religion? Anything I believe must be supported by science as I believe it to be the only provider of truly unbiased knowledge humans have.
Because of this I'm an atheist, which saddens me a bit. Atheism has no code or set of morals beyond those I choose for myself; no higher standard with which to judge my actions other than my own instincts.
However my very nature tells me this is an inadequate system as it relies only one one source which is not verified or challenged.
This lead me to further examine other faiths, something I do regularly as they interest me anyway since they are a great way to learn about humans and our history.
The only religion who's tenants I find adequate and that are actually followed by it's followers is Buddhism. However there are two main aspects of Buddhism that trouble me, reincarnation and karma.
Karma I believe to be an acceptable wash as I know that in a statistical sense if given two options and enough time the percentage will reach 50/50 every time. Such as if you flip a coin repeatedly the number of times it lands on each side will eventually reach parity. Such is the nature of a karmic universe as it's good vs. evil.
However reincarnation is much trickier. I can't logic my way in or out of this one thus I turn to others.
Is there any logical explanation or scientific data that would allow for such a reality as reincarnation? The only way in which I can begin to accept it is if I take it to loosely mean the continuous transition from one state to another as that is how it works with matter and energy always in flux, just not continuously cognitive. But this feels a bit like cheating to me.
Anyone have any thoughts? Right now I ask only for academic purposes.
I'm not talking about adding a set of imposed morals but looking for a set of guidelines with which to better gauge my own actions.
This is one of the many times I disagree with and detest Dawkins as what he says is more sensationalist than substantive.
Besides, no one seems to have a problem with the chivalric code. Well, except feminists...
I've continued my reading and it seems that Buddhist reincarnation doesn't necessarily mean only the birth from one life to another nor that it must be a human life to human life. It's much more complex than that and it's beginning to sound like the simple transfer of matter and energy from one state to another might satisfy.
James G: Thanks for your take on it but the Dalai Lama would disagree. He's spoken on the nature of Buddhism and science numerous times, as have others like Bohr and Einstein.
Buddhism is different from all other religions in that it is flexible and accommodating of new knowledge. Also, while the Abrahamic faiths promote worship over all things Buddhism is about the quest for knowledge and understanding. It merely has guidelines about how to go about it.
Because of this I'm an atheist, which saddens me a bit. Atheism has no code or set of morals beyond those I choose for myself; no higher standard with which to judge my actions other than my own instincts.
However my very nature tells me this is an inadequate system as it relies only one one source which is not verified or challenged.
This lead me to further examine other faiths, something I do regularly as they interest me anyway since they are a great way to learn about humans and our history.
The only religion who's tenants I find adequate and that are actually followed by it's followers is Buddhism. However there are two main aspects of Buddhism that trouble me, reincarnation and karma.
Karma I believe to be an acceptable wash as I know that in a statistical sense if given two options and enough time the percentage will reach 50/50 every time. Such as if you flip a coin repeatedly the number of times it lands on each side will eventually reach parity. Such is the nature of a karmic universe as it's good vs. evil.
However reincarnation is much trickier. I can't logic my way in or out of this one thus I turn to others.
Is there any logical explanation or scientific data that would allow for such a reality as reincarnation? The only way in which I can begin to accept it is if I take it to loosely mean the continuous transition from one state to another as that is how it works with matter and energy always in flux, just not continuously cognitive. But this feels a bit like cheating to me.
Anyone have any thoughts? Right now I ask only for academic purposes.
I'm not talking about adding a set of imposed morals but looking for a set of guidelines with which to better gauge my own actions.
This is one of the many times I disagree with and detest Dawkins as what he says is more sensationalist than substantive.
Besides, no one seems to have a problem with the chivalric code. Well, except feminists...
I've continued my reading and it seems that Buddhist reincarnation doesn't necessarily mean only the birth from one life to another nor that it must be a human life to human life. It's much more complex than that and it's beginning to sound like the simple transfer of matter and energy from one state to another might satisfy.
James G: Thanks for your take on it but the Dalai Lama would disagree. He's spoken on the nature of Buddhism and science numerous times, as have others like Bohr and Einstein.
Buddhism is different from all other religions in that it is flexible and accommodating of new knowledge. Also, while the Abrahamic faiths promote worship over all things Buddhism is about the quest for knowledge and understanding. It merely has guidelines about how to go about it.