Heathen Dawn

</strong>

Same here. I find science too dry and drab for my taste. I'd rather be "initiated" into Nature's heart than read about it in a book. Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker was a good read, but as far as communion with nature goes, I felt as if I were learning to swim through correspondence.

</strong>

(funny the way emotionality is normally associated with females...) Maybe not anti-scientific, but I do have little patience with science. Somehow science goes with "razor-minds" and "eggheads" in my perception, and I'm trying as best I can to escape any semblance of erudition. My school years were ones of compulsive studies, and I have vowed never to make that mistake ever again.

</strong>

It's not that people don't understand, it's simply they ask whatever it is for. That is, an addition of paganism to a secular life strikes them as a load of unnecessary baggage. But the fact I've taken on this baggage means it's quite necessary for me!

</strong>

I agree, though many times I wish I could believe. I don't like unbelief. It makes me feel like an outsider, a spectator. For a change, I'd like to be the one who gets described in an anthropological research thesis, instead of writing such theses about others all the time.

Primal

You use a presumptuous analogy to defend your position as I see secular Jews and Hindus as equally irrational to secular Pagans. In essence then your comparisons serve little purpose in establishing your case.

Rusting Car Bumper

Precisely....

Your experience demonstrates the nature of the false dichotomoy that is being proposed.

I view anti-science or "science is impersonal" arguments on the exact same level as creationists and crazy Christian apologetic arguments. They both rely on an equally warped sense of the world.

Both views try to paint the use facts and reason as enemies of creative and intellectual proceses and experiences. Nothing can be farther from the truth.

DC

Primal

I very much agree with you Digital and see science as doing the opposite of what ant-science types claim: revealing beauty and creativity by giving us more material to work with and exposing the complexity of nature; complexity which often times puts shame to what our little imaginations can conjure up.

Panta Pei

Still, I'm with Einstein, imagination is more important than knowledge.

The most beautiful thing we can experience
is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science.

The muse that inspires the quest...the quest that gives us purpose...the purpose that brings existence meaning.

To each their path and to each their passions, for the search for truth is far more important than its possession.

Heathen Dawn

Science reveals more than beauty. Science reveals a life and death struggle between all living things, a blind and pitiless and indifferent universe, a short, brutish existence of sentience which ends up being snuffed up into oblivion for eternity... science is not about making you happy, it's all about the harsh truth.

And I knew the truth, and the truth did make me depressed.

So when I commune with nature, I do my best to forget about the life struggle and all other not-so-nice facets of nature, and I look only at the beauty of nature. That's not something you can do when you're conducting scientific exploration.

Science just puts us on a conveyor belt towards oblivion. Religion offers a way out of the deadlock. Now, I agree religion may be nothing but delusion; but better a deluded and happy life than a sad life of knowing the harsh truth. Great is religion that provides consolation from the harsh truth.

Science is good for those who are truth-seekers and are not afraid of the implications of a harsh truth; but I'm not one of those, I'm just seeking to have a good feeling - emotional appeal. For me, science is one colossal disappointment and slough of despond. I'm an emotional man, a religious man, and I seek the consolations of religion rather than the hard facts of science.

brighid

You are certainly entitled to categorize the view of an impersonal science any way you wish. Although I would staunchly disagree that an feeling that science is impersonal is to paint facts and reason as the enemies of the creative process. Nothing could actually be farther from the truth! Unfortunately there are people regardless of their faith or lack of faith that refuse to embrace rational thinking. Some find particular areas of science fascinating and others as dry as three day old toast, but regard it with the highest esteem - so what?

So many times I hear theists who INSIST that atheists ARE devil worshippers, regardless of what we actually say, believe or do. How are your blanket statements, despite actual evidence to the contrary any different - those who find science impersonal are no better then creationists, when obviously there are many who aren't as you describe?

Primal,
Well, you are entitled to your views also. But for those whose cultures are intertwined with the religious nature of their heritage, those who realize the value of those traditions but who deny the supernatural qualities .... well, how are they being hypocrites? Are they hypocrites because the wear the garb (such as the sari, or have mendi painted on their hands at a wedding) of their ancestry, or participate in the common rituals that surrounds birth, life, death and all stages in between simply because those things have religious roots, or because others embrace the religiousness of those rituals?

Can one not celebrate Christmas/Yule/Winter Solstice because they no longer believe in Gods? Must we cast away everything remotely religious in nature, pagan, Judeo-Christian or otherwise because we are no longer deluded by the fairy tales of our youth? We certainly do not have to and that sort of thinking fails to understand the human, social signficance that ritual and tradition add to the culture of a community and the betterment of it.

The examined, rational life need not be a cold one devoid of emotion, celebration or awe. Science is awesome, necessary and THEE path to our future but the enormous umbrella of science does not always meet the human requirements needed for more then a mundane human life. Without art, music, literature, even myth, fiction, poetry ... what a lopsided existence! And furthermore, how dogmatic.

Panta Pei - Bravisimo. May I add that to my collection of memorable quotes?

Heathen Dawn - I understand your emotional needs, but you can still be rational AND embrace the nature of Wicca without deluding yourself. It is actually a much better existence in my opinion as it blends the necessity and reality of science, with the prose, muse and mystery of the emotional elements of religion - without hypocrisy. I also think you are WAY too intelligent to ever truly pull off a religious existence that comforts your emotional needs through delusion because there will always be a part that nags at you ... atleast if my experience is worth more then $.02!

Perhaps you need to take that journey so you can understand that failing for yourself, to make it real and not simply take someone elses word for it. The time in my life where I finally shed all Gods and Goddesses, but still strongly yearned for Circle was very emotionally trying. I did not know how to honor the two. I simply COULD NOT believe no matter how much I wanted to, no matter what the promise of bliss and comfort was because my intellectual integrity screamed NO!

I am glad I took that path and experienced that discomfort because now things are different - better. I know you are in a tough place right now and you are searching - and as Panta Pei says it's the journey - not the possession. Hang in there and if you ever feel like talking, or if you want to hear more about my journey just PM me and I will be happy to share.

Brighid

Perchance

Heathen Dawn,

You certainly have the right to feel whatever way you want and choose whatever path you want. However, simply because you feel that science is impersonal doesn't mean that it is, objectively. I find the sciences of chemistry and botany very dry and boring, the sciences of physics and biology mildly fascinating, and the science of linguistics wildly interesting. But that doesn't mean that all those sciences are really the way I characterize them. That just happens to be the way I feel about them.

And rationality, for me, leads to a way to enjoy life. I think the dualism between emotion and rationality is embedded in people's minds without any very good reason... the same way that some people have a knee-jerk reaction to fantasy as "children's" and "stereotyped" even if they've never read any of it. (All right, that's a rant for another time; I won't get started ). Understanding that a sunset may get its pretty colors from pollution in the air in no way diminishes the thrill in my heart when I see a sunset. Knowing the stars are flaming balls of gas light-years away makes it all the more wondrous that I see them as tiny silvery points of light. I don't think that everyone needs to choose one way to experience the world, and shut out the rest. It's perfectly possible to approach by more than one road. And I think there are far more than the "dry, boring, dull-as-bones scientific" path and the "happy-happy joy-joy emotional creative" path.

Nor is emotion always superior. I've made many of the worst decisions in my life during times of high emotion. I've read poetry and books written in the middle of periods of high emotion that were incomprehensible. Not everything good in human life comes from "emotion" or "the sensitive side."

As I said, I have no problem with your choosing to feel that way. I do have a problem with your proclaiming these as if they were objective truths. I wanted you to know there is at least one other person who sees them differently. Of course, my viewpoint need not matter to you, either. But it does exist, and it is not less valid than yours.

-Perchance.

brighid

Perchance,

I think your perspective is wonderful and it gives a wonderful testament to the need for balance between the rational and emotional mind.

Sometimes we simply fail to have experienced things in a way to provide a different perspective

I also think that we sometimes need to fully experience those extremes to make them personal lessons to learn from. But, whatever the case may be I think most people strive for balance and at different points in their life gravitate toward polar opposites. HOPEFULLY and sooner rather then later, each finds that center and melds rational and emotional in way that allows that balance to finally be achieved I am still working on it, as I am very emotional by nature - even if on some subjects I have been accused of being a cross between Scully and a Vulcan!

Brighid

Heathen Dawn

I tolerate rationality as a necessary evil, but nothing more. I don't worship rationality as most of the people here on these boards do. Nor do I worship God or any gods. I worship my emotions - whatever gives me a good feeling.

Emotions and rationality are very hard to reconcile. They are nearly always at war with each other. When I'm rational, I'm not emotional, and vice versa. For me, it's a game of "either-or".

I dedicate myself to the worship of emotions and of all emotionality, to serve as High Priest of the Church of Emotion. Verily, emotion is the One True God, and I dedicate myself to it.

By the full moon when it shineth,
and the sun when it setteth,
verily these are the prettiest of scenes,
for the eye are they true feasts.

By the green leaves that bloom,
and the brown bark of every tree,
indeed nature is full of beauty in abundance,
to Her, the wondrous Goddess, is all praise due.