Science and Eastern Philosophy

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
personally I reckon a zen like attitude is a much better route to happiness but I suspect its a harder route for the unhappy and ego-bothered.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at Zen or even Tao in a stripped down form ( stripped of some of the excess mytical elements some sects add in), there does seem to be an comfortable fit from the philosophy to a modern scientific view. I don't mean in the far-out connection that some writers put on it, but that it seems to work fine as a personal philosophy that supports an analytical approach very well. Relationships, morals, ethics derive nicely from the same base.

Some version of eastern thought seems to encourage an intellectual, reasoned approach to life rather than the confrontational one that theism causes. It seems like a robust framework for many aspects of a persons life. It does pop up in various scientists writings but I'd say that most are more like closet eastern philosophers.

Chez mentioned it as an 'attitude', I'm asking how far that can be pushed.

luckyme

[FortunaMaximus]

Are you asking how sturdily this attitude would persist through rigor?

Hmm. Probably far enough to become a Pyrrhic task, while it is a philosophy allowing for a greater concession to "Everything belongs, it is just as it is, whatever we discover was already there waiting to be discovered." It's certainly less confrontational in arguments whereas theism/atheism can get hostile.

He's right, though, that it is a worldview that is easy to say rather than do. The difference between knowing the Eightfold Way and actually practicing it is noticeable in the unconscious hypocrisy of the divergences.

Or to say thus: A Buddhist need not convince you of Buddhism, rather he understands you will come to it yourself, and if you don't, it is understood.

[DougShrapnel]

Carl Sagan asked a zen master if reincarnation was proved incorrect what would happen? To which the reply came if reincarnation was disproved buddhism would have to change. This of course IME is the correct view of the world. However it's the view of most atheists that buddhism, although it is a very interesting religion, is still at odds with atheism.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Carl Sagan asked a zen master if reincarnation was proved incorrect what would happen? To which the reply came if reincarnation was disproved buddhism would have to change. This of course IME is the correct view of the world. However it's the view of most atheists that buddhism, although it is a very interesting religion, is still at odds with atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. To atheists who contend that there is no meaning whatsoever to the Universe, they would offer this as why Buddhism is in conflict with their views.

There is meaning, but to know the whole context of meaning is, in itself, meaningless.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course. To atheists who contend that there is no meaning whatsoever to the Universe, they would offer this as why Buddhism is in conflict with their views.

[/ QUOTE ] Is it more clear if I say that science doesn't presupose the existance of things, and changes views once new evidence is discovered. Buddhism does presupose the existance of things and changes views once new evidence is discovered. Xtianity, not only presuposes the existance of things, but doesn't change views once new evidence is discovered.

[ QUOTE ]
There is meaning, but to know the whole context of meaning is, in itself, meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ] Not a zen master, I have little idea what this means.

[FortunaMaximus]

To the first, yes, that's clearer and essentially correct.

As for the second, um, yeah. That's following on your assessment of Buddhism in #1, which is that, at least in my understandings through my life, that Buddhism is more about simultaneity than it is about being linear.

Existence emerges, it does not unfold. And to ask why it is to be desired that first this has to happen before that can happen would seem illogical to Buddhists.

The sea exists, and you can know of it, and you can draw from it. But to know of all the sea is not necessary. It is enough to know of the sea.

And if you see the sea as information instead, the analogy takes on a better contextual understanding. Buddhism is a faith in where it is understood there is constant change, and the nature of the changes matter very little, whereas your personal ability to adapt to these changes depend more on your nature and willingness to understand, and to accept that to combat change is futility.

It is not lack of interest or a general apathy towards change, as many Buddhists are as competitive, as eager for knowledge, etc. It's simply that at the end of the day, they seem better able to deal with the consequences of change and are more inclined to come to terms with them.

[DougShrapnel]

Certianly interesting stuff, I would make a bad buddhist. I can't figure out if I have agreed or disagreed with your post, perhaps that actually makes me a good buddhist. Agendaless.

[FortunaMaximus]

I wish I was a better one sometimes. I've never been able to completely resolve my own emotional conflicts, however I'm getting better at it.

Well, there's not a dogmatic doctrine you must agree to or you'll be excommunicated. The temples and masters are always there. You know that old saw, when the student is ready...

It's a big Universe, man, with room for doubt. I've never understood intercine or faith-derived warfare. <shrugs>

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
And if you see the sea as information instead, the analogy takes on a better contextual understanding. Buddhism is a faith in where it is understood there is constant change, and the nature of the changes matter very little, whereas your personal ability to adapt to these changes depend more on your nature and willingness to understand, and to accept that to combat change is futility.

[/ QUOTE ]

That touches on aspects of the connection between science and some of the eastern philosophies I was referring to. Exploring what nature looks like and accepting what you find rather than imposing what you would like nature to be like and denying what you find.

A young analytical mind raised in that environment may not need to go through the disowning phase that is fairly normal in a theistic based society is the west.

luckyme

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
A young analytical mind raised in that environment may not need to go through the disowning phase that is fairly normal in a theistic based society is the west.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. My stepfather is Chinese, and grew up in the Caribbean. That's always been a big influence on the way I see things, as he's quiet and as I've grown older, and encountered more literature dealing with broader viewpoints of the Universe...

I realize on some level I've always carried the thoughts and methodology of the Tao within. However, I have a very explosive personality and am physically imposing, two traits which have always led people to consider that I'm far more aggressive than I truly intend to be.

As far as that goes, I've always been willing to give of myself to a point where it can cause self-damage, because I know that's irrelevant, that it can be repaired quite easily, and the damage that can't be repaired is insignificant in the long-term.

And in the long-term, my physical existence means very little. I'm comfortable enough with the concept that the Universe, at its core, is a shifting sea of information, and patterns that form cohesiveness never can be destroyed, and can re-emerge in other fashions later in the progression.

I'm reasonably self-aware on my better days, and on my worse days, I could care less, and invariably drift into trances. There's always a nagging feeling that science is getting it quite wrong, or it is using too many brute-force applications to create discoveries, whereas the path should be simplicity.

And in the 21st century, it's becoming increasingly easier to simulate processes in bioinformatics, modeling of patterns and closed-information principles. Also, with the constant work in cybernetics, for me personally, it's an initutive leap to realize that the Turing qualifications for AI may have already been triggered by the infomass inherent on the Internet.

But initution's one thing. I linked another post to Ramanujan's biography when he was asking for good books on infinity. Suffice it to say I understand Ramanujan's character and how he was able to explosively throw out dozens of theorems over a very short period. And maybe for him, that was enough. To pour what he saw out of his unique mind onto paper, and leave behind a legacy in where later, more formally trained scientists could use those theorems in applications that weren't discovered in his time.

I don't know. As far as quantum research and theory goes, I understand those principles very well, all too well. Perhaps that comes from a background where my first language was mathematics and a lot is just initutive, and explaining those concepts is something I've struggled to learn, much less translate.

And the question of an ultimate observer cannot be shaken easily, because, again, initutively, I realize the probability of the existence of such an entity can never be reduced to 0. Nor can it be proved to a degree of probability that apporaches 1.

And it may be that the entity, also, is a quantum principle. That his probability of existing will always stay within this range, and an individual faith usually assigns him 0 or 1.

And the combination of individual faiths, and not only on Terra, but across the whole Universe, may deterministically always make it the ultimate Heisneberg Cheshire Cat.

At the end of most days, I realize I'm just a finite dataset that's able to acknowledge the principles of infinity and that helps me sleep at night.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
However it's the view of most atheists that buddhism, although it is a very interesting religion, is still at odds with atheism

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing in most sects of Buddhism that conflicts in the slightest with atheism, which is simply a disbelief in the existence of a god or gods; anyone holding that atheism is at odds with buddhism doesn't understand one or the other.

One could argue that most of buddhism (though less western zen buddhism) conflicts with a realist philosophy and scientific reasoning, which tend to be ingrained in most people who would self-identify as 'atheist'. There are a great many things (reincarnation, e.g...) in Buddhism that are clearly religious, and in a sense not much different than a belief in 'God'. Zen buddhism removes much of (not all) the emphasis on these beliefs, in favor of direct experience, but the VAST majority of buddhists strike me as little different than other religions in believing in things that are pretty silly, and serve the same function as the belief in God.

[DougShrapnel]

The only thing that I will attemp to correct is.
[ QUOTE ]
which is simply a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods (i.e., supernatural forces)

[/ QUOTE ] Pretty sure the rest of your post follows. However it's a slight semantic game that I don't think garners much interest for me anymore.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However it's the view of most atheists that buddhism, although it is a very interesting religion, is still at odds with atheism

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing in most sects of Buddhism that conflicts in the slightest with atheism, which is simply a disbelief in the existence of a god or gods; anyone holding that atheism is at odds with buddhism doesn't understand one or the other.

One could argue that most of buddhism (though less western zen buddhism) conflicts with a realist philosophy and scientific reasoning, which tend to be ingrained in most people who would self-identify as 'atheist'. There are a great many things (reincarnation, e.g...) in Buddhism that are clearly religious, and in a sense not much different than a belief in 'God'. Zen buddhism removes much of (not all) the emphasis on these beliefs, in favor of direct experience, but the VAST majority of buddhists strike me as little different than other religions in believing in things that are pretty silly, and serve the same function as the belief in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reincarnation is not a fundamental tenet of Buddhism!

The test as to whether a sect is accepted by Buddhists at large, irrespective of lineage/tradition, as Buddhist, is known as the three characteristics of existence. Any sectarian view based on this is recognized as Buddhist by the three main streams: Theravada "Ways of the Elders aka as Hinayana or smaller vehicle, based on the oldest canonical texts exclusively, prevalent in Thailand, Myanmar and Sri Lanka), Mahayana (The Greater Vehicle, includes Zen, Chan and most of Chinese, Japanese and other South-east Asian countries buddhism not mentioned under Theravada), Vajranya ("Way of Wisdom", prevalent in Northern India, Tibet and Nepal).

The three characteristics of existence are: Anatta, Anicca and Dukkha.

Anatta is the doctrine of no-self. That is there is NO enduring entities anywhere to be found in the the phenomena of existence. (Note: if a Buddhist sect promotes a view of "re-incarnation", that view must be explained in terms of this fundamental characteristic, thus nothing of essence gets transmitted from life to life as many uneducated westerners, and even some uneducated Buddhists, believe Buddhism posit).

Anicca is the doctrine that everything is always subject to change, there is nothing, no entity, that is unchanging or eternal.

Dukkha, is the doctrine of unsatisfactoriness. Basically that all mechanisms of existence are fundamentally unsatisfactory or, as is often said, that life is suffering.

I hope this clear some misunderstandings and that it is clear that Buddhism does not in any way, at a fundamental level, require any beliefs at all, except for the three mentioned above.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
At the end of most days, I realize I'm just a finite dataset that's able to acknowledge the principles of infinity and that helps me sleep at night.


[/ QUOTE ]

And here I was thinking that the objective of Buddhism was to allow the mind to escape the confines of the symbolic. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

The ultimate perception does not originate in the brain or any material structure, although a material structure is necessary to manifest it. The subtle mechanism of knowing the truth does not originate in the brain.
There is a similarity between thought and matter. All matter, including ourselves, is determined by "information". "Information" is what determines space and time.

Quote from a Buddhist Monk? No. David Bohm.

[arahant]

Well, i'm not sure what you mean by a 'test' for buddhism. I didn't mean to imply that reincarnation is a fundamental tenet of Buddhism in general; nevertheless, it is taken as a fact by most buddhists, though less so in the west. There are all sorts of ways to explain the belief, why it is different from some sort of transmigration of the soul, why it doesn't conflict with Anatta, etc...But in my view it, along with a number of other aspects of buddhism, particulary 'offshoots' of hinayana and vajranya, is not particularly different from the silliness in many religions. There are beliefs and practices that exist in buddhism primarily because they existed in Indian precursor religions and they serve a social purpose. Western converts to Buddhism often seem to be apologists for many of these beliefs. The fact is, that in Tibettan buddhism, for example, reincarnation is taken quite literally. Stories of lamas recognizing their courts or possessions from prior incarnations are transmitted the same way as stories like jesus turning water into wine. There are all sorts of yogic powers attributed to people throughout buddhism. And i'm pretty sure that buddhist cosmology is, umm, wrong. My point being, just because someone is a buddhist doesn't mean that they are rational...it IS a religion, and it fulfills the same psychological role as judeo-christian religions do for the west.

[siegfriedandroy]

hey mid. how did you learn this stuff about buddhism. there is a good player i play against name anechka- perhaps based on above. anyway, peace. what do you think about anicca

[siegfriedandroy]

is it unsilly to not believe in god? does that simplify/clarify everything? the obvious answer is no, and that it becomes infinitely more diffuclt to explain existence of us and everything in the world from your atheistic perspective

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you asking how sturdily this attitude would persist through rigor?

Hmm. Probably far enough to become a Pyrrhic task, while it is a philosophy allowing for a greater concession to "Everything belongs, it is just as it is, whatever we discover was already there waiting to be discovered." It's certainly less confrontational in arguments whereas theism/atheism can get hostile.

He's right, though, that it is a worldview that is easy to say rather than do. The difference between knowing the Eightfold Way and actually practicing it is noticeable in the unconscious hypocrisy of the divergences.

Or to say thus: A Buddhist need not convince you of Buddhism, rather he understands you will come to it yourself, and if you don't, it is understood.

[/ QUOTE ]

i am not 'smart', but most of what i know (have read) about buddhism makes zero sense. as a theist, i actually do agree with your initial words about everything being platonically fixed in the universe 'waiting' to be discovered. the truth existed before we were born. our thoughts and misconceptions have absolutely no affect on this reality. 21st century fools = most of the dosydos community, readily embracing obvious falsehoods.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At the end of most days, I realize I'm just a finite dataset that's able to acknowledge the principles of infinity and that helps me sleep at night.


[/ QUOTE ]

And here I was thinking that the objective of Buddhism was to allow the mind to escape the confines of the symbolic. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

The ultimate perception does not originate in the brain or any material structure, although a material structure is necessary to manifest it. The subtle mechanism of knowing the truth does not originate in the brain.
There is a similarity between thought and matter. All matter, including ourselves, is determined by "information". "Information" is what determines space and time.

Quote from a Buddhist Monk? No. David Bohm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh. Symbolism suffices to describe concepts. That understanding you quoted allows me to realize the brackets can dissolve and what I am is part of the Universe, and the realization that the dataset is capable of emerging again, the finite dataset I perceive as my individuality...

Even if it doesn't, and I doubt that it doesn't have that capability, it's enough to realize my perception exists, and has the potential to exist again.

I suppose it's no different than a Christian view towards the soul. I've said in debates I like the concepts behind Christianity, just not how the messages are carried out sometimes.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you asking how sturdily this attitude would persist through rigor?

Hmm. Probably far enough to become a Pyrrhic task, while it is a philosophy allowing for a greater concession to "Everything belongs, it is just as it is, whatever we discover was already there waiting to be discovered." It's certainly less confrontational in arguments whereas theism/atheism can get hostile.

He's right, though, that it is a worldview that is easy to say rather than do. The difference between knowing the Eightfold Way and actually practicing it is noticeable in the unconscious hypocrisy of the divergences.

Or to say thus: A Buddhist need not convince you of Buddhism, rather he understands you will come to it yourself, and if you don't, it is understood.

[/ QUOTE ]

i am not 'smart', but most of what i know (have read) about buddhism makes zero sense. as a theist, i actually do agree with your initial words about everything being platonically fixed in the universe 'waiting' to be discovered. the truth existed before we were born. our thoughts and misconceptions have absolutely no affect on this reality. 21st century fools = most of the dosydos community, readily embracing obvious falsehoods.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you don't give yourself enough credit, because that analysis is pretty accurate. Most people would rather get what they can, out of this life, even if it has a negative effect on other people.

And on a whole, everything you do has an effect, for yourself and for others. But, yes, in the whole sum, whatever you do isn't going to affect the whole of reality, and in the end, it's like shadowboxing a mirror reflection.

[untouchable]

afaik, buddhism, and other eastern philosophies, are at their core nothing but a 'guide' to reach enlightenment. All the other stuff is just to entertain the masses.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At the end of most days, I realize I'm just a finite dataset that's able to acknowledge the principles of infinity and that helps me sleep at night.


[/ QUOTE ]

And here I was thinking that the objective of Buddhism was to allow the mind to escape the confines of the symbolic. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

The ultimate perception does not originate in the brain or any material structure, although a material structure is necessary to manifest it. The subtle mechanism of knowing the truth does not originate in the brain.
There is a similarity between thought and matter. All matter, including ourselves, is determined by "information". "Information" is what determines space and time.

Quote from a Buddhist Monk? No. David Bohm.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh. Symbolism suffices to describe concepts. That understanding you quoted allows me to realize the brackets can dissolve and what I am is part of the Universe, and the realization that the dataset is capable of emerging again, the finite dataset I perceive as my individuality...



[/ QUOTE ]

So if we considered an electron as a finite dataset, would you say it 'emerges' out of a void, or 'unfolds' from a unity. Of course our inability to perceive a difference could be another possibility.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
is it unsilly to not believe in god?

[/ QUOTE ]
well, yeah.
[ QUOTE ]
does that simplify/clarify everything? the obvious answer is no, and that it becomes infinitely more diffuclt to explain existence of us and everything in the world from your atheistic perspective

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah, i guess that's true. But then, it's also much easier to explain the existence of my vanilla cafe latte if I say 'God made it'. The entire process of growing, shipping, refining, and preparing coffee beans, vanilla, milk, and flavorings is mind-bogglingly complex.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A young analytical mind raised in that environment may not need to go through the disowning phase that is fairly normal in a theistic based society is the west.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. My stepfather is Chinese, and grew up in the Caribbean. That's always been a big influence on the way I see things...

[/ QUOTE ]

I admit i have trouble getting inside the heads of kids, but it seems to me that children generally look for causes for things well before they are old enough to think critically. The 'disowning' process is probably universal because of this. Interesting speculative article on the development of religious thought, btw...thoughts? Is God an Accident? - Atlantic Monthly (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200512/god-accident)

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
the best way to accord dignity and respect to both science and religion is to recognize that they apply to "non-overlapping magisteria": science gets the realm of facts, religion the realm of values.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting point. And, certainly this article was well-researched.

How I mean my stepfather's influence has its roots in the fact that his approach to things when he talks about racism, about the meaning of core values, that an individual life is not necessarily relevant in the scheme of things, but that it is expected, but not to be held on at all costs.

He's easygoing and affable, as is to be expected if you've grown up in the Caribbean. "Hakuna matata", so goes the phrase in The Lion King. What is, is, naw worries, it goes on anyway.

And certainly with the higher % of Buddhists as cited in the article as worshipping Buddha and paying observance to the figure in temples and in daily life, I don't think that's the true nature of Buddhism.

For me, in particular, I respect the natural world, and realize it will take time for the world to explain itself through science. And human nature is such that most individuals need constant resassurance of their place in the scheme of things, to belong, to have attention paid to, to be part of something bigger.

And most religions offer that, and at this stage in our evolution, it might still be necessary, as it's a tricky spot, we're aware of a huge, vast empty (as far as we know) Universe... And there's nowhere to run to, so most people default to institutions that have offered answers and a place to belong.

And now in this age, rational atheists or believers are finding those foundations lacking, and rightly so. They don't have all the answers, and they're realizing their power over the masses is diminishing. Certainly in the narratives about Europe, and the fact that a very small percentage of believers actually go to church or pay tribute to the churches, yet still believe in God...

This should be indicative of a fundamental shift in how religion should function. The US is an exception, of course, because it's largely fundamentalist, and fundamentalist Christians still wield a huge amount of power in the country, despite the fact that there is religious freedom.

I'm not sure human nature can break out of the mindset enough that there is never going to be a 'disowning' process, certainly not while the understandings are incomplete and children are still taught to override their instincts with dogmatic teachings.

Whether mankind would be better off for knowing that there is an element of uncertainity, always, when it comes to the supernatural and of God... I don't know. Certainly among the intelligent, there seems to be a widely held belief that people would be healthier for discarding those 'superstitions', but I've yet to hear a credible argument for what should fill this void.

For there will be a void that needs to be filled, and the difficult fact is, 99% of humanity is simply incapable of understanding science and mathematics at a level where rational explanations are deemed as sufficient. That's why Hollywood holds such sway, because even if they realize it's fiction, they still fall in love with and want to be those characters.

So why yank the rug out under them, if they can get happiness out of their myths? It seems a cruelty that shouldn't be imposed on a species too young to know the difference. For, really, humanity is no more than a baby when it comes to its development. Let it struggle and grow into its own maturity. The Wizards will know, if they do exist, when it is time to pull apart the curtains.

[BigBuffet]

The world is complex and perhaps the best service of philisophy is to accept what is and just focus on the important aspects of what we are doing at any given point in time (as in now instead of past or future).

However, as westerners we are competitive and want to win. So even though our existence is equivilant to a grain of sand, we have an ego that tells us we are great and should control every aspect of our lives.

The way I integrate this is to realize that it's ok to try to control and win. When we play a board game, we try to win. But when the game is over, it becomes meaningless. Same thing in real life. So why should we care (beyond curiosity sake) what created the universe or why?

You said some souls are datasets and we are data processing I/O units. Or at least that's what I got...So that reaffirms our ultimate insignificance. We are replaceable by others with different names and faces. If Gates hadn't buit the Microsoft empire, someone else would have.

Three times I almost died. I learned there is no pain, thoughts, etc. Maybe I didn't get far enough to see god or dead people, or maybe there is nothing to see. But at any rate I don't fear death, yet I still get caught up in the game I create in my mind to achieve whatever and still get caught up in everyday problems.

I know this world is transitory (either to unprovable reincarnation or to eventual nonexistence upon death). Yet I play it like a board game /images/graemlins/confused.gif

I accept the silliness of this because there was a period where I had no goals and didn't care about achieving, and that felt empty. Yet I still think we can entertain our ego and try to achieve, yet accept reality as it is without yearning to know what is either unknowable or unnecesary.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Three times I almost died. I learned there is no pain, thoughts, etc. Maybe I didn't get far enough to see god or dead people, or maybe there is nothing to see. But at any rate I don't fear death, yet I still get caught up in the game I create in my mind to achieve whatever and still get caught up in everyday problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you did one of those times, and it doesn't matter. No, to quantify us as mere on/off elements in an Universe of them is simple and dry and cold. It's a way of reducing interactions to very basic logical level.

There's emotion. There are illogical conclusions and motives that end up working anyway. Good things come out of bad situations, especially for people, etc.

Naw. The nature of humanity is far more complex and wondrous than a logician can quantify. Yes, ego. Individual ego, and on a macrolevel, species ego.

If it matters to you, do it. Don't get hobbled by the idea of a supreme entity punishing you for infinity for a crime of finity. There's simply no way that is true, logically. Hell, Purgatory, Paradise, all valid states, but the lengths of time the judgments are ascribed to by Bible literalists should be taken with as much value as their stand that this damn planet was created only mere millennia ago. Which is to say, very little.

[BigBuffet]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you did one of those times, and it doesn't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then Bill Murray owes me royalties for the movie Groundhog Day /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
If it matters to you, do it. Don't get hobbled by the idea of a supreme entity punishing you for infinity for a crime of finity. There's simply no way that is true, logically. Hell, Purgatory, Paradise, all valid states, but the lengths of time the judgments are ascribed to by Bible literalists should be taken with as much value as their stand that this damn planet was created only mere millennia ago. Which is to say, very little.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's how I feel too. Not enough time or energy to get hobbled by crap that is debatable. Most religions and schools of philosophy have nuggets worth thinking about, but I don't drink the Kool-Aid of any one in particular.

I just take it day by day. Or at least I try. When things get rough I remind myself that I've always had a place to sleep and (at least) three meals a day. Having language, opposeable thumbs, imagination and speech is a double-edged sword...I find it easier to keep the sword in it's holster /images/graemlins/smirk.gif