This is a link to a great and very interesting text:
psycom.com/words/ie/bigpicture.html
I’m speechless. It sounds unbelievable what this guy is writing, but it all just makes sense in my eyes. I really want you all to read this. It just is so logical. Make sure you read it, and try to understand what he’s talking about.
Just wanted to share this one.
That is truly an interesting article, and half-way through it I was absent-mindedly nodding my head as if to agree with some of the points that were raised by the author. However, at the three-quarter mark, I found myself highly offended and appalled at where the author was taking the discussion. This paragraph in particular almost had my crush this bottle of coke in my hand with rage:
Once again, we see someone referring to ‘Science’ as this lumbering guy in a white jacket who single handed goes out of his way to argue anything religious - but back away when the evidence overwhelms him. This is NOT how it is!
Science doesn’t touch on these areas of study for a very different reason. Simply, because how can it? No part of most popular religion can actually be demonstrated in the physical world (where science operates) so how the hell can it be explained by science? It’s not a matter of science backing away because it can’t win. It’s a matter of science turn it’s back because there isn’t anything to study!
God, I hate when people ruin a good article with this boundless slander. Nothing useful comes from the mouth of a religion man.
Still steaming from the mouth
I apologize for that last remark, but it really annoys me when someone who claims to hold a profound understanding of the supernatural world doesn’t even know what science is, or what it does. For those people in the back row: Science is the term used to describe the study of applied (keyword) physics that we can observe in the real world. It is NOT an attempt to disprove religion, nor does it claim to explain our very existence. It is simply a tool used by people to better their understanding of the immediately observable world in which we live, usually for the purpose of using it to our advantage.
^^^ well said
as for this article (or it’s a book actually) it is interesting, but it’s nothing that i haven’t read before (and a lot more coherently i might add).
StephenL, if you liked that article, may i suggest “tantra: the path of ecstasy” by georg fuerstein, if you can’t find it at the library, it’s worth whatever they charge for it at a bookstore, trust me on that one.
I’m sorry, but I don’t really agree with any of that. Well, most of it. The entire universe exists in a single point, leaving space for other universes, which also exist inside a single point? Hasn’t he forgotten something vital? I really can’t point it out, but there’s something that doesn’t make sense there. The bit about truths I agree with, but Robert Rankin (or should I say Hugo Rune*) got there first.
*if you don’t get it, read The Book Of Ultimate Truths by Robert Rankin. It’s Far-Fetched Fiction.
I didnt agree with all of it either, but yeah some made sense
You’ve piqued my interest, but what exactly is the book about? Thanks. 
I had no time to read that article, but if youre interested about enlightenment, study buddhism. 
Peace
nah it was just the name of the article (or book) ^^
I think there is a buch of pink elephants behind me!
There is a surprisingly large amount of religious discussions for this being a lucid dream forum 
but anyway i think there are three ways you can look at life in the science and religion belief.
One - go with religion. you could go with religion and believe what you want, hell you could even make up your own religion. these people dismiss science at a first glance usually if it has to do with proving religion wrong.
Two - go with science. completely rule out religion because of scientific findings. science is your god and if anyone thinks otherwise then screw them. most think that religion is bullshit.
Three - the open minded type. my type. the undecided type. i believe that some things in religious aspects are correct, and some things in scientific aspects are correct. in my opinion this is the best way to be, because just in case there is a god, i’m not gonna rule him out. i’d be pissed to die and find out that heaven and hell do exist and im’ going to the latter.
anyway just my opinion. the battle between religion and science is just like the battle between optimists and pessimists. is the glass half empty, or half full? you could pick either side and you’ll have a whole group of people that agree with you, and a whole group who will hate you.
sage, the book discusses tantra as a religious tradtion and not concentrating on how it has become over-sexualized in the west (go to google and type in tantra and you’ll find all this stuff about sex)
anyway, like i said it talks about tantra as a religious tradition that has influenced the beliefs of the religions of today (including a form of buddhism and hinduism, those are the only ones i can think of now and i lent the book to a friend so i can’t look it up )
it talks about reincarnation, enlightenment, astral planes, even sex (hey it didn’t become over sexualized in the west w/o some basis)
but yeah, don’t know what else to say about it, except that i highly recommend it
Well, that is what it should be about, and that is what it’s being used for in many situations. However, it has been observed that most scientists tend to think that Science’s object is ALL THERE IS. Most of the ones I’ve met, anyway. (and trust me I see them and talk to them everyday)
It’s something similar to arrogance. Scientists have found sooooo many things that it’s hard for them to grasp that what they’ve found so far and what they can find is NOT all there is to it.
I have heard many proffessors talk with scorn about the metaphysical truths.Others say that some things in physics show that there must be a god (like, that in the universal law of gravitation distance is 1/x^2 and not ^2.1 or even ^2.00000000001 -it’s an absolute 2) , but that’s at least as hopeless, because this is as far as they’re willing to look into it… scientists do baby steps, because they have to be CONVINCED to change their way of thinking. Eventually they do, it just takes ages. And that’s why they’re totally clueless when it comes to other perspectives.
No Atheist, it’s not true they are minding their own business-not all of them at least. You can’t possibly be investigating the very Start of the world without having a need to search for an ultimate Truth. Yes,applied yuppie Neo-scientists or economists indeed aren’t looking for some kind of truth, except if they are expecting to find it in material wealth. But many others are (like Feynmann,and the recently deceased Ilya Prigozin). NOT all people are devoted to being rich.The problem begins when some argue that science IS a good way to search for the truth, and then develop an attitude about it.
What I could agree with, is that metaphysicists compare themselves all the time with scientists , either constructively or destructively- most probably because they feel inadequate (it is to be expected, it’s hard to beat the ‘Prove it’ dogma)
Which is kind of weird. On one side, they use science’s findings (quantum mechanics, energy levels,oscillation ) in order to fortify their claims (“science is only discovering what we’ve been teaching for centuries!!”) and on the other side, they say mean things like the things that guy wrote in his book …
What is good though, is that we are in a position (or we should see to it that we come into) to check all the theories there are with an open mind , and as a Ken Wilber enthusiast delicately put it:
I don’t think you actually understood my post. You seem to be under the impression that ‘science’ is a man in a white coat, rather than the term used to describe a particular focus of study. You apparently talk to a lot of arrogant scientists, who seem to think they can explain everything. This isn’t science, this is human egotism. Don’t confuse the two.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘minding their own business’. Are you saying that science doesn’t even belong in the search for how the Earth began? Yes, science inevitably branches out to tackle the beginning of the world, but it does this using previously recognized physical concepts. If no conclusion can be reached, people theorize possible scenarios that fill the holes.
I don’t know what else to say, because to be honest I have no idea what your post was trying to argue.
I did understand your post quite alright.
Science IS the people who do science (you ll have to excuse my poor english here, not a native speaker) , in an abstract form, as evil and the devil refer to the exact same thing, even though some people use the latter because they feel better having something tangible in their minds.
And I m saying this as I am in a University where research is what people do mostly. Do not understate everything I said, try to keep it friendly, I am sorry if it seemed like I didn’t in some part of my previous post.
To make clear what I said.
Science is deeply associated by who does it. If scientists are arrogant then Science WILL be arrogant - of course not strictly speaking, rather in a metaphorical context. The people in the university I go to are NOT more arrogant than it is considered healthy for a scientist. They are just normal people, an average. It takes a very humble and well balanced physicist NOT to think that his science can give answers to the eternal questions. And that is always a very very small percentage of the population. And it gets even smaller when we’re talking about the scientists who are seriously into research , the BIG programs. Their ego is usually the most inflated… (and there, Science HAS a problem, because it’s biased and has poor balance)
What I was saying in my last post, was that the guy COULD have a point in that paragraph you quoted, and if you could be alittle more unbiased about it you could understand what has led him to believe what he believes, and perhaps that he could be a bit right, and so are you 
And , wouldn’t it be a bit silly , if the scientists searched how the WORLD began only because they had nothing better to do? Or do they want to construct a new world from the beginning. Do you see any applications for our eveyday life if we learned how the universe made its debut? I think most of them are drawn to the question out of curiosity. Search for the truth, search for god. Different kind of science.
I can see your point osfranky, but I wasn’t really trying to give the impression that the author of that article was wrong, or mislead. In fact, the following quote is pretty much all my original response was based on:
To me, that paragraph had no purpose whatsoever. Science does NOT overlook conflicting evidence, because as far as most of the regular scientific pursuits go, there isn’t any substantial evidence to overlook. I believe that the author was unfairly attacking the credibility of scientific research on the grounds that a few arrogant scientists seem unwilling to consider conflicting theories a valid point of study.
I don’t believe I was expressing a biassed opinion. I was really entanced by that article right up until the paragraph that I quoted. It was immensely interesting, and while I didn’t agree with all of it, I was still glad to have read it. The ideas got me thinking, and I could even relate some of it to my own opinions and theories. But then, from seemingly nowhere, I’m struck by a somewhat startling claim that science is the “anti-knowledge”, and that nothing worthwhile can yet be demonstrated by those apparent bunch of narrow-minded lab monkeys. I reworded that, but the point was there. 
Interesting article. Nothing that hasn’t been said before, though.
I admit that I was slightly biased against the article as soon as I’d read about a paragraph, as the author almost instantly broke the rule that I always take into account when reading this kind of thing. In case you’re wondering, the rule is ‘Never use capital letters to make something sound more profound’. I dislike texts that do this, not least because they often use it as an excuse to be vague and mysterious, and not actually give any substantial information. This article was not as guilty as quite a few others, and was certainly not as bad as most of the religions floating around (“And through the Way you may find the Path, but first you must find the Key to the Gateway”). Still, it was a negative point.
Secondly, no matter which way I look at it, I cannot see how listening to the advice in this article can improve or change my life in any way whatsoever. The way the Universe works may indeed be based on pure perception, but a rock is still a rock. Knowing that nothing is really real or that all time happens at once may be comforting for a few seconds, but it doesn’t make any difference in real terms. Oh, and I find it difficult to take somebody seriously when they misspell the word matter as ‘mater’ every single time they write it. Again, it’s a minor thing, but these add up.
Why do they investigate how the world began, then? As far as I can see, it’s curiosity, which is a perfectly valid reason for doing the things that we do.
(Slightly Off-Topic: Out of, aha, curiosity, can anybody think of a reason to worship a God from the perspective of a believer? I can’t actually think of one that isn’t either completely nonsensical or morally questionable. Faith doesn’t come into it; you can get serious doubts just by standing still and thinking for two seconds.)
Oh, and after reading the rest of the author’s site, I cannot say that his writings convince me of anything in particular, except for the fact that most drugs can really mess you up.
EDIT: The bits on changing reality based on coincidence and belief might be worth looking into, though.
i took a class on hinduism a couple semesters ago and i finally figured out a reason that made sense as to why someone would need to worship a higher being.
according to some of the devotional traditions, we are in a dark age. and in this dark age spiritual growth is really hard, so the only way to get out of samsara (ie perpetual reincarnation) is by grace of a deity. so if you kiss one’s ass long enough they break you out of this jail
call me cocky or deluded, but i don’t exactly agree with that idea. not to say i wouldn’t refuse some help along the way, but i fail to see how hanging on the coattails of some divine being is supposed to bring about enlightenment. it seems to me that devotional traditions were invented for the masses and not the spiritually aware
oh well… that’s my rant for the day