Believing Impossible Stuff Is Dangerous.

[Marcus Aurelius]

markdhole, I agree with most of what you say. However, as regards a First Cause, I am not sure that this is necessarily a deity. Some cosmological theories posit a kind of eternally existing field potential which because of inherent properties, spawns universes.

These are always interesting conversations!

You're suggesting that it creates...necessarily?

And you're saying this energy field...exists necessarily? I have a bit of trouble believing this because you are saying it is without beginning, and much of the evidence we have today suggests that everything does have a beginning.

But let's say that this "field" exists....how does that account for the apparent order that we see in the universe? Even writers like Dawkins concede the fact that the universe has the "appearance" of being "finely-tuned."

Finally, to look at this from another angle; if we assume that some form of theism is true, and that this "field" or pre-existent matter is also true, it would mean theologically that some form of matter is co-eternal and co-equal to God. This in a sense means that the "gods" are not gods at all, which is why philosophers like Aristotle were insistent upon a true "first cause" as Mark is suggesting.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Marcus Aurelius

[StarMountainKid]

On a personal note, let me say I am not an Atheist. I don't like being put in some category in which I may or may not have opinions or beliefs in common with others in that category. I'm just me.

What is the alternative, StarMountainKid; do we handcuff them to philosophical naturalism; that the world around them is the product of blind time and chance, that we are a momentary blip of being and that life ultimately has no objective meaning or purpose? I suppose we should start them on the path of western postmodern cynicism and materialism early, then? Teach them that life is about personal gain and affluence?

I'm sorry, naturally, I like Mark's line of thought here. Religion teaches children (or anyone for that matter) that not only does life have objective meaning, but that life is bigger than the individual self. The world does not orbit around the self.

You would do with away with that and propose...what?

I don't think mothers and fathers think in these way when rearing their children. Children can be taught love and compassion and a meaning for their lives without using religion as a reason for these qualities to be a benefit in their lives.

As for the Kalam Cosmological argument, I would say the first premise may be inconsistent with reality. We don't know the answer to the ultimate question of Existence. Just because Existence spontaneously appearing with no prior cause is counter intuitive is not proof that this could not have occurred. If everything has a prior cause, there can be no first cause uncased. The existence of God had to have a prior cause as well. What do we call the cause of God?

Then why does this "primitive" belief persist? Why haven't we "evolved" beyond religion? Could it be that Mark is right; that for all your talk of scientism...it cannot grasp at things like "does life has meaning?" or that in spite of all our discoveries; the earth is still the same messed up place with wars and rumors of wars, suffering, starvation and poverty? Could it be that man does NOT have all the answers? Could it be that man cannot fix all these problems?

If there is no God, then none of those things matter anyway. Life is inherently meaningless, and these "horrible" things we see demonstrated in the world is simply natural selection in action.

One again, the philosophical naturalist can propose no better alternative. The best we can do is ride the waves as we slide into extinction. This is the real end of your worldview.

As noted, should we raise our children with the idea that there is no such thing as "hope"?

I think this "primitive" belief persists because it is taught generation after generation. What is wrong with teaching "scientism"? Science has given us a correct understanding of the world and of ourselves. As with religion, science can be used to destroy as well as to create. Would you disregard the scientific method in favor of a religious method?

I could as well say, in spite of all the religions the earth is still the same messed up place... Could it be that religion cannot fix all these problems? Which has provided a greater benefit to mankind, religion or science?

Life has meaning with or without religion. Does not each individual consider his/her life valuable and meaningful? I think this personal feeling or belief is inherent in every human being. My worldview is that every person's life is of value, and we should all strive to create our individual lives in a benevolent manner. The human race could not have survived without a fundamental capacity for mutual cooperation and compassion.

I think religion has used this natural trait inherent in human beings and requisitioned it for its own purposes.

[astab]

Marcus:

Yes, and I agree with Buddhist cosmology that also says that "the gods are not gods" in the sense that the cosmos spawned them, and because they are, like all creatures impermanent, although extraordinarily long-lived. Ancient Greek cosmology also thought that even the primal, "greatest" gods were descended from original "Chaos".

No, I don't insist on an eternally extant field potential, and I don't insist on a creator-deity. I do believe that if First Cause and/or Creator exist, this data will be forthcoming from science, not religion, because it seems a basic principle that matter speaks of, and for itself and so one day - perhaps - cosmic origins will be known by science. That origin may be material or it may have "psychological" attributes. It may end up being a deity, some great mechanism/devise whose function it is to create universes (then the question becomes, "Who devised the device?"), or an extra-cosmic alien hacker (stranger theories have been advanced).

I do part ways with creatorism - not Creationism, which I think is pure bunk - but creatorism which is a claim that everything derives from the personal will of a personlike deity. I do not believe that God is a creator. Even if the existence of a creator is scientifically proven, I do not believe that it would be God.

There are many God-definitions that exclude God being a creator, and this is what I believe: God is real, but is not a creator. For two reasons:

1. A non-creating God is unburdened of all theodicies (models that attempt to explain the existence and persistence of evil in a "good" world created by a "good" God);

2. Most testimonies of divine union mystics, East and West, sidestep the insistence that God must be a creator in order to be God. That's like saying that either the moon is made of green cheese, or it doesn't exist.

3. For me, God is my ultimate nature (Atman at base is not separate from Brahman); Infinite Compassion; Infinite Wisdom; No-Thing-Ness: the Dharmakaya. None of these basic attributes requires God to be a creator.

Edited August 11, 2014 by astab

[Marcus Aurelius]

Hello StarMountainKid,

On a personal note, let me say I am not an Atheist. I don't like being put in some category in which I may or may not have opinions or beliefs in common with others in that category. I'm just me.

I wasn't trying to imply that you specifically are an atheist, and for that I apologize if in any way I caused offense. Such was not my intention; but rather to present what I believe to be the dangers of simply teaching philosophical naturalism and presenting it as THE TRUTH of truths.

So basically I took what you said and swung the pendulum to the extreme ends.

Children can be taught love and compassion and a meaning for their lives without using religion as a reason for these qualities to be a benefit in their lives.

But what should compel them to behave that way?

I think teaching a child religion of some form teaches the child, real or imagined, that what they do MATTERS; indeed, that their actions have eternal significance. Even if all of that was an illusion (which obviously I don't believe it is) it serves as a guiding principle, an internal GPS and a way to ground the values that we carry. Should we really take that away?

If everything has a prior cause, there can be no first cause uncased. The existence of God had to have a prior cause as well. What do we call the cause of God?

Saint Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle would disagree with you. We don't believe in an infinite regress out of contingency; rather we believe that there is a necessary being; thus an UN-caused cause. I know you may disagree with some of my points here, and that is fine. However, if simply for your own research I would recommend checking out the 5 Proofs of Thomas Aquinas if you haven't already. They fit perfectly into the Kalam, and indeed, give it more reasonable justification.

I think this "primitive" belief persists because it is taught generation after generation. What is wrong with teaching "scientism"? Science has given us a correct understanding of the world and of ourselves. As with religion, science can be used to destroy as well as to create. Would you disregard the scientific method in favor of a religious method?

See, now this is where YOU misunderstand ME. I know you've read some of my essays on here, so you might recall that I am not a Biblical literalist nor am I a fundamentalist. You're assuming that I want to cause a "divorce" here, that I want to teach one in favor of the other.

This is simply not the case. I don't believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, I don't believe in 7 literal days of creation; no, I believe in the same things that you do; the evidence that science has uncovered thus far, barring any competing theories that will later come to the surface. So yes, I believe in the big bang. Yes, I believe in evolution. These things, simply put, are the best explanations we have at this present time.

However, going back to what Mark said, science does not teach us whether life has meaning or whether there is some causality or purpose behind all of this. This is the realm of religion and philosophy, and I would want to teach that to my children AS WELL AS science. I see it as a both/and approach, not either/or.

I could as well say, in spite of all the religions the earth is still the same messed up place... Could it be that religion cannot fix all these problems? Which has provided a greater benefit to mankind, religion or science?

The latter is a damn good question, one of the best I've ever seen on here in fact; and I'm not readily sure I can answer it. It depends upon your perspective. Both contribute two totally separate things to our existence, so I'm not sure it's even "right" to compare the two in this fashion.

As to the former: religion doesn't necessarily provide the solution to these problems; but it DOES tell us WHY they exist. For example, in the Christian tradition, I believe in the symbolic "fall" of "Adam" and "Eve"; that it is you and I who are Adam and Eve; this fall represents what happened in the will of mankind; a turning away from God and into self; thus we are out of sorts with ourselves and the brokenness and violence that we see in this world is a result of that turning away.

But you don't have to be Christian; conceptually the idea that man is in a collective state of "error" or "delusion" can be found in just about every major religion of the world.

Life has meaning with or without religion. Does not each individual consider his/her life valuable and meaningful? I think this personal feeling or belief is inherent in every human being. My worldview is that every person's life is of value, and we should all strive to create our individual lives in a benevolent manner.

But is that meaning REAL? That is my question. Certainly, one can CREATE the ILLUSION of meaning...but that doesn't mean that it's objectively real. Indeed, I would suggest that in life we substitute many of the voids in our own lives with things we hold up to be as gods, thinking this can and will replace the need for an actual God. Romantic love is one key "idol" in our modern world. If you just find that perfect romantic partner to spend the rest of your life with, THEN your life will have meaning.

But then it turns out that the person disappoints you. Their human frailties come to the fore and you realized that you were in love with an IDEA rather than a person. Or....maybe you don't realize that at all? You demand perfection in your relationship, because "you DESERVE it" and when that relationship fails to deliver, you terminate it and seek to find another.

Or maybe it's money. You think if you acquire more money and more stuff your life will have meaning. But then you do and it leaves you feeling empty. Just look at all the celebrities that have money you or I could never dream of...and yet they are strung out on drugs and alcohol, can't commit to one relationship and are often depressed to the point of suicide.

Could it be that the things you would attribute as providers of "meaning" really don't provide that much meaning at all? Could it be as Saint Augustine once said, that "our hearts are restless until they find rest in You?"

And could it be that we are hardwired to "belief"...for a reason? Could it be that there is a God who is there, and that He created us with a desire to seek Him, and a desire that cannot be fulfilled by anything else in this world?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Marcus:

Yes, and I agree with Buddhist cosmology that also says that "the gods are not gods" in the sense that the cosmos spawned them, and because they are, like all creatures impermanent, although extraordinarily long-lived. Ancient Greek cosmology also thought that even the primal, "greatest" gods were descended from original "Chaos".

No, I don't insist on an eternally extant field potential, and I don't insist on a creator-deity. I do believe that if First Cause and/or Creator exist, this data will be forthcoming from science, not religion, because it seems a basic principle that matter speaks of, and for itself and so one day - perhaps - cosmic origins will be known by science. That origin may be material or it may have "psychological" attributes. It may end up being a deity, some great mechanism/devise whose function it is to create universes (then the question becomes, "Who devised the device?"), or an extra-cosmic alien hacker (stranger theories have been advanced).

I do part ways with creatorism - not Creationism, which I think is pure bunk - but creatorism which is a claim that everything derives from the personal will of a personlike deity. I do not believe that God is a creator. Even if the existence of a creator is scientifically proven, I do not believe that it would be God.

There are many God-definitions that exclude God being a creator, and this is what I believe: God is real, but is not a creator. For two reasons:

1. A non-creating God is unburdened of all theodicies (models that attempt to explain the existence and persistence of evil in a "good" world created by a "good" God;

2. Most testimonies of divine union mystics, East and West, sidestep the insistence that God must be a creator in order to be God. That's like saying that either the moon is made of green cheese, or it doesn't exist.

3. For me, God is my ultimate nature (Atman at base is not separate from Brahman); Infinite Compassion; Infinite Wisdom; No-Thing-Ness: the Dharmakaya. None of these basic attributes requires God to be a creator.

From the things you wrote here it would appear that either you are a Buddhist or a Hindu; which, I respect both traditions immensely and am well read and studied in them both. I have gained much spiritually myself from both religions, and as such it would be counter-intuitive for me to debate these points even if I theoretically could. Simply put, as a Christian while I do disagree with the cosmological principles found in the Eastern religions, I have no wish to debate you on the matter. I respect your beliefs.

Rather, going back to some of the points of the original discussion, I think you and I irrespective of such minor differences as these, could in fact agree on the idea that morality is more than an arbitrary standard; and that it has an objective or even eternal significance (especially if you take the concepts of Karma and the Samsaric reasons for becoming) into effect.

Thus, I would feel it worthwhile to share such teachings with my children, regardless of whether I am a Christian, a Hindu or a Buddhist.

[astab]

Yeah, I do think that the soul is an objective reality, as well as a subjective field and experience. So I think that essential morality is as "real" as the psyche and as valid as our personal experience of the psyche. This may be why morality is a universal human attribute, and the lack of it is widely recognized as a form of sociopathology. Of course, the forms that morality takes vary among cultures, but the basics do seem to be deeply embedded in humankind.

[Mr Walker]

On a personal note, let me say I am not an Atheist. I don't like being put in some category in which I may or may not have opinions or beliefs in common with others in that category. I'm just me.

I don't think mothers and fathers think in these way when rearing their children. Children can be taught love and compassion and a meaning for their lives without using religion as a reason for these qualities to be a benefit in their lives.

As for the Kalam Cosmological argument, I would say the first premise may be inconsistent with reality. We don't know the answer to the ultimate question of Existence. Just because Existence spontaneously appearing with no prior cause is counter intuitive is not proof that this could not have occurred. If everything has a prior cause, there can be no first cause uncased. The existence of God had to have a prior cause as well. What do we call the cause of God?

I think this "primitive" belief persists because it is taught generation after generation. What is wrong with teaching "scientism"? Science has given us a correct understanding of the world and of ourselves. As with religion, science can be used to destroy as well as to create. Would you disregard the scientific method in favor of a religious method?

I could as well say, in spite of all the religions the earth is still the same messed up place... Could it be that religion cannot fix all these problems? Which has provided a greater benefit to mankind, religion or science?

Life has meaning with or without religion. Does not each individual consider his/her life valuable and meaningful? I think this personal feeling or belief is inherent in every human being. My worldview is that every person's life is of value, and we should all strive to create our individual lives in a benevolent manner. The human race could not have survived without a fundamental capacity for mutual cooperation and compassion.

I think religion has used this natural trait inherent in human beings and requisitioned it for its own purposes.

Religion persists because the tendency towards it is embedded in our evolved way of thinking/processing data. Children don't need to be taught to believe they just do from within their own form of gcognitive reasoning, and have to be taught not to.

Thus religion is a response to human spiritual thought. It is humans organising into tribes, or groups, of like minded spiritual belief. Religion does not evolve or originate as a tool. It is an inevitable response to human spiritual thought, based around the social nature of primates. in a sense it is the psychological equivalent of group grooming, and picking lice from our hair.

[StarMountainKid]

Yeah, I do think that the soul is an objective reality, as well as a subjective field and experience. So I think that essential morality is as "real" as the psyche and as valid as our personal experience of the psyche. This may be why morality is a universal human attribute, and the lack of it is widely recognized as a form of sociopathology. Of course, the forms that morality takes vary among cultures, but the basics do seem to be deeply embedded in humankind.

So, you are saying the objective reality of the soul is the seat of morality in human beings. I would say morality is a naturally occurring universal human attribute. I think this is an important difference between the non-religious and the religious, or between atheists and theists.

I don't think atheism engenders immorality. I think morality is a fundamental human psychological trait that can be either encouraged or discouraged depending on one's experience in life.

Religion persists because the tendency towards it is embedded in our evolved way of thinking/processing data. Children don't need to be taught to believe they just do from within their own form of gcognitive reasoning, and have to be taught not to.

Thus religion is a response to human spiritual thought. It is humans organising into tribes, or groups, of like minded spiritual belief. Religion does not evolve or originate as a tool. It is an inevitable response to human spiritual thought, based around the social nature of primates. in a sense it is the psychological equivalent of group grooming, and picking lice from our hair.

All this may be true and can be explained psychologically, but this spiritual tendency does not mean any of its manifestations in human thought and behavior have any universal truth to them as expressed as systems of religion.

Cannot the experience of the mysterious or the spiritual be experienced without converting this experience into some concept created by the mind? Is not this experience in itself sufficient?

[Mr Walker]

So, you are saying the objective reality of the soul is the seat of morality in human beings. I would say morality is a naturally occurring universal human attribute. I think this is an important difference between the non-religious and the religious, or between atheists and theists.

I don't think atheism engenders immorality. I think morality is a fundamental human psychological trait that can be either encouraged or discouraged depending on one's experience in life.

All this may be true and can be explained psychologically, but this spiritual tendency does not mean any of its manifestations in human thought and behavior have any universal truth to them as expressed as systems of religion.

Cannot the experience of the mysterious or the spiritual be experienced without converting this experience into some concept created by the mind? Is not this experience in itself sufficient?

You basicaly misunderstand.

The experience of the mysterious and spiritual IS an intellectual concept created by the mind when a mind reaches a certain evolved complexity and level of cognitive self awreness. Hence only humans have this abilty as yet. And when we think our minds use logic to explain wah twe see When young and lacking experience and data, we ALWAYS attribute agencies to actions we observe. Where the agencies are not understood they are always "gods" or "magical beings"

Truth is irrelevant to belief, or everyone would follow the same (best performing) football team. Religions are the football teams of spirituality. We follow the one we believe in the most.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Mr Walker

[StarMountainKid]

You basicaly misunderstand.

The experience of the mysterious and spiritual IS an intellectual concept created by the mind when a mind reaches a certain evolved complexity and level of cognitive self awreness. Hence only humans have this abilty as yet. And when we think our minds use logic to explain wah twe see When young and lacking experience and data, we ALWAYS attribute agencies to actions we observe. Where the agencies are not understood they are always "gods" or "magical beings"

Truth is irrelevant to belief, or everyone would follow the same (best performing) football team. Religions are the football teams of spirituality. We follow the one we believe in the most.

I would disagree with you that the experience of the mysterious and the spiritual are intellectual concepts created by the mind. The experience of the mysterious and spiritual are a pre-cognitive experiences. If they were only mental concepts they would have no value except intellectually.

In my view, the mysterious and spiritual as well as the beautiful are more fundamental to the human mind than intellectual concepts. Concepts are the result of the dualism of the observer and the observed.

Can we experience a tree without creating linguistic intellectual concepts about the tree? The tree is not a concept. The tree stands before you. Is not the experience of “tree” more real and consequential than an abstract dissection and analysis?

"Truth is irrelevant to belief". On this point I do agree with you.

[danielost]

Science backs up the existence of God?? I think children should understand the difference between imagined stuff and reality. I personally don't believe in indoctrinating children in any particular religion. I think that limits their freedom of imagination. In my opinion, that is imagination-abuse.

I'm very glad my parients did not force-feed me some particular religious belief.

Raising a child in a single religion does not reduce imagination. Unless you teach them not to question authority.

[Mr Walker]

I would disagree with you that the experience of the mysterious and the spiritual are intellectual concepts created by the mind. The experience of the mysterious and spiritual are a pre-cognitive experiences. If they were only mental concepts they would have no value except intellectually.

In my view, the mysterious and spiritual as well as the beautiful are more fundamental to the human mind than intellectual concepts. Concepts are the result of the dualism of the observer and the observed.

Can we experience a tree without creating linguistic intellectual concepts about the tree? The tree is not a concept. The tree stands before you. Is not the experience of “tree” more real and consequential than an abstract dissection and analysis?

"Truth is irrelevant to belief". On this point I do agree with you.

There is no such thing as a precognitive experience for a human, being because all experiences ( including some before our birth) help us evolve our cognitive ability. No, we cannot experience a tree as a human being, without language. We cannot even have a common knowledge and understanding of what a tree is, its nature or purpose. Sure we can bump into a tree or eat fruit from it, but we certainly can't have any form of spiritual connection to, or with, or about the tree, without very high level cognition only found in human beings. Concepts, symbolism, and non concrete or abstract ideas, are all intellectual and part of human cognition. And they all require quite sophisticated mental language to form/create and to have/possess. A tree, to a human being is a concrete concept, not just a physical object. That's what makes us humans. We see an oject and memorise it so we can recognise it, or identical objects, again. Next we attach a lable/name to the object. Then we begin comparative cataloguing and comparing, using taxonomies etc It is not just a tree but a peach tree. It is good to eat, its blossoms are pretty and sweet smelling, and so on in ever increasing areas of data collection, analysis and understanding But we are also capable o f sharing both the concrete and abstract conceptualisations of a peach tree between oursleves in many ways ( Pictures, words, poetry, music, songs etc). because human minds work in identical ways.

Could you explain what YOU think a spiritual experience is, and how it is generated and understood in a human mind?

Edited August 11, 2014 by Mr Walker

[StarMountainKid]

There is no such thing as a precognitive experience for a human, being because all experiences ( including some before our birth) help us evolve our cognitive ability. No, we cannot experience a tree as a human being, without language. We cannot even have a common knowledge and understanding of what a tree is, its nature or purpose. Sure we can bump into a tree or eat fruit from it, but we certainly can't have any form of spiritual connection to, or with, or about the tree, without very high level cognition only found in human beings. Concepts, symbolism, and non concrete or abstract ideas, are all intellectual and part of human cognition. And they all require quite sophisticated mental language to form/create and to have/possess. A tree, to a human being is a concrete concept, not just a physical object. That's what makes us humans. We see an oject and memorise it so we can recognise it, or identical objects, again. Next we attach a lable/name to the object. Then we begin comparative cataloguing and comparing, using taxonomies etc It is not just a tree but a peach tree. It is good to eat, its blossoms are pretty and sweet smelling, and so on in ever increasing areas of data collection, analysis and understanding But we are also capable o f sharing both the concrete and abstract conceptualisations of a peach tree between oursleves in many ways ( Pictures, words, poetry, music, songs etc). because human minds work in identical ways.

Could you explain what YOU think a spiritual experience is, and how it is generated and understood in a human mind?

There is no such thing as a precognitive experience for a human? We can not experience a tree without language? We certainly can't have any form of spiritual connection to, or with, or about the tree, without very high level cognition only found in human beings?

This seems to me to be a very shallow, or a better word would be partial, definition of a human being. As if all we are is cold, analytical intellect confronting the world as if it were merely an abstraction to be parsed.

You come upon a tree. The tree confronts you and you confront the tree. What is your mutual relationship? Do you collect data, begin cataloging and comparing, taking out your book of botany and studying the biology of the tree, etc.? In this you have no relationship with the tree at all. All you have is your concept of "tree", not the tree itself.

When we look at a work of art or listen to music, is all there is is an intellectual analysis? How can one hear the music when the mind is buzzing with thought about the music? To listen means to quiet the mind so that all one experiences is sound. Now the sound and you have a relationship. Now there is no separation between the observer and the observed. You and sound are one.

It is the same with the tree. When we consider the tree as an intellectual concept, the tree itself disappears and no longer exists.

Could you explain what YOU think a spiritual experience is, and how it is generated and understood in a human mind?

The spiritual experience is a direct relationship with the spiritual. Cognition, conceptualization and intellectualization destroys this one to one relationship. Now you only have your conception of the spiritual, not the spiritual itself. To truly experience anything, we must become one with that experience with no separation.

[shadowhive]

I think children should be aware of religion, but not have it forced upon them. People should choose their religion when they come of age, not having it forced on them from their parents/school. Can't kids just be kids, then get involved in religion (or not) only when they're able to decide for themselves? I reallydon't getwhy religious parents do their hardest to indoctrinate their kids into their faith, rather than respecting them as individuals.

[Einsteinium]

http://www.patheos.c...hen-its-awesome

The author of this clearly does not fully understand what he is talking about.

Imagination is absolutely critically important I agree. The problem is when people think that imaginary things are real, when in fact they are not. That was the entire point of the study. The article is nothing more than this persons opinion regarding one scientific study conducted on a relatively small sample size.

My opinion is that believing stuff is good only if the stuff you believe in is conductive to the good of yourself and those around you.

I wonder why religious people keep citing examples and studies as 'evidence' that belief is good? Do they feel threatened for some reason? It just seems odd. Belief by its very nature does not require evidence yet people keep trying to produce 'evidence' to back up certain beliefs.

[Opus Magnus]

I think it is more dangerous to keep these things from children. If they keep these things from children, then how will they be able to expand their minds to invent new ideas? If you take away their ability to be free in the mind for security, then you are going to lose both their freedom and security. They will not have the intelligence to go back and forth and imagine new ideas that can save us from danger in the future.

Besides, "With men these things are impossible, but with God all things are possible."

[Einsteinium]

I think it is more dangerous to keep these things from children. If they keep these things from children, then how will they be able to expand their minds to invent new ideas? If you take away their ability to be free in the mind for security, then you are going to lose both their freedom and security. They will not have the intelligence to go back and forth and imagine new ideas that can save us from danger in the future.

Besides, "With men these things are impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Who is keeping what from children? What are you talking about? Nobody is keeping anything from children. If you want your child to hear stories from the Koran/Mahabharata/Bible- nobody is going to prevent you from reading those stories to them.

[Einsteinium]

I think children should be aware of religion, but not have it forced upon them. People should choose their religion when they come of age, not having it forced on them from their parents/school. Can't kids just be kids, then get involved in religion (or not) only when they're able to decide for themselves? I reallydon't getwhy religious parents do their hardest to indoctrinate their kids into their faith, rather than respecting them as individuals.

The early indoctrination of children into a religion is the main way religion perpetuates itself throughout history. "Be fruitful and multiply." "condoms are bad, birth control is sinful"...Indoctrination is what perpetuates religious fundamentalism. Without it, religion would likely be a lot different than it is, and would change much more rapidly over time.

[Opus Magnus]

Who is keeping what from children? What are you talking about? Nobody is keeping anything from children. If you want your child to hear stories from the Koran/Mahabharata/Bible- nobody is going to prevent you from reading those stories to them.

It was the fruit of the article.

[Einsteinium]

It was the fruit of the article.

I know, and simply not at all true, absolutely no evidence was shown in any way to back up the claim.

[Einsteinium]

There is no such thing as a precognitive experience for a human, being because all experiences ( including some before our birth) help us evolve our cognitive ability. No, we cannot experience a tree as a human being, without language. We cannot even have a common knowledge and understanding of what a tree is, its nature or purpose. Sure we can bump into a tree or eat fruit from it, but we certainly can't have any form of spiritual connection to, or with, or about the tree, without very high level cognition only found in human beings. Concepts, symbolism, and non concrete or abstract ideas, are all intellectual and part of human cognition. And they all require quite sophisticated mental language to form/create and to have/possess. A tree, to a human being is a concrete concept, not just a physical object. That's what makes us humans. We see an oject and memorise it so we can recognise it, or identical objects, again. Next we attach a lable/name to the object. Then we begin comparative cataloguing and comparing, using taxonomies etc It is not just a tree but a peach tree. It is good to eat, its blossoms are pretty and sweet smelling, and so on in ever increasing areas of data collection, analysis and understanding But we are also capable o f sharing both the concrete and abstract conceptualisations of a peach tree between oursleves in many ways ( Pictures, words, poetry, music, songs etc). because human minds work in identical ways.

Could you explain what YOU think a spiritual experience is, and how it is generated and understood in a human mind?

Words do not do spirituality justice. Instead of trying to convince others in the validity of ones subjective interpretation of a spiritual experience (and hence influence that persons subjective interpretation of future spiritual experiences) I think it is best to let some things just be as they are, and not try and influence the experience for others. We always seek to control, categorize, and have our opinions and prejudices shoved onto others. I think it would be better if we kept our mouths shut sometimes, and just let people experience things according to their own unique perspectives without so much undue subconscious influence.

Imagine the creativity and imagination that would result from a society that valued such a thing.

[Bluefinger]

He does, just differently than you. He is reacting to a silly article about religious children that is a tad biased.....of course most things are. This modern myth about the war between religion and science is waged by certain segments in both groups, the majority probably don't see any problem.....they are called the quiet majority.

peace

mark

I agree. The vocal minority are those who are trying to get policies passed in their favor to support what they think contributes to an ideal society. Lets show how this works in America:

Humanists argue that religious policies restrict freedoms, deprive minorities of social justice, and pose a serious risk of theocratic takeover. If the theists had their way, gay people would not have any rights and would be under constant pressure to change what they feel is a completely natural impulse in their lives. They claim that women would also have very little rights and would be pressured to resume the stereotypical characteristics of a housewife whose only desire is to please her man.

Theists argue that immorality has been licensed by certain policies, causing a breakdown in social and family structure. Due to the lax standards governing divorce, divorces have skyrocketed, often leaving children insecure and struggling to adapt. Getting out of an abusive relationship is one thing. Leaving because the other person does not impress you runs counter to the vows made during the wedding. Many of these children suffer for it in the end. There is also the commercialization of sex, which is used to draw a predominantly male consumer basis to products by use of manipulative advertising. Also, an increasing rate of teenagers and even preteen boys are viewing and becoming addicted pornography. Also to note is the objectification of women, often to their detriment.

While both make good points, the majority of people, many of whom may fit in either class at any time on a continuum, are just trying to live their lives and seek out a better life for themselves and their families. Seeing that the entire American population is not at war over one camp or the other, it looks like all hell is not breaking lose.

[Mr Walker]

There is no such thing as a precognitive experience for a human? We can not experience a tree without language? We certainly can't have any form of spiritual connection to, or with, or about the tree, without very high level cognition only found in human beings?

This seems to me to be a very shallow, or a better word would be partial, definition of a human being. As if all we are is cold, analytical intellect confronting the world as if it were merely an abstraction to be parsed.

You come upon a tree. The tree confronts you and you confront the tree. What is your mutual relationship? Do you collect data, begin cataloging and comparing, taking out your book of botany and studying the biology of the tree, etc.? In this you have no relationship with the tree at all. All you have is your concept of "tree", not the tree itself.

When we look at a work of art or listen to music, is all there is is an intellectual analysis? How can one hear the music when the mind is buzzing with thought about the music? To listen means to quiet the mind so that all one experiences is sound. Now the sound and you have a relationship. Now there is no separation between the observer and the observed. You and sound are one.

It is the same with the tree. When we consider the tree as an intellectual concept, the tree itself disappears and no longer exists.

The spiritual experience is a direct relationship with the spiritual. Cognition, conceptualization and intellectualization destroys this one to one relationship. Now you only have your conception of the spiritual, not the spiritual itself. To truly experience anything, we must become one with that experience with no separation.

Every part of every human connection to the world is intellectual cognitive and self aware including music, art, dance, love, hate etc.

That doesn't mean I just catalogue the tree. Sometimes I walk up to it, introduce my self respectfully then cuddle up close to it to listen to what it has to say.

But ALL of that connection is only possible because of my own self awareness, based on my human cognition.

Iif I was not intellectually self aware I could not recognise, or thus experience, anyhing spiritual

Ok now I agree with this

The spiritual experience is a direct relationship with the spiritual.

but this does not follow

Cognition, conceptualization and intellectualization destroys this one to one relationship. Now you only have your conception of the spiritual, not the spiritual itself. To truly experience anything, we must become one with that experience with no separation.

Without cognition, self awareness and intelligence you will not even recognise the spiritual. It is these things which ENABLE a human to connect to the spiritual, as to any abstract concept like music art or love.

While one can make a closer connection to the spiritual than to almost anything else, there remains some separation. If the spiritual experience is within one, then it is stlll compartmentalised, just like any thought, emotion, or pain is only a part of self. And if the spiritual experience comes from an outside agency or entity then it is separated as ALL external experiences are separated from us. I am often one with comic consciousness and the universe. I exist within it, and it exists within me yet I am also my id ego and the I inside me. If this was not so, I would have no knowledge or recognition of self and as such I would not exist at all. So the essential nature of self naturally precludes total integration with the spiritual, as it does with anything.

[Mr Walker]

Words do not do spirituality justice. Instead of trying to convince others in the validity of ones subjective interpretation of a spiritual experience (and hence influence that persons subjective interpretation of future spiritual experiences) I think it is best to let some things just be as they are, and not try and influence the experience for others. We always seek to control, categorize, and have our opinions and prejudices shoved onto others. I think it would be better if we kept our mouths shut sometimes, and just let people experience things according to their own unique perspectives without so much undue subconscious influence.

Imagine the creativity and imagination that would result from a society that valued such a thing.

Until we can mind meld (not too far away) words are the only way to communicate apart form pictures/images and music. Should I not explain the beauty I find in a rose or a woman, through words pictures or music? This is sharing, not trying to control. I don't give a damn if others disagree with what i perceive, but I believe it is right for us all to share our individual perceptions. But then I have always been a communicator and a teacher, so I am biased.

[Mr Walker]

The early indoctrination of children into a religion is the main way religion perpetuates itself throughout history. "Be fruitful and multiply." "condoms are bad, birth control is sinful"...Indoctrination is what perpetuates religious fundamentalism. Without it, religion would likely be a lot different than it is, and would change much more rapidly over time.

All parents have a duty and a responsibility to teach to their children from m birth, the values belief attitudes ethics and moralities which have worked for them. Then the kids can go their own way or not when adult, but other wise, just where will a child learn its values beliefs attitudes moralities and ethics from? Furthermore, who will present them with the essential duties, responsibilities etc which a person requires in any society. A child's brain is physically incapable of thinking like an adults as it evolves, and so rules laws values etc must be explicitly taught to the young by older people.