| They are matters of faith, pure and simple, and you should be content to describe them in such terms. I would have no beef with you under such circumstances |
Furry, when we’re talking about ultimate issues of existence, (and my main concern throughout this discussion has been with the bigger picture and the nature of 'who we really are'), faith is inherent to the human condition. From an intellectual point of view, the only way anyone could possess a faith-free understanding is to have an infallible knowledge of everything.
“Faith” is only necessary from an intellectual point of view. I’ve already mentioned principles such as “intuition”, and “inner-wisdom”. As long as we're ‘coming from’ the level of our head alone, as opposed to our head and heart combined, spiritual matters and so-called “wisdom” will sound like hocus pocus, or like plays on words. But there is logic there, if you seek it. (“Wisdom”, to me, is soul-logic.)
I’m fully aware that most of my points will cut zero mustard for a scientifically minded person such as yourself Furry boy. Yet I don’t expect it to cut any mustard. I’m simply describing my points of view, just as you are.
I think it's great that Jesus taught that the Truth can be understood by nothing more than a “child-like faith”. This means that regardless of our intellectual capacity, we can comprehend ultimate truth with childlike simplicity and humble trust in God. But how can this principle mean anything to a hardened scientist? It can’t, as long as they remain in that frame of mind. In my opinion, such people simply aren’t ready for spiritual truths and higher esoteric wisdom. (Apologies for the pomposity, but sometimes I have to accept I sound like a complete tosser.)
The notion that light travels at 186,000 miles per second is 100% subjective. If an alien race from a different world had chosen to label another unit of time a “second”, then it would indeed be scientific fact that light travels at 10 miles per second. When scientists substitute the word “describe" with "explain”, it can mislead us.
It is NOT subjective! The speed of light is exactly the speed of light. Your alien analogy is flawed. While they may describe it as x ft per sec. and their second is different from ours, that does NOT change the way WE perceive the speed of light. Nor would our measurement change the way the alien perceives it. |
Drmiler, you seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. I was implying that all words and descriptive concepts are subjective. I know that the speed of light is exactly the speed of light, and I know that the notion that “light travels at 186,000 miles per second” is correctly aligned with ‘what is so’. (At least it is according to our concept of a second.) But I was trying to say that when we apply the same principle to “The Infinite Existence”, our measurements and descriptive words fail. (I described the necessary implications of Infinity in post 48).
In other words, science will not be able to answer life’s deepest questions, such as, “Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?”, or “Is there any purpose to the cosmos or not?” These are eternal philosophical questions, which transcend scientific enquiry.
If we can’t rely on science to answer these frankly significant - and ultimate - questions, then what can we reply on? The point that I’ve been trying to make is that there
is something we can rely on. It is called “inner wisdom”, which is effectively like a compass within, which transcends the finite views of the intellect. In the words of Jospeh Benner, “Spiritual growth results in an expansion of consciousness, which opens up a new world, one of which previously the seeker had been wholly unaware, although it had always been present awaiting his recognition.”
| I even have the occasional fuzzy moment mysef |
Furry, “fuzzy” is a good word, especially when talking about ultimate issues of existence. Take quantum physics, for example. To show why both the scientifically minded and the religionists must necessarily get ‘wishy washy’, (at least in terms of the intellect), consider the following two quotes, and see how similar they are:
The first is from Zen Buddhist D.T. Suzuki:
“The contradiction so puzzling to the ordinary way of thinking comes from the fact that we have to use language to communicate our inner experience which in its very nature transcends linguistics.”
Now consider the words of Werner Heisenberg, who is describing the nature of quantum particles:
“The problems of language are really serious. We wish to speak in some way about the structure of the atoms … But we cannot speak about atoms in ordinary language.”
Interesting stuff, don't you think? Sometimes we can't escape getting "fuzzy".
| I have to tip my hat to you, Andy ... you're taking this battering with no small aplomb |
I can’t see a battering anywhere. I can only see a delicious conversation with a Furry dude who seems to have a zest for the topic, just like me.
