Science, Religion, and Truth

LINK to “Unspeakable and Speakable”

LINK to “What is Language”

LINK to “What is Philosophy”

LINK to “Meanings of God”

I’m going for a symmetrical social theory of human truth-seeking here, in trying to be as fair as possible to both sides.  partially inspired by Terence Mckenna? unless he got it from someone else..

// Putting aside questions of method, //the world of truths is multifaceted, variable, and chaotic.//  Knowledge is acquired in all sorts of ways.

There are a few great divides in human life which, if not resolved, could result in the self destruction of all meaning in the universe as we know it.

// They are perpetuated by misperceptions of human nature.  //

One between religion and science, or forms of knowledge.

One between the ignorant rich and the suffering poor.

The question on the table is how we must perfect the realm of society so that suffering and ignorance is no longer a problem.  Suffering and ignorance is currently the centerpiece of society.

Society as it stands now actively insults those who attempt to join it, and actively insults those who refuse to join it.

No serious person can make the assumption that no human knowledge existed before the emergence of the scientific method.  Also no serious person can take the position that the majority of statements by religious people in the modern context are coming from a place of understanding, contemplative meditation or logical analysis.  Their attempts to impede or compete with clear biological or physical facts should be viewed with contempt.

That said..

All religions are true in the context of their own self-reference, and only untrue to the extent that they betray human nature.  And obviously when they attempt to declare facts of physics and/or biology without experiment, or any explicable basis.

Adept spiritual religion/philosophy/practice is no less than internally self-consistent with regard to the realities it concerns itself with; realities which are primarily subjective but potentially objective.  The inept religious attitude very often strays from objective realities in its quest for unitary subjective reality, sometimes to the almost complete disposal of coherent logic.

Adept scientific philosophy/taxonomy/practice is no more than internally self-consistent with regard to the realities it concerns itself with; realities which are primarily objective but always have a subjective (life-related or linguistic) component.  The inept scientific attitude very often strays from subjective realities in its quest for unitary objective reality, sometimes to the almost complete disposal of coherent human philosophy.  (see chomsky on moral relativism, and.. )

Given these truths, many religious minds are just as wrong about subjective social human realities as they are about cosmic physical realities.  And many scientific empirical minds have been, and are presently, just as wrong about cosmic physical realities as they are about subjective social human realities.  But these are the unpleasant worst case scenarios which will be transcended.

Completion of knowledge is possible in both internal and external domains, and mini-completions have occurred, raising ideally all of us to a higher level of culture.

Internal reality can be known fully, but is not yet, except possibly in a singular personal context.  I am optimistic that external reality can be known fully as well, but is obviously not yet.  Although, we may be closer than we suspect.

A future in which true humanity is triumphant over degradation and death will be one that recognizes the conversely symmetrical nature of these truth seeking traditions, and that the Logos between them should come into harmony within the individual.  Absolute completion of knowledge in a single lifetime would be quite a feat for the human family.  Then poetic refinement of communication between newly born gods would become the goal.  Why not dream millenias ahead?

// People who identify as spiritual but not religious are more likely to become philosophically mature.  But people who identify as religious but not spiritual are more likely to become philosophically immature and potentially dangerous..//  // Theology is the institutional aftermath of philosophy and is only of use to people in order so that they can challenge its authority. //

— These two are dismissable if the first two are resolved.

The conflict between sexual factions is trivial and pointless to focus on.  They are being stupid, focusing on self-importance.  They only make statements which are instantly contradicted by nature and therefore require no response.  They lack sophistication, and they venerate competition even when it isn’t fun.  Their level of consideration is comparable to racism.

And the one almost no one likes to talk about for very long.. Good and Evil or Love and Hate

(mythology about good and evil is usually irritating and pointless, but the more I look at the ditchotomy, it seems to be a reality in the world, as much as I hate labeling individuals good or evil, their actions continually prove to be so)  THIS ONE IS PROBABLY AN ILLUSION  Put these other great divides into another post….// Problem of Evil is already another post //

Science investigates, Religion interprets..  find whole quote  – Martin Luther King

find Alan Watts clip.. – What is Truth   search video backup folder and youtube, search old post on Truth too

More on transcending dualisms..

Share Everywhere

You may also like...

0 thoughts on “Science, Religion, and Truth”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Slides

Text Widget Experiment

Text can go here...Button