Dear Pogi,

How do your claims contribute to this discussion?

Suppose indeed I made a foolish observation and suppose that you are correct in stating that it is incorrect to call what non-religious people do (in relation to money, power, etc.) "worship", so what?

We are all aware what attitude I was referring to, even if I used the wrong word, just as we are also all aware that I was not referring to this blood pump in the middle of our chest.

Even if I used some wrong word(s), the spirit of what I wrote stands and whether agreeing or otherwise, I think that Banjo understands this spirit correctly:

"Worshipping material things sinks you deeper into the mire of this world, while worshipping God purifies¹ your heart and helps you out of it. Even if you deny the spiritual, nothing is more therapeutic than worshipping God because it distracts you from and breaks your habit of worshipping the things of the world."

You have the right to disagree.

Similarly, when Banjo and I speak of love, I believe that we agree to be referring only to the selfless variety, which has "no rational reason" and "nothing to gain".

Yes, there are some cynics who believe that true love does not exist. Banjo and I believe that it does.

---
¹ When I speak of purifying the heart, I refer to the removal of the obstacles to love: lust, anger, greed, delusional attachment, pride and jealousy.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thank you for expanding on your notion of worship. What I intensely dislike about worship is what I consider to be the hypocritical posture of those who indulge in it, seemingly demeaning themselves in the presence of the object of their worship, bowing and scraping and emitting what I can only describe as “many humble slurps”.

I have observed similar behaviour in small dogs that encounter much larger dogs in the street. The smaller dog immediately capitulates, rolls-over on its back, wags its tail vigorously and emits “many humble slurps”, while the much larger dog stands over it dominating it, mouth open, tongue hanging out, baring its fangs and growling menacingly. It seems to be a sign of recognition of the superiority of the larger dog by the smaller one – perhaps a tactic of self-defence : “Please don’t hurt me, master. I worship you as my God”.

Is it the animal in us that provokes such behaviour in those of us who worship some idol, God or supposedly superior being or whatever ?
In any event, I do not see this as a manifestation of love. I see it as an act of servility or self-humiliation. It is self-demeaning. It is what the OED defines as worship.

Nor do I consider that it is an act of love for religious devotees to kneel, genuflect, or prostrate themselves when practicing religious rites or ceremonies or whatever. Again, to me, it is an act of servility and worship. It is self-demeaning and self-humiliating.

I have no respect whatsoever for it. It borders on masochism – almost like auto-flagellation. That is not my idea of love. It is at best, pure hypocrisy, at worst, self-serving sensual gratification.

I have great respect for human dignity – at all times and in all circumstances.
.

The best response I can offer to the rest of your post is the image Don Aitkin published today (Monday) in his latest article entitled "At last, some humour" – but, instead of “comforting lies”, please read “comforting beliefs”.

.

To Banjo. I don't want a science verses religion conversation, because I see value in scientific inquiry and observation. But it doesn't replace religion. For better or worse the scope of what religion focuses on rarely overlaps with the scope of what science focuses on. When it does overlap though, like say for historical points, I still trust the bible and expect scientific research to keep doing what it's been doing and verifying the different accounts in the bible to be accurate. Same with any other scientific principle that is overlapped in the bible (there aren't many).

Look at it this way. If something is true it is unchanging. If it is true what the bible says in Proverbs concerning topics of wisdom and foolishness, patience and holding your tongue, the value of a good wife verses the hardship of a bad one, or any other topic like truth verses lying; if it is true what it says there, then it's true today, yesterday, a thousand years ago, and likely will remain unchangingly true in times to come.

The same concept of the truth does not change can be applied to any topic from any source. It's not that it's stagnant. It's that it's unchanging. Within scientific discovery, if one thing is discovered, like say properties of electricity, then those properties have always been there. And once discovered that understanding can be built on, but never has to change. (Assuming that the properties and principles are true). The same can be applied to any field of study from medicine to forensic science. From engineering to navigation. If something is true then it isn't stagnant, but instead it's relied on as a foundation. This is the same with the bible as well. If it is true (it's principles, history, or prophesies) then it doesn't have to change with the times.

(Continued)

(Continued)

That said, this conversation seems to be getting too convoluted for my taste. From arguing over definitions of nothing, love, and worship; to endless arguing with Yuyutsu and you over the reality of the world. To now Pogi entering the mix looking ready to "put people in their place." It's gotten to the point that I should bow out. Thank you for the conversation so far, and for the respectful tone you've shown.

One last thing to comment on though. I finally finished reading the articles from Stephen Hawkins. Fairly good, and both about the same topic (mostly). The one thing to point out though is that the science of the origins of the universe is a new science. Before that as Stephen outlined in his lecture, it was mostly philosophical stances that scientists took without any observational data to back them up. According to Stephen this was largely because the conclusion that the universe had a beginning did two things. 1) harmed their stance on other studies. And 2) supported religious stances on the stories of there being a beginning.

With this in mind be careful to differentiate between philosophical science, and observational science. It's worth noting the difference instead of clumping them together. At least in my opinion it is.

To Toni. Thank you for your explaination of entropy in space. I don't think it is enough of an explaination for the amount of life on earth, or that life began on earth to start with, but it is something to consider that I hadn't considered before.

Dear Yuyutsu,

“Yes”, said Confucius, “… If you can do this, you will be able to go among men in their world without upsetting them. You will not enter into conflict with their ideal image of themselves. If they will listen, sing them a song. If not keep silent. Don’t try to break down their door. … Look at this window: it is nothing but a hole in the wall, but because of it the whole room is full of light” [From “The Fasting of the Heart” by Chuang Tzu (399-295 B.C.)]