Church of the Churchless (blog by Brian Hines)
Locked
12
12
|
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/
"Preaching the gospel of spiritual independence" |
|
|
This post was updated on .
Wanted: a religion that reflects reality
October 09, 2009 Church of the Churchless http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2009/10/wanted-a-religion-that-reflects-reality.html ...what I mean by "religion" is...a meaning-dimension that adds depth to the everyday here and now while remaining consistent with the consensual truths about the cosmos known to science. Traditional religions come up way short in this regard, along with most non-traditional faiths. Consider some of the facts (open to alteration, of course) that a reality-based religion would have to mesh its teachings with: -- Our universe is some fourteen billion years old, having gotten its beginning in a " big bang" that produced a still-happening (and accelerating) expansion of time and space. -- Over the history of the universe, originally formless matter and energy have congealed into increasingly complex conglomerations that bear no imprint of having been formed by anything but the laws of nature. -- Those laws led to life arising on Earth about 3.7 billion years ago. Evolutionary principles such as natural selection guided the appearance (and disappearance) of species. Now Homo sapiens is capable of pondering how and why we're here. There doesn't seem to be room for a personal creator God in this realistic view of reality. Thus it's difficult, though not impossible, to be a scientifically-minded Christian, Jew, or Muslim (to do this, you have to embrace a non-fundamentalist conception of your religion). Eastern religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism fit better with modern science, but by no means completely. Reincarnation or rebirth, for example, are tough to reconcile with the extremely limited (some would say nonexistent) evidence that human consciousness survives death in some fashion. I didn't like the singer or the music much, but her churchless lyrics are appealing. Sample (with some misspellings corrected): Don't need no Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Hail Mary, Hail Mary god. Got no yen for zen, Bhagavad-Gita or Gurdjieff. No Mormon, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist god, no absolutes beyond refute, no reverential preferential Judaic Messianic god. No Bibles, no Mahayanas, Dalai Lama instant dharma gods. Don't need no spiritual suicide or prefrontal lobotomizing god. Don't need no stoic sexless antiseptic god. Don't need no neon crucifix, no jade Buddhas, no Vedas or Upanishads, no camels or needles or Papal decrees, no mail-order ikons, Korans or Mandalas, no Sri Chimnoys, Meha Babas, or Ayatollahs, no Gautamas, no Manitou, Ouspensky or Marx, no yin/yang, no tao, no tarot or incense, no sacred mushrooms no dianetics, no Tibetan prayer mats no "Immortal invisible gods only wise". That said, I still feel there's a place -- even more, a necessity -- for awe and a sense of mystery in my personal world view. For many people, religion fulfills the same need. Their faith leads them to look beyond the narrow confines of everyday existence toward the limitless horizon of whatever. However, as a beautiful demolisher of religious fakery says, believing in dogma is like eating invisible food. You think you're getting some sustenance, but it's all empty calories. I feel the most satiated when I dive into a hearty meal of ultimate awe -- ignoring unsatisfying tid-bits of religious, spiritual, mystical, or philosophical speculation. The universe is. I am. Holy freaking fucking amazingly obvious yet also astoundingly mind blowing. Often it's said that the ultimate question is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" I used to agree. However, now I prefer to dump the question mark plus the first word, and transpose the next two. There is something rather than nothing. ... When I do, or make a honestly-aweful attempt, I'm left with what feels like the closest I can come to reality-based "religion" (using that word as I defined it above). Science tells us a lot about what the something is that surrounds us, and is us. But neither science, nor religion, nor anything or anyone else can penetrate the mystery of There is... . Is just is. Always was, always will be. Praise is. No need to call it "God." Too much garbage associated with that word. I want to keep my awe clear and simple. Focused on the mystery of existence, not on what exists within is. Reality is. Unreality isn't. Nothing more to say (for now). |
|
|
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Alex
Should science have an opinion on the supernatural?
Brian Hines October 27, 2009 http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2009/10/should-science-have-an-opinion-on-the-supernatural.html Some people think that science and religion operate in two different spheres, with never the twain meeting. This often is called NOMA, non-overlapping magisteria---a term coined by biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who said: The magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). I disagree, unless "religion" is defined so broadly as to include philosophy in both the scholarly and commonsense meanings of this word. People can ponder the ultimate meaning of the cosmos, and what is right or wrong within it, without being traditionally religious. Also, science seems to have a role to play in evaluating certain religious claims. If God or some other supernatural power produces effects in the physical universe, these should be observable. And thus testable. ... In "Effectively non-existent" PZ Myers...correctly points out that religious believers make all sorts of statements about who or what God is, how God acts in the world, what God approves of, and so on. Many of these claims have implications that are amenable to observation (such as whether prayer produces the outcomes asked for). Yet when scientists ask for demonstrable evidence of religious claims, suddenly this God that was so well understood is said to "work in mysterious ways" and is beyond knowledge as we know it. Well, which is it? Either a religion can say something true about God and the supernatural, or it can't. If nothing can be said, then why do all the saying? Just shut up. However, if some truths can be spoken, then they should be able to be tested. ... |
|
|
Effectively non-existent
February 17, 2009, by PZ Myers http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/effectively_non-existent.php "Science has no opinion on religion. It cannot. Science deals with that which can be studied or inferred by observation, measurement, and experiment. Religious belief is outside its purview..." In the United States today, we have tens of thousands of priests, rabbis, mullahs, pastors, and preachers who are paid professionals, who claim to be active and functioning mediators between people and omnipotent invisible masters of the universe. They make specific claims about their god's nature, what he's made of and what he isn't, how he thinks and acts, what you should do to propitiate it…they somehow seem to have amazingly detailed information about this being. Yet, when a scientist approaches with a critical eye, suddenly it is a creature that not only has never been observed, but cannot observed, and its actions invisible, impalpible, and immaterial. So where did these confident promoters of god-business get their information? Shouldn't they be admitting that their knowledge of this elusive cosmic beast is nonexistent? It seems to me that if you're going to declare scientists helpless before the absence and irrelevance of the gods, you ought to declare likewise for all of god's translators and interpreters. Be consistent when you announce who has purview over all religious belief, because making god unobservable and immeasurable makes everyone incapable of saying anything at all about it. And what of those many millions of ordinary people who claim to have daily conversations with this entity? That is an impressive conduit for all kinds of testable information: a high bandwidth channel between the majority of people on Earth and a friendly, omniscient source of knowledge, and it isn't named Google. All these queries, and all these answers, and yet, somehow, none of these answers have enough meaning or significance to represent a testable body of counsel. Amazing! You would think that in all that volume of communication, some tiny percentage of useful information would emerge that we could assess against reality, but no…the theologians, lay and professional alike, will all claim that no usable data can be produced that would satisfy a scientist looking for sense. It sounds like empty noise to me. We have the supposed histories of these believers, and they are full of material actions. Gods throw lightning bolts to smite unbelievers, annihilate whole cities and nations, raise the dead, slay whole worlds of people, suspend the laws of physics to halt the sun in the sky, create the whole Earth in less than a week, help footballers score goals, and even manifest themselves in physical bodies and walk about, doing amazing magic tricks. Wow, O Lord, please do vaporize a city with a column of holy fire before my eyes — I can observe that, I can measure that, I can even do experiments with the rubble. I will be really impressed. Oh, but wait: it can only be an unobservable, undetectable exercise in mass destruction? And he's not doing that sort of thing anymore? How about pulling a rabbit out of this hat? No, sorry, all done. God can't do anything anymore where people might actually notice, or worse, record the act and figure out how the tricks are done. This is awfully convenient. This is where the "Science has no opinion on religion" argument leads us: to an atheist's world, where there are no activities by a god that matter, where at best people can claim that their god is aloof and unknowable, admitting in their own premises that they have no knowledge at all of him. I can accept that, as long as these people are aware of the import of what they are actually saying. |
|
|
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Alex
There are no signs of God. So why believe?
Brian Hines November 20, 2009 Church of the Churchless http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2009/11/there-are-no-signs-of-god-so-why-believe.html You'd think that an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and/or omnibenevolent being would leave some evident trace, given all this omni'ness. Yet God, whether considered from an impersonal Eastern perspective or a personal Western viewpoint, has left no demonstrable signs of his/her/it's existence. Why? A theologian would answer, "It isn't possible to know the mind of God, or comprehend the essence of divinity." Well, OK. But if this is the case, let's do away with religions, mystic paths, spiritual philosophies, and the like, and simply admit that if God is real, this is a mysterious ultimate reality never to be known. ... |
|
|
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Alex
June 06, 2011
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2011/06/i-like-the-thinking-atheist-he-reminds-me-of-me.html "What do you think happens when you die? It’s like before you were born. Non-existence." 妙答古老大問題： 你認為人死後會怎樣？ 像出生前一樣。 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Alex
June 26, 2011
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2011/06/objective-reality-isnt-for-us-to-unravel.html Big questions again (this blog is full of them, in surprisingly convincing prose). The essential message of this blog post is as follows: Basic elements of reality. Subjectivity and objectivity. Nobody has access to what another conscious being is experiencing, what philosophers call "qualia" (quality of subjective experience of consciousness). When it comes to figuring out the subtle secrets ("supernatural" phenomena like ESP, and nature of consciousness) of objective reality, I'll leave that job to the scientists. I'll focus on my subjective reality. Alex's comment: Worth contemplating. |
|
|
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Alex
We are to the brain as the cosmos is to us
June 14, 2011 http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2011/06/we-are-to-the-brain-as-the-cosmos-is-to-us.html Excerpts: David Eagleman's Incognito. Eagleman, a neuroscientist, describes how we and our brain relate. ...the brain is me, and I am the brain. Searching for a "me," an "I," a "self" that is separate and distinct from the functioning of the brain, neuroscientists can't find such an entity. (Neither could Buddha.) Extending this viewpoint more broadly to encompass all of existence, not just the content of my cranium, I see that I am to my brain as the cosmos is to me. Again, there's no difference. I set myself apart from the cosmos in the same way as I set myself apart from my brain, in an illusory, unrealistic manner. An abstraction, a concept, a collection of words -- "I," "me," "mine," etc. -- leads me to believe that two entities inhabit my head rather than one. I distinguish myself from the brain which is thinking "I distinguish myself..." Likewise, I distinguish myself from the cosmos which is inseparable from my existence. What would I be without matter/energy, the laws of nature, space/time? And can it even be said that there is an "I" separate from all this? Of course not. Alex's comment: "I" = Brain = Cosmos So simple. What a relief. David Eagleman, Incognito http://www.npr.org/2011/05/31/136495499/incognito-whats-hiding-in-the-unconscious-mind http://www.popularscience.co.uk/reviews/rev623.htm http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2011/06/01/david-eagleman-incognito/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Alex
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
The Existential Issue New Scientist http://bcove.me/jat7deu7 Conclusion: "something and nothing may well be the same thing." Existence special: Cosmic mysteries, human questions http://www.newscientist.com/special/existence Blogged here: http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2011/08/mystery-of-existence-eludes-both-religion-and-science.html |
|
|
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Alex
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2011/08/no-need-for-god-with-wonders-of-the-universe.html
Alex's comment: What a wonderful exposition of Religious Naturalism, the philosophical/religious position which explores the religious depth (feelings of wonder, awe, inspiration, reverence, gratitude, and humility; contemplation of life and death) of the Universe as understood by science! |
|
|
In reply to this post by Alex
Religious Naturalism: sound science with a topping of awe
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2011/08/religious-naturalism-sound-science-with-a-topping-of-awe.html "Thanks to a comment by Alex on a recent post about the wonders of the universe, I learned about Religious Naturalism--which I wasn't very familiar with before. (Alex is with the Unitarian Universalists Hong Kong, UUHK.)..." |
|
|
In reply to this post by Alex
War of the Worldviews ends with clear win for science
October 26, 2011 http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2011/10/war-of-the-worldviews-ends-with-clear-win-for-science.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Alex
"Empty" space really isn't -- but don't jump to spiritual conclusions
November 07, 2011 http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2011/11/empty-space-really-isnt-but-dont-jump-to-spiritual-conclusions.html Wow! That's my one-word review of the first episode, "What is Space?," in NOVA's The Fabric of the Cosmos series. (You can watch it online.)... |
|
|
Will the Large Hadron Collider Explain Everything?
By JIM HOLT Published: October 7, 2011 Lisa Randall is a professor of physics at Harvard and one of the more original theorists at work in the profession today. In the fancifully titled Knocking on Heaven's Door, her second book for a popular audience, she has two avowed aims: first, to explain where physics might be headed now that the Large Hadron Collider — the enormous particle accelerator on the Swiss-French border — is finally up and running; and second, to air her views on the nature of science, its fraught relations with religion, and the role of beauty as a guide to scientific truth. Her book thus alternates between the nitty-gritty of particle physics and meditations of a more rarefied sort. ... |
|
|
In reply to this post by Alex
Alex Rosenberg's book The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions blogged in two entries:
"Atheist's Guide to Reality" answers life's biggest questions Dec 3, 2011 Shocker! Thoughts really aren't about anything at all Dec 5, 2011 |
|
|
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Alex
Science is more spiritual than religion
July 04, 2007 On this July 4, Independence Day in the United States, let's remember that the founders of this country wanted its citizens to be free of religious tyranny. So you can bet they wouldn't be happy with the fundamentalist excesses in the United States today. Most of our founding fathers were deists who believed that religious beliefs have to be founded on reason, not holy books. To them, God is revealed in the laws of nature, not religious superstition. Science thus becomes more godly than religion, because the nature of the creator is revealed through (no big surprise) nature. Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan's wife and collaborator, has written a nice essay about science, religion, wonder, awe, and her husband. She contrasts the ridiculous Christian fear of knowledge (Adam and Eve got punished for it) with the open-mindedness of science. ... Alex's comment: An old piece. Posted here again because this is so beautifully simple and true: Science is more godly than religion! 科學比宗教更虔敬！如果宇宙萬物為造物者所造，宇宙便是造物者的啟示。人類以科學閱讀這啟示。科學尚未發現意識造物者的存在。結論「尚未發現意識造物者的存在」，最誠實，最忠於啟示，對啟示者（如有）最虔敬。 有人會問，為何要以科學閱讀宇宙啟示？科學實在是觀測，實驗是在受控制的情況下觀測。觀測實在是（以儀器輔助）精確的觀察。觀察是用眼看、用耳聽、用手摸、等等。不觀察，可用甚麼別的方法閱讀宇宙？暫時只在地球動物身上觀察到意識。觀察不到石頭有意識，我們便說石頭沒有意識。觀察不到有個大宇宙意識（cosmic consciousness）或意識造物者，大可結論「無造物者」。不作斷言，退一步，說「尚未找到造物者」也可。有人說，觀察以外，還有冥想和「感悟」。不同的文化，不同的人，可以冥想出不同的結論，佛陀就「感悟」不出上帝來。 有人說，宗教，例如《聖經》和耶穌，是「特殊啟示」（special revelation）。如果是，「特殊啟示」的總體訊息便是宗教多元主義。因為中國人收到的是道教和儒教，日本人收到的是神道教，印度人收到的是印度教和佛教，中東人收到的是猶太基督伊斯蘭宗教群，等等。 |
|
|
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Alex
What would a new scientific religion look like?
January 08, 2012 ...It's the end of the National Academy of Sciences piece that bothers me the most. "In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist." Well, that's an idealistic attitude. Unfortunately, religion doesn't restrict itself to supernatural entities. Other-worldly forces such as God, spirit, the Devil, karma, and such are believed to affect this physical universe. So science and religion inevitably will butt heads when believers in the supernatural claim that they know more than scientists do about some physical phenomenon, yet can't prove this divine knowledge is true because it isn't based on empirical evidence. Hey, religion: you can't have it both ways!... ...I want my religion (if I ever find a suitable one) to be completely compatible with modern science. ... ...Is there room for the supernatural in a scientific view of the world and ourselves? Sure. But a modern religion can't ignore facts about the natural side of reality. Remaining true to science while embracing some form of supernaturalism is difficult. ... ...it's possible that a new religion could say Yes! to all of science while also affirming the truth of a non-material realm of reality. I await the revelation. Alex's comment: Religious Humanism Religious Naturalism Unitarian Universalism Me too. Looked for a religion which is fully compatible with science. After years of looking, I feel that they are existing. The first one that came to my mind is Religious Humanism, or simply Humanism. According to the Humanist Manifesto I, Humanism, at least at its beginnings, is religious in nature. As for a physical church body of Religious Humanism, Unitarian Universalism seems to be more or less a church based on Religious Humanism. Another choice is the Ethical Culture. The second candidate of a naturalistic religion is, quite evident from her very name, Religious Naturalism (RN). She is defined here. Unitarian Universalism (UU), again, can be a church of RN too. A UU church's recent New Year worship was even based on RN: January 1, 2012 -- New Beginnings: Does Nature Suffice? A service looking directly at the world of nature and asking, "isn't this enough?" http://uuliveoak.org/past-services.htm Religious Humanism, Religious Naturalism, and Unitarian Universalism are the closest candidates I have found so far. Therefore, I gladly accept them as my own religion(s). I am looking for more possible candidates. |
|
|
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Alex
Brian Greene shows why science surpasses religion
January 04, 2012 ...Science progresses. It learns. It changes. It builds upon current knowledge. By contrast, almost universally religions are stuck. They talk about ageless revelations that were as true several thousand years ago as they are now. They claim that a holy book or holy person has revealed all that can be known about the ultimate reality of the cosmos, so take it or leave it. Thanks for the choice, religion. I'll leave it. Science is much more appealing. Alex's comment: Some believers criticize science that it always changes its mind. That is precisely the virtue of science. Honesty. Willingness to change its mind in face of new evidence. Traditional religions, in contrast, refuse to change their minds and stick to ageless "revelations." That is the vice of faith. Dishonesty. Refusal to face evidence. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Alex
Some interesting comments:
--------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by: Blogger Brian | January 10, 2012 ...For me, consciousness is the most likely area where what we call "religious" (or "spiritual") could morph into the realm of science. No one really knows what consciousness is -- how it arises, what purpose it serves, whether it is limited to living beings or somehow is omnipresent in the universe. I see a connection between the laws of nature and consciousness. How do these laws "know" what to do? How do the laws manifest as regularities that often are so accurately described by mathematics? Where, if anywhere, do the laws reside? I don't expect that my consciousness will carry on after I die. But I leave open a slight possibility that some sort of "cosmic consciousness" exists which I could become a part of after the bodily me is no more. This wouldn't be what people call God, but something much more scientific. -------------------------------------------------------- Posted by: George | January 11, 2012 ...Mysticism seems to me to be the only possible alternative to gaining an inisight into reality. It is the core of religion and is based upon a fundamentally different principle to science. Science is based on realism (the existence of a mind-independent reality), whereas mysticism is based idealism (mind creates the apparent existence of all things). Science says mind emerges from matter, whereas mysticism says matter emerges from mind. A key question is do human beings need religion or spirituality? Seems the strongest contenders are bringing meaning, alleviating suffering, transcendental experiences of something more than the material world. But then again, perhaps these are just lofty cultural delusions, and while some suffer others don't suffer at all, they delight in earthly pleasures for 80-odd years and pass away in their sleep content as larry. Maybe its not fair at all, and that is just the way it is, who knows. --------------------------------------------------------------- Posted by: Blogger Brian | January 12, 2012 ...But there does seem to be another form of knowing: by identity. We know something by being it. Consciousness is the best example. I can't step outside of consciousness and view it from the outside. Whatever it is, assuming it can be termed an "it," consciousness is my very knowing. It makes possible my ability to know other things, so I don't think we can say that consciousness can be known scientifically. Yet it seems to be objectively real, given that other people report they are conscious also. Unless I assume I'm the only conscious entity in existence, consciousness is an interesting example of how something seemingly can be objectively real, yet incapable of being proven true through objective evidence. This is where a form of mysticism merges with science. But otherwise, science is the way to go when it comes to knowing. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Alex
New Scientist looks at the science of religion
March 21, 2012 "In his New Scientist article, Stenger does a good job of pointing out the absurdity of a god who supposedly plays a role in the operation of the universe and the lives of humans, yet leaves no trace of his/her/it's divine existence." |
«
Return to Atheism, Humanism, Naturalism 無神論、人文主義、自然主義
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |