What drives us to seek a connection with something greater than ourselves?

[kant]

I don t understand people who feels that the only way to get some type moral guildances, control and spiritual attainment is through religion. The kind of religion that are more or less entail the worshipping of some god or deities. I am disgusted by people who feels the need to reduce the mysteries of the universe in a single explanation to god, or a set of equations. When i reflect on my own regligious believes. It has less to do with any specific core believes( Ex: god) , but more about a process of working on myself to see things more fundamental into everything. I aspire to be more than what my genes gave me. i believe that the world is full of mysteries in itself if one could only find what what it means to "encounter" what is before oneself. By digging deeper into matters( not matter how trival), there is always something to discovery, and inner beauty to be found. The beauty in a snow flake or the arrengement of petals in a flower. It is about knowing how somethings works, and see the mysteries of it that will forever puzzle and hunt people, but to me, it becomes at the source of this "mystery" that fills me with humblest and prudence. It is this humblest, mystery and my constant desire for transendence that compel me to go deeper in my own study. The word god than comes a crystallation of all those embeded meanings.

I am not sure if this too abstract for people here..
This is just some thoughts i have...
Perhaps this should be in the philosophy section
opinions.. if you have any

 

[tribdog]

too abstract? no
too goofy? probably

 

[kant]

Why is this goofy? I say it is sort of advance in that religion no longer becomes something attached to a sepcific thing( like god), but by a set of activities. When i think about it, the whole thing with religion is to appeal to the primal human sense for religious transcendence. What happens when the means for transcendence(religion) , no longer focus on an ideal being called god? A new need for definition is needed. One that is more powerful, and inclusive.

 

[JasonRox]

too abstract? no
too goofy? probably

I totally agree.

 

[kant]

I totally agree.

Usually when someone agree with a point, they would eloberate on his/her reasons for doing so. I really don t care at all if someone agree or disagree with me, but i would much perfer a nice, contentious discussion. let's have some fun.

 

[JasonRox]

Personally, I think you think too much about nothing.

That isn't abstract in my opinion. That is just silly.

i don t understand people who feels that the only way to get some type moral guildances, control and spiritual attainment is through religion.

No one understands everyone. That's normal.

The kind of religion that are more or less entail the worshipping of some god or deities.

Religion is a lot more than that. I'm not religious, but I'm certainly not naive about it though.

I am disgusted by people who feels the need to reduce the mysteries of the universe in a single explanation to god, or a set of equations.

This makes you better?

When i reflect on my own regligious believes. It has less to do with any specific core believes( Ex: god) , but more about a process of working on myself to see things more fundamental into everything.

Good for you.

I aspire to be more than what my genes gave me.

Good luck with that.

The idea to think about going further than your genetic capabilities is equivalent to a person thinking they will become god or immortal.

It's great to push your limits, but I think you are going overboard here.

i believe that the world is full of mysteries in itself if one could only find what what it means to "encounter" what is before oneself. By digging deeper into matters( not matter how trival), there is always something to discovery, and inner beauty to be found.

Um... this what theoritical physicists do. They see the beauty of the universe. I'm sure they see beauty in the psychological processes of the human brain too, but you can't focus on too many things. You just can't. To think you can is being naive about what it really takes to know everything.

Second, these physicists breakdown the puzzles to equations which turn out to be beautiful. This is what attracts them into doing physics and to understand the laws of nature.

Third, it's not just about reducing it to a set of equations like you mentionned and bashed those who want to. They are doing it to see the beauty. The whole idea to be disgusted by this after the comment you made above is absurd.

Anyways, the rest I won't bother with.

You seem to display yourself as a "better" individual because you want to understand the mysteries of the universe for "better" reasons.

I might seem rude, but you wanted to argue. This is it.

I don't see it as abstract at all.

No one is obligated to search for the truth or what not. They choose what they want to do. For me, I don't care what they do. As long as it is good and does not interfere with what others want to do (that is good).

Note: My definition of good would be like Aristotle's idea of virtuous actions and so on.

 

[kant]

Hmm... is this the way you argue? dissecting my words until the paragraphy no longer express a single coherent message? I am not about to discussion ten or more issue just because you can t find my my contral idea. Get to the point. If is helps you, the central thesis is in my second post in this thread. Give me a single post where you attack me central idea.

 

[JasonRox]

Hmm... is this the way you argue? dissecting my words until the paragraphy no longer express a single coherent message? I am not about to discussion ten or more issue just because you can t find my my contral idea. Get to the point.

Well, then maybe you should work on your writing skills, right?

 

[kant]

Well, then maybe you should work on your writing skills, right?

Well, english is a second language for me. I try to learn by experimentation, and books. In any case, i like to argue. I perfer to argue one thing at a time, and not overwhelm myself with ten or more things. It is a waste words.

Here is my central thesis from my own post:

"" I say it is sort of advance in that religion no longer becomes something attached to a sepcific thing( like god), but by a set of activities. When i think about it, the whole thing with religion is to appeal to the primal human sense for religious transcendence. What happens when the means for transcendence(religion) , no longer focus on a ideal being called god? A new need for definition is needed. One that is more powerful, and inclusive.""

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Here is my central thesis from my own post:

"" I say it is sort of advance in that religion no longer becomes something attached to a sepcific thing( like god), but by a set of activities. When i think about it, the whole thing with religion is to appeal to the primal human sense for religious transcendence. What happens when the means for transcendence(religion) , no longer focus on a ideal being called god? A new need for definition is needed. One that is more powerful, and inclusive.""

Sounds interesting. It also sounds like a religion. My point is, in your desire to transform the use of religion into some amazing grand specticle, you end up creating a new religion which has all the drawbacks you're wishing to abolish. I like the thought though.

 

[Astronuc]

I don t understand people who feels that the only way to get some type moral guildances, control and spiritual attainment is through religion. The kind of religion that are more or less entail the worshipping of some god or deities. I am disgusted by people who feels the need to reduce the mysteries of the universe in a single explanation to god, or a set of equations. When i reflect on my own regligious believes. It has less to do with any specific core believes( Ex: god) , but more about a process of working on myself to see things more fundamental into everything. . . . .

I am not sure if this too abstract for people here..
This is just some thoughts i have...
Perhaps this should be in the philosophy section
opinions.. if you have any

I suspect this thread will be locked because its a discussion on religion, which would seem to violate PF guidelines. Nevertheless, here is my perspective.

People are free to believe whatever they do. Religion or being religious does not necessarily imply theism, i.e. one can be religious and be atheist.

Morality, a doctrine or system of moral conduct (moral = of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior) or conformity to ideals of right human conduct, is by choice. Part of being religious is living deliberately, that is trying to do the right thing. I would disagree that being religious means adhering to a dogma.

The kind of religion that are more or less entail the worshipping of some god or deities.

This seems overly simplistic. I try not to be disgusted by others' beliefs, but I have an aversion to those who try to impose their beliefs on me, or who claim their beliefs are the 'truth'.

I aspire to be more than what my genes gave me. i believe that the world is full of mysteries in itself if one could only find what what it means to "encounter" what is before oneself. By digging deeper into matters( not matter how trival), there is always something to discovery, and inner beauty to be found. The beauty in a snow flake or the arrengement of petals in a flower. It is about knowing how somethings works, and see the mysteries of it that will forever puzzle and hunt people, but to me, it becomes at the source of this "mystery" that fills me with humblest and prudence. It is this humblest, mystery and my constant desire for transendence that compel me to go deeper in my own study. The word god than comes a crystallation of all those embeded meanings.

I would agree with most of this. I aspire to be a good person and to contribute to the world and humanity. At the same time, I appreciate the universe in which we live and the intricacies and wonder of all existence of which we are a part.

 

[Bladibla]

A quick solution would be to ban all organized religion, but Individual 'spirituality' open.

 

[Astronuc]

A quick solution would be to ban all organized religion, but Individual 'spirituality' open.

However, such a solution is contrary to the Right of Free Association.

People have the freedom to participate, or not, in a group activity, and that is essentially what 'organized religion' is. Many prefer to belong to a religious institution in which people share a common set of beliefs. Others prefer not to associate in such a group.

My religious views are uniquely my own, but I do belong to a religious institution, which is reasonably compatible with my religious and world view. The fellowship (which some would call a church) provides a community of people with whom I can socialize, or not.