I can't know and I will never know ... that's just the way it is. No point struggling against it.Agreed ... yet wouldn't it be nice to "know".
Moderator: Dan~
I can't know and I will never know ... that's just the way it is. No point struggling against it.Agreed ... yet wouldn't it be nice to "know".
pilgrim_tom wrote:Agreed ... yet wouldn't it be nice to "know".
phyllo wrote:I can't know and I will never know ... that's just the way it is. No point struggling against it.
IMHO ... humanity is experiencing an unprecedented convergence of tsunami like forces:
1) population explosion
2) technology explosion ... particularly in the area of connectivity and communications
3) economics ... a global network creating global dependency ... a hiccup in one region causes indigestion in others.
4) disintegrating spiritual considerations
phyllo wrote:I see a benefit from having a diversity of approaches so I don't think that convergence is necessarily good.pilgrim_tom wrote:Agreed ... yet wouldn't it be nice if Science, Philosophy and Religion could converge ... all else is subordinate to these three (insert here).
One could say " wouldn't it be nice if got rid frying, sauteing, barbecuing and just boiled all food".![]()
Well no, it wouldn't be nice.
pilgrim_tom wrote:Within the ILP audience ... at least most of the ILP audience ... the notion of "spirit as substance" is gobbly gook.
Yet within the larger community ... across time and space ... there are countless individuals ... in all cultures and geographies ... that testify ... by their life or by their words ... that spirit is substance ... spirit is omnipresent ... Spirit is God.
phyllo wrote:Then you have to clarify what you and those other people mean by the word 'substance'.
That explains why science, philosophy and religion won't converge. Science and philosophy can't work with undefinable concepts. Science can't work with unmeasurable concepts.the substance of spirit is undefinable ... it's very essence defies definition ... to "name" something ... to "define" something ... is to put it in a box ... to put it in chains ... obviously "Spirit" will not allow such an outcome.
phyllo wrote:That explains why science, philosophy and religion won't converge. Science and philosophy can't work with undefinable concepts. Science can't work with unmeasurable concepts.the substance of spirit is undefinable ... it's very essence defies definition ... to "name" something ... to "define" something ... is to put it in a box ... to put it in chains ... obviously "Spirit" will not allow such an outcome.
pilgrim_tom wrote:phyllo wrote:That explains why science, philosophy and religion won't converge. Science and philosophy can't work with undefinable concepts. Science can't work with unmeasurable concepts.the substance of spirit is undefinable ... it's very essence defies definition ... to "name" something ... to "define" something ... is to put it in a box ... to put it in chains ... obviously "Spirit" will not allow such an outcome.
Yet
"Like the meridians as they approach the poles, science, philosophy and
religion are bound to converge as they draw nearer to the whole.
I say ' converge ' advisedly, but without merging, and without
ceasing, to the very end, to assail the real from different angles
and on different planes. Take any book about the universe written
by one of the great modern scientists, such as Poinark, Einstein or
Jeans, and you will see that it is impossible to attempt a general
scientific interpretation of the universe without giving the impression
of trying to explain it through and through. But look a little
more closely and you will see that this ' hyperphysics ' is still not
a metaphysic. "
surreptitious57 wrote:Science only investigates observable phenomena
surreptitious57 wrote:while religion makes claims which cannot be subject to potential falsification
You mean that he agrees with what I wrote?I say ' converge ' advisedly, but without merging, and without
ceasing, to the very end, to assail the real from different angles
and on different planes.
phyllo wrote:You mean that he agrees with what I wrote?I say ' converge ' advisedly, but without merging, and without
ceasing, to the very end, to assail the real from different angles
and on different planes.![]()
Return to Religion and Spirituality
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]