Just want to add a few things...
The only "proof" I've heard of for the existence of god still requires an assumption or element of faith:
Postulation: God, by definition, is a perfect being. To be perfect, something must exist.
Not a very persuasive "proof", in my opinion.
My philosophy professor put it like this: Suppose, for a moment, that we wish to envision "the Perfect Date". Someone that is smart, sexy, charming, and ...uhhh... willing. Another quality of this Perfect Date would be that she exists also. However, just because we have a conception of this Perfect Date who, by definition, must exist --- does
not mean she's actually out there.
The same thing could be argued for "God".
I think trying to assemble evidence for the existence of God is fine to do, but misses some of the point of various religions, which is they are based on faith. At a certain point, believers (of whichever system) have to take a leap of faith. Some people might find this "unscientific".
Whoa, watch your generalizations there, Mouse.
That claim isn't true for ANY religious tradition that I've come across --- although it may be true for the "average believer". At a point in spiritual development, it is said to be a matter of
direct experience --- not faith or reasoning. This is just as true of contemplative and mystical Christianity as it is for the Eastern religions. And there are just as many saintly exemplars of this in the West as there are in the East.
I reference within the Christian tradition alone: Origen of Alexandria, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. John of the Cross, St. Catherine of Genoa, Lady Bingen of Hildegard, St. Teresa of Avila, Meister Johannes Eckhart, St. Augustine (to a degree), St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Dionysius Areopagite, David Boehme, the
Theologica Germanica, the "authentic" Pauline letters (particularly Galatians and Ephesians), etcetera and so on.
All of the above describe their "belief" in Godhead in very direct and experiential terms --- very reminiscent of the Eastern mystics like Shankara, Nagarjuna, Lady Tsogyal, and Ramanuja. No "mere faith" here.
Once one becomes "enlightened" science loses all relevancy
Nope, sorry.
"Enlightenment" is, in fact, acquired through an extremely scientific process: you have the injunction or exemplar (meditative/contemplative practice), the datum or illumination (satori or kensho), and the principle of fallibilism (the supposed "enlightened" must compare and contrast his experiences/datum with those that have also successfully completed the injunctions --- thus the emphasis on community, or sangha, in all the great monastic traditions). The wisdom traditions, at their best, recognize themselves as spiritual sciences, and rightly so. Of course, again, only those that have completed the injunctions will acquire the datum --- as with all good science.
In addition, "enlightenment" --- contrary to what you may have read or heard --- does not make one omniscient. Shunyata tells me about the ultimate nature of the universe --- it doesn't tell me squat about socioeconomic modes of production, genetic engineering, automobile mechanics, quantum physics, or anything of the sort. Scientific injunctions are also used to acquire knowledge of these subjects, but they are of a different sort than the ones used to acquire satori (and each field, similarily, has its own injunctions). Ultimate truth does not automatically confer knowledge of all relative truths --- that is why there is such a dilineation between the two in all the traditions.
So, in either event, in no way is science ever made irrelevant.
Language loses all value, except to help others achieve "enlightenment"
Well, this part here depends on what you mean by "language".
In any event, in no way does language use "value" in the enlightened state. In fact, everything is regarded as having value in the enlightened state as all things are viewed as radiant emanations of Godhead or Buddha Nature.
The purpose of language is to communicate. This does not change with nirvana.
When all is viewed as "one", what else is there to talk about?
A lot, actually --- you will note most of the greater historical sages either taught to great numbers and/or wrote extensive treatises. I fail to see what bearing this has on the discussion, though.
Besides this, reference to this "oneness" doesn't take into account other's definition of god or designer, thereby negating the relevancy of their positions, in terms of being able to discuss the same issues. In order to stay on thread, I suggest we define God in the context of this discussion as "Creator". Nothing more, nothing less. In that way, perhaps we can all be on the same page.
I don't --- namely, because we
won't be on the same page.
What you are talking about is an exlcusive position that attempts to privilege particular conceptions of "the divine" --- namely, the Judeo-Christian view of an ontologically separate "Creator". Ken Wilber pointed this out very explicitly in his "The Marriage of Sense and Soul". Namely, that when most people talk of "integrating" religion and science (which is really what this is about), what they really mean by "religion" is
their particular religious beliefs.
The only way this could proceed is to go by religious definitions that basically ALL the traditions agree on --- which is
not an ontologically separate Creator/Designer.
But... do all the great religious traditions agree on a Divine Mystery that is ultimately unqualifiable, beyond conventional human understanding, and transcendent of all qualifiers?? Well, yeah. Every. Single. One.
So, no, this "oneness" is not excluding others --- it is intimately found in most, if not all, of the wisdom traditions (reference Adlous Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy" and Huston Smith's "The Forgotten Truth"). The Creator concept, however, is very excluding to everyone that's not of the Judeo-Christian persuasion.
Laterz.
