Within Everything Exists Everything

thats because religion is evaluative. I posted an explanation of this several times here.

What is religion.

Religion is best characterized as the non-empirical homologue of ideological beliefs, by contrast with science or philosophy the cognitive interest is no longer primary, but gives way to the evaluative interest.

Acceptance of a religious belief is then commitment to its implementation in action in a sense in which acceptance of a philosophical belief is not.

Or, to put it more accurately a philosophical belief becomes a religious belief insofar as it is made the basis of a commitment in action.

Religious ideas may be speculative in philosophical sense, but the attitude toward them is not speculative in the sense that well "I wonder if it would make sense to look at it this way?"

Religious ideas then may be conceived as answers to the 'problems of meaning' in both senses discussed above.

On the one hand they concern the cognitive definition of the situation for action as a whole, including the cathetic and evaluative levels of interest in the situation.

This they share with ideological beliefs.

On the other hand, however, they also must include the problems of 'meaning' in the larger philosophical sense of the meaning of the objects of empirical cognition, of nature, human nature, so the vicissitudes of human life etc from their point of view. durkhiem

Otherwise 1+1=2 in all languages, there is no disagreement from anyone.

 

Perhaps, but how would you know?

I've always kind of thought of religion as the intellectualization of spirituality. IOW, the words are simply pointing toward the truth. Spiritual truth is a non-intellectual concern.

 

You should attempt to have a conversation instead of posting what you do. The point is that everybody sees things differently. It's like saying, "As humans, we are all the same, yet we are all different."

 

Yes, my comments were to the point, not a deep dive into color representations.

 

What I know is that science is a method of learning how things work.

It's religion that claims interest in the why. And, I'm not hear to confront religion on issues of why.

I don't agree with your second paragraph, as there certainly are those who have great intellect, directing their capability toward religious/spiritual topics. One can look at these topics as philosophy, and who can argue with Jesus on the principles he laid out in Matthew 25:31 to end? Who can argue with Gandhi?

 

The point is, especially physics, there are laws of nature.
IE, the wave lengths are defined and can be measured. No matter how a flawed human perceives them.

 

Science is the way that conventional understanding is reached. But what's true today will not be tomorrow. Everything in science changes, changes, changes...because the inputs are constantly changing.

All things intellectual make claims. The attempt to answer the why is simply to spark interest to pursue it further.

Even those with the greatest intellect can put forth that which is thought to be [more or less] true and perhaps pushing the boundaries a bit, but no matter how amazing their words are, soon [enough] they will be seen as those who did what they could with what knowledge was available at the time.

Again, the words of the religious greats were pointing to truth as the actual Truth cannot be spoken. Those who can tap into this realm need not utter a word just as you look into the eyes of your lover and are overcome with joy [no words necessary]. The Truth lies way beyond the intellect [and thank God for that!]

 

So is light a wave or a particle?

Throughout history people have had all kinds of systems and all kinds of ways to measure things within them. They have all gone by the wayside. Do you believe that our science will hold up 500 years from now, 1000 years?, 10,000 years? Human beings know so little. That's why you want to go with the change and not become attached to any particular reality [as each moment has its own], the conundrum being that you couldn't even do it if you tried [as by the time you have perceived a particular moment, an infinite number of moments have passed].

It's about the change, the flow, the tendency, the becoming, understanding that there is no particular end [and no beginning]. This is why it is said that things just "are" as there is no way to define it.

 

Oh, so now you want to categorize science as "conventional"? Why is that?

And, I do not agree that what is true today will not be true tomorrow. Our understanding will improve, but that doesn't mean what is "true" changes.

And, your idea that evidence continues to be gathered in more and more sophisticated ways. But, the evidence gathered in the past is still evidence.

Again, Newtonian physics still works. It's what we use almost all the time. The fact that we now know relativity, electromagnetism, quantum field theory, quarks, etc., does not change what we know from Newton.

You need to come up with an example to demonstrate what you are talking about.

There was a time when religion and science were intermingled - the how and the why were mixed as one.

We're past that. Science doesn't attempt to answer why questions as religion does.

And, religion has a poor track record and no methodology for determining how things work.

 

I use the word conventional to denote that which is accepted as the current truth. Everything knowable changes by its very nature.

Is anything that was thought to be true 1000 years ago still thought to be true?

It's only been a few hundred years. Give it some time.

Conventional truth only work within a specific set of circumstances. Real truth would be universal. For example, what color is your shirt if you are in a room with no visible light? That is, vision is relative to their being visible light present. OTOH, let's say you were transported to the middle of space...just floating with the universe in full view 360 degrees]. Without thinking a single thought, the Truth of matter would be apparent. IOW, the profundity of what you were seeing would be so far beyond the intellect to process, your mind would transcend intellectual truth and you would be enjoying pure experience. No commentary necessary.

I believe the two still have a great deal in common. How could they not?

We're past that. Science doesn't attempt to answer why questions as religion does.

And, religion has a poor track record and no methodology for determining how things work.[/QUOTE]

 

The main problem with your theory, you define, here, yourself-- if words cannot truly express spiritual truth, what is the point of everything you are saying?



Second point: have you yet presented any reason, in your argument, why anyone should trust that your ideas about spirituality, are more valid than the next person's?

 

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now that has got to be one of the heaviest ideas that I have ran into in 2022!!!!!!!!

This concept reminds me of the near death experience account of former Atheist Mellen Thomas Benedict!

https://near-death.com/mellen-thomas-benedict/

 

Then again..... perhaps our dogs are a whole lot more intelligent than we tend to imagine?????

https://near-death.com/jan-prices-nde-with-dog/

Jan Price’s Near-Death Experience With Her Pet Dog
BY KEVIN WILLIAMSPOSTED ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2019