I believe that people should not go to church. They should spend their weekends resting. Pastors should not have congregations. Did you go to church today? If so, I am offended and I demand that you stop!

@Seun,

You're beginning to sound ludicrous and fomenting just about any excuse to become 'offended'. I hope you find happiness getting offended at everyone and everything - including yourself. Yes, I went to church today; how has that got to do with offending you? Let's slow down this inexplicable inclination to just about becoming offended at everyone else as long as it is not you.

mlks_baby:

[SNIP]
Certain people want to adopt the philosophical view that 'you make purpose out of life', but that is only philosophical and has no basis as coming full circle with the realities that cannot be explained away philosophically. Many times, this inability to reconcile the realities we deal with in religious life is informed by the view one takes of religion (especially where they many times express a sentimental disdain thereto).

Actually, I [b]am [/b]one of them. Purpose is what you define as purpose for yourself. I do not see an ultimate purpose in life or existence. I find it vanity of the highest degree that, when knowing the insignificance of earth, life and humanity on a cosmic plane, that there should be an ultimate purpose. People should be very glad that they, out of all the possible configurations of matter and energy, do exist as sentient beings, capable of love and happiness. That alone should suffice
I do not see anything that needs reconciling when it comes to reality. Can you be more specific here?

mlks_baby:

Yes and no. 'Yes' in the sense that people deserve respect out of their positive actions; and 'No' because action and belief are on the same plane. You don't simply attach respect to abstract ideas of action, behaviour, attitudes, etc. and conveniently leave out what motivates their actions. People don't simply act respectably; there's always a basis for their actions - be they religious or non-religious.

If you would consider all the actions done out of religious motivation, the good would even out the bad and vice versa. Religious people are in no means more virtuous than non religious people, so religion as such is not a sufficient basis for respect.

mlks_baby:

I pray for the good of others and seek out their welfare - that's part of my life: and that's what my beliefs are as a Christian. I would not do this on a mere 'acting respectably' because I would have no basis for that.

Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, but are you saying that you need religion to act morally? Do you need the reward of heaven and/or the punishment of hell to be moral. If that is the case, the foundation of that morality is rather weak. Correct me if I'm misreading you here.

mlks_baby:

Lastly, nferyn (as one persuaded to be more inclined to atheism) may not share your opinions in some related issues; but I think he should now have a ready answer to his concern from your reaction, otherwise it would be interesting for him to ask you why you feel that your belief deserves respect:

1. I'm not really inclined to atheism. I am an atheist. More specifically a weak, explicit, agnostic atheist in the utilitarian humanist tradition.
2. It seems that Seun is taking a position to the extreme just to stir up an argument, maybe he's trolling on his own board who knows?

miks_baby: Certain people want to adopt the philosophical view that 'you make purpose out of life'

nferyn: Actually, I'm not one of them. I do not see an ultimate purpose in life or existence.

Nferyn, it seems you don't understand English anymore. I don't see how miks_baby's statement is related to your reply.

Do you not know what "making purpose out of life" means? Or are you just over-eager to disagree with Seun?

You're beginning to sound ludicrous and fomenting just about any excuse to become 'offended'. I hope you find happiness getting offended at everyone and everything - including yourself. Yes, I went to church today; how has that got to do with offending you? Let's slow down this inexplicable inclination to just about becoming offended at everyone else as long as it is not you.

You have refused to respect my beliefs, my 'religion'. Shame on you!

Hope you are sincere (and sharp) enough to understand my point

Nia:


nferyn, you cannot completely disregard the basis on which people do good. Yes in a perfect world everyone should naturally treat each other well and be decent to all, without the encouragement of religion.
But this is far from reality.

Yes, but in the balance of things as many good actions are motivated by religion as bad actions. Religious people do not hold the keys to morality, nor are they more moral than non-religious people.

Nia:

Now on the one hand, you have the underlining reason for why European Christians came to Africa in the first place: To educate "the savages and the godless" in Africa, all the while exploiting their land and milking resources from Africa for their people back home. Something that obviously warrants disrespect for the religion, and rightly so.

That's why I find that religion as such does not deserve respect (or disrespect), but rather the actions of people that are motivated from a religious stance. The only thing that I do dislike about religion is that it ultimately invites people to be irrational, but that would be another thread.

Nia:

However, prior to the advent of Christianity in Nigeria, twin babies were thrown into the woods and left to die because they were seen as a curse/ bad omen. With the arrival of Christianity by Christian missionaries, this eventually became non-existent. Without Christianity as the basis, we can't conclude that this action would not have continued, at least for some time. If we assume that the action was caused by Christian beliefs, then we must give it it's proper due, not just the people.

If you replace one form of superstition with another form of superstition, even though it is more beneficial, you still have superstition. What is needed is people adopting a scientific mindset to their daily lives, but we're still a long way off. I long for a Star Trek like future

Nia:

Another positive change that some religion makes in society is that it reduces stress and, again, the loss of lives. What I mean is that when a society changes from polytheistic (which was what Naija was) to monotheistic, they don't have to worry about pleasing many gods, just one, or making many sacrifices, which sometimes include human lives in some cases. (Of course you can also argue that blowing up yourself and other innocent people in the name of Allah doesn't do much justice to this claim), but anyways

I agree, religion does have a positive impact on some peoples mindsets. Aparently, religious people are more happy with their lives and have a tendency to accept the misfortunes of life more easily. The flip side of that coin is that religious people are generally more subservient and have a higher level of tolerance against injustice, as they think they will have their reward in the afterlife.
I wonder if Nigeria would have had a revolution by now if it weren't for it's highly religious population.

Nia:

But in the context of Naija, assuming monotheistic religions never emerged, people would prolly still be worrying about the proper sacrifices needed for Sango, Obatala, Ogun, Oshun, Yemanja, and et cetera, (although some still do this)

I don't think that it would be any worse, but that's just my ill-informed opinion. I cannot substantiate this.

Nia:

I think as a people we prefer if something is either one or the other: all good or all bad, (deserving of respect or not deserving of respect) but most things in life are too complex to be so simplistic.

True

Nia:

Personally, I believe many religions could use more common sense, tolerance, and less focus on mysticism, as well as encouragement of human beings' capabilities to deal with their own problems rather than "leaving everything to God" or in the case of radical muslims, fighting Allah's battles by "blowing up infidels", treating women like second class citizens, etc.

As Islam seem to have entered it's Dark Age, Christianity already went through that phase. Let's hope it doesn't relapse (the developments in the US do worry me)

Nia:

Eventually we must ask ourselves if the world today would be a better place without religion--all religions-- and that's something I think is debatable and both sides of the argument would have enough proof to back up their claims.

I don't think it would be necessarily better. It would definitely be more rational and that opens up more avenues for improvement, but I guess the human race as a species is far too irrational and maybe religion keeps the lid on the boiling pan.

Seun:

Nferyn, it seems you don't understand English anymore. I don't see how miks_baby's statement is related to your reply.

Have mercy on a poor non-native speaker. You're right, I misread miks_baby's statement. The vague wording may have something to do with it. I'll adapt my reply

Seun:

Do you not know what "making purpose out of life" means? Or are you just over-eager to disagree with Seun?

I love to disagree with you, but that was not the reason

Gentlemen - nferyn and Seun,

I'll oblige you a compromise that differs not in anyway from the strain of thought expressed earlier. I don't see atheists or non-Christian believers as sub-human in anyway; and my Christian beliefs do not elevate me pompously; so I won't assume such an aura around me. Indeed, I concede that not all atheists have exactly the same meaning of atheism, so I'll respect each person's views of it in just the same way that even among Christians there are differing views as to what is the meaning of Christianity.

Seun:

nferyn link=topic=12775.msg359906#msg359906 date=1147682392:


[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg357833#msg357833 date=1147597089]
Certain people want to adopt the philosophical view that 'you make purpose out of life', but that is only philosophical and has no basis as coming full circle with the realities that cannot be explained away philosophically.

Actually, I'm not one of them. I do not see an ultimate purpose in life or existence.

I don't see how miks_baby's statement is related to your reply. [/quote]

Seun, you read me well there, as I wasn't referring particularly to nferyn or making a direct/indirect reference to him. I was writing in general terms to the views of others where they apply. Again, I really think it was a bit unfair of me to have called you ludicrous, as I didn't see at the moment that your tone didn't deserve that; so I take it back - amicably, hmmm?   (of course, I'm beginning to understand you - as atheism is not a religion).

I'll respond to nferyn's concerns following this. Regards.

So, nferyn, let me address your earlier concerns:

nferyn:

Purpose is what you define as purpose for yourself. I do not see an ultimate purpose in life or existence. I find it vanity of the highest degree that, when knowing the insignificance of earth, life and humanity on a cosmic plane, that there should be an ultimate purpose. People should be very glad that they, out of all the possible configurations of matter and energy, do exist as sentient beings, capable of love and happiness. That alone should suffice
I do not see anything that needs reconciling when it comes to reality. Can you be more specific here?

I'll like you to understand that reality in life has much more foundation than merely a philosophical one. It's broader than you actually are narrowing it down. Every human being, young or old of either gender and from whatever background, is capable of love, happiness and other feelings. But being "capable" of those feelings and responding to them does not automatically translate into reality, otherwise there would no such thing as evil in the world. Ultimate reality does not pretend that evil is [b]un[/b]real: quite on the contrary! And your supposition that people should be content with just knowing that they exist as sentient beings is not even scratching the surface of the question of reality in existence. On that plane, you would still remain puzzled as to what you cannot explain philosophically simply by taking a naturalistic and materialistic worldview.

nferyn:

If you would consider all the actions done out of religious motivation, the good would even out the bad and vice versa. Religious people are in no means more virtuous than non religious people, so religion as such is not a sufficient basis for respect.

I see where you're coming from. But you should be glad that religion, as far as it defines a person's socio-cultural motivations, is deserving of respect. Think for a moment of why people who were formerly social outlaws and outcasts become admirable after a religious experience - how do you explain that? It would be quizzical to imagine that such people just turn over a new leaf without a foundation - a basis of belief of sorts. In broad terms (as I do not limit religion to just Christianity), religion is deserving of respect as far as it shapes the thinking of people and consequently lead them to admirable social and cultural developments and exchanges.

nferyn:

Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, but are you saying that you need religion to act morally? Do you need the reward of heaven and/or the punishment of hell to be moral. If that is the case, the foundation of that morality is rather weak. Correct me if I'm misreading you here.

I don't need religion to act morally, as I was tending to morality before my "religious experience". (Most Christians would not see Christianity as a religion, but it applies as far as this discussion goes.) That is where you need to understand that the plane at which you're discussing 'religion' falls short of what it entails. As long as the question of the 'soul' and 'spirit' is not addressed and remains ignored, this discussion would lead nowhere. Often, some athiests (including you now) take a naturalistic and materialistic view of 'reality' that any mention of these elements of religion spins out of their purview.

I agree with you that the punishment of hell as a foundation for morality is weak and untenable; at least, I've shown in another thread (Is The Bible The Word of God) that my basis for worship and belief in God is not attributed to any such notions of fear of hell or reward of heaven (you may want to take a refresher peep about this by clicking on this entry and a second entry). Infact, that is not what Christianity is about. No; rather, my basis for morality, purpose and existence is in the claims of Christ, and not in what rewards or fears one has to contend with in 'religion' per se. I find purpose in my spiritual relationship with Christ far outweighing any naturalistic or materialistic interpretations of the question of reality and existence.

mlks_baby:

I'll like you to understand that reality in life has much more foundation than merely a philosophical one. It's broader than you actually are narrowing it down.

Obviously. Reality in life has got one fundamental foundation, the state of being. Through a naturalistic assessment of that condition, we can reach a fairly good approximatation of what reality is. What goes beyond that type of assessment is mere speculation or metaphysical posturing.

mlks_baby:

Every human being, young or old of either gender and from whatever background, is capable of love, happiness and other feelings. But being "capable" of those feelings and responding to them does not automatically translate into reality, otherwise there would no such thing as evil in the world.

Through a thorough understanding of the human condition, using methodological naturalism, we can try to grasp what makes people act and react in certain ways. This will allow us to reach a more optimal state of existence. That's where my utilitarianism comes in.
Only when we fully realise and comprehend the sources of evil can we find ways to either get rid of them or minimise their impact. An approach that is not based on the evidence at hand, but rather starts from certain presuppositions is going to fail in that regard. Not that I mean to discredit religion here, as it can very well work on a personal level (and this has been show to be the case by the evidence), but on the level of policy, it is bound to fail, because it takes a far too caricatural view on ethics.

mlks_baby:

Ultimate reality does not pretend that evil is [b]un[/b]real: quite on the contrary! And your supposition that people should be content with just knowing that they exist as sentient beings is not even scratching the surface of the question of reality in existence.

There is wonder and beauty in the understanding of the natural world. If you go beyond that, you're engaging in wishful thinking.

mlks_baby:

On that plane, you would still remain puzzled as to what you cannot explain philosophically simply by taking a naturalistic and materialistic worldview.

I am content with knowing that currently, there are some questions that cannot be answered yet. Many of those will be answered in the future though. Making up answers based on a shaky methodological foundation is not satisfactory, I'd rather say I don't know (yet).

mlks_baby:

I see where you're coming from. But you should be glad that religion, as far as it defines a person's socio-cultural motivations, is deserving of respect. Think for a moment of why people who were formerly social outlaws and outcasts become admirable after a religious experience - how do you explain that? It would be quizzical to imagine that such people just turn over a new leaf without a foundation - a basis of belief of sorts. In broad terms (as I do not limit religion to just Christianity), religion is deserving of respect as far as it shapes the thinking of people and consequently lead them to admirable social and cultural developments and exchanges.

But still religion does not do that more than other human endeavors and has quite a lot of negative consequences in it's implementation as well. If religion would make one better than non-religion, it might deserve respect as such. There is no evidence for such a thing though.

mlks_baby:

I don't need religion to act morally, as I was tending to morality before my "religious experience". (Most Christians would not see Christianity as a religion, but it applies as far as this discussion goes.) That is where you need to understand that the plane at which you're discussing 'religion' falls short of what it entails.

Maybe, but other planes are irrelevant to me, because they have no naturalistic basis and as such truth and reality are merely labels without evidentiary reference framework.

mlks_baby:

As long as the question of the 'soul' and 'spirit' is not addressed and remains ignored, this discussion would lead nowhere.

Soul [/i]and [i]Spirit [/i]are meaningless terms to me. Maybe you can give me an explanation of these terms that does not rely on a-priori assumptions?

mlks_baby:

Often, some athiests (including you now) take a naturalistic and materialistic view of 'reality' that any mention of these elements of religion spins out of their purview.

Do you have any evidence of another reality? How do you know that that reality is not just an ellaborate intellectual contruction, built on our neurological machinery?

mlks_baby:

I agree with you that the punishment of hell as a foundation for morality is weak and untenable; at least, I've shown in another thread (Is The Bible The Word of God) that my basis for worship and belief in God is not attributed to any such notions of fear of hell or reward of heaven (you may want to take a refresher peep about this by clicking on this entry and a second entry). Infact, that is not what Christianity is about. No; rather, my basis for morality, purpose and existence is in the claims of Christ, and not in what rewards or fears one has to contend with in 'religion' [i]per se.

OK, obviously, you have a far more mature approach to your religiosity than most. I have had to deal with faulty simple apologetics far too much. I don't know how many variations of Pascal's wager have been thrown at me before. Maybe I was being too reciprocal in my reading of your post. My appologies.

mlks_baby:

I find purpose in my spiritual relationship with Christ far outweighing any naturalistic or materialistic interpretations of the question of reality and existence.

Or so you tell yourself. I don't blame you, everybody is a child of his environment. You need to realise though that this is a negative value judgement on my sense of purpose.

@nferyn,

You're still not seeing nor understanding religious issues as long as you want a subjective interpretation of non-philosophical issues that you cannot philosophically explain on naturalistic terms. If I attempt a definitive context of 'soul' and 'spirit, what's the guarantee that it would make you the wiser in religious discourses? The problem with your views is that you're constrained to apply a partial and preconceived notion about religious elements - your mistake of asking others to avoid a priori readings while consistently appealing to that very same tool yourself! An example:

nferyn:

[i]Soul [/i]and [i]Spirit [/i]are meaningless terms to me. Maybe you can give me an explanation of these terms that does not rely on a-priori assumptions?

Fair enough; but have you not closed that outlet against yourself by stating -

nferyn:

Maybe, but other planes are irrelevant to me, because they have no naturalistic basis and as such truth and reality are merely labels without evidentiary reference framework.

See - just because other planes have no naturalistic basis, therefore they are irrelevant to you? So, where is the point of entry in this discussion if you are closed to non-naturalistic phenomena? 'Soul' and 'spirit' are not issues you define on terms based on naturalism (in the philosophical sense of the principle that the world can be understood without supernatural or spiritual explanations). Reality in human existence and experience far preponderate philosophical interpretations; and if you're asking people to define "spiritual things" in the shibboleth of naturalism, you've just made the very same mistake that you see in others but never see in yourself (I'm almost tempted to say you've swung your sword towards your mid-region; but, of course, hope you understand my humour there and not take it out of context ).

Anyways, methodological naturalism does not provide answers to more involving cases of spiritualism or spiritism - because it has proven itself unable to fathom these issues as long as it does not take the supernatural into consideration. And I think that simply writing off a non-naturalistic phenomenon that you cannot understand nor explicate as "mere speculation or metaphysical posturing" or even "wishful thinking" is very narrow and limited reasoning in the reality of human existence and experience.

nferyn:

Do you have any evidence of another reality? How do you know that that reality is not just an ellaborate intellectual contruction, built on our neurological machinery?

It all depends on what "other reality" you're after; but I'll guarantee you that "elaborate intellectual construction" is a very humourous escape from the reality that cannot be explained by naturalism or philosophy. Let's just be honest about this: how do you explain supernatural events? There are two ways to excape this: either one denies it with "clever intellectual constructs" (e.g., neurological machinery); or they just want to ignore what they cannot deny or explain in philosophical or naturalistic terms. Anyone denying the supernatural is obviously closing his/eyes to the reality that exists in other phenomena.

mlks_baby,

I first want to thank you for taking the time to reply to my questions. I very much appreciate your contributions.

mlks_baby:

You're still not seeing nor understanding religious issues as long as you want a subjective interpretation of non-philosophical issues that you cannot philosophically explain on naturalistic terms. If I attempt a definitive context of 'soul' and 'spirit, what's the guarantee that it would make you the wiser in religious discourses?

When you talk about the supernatural, you assume a priori that the phenomenon does not have a natural explanation.
Most of what was once called the super-natural has been brought within the realm of natual experience and I'm confident that what does not have a natural explanation yet, will be explained naturalistically in the future.
There has not been one confirmed supernatural pheneomenon observed that could be ascribed to non-naturalistic causes in a controlled, verified environment.

When you invoke the supernatural, you are entering the epithetome of subjectivism, as there is no reference or grading scale to describe these phenomena in. I'll be more precise: what is the epistemiological framework for linking the super-natual to the natural? As long as there is supposed to be any communication, you need to either speak the same language or have an agreed upon translation.

mlks_baby:

The problem with your views is that you're constrained to apply a partial and preconceived notion about religious elements - your mistake of asking others to avoid a priori readings while consistently appealing to that very same tool yourself! An example:

Soul and Spirit are meaningless terms to me. Maybe you can give me an explanation of these terms that does not rely on a-priori assumptions?

Fair enough; but have you not closed that outlet against yourself by stating -

Maybe, but other planes are irrelevant to me, because they have no naturalistic basis and as such truth and reality are merely labels without evidentiary reference framework.

See - just because other planes have no naturalistic basis, therefore they are irrelevant to you? So, where is the point of entry in this discussion if you are closed to non-naturalistic phenomena?

If you can provide an objective framework to link those super-natural phenomena to the natural, maybe we can communicate.
If the super-natural cannot be captured in naturalistic terms (precise language and categorisation), it is impossibele to even talk about it; It is so subjective that there is no way we can possibly understand the same when using these terms.

mlks_baby:

'Soul' and 'spirit' are not issues you define on terms based on naturalism (in the philosophical sense of the principle that the world can be understood without supernatural or spiritual explanations).

Why?

mlks_baby:

Reality in human existence and experience far preponderate philosophical interpretations; and if you're asking people to define "spiritual things" in the shibboleth of naturalism, you've just made the very same mistake that you see in others but never see in yourself (I'm almost tempted to say you've swung your sword towards your mid-region; but, of course, hope you understand my humour there and not take it out of context ).

It was actually my intention to do so in order to give you the opportunity to more precisely describe those super-natural phenomena.

mlks_baby:

Anyways, methodological naturalism does not provide answers to more involving cases of spiritualism or spiritism - because it has proven itself unable to fathom these issues as long as it does not take the supernatural into consideration.

maybe it could if the super-natural could be positively defined instead of negatively. Anthing that interacts with the natural world must have natural properties that enable it to be investigated.

mlks_baby:

And I think that simply writing off a non-naturalistic phenomenon that you cannot understand nor explicate as "mere speculation or metaphysical posturing" or even "wishful thinking" is very narrow and limited reasoning in the reality of human existence and experience.

Let me quote Wittgenstein:

what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence

Either one should find a way to explicitate the supernatural or just leave it at that.

mlks_baby:

It all depends on what "other reality" you're after; but I'll guarantee you that "elaborate intellectual construction" is a very humourous escape from the reality that cannot be explained by naturalism or philosophy.

It's a weak retreat into ignorance if that what does not yet have a natural explanation must be ascribed to the supernatural. The realm of the supernatural has been continuously shrinking since the introduction of the scientific method; Everything should be open for scientific scrutiny.

mlks_baby:

Let's just be honest about this: how do you explain supernatural events? There are two ways to excape this: either one denies it with "clever intellectual constructs" (e.g., neurological machinery); or they just want to ignore what they cannot deny or explain in philosophical or naturalistic terms.

If it can be explicitated, it can be investigated. Unfortunately, all those supernatural occurences seem to disappear once it becomes subject of skeptic scrutiny.
If you are precise what is super-natural, then we can investigate to see whether or not there are naturalistic explanations forthat phenomenon. All those supernatural things seem to vanish in thin air once I try to get a closer look. I am yet to see my first supernatural thing.

mlks_baby:

Anyone denying the supernatural is obviously closing his/eyes to the reality that exists in other phenomena.

By labeling something as super-natural, you're closing it off for investigation. You've already decided that the phenomenon does not follow natural laws.

@nferyn,
I appreciate your calm and sagacity in handling discussions of this nature so far.

Well then, could you have explained to me how the supernatural could be explicated naturally or by naturalism? First, some naturalists I know do not deny the supernatural. What they commonly hold is that naturalism rejects the role and meaning of a transcendent entity, but not necessarily deny transcendent realities that it cannot explain. Whether or not you feel that I assume a priori that supernatural phenomena does not have a natural explanation doesn't take away from the point that you have to look at a subject contextually in its own merit.

You cannot make the assumption that people ought to force their experiences into naturalism when some of those experiences are purely spiritual in nature. At best, not one of the three branches of naturalism that I've perused (PBI - Physical naturalism, Biological or functional naturalism, Information-based naturalism) so far have been able to explain nor deny the supernatural simply on the basis of subjecting it to naturalistic terms and interpretations. If you would consider that some naturalists take a spiritual dimension to their worldview, then it's easy to see that there's such a concept as 'scientific naturalism' as distinct from 'spiritual naturalism'. The question then is, what's the frame of reference for appending the "spiritual" to "naturalism" in the first place? You'd see that no matter how you look at it, there may be some difficulty in understanding spiritual issues; but that does not provide a veritable ground for denial simply on the basis of a lack of explicating the spiritual by naturalism.

As far as naturalism goes, you probably have a point that "there's no reference or grading scale to describe the supernatural"; but does that in itself lend credence to denial? How do you deny something you cannot explain even though in reality people have supernatural/spiritual experiences that are not naturalistic? To insist on a naturalistic frame of reference for all realities is to fall victim to reductionism, because not all phenomena can be explained on such simplistic categorization. There's just a simple point to ponder here: what is the animating principle in the experience of a human being? First, if soul and spirit are meaningless terms to you because they lack a frame of reference for naturalistic explanations, what's the frame of reference or grading scale for measuring the spiritual?

Wittgenstein's quote is more aptly suited to naturalism than to spiritualism. And he's right there: "what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence." It's best that the naturalist understands that the spiritual cannot be subjugated to naturalistic interpretations; and as far as he's unable to explain the supernatural when they occur, he should pass over in silence rather than insist on naturalism or deny/reject the inexplicable.

You're so fond of this slogan now that it's a bit weathered: "It's a weak retreat into ignorance". What you neither can understand nor explain does not necessarily border on ignorance except the ignorance belongs to the scientist who is unable to explain nor deny what he cannot (unless he's additionally arrogant as to insist that the supernatural does not exist!). If you insist on such a position, you quickly and often forget that science does and cannot answer all questions of world phenomena and existence. I don't have all the answers, and if my experiences are scientifically inexplicable, whose ignorance would that be at the end of the day - mine or the man who pretends he has all the answers and yet is unable to tell me what I know in my spirit? That is only possible in the sense that his arrogance trains him to deny that I have a spirit.

Bottomline is that neither of us has all the answers to all the questions of reality in life and experience; and the humble thing to do is to take Wittgenstein's advice - walk over in silence in matters of what you cannot talk about, rather than try to clobber other worldviews as inferior to science when science indeed stands limp in explaining what it cannot.