| , posted
over a year ago
So here are my thoughts. If they don't matter to you, then click the back or close button and voila, you never have to read this through. If you're curious, fine, go for it.
I was just thinking about the massive God thread that has been happening between IN and Fade, and then some other personal words exchanged between Fade and I, which I didn't know were made public, meaning her email to me was just a cut and paste from the masturbation thread.
What wasn't clear was the exchange of words and communication. Two things were being said which somehow combined together to form one. It's a given I guess, since these are all typed text - hard to get emotions and a constant thought going with expression when it lacks that in the first place.
IN has some viable points that Fade did not address at all. IN bases his beliefs on facts and calculation, and if things don't work, then things can be fixed and modified to make it work. For Fade, she has faith. She either doesn't want to and/or she doesn't feel the need to address any of IN's points because well, simply it is her absolute faith.
The problem I see here is on both sides. First for IN, amongst other things, Fade is trying to keep to an emotional and spiritual belief about why things happen they do. Second, for Fade, as much as some things in life are emotionally and spiritually driven or initiated, faith alone does not explain anything, and when it doesn't explain anything, this is considered blind and deafening ignorance.
Now comes the paradox of ignorance:
Since those who do not become one with the Bible, those same people can easily be branded as ignorant as the people they find blindly faithful in their god and religion.
Unfortunately for this paradox to work, it means that Fade, like every other religiously faithful, would have had to align themselves to every single religion in the world available, read through and became one with their ideals and spiritual cores - and not just with their own Christian ideals.
The thing with science is that it can break out of this paradox because what science tries to do is understand how everything is in this universe, and what makes everything tick. Science includes psychology, medicine, engineering, advance mathematics, astronomy, and so on and so forth. Science will try to explain religion and its followers through psychology combined with medicine and other studies such as Christian Studies, World Religion, Philosophy, and such. Science isn't really out there to disprove or approve. Science is out there to try to find out how things work and what we can do to improve ourselves and our surroundings. Either the people responsible for that research are good people or not, it's really up to the individual and not science itself.
- Faith means to never question their beliefs, that everything happens as it should, as their god intends it.
- Science tries to understand why things happen as they do, and how they happen, and what the results could be.
- Christianity proclaims that god is all-loving, omnipotent, infinite.
- Agnosticsm doesn't proclaim anything, but the most common ideal is that god is a neutral 'being' without love or hate.
- Christianity or any other god-religion is absolute law.
- Agnosticsm and Science works hand in hand because they both seek for the mechanics and workings of the universe. There is no absolute law. Whatever works works, and whatever doesn't, needs to be researched on further.
So why can't religion and science mix? It can, only when you follow your religion as a guide and not as absolute law. Anything that is absolute, in my obvious opinion, is absolute ignorance. To say that I am ignorant because I haven't read and in-tuned myself to the Bible is a paradoxal cycle of irony that eats itself and each other up neverendingly.
To even suggest that concludes your own further ignorance. What about other religions? Why aren't you Muslim? Why aren't you Buddhist? Why don't you worship Thor? Why don't you adhere to the beliefs of Scientology? Why are't you a Mormon? Why aren't you a Jew?
Am I ignorant? Sure I am. I am ignorant of a lot of things, but rather than align myself to one faith, one religion, one idea of god, a creator, and one law, I adhere to no religion, no one idea of god, no creator, no one law. I simply and utterly adhere to what works, and what doesn't, and what can be done to continue to see what can work.
God, religion, faith, all that is quite secondary to me. I don't need it. If it's there, great, it's there. If it isn't, I'm not thinking about it anyway.
I can get along with a person, but I may not accept their absolute law from their own religion, because if their religion is absolute law, then it simply clashes with my non-religious emotions. Furthering that, God *hoping* humanity to upgrade itself is redundant if God already knows what will happen to us. If you say that I misread that and that god doesn't *hope*, then you're also saying that you indirectly agree that god not having created humanity equal to god itself doesn't make sense.
Regardless, this is going to be an eon old debate if science can't 'prove' how the universe happened, and if god only 'appears' in its followers dreams. Unless Earth gets wiped out, then it wouldn't matter then, now would it?
Posted on 24 October 2007 @ 8:20 (London time) - permalink
(Log in to flag spam/offensive/junk messages to moderators)
|
ironic nostalgia, posted
over a year ago