SWIMfriend said:
That's true. But:
1) That doesn't mean (at all) that they're CORRECT in their introspections, verifications, and conclusions. I repeat what I've said earlier: There's MUCH VALUE in a heightened awareness of the human susceptibility for ERROR in such things...and there's utility in evidence-based fact and rational analysis, because these methods are useful for REVEALING ERROR.
Wow, you REALLY like this thread! Can't keep away, can you? Me neither. I just wanted it to be clear that I do realize that sometimes the friction which separates our varied vantage-points is in fact, an advantage for all of us, collectively. We bounce ideas back and forth like ball players in an open playground. Although, this thread is every bit as much a game of chess, as it is a banter about Dr. Hawking's fundamental existential belief system.
It's obvious that we have taken this line of thought to it's eventual confrontation with the illusory conception we label, THE TRUTH. This appears to be valid from both, the subjective perspective of the individual and the objectively verifiable collective consensus, at large.
After all,
"No man is an island unto himself." That being said, as
gibran2,
fractal enchantment,
jin,
endlessness,
joedirt and
Saidin have all so earnestly emphasized, this is no longer a discussion about any individuals personal spin on the existence of God or the possibility of life before and/or after material incarnation. Or even their own preferred cosmology, which an individual like Stephen Hawking, arrogantly insists the whole of humanity accept as LAW...
It has made itself into a clearly existential inquiry about reality. :idea:
We agree about the fundamental fact that our own ideas, regardless of their source or continent, are at best speculative. Yes? We also agree that it is the height of insanity to assert that ANY vantage-point about the nature of existence is more than likely to be an artifice fabricated by one's mental faculty or feelings. However we cull our picture of the universe, it is limited to our own perceptions about it. Only the extremist would venture beyond this philosophical threshold.
Don't get me wrong, I admire extremists for their exaggerated convictions. I just hate to see so much passion being put into a mirage of their own construction. At this point, I would have to emphasize that I do accept other human beings vantage points as equally valid to my own. We are all, most likely WRONG, if that is the appropriate word. Still, what humanity desperately needs is far more than any reaffirmations about what has been status quo for hundreds of years (ever since
The Age of Reason began). The clash of religion and science was born when fearless minds looked beyond the dogmatic cosmology they were programmed to accept. I suggest that WE don't really need to perpetuate this polarity.
I propose that we need to synthesize the extreme oppositions into a working, cohesive whole. To unite the analytical with the inspirational, the rational with the mystical. As
joedirt suggested, we ought to approach the introspection of scientific procedure towards the study and investigation of the Divine. I seconded this notion and
fractal enchantment was the first person to present the urgency of such a symbiosis to me, in the first place. Can we each still maintain our core beliefs but we should work towards pragmatic methodologies to look a little deeper into the vast mysteries and potentiality of Spiritual Realization (scientifically).
Frankly, it's nonsense for us to continue playing tug-of-rope about the left-wing and right-wing intellects who habituate the Nexus. Now's the time for harmony and solidarity. Let's face it, some force has tried to shut down our platform. That is the real threat. So why now join together and create a stance of the cosmos and it's innate characteristics, which RESPECTS the differences in viewpoints and also seek to find new ways to bridge the intellectual with the inspirational???
Whether they be gathered through reason and deduction or intuited through transcendental insight... at it's heart, the TRUTH is beyond anyone's frail human grasp. We can , however, glean some light form it's insubstantiality. True enough? Furthermore, in our exchange, we are encouraged to open our view just a little wider. That seems pretty cool to me.
SWIMfriend said:
It is perfectly rational for anyone to outright reject unsupportable Buddhist claims of "heavens" as much as it is rational to reject ANY unsupported claims--and that is the entire thrust of my point (and Stephen Hawking's). Things people say may surely be TRUE; but if they can offer no EVIDENCE FOR CONSIDERATION supporting the truth of their claims, then they (literally) can offer no REASON for anyone to accept them.
It is equally rational to outright reject unsupported speculation by logicians about areas of mind and levels of consciousness which they have no understanding. Why, it's downright
"fallacious"!!! Just sayin'...
he wanted to stay a bit longer