this other world? If not, what difference is there between wishful thinking and this supposed other world? If falseness is possible, how is that determined without something like the rigor of the scientific method? Whatever "feels" true is true, whatever "feels" false is false?

And when two people disagree about the other world, do we sweep that under the carpet with "personal truth" gambit? As if the existences of one god vs. two vs. seven vs. none is just a matter of "personal reality", all true at the same time?

By the way... just to head this one off at the pass... love, hate, anger, sadness, joy, feelings of purpose, all of that can exist in a purely material point of view, so please don't head straight for the traditional straw man "materialist" who is supposedly in total denial of most of human experience so that he can cling to some cartoonishly ridiculous version of materialism.

[pnwmom]

30. I don't know there is, and I don't pretend any certainty about it at all.

That's why it's called "faith" and "belief" -- not certainty.

Some of us -- whether believers or atheists -- are more comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty and paradox than others are. When I disagree with someone -- for example, a fundie -- about their religious beliefs I don't feel any need to prove them wrong, much less prove them wrong with "something like the rigor of the scientific method." What is, is.

[Silent3]

32. There's a difference between being "comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty"...

...and treating "the unknown" as big space upon which to project our human hopes and fears, and acting as if the imaginary things will fill that void with have any particularly special standing or importance.

The unknown is just that... unknown.

We can, of course, sometimes assign rough probabilities to various particular unknowns. If a bank has been robbed and we don't yet have a suspect, it's still safe to say it was more likely one or more adults than a lone four year old or a time-traveling Yeti.

While that example might seem gratuitously absurd, I think that a lot of religious beliefs are just as absurd as the time-traveling Yeti bank robber theory. Such absurdities often get special deference when they are labeled "religion" or "spirituality", however, and the true but completely irrelevant mantra that "we don't know everything" gets trotted out to prop up the respectability of the religious stuff, whereas the same excessive deference would not be granted to a particularly "imaginative" police detective who filled in his unknowns with frivolous fantasies.

When I disagree with someone -- for example, a fundie -- about their religious beliefs I don't feel any need to prove them wrong, much less prove them wrong with "something like the rigor of the scientific method." What is, is.

I'm afraid that strikes me less as tolerance or "comfort with ambiguity" and more as just, pardon my harshness, intellectual laziness.

I'm not talking about whether or not you actually confront your hypothetical "fundie" and get in an argument -- that's just a matter of personal temperment and individual situational considerations than anyone else. At least in your own mind, however, don't you think you should be able to sort out what you mean by the words "right" and "wrong", and why what the fundie believes fits into your category of "wrong"?

[pnwmom]

33. You are assuming that because I'm not interested in getting into a deep philosophical

discussion on DU that I'm intellectually lazy. You further assume that I'm not self reflective or willing to "sort out what you mean by the words 'right' and 'wrong.'"

Actually, I spent years studying topics such as epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, etc. But there are only so many minutes a day for arguing with strangers on DU!

[rd_kent]

39. Uhm, yeah. If you say so....

:crazy:

[geistvomeinzelganger]

19. Science and Religion ...

The things of religon ARE science and MORE..., the miracles,
the truths, the prophesy, etc.  The very existence of God,
prophecy, the afterlife, etc..., is a science that goes beyond
the common man's capacity to explain it scientifically, simply
because the science regarding God and the Afterlife is FAR TOO
ADVANCED for the common man to explain scientifically and
therefore this incomprehensible science has been relegated to
the realm of "religion".

If you could go back in time and take something as simple as a
Bic lighter or battery operated flashlight with you the people
of that time would have ZERO COMPREHENSION of what is a very
simple science to us today.  The "primitive" people,
upon seeing us use these simple (to us) tools, would surely
either be perceiving us as gods performing miracles, or demons
performing magic.  Anyone who understands the human behaviors
of history should KNOW that and understand it as simply as
they understand that 1+1=2.

What was it that President Obama said about connecting the
dots?  The "dots" are symbolic of the evidence and
the lines drawn to connect them are symbolic of one's
gathering of the evidence.  As is usually the case with nearly
EVERYTHING, it takes real logic and reason to accurately draw
the picture and therefore conclude what caused the picture to
be as it is.  Once this is done the picture can be changed by
changing the location, timing, color, number of the dots, etc,
etc, etc... 

Understanding the will of God is NOT that difficult because
all one has to do is READ and connect the dots according to
reason and logic.  It's ALL been explained NUMEROUS times to
EVERY people on earth, to EVERY generation, in EVERY language
necessary.

Therefore, MY question to ALL of you is this..., "What
exactly IS mankind's major malfunction here on this
earth?"  I know the answer to that question also as it
has been and CONTINUES to be explained to ALL people of EVERY
generation in EVERY language necessary.

The difficulties regarding religion and the science of
religion are NOT found in the religion or science of religion.
 The difficulty is found within YOURSELVES, PERIOD.  Even THAT
has been and continues to be explained to all peoples of all
generations in every language necesary as well.  It's so
simple it's almost TOO simple...

SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND... KNOCK AND IT SHALL BE OPENED UNTO
YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rrneck]

20. Why would anybody

want to try to figure it out?

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[stopschoolpaddling]

21. You write

Understanding the will of God is NOT that difficult because
all one has to do is READ and connect the dots according to
reason and logic. It's ALL been explained NUMEROUS times to
EVERY people on earth, to EVERY generation, in EVERY language
necessary.

Therefore, MY question to ALL of you is this..., "What
exactly IS mankind's major malfunction here on this
earth?" I know the answer to that question also as it
has been and CONTINUES to be explained to ALL people of EVERY
generation in EVERY language necessary.

My point exactly, the fact that you say, "I know the answer" tells me you are nowhere near it.

[darkstar3]

29. Go here:

READ THIS

Then understand that your statements on the wall between science and religion are false.

[rd_kent]

7. Hahahaha! Someone didn't do well in science class, I think.

[pnwmom]

9. You didn't understand my point. I'm not disagreeing with science.

I'm saying that science and religion are not talking about the same things. Neither can prove nor disprove the other.

[rd_kent]

15. That is not entirely correct.

While religion CERTAINLY cannot disprove science, science has, and will continue, to disprove religious beliefs.

[pnwmom]

24. Science may disprove some beliefs that people with faith may hold.

For example, whether a certain "miracle" occurred may be disproved by science.

But science cannot disprove the existence of an immaterial world or truth because science only makes statements about the material world.

[trotsky]

26. If that immaterial world has any kind of detectable influence on the real world,

then science can make statements about it. In other words, if your religion includes people (and/or their "souls"), then science can make statements about it. You simply cannot wall off your beliefs and declare that evil mean science can't go there.

[pnwmom]

31. You're equating "real world" with a "material world that people can sense or

scientific instruments can detect."

I'm not.

[stopschoolpaddling]

36. Yes, even science can't prove or disprove what is real.

Can anyone prove that one day we will all wake up and find that life on earth was all an incredibly realistic dream or nightmare? I think it's possible but then I could be just be insane.

[trotsky]

37. Sure.

Can you answer my question I posed above? How can we tell the difference between your "immaterial world" and your imagination?

[stopschoolpaddling]

41. No I can't. It's way over my head.

[rd_kent]

40. You are right, science cannot disprove something you cannot prove to begin with.

This magical other world you keep referring to is, until YOU prove it exists, only in your mind. I can say pink unicorns exists, but until I produce a pink unicorn, its not real.

[mrcheerful]

4. Susan B anthony said it best, "I distrust those who say they know gods will

because mainly, it coincides with their own". Or something like that.

[GliderGuider]

13. How about people who claim to have sometimes experienced enlightened states

but aren't worried about "passing it on"?

[geistvomeinzelganger]

14. Just because YOU don't know...

doesn't mean nobody else knows either. What IS obvious however, is the FACT that some people know a great deal about things that other people are so clueless about that they aren't even aware of the existance of the very subject that they themselves don't have a clue about that others know a great deal about.

[stopschoolpaddling]

17. I think I should have said

"sole" possession of the truth. Atleast that's what I meant to say, sorry about that. I'm sure that many people know the truth or are closer to it than others.

[GliderGuider]

18. Ah. That I can definitely get on board with.

I've always felt that a truth that was so small only one person or group could have it probably wasn't worth having. The reason some truths are called universal is because everyone can share in them.

[Silent3]

28. I don't think schools should be paddled either. n/t

[trotsky]

38. I dunno, what do you do with the really bad ones...

when cutting their funding just hasn't worked?

[Odin2005]

34. Anyone who thinks they know the "ultimate truth" needs a psychiatrist.

And some anti-psychotic meds. Knowing the "ultimate truth" is impossible, one can only know better and better approximations of the truth.

[Angry Dragon]

42. I have been yelled at witin other threads

because i used the word truth when they said I should have said facts. They stated that a truth is different for everyone, but that facts were the same for everyone. Truths are just beliefs.

[YankeyMCC]

43. In fact that's a pretty fundamental teaching in Zen Buddhism

"Don't believe your teacher" or common to hear a teacher say "I don't know."

[Odin2005]

45. "if you see the Buddha walking on the road, kill him."

:yoiks:

[Sarah88]

44. Here's a Song That Says Exactly That !!!

This guy came to the same conclusion as the original poster, and the lyrics of both these songs are critiques of people who claim they know "The Way."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuiVNf4RLaM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAnCofLtVd4