JH: For anyone who dropped of of the thread on liberating minds from theologies: I meant to convey that everyone's opinions are based on limited ability and information, not just the person to whom I was directing comments. Includes myself. Human beings are limited. Apologies to all for my role in the conflict here.
NS: My apology also, ladies n gentlemen. Allow me to take the most responsibility, since I have a "knack" in doing something like this during discussion, although I have done my best (I think!) not to do that. Beside, I also brought up the bad shaman from Balinese dancers plus Samsara from HV - that does it!----->now this is a joke..:-). But seriously, right now we are mourning for the victims of Libya and Egypt attack. I extend deep condolence, and at the same time reject the atrocities from both sides. JH , kindly allow me to response to your remark from the previous thread in this thread, thank you.
JH: No problem at all. I share your thoughts about the victims in Libya, Egypt and now Yemen. I also hope to understand what caused the violence as well as condemn it. Here's a quote I ran across last night that I was going to send to you to consider-of course "man" means people here: "Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science, but man needs both."
--Fritjof Capra, Tao of Physics
NS: JH, I didn't mean to make a cryptic remark in earlier thread. But I did feel to a few things quite strongly, yet it's elusive. Didn't SS write this "I reject the belief that we CAN use our language to describe the indescribable, or use our intellect to fathom the unfathomable" (that is why I tried to describe that through some description of Balinese ritual). I said we should oppose the falsehood collectively, and hence should make an effort to create livable environment. What I mean by this is that we, collectively, should develop a sense of right or wrong or what direction we're heading as a community, nation, worldwide. Yes, we judge our life situations. Life situation is dukkha/samsara, good and bad is so real, yet, "we" are not that. Meaning that I have the ultimate faith that we human being have natural capability to overcome life situations. I saw some truth in what SM said about destructive beliefs do effect our psychology and at times our action. Ms. Armstrong says in her books that religion of great prophets and sages have saved humanity from total destruction. Religion was devised to encounter inherent violence in humans who evolve through harsh conditions- dukkha. Yet, when some of us adopt violent teachings into the religion, when our greediness have pushed ourselves to the brink of destruction such as today - it's time to "rewrite" our scriptures. "...scholars, clerics, and laity should study difficult texts, ask searching questions, and analyze past failings.....we should strive to recover the compassionate vision and find way of expressing it in an innovative, inspiring way..just as the axial sages did" (Armstrong, the Great Transformation). Ms. Armstrong proposes not only intellectual campaign, also spiritual process which include admitting our own pain as the door to emphatise with others.
Yes indeed "Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science, but man needs both." This is in line with what SM said, do not mix spirituality and science, it is dangerous. Perhaps, SM should realise that we should not mix both as an object, it is objectively separate subject, but for ourselves...we need both...:-))
JH: I agree with the spirit of what you say-I would only caution that sometimes the collective view of right and wrong becomes skewed. Consider the sense of right and wrong developed in places such as Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR. The balance between individual and collective can't be static-both are important. Neglecting either is dangerous. I don't necessarily agree with the Capra quote in its entirety, but it makes the important point that science and religion each have strengths and weaknesses. I feel like nothing stands by itself-all things, including science and religion, are related, some more closely than others.
NS: Yes, at that collective level ideologies do compete, which include religion being used as ideology. What matter most is that we should make every effort to create proper environment to maintain that balance. Alas, equilibrium often happens in ways that we don't expect to happen. Ms. Armstrong caution that the axial sages lived in hostile environment, yet, even more so now.
SM: To be honest, I think that science does not need spirituality, but spirituality does need science to a certain extent. I know, this sounds contradictory. But here is my thought process, try to bear with me, please.
Science is method. Science is the collection and application of large sets of data gathered over/with a wide breadth of times, locations and scientists. Science can be applied to just about anything. So, science is a highly inclusive field that holds great potential, including both things that we have already discovered and invented, and things yet to be discovered or invented.
Spirituality is a large field as well. It can range from dogma to karma, from mysticism to traditional Catholicism, from Oriental to Western spirituality - the word "spiritual" is extremely diverse. I think that some types of spirituality can indeed be interpreted by current science; some types of spirituality will be able to be interpreted by future science; and finally, some types of spirituality are exclusive of science.
Those types of spirituality that can currently be interpreted by science include meditation (we can study its effects on the brain/psychology, measure its results, etc.), the feeling of "god" (i.e. the parts of the brain that correspond to the feelings associated with "god's" presence are the same parts that correspond to hallucination, especially that under the influence of LSD), the possibility/likelihood that someone in the distant past actually spoke with god (those people who claimed to have spoken with god 1000+ years ago were likely schizophrenic - when someone in the 21st century says that god has literally spoken to them, we tend to just write them off as crazy, and for good reason), and near-death experiences (which have been replicated with drug use and other experiments, and have been basically disproved).
Those types of spirituality that may some day be explained by science (and with some of these we're getting pretty close) include whether or not we have a "soul," what enlightenment is - scientifically speaking, and what true morality is.
The spiritual idea that is probably never going to be explained by science because it defies the very principles of scientific exploration is the idea of the existence of a theistic god or a deistic god. These are the kinds of things you just can't really deal with scientifically (as far as I know). Although, you can at least deal with the idea of a theistic god logically. But that does not give us a final and definite answer (although the answer is good enough for me to consider myself a 6 out of 7 on the atheism scale).
So you see, spirituality can be and is explored scientifically. But... exploring science spiritually? I am not sure how that would work out... not so well I would imagine. The results of that are in the category of the geocentric universe hypothesis (and someone like Galileo having to spend time in jail and on house arrest over it) and the belief that many actually still hold today that evolution is not real. I cannot imagine a practical way to apply spirituality to scientific exploration.. it's just not how science works. Although, I can see how one might apply spiritual philosophies to scientific results - for example, when and if it were appropriate to use a nuclear warhead could be an application of spirituality to science.
I guess what I'm saying is that with science you can explore nearly anything, including some aspects of what people consider spirituality. Spirituality, on the other hand, is somewhat limited in its scope, but it does have its place in helping to determine what is done with scientific discoveries made (although we can also make those sorts of decisions through a secular humanist point of view).
If you've made it all the way through this comment, I thank you for your time and respect you for listening to what I have to say, even if you do not agree.
The quote that says that man needs both mysticism and science... is it saying that one cannot live a complete life as a secular humanist? That mystics or spiritual people are elevated above atheist secular humanists? The quote seems to suggest as much.
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Sinyal Bagus XL, Nyambung Teruuusss...!
------------------------------------
=======================
Milis Wanita Muslimah
Membangun citra wanita muslimah dalam diri, keluarga, maupun masyarakat.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/wanita_muslimah
Situs Web: http://www.wanita-muslimah.com
ARSIP DISKUSI : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wanita-muslimah/messages
Kirim Posting mailto:wanita-muslimah@yahoogroups.com
Berhenti mailto:wanita-muslimah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Milis Keluarga Sejahtera mailto:keluarga-sejahtera@yahoogroups.com
Milis Anak Muda Islam mailto:majelismuda@yahoogroups.com
Milis ini tidak menerima attachment.Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wanita-muslimah/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wanita-muslimah/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
wanita-muslimah-digest@yahoogroups.com
wanita-muslimah-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
wanita-muslimah-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
0 comments:
Post a Comment