Truth, Reason and Love

[anthriel]

"Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein


Wow. Just WOW, Misha. Thank you.

I was just talking to a friend last night, who is pursuing her PhD in psychology, and she also is a woman of faith... we were talking about how sometimes people judge you as a little *less* than bright if you believe in God.

Y'know, something along the lines of... you must be kind of a superstitious primitive to believe such things? (Not that I am referring to anyone here, btw... but both of us have experienced such judgement.)

Betcha no one ever said that to EINSTEIN.

[vison]

Betcha no one did.

But Einstein's view of God was hardly a conventional view, was it?

[Misha]

Betcha no one did.

But Einstein's view of God was hardly a conventional view, was it?

It was not. Within the scienific community, and I think to some extent the medical profession too, there is an undercurrent of awe, brought on by the realization that we don't have an answer to every "Why?"

But what I find most appealing is, that it's ok to doubt, to ask, "Why do I believe what I do? How can I know what I know? Where and how do I experience my world?" We are perched upon a pinprick of a planet in the middle of something I have not the capacity to comprehend. Whatever the force is that holds together the cosmos, it is awe inspiring; call it what you will.

I am less interested in the do's and don'ts of organized religion than what I think is a basic need that mankind has for a moral structure by which to live (peacefully?) with the rest of the world. Fear and chaos bring threat to our sense of safety. For some, a religious framework provides safety and things that lie outside that framework are suspect. I will not condemn religion. Religion serves a purpose, but in my opinion the religious mind can be very volatile.

Unfortunately, the propensity for perversion seems to find outlet even within what is intended to be a place of sanctuary. Perversion being defined as the ability and manifestation of harm or injury to oneself or others. Some find nurture and growth within religious structures. I think I did, as a child. Others, perhaps due to some early trauma, find themselves compliant but tortured and become the victims of their own depravity.

There is room for science and religion - they need not exclude one another. There is room for faith and seeking, as well as intellectual ingenuity.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

[Jnyusa]

Yes, wonderful words, Misha!

Jn

[Rowanberry]

I am less interested in the do's and don'ts of organized religion than what I think is a basic need that mankind has for a moral structure by which to live (peacefully?) with the rest of the world. <snip> There is room for science and religion - they need not exclude one another. There is room for faith and seeking, as well as intellectual ingenuity.

You took the words out of my mouth.

[baby tuckoo]

Is my memory of a spiritual experience more ethereal than my memory of something I saw with my eyes or heard with my ears?

Yes.

[Impenitent]

bt, you say that like it's a bad thing.

[axordil]

bt--

While I would say that as a general rule, emotional states and feelings are not as easy to recall as sensory input, at least not with detail, particularly intense and traumatic events--and emotional states--are recorded more deeply in the brain than standard sensory input. The best example I know of comes from a slightly cruel (but illuminating) experiment a doctor performed on a charge of his with the type of amnesia that wipes your short term memory before it gets passed to long term memory. Every morning the doctor would have to introduce himself to the woman, who clearly had no idea who he was. Once, he held a small needle in his hand when he shook her hand upon their (re)introduction, so she got stuck.

After that she still didn't remember who he was every morning...but she wouldn't shake his hand.

So I would have to say that a sufficiently intense spiritual feeling might well imprint itself MORE deeply on someone than what they had seen or heard. This doesn't affect the issue of what generated that feeling, of course, only how it's processed and recorded.

As an aside--for me, the feeling that tends to fall into this category most is embarrassment, which makes good evolutionary sense for a social animal.

[Frelga]

Is my memory of a spiritual experience more ethereal than my memory of something I saw with my eyes or heard with my ears?

No.

To be fair, in Ax's example, the memory of the patient was of a physical experience, of pain.

Still, I have memories of moods and feelings that are more vivid than the memories of sights and sounds that accompanied them. I've described one of them in this thread, and while you (generic you) may argue exactly what it was and what it meant and how it worked, if g-you are into that sort of argument, you cannot argue that that experience was not real.

There were others. When I was twelve, I stayed in a summer camp set in a pine forest. One day, they took us down an overgrown path, and there, on a river bank, surrounded by weeds and brambles, there was an old wooden merry-go-round. I don't remember whether it was creaky, or what it was that I rode - a car, I think, but there is no certainty. But I do remember how content I felt, I remember that I felt happy.

And I will never forget how certain I felt, on meeting DH for the second or third time, that this was the man I was meant to marry. It was not mere attraction - that was familiar enough - but a soul-knowledge. I don't care if g-you are skeptical. G-you weren't there and I was.

[baby tuckoo]

Please note Prim's original question: She asked if her spiritual memory was more ethereal, not more real or more vivid in recall. Yet, very quickly Frelga has taken my answer as a denial of the reality or vividness of that memory. It is neither.

Concerning which is more ethereal, however, there is no question . . . unless we differ in our understanding of what the word means.


The components of your sensory input are quantifiable, and we have indeed managed to quantify most of them. These components of the solid world are part of the algorithm that makes you aware that you are here/now and that your brain is processing that input. This is the recognition program that results in "I think, therefore I am." The "think" is more than just "I rationalize." It is "I process information all the time." That information comes from your senses, and not just see and hear, but also smell and feel and taste. This sensory barrage blends in the mind and might become the thing you call "spiritual", but the isolated objects of your detection are quite palpable.

The stimuli detected by your sense organs are now easily detected by mindless instruments. We can now reproduce virtually any taste in a laboratory. The odor industry is enormous and very scientific. Instruments far more sensitive than your skin can be built. You see my point, I hope. Your sense triggers can be named and catalogued and put on the shelf for subsequent reference. Many different sensors (people, if you will) could compare their responses through experiment and experience (the very stuff of empiricism) and would find that the triggers are similar (barring aberration) or identical. Your memory of that sensual moment is still a memory, and for that reason somewhat ethereal, but it had a corporeal genesis. It is absolutely empirical.

This is absolutely not so for the spiritual event (mood/feeling) that you claim to have had. That event probably had sensory components, but it primarily had components of mind, the most ethereal of all entities. Otherwise, you wouldn't call it "spiritual."

Whatever the mix of mind and sense that went into your "spiritual event", it can't be quantified or recreated in a lab: only the same mind (and maybe a few sensory prods for recall) can remember it. It is the job of poets and artists to reproduce it publicly. And that is the most ethereal of tasks, the creative moment.


That's my story, and I'm sticking with it.

[axordil]

It is the job of poets and artists to reproduce it publicly. And that is the most ethereal of tasks, the creative moment.

Thanks for the clarification, bt. You are of course correct...and there is in point of fact nothing deficient about that sort of experience.

Frelga--

It's my experience that while I can remember that I may have been happy, or afraid, or otherwise emotionally active at such and such a time, the actual feeling of happiness, or fear, etc, associated with the moment is quite lost to me. When you say:

But I do remember how content I felt, I remember that I felt happy.

That's what it sounds like to me--you recall being content and happy, which isn't necessarily the same as remembering how it felt.

[baby tuckoo]

Ax, we might agree here, but I don't know that we're "correct." Logically, I think we are. What I've said is a standard position in philosophic circles. We're in one of those circles now. I've hoped to clarify what I think and what many others (who have thought deep and long) think also.

I could refer to famous names, but the ideas speak for themselves.



Every feeling might be valid. This process is the only way to refute the position that every idea is also valid.

[axordil]

Well, being a type of artist, of course I'm going to think I have a role in making the ineffably personal a sharable commodity.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Just getting back from a weekend away, and I want to say again how much I love this discussion.

I'll be back with some more cogent thoughts when I have had the time to think about the latest turn the discussion has taken.

Thank you, everyone.

[baby tuckoo]

If I say, I experience spiritual phenomenon X and it makes me feel Z, and someone nods and says that they too feel Z after experiencing something they call X, we can observe the external results, and with PET scans even the physiological component of the results. Lots of Z to see. But the X can, in fact, only EVER be inferred. People are actually saying, I feel Z, which I attribute to X.

If X can't be directly observed, and Z can be observed without assuming X, why assume it has to be there at all?

Well put! And I would add that I would be grateful to feel Z and be fooled into inferring X even if that X were really just the delusional Y.

I completely missed this in the original spin (and what a spin it was!!!) and would like to thank Teremia and Ax for a great pas de deux. Merci!!!



*Backs off stage blowing double hand kisses to audience. Almost falls down because he has drunk too much, but hired security personel hold him up by the elbows as he looks for his companion of the moment, says,"At least I have had my vision." Later, the press, and history, mis-quotes this as "my vison."*

[baby tuckoo]

There are many different kinds and degrees of love (I just discovered this and I'm thinking of writing a book).

And the following shall be the first formal critical work based on The Hidden Worlds.

Published in the Kenyon Quarterly: "Landon's Love: Atmospherics or Affection?"


by dr. baby tuckoo
fresno state university