Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

self-created universe


Displaying posts 31 - 39 of 39 in total
Wed, 10 May 2017 #31
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1020 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
This is the difference between faith, religion and science. Please don't confuse the two

Jack,

One can have faith in your good intentions, but are they, can we know ??

Faith has so many forms and subtleties and all those are under suspicion.

Even in science there is the faith they ultimately can explain everything or what they have explained is the truth and after some years they must acknowledge they where wrong.

So see it in the right perspective see it for what is is and indeed don't confuse what it is for what it is not and for that one needs contstant awareness.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #32
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4837 posts in this forum Offline

Wim Opdam wrote:
So see it in the right perspective see it for what is is and indeed don't confuse what it is for what it is not and for that one needs contstant awareness.

Wim you have taken great liberties with the word "faith" in answering my post. I think it was you and not me who missed a point being presented.

Science is not religion and it is not faith based. Some may try to practice it that way but that is not science. Science is the systematic, objective collection of data to form a conclusion or theory based on the known facts. Religion is the acceptance of belief and hope based on absolutely nothing but blind acceptance of what others have said and believe in.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #33
Thumb_profiel Wim Opdam Belgium 1020 posts in this forum Offline

Jack Pine wrote:
Wim you have taken great liberties with the word "faith" in answering my post.

Yes Jack,
Great liberties goes with huge vulnerability, but faith manifests itself in many varieties, even in science, and the boundaries you draw are not real, they are manmade and not restricted to religion, that's all I wanted to say.

Truth will unfold itself for those who enquire their own actions and only to them and for them and to or for no one else.

This post was last updated by Wim Opdam Wed, 10 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #34
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 386 posts in this forum Offline

re 30 and 32:

Jack,

You’re talking about religion. The mind which believes in a particular religion is not a religious mind. The religious mind has no belief, no faith, no prayers. Don’t confuse the religious mind with religion.

Belief and faith are seen not only in religion, but in politics, etc., as well. I might hold beliefs about right and wrong behaviour. Belief obviously is not proof. Whether I believe that man’s salvation lies in scriptures, in technology, science, philosophy, politics, and so on, belief divides, belief is not truth.

I often hear things to the effect that man has evolved psychologically, politically, ethically, socially; that we are not “there” yet but we have come a “long way” in becoming better, more ethical human beings; that “someday”, society will be at peace, thanks in large part to science and technology. This too is belief, faith, superstition, isn’t it?

I see no conflict or division between the religious mind and science. There is nothing about science or scientific investigation which excludes a creative source or origin. A scientist can also have a religious mind. Some do. A religious mind can also be interested in science. Why does one have to exclude the other?

The religious mind is something
entirely different from the mind that
believes in religion. You cannot be
religious and yet be a Hindu, a
Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist. A
religious mind does not seek at all,
it cannot experiment with truth. Truth
is not something dictated by your
pleasure or pain, or by your
conditioning as a Hindu or whatever
religion you belong to. The religious
mind is a state of mind in which there
is no fear and therefore no belief
whatsoever but only what is -what
actually is.

Freedom from the Known The Second Penguin Krishnamurti Reader

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #35
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4837 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
You’re talking about religion. The mind which believes in a particular religion is not a religious mind. The religious mind has no belief, no faith, no prayers. Don’t confuse the religious mind with religion.

Oh please don't preach Krishnamurti to me. I know what he said about religion and the religious mind and I've known that for over 40 years. I'm talking about what YOU said about religion and of how you tried to equate it with science. Since I have been trained in science, undergrad and grad degrees, I know the difference. You're trying to construct an argument to equate them both on generalities and I am saying science, when done correctly, is not based on faith. It has to be based on provable fact or it is not science.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 May 2017 #36
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 386 posts in this forum Offline

Religion when "done" correctly is not based on faith or belief either.

You may know certain things - you don't claim to know everything, do you? -
about science and knowledge is useful and good. But you don't know about creation or the source of the universe and neither does anyone else.

I'm not constructing an argument. Science has no proof that there is or isn't a source. You believe that there is no source and there's no arguing against belief. Nor am I interested in arguing.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #37
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4837 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Religion when "done" correctly is not based on faith or belief either.

Listen, that is just plain dishonest. You were the one who brought up faith and equating faith, which is the way most people define religion, with science. And now you have decided to change the discussion. Is "winning" a discussion so important to you that you would cheat to appear to win? Apparently. You were talking faith, as in traditional religion and trying to say that the same faith operates in science. I'm saying it does not. Science is not faith it is fact. That is what I have said all along and you keep trying to change the discussion to fit your needs. Don't do that. It's dishonest.

This post was last updated by Jack Pine Thu, 11 May 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #38
Thumb_stringio Huguette . Canada 386 posts in this forum Offline

I can think for myself. You may not like what I say, but you're not an authority on truth, on what things mean, on what is fact, on Krishnamurti, on religion, on the ultimate scope of science, on its ability to explain everything, on its purity, on my honesty, on what I'm trying to construct, on what "most people" think.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 3 readers
Back to Top
Thu, 11 May 2017 #39
Thumb_img_0244 Jack Pine United States 4837 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
I can think for myself. You may not like what I say, but you're not an authority on truth, on what things mean, on what is fact, on Krishnamurti, on religion, on the ultimate scope of science, on its ability to explain everything, on its purity, on my honesty, on what I'm trying to construct, on what "most people" think.

Are you? I never made the claim for myself. Your emotion is starting to show. Let's just stick to what you actually said and what I said and not make things up shall we?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 39 of 39 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)