wright2john wrote:If scientists dismiss the 'spiritual' and visa versa only further suffering will result.
counter example :the field of microbiology(or at least it's precursors in biochemistry) suffered for decades in the 1800's because too many people were willing to just accept that some things that living cells did was due to the "vital force" and leave it there.
Taking spiritual or magical explanations for things rather than trying to understand the reality costs real lives and leads to real suffering as people wait for cures and treatments which could have come sooner if people had rejected mysticism.
I've never seen an example of the opposite.
So if you want to prevent suffering never accept a magical answer, never just assume that anything meaningful is "beyond science", always look the the real physical answer because your answer might just point the way to real physical tools which can help real physical people to avoid real physical suffering.
I also don't think Randall knows what ineffable means.
1. too great or intense to be expressed in words; unutterable
2. too sacred to be uttered
3. indescribable; indefinable
if something is too sacred to be talked about, or too complex to communicate or explain then there's no point trying to understand it.
Many people will assign anything they don't understand the lable of impossible to understand, sacred or indescribable/indefinable and the greatest advances come only when people reject that foolish way of thinking and actually try to understand the world, even the hard to understand parts or things which are considered sacred.
Therefore, Randall, fuck you. Fuck your metaphorical, "scientific" ass.
so I take it you didn't actually read the "I begrudge nobody their source of solace"
YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT "INEFFABILITY" MEANS.
Apparently you don't either.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.