6 comments on “The Future of Religion – a Rose By Any Other Name?

  1. I prefer to speak of honesty rather than scepticism. See, for example: https://www.bestthinking.com/articles/science/biology_and_nature/the-nature-of-receptive-omnipresence

    And the truth as I see it is there is a fundamental false assumption embedded in both orthodox science and orthodox religion concerning the nature of evolutionarily creative processes of all kinds. Basically, both forms of orthodoxy assume that immaterial and material presence are mutually exclusive, not mutually inclusive – as naturally they must be.

    This false premise leads orthodox science to regard evolution as a selective process of information-transfer alone, not the cumulative flow-dynamic that it truly is. And it leads orthodox religion into monotheistic belief that sets Creator apart from Created. Deep and unresolvable paradox is rooted in both belief systems.

    So, what we currently have in the current opposition between orthodox science and orthodox religion as belief systems is a conflict rooted, ironically, in the same false premise.

    So long as that false premise is sustained in both orthodox scientific and religious reasoning, there will be no resolution of the issue.

  2. I hear what you say, and although they are traditional views, I don’t see any of that material / immaterial, science / belief or creator / created dualism is anything said or referred to above – so I’m living in hope of the progress we’re making. (And yes, scepticism is fundamentally about honesty – which is of course why love is at the root of this.)

  3. Pingback: Nothing New Under the Sun When it Comes to Atheism? | Psybertron Asks

  4. Pingback: BHA2015 Review in Brief – Rough Notes | Psybertron Asks

  5. Pingback: BBC R4 Today Presenters’ Views of TFTD | Psybertron Asks

  6. Pingback: The #JeremyEngland #Smackdown of Dan Brown | Psybertron Asks

Leave a Reply