matteoam

For those who might not be familiar with and might be interested check out this site http://www.thomasmertonsociety.org/altany2.htm And the article articulating Mertons journey. With all the hubbub against orthodoxy and traditional Christianity (justifiably do) I personally think had I been exposed to Merton and others like him when I was much younger I might have remained Catholic.

Ironic though that for Jesus the Kingdom language was somehow necessary for some framework - or at worst the authorities saw for to use this framework- while Buddha employed language that people could relate to at the time. The irony too that Christians are still preoccupied with metaphysics. Even Buddhism in the west is subject to metaphysical preoccupations even if it is somewhat necessary in some variants of Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhism for example despite the work of Chogyam Rinpoche and bothers. It's hard to find non-metaphysical Christianity (though I have found done respite in the Rule of Benedict).

No argument with that. I don't see Christianity as having a notion of a permanent self either, though Christianity has always been in tension with this. Jesus says nothing about the same person or same ego being resurrected even if you believe in the literal resurrection of the body. He can really describe what the ego will be whenever he is asked to describe it as it is based in traditional an limited forms we understand of relationship. That perhaps is the weakness of Christianity. It remains grounded in the ego. But there is inherent in the theology of Christians that the human being will cease to be as he/she is now. We're stick non this side of it just as Buddhism is stuck on always pointing toward the image and therefore the attachment to the historical Buddha. If Buddha attained nirvana and upon his physical death was freed from samsara then it's quite ironic that we always have to refer back to him when he doesn't even exist anymore. Unless the Buddha attained Buddhahood in much the same way Jesus was elevated to God upon his physical death and the resurrection is merely not literal but also symbolic. The reality for me is that I don't know. I can only follow their leads - Buddha and Jesus - or any other figure for that matter - Krishna, Ramakrishna, etc who were supposedly manifestations of the Divine Mother, God, the Godhead, whatever in this physical realm. Yoga is one path. Prayer and other disciplines another. What is uncovered when these and other practices are really and truly exercised is a Person both within and without. The images and illusions of separation are peeled away as hundreds maybe thousands maybe millions have demonstrated throughout history in different times and in different context. It always remains "personal" with or without the notion of a God.

"Persons are not known by intellect alone, not by principles alone, but only by love. It is when we love the other, the enemy, that we obtain from God the key to an understanding of who he is, and who we are." - Thomas Merton Merton seems to have always maintained a commitment to Christianity and to a personal god as he transcended the paradoxes of doctrine and dogma like any mystic does. His interreligious dialogue is invaluable to say the least as he and other exemplified the spirit of Vatican II (see John Main and Thomas Keating off the top of my head) beyond its institutional limitations, who I think gave Christianity an adrenalin rush it needed as it laid on its deathbed and which still continues to recover in its spiritual ICU. Despite the variants in buddhism "At the outset, let me state that Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God, the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists. However, the followers of Buddhism usually avoid the term God, for it savors so much of Christianity, whose spirit is not always exactly in accord with the Buddhist interpretation of religious experience ... To define more exactly the Buddhist notion of the highest being, it may be convenient to borrow the term very happily coined by a modern German scholar, 'panentheism', according to which God is ... all and one and more than the totality of existence .... As I mentioned before, Buddhists do not make use of the term God, which characteristically belongs to Christian terminology. An equivalent most commonly used is Dharmakaya ... When the Dharmakaya is most concretely conceived it becomes the Buddha, or Tathagata ..." Soyen Shaku , zen teacher. God is unknowable and not a person as Christian theology teaches as well as Jewish I think but knowable through the recognition of the god the divine the Whatever in all of us.

By eastern I presume you mean Buddhist. There are variants within Hinduism that have a personal God that is worshiped but more importantly experienced in a personal way (Bhakti) through the forms and images which seem like different deities but are all just manifestations if the one God (for lack of a better term god is used I sometimes think when translated). Check out The Gospel of Ramakrishna and the experiences of Ram Dass here in the west and his grounding in a personal relationship with God. I know there is the notion that buddhism has no belief in a personal God but it is interesting that early buddhism adopted Hindu cosmology and some variants of Buddhism believe in devas (supernatural beings) who are more enlightened beings butcstll part of samsara. The bodhisattva is filled with self- sacrificial love and devotion toward the suffering of all sentient beings. Recognizing the Buddha in oneself is recognizing the Buddha in all. To me it seems that Buddha did not seem to need to address the issue of the personal God because it was another form of attachment perhaps. He did seem to recognize something greater perhaps that is beyond belief. Belief tontine Buddha seemed to be another form of attachment.

I have no problem with Dawkins being referred to as a spiritual atheist. But his religion is Science. His criticism of atheists who are willing to engage those who are religious - namely his criticism of the Templeton Prize - displays an arrogance that contributes very litlle if anything to civil dialogue in the public square and demonstrates a fundamentalist (scientismist) attitude that unfortunately is endemic of our times,

Does Gould's NOMA claim that "the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other views." That is fundamentalism. That is scientism. I agree with Dawkins that religion and science overlap despite what Gould thought. I don't see because both are conceptual tools used by human beings despite Gould's opinion. I agree with Dawkins about his polemics on fundamentalism. I agree with Dawkins that we don't acquire a moral compass from religion. But we don't acquire it by science either. Scientism is not a new buzzword. It's been around for quite some time to explain a view that the material universe is all there is. I don't presume that religions knows anything about alternate realms etc but I also cannot discount the experience if many many many many many people about other experience which cannot be simply dismissed as delusion without a scientific examination. So there are people who won't even use the tools they say prove everything to investigate or attempt to measure empirically something. That to me is an element of scientism. It is not a straw man argument it is not a pejorative term. It is an accurate description of a form of cynicism gone awry. A true scientific inquiry of anything would be to not just show what something is not but to accept what something could possibly be after a thorough inquiry. Dawkins is so critical of anyone even atheists who want to show the least but if humility when being in the comps y if someone who is religious. Why all the negativity bro? Is what I have to say. Lighten up is say to him. Why not just accept that the concept if the spiritual is a part if being human (not that it us a necessary part but a part nonetheless).

What comes to mind immediately is Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values which I am looking at on my book shelf as I write this, as well as Dennett's work on the shelf below and Dawkin's work before Dennett's. They all seem to believes that science is the only measure of anything - not just the natural world but human values - specifically morality. Now, as I have clearly stated before, I agree a lot of their ideas on certain issues, but I don't believe that science is the final authority on everything. Sorry, just don't. There is more to being a human being. What concerns me is the scientismist notion that some things will not even be considered for inquiry. Rational skepticism I am all for, but cynicism is something else. As an example, I will bed my paycheck that Pinker, Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris will not even consider seriously what is termed "paranormal investigations." I am not talking the bs that is on the mainstream media, but real scientific inquiry that is done on the subject. That is just one example. I don't know if you can access the Terence McKenna podcast, or if you have ever read his work, as well as the work of Huston Smith and other philosophers, but according to scientism - science is all there is and should be to determine any value no matter how poetic Pinker or Dawkins can be in their writing. Here are some opinions I agree with: http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/viewpdf/default.aspx?article-title=Scientism--The_Bedrock_of_the_Modern_Worldview_by_Huston_Smith.pdf http://www.popmatters.comht/review/cult-of-personaliy--bad link JM 404 error As far as you expressing your opinion if you were a creationist, more power to you, baby. I am not sure what your point is. You're implying that I think that if you express a different opinion then you're authoritarian? I don't care what people think about what I say or what opinion I express. I have absolutely no desire to tell people how to behave.

As I've said all science is not scientism. Science is a conceptual tool to use to understand the natural world and open the possibility of other worlds - look at the work of Lord Martin Rees. I'm glad that this tool has enabled us to know things but we really don't know anything beviase there are more questions to be asked when something is known. I wish most of the scientismists were as humble. I grew up with Carl Sagan who despite his views of religion had a wonder and awe about the world that most religious people should have. Dawkins can be poetic and I get his reactionary tone toward religion. But when science presumes to be the final authority on everything. Well that's pretty absurd in its claim. Not all science claims this. It's the fundamentalists as I've said who like all fundamentalists in their respective fields ruin the party for everyone do to speak. As I've said before or implied God is a concept ultimately too and creeds are less dogma than occupational hypotheses. I am more of a panentheist. The statement Dawkins made about pantheism may be true. I don't know ask a pantheistic. I have heard pantheists talk and well I think Dawkins displays his ignorance as he is apt to do despite his intelligence. Wow he's human! Scientism is authoritarian in tone which is why I can tolerate its views for do long before getting really bored by it. To me it simply devalues human beings do it would be insulting to imply it contains humanist values. It reduces life to nothing. And not the good buddhist no-thing or the nothing of Laurence Krause. Maybe I'm wrong. I think Pinker seems to not be a scientismist but I don't get that impression from the article I mentioned above. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't care either way because I have more pressing things in my life to be existential over.

So finally I can submit a post. Taking the message I wrote to you romansh when I met my limit of posts in response to your question above, I explained that the reason I may "criticize somebody else's point of view, e.g. scientism" is because of an inner search. I think we all react to things outside of us because it is contained within us. That to me is part of the spiritual, for lack of a better word, quest for self-knowledge and ultimately a quest for God. Yes, I believe that God is everything. Sorry if that offends you. That all being said, I am willing to live my life with that and if something else comes along which offers a more useful alternative, then I will consider it. For me, scientism, which is not all science, is a misuse of science. I think scientism is authoritarian and fundamentalist in its dogma. It is also reactive to some extent just like religious fundamentalism. I liked the article I mentioned about concerning Pinker because I think Massimo Pigliucci's criticisms are spot on, not just on Pinker but on scientism as a whole. I have no issue with Pigliucci's atheism. In fact I consider myself to be somewhat of an atheist in that I find limitations in the theist view of God. It for me is just another image which I have come to realize the in my own quest is something to transcend. It is not "wrong" or "right". That is why sometimes I find the whole argument that Christians and atheists, believers and non-believers, somewhat boring and limiting. But we are all on the same journey. Personally I think it is a distraction of the ego to deny the truth. What is that truth? Something veiled that draws us to it. I don't know how else to explain it. http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v6/n12/full/7400589.html This is another article I like very much and which made a strong impression on me when I came across it in 2006. Again, Pigliucci is an atheist, and I appreciate his thoughts. I also appreciate the thoughts of Frans de waal who is equally critical of a certain type of atheism and religion. He doesn't really consider himself an atheist though. He considers himself an aptheist, which means he doesn't care if God exists. As an anthropologist, he thinks religion is something to study because it has benefits. He thinks atheism has to offer more than a rejection of religion, which is why I appreciate the position of some secularists and humanists. I've referred to his opinions in other posts. I consider myself a humanist as well to some extent, but a spiritual humanist. How do I evaluate my position? I see what what works and what doesn't. I challenge myself not to create my own religion of sorts. I hope that I don't find myself being too much of a backslider when it comes to philosophy and spirituality. I try to transcend the paradoxes of the religious traditions and Christianity in particular because I believe, knowing I might be completely wrong, that there is more to this universe than meets the senses. Which is why I try to understand theoretical physics and the sciences as much as any layman can. I don't believe for a minute that science can explain "why" but I am all for the "how" of it. Philosophy only goes so far to, which is why spirituality has to be part of my ontological trinity - Spirituality/Philosophy/Science. I don't believe any one of them is more authoritative. To each his own and I respect other people's point of view, even if I can think some views are plain wrong. Present company not included. For me, all science is not scientism. Scientism is making science into a religion. Scientism is to science as Jerry Falwell is to Christianity.

Despite how it satisfies my "needs" I stick to the open possibility of more belief, different belief, new ideas and different ideas. All I know is that I don't know.

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2013/08/steven-pinker-embraces-scientism-bad.html?m=1 This is one of my favorite articles on the issue of scientism. The thing is too that if you are going to

I agree with you. But I believe the certainty of the scientismist cannot be proved by their own tools. It is the authoritarian mentality behind the use of a method of observation that I contend is limiting. I think the belief or non belief in an agent irrelevant. It is the idea that there is a limit to consciousness that is limiting in and of itself. That's like saying since I drink from a glass which I hold there are no other glasses that exist in the world. The use of psychedelics for example is something the scientismist doesn't want to deal with because it doesn't fit in their paradigm.

I believe a relationship with God is important. The question is what or who is God? Whose god? That relationship is subjective in its experience. It may be an atheist's experience as being human with no god or agent at all.

Listen to the McKenna talk if you can which is where I am coming from.

This is the definition of scientism which I distinguish from science. With scientists and scientismists. I'm not talking about the religion/science b******t debate. I am talking about an authoritative worldview. That to me reduces life itself as nothing if any value. Carl Sagan is a scientist. Richard Dawkins is a scientismist.

Here's an interesting thing I heard from a progressive christian pastor. Basically he said that if anything about faith cannot be proven by the scientific method then it should be discarded from the faith community. People can have their own personal experience blah blah blah but if only one person in the community has the experience which cannot be tested and repeated then it was more or less irrelevant. That to me us insane. That to me is objectivist and even expressed a fascistic thinking about what it means to be a human being. I can understand rejecting literalism, supernaturalism, fundamentalism, but it seems that there are some theistic and atheistic paradigms which are indistinguishable when placed side by side. Someone like Daniel Dennett is an example of scientism. His book Consciousness Explained really explains nothing about consciousness. It is provisional in that it simple describes the mechanism of parts that can be observed but it presumes too much to say that is all there is. When you look at a room full of people what you see in the differentiations is not all there is. You cannot measure the experience of that room scientifically.

How so? Can the scientific method prove everything?

And in the question is the seed of faith. The enemy of faith is certainty whether irbid the certainty the religious fundamentalist, the progressive, or the follower of scientism. Certainty for me is just a temporary grounding in what has no ground. A foundational foundationallessness that is a temporary stop on the ongoing journey.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/matrixmasters/iGAG I hope this feed works. It is a talk given by Terence McKenna in 1989 and can be accessed on the Psychedelic Salon podcast. My favorite term he uses is "the banality of modernity" which is a great criticism of scientism. It is interesting that the speaker of the Tedx talk represents how scientism is finally waking up.

Good talk but no new information I haven't heard before from people like Fritjof Capra and which traditions like Hinduism have been talking about for a couple of thousand years. Some may dismiss Deepok Chopra and Eckart Tolle as being new age flaky but again they've been saying the same thing essentially. Also look at The Perenniel Pholosophy of the theosophists. When the speaker asks us to think about things we will do and thus makes us unique from other organisms...well why limit consciousness to human beings? That's myopic thinking. We do not know the consciousness of other brings (plants, animals from the microscopic to the ____ fill in the blank.) Maybe that is the essence of the evolutionary process. Maybe the universe is doing the same with us and we are just part of a chain of ongoing evolution.

I think religion is a means to an end that end being an experience of the Divine. My own belief system has evolved as I participate in rituals and disciplines and as I acquire self-knowledge.

What the belief about virginity being so special is a massive subject with respect to holiness to the idea of ownership of another human being which is deeply inbedded in tribalism. I think there is an element of fear of the feminine. There is the notion that the flesh in someway distracts one from the things of the spirit. Within the Judeo-Christian context I think it has more to do with patriarchal control of the woman and moved to a Gnostic perversion that the flesh or material is just corrupt beyond redemption.

But those 30% are not necessarily fundamentalist are they?

Fortunately those who think this way are minuscule in number.