As a scientist, and a physicist at that, I have been impressed with the idea that scientific method is the best approach to solving problems. But in my later years, I have come to recognise this as what some people call 'scientism'.

In the final chapter of his book The Mind of God, published in 1992, the physicist Paul Davies remarks:

'There is no doubt that many scientists are opposed temperamentally to any form of metaphysical, let alone mystical arguments.'

I would put myself in that group of scientists, but perhaps I should be more open-minded. Davies goes on to say:

'We are barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate explanation, by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek such an explanation in the first place. If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of "understanding" from that of rational explanation. Possibly the mystical path is a way to such an understanding. I have never had a mystical experience myself, but I keep an open mind about the value of such experiences. Maybe they provide the only route beyond the limits to which science and philosophy can take us, the only possible path to the Ultimate.'

Like Davies, I have never had a mystical experience, and, to be honest, have tended to scoff at the supposed value of such a thing. But now I am less sure. Perhaps I have been wrong.

Why do we have to call that practice "religion"? Couldn't we simply call it mindfulness?

Skado, I'm happy to share, but you really need to ask for my permission first before you get inside my head and help yourself to my thoughts. Those are my thoughts, exactly. Just a little respect is all I'm asking for!

I heard you brother... it's gotten to the point that whats happened me has distroyed my concern of who , what, and why. I say if they were as we are now then why haven't non believers gotten a hold of things back then. It's because they all had their hand out for a piece of the pie. Control from fear for money and land. What a racket!!!

Fascinating assessment of the history of mankind and how it relates to the evolution concept-how the bible is a summary of philosophy of life at that time. We can get some ideas of what life was like back then. Interesting that primitive computers existed back in the time of Ancient Greece.

Very insightful, I had encountered that data before a lot of it anyway , a refresh is always welcome. Had seen they unearthed Aristotle tomb not that long ago will be most interesting what they pull out of that.

Hi Scado,we are all just a trillion cells that have evolved to be able to think.

I'm seeing a whole lot of words in the commentary that I need a dictionary for. Um. Thanks.

I too am a believer but in modern humans (including you) and their ability to reach better conclusions through science. This does not put down the ancients but to rely on them could be folly. Properly peer review science did not exist then and prophets levered themselves up above the importance that they deserved - but then that IS history.

I am a Pantheistic, Einsteinian Atheist with Agnostic tendencies toward Deism.

No Hyper-Moral, Super-Sentient, Omnipotent, Omniscient Being that hears prayers and performs miracles.

I respect that your thoughts are ...well thoughtful. It is obvious you have put a great deal of critical thinking into your perspective. I can't help but think you have worked really hard to glorify something that doesn't deserve it. Yes two thousand years isn't much evolution wise but the concepts you ascribe to the religious text as subtext the concepts weren't conceived yet. Man hasn't evolved much but mans society has. The ancients may have been as smart as us but we have knowledge that they didn't have access to. The enlightenment would not have been possible without the renaissance which would not have been possible without the Greeks who built on Persian work. I don't know it just seems like you're polishing a turd.

" It's no mystery why this information was misunderstood, butchered, suppressed, and perverted by subsequent generations; in what arena have humans ever not done that? And the name of that destructive element ? Religion in all it's many forms but mostly the organise form.

There you go again, making all kinds of rational statements, and showing uncommon sense.

What he said.....

I don't call it religion To me, religion is too dogmatic and extremely conservative. I think too much dogma ruins the stew. I like to think I can get where I believe all paths lead to GOD. it does not men your go, but the God you seek..I believe that God allows us all to put our belief system together, and as log as our heart and love is in the right place, who cares how it is seen or heard, your heart bridges the differences and allows us all to come together.

If you don't believe in a deity, you are an atheist. I often say this as a joke; All Catholics are atheists.

Wow, you state a lot, but you seem to assume that everybody knows actually where you are talking about. …… I do not.
First of all, I would suggest to go to the Christian community to tell them the essence of how you believe. After that go to the Muslim community and do the same. Then come back and tell us how they reacted.
I have the feeling that you are trying to blur things. You don't believe in a god, but you declare yourself religious in a different way. Stating all kind of things that you don't give examples of, apparently supposing that we as smart readers will understand what you mean. You use terminology of both religion as of atheism and agnosticism.
You state that ancient scriptures are more than nonsense (In general I can agree on that). You don't determine about what scriptures you are talking about. Even Christianity has the old testament based on the Torah and its historic content and the new testament based on magical stories that in essence could well have happened. But both are ancient scriptures and both of a different era. And as long as you are not clear about that, I am hardly able to reply.
You also state that a lot of the ancient scriptures should not be taken literally but more interpretative and with feeling. Here you do the same as Christianity does (its where my personal roots are). You make your own interpretation of how you want to see god and also all kind of other standard elements of the Christian religion you translate to you own idea. It looks as if you are creating a personal religion, using the old terminology adding new meanings to it.
I have the feeling that you try to replace the religion that you can't understand but love so much, in a system of your own that still gives you that good feeling.
It's confusing and I think I don't like that. It's like preaching a new religion. I'm not open for that. Sorry.
But if you want to be more specific, I'm still willing to read it, think things over and comment on it. But for now …………… no. Sorry.

I think you are most definitely what I like to call a "human", they are this amazing creature that thinks and ponders about life and it's own existence and the very best of them try to find a way to mesh all this together in a way that furthers their own connection to themselves, to humanity and, yes, sometimes a diety(ies).

It's not a bad thing, these humans, so don't let anyone tell you that you got into this box or that one, because I've interacted with enough of them to know there are infinite boxes and each one doesn't wholly exist in any one box, but instead exist in a great many of them, sometimes all at once and sometimes just bouncing from one to another.

Embrace your humaness, you may find it makes you a better person if you try to help other people embrace their humaness as well. You will find them sometimes sharing your boxes with you, and sometimes thinking outside them.

I agree with you very much

True.
Young children constantly make up little "religions" for themselves..even their games often make claims such as, that if you land on a certain number, you'll get married to the next boy you see, for example. Adults carry or wear items they imagine influenced winning a game, or some other benefit.

Humans seem to long to depend on something bigger than they are-stronger, wiser, with all the answers, so they can relax and just go along with it.
In fact, that's the thing I miss most about my former beliefs.
It not fun having to take responsibility for your own mistakes, and the outcome of your life (sigh).

I don't disagree too much with what you've said, except that it is not "science's" job to refute what religions have said. The one's making the claims must demonstrate that their claims are correct.

That being said, I think most religions offered stability to individuals, families, communities, nation's, even empires. They laid the framework for systems of ethics and morality that could bind societies together. The flip side of that coin is that they also laid the framework for complex in and out groups, the result of which have been some of the most horrendous acts ever recorded. I don't think it is wrong to acknowledge the stabilizing role religion has played, as long as the opposite is acknowledged as well.

A linguist

Since you've got it linguistically figured out, go with God.