The sacred photon....

[petrushka.googol]

 

So nothing sacred, just biochemistry.

 

Since most of the photons we encounter come from the Sun. I guess it's deification was expected among ancient cultures....

[Strange]

 

Since most of the photons we encounter come from the Sun. I guess it's deification was expected among ancient cultures....

 

As ancient cultures did not know about photons, how could they be relevant?

[petrushka.googol]

 

As ancient cultures did not know about photons, how could they be relevant?

 

They worshiped the source of photons (which is as near as the idea stated in the OP that they could get).

Edited September 10, 2015 by petrushka.googol

[Prometheus]

There is plently of science to discuss behind light.

 

There is plenty of mythology to discuss about light.

 

By trying to smudge the two together you end up talking about neither of these interesting concepts.

[Strange]

 

They worshiped the source of photons (which is as near as the idea stated in the OP that they could get).

 

So some cultures have treated the Sun as a god. So what.

[petrushka.googol]

 

So some cultures have treated the Sun as a god. So what.

 

My contention is that if light is sacred what constitutes light is also sacred. By analogy, if a man is holy each cell in his body is also holy.

[Strange]

My contention is that if light is sacred what constitutes light is also sacred.

 

That is not a very interesting conclusion. Especially as "sacred" doesn't really mean anything.

 

 

By analogy, if a man is holy each cell in his body is also holy.

 

A lot of religions consider blood, excreta, etc to be "unclean" and not holy. So this doesn't seem to be a widely held idea.

 

And, by analogy (as you are fond of them), maybe light is sacred but photons are unclean.

[petrushka.googol]

 

That is not a very interesting conclusion. Especially as "sacred" doesn't really mean anything.

 

 

A lot of religions consider blood, excreta, etc to be "unclean" and not holy. So this doesn't seem to be a widely held idea.

 

And, by analogy (as you are fond of them), maybe light is sacred but photons are unclean.

 

"Sacred" means something that enhances your value system. (in a broad sense).

 

"Blood" can definately be construed as sacred. Ever heard of eucharist ?

[Strange]

"Sacred" means something that enhances your value system. (in a broad sense).

 

That is not the usual definition.

 

 

"Blood" can definately be construed as sacred. Ever heard of eucharist ?

 

On the other hand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_taboo

 

And I am fairly sure there aren't many religions that consider puss or mucus to be sacred.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Strange

[swansont]

And I am fairly sure there aren't many religions that consider puss or mucus to be sacred.

 

A notable exception being the Jatravartid People of Viltvodle Six, who believe in the Great Green Arkleseizure

[Gees]

Strange;

 

That is not a very interesting conclusion. Especially as "sacred" doesn't really mean anything.

 

I don't think so. If "sacred" had no meaning, then it would not work so well as a litmus, or ink blot type of test. After reading this topic, I am pretty sure that the word "sacred" has a lot of meaning to a lot of people, as some people go immediately to religion in their thinking after reading this word. Others seem to become confused and mix up their ideas and topics, or they go straight to crazy speculations as in the comments below.

 

A lot of religions consider blood, excreta, etc to be "unclean" and not holy. So this doesn't seem to be a widely held idea.

And, by analogy (as you are fond of them), maybe light is sacred but photons are unclean.

 

 

Oaths and vows are held to be sacred, and I don't think that it matters whether or not wedding vows are spoken in a church or at the Justice of the Peace. Sacred things are simply valued above the ordinary, such as a sacred trust, which is part of a Fiduciary responsibility, or the sacred relationship between a mother and child.

 

Is this thread about the definition of the word "sacred" or about religion, or is there possibly some other point?

 

Gee

[Phi for All]

To me, if something is sacred, it means it's easily broken so be careful with it (like vows), can't stand much scrutiny (like faith), deserving of special consideration because it's connected with god(s) (like religion). All in all, when people consider something sacred, they usually also consider it above criticism.

[Strange]

Others seem to become confused and mix up their ideas and topics, or they go straight to crazy speculations as in the comments below.

 

I find it odd that you label one factual statement and one parody of the OP's logic to be crazy speculation, but seem happy to accept the idea that "the ancients" new about photons and thought them sacred.

[Gees]

Phi for All;

 

Please consider my following thoughts:

 

To me, if something is sacred, it means it's easily broken so be careful with it (like vows), can't stand much scrutiny (like faith), deserving of special consideration because it's connected with god(s) (like religion). All in all, when people consider something sacred, they usually also consider it above criticism.

 

If I were looking for a religious interpretation, I would probably agree with you -- but I am not religious. Except when drinking my coffee -- now that is something that I do religiously. (chuckle)

 

To me, a physical thing can not be sacred. Only an idea can be sacred, so I see the word sacred as in conjunction with trust, as in the President's Oath of Office, which is a sacred trust, or in a Guardian's fiduciary responsibility to a minor or to a handicapped person, which is also a sacred trust. I probably view the Guardian's responsibility so strongly because of my work in law.

 

So to me, a sacred trust should never be "easily broken", should always be scrutinized, and absolutely never be "above criticism". If a sacred trust is broken, a Judge can remove a Guardian and a President can be impeached.

 

So we see the word "sacred" very differently, which is why I called it a sort of litmus test. One can consider the word rationally with thought, religiously with faith, or superstitiously with fear.

 

Gee

 

[Strange]

So we see the word "sacred" very differently, which is why I called it a sort of litmus test. One can consider the word rationally with thought, religiously with faith, or superstitiously with fear.

 

Or you could get a dictionary.

[swansont]

To me, if something is sacred, it means it's easily broken so be careful with it (like vows), can't stand much scrutiny (like faith), deserving of special consideration because it's connected with god(s) (like religion). All in all, when people consider something sacred, they usually also consider it above criticism.

 

And there are significant repercussions for violating/desecrating it.

 

If people held light as sacred, they would never flip the light switch to off, or blow out a candle.

[Phi for All]

If people held light as sacred, they would never flip the light switch to off, or blow out a candle.

 

Conservation is far more sacred to me. I'd say the OP's premise is transparently unilluminating.

[imatfaal]

Conservation is far more sacred to me. I'd say the OP's premise is transparently unilluminating.

To be honest even conversation, let alone conservation, is more sacred than light; of course, per my profession, I lurk in umbral uncertainty and shun the clarity of illumination.

[Phi for All]

To be honest even conversation, let alone conservation, is more sacred than light; of course, per my profession, I lurk in umbral uncertainty and shun the clarity of illumination.

 

I asked for sharks with lasers on their heads, and I get frikkin' ninja lawyers!

[Gees]

Prometheus;

 

Please consider my following thoughts.

 

There is plently of science to discuss behind light.

 

There is plenty of mythology to discuss about light.

 

By trying to smudge the two together you end up talking about neither of these interesting concepts.

 

All that you say is true, so it would seem that there is no point to this thread -- unless the point is to "smudge" the two ideas together.

 

Science sees us as physical beings; religion sees us as spiritual beings. The facts are that we are physical, mental, and spiritual beings -- so it appears that nature is already "smudging". Actually, nature has been doing this "smudging" since the beginning, so maybe it is time to consider where and how science and religion intersect. This is an unknown; and so, under the venue of philosophy and a very appropriate topic in this forum.

 

I study consciousness and am absolutely convinced that the physical and the spiritual intersect, but I don't know how this is accomplished. So I do not see Petrushka as being confused; I see him as a forerunner of the people who will actually think about these connections and interactions between science and religion, so we can better understand the "smudging". I much prefer this thinking to the thinking of people who are more interested in jealously guarding ideas of science or religion.

 

Gee

 

Strange;

 

Please consider:

 

That is not a very interesting conclusion. Especially as "sacred" doesn't really mean anything.

 

Or you could get a dictionary.

 

If, as you state in your first post, that "sacred" doesn't really mean anything, then what would be the point of getting a dictionary?

 

If you disagree with my statement that "sacred" can only be about an idea, and that a thing can not be sacred, then please do tell me what thing is sacred. Before responding, please get your dictionary out and look up "interpretation" and "perspective", because I will not accept that any "thing" can be sacred unless it is sacred in and of itself without interpretation or perspective.

 

Gee

[Strange]

If you disagree with my statement that "sacred" can only be about an idea, and that a thing can not be sacred, then please do tell me what thing is sacred. Before responding, please get your dictionary out and look up "interpretation" and "perspective", because I will not accept that any "thing" can be sacred unless it is sacred in and of itself without interpretation or perspective.

 

People consider books, food, buildings and people sacred.

 

If you refuse to accept that because it is what people believe, then I don't accept that an idea can be sacred either; because that just someone's belief.

[petrushka.googol]

I study consciousness and am absolutely convinced that the physical and the spiritual intersect, but I don't know how this is accomplished. So I do not see Petrushka as being confused; I see him as a forerunner of the people who will actually think about these connections and interactions between science and religion, so we can better understand the "smudging". I much prefer this thinking to the thinking of people who are more interested in jealously guarding ideas of science or religion.

Gee

Reminds me of a quote by the great Al Einstein "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.". Although Einstein never described a corporeal god he believed in a force greater than mankind akin to Spinoza. Both science and religion must co-exist so that man's conscience is on an even keel.