I’ve been watching a lot of programs about space lately, beginning with the big bang – watching them break the big bang down and do an explanatory time-lapse of it, which was super f’ing cool, btw – and then on, explaining how galaxies formed, what black holes are, discussing dark matter, all the usual space type stuff, right.
Anyway, as I was watching one of these programs yesterday I was thinking about how unbelievably tiny we are in the grand scheme of the observable universe and I found myself wondering - if a very religious person could contemplate and grasp the vastness of space the way I was in that moment of clarity, would they find it possible to still believe in their god afterward? The whole idea just seemed so silly to me, that some being would create all of that just for this one little tiny planet where some assholes would live for a few million years and then blow themselves up – what? Really? Compare our little planet to the entirety of the universe and we become downright inconsequential.
I’m not a religious person but I’ve never really adopted atheism completely either because who the hell am I to say I know what’s out there, and certainly there are things that happen in the world and have happened in my own life that seem fairly unexplainable without acknowledging the possibility of a higher power, but in that moment of contemplative clarity the idea of a higher power felt totally foreign to me. I haven’t been able to shake it since, I think it was one of those life-altering epiphanies.
So for those of you who are into the whole science thing and dig space and are still religious, how do you reconcile your education with your beliefs? How did Einstein do it? What the hell you guys, this has me twisted. I mean, I think my mind is pretty much made up, but now I’m dying of curiosity to find out how people who come to a different conclusion do it.
edit I’m not really looking for a religion vs. science war in this thread, I’m trying to get personal, here. Just FYI.
Hmm. Seems to me that religion implies that we matter to God and to each other, not to the universe. Other things in the universe might matter to God equally, right?
So like for example, the Jews might have gone through this same kind of revelation when they realized how big the world was, and that there were people living in South America and China and all kinds of places. “The world is so big, Judea is so inconsequential”, right? But now theists have gotten over that, and they are fine with God caring about a whole planet full of individuals.
So upon further thought, some questions arise if I assume what you’ve said is correct -
Why doesn’t religion acknowledge the universe? All of the religions I’m familiar with are completely focused on this world and give no hint or clue as to what the rest of it’s all about. Why would a god give us the ability to explore the universe but never make mention of it? If it’s not meant for us, why do we have access to it? Wouldn’t a responsible god realize that he was only creating more reasons to doubt his existence?
I can’t speak to other religions, but in Christianity, the Bible is historically embedded, and that’s a good thing, not a bad thing. Traditionally the Bible (especially the New Testament) was seen as a collection of documents about some very important stuff that happened, with some spiritual and ethical revelations mixed into it, both through implication and directly stated. In other words, the Bible doesn’t talk about outer space and stuff because the people writing it and the people it was written for didn’t have any idea about those things, it had no importance in their lives.
Now, you do have Protestants which treat the Bible as the beginning and end of the faith- that is, they seem to think that if you took a copy of the Bible and sent it 10,000 years into the future, the wisest people(?) living there would immediately recognize it as holy and authoritative, because to them, the Bible contains everything you need to know about religion, and justifies itself in a supernatural kind of way. On that view, questions like yours are perplexing, because there is an expectation that the Bible should be addressing every possible issue or circumstance humans may find themselves in. I think there are some religions that legitimately have this problem. The Mormons may.
For Christianity, the Bible is best understood as the foundational documents of a Church. The Bible says nothing about outer space for all of the historical and practical reasons you would expect, but the Church can, and that’s just as good.
So…well that still doesn’t make sense to me. If the bible is just a collection of documents with some insights thrown in, it can’t be described as the word of god, and if it’s not the word of god then what exactly are Christians worshipping? That’s like reading a Dr. Seuss book and then worshipping Horton, I don’t see a way to jump from “a book full of insights” to “I’ll fucking kill people for this, yo!”
Maybe I’m reading you wrong, but it seems like you’re describing moderate Christianity as the way to reconcile space and all it entails with religion. Certainly tell me if I am wrong, but if I’m not – how do you justify moderate Christianity? How can you moderately believe or follow a doctrine that is based entirely around saving your immortal soul? It seems like a perversion of faith to me, twisting intricacies to suit you when something seems impractical in the modern world or is too difficult to explain. If Christianity is correct and there is a war between god and satan over mankind, I would think it would be of the utmost importance to follow the teachings of the religion to a T.
Well, not [i]the Bible[/i] or at least they shouldn't be. No, the Bible isn't the 'word of God' in the way that a Protestant living in the United States is used to understanding the term, where it's a magical book that's right about everything, even stuff that has nothing to do with religion, and even stuff that nobody actually understands what it means.
The Christian notion is this- God did stuff 2,000 years ago. God, the God, actually did stuff, on Earth, that people saw and talked about and experienced. The Bible is the best written record of this that we have- written by people, and written at a time when a bunch of forgeries were also written- but the best we have. The thing that God did was primarily based around establishing a Church, so with a bit of faith we can rely on the writers and their founders and such at that time, because they're acting according to what God was trying to set up, and God is pretty good at accomplishing what He sets out to do.
The actual holy thing in Christianity is the Church. The Bible is the collected documents that comprise it's mission statement, it's early history, and accounts of the mysterious events that got the ball rolling. I think seeing it as a holy artifact abstracted from history is a mistake.
If the Bible was what Protestants say it is, then yeah, it would be about that silly.
Well, I’m describing the traditional position of the Eastern Orthodox Church since forever. I dunno how moderate they are. I guess they are moderate if you plot young earth creationists and unitarians on opposite ends of a scale.
I don't. I think moderate Christianity in the way that you just described it (Hitchens, right?) is bullshit. What I do is believe different doctrines than what you typically hear in the West, and I believe them dogmatically. One of the things, one of the real dogmatic strict things about the Eastern Church is that there is a LOT we don't know, and you better not go around pretending like you do. Like, who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell and why is off limits. All this "All you need to do is believe and you're good for life" stuff or this "If you don't accept this proposition you are going to hell" stuff you see in the West, that's like...heretical big time. Telling other people you know where they are going. Come on.
Agreed. You’ll see me arguing that a lot around here. Or, you used to anyway.
I assume you don’t mean that the Church can talk about outer space qua Church official, but only that they can talk about the significance of this or that piece of science on the life/ethics/traditions of its members.
So then my question becomes: based on what? Using what does the Church speak to new issues? Something other than the Bible, because the Bible doesn’t talk about X? Or still the Bible, reading things into it perhaps and interpreting?
I think there is life on almost all the planets. Bacteria and subterranian alien bases.
Years ago I thought it was all barren, but I learned different.
Also each planet has a soul and higher self.
So I conclude that almost everything in creation has a purpose and a value.
This is why the planets are good, morally valuable, etc. But that doesn’t make humans less worthy of God’s help if that is what you are after. God’s help just aint around in most cases. Maybe it’s because we chose as souls to enter into a world of false gods and non-protection. Maybe before this life we were insane. And we went into a world that has very little divine protection. The earth has allot of shit. These are simply possibilities.
Yeah, the Church isn’t in any more of a position to talk about the moons of Saturn than I am. As far as ‘based on what’, I would have a hard time thinking of a moral issue that could come up that is soooo abstracted from anything that’s in the Bible and similarly-ancient writings that the Church wouldn’t have prior precedent on how to rule on it. But yes, you’re looking at a lot of interpretation- of the Bible, of other writings of the Church Fathers on related issues, on empirical data on how the issue in question seems to affect society, and so on. And let’s not forget, the Church isn’t a secular institution. There’s prayer, meditation, consulting with monks and people who seem like they’ll probably be sainted when they die &c.
Also, speaking of the Eastern Orthodox Church specifically here, there’s no Pope, so there is room for pious disagreements- there can be matters in which men of good faith can disagree, and the leadership just decides that ‘men of good faith can disagree on this’ becomes the doctrine. Pretty much anything to do with Revelation seems to fall into this category, as do Church/State issues as far as I can tell.
Why would anyone believe in spirit, other than because of self experience? Do you remember self experiencing…the reason why religions were created as a teaching facilitator!
It is so easy for a “so called intellect” to observe, review data without being involved in the experience. Removing yourself from the spiritual experience is the very reason why Science became an exploratory facilitator based on ego observations and ego eccentricity. Religion was meant to condition the ego eccentricity that caused the ego to be self destructive, why the spiritual was taught.
We live and survive only because of the Earth condition, therefore our psyche is “tuned” to Earth’s life and Earth’s signals and Earth is the only important body, because it supports our own body and its survival. Only Scientists would presume that there was a need to explore the space body, and trying to quantify that it had a spiritual meaning is the most laughable reference given to space exploration, after all Science did remove itself from the religious and spiritual condition so that they could explore and change through exploration because all alchemist pursuits had been outlawed by Rome after the catastrophes were proven to them. Only human ego would refer to the greater term of Creator to lay blame upon its spirit when they cause themselves to lose their life because of their exploration stating that he gave them permission by causing their intellect. We were taught that Taking from the Tree of Knowledge caused the previous Earth catastrophes as per Biblical explanation.
Romans 2:1-4
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?
To feel remorse, contrition, or self-reproach for what one has done or failed to do; be contrite.
To feel such regret for past conduct as to change one’s mind regarding it: repented of intemperate behavior.
To make a change for the better as a result of remorse or contrition for one’s sins.
What does the Bible inform us, if not a truth that human beings in a previous Earth existence changed the Heavenly atmospheric condition and caused Earth to turn into a piece of charcoal. This was the Sin of first humans in the Adam/Eve history. We were meant to live with the remorse of this circumstance and never alter the natural state again.
Romans 12:17-21 ESV / 48 helpful votes
Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
The story details Earth was turned into a coal bed through “time” alteration. Earth was then hit by the spatial stone conversion (meteors) her tectonic (Carpenter) plates were broken and a new Earth life was created by a release of lava. 6000years.org/frame.php?page=stuff_in_coal
I am not sure that finding a way to feel inconsequential through viewing importance via body size is a method for gaining objective perspective. Further one can Believe in God and consider oneself inconsequential, that even seems rather common. Also being a theist does not mean one has to Believe that the universe is only for humans, though certainly there are Abrahamic religions that imply or state this.
Theism and science need not be mutually exclusive. And remember science is often very very effective with models that are incorrect about metaphysics. As Einstein showed in relation to Newton.
I’m not sure how Einstein’s accomplishments challenge theism
Experiences. I have experiences that make me feel like scientific knowledge is more partial than it seems. Note: partial, not incorrect. And then the models in science - say, physicalism - do not fit my experiences and also seem philosophically naive.
But experience is key. If all your experiences match what you Think science is saying is possible and the case, then of course you will have no reason to Believe something very significant not covered in current science is at work also.
And it is very unlikely that any discussion is going to change it since the experience of hearing other people express their views, describe their experiences or argue their position means very Little. We generally are not built to change our minds like that, unless the specific person strikes us a certain way and we allow that it need not be irrational to be affected. But even there, if that person’s Words do not somehow lead to new experiences, the effects will not last.
People often seem to Think they could change their minds if someone else said the right Words. I Think that goes against what I know about humans.
I explored. I was curious. I ended up in Contact with people who were not shoved into the tiny box of physicalism, some with skill sets that are not supposed to be possible. I became a student of my own mind and how the mind is trained not just to experience but also to not experience. And I could Watch it eliminating my noticing things so fast it took great concentration to even get a whiff of this removal. How my mind would dismiss and jump to something else when confronted by something that did not fit the scientific models we currently have or as we currently understand them. Once I noticed the incredible bias, I could get behind it.
Couple this with just a whole lot of what could neutrally be called anomalous experiences, I became more interested, sought more, and found more.
There is this myth that we want to Believe these things because they make us feel safer - in the face of Death, for example. That is joke in my experience. My mind was terrified of these things. Afraid I was crazy or being fooled or pretentious - who was I to X? and so on.
You have the organized religions - especially the Abrahamic ones - who have for hundreds of years punished most people who had anomalous experiences or skills - really you should have nice quite ones, preferably approved or elicited by the priest, etc., or better yet, just work on faith and vague senses of knowing. I mean a real built in collective consciousness fear of what it means if one actually experiences stuff that is spiritual and not necessarily orthodox.
Then on the other side you have the scientific minds - especially the lay groupie ones - ready to shame you.
Both of these outside patterns get jammed into kids heads, and there is nothing cozy about finding that both religions and science are partial, and accepting your own experiences insights and observations.
So to sum up:
I noticed the mind, as trained, cutting off awareness of anomalies.
I noticed philosophical problems with scientific models and a general lack of awareness, even within the scientific Community, of the history of science and how this puts in persepctive CURRENT models.
Before and after these I noticed a lot of anomalous experiences.
I met people who could do stuff that was not supposed to be possible.
the more curious I got, the more I was able to focus and stay with anomalies, the more people I met, the more experiences I had, the more cultural, psychological and other inserted filters were less effective, the more I was able to focus and stay with anomolies, the more expeiriences I had…
and so on.
Words sometimes could buttress this very experiential set of processes.
But Words alone would not have done the slightest.
I would, just like even the most skeptical skeptical can, have entertained the ideas in my mind, run them through heavily biased ‘though experiments’ and generally dismissed them out of hand, or merely had them occasionally floating in a mind that seems open but is only capable of entertaining ideas that do not fit those in Power.
EDIT: also there is a counter experience in X - religion, spirituality, whatever - the flip side of the small and inconsequential and this is where the subject object split is not present and the vastness of space is the vastness of SELF. I mean it is a Little interesting Blurry, you basically had a ‘religious’ non-theistic experience, that Nail shut a certain metaphysics and model for you. Just as much as you were affected, so are some religious people. The model which one Believes when one has this has a powerful effect on what conclusions one Draws from the experience. Yours may have seemed ‘neutral’ but I would consider one you have been trained to have for a long time. Which, of course, does not mean it is wrong. It might be right, or only partially right, or misleading, or very misleading. Or perhaps there is a flexibility to the universe with more than one right model.
I am not getting why it should. Mysticism, even Christian mysticism, includes experiences of being utterly overwhelmed by God. Experiences that the skeptic or non-believer likely will not in general have. Being infinitesmal, need not be atheistic. Consider that when you look at ‘endless’ space you see it, now, with a physicalist’s Eyes. They are nto going to see it this way. However big the physical universe is is of no consequence to the transcendental religions. And the more immanent religions tend to put humans in the center less if at all.
It’s frustrating to me when people misunderstand me and then reply to what they think I meant.
What is even more frustrating is that if I had explained myself better, maybe the misunderstanding wouldn’t have happened, so it’s probably my own fault.
