The Boy Who Lived Before - Documentary about a childs memories of another life

[Tyger]

Religion has stymied our "understanding" of the world, just ask Galileo. Science advanced our understanding.

Hmm, it wasn't religion so much as the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church stymied far more than just scientific thinking. What was taking place with Galileo was a complexity of layers - more to do with thought than 'science' - or even religion imo - per se.

"Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin - more even than death .... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." ~ Bertrand Russell

What utter nonsense. History says otherwise. Scientific fact trumps superstitous nonesense every time, when it come to "understanding" the world.

Well, we'll see, won't we. The jury is still out on Galileo. Factor in the Doppler Effect and the universe is receding from us at such an alarming rate one might suspect we have bad breath or something. Moving away from where? from us, here, on planet earth - so are we the center of the universe? Might be.

But of course I get your point. The ancient Romans - engineers of the first degree - were superstitious (and nervous as a consequence) in the extreme. No fun. Much prefer not superstitious. In fact, the paranormal is a particular block to science - and to spirituality, in general, too. It is a curious fact that most spiritual streams actually warn against dabbling in the 'paranormal' or the 'supernatural' - to use a colloquial term. The 'paranormal' usually exists below the glass ceiling and is the location of the trickster, which without adequate preparation can be a place of exceeding misdirection, a place of smoke-and-mirrors, not to mention psychological risk. Perception of the 'paranormal' in our time is usually considered 'atavistic' - from out a past when such abilities were common place (myths and legends are from out of that time***see note below). Acquisition of the 'higher clairvoyance' (in one stream named as imagination, inspiration and intuition - higher capacities) requires the lower capacities to literally be 'shut down' - they cannot co-exist.

*** Note: An interesting side story: in most folk tales around the world there is the story of the 'little people'. To take an example, in Scandinavia there are stories of the tomte, every house has one, a little being that is the resident good spirit of a house - able to be seen by the children and other good and worthy folk.

In a conversation with a scientist friend (who studies the weather - and as a side interest consciousness), we discussed his clairvoyance as a child and we got around to the point at which he entered science as a career. I asked him about the experience of 'shutting down' his atavistic clairvoyance and how that played out in his scientific studies. He said that with his atavistic clairvoyance he could 'see' (not meant physically), for example, the 'little person' - the tomte. But with his older clairvoyance shut down, as a scientist, he 'sees' the tomte as a 'force' - as energy. He no longer 'sees' it as an anthropomorphized being. He is now able to think conceptually and abstractly - different capacities from atavistic clairvoyance.

 

[mike]

I can see i'm dealing with the mindset typical of your ilk.

You make the claim

that religion can make the world understandable

Attempting to create an equivalence with science by saying

There's very little difference (between science and religion) imo

That religion gives comfort is not in dispute, given the age old adage "ignorance is bliss"

When i countered with a graphic that addressed the claim

religion can make the world understandable

You bypass the actual primary point of the graphic which was does science or religion make the world more understandable, and again try and create equivalencys ie both science and religion have caused suffereing, as if it somehow also follows that your claim they both provide understanding of the universe valid.

It doesnt

The question wasnt do science and religion both cause suffereing, it was in direct counter to your claim does science or religion give a better understanding of the universe.

When i show examples how how science has advanced our understanding where religion didnt, you say "oh that is just more detail"

Thats the bloody point mate, more detail = better understanding.

Lets step back prior to the catholic church for another example

If you mate the goats while they look at striped poles, their children will be striped and spotted. That will make them harder for predators to pick off because the predators won't be able to easily distinguish between the goats.
Source(s):
Genesis 30:37-39

What utter nonsense, this "understanding" of simple biology is farcical

Aaaaaaand a modern example of religious "understanding" of the world

Is there anything wrong with figuring out the age of the earth this way? No. There is nothing to indicate the genealogies are incomplete. There is nothing to indicate God left anything out. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates in any way that the world is much older than 6,000 years old.
The Bible does tell us, however, that the fossils we find could not have been buried before God created Adam. The animals whose bones became fossilized had to have died after God created Adam. That means those fossils must be less than 6,000 years old. Here's why:
How do we get fossils?
The animal has to first die. That's rather obvious. When did death enter the world? Not until Genesis chapter three when Adam and Eve disobey God. So up until that time neither people nor animals died. So, based on the Bible, there could not be any bones to create fossils until after the fall.

Here's another Biblical reason why the fossils we find could not have been buried before God created Adam:
When we examine fossils, in some of them we see evidence of sickness, disease and cancer. There is evidence of violence and of one animal eating another. So there were some problems. Not everything was good.
Yet, at the end of day six of creation: "God saw all that He made and behold. It was very good." (Genesis 1:31 NASB)
God didn't call His creation just good. He called it very good. A world with sickness, disease, cancer and violence is not good. So, the fossilized bones we now find had to have come from animals that died after God created Adam, and after the fall.

The Earth Is 6000 Years Old

 

[Tyger]

I can see I'm dealing with the mindset typical of your ilk.

We need go no further than this. [Shades of lynch-mobs, book burnings and witches-at-the-stake.] I have no idea of what 'ilk' I am suppose to be typical. Cheesh. Not just dismissive but pretty darn [choose the word] rude. That is how you make a point? Good for you - always worked on the playground - must work now, right?

Is your aim conversation or brow-beating through ridicule [because you don't understand] someone into changing their minds? Should I now be going - oh, he thinks I am an 'ilk' - what can I do to make him think well of me, to not disparage my opinion, to not see me as 'the other' - maybe I should change what I think to ally more closely with what this poster is saying, or maybe I need to speak more explicitly about my science background to convince him I am one of the 'good guys'. Whatever, won't happen with me.

You clearly cannot understand what I am saying - and dragging up Christian Fundamentalist rationales to wave in my face makes no sense - and tells me that you hear nothing but dog whistles. Sad, because you miss the subtleties - you preclude becoming informed by alternative modes of understanding - very much operating within science, among scientists (the High Priests of the very 'religion' you purport to be an adherent, btw - and I'm trying to be funny - so you know). You prove my point - you are a believer - as much deluded as religious fundamentalists and fanatics. [I did say that the use of the word religion did muddy the waters.]

No conversation has been happening here because you went off on a tangent having nothing to do with anything I was saying. Just sayin'.

 

[mike]

So now Science is a religion, and Scientists are its high priests ?

Bwaaaaa haaa haaa haaa

You are trying to create (yet again) an equivalency that just doesnt exist

As for my passionate response, im the same with any BS merchant like those who come here and say Billy Meier is the real deal.

Your premise that religion and science are an equivalency and are of equal value in helping us understand the universe is complete and utter nonsense

All noise and no signal

 

[mike]

Found a quote that says it well

Religions are many things. They include everything from beliefs, rituals, to caring and compassion for others. Science is the formal methodology for determining what is true by validity. Religions are not in the least interested in what is true as they say all sorts of impossible things are true, demonstrating they don't value truth at all.
I couldn't think of two things that are more mutually exclusive. If science used beliefs to determine what was validly true, it would fall apart into utter corruption. If religions were to require all beliefs be subjected to the scientific method, no beliefs would be left standing.
There is no scientific theory or law that has ever included God in its explanation. There is no religion that has ever required that its believers repudiate their beliefs that cannot be verified. Science is not a religion and no religion can possibly be a science.
Those who seek to merge the two together, perhaps out of some misguided ideal of harmonizing and acting as a peace maker, do not understand that religion and science are mutually exclusive.

 

[Tyger]

So now Science is a religion, and scientists are its high priests ?

Bwaaaaa haaa haaa haaa

You are trying to create (yet again) and equivalency that just doesnt exist

I'm not trying to create anything - I am clearly conversing at a level that appears to be going over your head - though its also possible that you're engaging in a bit of trolling with me (because you're going so far off the wall).

Mike, did you notice that I even tagged my joke as a joke for your benefit? I see that even that was not sufficient. You really aren't listening, or you are but I am starting to hazard that this is just an opportunity to have 'some fun' with the little lady with the odd ideas.

The way you are arguing and the way you are failing to stay on topic - hauling in truck from other random conversations you may have had in the past - you are behaving like an adherent in the religion of science - NOT that science is a religion - but how people relate to science does have religious qualities.

I recall having a conversation with a scientist working on global warming models on computers - wayyyy back [I have been around a lot of scientists in my life]. This was before the topic had been 'religionized' - and he lamented the way the public perceived science and what scientists actually do, or can do - how science actually works. More than you seem to realize, science is a house-of-cards - and is less about 'how things really are' than we know. Science is shifting all the time. Nor does science have all the answers - far from it - but the way you are talking I think you think it does, or if it doesn't, you think it will. That's what my friend was concerned about - that implicit 'faith' in science by portions of the public. Science has limits - and those limits are obvious to any scientists working in a field of study.

 

[mike]

I'm not trying to create anything - I am clearly conversing at a level that appears to be going over your head - though its also possible that you're engaging in a bit of trolling with me (because you're going so far off the wall).

Mike, did you notice that I even tagged my joke as a joke for your benefit? I see that even that was not sufficient. You really aren't listening, or you are but I am starting to hazard that this is just an opportunity to have 'some fun' with the little lady with the odd ideas.

The way you are arguing and the way you are failing to stay on topic - hauling in truck from other random conversations you may have had in the past - you are behaving like an adherent in the religion of science - NOT that science is a religion - but how people relate to science does have religious qualities.

I recall having a conversation with a scientist working on global warming models on computers - wayyyy back [I have been around a lot of scientists in my life]. This was before the topic had been 'religionized' - and he lamented the way the public perceived science and what scientists actually do, or can do - how science actually works. More than you seem to realize, science is a house-of-cards - and is less about 'how things really are' than we know. Science is shifting all the time. Nor does science have all the answers - far from it - but the way you are talking I think you think it does, or if it doesn't, you think it will. That's what my friend was concerned about - that implicit 'faith' in science by portions of the public. Science has limits - and those limits are obvious to any scientists working in a field of study.

Of course you, are as my quotes of your assertions cleary show, you have clearly tried to create and equivalency between Science and religion.

You make the claim

that religion can make the world understandable,There's very little difference (between science and religion) imo

Attempting to create an equivalence with science where none exist

You even called Science a religion and Scientists its high priests with the same intent to create an equivalency



People often couch their true feelings in jest, so posting nonsense with the its a joke tag is in my view just more intellectual dishonesty.

Science unlike religion is not a house of cards, its more than happy to be proved wrong, its that very process that makes it superior and totally different to religion.

They are poles apart

One uses faith to support what is clearly nonsense
The other tests, tests and retests its claims before pronouncing them as fact, and is ready to change that position if better data comes along

Science is dynamic, religion static

 

[Tyger]

Your quote: "Religions are many things. They include everything from beliefs, rituals, to caring and compassion for others.

I agree.

"Science is the formal methodology for determining what is true by validity.

I agree.

Religions are not in the least interested in what is true as they say all sorts of impossible things are true, demonstrating they don't value truth at all."

Opinion.

But within this statement is conflated a whole mess of stuff squished in on top of everything else. Religions generally feel that they are interested in what is true (whether it is true is a separate matter). Religions do state many things that can be seen as impossible - but I don't think they knowingly state what is impossible as true (they can be as deluded as the next organization). It's possible/probable that there have been instances where persons representing a religion have spoken falsely, no question. That religions might believe impossible things does not mean that they don't value truth because in fact they may believe in the impossible things.

I couldn't think of two things that are more mutually exclusive.

Not at all - because science's nuts'n'bolts domain - as even a possibility - is possible because of how we allow ourselves to think about the world - of which religion is an example. Philosophy plays a huge part in science, albeit not as obvious these days. Try as one might, there is nothing in human action or endeavor that is not influenced by Psyche - of which religion is an example but not the sole example.

If science used beliefs to determine what was validly true, it would fall apart into utter corruption.

But it does use beliefs - all the time. There are always suppositions in every scientific argument - usually acknowledged. How can you be so certain that science isn't 'corrupt'? It's been shown to be in the past.

If religions were to require all beliefs be subjected to the scientific method, no beliefs would be left standing.

Blanket statements always problematic. The scientific method applies to the physical universe. Once one gets into the pneuma a different kind of discipline is necessary to ascertain 'truth'.

There is no scientific theory or law that has ever included God in its explanation.

So then because Science has not mentioned 'God', there is no God? Can you not have a more clear statement of belief than this?

Science doesn't have to talk about God. Why should it? God isn't in the realm of science.

There is no religion that has ever required that its believers repudiate their beliefs that cannot be verified.

What? Honestly, I don't get what this sentence is saying. Could you explain?

Science is not a religion and no religion can possibly be a science.

Science as a mental discipline of application to understanding the physical world is not a religion - but science as 'institution' - as an ideal and even fantasy in people's minds - can very much exist in a religious way, and people can relate to science in the way religious adherents relate to their religion.

Religion is not a method as science is, so no it is not. Science as method is very distinct - it is a way of approaching, a way of applying study to the world. What religion does - among all that it does and embraces - is include an aspect that does have a method to it - philosophy.

Those who seek to merge the two together, perhaps out of some misguided ideal of harmonizing and acting as a peace maker, do not understand that religion and science are mutually exclusive.

Just so you know, I have not been merging science and religion. However, I disagree that they are mutually exclusive - they are simply aspects of the human being's activity in the world. One is very narrow - the other is an example of the larger dimensions of the human experience.

 

[Tyger]

Of course you, are as my quotes of your assertions cleary show, you have clearly tried to create and equivalency between Science and religion.

You make the claim [that that religion can make the world understandable. There's very little difference (between science and religion) imo].

Attempting to create an equivalence with science where none exist.

I am talking about how both science and religion enable the human being to understand the world - science at the physical level, religion at the level of Psyche/Pneuma. In this sense - and in the sense only - do I equate the two. The method of approach is vastly different between the two - and addressing different aspects - though religion, because by its nature it also includes philosophy, will have a more over-arching impact.

You even called Science a religion and Scientists its high priests with the same intent to create an equivalency.

Here I am addressing the way some of the public relates to science. It's what anyone arguing a different way of approach - contrary to materialistic science - has to contend with constantly. If you don't think adherents of science function like religious fanatics, come over to my side of the great divide to get a dose of the 'science religion'. (Payback for Galileo, no doubt - ha!). Joke, joke, joke - and not intellectual dishonesty.

People often couch their true feelings in jest, so posting nonsense with the its a joke tag is in my view just more intellectual dishonesty.

Well, I never take much of what I say too seriously. Life's too short.

Science unlike religion is not a house of cards, its more than happy to be proved wrong, its that very process that makes it superior and totally different to religion.

Oh, you haven't been around many scientists then. I could tell you tales that would make your toes curl.

They are poles apart. One uses faith to support what is clearly nonsense. The other tests, tests and retests its claims before pronouncing them as fact, and is ready to change that position if better data comes along.

Oh, Mike, methinks you live in a perfect world. It just doesn't work that way. If only science were so pure. 'Sigh....

[BTW - using the term religion is deceptive in this conversation. I agree that there is some pretty nutty stuff parading as religion these days - and that's a whole 'nother conversation.]

Science is dynamic, religion static

Yes and no. Science may be dynamic [if that's all that matters to you] - in a certain kind of way, but it actually is more static in more ways than you know. It's also pretty stupid - 'eyeless in Gaza'. Like Samson it's pulled the temple down around it's chains.

Religion is static - okay, I agree - from certain perspectives. If you're looking at the exterior - and the absurdity of doctrines and institutions - very conservative, and usually trying to control pesky sexual stuff. Who needs it, I say. But what religion is an illustration of - is far from static. The spirit is the dynamic tour de force - it is from out of spirit - out of thought - that science is moved forward. Science would be nothing - wouldn't even exist otherwise. It's current problem is it's trying to move forward without any gas - or better said, pneuma.

I know you have a thing about religion - but were it not for religion, science would never have come to Western Europe. Were it not for the monks of Ireland, for Islam in Moorish Spain and Eastern Orthodoxy in fabled Byzantium - were it not for the philosophy of China - there would be no science as we know it. The secular society is a new thing under the sun - in the 20th century. Never before have societies churned forward without philosophy. And where the vision fails, the people perish - wasn't that said by someone?

 

[Randall]

@Tyger When you're finished arguing with Mike there, maybe you could revisit my last post here: https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/the-boy-who-lived-before-documentary-about-a-childs-memories-of-another-life.13954/page-3#post-169196

 

[mike]

Four in a row, i see youve read the manual

1. Attempt to impress/silence your opponent by discussing your professional credentials and experience related to the topic at hand, which clearly make your opinions better and more correct than anyone else's.... be vague about details if your credentials and experience aren't actually all that impressive. (Also known as "dueling resumes".)
2. Accuse your opponent of being overly sensitive, or suggest in a patronizing tone that they "must be having a bad day".
3. Claim that an insult or other rudeness was "just a joke", and suggest that your opponent has no sense of humor.
4. Claim that *everything* is a matter of opinion, that there are no such things as facts or truth.

Silly Humor -- Internet Flame Wars

Ive provided examples of how "religion" "understands" the universe

If you mate the goats while they look at striped poles, their children will be striped and spotted. That will make them harder for predators to pick off because the predators won't be able to easily distinguish between the goats.
Source(s):
Genesis 30:37-39

Typical of your ilk you not only dodge these examples but fail to provide any of your own that speak to your claim that

religion can make the world understandable,There's very little difference (between science and religion) imo

Instead we get the hearsay of "i know lots of scientists, you must not" , which being hearsay cannot be tested in the debate.

I dont have an issue with religion, i have an issue with obvious BS being presented as anything other than the nonsense it is
Religion falls into that category, but so do the claims of Billy Meier , Greer and cults like $cientology.

Your premise

religion can make the world understandable,There's very little difference (between science and religion) imo

Doesnt match

If you mate the goats while they look at striped poles, their children will be striped and spotted. That will make them harder for predators to pick off because the predators won't be able to easily distinguish between the goats.
Source(s):
Genesis 30:37-39

Or any other myriad examples

When we compare your stated opinion to that example, its obvious your argument is invalid

religion can make the world understandable,There's very little difference (between science and religion) imo

VS

So here is my challenge

Can you find one funny image like the ones ive posted that make your case

religion can make the world understandable,There's very little difference (between science and religion) imo

 

[mike]

Actually, I'm making a real effort to understand where you are coming from. The problem is that I have no way to understand what you are talking about until I understand what those words mean to you. After all, this is a discussion forum, and therefore words are all we have here to convey meaning. I could post what those words mean to me, but that hasn't gotten us very far. So let's try one concept at a time. I hope you don't mind if I ask questions for clarification. Can we start with what you mean by the word "Universe"?

Something God made...........

It went something like this

 

[Tyger]

I have a keen interest in epistemology and do tend to see things in that way, having more of the Academy in me than is good for me in casual conversation.

I am keenly interested in how a way of thinking has come about more than the content, though the content is certainly relevant to figuring out why someone thinks the way they do.

Historical context fascinates me - and how much of what we identify as who we are, and the rationales for how we think, are based on very surprising turns of history rather than anything 'essentially true' about what we think. Or that's the theory I am working with.

Rather than go 'round the mulberry bush' with this endlessly here, I will leave it at that.

LINK: Epistemology - New World Encyclopedia

LINK: Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Perhaps more helpful would be this site's discussion of the area of study since it is specifically addressing itself to atheists -

LINK: What is Epistemology? Philosophy of Truth, Knowledge, Belief

Epistemology is the investigation into the grounds and nature of knowledge itself. The study of epistemology focuses on our means for acquiring knowledge and how we can differentiate between truth and falsehood. Modern epistemology generally involves a debate between rationalism and empiricism, or the question of whether knowledge can be acquired a priori or a posteriori:

Empiricism: knowledge is obtained through experience.
Rationalism: knowledge can be acquired through the use of reason.

Epistemology is important because it is fundamental to how we think. Without some means of understanding how we acquire knowledge, how we rely upon our senses, and how we develop concepts in our minds, we have no coherent path for our thinking. A sound epistemology is necessary for the existence of sound thinking and reasoning — this is why so much philosophical literature can involve seemingly arcane discussions about the nature of knowledge. Unfortunately, atheists who frequently debate questions that derive from differences in how people approach knowledge aren't always familiar with this subject."

 

[Michael Allen]

My two cents...

Religion most certainly does not make the world understandable--on the contrary it makes the world understood. "Understandable" would imply that there's more to learn...perhaps comprehensible is a better term. Religion does not make the world comprehensible--it claims the entire world is comprehended.

 

[Randall]

My two cents...
Religion most certainly does not make the world understandable--on the contrary it makes the world understood. "Understandable" would imply that there's more to learn...perhaps comprehensible is a better term. Religion does not make the world comprehensible--it claims the entire world is comprehended.

When it comes to religion and our understanding of the world, of the universe, of existence, and our place as human beings within it, I see it as a waypoint, a village with steeples and stained glass, and for the most part good people in rustic cottages with rustic beliefs, who have decided that for them, this is as far along the path that they want to go. Meanwhile I ascend into the mists not knowing what lies ahead, only that the road doesn't end there.

 

[Nathaniel]

All this talk of religion is making me feel queasy. Organized religions have always and always will do more harm than good. 'Spirituality' (if you want to call it that) on the other hand is (in my opinion) the next step of our evolution - the evolution of consciousness and the realization that physical reality is just a small piece of a much larger pie.

This is fairly easy to achieve should you decide to genuinely look within yourself for answers. (I know that sounds like a cliche but, whatever...)

 

[Michael Allen]

Recommended Reading:
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything: Christopher Hitchens: 9780446697965: Amazon.com: Books

 

[Randall]

All this talk of religion is making me feel queasy. Organized religions have always and always will do more harm than good ...

There's that use of the word "always". I've met plenty of religious people who are just fine. They don't "always" hijack airliners, bomb embassy's, impede science, promote ignorance, and participate in war against other religions. The community I'm in has at least three churches and quite a few attendees. I'm not among the congregation, but I don't see any evidence in my community that those groups have done more harm in my community than good. For that matter I don't see it on a city wide ( Calgary ), province wide ( Alberta ) or country wide ( Canada ) scale here either.

Most of the crime and violence in Canada has to do with the gangs over control of whatever illegal thing they happen to be dealing, and I don't get the impression their religion has anything to do with it ( unless it's the rare mosque funneling funds for some stupid Jihad ). It has been organized religion in it's widest and most general historical context where we can pick out certain instances that we would judge to be harmful ( and in many cases probably are ). But that's still far from enough reason to invoke "always". I simply refuse to tar and feather everyone in a group with same brush without some really substantial evidence that each individual is guilty.

 

[Randall]

Recommended Reading:
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything: Christopher Hitchens: 9780446697965: Amazon.com: Books

The Hitchens book is really good, but perhaps a little exaggerated. For example, absolutist statements like "everything" tend to indicate a bit of fanaticism. I haven't read Dawkins' most recent work, but in the past I've found him to be a bit too hard line, going so far as to suggest that religion should be outlawed. As much as I don't have any religious faith, I don't think people should be thrown in jail for simply exploring it either. Since I ran across that article a few years ago Dawkins seems to have softened his stance a little on banning religion, confining it to being banned in schools. Mind you, I'm not personally in favor of any form of youth indoctrination either.

 

[Nathaniel]

When I say 'always' I don't mean in a perpetual sense, I mean as a whole.

In no way did I intend to generalise a group of people or label them 'the same'. However, there is no question (in my mind anyway) that throughout history and up to the present day, religion (as an entity unto itself which, by the way, stretches far beyond your community in Canada ) has had more of a negative effect on humanity than positive and is still a major cause of separation in all it's forms including sexism, homophobia, racism and war.

Anyway, I have a feeling we're getting way off topic.