Not much room for naming a real title that makes sense. Why the limitation, I wonder? In other forums there seems to be lots of room to spell out a title. How come the rationing, here?

What I would like to know is: What is your philosophy of religion, including atheism?

Regarding this topic, I may choose to just sit back and read. But I will read, and listen. Meanwhile, I will add to the other and current thread, as is appropriate.

Philosophy of religion?

My philosophy is that there are two types of religion. One in which people have personal belief systems both moral/ethical and with respect to the nature of reality and their environment and the good sense and culture to treasure them as personal beliefs.

And then there are those who are self-annointed, self-righteous hypocrites that use people's inate "need" to know the answers to life's big questions to parasitize them for their personal financial gain.

Just once I'd like to find someone publicly proclaiming they have all of the answers with one hand who isn't holding out the other hand asking for money and the power to offer up advice on how you could improve yourself if you just did what they want you to do.

Let me give you a perfect example. We have a troll here in this group selling fuzzy thinking and vague ideas, on subjects of which he is truly as ignorant as my cat. He tries to quote authorless scripture he has never read with one hand while asking for money with the other.

And anyone who actually looks into the so-called Reverend's background quickly discovers that his actual skill set is as a hypnotherapist (well if that doesn't qualify him to speak about and for god I can't imagine what would).

I'm a bit scared to post really!!! But here goes.

Atheism is not a religion. It is not a faith. It is not a belief. It's a recognition of fact.

Many people get comfort and strength from religion. I am not one of them but I repect their belief in a supernatural being and do not characterise their belief as undesirable because I do not share it. Neither do I characterise their deeply felt conviction of the reality of the existence of a god as a deluded belief, when in fact it is for many their reason for living- the meaning of life. I just don't share it because I approach this topic differently.

I assume there is no god. Simple. As I said in the other post-no one can prove there is, I can't prove there isn't--but to me it seems infinitely more likely that I am completely right on this one. I simply don't have any reason to think that the supernatural world exists and I cannot understand why anyone has difficulty understanding that. Why tie yourselves up in knots and get angry about this? God had a good go- he/she/it failed to convince some people of his/her/ its existence. You who believe know I'm wrong, so tell me why you think I'm wrong. Prove it to me if it means so much to you and why does it mean so much to you that I "believe" in something.

THANK, ELLIS, FOR AGREEING TO GET INVOLVED
Ellis, fear not, I respect your approach to the subject at hand. On the one hand, I am not an atheist. However, on the other hand I am not a traditional theist. Therefore, I respect, and have no quarrel with those who have problems with the traditional concept of god as a personal and super being, separate and apart from us human beings.

May I also add that, unless it can demonstrate to me that it does contribute to the public good, I am not a fan of any organized and institutional religion which claims it has a hot line to God.

Well done Ellis. When speaking intelligently, thoughtfully, and precisely, there is never a reason to fear.

Even were I to disagree with you I would respect you. Whereas the self-annointed reverend has yet to do anything other than layer fuzzy thinking over vague nonsense. If he was correct, even if I were to agree with him, his lack of mental self-discipline would be unworthy of respect. Let me give you an example. Suppose someone writes:

"We should stop torturing people because the invisible purple rhinoceros says so."

I would agree with the concept of stopping torture. But the author, having justified it with an imbecility, would still be unworthy of respect.

There is no god, provable, because were there one the universe would be no different than it is today.

I have to howl at those who watch a tornado rip through town tearing down houses of the rich, the poor, good citizen and bad, businesses, schools, and churches with an equal lack of regard. If their invisible purple rhino actually existed ... just once ... he'd have left the church standing: He never, ever, does!

If anyone can make logical sense out of the totally fuzzy post, above, will you please let me know what sense it does make.

And who is the "self-annointed reverend" who believes in an "invisible purple rhinoceros" (IPR). Is it DAM? I think I read that he said he believes in the IPR.

"Sir, I have found you an explanation,
but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
~ Samuel Johnson

"Ministers say that they teach charity.
That is natural.
They live on hand-outs.
All beggars teach that others should give."
~ Robert Ingersoll

St. Anonymous wrote:

Interestingly, most atheists I have met are usually positive, kind and caring--at least those at brainmeta.com are--thank G?D! And they usually stay on topic.

Moderator: BTW, I will be happy to start a KNOCK-THE-REV THREAD, for those who are addicted to knocking Revs and Religions. And I am serious. We all love a good fight.

Then we can save this thread for those of us who enjoy the serious discussion of the philosophy/psychology and art of religion. Lurkers, wade in!!!!

However, I do not mind a good laugh, now and then.

Can't blame the saint for wishing to stay anonymous.

But lets see if we can summarize what has happened so far:

1. You've never once discuss science at a science website.
2. You've never once posted a link to anything related to science.
3. You've quoted books with no author that you have never actually read.
4. You claim to be a reverend and do not have a Doctorate of Divinity
5. You only survive on the charity of others
6. You expect others to pay taxes to subsidize you

This is Kate's site and if she sees value in allowing this nonsense that is her right and privilege. I find it morally and ethically untenable to let the fuzzy thinking of a parasite stand unopposed in the marketplace of ideas.

DAM, your personal comments about me and questions to me belong in the "Knock-Revs-and-Religions thread. I will answer them there. OK? Meanwhile let us keep this section for philosophy and art.
===============================================================To
to illustrate my philosophy of religion, I offer the following story:

There was once a brilliant computer scientist and technologist, who also happened to be a sincere and reluctant theological skeptic. He developed what he believed was a powerful, voice-activated computer, which he claimed was also infallible.

INFALLIBLE COMPUTER
He told his friends, "My computer is capable of answering any question about physical, mental and spiritual matters any human being is capable of asking."

One of his female friends was a theologian. So he invited her over, along with a few other friends and experts, to be among the first to put his infallible computer to the test.

At the meeting, first the experts in the arts and the sciences asked their questions. No matter what question was asked, the computer responded, verbally, and with precision. It was able to answer every physical and mental raised, in detail.

Everyone present was amazed and very impressed.

Then it was the theologian's turn. First, she asked some very tricky questions about the Bible, church history and about the religions of the world. Again, the computer had no problem giving the correct answers.

THE ULTIMATE QUESTON
Then she said, "If you truly are an infallible computer, I assume that you already know that I have my doubts as to the existence of God."

"Therefore, I have one more question.

"Is it true that there is only ONE True God?"

First, there was a period of silence. Then, suddenly, out of the silence, the computer became a beautiful pink cloud, which filled the whole room.

Out of the pink cloud came a powerful and resonant voice which said:

"THERE IS, NOW!"
========================
THINK ABOUT IT: If we really did have an infallible computer which knew the answer to all our questions, we would have G?D.

PART OF MY PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION IS AS FOLLOWS
Practically speaking, I believe that we actually DO invent and/or discover the kind of god who we use to serve our purposes. This is why we have numerous religions.

However, beyond this there is still G?D, the ultimate uncreated creator.
--------------------------0000000000000000000--------------------

Ellis wrote:

"when in fact it is for many their reason for living- the meaning of life."

Now I'd be surprised if even atheists don't have ideas they accept but cannot prove that serve exactly this purpose. I say we could call this religion. This doesn't at all mean atheism is a religion. Simply that most humans have some beliefs that might be called religious. Perhaps this is what Turner is trying to explore on this thread.

DA agrees with part of his own quote:

"We should stop torturing people because the invisible purple rhinoceros says so."

Why do you believe we should stop torturing people, DA? Can you provide a sound scientific reason, or is it because of your religious beliefs?

An excellent question TNZ. In the interest of intellectual integrity I must acknowledge that there is no reason grounded in scientific principles. It is just a personal preference somewhat of the order of I prefer lamb to chicken or I prefer Thai curries to Indian curries.

I think we should stop torture for several reasons.

First and most important to protect myself and those I care about. (if I am anything it is brutally honest)

Second because it has been proven by history that all torture does is beget more torture.

Third because it has proven totally unreliable in providing substantive information.

But back to religion ... one might note that almost all torture in history has been done in the name of nationalism or religion.
People, except the very sickest, don't commit torture unless they have a prop onto which they can justify their actions by appealing to a so-called higher good.

My feeling is that if god doesn't like what I am doing ... he can damn well get off his fat behind and stop me.

I disagree. We would have a computer that is omniscient. That's all. Not omnipotent or anything else that appears in the job description for the post of God.

Blacknad.

Good point, Blacknad. But keep in mind: I am not being a literalist, here. My story is like a parable. Omnscience is all-inclusive. It could lead me to all-power, etc. NOT in me, or you, but in all that is, okay?

Let's dialogue until we understand one another, okay?

For example, what is your concept of God? How flexible are you?

DA wrote:

"But back to religion ... one might note that almost all torture in history has been done in the name of nationalism or religion."

Perhaps, therefore, we should regard nationalism as a religion? As Blacknad pointed out some time ago a great deal of destruction was wrought by Fascism and Communism last century. Perhaps they too should be regarded as religions? We could then blame all destruction on religion, by definition.

TNZ wrote:
"Perhaps, therefore, we should regard nationalism as a religion?"

I do. I think they are just different manifestations of the same desire to belong, to have some alpha make decisions for us, and to be able to justify that which otherwise we would need to wear around our necks as unforgiveable.

I really doesn't matter whether you blame it on religion, nationalism, school spirit, or whatever. That which appeals to the human spirit to proclaim itself important by virtue of membership rather than virtue itself is a crutch more dangerous than heroin and crack cocaine.

Blacknad ... any civilization more than 100 years more advanced than us in terms of technology would be perceived as magic: Omnipotent and omniscient.

Why are you feeding the troll? He has no interest in science? He has no interest in any serious discussion. He is just here to hijack Kate's site to sell his brand of snake oil. Just another charlatan with a collar.

We are in broad agreement.

However, Sam Harris, the USA's leading atheist who argues that 'humanity can only survive the next few centuries by renouncing religion altogether', also defends the use of torture.

"I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror."
- Sam Harris.

Its a complex, subjective, funny old world.

Blacknad.

Revlgking,

When I exhibit any fuzzy or unsubstantiated thinking, I expect to be cut down, and often have been.

There is no room for parables on this site.

Blacknad.

TNZ, if this is how you think, allow me to ask:

What about the destruction caused by diabolic and evil scientists? Does this make all science evil?

No doubt there are diabolic and sick leaders of sick religions, but does this mean that all religion--the kind, for example, exhibited by people like Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa--is evil?

BTW, I try to carefully avoid judging, without evidence, and offering vague generalizations based on misinformation and prejudice. IMO opinion such actions are problematic.

Is condemnation, without real evidence, ever acceptable? And what about vague generalizations based on prejudice? Look where this kind of thinking landed the Bush administration.

Well, I await your opinion.

Blacknad wrote:
"However, Sam Harris, the USA's leading atheist who argues that 'humanity can only survive the next few centuries by renouncing religion altogether', also defends the use of torture."

My feeling about Sam Harris is the same as my feeling about Albert Einstein or Charles Darwin: One man's opinion. No more or less valid except when it applies to science where it must be peer reviewed and validated. Thai curry vs. Indian curry is a matter of opinion. The boiling point of water is not.

I've as much use for Sam Harris as I do for any other self-anointed zealot. Who elected Sam Harris to represent anything or anyone? Why he did of course.

Revlgking wrote:
"What about the destruction caused by diabolic and evil scientists? Does this make all science evil?"

Name one?

Let me preempt this idiocy by naming Dr. Teller whose is probably in line to dribble from your lips. How many people did Dr. Teller kill with his own hands or by means of decree to other who carried out the bloody work?

Now lets ask the same question of those who claim moral and ethical superiority because they wear a collar and claim to worship the "Prince of Peace." And let me remind you of the Crusades, the Hundred Years War, and a few thousand other memorable events recorded in history books.

Is condemnation without real information ever acceptable no. But condemnation must be for real acts of commission ... not the hypocritical rants of a troll who has hypnotized himself into believing he has anything of substance to say.

Revlgking wrote:

"What about the destruction caused by diabolic and evil scientists? Does this make all science evil?"

Are you thinking of any specific scientists, or are you thinking of the uses to which their work has been put? I was really just making an obscure joke when I said that by manipulating our definition of religion we would be able to blame everything bad on it. Which reminds me, we still haven't defined God or even what religion is.

Blacknad quotes Sam Harris:

"I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror."

Ah. The war to promote terror. Shows atheists can be as ignorant of what the terror directed at some countries in the western world is all about as are the leaders of those countries, most of whom claim to believe in this God business.

TNZ commentsWhen I was very young, and still believed in Santa Claus, perhaps was the only time I believed in a god called God who took care of everything. I soon found out that "He" did not.

BACKGROUND
Because, by the time I was five, there were three deaths in my immediate family, including my mother, I grew up, fast, in third-world conditions--the seventh of eighth children. My father, and oldest brothers, went to work while they were still just children. They fished on the "cruel sea" and digged in the iron ore mines (1895-1966) in a time when labourers were paid .10 cents an hour. The Bell Island mines--there were six--were then the largest in the British Empire.

As a curious teenager, I got very interested in studying high school science and thinking about mining engineering. I became very agnostic. However, at 15/16, inspired by a heroic kind of minister--an outdoorsman who went back to school late in life and became a minister--I became an uncomfortable and reluctant theist. Churches were the social centres of the community of 10,000 people.

At 17, I started theological studies, beginning with a B.A (psychology/philosophy). I took my B.A. with the understanding that I would only continue on and be ordained if I found a rational kind of theology that did not require a blind approach to faith. Another mentor--he became head of the theological department the year I entered http://www.mta.ca His words still ring in my inner-mind: "I do not want you to hang up you brains, with your hat, when you enter my classes". He taught Greek, Hebrew and other studies realted to the Bible and history.

MY CONCEPT OF GOD WAS FREE TO GROW
Because of this, I have never had a fixed-postioned philosophy of of thinking, theologically. I hope I am still growing. IMHO, there is no such thing as THE ONE TRUE RELIGION. Dogmatic religions, even the good ones, tend to be diabolic and divide us.
As I have said before, Devil=equals 'slanderer' the spirit of division.

Beginning in the 1960's I began the development of the kind of theology I now call unitheism, panentheism, I do not even object to non-theism, which is not the same thing as atheism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. I did not reject theism--still don't for those who find it satisfying--I simply grew out of it.

SCIENCE AND GOD
Interestingly, Nicola Tesla--the genius who went up against Thomas Edison, and gave us AC electricity--was a fairly devout Orthodox Christian. His father was an Orthodox priest. He advocated a religion based on a combination of the Christian and the Buddhist religions. He was student of yoga.

http://www.frank.germano.com/the_complete_tesla.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html

RELIGION?
For me, my religion is simply the art of doing my philosophy and theology, in my home, my church, my community and my world. Am I a Christian, that is, behave like a decent person? Ask my neighbour.

For me, creeds may have real value, but only if they are flexible enough to inspire me to be moral and ethical in my thoughts, words and deeds, the kind which really do make the world a better place. And there is more, much more. Names like Marcus Borg, Karen Armstrong, Elaine Pagels, Bishop John Spong, etc. come to mind.....

"SCIENCE AND GOD"

Some scientists believe in god, therefore everyone should believe in god.

Some scientists are racists, therefore everyone should be a racist.

I'm familiar with Tesla. Brilliant guy. Very kooky. But a brilliant guy. He was afraid of pearls. Maybe we should ban them.

TFF, when you write: "Some scientists believe in god, therefore everyone should believe in god." Is this your logic? It is certainly not mine.

I presume that you realize that this is not an argument I would make. I quote intelligent people, who I admire, from all walks of life, and who have the courage to tell us what they believe. It is nice to know that science and faith can coexist in the same person.

PARAPSYCHOLOGY. To what extent is it a science? Duke University took it seriously. BTW, I came across the following:

Parapsychology is pseudoscience. Duke made a mistake. Sometimes otherwise smart people do stupid things.

Yes, faith and science can "coexist in the same person." I
It is VERY few people maintain otherwise. However, the scientists who are any good do us the courtesy of distinguishing their scientific opinions from their religious convictions.

To quote our very own Uncle Al:
======================================================
Religion and science are orthogonal - they have nothing
in common and do not overlap in any way. Religion is based
upon faith and is destroyed by empirical proof. Science is
based upon empirical proof and is rendered inoperative by
faith.

Who wins if the two camps are opposed? India has 5000
years of philosophy, 30 crores of gods, and 1 million
flush toilets for 1.1 billion indigenous Indians. (1
crore = 10 million). Boulder, Colorado has more flush
toilets than that. did you ever smell India?

Believe what you want but hire engineers to design
your plumbing. Physical reality doesn't care what you
think. Think of it as evolution in action.
~ Uncle Al

In case it's not obvious, while Tesla was undoubtedly brilliant:

Not every statement or belief of brilliant people is brilliant.

There is no evidence to suggest anything supernatural in Tesla's genius. His intellectual process sounds similar to the claims I've heard of Mozart and Beethoven. Tesla's existence is not evidence of parapsychology. Tesla's abilities are not evidence of parapsychology. That other people saw Tesla and were astounded is not evidence of parapsychology. I'm not aware that Tesla himself even believed in it, but even if he did THAT is no evidence of parapsychology. Those "witnesses" describe him as "unique" only because they don't know much about other brilliant scientists. There are a number of people whose brilliance seems magical to even other scientists - Feynman, Gauss, Ramanujan, Mozart, da Vinci.

Tesla was amazingly brilliant. Most people involved in electrical science - even those like myself who are involved only remotely - know that very well. Tesla was kooky and quirky. That doesn't diminish his many accomplishments, but it is an accurate description. His unique way of doing his work is one reason why it took some time for his contemporaries to realize his brilliance. Maybe we still don't know exactly how brilliant he was. And even our ignorance is not evidence of parapsychology.

Recently, I wrote Mark Thomas, an atheist.

I thanked him for his very interesting site
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm

He begins his essay by saying that, "Life is a process ? not a design. It requires an explanation ? not an intelligent designer." I told him that I agree. Then I went on to write:

So do you not believe in The Plan and The Designer because if you do not, and it seems to me that that is what you are saying, then you believe in chaos. Although in your usual "having a bet each way" I see you refer to the "process of being realised" as the goal of existence ie love. So existence =divine love (agape). Makes as much sense as anything else, perhaps a bit less than some. I can never understand why people who believe in their god have to bring the issue of its divinity down to mundane terms which we can all understand. Enjoy the mystery, puff the scented smoke, that's part of it. Really chaos provides all the explanation we need however.

may I call you a contheist?

CONTHEISM, A DEFINITION
Since I just coined the term, I define it as follows: A 'contheist' is one who believes that chaos is the only reality.

WHAT CONTHEISM ACCOMPLISHES
Contheists believe that by the power of reason, science and a lot hard work, it is possible for human beings to create a kind of temporary form of order and design out of the chaos, for a certain select few at the top. This is called history.:)

AND THE ULTIMATE END?
However, at the end of all our conscious striving, there is nothing but oblivion--all that is, no matter how beautiful, wonderful good and true, will be entirely forgotten by any who survive, if any do.

No wonder, one of the characters in a Hemminway novel calls life: "A dirty trick".

Is this was contheists actually believe; that conscious life is nothing more than a "dirty trick"?

I await your response.

may I call you a contheist?

CONTHEISM, A DEFINITION
Since I just coined the term, I define it as follows: A 'contheist' is one who believes that chaos, ending in nothingness, is the only reality.

WHAT CONTHEISM ACCOMPLISHES
Contheists believe that by the power of reason, science and a lot hard work, it is possible for human beings to create a kind of temporary form of order and design out of the chaos, for a certain select few at the top. This is called history.

AND THE ULTIMATE END?
However, at the end of all our conscious striving, there is nothing but oblivion--all that is, no matter how beautiful, wonderful good and true, will be entirely forgotten by any who survive, if any do.

No wonder, one of the characters in a Hemminway novel calls life: "A dirty trick".

Is this what contheists actually believe; that conscious life is nothing more than a "dirty trick"?

No wonder that Hemmingway killed himself!

I await your response.

No Rev you may NOT call me a contheist.

Incidentally look up pantheism--- that's what ( if I were as polite as you ) I would ask permission to call you), and it's nothing new! You have just made up a funny name for it.

Ellis,

What would distinguish you from a Contheist? Apart from the fact that the term is nonsense?

But in terms of the belief in chaos ending in nothingness.

Blacknad.

KEEP IN MIND: I respect all forms of beliefs, sincerely held, including atheism.

When Julian Huxley first coined the term 'agnostic' it was nonsense; until he explained what he meant. Now, I have no problem admitting that I am agnostic about a host of things.

I call myself a pro-theist--Here I include the '-' to make myself clearer--because I believe that in all things, including chaos, there is a spiritual power, or consciousness, at work.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think of an atheist as one who is contra theism--thus con-theism--that is, contra spirituality, of all kinds. I repeat: feel free to correct me.

BTW, I have no objection to being called a pantheist, especially the kind of which Tennyson writes in his poem HIGHER PANTHEISM--
http://www.sc.edu/library/spcoll/britlit/tenn/highpan.html
I also like panentheism, and unitheism--both indicating that there is more to believe in than the localized, personal, out-there-and-separate-from-us, God of theism.

The bottom line for me is: In what way does what I believe help me be an empathetic, moral, ethical, just and loving human being.

I'm just not an anything Blackie!!

I have no belief in the supernatural at all. I can't see the point. There's enough that is really real that is hard to believe without adding invisible friends with lots of baggage! And Rev wants to hang a nice big label on everyone. I don't believe in gods, the afterlife or the divine right of kings. I do believe that I neither need a label nor to have to justify why I don't.

I do not BELIEVE in Atheism. It would not be possible to believe in a non belief. I am not a theist.

PS However____I am REALLY chuffed that someone has to coin a new word to describe my non-belief---Oh! frabjus day!!

Post deleted by Amaranth Rose II

Ellis, there is an old saying; One who stands for nothing will fall for anything!

But seriously, how do you feel about being empathetic, just, moral, loving and ethical in your behaviour towards your fellow human beings?

My bottom line has to do with deeds, not creeds.

Revlgking asked:

"I repeat: WHAT DOES ATHEISM HAVE TO OFFER?"

This is off topic Rev but did you realise that the term atheist refered originally to Christians? They didn't believe in the gods that had made Rome what it was.

But to answer your question to some extent I'll quote you again:

"But seriously, how do you feel about being empathetic, just, moral, loving and ethical in your behaviour towards your fellow human beings?"

All this has nothing to do with whether you're atheist, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim or pantheist. It depends on the success or otherwise of your socialisation as you were growing up. All human beings have to be socialised into their tribe. If the process is not successful we call them psycopaths. Now, what does atheism offer? I'd say a realistic view of existence.

Terry--and feel free to call me Linds, short for Lindsay--you mention: "... did you realise that the term atheist refered originally to Christians?"

Yes, Socrates (469?-499 B.C.E.) too, was called an atheist, because he did not believe in the gods on Mount olympus.
In my opinion, Socrates simply offered a concept of god which differed from that of the dominant one of the day.

BTW, by some, I have been called an atheist simply because I question traditional theism.

http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/pgods.htm is an excellent site on the theology of Socrates. Here is a quote from it:

THEOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT GREEKS
Interestingly, the Greek word for "I run" is the?; and the Greek word for god is "theos."

They saw the gods as, coursing, or running, across the sky--the heavens (Ouranos), above mother earth (Gaia).

He (Socrates) was, apparently, quite willing to pay his respects to the traditional gods, Zeus, Athena, etc.; all evidence points to him being a polytheist. He agreed with Homer and Hesiod that these gods had bodies and would never die. However, the gods of Homer were human-like and lived by their passions; the gods of Socrates behave more...well, more god-like...idealistically
===================================
http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/philvws.htm#Hartshor

One of the most important contemporary philosophers to try this approach is Charles Hartshorne. You might be attracted to Hartshorne's view if you find that the idea of a mind existing completely independent of a body makes no sense to you.

For Hartshorne, God is both immanent and transcendent. That is to say, God's divine mind is present in the physical universe as a whole but also transcends or surpasses it. Hartshorne's view is that the universe is in God, or as it is sometimes called, "panentheism" (from Greek pan (all) + en (in) + theos (god))... nothing is outside of Hartshorne's God; for the whole physical universe, including our bodies, is His body.

I like what Hartshorne writes, theologically.
========================================================
Terry, in answer to my question,"What does atheism offer?" You answered,"I'd say a realistic view of existence."

I respond: Good! As a pro-theist/unitheist/panentheist I am all for being realistic. It fits in very well with what I mean when I write G?D, as in my signature.

Rev- I stand for many things, (mostly nicely defined by terry in his excellent post). I just don't believe in the supernatural. I don't see gods etc in everything. That does not mean I do not wonder at things, and celebrate the fact that life exists and is amazing---I just don't see why it is necessary to think that any divinity has anything to do with it. Actually, to steal from terry, I'd call that a realistic view of existence,-and I'll stand by it.

Rev- I stand for many things, (mostly nicely defined by terry in his excellent post). I just don't believe in the supernatural. I don't see gods etc in everything. That does not mean I do not wonder at things, and celebrate the fact that life exists and is amazing---I just don't see why it is necessary to think that any divinity has anything to do with it. Actually, to steal from terry, I'd call that a realistic view of existence,-and I'll stand by it.

As the one who started this thread may I say: I find it very interesting. Each of you have made an excellent contribution, and you have done so while respecting the views of all involved. Good for you.

Keep on wondering, Ellis, it is the beginning of wisdom. It is how all children face life. I did. Like the Rev. I see the natural as being very super, especially the part of it I have not discovered, as yet.

BTW, let me ask the Rev. a question: Are you saying that you have discovered the only way to truth and that it has to be one that is supernatural?

I do not think you think this way, but I just want you to clarify what you mean, okay?

Turner, you are right. The natural is supernatural enough for me.

Recently (Feb. 12, 07), The http://www.globeandmail.com (Canada's daily paper) carried the story of Harvard professor Nima Arkani-Hamed. BTW, Dr. Arkani-Hamed began his education in maths and physics in a high school in North Toronto, not far from where I live.

The G&M reported that he, recently, gave a mind-bending lecture at Waterloo University, Waterloo, Ontario, on The Future of Fundamental physics. He and a group of like-minded mavericks are saying things like: "The scientific community is on the brink of a real revolution in the understanding of physics...Our entire universe could be this tiny, miniscule speck of nothing in this giant multiverse...our vast universe may be but one of billions, each governed by its own physical laws."

THE SPIRIT OF MATH
Interestingly, Charles Ledger, the math teacher who started Professor Arkani-Hamed on this creative approach to problem solving was present at the lecture. Years ago, he dubbed the program, not found in the regular texts, Spirit of Math.

The Spirit of Math inspires students to seek answers on their own, not by rote, and is clearly achieving positive results. It stretches the imagination, of those who want to be involved, to the limits.

For some of the practical applications of this kind of maverick thinking check out information of the:

LARGE HARDON COLLIDER mentioned in the G&M story.

http://www.interactions.org/LHC/what/index.html

May I suggest that this is the kind of approach we need to take to all kinds of human problems, including political, economic and social/spiritual problems, which need to be solved.

IT IS WRONG TO IMPOSE BELIEFS
BTW, I forgot to mention, just as teacher Charles Ledger discovered, we all tend to be subject to what I call the law of spiritual inertia.
Every thinker tends to remain in the same state of thinking unless forced to think otherwise from within their own mind.

This is why Charles Ledger had to move his math program outside the regular school program.

As the old saying goes: One convinced against one's will is of the same opinion still.

I would add to this: It is wrong for anyone with strong beliefs and opinions to impose them, dogmatically, on others. Even valid beliefs and opinions are false if they are dogmatically imposed on others.

I don't seriously dispute the point, of course, but where do you draw the line? How would you feel about intervening to prevent human sacrifice, for example. Yes, I know it's extreme. I'm just testing the argument.

IMHO, witnessing, to others, what one's moral and ethical values are, is not the same thing as imposing them on others.

I have this strong feeling as to what is morally and ethically good for me; but I will leave it to you, as long as it does not impinge on my freedom, to choose what is good for you.

For example, as they were growing and developing, my wife and I gave our children--now with their own grown children--our witness as to what we held to be moral and ethical values concerning this that and the other thing; but, at no time, did we impose our values on them.

BTW, redewenwur, where did you get your name?

I should restate my question with a little scenario: You're deep in the Brazilian jungle and you encounter a small, previously unknown aboriginal tribe. They are peaceful and well-disposed to you but, in accordance with their religion, they are about to sacrifice a young girl to their god of fertility. Do you attempt to impose your own beliefs upon them in an effort to prevent the sacrifice?

My name? I once used 'fredsolo', simply because of the convenient location of the keys on the keyboard. I found that on some forums, young ladies sometimes got the wrong message! I changed it to redewenur (ready when you are) without much forethought - and it's probably even worse! lol.

Lindsay. You wrote:

"The Spirit of Math inspires students to seek answers on their own, not by rote, and is clearly achieving positive results. It stretches the imagination, of those who want to be involved, to the limits."

I gather this sums up your belief that religion is a personal thing. I agree. But, in relation to your threads on economics, unfortunately people seem remarkably ready to follow all sorts of gurus out to make money off them. Dan's recent comments on the Exxon bribes thread gives us some idea why.


Redewenur. You wrote:

"Do you attempt to impose your own beliefs upon them in an effort to prevent the sacrifice?"

I'd say not. You might point out that in your society it's not done and perhaps explain philosophical reasons why not. But by attempting to impose your own beliefs you might finish up with two sacrifices. By the way, I imagined your name was Thai!

Speaking to the Rev, you write, "I gather this sums up your belief that religion is a personal thing." and you add, "I agree."

BTW, the Rev and I particiapte in the forum at http://www.brainmeta.com We seem to be on the same wave length there.

Interesting. Let's pursue it a bit: You happened to bring with you a well armed platoon, and have the requisite force to remove the girl from danger, set yourself up as the new village leader, and impose your will.

Now what do you do?

No, I'm not Thai. I'm an ex-pat cockney Eastender from London E.17.

Ah! the Cortez option---well yes I'd charge in backed up by my trusty platoon, and rescue the fair maiden. Whereas, if I were on my own and I would like to think that I would attempt to stop the sacrifice, I really probably wouldn't. Nothing to do with belief, more to do with "Might is Right" in the first instance and and self-preservation in the second.

However I don't think that respect for another person's culture or religion should allow them to harm their fellow citizens in the name of tradition or cultural pracice. And having stated that caveat I would not expect anyone to embrace my beliefs and culture because only I know the truth. I just don't support human sacrifice!

Redewenur. A Pom. You do pose an interesting ethical problem. I suppose with an army you can impose any rule you want, including banning human sacrifice. But without an army it usually pays to be diplomatic. As I said you could become a second sacrifice. In case you're worried, no, I don't support human sacrifice. Mind you, I've never tried it.

Ellis & terrytnewzealand: Yes, in reality we tend to take the pragmatic approach; we try to ensure that business is conducted the way we see fit, and that others cooperate with our own view of what's ethically right and wrong, but only to a limited extent. With regard to behaviour that we see as 'wrong', we generally ignore the trivia as being unworthy of our intervention, giving ourselves a pat on the back for being fair, tolerant, and broadminded. On more serious matters, we are often prepared to take action, and sometimes drastic action.

The reason I posed the question -

"You're deep in the Brazilian jungle and you encounter a small, previously unknown aboriginal tribe. They are peaceful and well-disposed to you but, in accordance with their religion, they are about to sacrifice a young girl to their god of fertility. Do you attempt to impose your own beliefs upon them in an effort to prevent the sacrifice?"

- was to try to illicit a response in relation to Revlgking's comment:

"It is wrong for anyone with strong beliefs and opinions to impose them, dogmatically, on others"

The members of the tribe have very strong religious beliefs. They believe that their very existence depends on human sacrifice. They do not believe that it's wrong. For them, not only is it right, but their god demands it.

Along you come with the power to impose, with impunity, your own very strong beliefs, i.e. "Thou shalt not kill", or something to that effect.

How does Revlgking's comment stand up to the situation?

Why am I asking the question? Because, I think given ever increasing opposition to our beliefs/convictions, the point in time comes at which we confront that opposition - given the power to do so; at what point that occurs depends on personality, strength of convictions, emotional involvement etc.

How about canibalism? I once tried eating a clown, but I didn't like the funny taste in my mouth!!!!

Red (Incidentally I have recently started to do cryptic crosswords and I nearly fell off my chair when I worked out your nom-de-plume!) To return to the Cortez example---the Incas + others didn't do too well after they were stopped from carving hearts out of living human sacrifices, so maybe there is something in it. On the plus side the New Guinea tribe which ate their catives' brains no longer get the prion disease, Kure, so banning cannibalism has had a good outcome.

I think, Ellis, you mean Kuru. And you're right, putting a stop to cannibalism stopped the spread of Kuru.

Amaranth

Yes, yes, quite so, but you fellows are evading the philosophical point! Would you, or would you not, impose your beliefs on others, if you believed that the good results of doing so would outweigh the bad?

RedE, you write: "Along you come with the power to impose, with impunity, your own very strong beliefs, i.e. "Thou shalt not kill", or something to that effect."

Interestingly, if you read Exodus you will soon discover that Moses was a warlord; he killed people, regularly. The commandment was a prohibition against murder--the killing of innocent people for no reason other than personal gain.

"Yes, yes, quite so, but you fellows are evading the philosophical point! Would you, or would you not, impose your beliefs on others, if you believed that the good results of doing so would outweigh the bad? "

The problem with philosophy is that invariably its practitioners begin thinking its results are equivalent to knowledge gained through science. We innately believe that what we value has some significance external to us - that it's fixed, and understandable, and that our formulaic principles must always stay in tact. This is because we like to know. We don't like to think or believe or suspect. We like to KNOW. And when we don't know, we make stuff up.

People want to have ready-made "knowledge" and ready-made ethics that could hypothetically be encoded in an expert system. "What should I do in this situation?" Then the expert system asks you a whole bunch of questions and spits out a defensible answer.

But I don't believe human ethics is that simple. We might say, "Always this" or "Always that," but we should realize - consciously - that those are heuristics.

Revlgking wrote:

"Interestingly, if you read Exodus you will soon discover that Moses was a warlord; he killed people, regularly."

Two things spring immediately to mind. Firstly, on what grounds do you accept Moses actually existed and is not just a mythical figure? Secondly, on what grounds do you believe God ordered him to kill people? Isn't it simply the case that the stories of his exploits were used simply to justify later killing sprees by the followers of Yaweh? There is certainly no prohibition in the Old Testament against slaughtering innocent people. Quite encouraged in fact.

Thanks for correcting me Amaranth Rose, I also meant captives too!

I agree FFriend, that we cannot say how we will react in such a situation---I am a pacifist, I do not believe in taking another's life under any circumstances. I have been asked if I would kill someone if they were torturing my mother or harming my child, and the only answer is that maybe I would try to kill or hurt them, preferably very painfully, if I could. But that does not make it right. I would prefer to think that I would be able to avoid an awful thing such as I have described from happening, and I certainly hope I could forgive, even if not forget. But I don't know. Hate is a powerful emotion and an odd thing to be discussing on a rational site like this.

To return to the dilemma. I would like to think that I would help the person under threat, but self-preservation would mean I probably wouldn't. If the beliefs include human sacrifice then I would try to change them as I think that none of us has the right to kill someone else. The tribe would soon discover that life would run extremely smoothly without the sacrifice being necessary. The priests would be upset, but the potential sacrificial victims would have a more relaxed view of the future!

You are right--we have no answer in this situation, but I feel that the bottom line in any such debate has to be that the result should always aim to cause as little harm as possible. For example-- reducing another country to a pile of rubble in the pious hope it will become a beacon for democracy is never going to work.

I agree, there is little evidence that Moses was a historical figure. I was merely making the point that the Commandent is about "murder" not about killing per se.

When it comes to reading the Bible, I am not a literalist. I read it as literature. Indeed, Yahweh, the Lord of Host was a god of war. The OT has several different kinds of concepts regarding the nature of Elohim, and Yahweh.

TheFallibleFiend: you said "We innately believe that what we value has some significance external to us - that it's fixed, and understandable, and that our formulaic principles must always stay in tact. This is because we like to know...And when we don't know, we make stuff up."

and "People want to have ready-made "knowledge" and ready-made ethics that could hypothetically be encoded in an expert system. "What should I do in this situation?" Then the expert system asks you a whole bunch of questions and spits out a defensible answer."

These are generalisations, as I'm sure you are aware. Does it apply to you, for example?

and "But I don't believe human ethics is that simple. We might say, "Always this" or "Always that," but we should realize - consciously - that those are heuristics."

My point exactly. That's what I've been trying to extract from this!

Whilst I go along with the idea that imposing your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) on others can be counterproductive, situations arise in which we acknowledge the need to do so. Put another way, in general I agree with Revlgking's comment: "It is wrong for anyone with strong beliefs and opinions to impose them, dogmatically, on others" - but in many particalar instances, and dependent upon our personal evaluation, it doesn't apply. There's a sliding "ethical" scale in operation.

Ellis, you said: "I do not believe in taking another's life under any circumstances." and "If the beliefs include human sacrifice then I would try to change them as I think that none of us has the right to kill someone else."

Thank you, Ellis - a straight answer to a straight question. A hypothetical circumstance in which you would impose your beliefs on others if at all possible.

It's a clash of beliefs--there is no answer to this dilemma that does not require someone to accommodate another's belief. The evil of corporal (and capital) punishment is that the act itself corrupts. The act of human sacrifice is repugnant, but its eradication will need someone to compromise their beliefs in individual freedom. The latter is desirable but not as much as is the abolition of sacificial killing. I have said tht I am against all killing of fellow humans, however I have also stated that I can see where this stance would be hard to maintain. As these instances are extreme and very unlikely to occur in my life I am able to delude myself that I would rush to someone's help, or perhaps defend their freedom to believe that killing with a religious purpose is OK.

Rede- We all impose our will/beliefs on others every day of our lives. I was a teacher and am a parent of adults---boy! have I done some imposing!!!!

Yes, Ellis, absolutely. I've been a teacher too, and have raised a family, so I fully appreciate what you're saying.

The subject has been focused on religious beliefs and deep ethical conviction, and I think it's clear that it's not so often a case of black and white but rather shades of grey - and shifting shades, at that! In some cases one might see it as more right than wrong to impose ones beliefs, and in other cases vice versa.

"These are generalisations, as I'm sure you are aware. Does it apply to you, for example?"

How could they not? We always like to know. We always like to have certainty. I am no exception.

'G?D' is the name I use to designate that of which I am relatively certain, the cosmos, and all that we will discover it to be--an eternal and joyful, for me, quest. "The joy of understand in the noblest joy of all." Lenoardo

We cannot have certainty though. We, as humans, constantly have to reaffirm our own ethical standards, and we shift and compromise until an agreement is reached.

I think that often it is the promise of that same certainty that attracts people to a religion, especially a religion that has strict behavioural rules and perhaps a distinctive drees standard. Usually the philosophy of most religions is basically kind and considerate, providing you keep their rigid rules, and it's often easier to do that than work the rules for your own conduct for yourself. Religions offer gods, also angels and the prospect of Paradise or future bliss after death as rewards for keeping the rules. There is also often some sort of punishment eg Hell, for anyone who plays up a bit. All that and more, plus certainty now and in the future.

Ultimately though I think the independent way is more satisfying, and no less ethical, moral or satisfying. Although no human is omnipotent, they are very interesting indeed!! Shifting shades of grey can be fascinating.

I like to think of myself as an independent thinker. This is why I like the following site:
http://www.progressivechristianity.ca/
=======================================

If you are searching for the security of rigid answers to the BIG questions of life, this isn't the right site for you. Many other sites can offer you traditional, absolute, and dogmatic formulas for faith.

What you will find here is a safe place to explore those questions with others who, like you, are willing to brave the unknown--a place where every idea, concept, ritual, and belief can be examined, where that which keeps us from living life freely and fully can be set aside, and where that which is worthy of our highest ideals can be upheld and celebrated.

Welcome to the journey, friend. Welcome.

Our 8 Points
=======================================
Be sure and check out the 8 points.
The Gathering I attend is at:
http://www.pathwayschurch.ca

Actually, TFF, I don't disagree that we prefer to have some kind of common standard reference manual; maybe that's a requirement of a stable society. I do think, though, that reality is probably too complex and chaotic to for all of the rules to be written in stone (no insinuation intended).

Philosophy, whether it be philosophy of the many religions, the sciences, or the arts is, IMHO, about wondering and questioning and being curious about life.

Therefore, it seems to me, children, if parents, grandparents and other adult role models are wise enough to just to observe and listen to them, are great philosophers.

Currently, my wife and I are the grandparents of three grandchildren--two granddaughters (18 and 15) and one grandson (11). The 18 year old is in her first year university (science studies). Interesting.

The father is our son (a musician and teacher) and the mother is a Sufi Muslim (an early childhood teacher) and they live twenty minutes drive from us. Since their birth, we have had a wonderful time watching the three children grow and develop. Whether we have succeeded or not, we have made a conscious attmept not to be overbearing grandparents.

ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THE BIBLE, NOT ABOUT BIBLE PUSHING
I don't want to push the Bible at you, but may I say: read from a certain perspective, and as literature, THE bible is a very childlike collection of documents. It certainly is not a book in the conventional sense of the word. No wonder some scholars refer to it as the book(s) of life--life with all its ramifications. And, at times--even from the very beginning--it is about life in the raw.

EARLY FAILURES
As Genesis, which I do not think of as history, plainly shows, the first attempt at establishing an ideal family, in an ideal garden--Eden means a pleasant place--is not all that successful. Jealousy results in murder. Neither is the second attempt--the story of Noah and his family.

THE THIRD ATTEMPT
The third attempt to establish the ideal family is what Christians call the New Testament. It begins with the birth of a child; that child, Jesus, grew up to be interested in philosophy (Luke 2:52).

Although there is no record in the NT that Jesus ever got married, he clearly evaluated children and family life, highly: See Mark 9:33-37. In Mark 10: 13-16, he used childhood to define entrance requirements for getting into the Kingdom of God. In Matthew 11:25 he speaks of the wisdom of the unsophisticated, and he put children at the centre of his message.

Ellis, I totally agree:

"Shifting shades of grey can be fascinating."

I think the shifting shades are more threatening the later in life you have been exposed to them. If you grow up believing God did everything it's a bit frightening to consider later in life that he may not have.

"If you grow up believing God did everything it's a bit frightening to consider later in life that he may not have."
Good point, Terry. This is why I prefer to believe that G?D IS everything, warts and all.

Several times, I have been asked: What gives you the right to use your special word for the god-concept? Why don't you stick with the one in the dictionaries?

1. Dictionaries are not infallible and fixed documents written in stone. Even they recognize that languages grow and that new ideas/concepts need new words.

2. I do not not tell scientists: You have no right to create new symbols to express your new ideas. When I first read that a mathematician had come up with the idea of there being a "set without numbers" and then created the symbol ? to represent it, I did not say: He has no right to do this. I asked: what is the meaning of the concept? What is its function?

Interestingly, I came up with the symbol ? before I had ever read about the "no set" or "set without numbers" theory. It was Rick in brainmeta who showed me how to get in on my computer page.

It's not a question of your "right" to do it. The question is the intention and the sensibleness of using such a laden term. In the other fora you've already demonstrated that a remarkable tendency towards definition creep.

"Creep"? How "laden" is this term? And who with any sense intends not to sensible? "Very laden", eh?

Post deleted by Revlgking

Please don't be coy. We all know the various meanings ascribed to the term 'god'. Changing the middle letter to a null symbol doesn't make the term or intent of the term any less recognizeable.

You start out saying god is everything, then you say god is just the good things, and now you are imputing characters that require "intent" (such as compassion) to this term.

If you do even half the things in your community that your web page indicates then you are a remarkable and good man. I applaud you.

But you do those things because you are fundamentally decent and not because your thinking or expression is clear.
You are a very nice and a very confused (and a very confusing) man.

TFF you write:"You start out saying god is everything, then you say god is just the good things, and now you are imputing characters that require "intent" (such as compassion) to this term."

I clarify: In my opinion--and, by the way, what I believe is not offered as dogma for you or anyone else to believe without question; it is MY opinion, as indicated in my signature:

EVERYTHING IS EVERYTHING--PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND SPIRITUAL
G?D is Spirit (both good and evil) and Love, in and through All the Cosmos--warts and all. When I say "all" I mean all that is total, universal and all-encompassing.

THE PROCESS THEOLOGY OF WHITEHEAD
This process theology, as proposed by the mathematician, scientist and philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead (b.1861 - d.1947), works for me. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/
ANW gives us a lot to think about.

People who want to believe in the traditional concept of God, the almighty and loving heavenly father--the one they were taught to pray to and bow before in Sunday School--should stay away. If this fulfills your need, believe this. However, it did not fulfill my need for a rational faith.

Process theology requires deep thinking. Without it I would probably be a positive atheist.

Now we're getting somewhere. Revlgking wrote:
"G?D is Spirit (both good and evil) and Love"

Clearly and unambiguously define the following words:
"spirit"
"good"
"evil"
"love"

PS: IFF. My information from Canadian friends is that there is the website and there is the reality. And never the twain doth meet.

WORDS AND MEANINGs ARE ALWAYS RELATIVE AND OPEN TO INTERPRETATION
As I have already written: Dictionaries, IMO, are not infallible and fixed documents written in stone. Even they recognize that languages need to be free to grow and that new ideas/concepts need new words.

"spirit" "good" "evil" "love" are all complex terms.

Generally speaking, I agree with the way these comlex terms are defined in the standard dictionaries. However, because they arecomplex we need to allow individuals to be free to offer their own interpretation.

SPIRIT
For example, chemists will use the term to refer to any of various mordant (corrosive, biting) solutions, usually prepared from tin salts (tannic acids), in dyeing. Christian Science teachers capitalize the term and write 'Spirit' as a doublet for God. I use it to refer to anything that cannot be weighed or measuered in the usual way.

GOOD
It comes from the Old English, god, with a long o. Generally speaking, I like what the dictionary tells us it means--that which has the right and excellent qualities for most people. But I realize that relative values apply. What is good for one is not alway good for another. This is one of the reasons I have difficulty believing in a personal god who is anxious to communicate with His creatures.

EVIL
Another complex and relative term. I think of evil as being like chaos, it is good in the making. Pain and suffering can be redemptive. And redemption can begin when we understand the nature and function of love.

LOVE
Love is another and extremely complex term. It can be a noun or a verb. It can mean anything, from a strong affection for a person of the opposite sex, a close member of the family--parent, sibling--ones true friend, ones country, a hero, a movie star, alma mater, to a doublet for God, as it is in Christian Science.

Love can include feels of warm and tender attachment, but it can also mean the ability to give good will without such conditions. This is the root meaning of the Greek term agape, the one used 140 times in the Greek New Testament.

http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CP07Cor1.htm

CHAPTER 13 of First Corinthians

Christian love - the highest and best gift
The Greek here is not eros (sensual love); not philia (love for a trusted friend), it is agape--love without conditions; the kind respect and fairness one can give even to an enemy.

13:1-3 - If I speak with the eloquence of men and of angels, but have no love, I become no more than blaring brass or crashing cymbal. If I have the gift of foretelling the future and hold in my mind not only all human knowledge but the very secrets of God, and if I also have that absolute faith which can move mountains, but have no love, I amount to nothing at all. If I dispose of all that I possess, yes, even if I give my own body to be burned, but have no love, I achieve precisely nothing.

13:4 - This love of which I speak is slow to lose patience - it looks for a way of being constructive. It is not possessive: it is neither anxious to impress nor does it cherish inflated ideas of its own importance.

13:5-6 - Love has good manners and does not pursue selfish advantage. It is not touchy. It does not keep account of evil or gloat over the wickedness of other people. On the contrary, it is glad with all good men when truth prevails.

13:7-8a - Love knows no limit to its endurance, no end to its trust, no fading of its hope; it can outlast anything. It is, in fact, the one thing that still stands when all else has fallen.

All gifts except love will be superseded one day

13:8b-10 - For if there are prophecies they will be fulfilled and done with, if there are "tongues" the need for them will disappear, if there is knowledge it will be swallowed up in truth. For our knowledge is always incomplete and our prophecy is always incomplete, and when the complete comes, that is the end of the incomplete.

13:11 - When I was a little child I talked and felt and thought like a little child. Now that I am a man my childish speech and feeling and thought have no further significance for me.

13:12 - At present we are men looking at puzzling reflections in a mirror. The time will come when we shall see reality whole and face to face! At present all I know is a little fraction of the truth, but the time will come when I shall know it as fully as God now knows me!

13:13 - In this life we have three great lasting qualities - faith, hope and love. But the greatest of them is love.

Revlgking wrote, as a definition of spirit:

"I use it to refer to anything that cannot be weighed or measuered in the usual way."

Well that's handy. The other day a survey was quoted on TV that said over 50% of people claim to be "spiritual". I wondered at the time what on earth that meant. Now I know. They can't be weighed or measured in any way.

Certainly not their IQs

WHY WE USE HEART AS A METAPHOR FOR SPIRIT
==========================================
Out of the human heart, or spirit can come much good, or much evil. Will anyone deny with this?

It is self-evident that the human spirituality, which has no mass and does not occupy space or time, is capable of creating great works of art--physical and measureable things--or great wars of death and destruction.

Out of the human spirit also come what we call thoughts and words. If we choose negative words we can destroy the reputations of others by the use of slander and/or libel. This is what can be measured. The cost of doing so can also be costly to us, in term of dollars and cents.

THE PNEUMA FACTOR
Interestingly, the ancients equated air, wind and breath--the Greek word for which is 'pneuma'--with the spirit of God or the gods. To them air was a mysterious NO-thing. They reasoned that every time human beings take a breath it goes into the heart, the centre of all consciousness--the spirit within. Over and over again Jesus uses this term, in the Gospel of John--known as the Gospel of the Spirit. For example, see John 2 and 3.

"The loving human heart, or spirit, however, can be the source of much good"

And all we have to do is look back at history to see all of that love.

I suggest we start in Darfur and Rwanda. Then we can take a leisurely stroll into Bosnia. Visiting the victims of napalm, land mines, and cluster bombs we can hear the heartwarming stories of WWII, WWI, the Armenian Genocide, The Hundred Years War, the Inquisition, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Is my list too short? Perhaps you can add a few tens of thousands of others.

I hear there was a real tragedy up in Canada a couple of weeks ago. They ice melted by global warming caused the drowning of tens of thousands of seals so they couldn't be clubbed to death.

Just a minute ago I finished writing the following:

Out of the human heart, or spirit can come much good, or much evil. Will anyone deny this to be true?

It is self-evident that the human spirituality, which has no mass and does not occupy space or time, is capable of creating great works of art--physical and measureable things--or great wars of death and destruction.

O yes, they can: They can be measured by whether or not they produce good or evil.
BTW, sarcasm used to make things worse than they are, does no one any good. Therefore, it is evil.

If you don't agree, let me know, why.

Terry, you quote me as saying: "They (spiritual qualities) can't be weighed or measured in any way."

Keep in mind, what I am saying is this:

Spirituality, like G?D is not something which can be measured in the same way we can measure physical property.

In the spirit of dialoguing, if this is not clear, ask questions which will help me to be clear.

In my opinion, intended sarcasm (stiping off the flesh), even when amusing, will not help anyone. If you are totally committed to materialism and find that anything to do with spirituality is totally irrational, please say so. If you prefer to debate, say so. Because it involves a win/win outcome, I prefer to dialogue.

Revlgking wrote:
"Spirituality, like G?D is not something which can be measured in the same way we can measure physical property."

Is that done in kilograms or ergs or in lives wasted pursuing the tooth fairy?

OK rev. I'll bite. What do people actually mean when they claim to be "spiritual"?

This thread now sounds interesting.

Didn't someone try to have this thread killed I wonder why? Was it because of certain verbal bullies? I trust they have left the room.

I'll answer for him. It is code for condescension.

It means being superior to those of us who are not believers of whatever fiction is being sold.

It means not having to actually go out and do anything or make an effort because one is above doing real work.

It means having time to pr?sletyze and time to spend contemplating how spelling a word with a contrivance rather than actually leaving the house.

Going to a science website and talking about science requires actual work. So much easier to talk about love and spirits and g?ds and the t??th fairy.

I tried to get this thread killed Turner ... because it has zero value.

Why do I continue to be here then you might ask?

Because to quote Edmund Burke for the second time this evening:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Thanks for the question. As one who enjoys being a spiritual being I can only answer for myself.

I like what I find in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality

Here is a taste:

Quote:

Spirituality, in a narrow sense, concerns itself with matters of the spirit. The spiritual, involving (as it may) perceived eternal verities regarding humankind's ultimate nature, often contrasts with the temporal, with the material, or with the worldly.

A sense of connection forms a central defining characteristic of spirituality ? connection to something "greater" than oneself, which includes an emotional experience of religious awe and reverence.

Equally importantly, spirituality relates to matters of sanity and of psychological health. Like some forms of religion, spirituality often focuses on personal experience (see mysticism).

Spirituality may involve perceiving or wishing to perceive life as more important ("higher"), more complex or more integrated with one's world view; as contrasted with the merely sensual.

I also like what I read in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I love and respect nature and especially members of the animal kingdom. As a human being I think of myself as an animal being who has evolved to the point where I now have the ability to ask questions to myself, and others, about the nature and meaning of life. If I were just an animal--or an immature child--I would not ask the following:

1. Who am I? Especially as I relate to others?
2. What is the meaning and purpose of life--mine and others?
3. Is there more to life than can be perceived with the senses?
4. Is this experience temporary? Or eternal?
5. Am I a spiritual being with a mind and a body?
6. Or am I a body with a mind and a spirit?
7. If I am the result of evolution, now that I have evolved to consciousness, am I able to choose to play a role as to where I want to evolve in the future?
8. Or is the whole idea of spirituality and evolving into the future one big absurdity?
9. Are there human animals who look like conscious human beings who really do not have any interest in asking themselves, or anyone, the above questions?
10. If there are spiritual beings, as referred to in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit are some evil as well as good?

Can anyone think of other questions?

Revlgking. The expression 'connection to something "greater" than oneself' may best sum up what you are getting at. Rastafarians believe we are all connected. They refer to "I and I" although there is a theory this developed from the Roman numeral in "Ras Tafari I".

It seems the concept is relatively new. I picked this up from your link:

"In the wake of the Nietzschean announcement of the "death of God" in 1882, people unpersuaded by scientific rationalism turned increasingly to the idea of spirituality as an alternative both to materialism and to traditional religious dogma."

From the site re spirit I extracted this:

"This concept of the individual spirit is common among traditional peoples."

Maori believed we each have what we could call a god looking after us. They called it the "wairua". You might like to use that term.

It seems most, if not all, of us always need something beyond ourselves to believe in.

Definitely not all of us TNZ.

I gave that up shortly after puberty.

I made a boo boo on my post. It's not Ras Tafari I, its Haile Selassie I. Silly me.

I found this which I'd be interested in having Revlgking comment on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jah

Mix of OT and other spiritual ideas.

Meanwhile, TNZ, take a look at the following story:
CATHERINE'S STORY OF HOW SHE HELPED HEAL HERSELF
=====================================================
The following first-person story is on the record and in the anthology: EXTRAORDINARY EXPERIENCES?Personal accounts of the para-normal in Canada, by John R. Colombo, a skeptic and an agnostic (1989).

The Endless Power of the Human Spirit

John R. Colombo is no one's fool. I met with him on more than one occasion, including participating with him on media panels. This anthology, which is a gold mine of well-researched stories was brought together by this well-known anthologist (See also Colombo's Quotations) in 1989. The facts in the story were examined by many people, including the religion editor of the Toronto Star.

In the winter of 1963-1964 my eight-year-old daughter, Catherine (Born April 1, 1956) ?ailing since she was two and a half?was seriously ill with her fifth bout of pneumonia that winter. Doctors at Children's Hospital, Toronto, told our doctor and my wife and me: "Catherine's lung problem is extremely serious. One more bout of pneumonia could kill her. Her lungs are extremely scarred. What she needs is new set of lungs." And since this was in the day before lung transplantation, all that was recommended was more of the same ineffective treatment.

ENTER PNEUMATHERAPY
The basic story in the anthology is about my interest, since my student days, in the relation between religion, faith, science and healing. Early on, I was influenced by the writings of religious psychologists such as Dr. William Parker and Elaine St. John (Prayer Can Change Your Life) and The Rev. and doctor, Leslie D. Weatherhead (Psychology, Religion and Healing) and others.

In my thirties at the time, with the help of, Allen Spraggett, then religion editor of the Toronto Star, I met the following great thinkers who were then on the cutting edge of research in science, faith and religion. I invited those I met to speak at the church I served, in what is now east Toronto. I followed their work, closely.

I remember meeting the researcher, The Rev. Dr. Frankiln Loehr. I invited him and his wife to my church and my home. I heard, first hand, from him how his experiments were conducted with close attention to details and the keeping of careful statistics.

I also met and studied with the Rev. Harold Crump, who visited and lectured in Toronto more than once, over the years. He was in his 80's, when I met him, and he was still dynamically alive and well.

Crump, a methodist minister, was actually trained as an electronics engineer. He had worked with the brilliant Charles P. Setinmetz--the wizzard of General Electric.
http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/steinmetz.html
Crump taught a spiritual/science philosophy which is still being taught. He was whiz at hypnosis. The program he taught is called Concept Therapy. I have much of the concept therapy literature.
http://www.concept-therapy.org/

WHAT I LEARNED FROM FATHER JOE HELPED SAVE MY DAUGHTER'S LIFE
Then I met the one who really helped me help my daughter, Catherine, recover from a potentially fatal disease. Now in the hereafter, Father Joe was then an American Episcopalian canon and priest. The Rev. Canon Joseph Wittkofski, Charleroi, Pa., told me that he had been drummed out of the Roman Catholic faith, by a narrow-minded bishop of his, because of his (Father Joe's ) "weird" ideas. However, he became a priest in the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA?an open-minded religion, not unlike the United Church of Canada.

From him I took several private studies. Later, with a group of twenty students, I arranged to have him come and give a week-long?over thirty hours?seminar Following the seminar, he went back to his own church in Charleroi, Pa.

Before he left, I told him of my daughter's problem. His words to me, as he left for his home, were: "You now know how to use hypnotherapy within the context of spiritual, or faith healing. You can help your daughter, better that I can. Go to work. Because of the dumb law you have here in Ontario against non-medical therapists using hypnosis, it would be wise for you to speak to your family doctor. I would like to see you and your group get the law reformed."

With this knowledge, I approached our family doctor, Dr. Harold Hutchins. I told him about Father Joe's work, and what I had learned from him. Then I loaned him a copy of the book, by Father Joe: THE PASTORAL USE OF HYPNOTIC TECHNIQUE. Also, I told him that Father Joe was now back in Pa., but was willing to keep in touch, by phone.

Our doctor readily admitted to me that he was not skilled in hypnosis. Was I ever happy when he told me: "You will get no hassle from me. I happen to think that the law is a bad one. I have no objection to your following Canon Wittkofski's suggestion. Give hypnosis a try. I will be interested in what results you get.?

Then he added, "Anything you can do to help your daughter's immune system, to kick in, is okay with me. In the light of Children's Hospital prognosis, we have nothing to lose. The law, as I understand it, is toothless. I think it was brought into being for the convenience of a certain few with a vested interest in keeping control. I will not report you, and I will monitor your daughter's condition, as needed."

[BTW, years later, a group of us lobbied the provincial department of health. The law was reformed. Hypnosis is no longer considered a medical procedure. Thank GOD!]

Encouraged by this, and the desperate condition of Catherine, I went ahead. The details of what I said are in the anthology.

I used what now I call pneumatherapy?the spiritual application of hypnotic technique?hypnosis without the hype and the hocus pocus. It is similar to what is now called neuro-linguistic programming (NLP). One of the early developers of NLP was the father of North American hypnosis, psychiatrist Dr. Milton Erickson. In my opinion, Dr. Erickson was practicing what I now call pneumatherapy.

Wittkofski, who was also trained in biology, taught me that hypnotic suggestion can influence the will and the imagination of individuals. This guides the mind and the body to awaken the extremely valuable auto-immune system.

A FULL RECOVERY TOOK PLACE
To the amazement of all involved, overnight, Catherine, began to recover from a disease that had been poised to kill her. The doctor was as good as his word. He kept a close watch on, and monitored, her condition. Within a very short time, Catherine was well enough to go back to school. She was never bed-ridden again.

BTW, sometime later (in the early 1970's), it was discovered that the full-spectrum anti-biotic, prescribed by her doctors to fight Catherine's pneumonias, was quietly removed from general usage. It was discovered that it had a very negative effect on kidney functions and the immune systems all patients. Interesting.
==============================================================
THE SEQUEL
As Catherine began to get stronger and stronger, physically, I experienced the following internal dialogue. I asked myself: Why don't you work with your daughter and see if you can find out what is the root cause her illness? Maybe, there is a spiritual dimension to her illness.

When Catherine recovered sufficiently from her serious death-threatening somatic illness I explained to her the nature and function of the trance state and what I felt had happened, which helped her harness her own immune system.

Then I asked her: Catherine, how do you feel about exploring the root cause of what caused you to be so ill in the first place? She agreed to the exploration.

Within seconds, she went into the same kind of deep trance state into which she had gone when I first spoke to her about her physical illness and the problem with her lungs.

Then I told her: "Go back, in your memory, to a time in your present
life which you feel is of importance to you."

After a short period of silence, she started describing the time that we lived in Pointe Claire, Quebec, west of Dorval. She was about two and a half. She said: "We are at the shopping centre. I am asleep in my stroller, which you left just outside one of the stores. You and mom are inside the store. It is a sunny and warm day. I am asleep.

"I see myself being suddenly awakened by a rather large dog, which jumped up and looked at me in the stroller. At this point, all I see was a head, and the dog's paws. Not understanding what was happening, I felt terrified.

"Then, a woman appeared. She hit the dog with her purse... 'Get away, you nasty dogs. Leave that child alone...''

I started to howl. At that point you appeared and took control of things.

Interestingly, at Children's Hospital, Catherine was diagnosed as being very allergic to animals, birds, cats and, especially, dogs. This was my cue to suggest to her, while she was in the trance state: "Do not blame the dog. It was simply having fun. Birds and animals, in general, are there for you to enjoy. Be careful, but do not allow yourself to be be filled with fear."

From then, on, she was no longer allergic to animals, including dogs. From then on, we had birds and cats, and she associated, freely, with the neighbor's dogs. Since she married she had two beloved dogs, cats, and even hens.

I suspect that the cynics will pooh pooh the above story. But what else in new? It is to be expected. And I will.

Which poses some important questions such as: How does one do science and take a scientific approach to what is being proposed in a chat room such as this?

It is certainly not possible to conduct experiments, right?
What do we do then, do we just ask protagonists to tell stories to be accepted as true or false, and leave it at that?
How do we really go about it?
What are your suggestions?

Turner, this thread, thanks to you is a great one in which to discuss such questions. Thanks!

"The Endless Power of the Human Spirit"

A phrase totally devoid of meaning.

Roughly the equivalent of "my favorite color is green" except that in the later case it might just be true.

THE EFFECT OF PRAYER ON PLANTS, AND OTHER THINGS
In the 1960's and 1970's I was a close friend--still am--of the then Religion Editor of the Toronto Star, Allen Spraggett--a careful student of philosophy, psychology, theology and all the religions. He was very interested in the role played psychology, psychic phenomena, parapsychology in religion and faith healing, and the like.

It was with his help that I first met the Rev. Dr. Franklin Loehr--minister and researcher regarding the claims of religion--in 1963. Then, in cooperation with the Toronto Star, I invited him and his wife to my church and my home. He spoke to my whole congregation on a Sunday and to a special group interested in faith and healing, later. He spoke of his carefully controlled experiments on the nature and effect of prayer on seeds and plant life.
===============================
Does prayer effect plant seeds?
===============================
He told us that the objective of his controlled experiments was to see what effect prayer had over living and seemingly non-living matter.

In one experiment--covered in detail is his book, with pictures--his research team took three pans of various types of seeds. One was the control pan. One pan received positive prayer, and the other received negative prayer.

Time after time, the results indicated that prayer helped speed germination and produced more vigorous plants. Prayers of negation actually halted germination in some plants and suppressed growth in others.

In another experiment two bottles of spring water were purchased. One container was used as a control, receiving no prayer; a group prayed for the second.

The water was then used on pans of corn seeds layered in cotton, with one pan receiving the prayer water and the other receiving the control water. The pan receiving the prayer water sprouted a day earlier than seeds in the other pan. The prayer seeds had a higher germination and growth rate. The experiment was repeated with the same result each time.

MY DAUGHTER'S EXPERIMENT--on the power of focussed imagination, affirmitive and meditative prayer
As I have written above, my daughter, a child in the 1963, was very ill at that time of Dr. Loehr's visit. But what I learned from him and others helped, later, to restore her to health.

Years later, when she was a healthy Grade 9 student in junior high, my daughter became very interested in understanding more about the power, which had been of so much help to her. Thus she read the book of which she heard me speak, The Power of Prayer on Plants, by Dr. Loehr. I still have it in my library.

Inspired by this, and with her science teacher's permission and supervision, she decided to do an experiment. I still have her hand-written document on file in which she tells about what she did and what happened as a result of her experiment. She used tomato seeds.

HERE IS A SUMMARY
She planted three containers of fifteen tomatoe seeds each, all with the same kind of soil and each received the same amount of watering.

Container #1, the control group, was set aside and left to grow, naturally, on its own, with no attention other than watering.

Container #2 was placed next to container #3. Using her imagination and a focussed and meditative kind of prayer, she prayed over #3.

The seeds in the container #3 sprouted quickly and grew quite well.

Meanwhile the seeds in container #2 sprouted and grew as expected and in pace with the control group.

At this point, my daughter did something unusual. She focussed on the healthy plants in container #3. She sent them negative prayer-thoughts. Soon, they stopped growing and began to die.

Then she focussed on the slow-growing container #2. Rapidly the plants developed and surpassed the plants in # 3, which continued to wither. Then they all died. Meanwhile, #2 container progressed, rapidly.

I FOUND THE FOLLOWING EXPERIMENT TRULY AMAZING: She brought the healthy plants home--the ones in #2 container--and put them in the freezer long enough to freeze them. Then she took them out; focussed on them her postive imagination and warm prayer thoughts. They survived the freezing and continued their growth as healthy plants.

That summer I had the best tomatoes I ever had.

Her supervising teacher gave her top marks for the project.

My daughter, now an accomplished artist, and her artist husband now live in a floating home, and a floating garden as part of it, near Tofino, British Columbia. It covers over one quarter of an acre. There, they do their art and grow all the vegetables they need. Check out:
http://www.wildretreat.com/
This will give you some idea of what the Tofino area looks like. My daughter said: "This place time came to me as a result of focussed meditative praying."

Her mother and I have visited there, often. It is a work of art in progress, which is at a new creative stage each time we see it.

================================
http://www.plim.org/PrayerDeb.htm
=================================
For three years, beginning in 1952, Dr. Loehr conducted a double-locked laboratory experiment, using 156 people to determine if prayer could have an effect on the growth of plants.

THERE ARE FOUR TYPES OF PRAYING
Loehr's book documents the astounding results of these experiments, proving not only that prayer is effective, but he also isolated four different types of prayer. He found that to be effective we need to do more than just petition God, or gods. We must at least use our imaginations. Here are the steps:

First of all, use your imagination; to this add how you feel about plants, whatever; then do not be afraid to call on friends you know who are in the realm of spirit. Finally, connect with the divine in an through all things. In summary, use your:

1. Imagination
2. add feeling
3. then ask for spiritual assistance
4. and connect with the divine mind in and through all that is.

The book, The Power of Prayer on Plants, originally published in 1959, by Doubleday, brought Dr. Loehr on a lecture tour that carried him all over the United States, Canada and also to lecture at Cambridge in England. 1969. 127 pages.
=================================================
ABOUT DR.LOEHR http://www.answers.com/Franklin%20Davison%20Loehr

That work with prayer was totally bogus and has been refuted numerous times in the scientific literature.

For example:
http://ece.colorado.edu/~ecen3070/Spr05Projects.pdf

It should probably also be noted that with cardiac patients, when people prayed for them, they were more likely to die than those who did not received the 'benefit' of prayer.

But heck this is a science forum. Why let science interfere with a good fairy tale.

This thread is about philosophy, the mother of science. Mother knows best, eh?

BTW, those who died went to heaven; those who lived remained in hell, with the cynics!!!

BEWARE, SOME SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE NOT TO BE TRUSTED.
As the New York Times remind us:
Global Trend: More Science, More Fraud
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/scienc...nyt&emc=rss

DA, I wouldn't knee-jerk write-off the possibility that Prayer could influence the growth of plants. I grew up on a vegetable farm, and my Dad often experimented with his crops. One year we planted our spices in a North-South orientation. Everything else was planted East-West. Planting east-west gave us shorter, more manageable rows. My dad wanted to see if the fact that the plants were growing in each others shade would slow their growth. With herbs and spices, slower growth equals better quality. What we saw came as a surprise. The spices grew faster than ever before. Dad figured that maybe the plants were atuned to the Earth's Magnetic Field. Whatever. The next year we planted everything BUT the spices and herbs North-South. Everything grew faster and was more prolific than ever before, except the spice which slowed down again. We never went back to East-West rowing.

Rev, I just read that your daughter lives in Tofino. Samll World, I've visited there. We had some friends, through Track and Field, who lived in Port Alberni. We flew into Tofino on their private plane. It's literally at the "end of the road on Vancouver Island. Rain, rain and more rain. And cold. It seems to be one of those little enclaves that you come across now and again ( like Ukaiah, California, Far North Queensland, Maui and Kauai) where Hippies have gone to escape "The Man" and drop out of Society. You have my condolences.

BTW, serious moral and ethical researchers in the effectiveness of what I called MAP--meditation and affirmative prayer incorporating the use of the imagination--are just as serious about doing it right--replication and all that--as are all good researchers.

Serious researchers are well aware that some kinds of praying--consisting mostly of petitions--are nothing more than wishful thinking. I AM ALL IN FAVOUR of putting this kind of praying to the test.

But research costs money. Anyone willing to put up the money to get it done?

Interestingly, in the well-researched book, Second Opinion--What's Wrong with Canada's Health Care System and How to Fix it (ISBN: 0002156784) Dr. Mirhael Rachlis, Michael and Carol Kushner, point out that over 70% of all medical procedures have never been put to the double-blind testing.

We all need to be aware of the limits of medical science as written about in:
Limits to Medicine: Medical Nemesis - The Expropriation of Health (Paperback) by Ivan Illich (Author)
=====================================

Plants use red light more efficiently than blue light, so here's another theory: in a north-south row orientation they receive more red light when the sun is lower in the sky.

Excellent observation, Ready, I never made that connection. We lived just south of Vancouver, extremely long sunrises and sunsets at that lattitude, a lot of "filtered" sunlight.
My Dad is an ethnic Gypsy, I always thought that "Magnetic Field" hypothesis struck of the Supernatural.

Your assumption is incorrect.

The fact that the light seems redder does not mean there is more red light than in the noon day sun. It means there is a lot less yellow, green, blue, and violet.

And a lot less red too for that matter.

As illustrated by the above useful dialogue, what I call MAP--meditation and affirmative prayer incorporating the use of the imagination, even when it is not formalized, can result in all kinds of helpful information. MAP is an attitude, not dogma or ritual.

My post: "in a north-south row orientation they receive more red light when the sun is lower in the sky."

DA: Your assumption is incorrect...The fact that the light seems redder does not mean there is more red light than in the noon day sun. It means there is a lot less yellow, green, blue, and violet."

Nothing wrong with my assumption, only my ambiguous wording. Let me rephrase to make my meaning clear. My meaning is that, due to the north-south row orientation, each plant receives increased exposure to light during the early and late hours of daylight, and that the extra light, although of lower energy due Rayleigh scattering/filtration, retains the longer wavelengths by which photosynthesis is most efficient.

Better? <g>

revlgking wrote:
"can result in all kinds of helpful information"

Which obviously explains why those people that engage in this activity have been demonstrated to be better, happier, and healthier people than those who don't by peer reviewed research studies.

Care to enlighten us with references:
University, Author, Journal, Volume, and Page?

Or is this just more woo-woo feel-good follow-the-leader tooth fairy fluff?

redewenur:

Much. <g>

I repeat: MAP--meditation and affirmitive prayer--is an attitude, not a dogma, or a ritual written in stone. One will not find much about this in professional journals. I wonder why.

BTW, what are we to make of it when posters write that a concept is to be thought of as so much, "woo-woo feel-good follow-the-leader tooth fairy fluff?"

Is this meant to be serious and sarcastic ridicule? Or, when they have little else to do, is this just a way for simple, and forgiveable, minds to have a little fun? If the latter, I understand, and forgive.

revlgking wrote yet again:
"is an attitude, not a dogma"

So is a smile on your face.

The difference is that a smile works and no one asks for financial donations.

All you have ever posted here is feel-good new-age woo-woo touchy-feely tooth fairy fluff.

Remember science? You know that topic that scares you more than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick?

Find us a paper in a peer reviewed journal that establishes meditation and affirmative prayer do more than a smile?

I find MAP, in my experience, a very effective and pragmatic--therefore, scientific--way of creating smiles and even laughter. I get no fun whatsoever out of being cynical and playing the soul-destroying, argumentive-ad-hominem game.

And talking about the practical and scientific value of smiles and laughter: I am reminded of the great book ANATOMY OF AN ILLNESS, by Norman Cousins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Cousins

He was a man of FAITH (Unitarian) as well as literature and science
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/cousins.html

Late in life Cousins was diagnosed with what was called ankylosing Spondylitis, related to severe arthritis. His struggle with this illness is detailed in a movie, Anatomy of an Illness, based on his book.

Later, this led him to being appointed as Adjunct Professor of Medical Humanities for the School of Medicine at the University of California, where he taught and did research on the biochemistry of human emotions, which he long-believed were the key to human beings? success in fighting illness.

His great book, HEAD FIRST--The Biology of Hope gives the details of the work he did at UCLA. The real title of the book is :SPIRIT FIRST--The Biology of Faith Hope and Love.

Interestigly, Chapter 12 is about MESMER, HYPNOTISM AND THE POWERS OF THE MIND. He points out that this power can be used destructively. Ignorance of what it is and how it works is especially dangerous. Also of interest: He tells us of Benjamin Franklin's interest in what in his day was called mesmerism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Mesmer

Cousins battled for health on all fronts, including the use of micro-nutrients for the body. In his battle he convinced his doctor, a personal friend, to feed him massive doses of Vitamin C, intervienously, and, according to book, by training himself to laugh.

He wrote a collection of best-selling non-fiction books on illness and healing, as well as a 1980 autobiographical memoir, Human Options: An Autobiographical Notebook.

revlgking wrote:
"I find MAP, in my experience, a very effective and pragmatic--therefore, scientific--way"

I knew there was a problem and finally you have elucidated it. The problem is that you are misusing the word science.

So let me use this opportunity to educate you as to what the word means in the English language. To do so I will use materials from the University of Rochester: A well respected institute of learning.

You will find the full text at:
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

After you have read it perhaps you would do us the courtesy of no longer misusing the word.

Thank you.

Science. Knowledge of facts and laws arranged in an orderly system. The search for truth. Skill, technique. From the Latin, scire, to know. (World Book Dictionary)

Yes, I read that site from rochester, long ago.
Epistimology. Yes, quite a study. Not sure that I understand all the details. Therefore, I offer a disclaimer:

I don't claim to be an absolute expert on all such matters, but, IMHO, as I read process philosophy and theology and the work done by A.N. Whitehead, Hartshorne, etc., I was impressed that they began with a rational theory not a dogma and did not base their work on blind faith.

The same is true with practical work of Norman Cousins, Dr. Franklin Loehr (Power of Prayer on Plants) Dr. William Parker and Elaine St. Johns, Prayer Can Change Your Life, and others...all worked in harmony with principles which are basically rational and open to basic rule of research--open to questions and challenges.

Is there anything in the work mentioned above that contradicts the principles of science?

I agree that there are many things of which I am ignorant, but
why do I have the kind of feeling that I am being patronized; that someone is trying to set me up, here, and to make it appear that I am stupid?

revlgking wrote:
"I agree that there are many things of which I am ignorant, but
why do I have the kind of feeling that I am being patronized;"

I don't know. Could it be that you have yet to discern the difference between the posts of almost everyone else here, with real science related content, and what you post which is fluff?

Not a single person on this forum knew you, or anything about you, when you first showed up. Every impression we have of you is one you have generated. Take responsibility for what you have done and continue to do. It is the first step toward healing yourself.

DA writes and offers:

Quote:

It is the first step toward healing yourself.

Thanks for your concern, DA. Are we into diagnosis, now? By internet? Interesting. What are the fees? BTW, the FLF does not charge fees.

DA, I realize that you are busy in the real SCIENCE part of the forum, but I do hope you will continue--and I am serious--to read and continue your comments in the "Not Quite Science" section of SAGG.

Healthy controversy does make it interesting for readers and boost the ratings, right? Stick around, DA, we need you. However, it would be helpful if you checked your facts before you judged other posters.

QUESTIONS:
Are you still in the work-a-day world? Or, are you re-directed (don't like 'retired') like me?

HARD SCIENCES, SOFT SCIENCES?--I find the following helpful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science
==========================================
I assume that the hard sciences are like physics, chemistry, mathematics, cybernetics, geography, geology, botany, biology, genetics, nedicine, chiropractics, neurology, geriatrics, gynecology, are REAL sciences. What are some other examples?

Are anthropology, psychology, sociology, political science, and the like, REAL sciences?

What about pneumatology, theology, cosmology?

What are examples of the pseudo-sciences? Astrology? Scientology?
Christian Science?

What about economics? Is it a hard or soft science? Speaking of which, I find the following interesting about getting rid of the
THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=518015

BTW, DA, I promise not to campaign to get rid of you...I mean any of your threads...or have you certified as....??????

BTW 2: Credit the LAW OF CHRISTIAN LOVE for Christians being willing to be this way. As Paul puts it in his great poem about love, I Corinthians 13: Love looks for a way of being constructive...not possessive...has good manners...not selfish, not touchy...does not gloat over the sins and evil of others and the hell they insist on making for themselves and others...glad with all, (especially scientists) when truth prevails...it endures, trusts, hopes...suffers long and is kind....

Faith and hope are great and lasting qualities...but love is the greatest. With thanks for the help of the JB Phillip's translation.

Political Science, a hard science?
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=B889944762A8A7DFE26C6182AC43DA7E.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=134485#

No we are not into diagnose. We are into pointing out hypocrisy.

That done YOYO!

As one who has asked quite a few questions about the nature and function of science--of which I know so little--I was kinda hoping we were into education, if there is any available. Is there????

Perhaps some people are more qualified to teach us about the nature and function of hypocrisy, eh?

revlgking wrote:
"I was kinda hoping we were into education"

were ... past tense.

You wasted your opportunity and your sincerity rating here is 0.

I am marking you *** Ignore *** and hope others do too.

My son called earlier today, it's my 55th birthday. We talked for close to an hour and in the course of our conversation he asked me how the fishing went this year. I got a few Billfish and plenty of Skipjacks, but not a single Bigeye Tuna. We used to pull in close to 50 in a season. If the fish are starting to get scarce way out here in the vast South Pacific, we've really screwed things up. He used a term that I thought was very insightful. The "Arrogance of Man", is to blame for how we've treated our planet.
And now, perusing these postings on religion, it strikes me - how much more "arrogant" can you get than to think that a Diety created us in his image?

No doubt T. rex thought the same thing.

Our time is coming too if we don't do a lot better.

A brief digression:


A link re overfishing of Bigeye tuna -
http://www.bigmarinefish.com/bigeye_tuna.html

The chart (Fig 8) was created a few years ago, and shows a projection, coincidentally, to the present. From what you say, the dotted line (medium projection) was much too optimistic, and the lowest projection is what your local catches suggest.

Rede, that's a very eye-opening chart. If those guys are taking little wee tuna, 3.2 kg, the fish don't stand a chance of procreating. The lures that we use around here will only attract bites from fish weighing 15 lbs. and up. The dark red flesh of the Bigeye is excellent as sushi, the Japanese go crazy for it.

I doubt that Climatic change affects the Bigeye, they're very deep swimming fish.

Hiya Wolfy,

I’m sure you’re not looking for a long response to a single comment but here goes anyway



On one level it could be seen that way, but what are the implications of being created in the image of a god?

1. The idea of being created in a creator’s image is simply saying that we have the capacity to love, to reason, to understand morality and to have a desire to create.

2. On the other hand, the idea of there being a creator that is all knowing (we are not), all powerful (we are not), eternal and uncreated (we are not), places us in a position where it is difficult to be arrogant. Christian scriptures also warn of us not thinking of ourselves as ‘little gods’, but to have a realistic understanding of who we are.

3. Being created means that we are answerable to something else besides our own whims and desires. It means we are not entirely autonomous and we have responsibilities that extend outwards from ourselves. Again there is no room for arrogance here.

4. We are told that whilst we are created in a creator’s image, we live here only for a period and that we are held responsible for the legacy we leave behind on this planet. We are told that the planet is a gift and that we will collectively hand it back. The inference is that we should return it in as good a condition as we received it. We are STEWARDS of its resources and are accountable. Again this precludes us arrogantly squandering what we have.

For me personally, the idea that we have been created does not lead to arrogance but to humility.

If you think it’s always the province of the religious to show arrogance then I would remind you of the many non-religious dictators that have shown unbelievable levels of arrogance in their belief that they and they alone, know what is best for entire nations, including what sections of society they should liquidate.

Blacknad.

Wolfman wrote:
"I doubt that Climatic change affects the Bigeye, they're very deep swimming fish."

You may well be correct in your conclusion but not for the reason you cite.

Almost all marine life starts at the surface: The sole exception, of which I am aware, being life fueled by undersea thermal activity.

If warming is affecting the surface then changes will percolate downward eventually affecting all lifeforms in some manner.

Lets be honest here.

The word "image" as used in the text can be interpreted in multiple ways by multiple people to mean any darned thing they want.

It is roughly the equivalent of saying A is like B.

Yeah? In what way?

Like almost all theological writing it has no substance. And I don't think that is accidental.

Blacknad, lots of good thought in this post to Wolfy.

Blacknad wrote:

"4. We are told that whilst we are created in a creator’s image, we live here only for a period and that we are held responsible for the legacy we leave behind on this planet. We are told that the planet is a gift and that we will collectively hand it back. The inference is that we should return it in as good a condition as we received it. We are STEWARDS of its resources and are accountable. Again this precludes us arrogantly squandering what we have."

Now Blacky, I'd like to believe you but the evidence seems to indicate that many religious people believe their God is going to return some time soon and, like their parents used to do, clean up any mess they make. This means they feel no responsibility for the condition they leave the earth in. It doesn't matter. Good old God's gonna clean it all up.

TerryNZ, when you write: "Good old God's gonna clean it all up."

What do you have in mind?

Genocide and a flood. Same thing done on previous occasions.

The monster only has one solution to any problem: Blood.

II Kings 2:24
And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LØrd. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

What a lovely heart warming story. I wonder why they don't read this to the kiddies in Sunday school any more?

Terry,

What evidence is that? Most Christians I know feel a keen responsibility to take ecological issues seriously. Is there evidence for the contrary? And is there any evidence that they care less than your average Joe?

Blacky.

Blacknad
I have to support TNZ on this one (at least a little). In America (maybe uniquely) SOME fundy's feel the "Rapture" is all that matters; and they think the war in the middle east is a good thing (sign of impending rapture). Several Halloween's ago I was walking with my son's friend's mom and I was talking about global warming. I got the same answer (doesn't matter; the rapture....)!
I think most mainstream Christians feel the call of stewardship more strongly, but the attitude that "Good old God's gonna clean it all up," is out there to some extent.

~SA
P.S. ohhh, and thanks for expaining the 42 reference, Terry!

Yes Samwik. Someone in the US admin is actually on record as saying that. I forget who but someone here may recall and find a link. I'll do my best.

As soon as I'd logged off I remembered it was during Reagan admin. I'm none the wiser who it was but it narrows the search.

Blacknad wrote:
"Most Christians I know feel a keen responsibility to take ecological issues seriously."

My goodness you really do need to take a trip over here to the colonies.

The good Christians George W. Bush has appointed are willing to sell this planet to the highest bidder in exchange for quarterly profits.

Interesting. Does this really mean what it says? Is it certain that the Bush administration is made up, totally, of "good" Christians? What evidence do we have of this? Sounds like the same kind of prejudice we used to hear out of Berlin before 1945, and aimed at Jews.

There is such a thing as fair comment: SOME Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists...and even Atheists, are hypocrites.

James Watt. His statement isn't really as bad as what I'd been led to believe. From that great source, wikipedia:

when asked whether he believed that natural resources should be preserved for future generations, he replied, "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns, whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations."

More at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Watt

James Watt. One of the dimmest, self-serving, bulbs in this country.

Then check out these links:
http://www.ncccusa.org/news/04bushonair.html
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/

Take a good look at the relative percentage of harm being caused by various countries. I live in the worst, self-centered, country of them all.

And despite having recently awakened to the fact that Bush is leading us down the path of destruction. They still don't get it.

Dan. From your first link:

"The private use of creation’s bounty must serve the needs of all God’s children. Yet we are concerned that powerful corporate interests have had disproportionate influence in shaping and reaping benefits from a clean air program which should serve the common good."

Hey. We'd better stop knocking those people! The second link is a bit more alarming.

In addition to the above, check out Deuteronomy 20--ABOUT WAR. It tells about 1300 BCE, when God ordered his chosen people to take over the land He promised them. Take especial note of verses 16-20. Here the Lord God advocates, "...kill everyone." The prophet Isaiah (the 8th. Century, BCE) tells us how the struggle continued then. In Isaiah 13, it is recorded that God advocated an all-out Holy War against Babylon, Persia (Irag/Iran, today). He promised a total destruction of the place and that it would be turned into a desert. Chapter 14 promises more destruction and that the Gentiles, "...will serve Israel as slaves."

Interestingly, if they had actually been able to do what they were told to do, with God's help, there would be no Palestinians and others to fight today. In addition, what we today call Syria, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, and most of Arabia was included as "the Promised land".

As a minister, I read many of these stories from the Bible to my congregation. I gave my opinion of them: They tell us of the vicious cruelty of the times. I alway added: "This is not the word of God, as I understand the concept".

So we're all agreed then. Any belief in the God of the Old Testament should be punished by stoning.

People who believe, literally, in the God of the OT and/or the God of traditional theism are probably already stoned.

Now you will proably understand why I insist that we forget about God and start thinking about GØD.

Good point Rev. Mind you many who don't believe are probably also stoned.

In the thread on, Is Science the answer? Blacknad writes It is my humble opinion that, if it truly is our goal to unite humanity, we need to look at philosophy (the major religions), all the sciences, including pneumatology--the study of the spirit, and the arts, including engineering and technology.

BTW, the story is told that an engineer once claimed: "Engineering is the original profession; because, long before the surgeon helped God make Eve, it was an engineer who helped God bring order out of chaos."

On hearing this, God spoke up and said: "The truth is, the politicans were here before the engineers. They were the ones who created chaos..."

Yes but before the rapture there is also predicted in the Bible a nuclear war, and america is the 'land of unwalled villages' that will be invaded. This rapture occurs after the war, and with all american cities having no exits they will be easy targets. This will instantly vapourise people in the immediate vacinity of the blast, but further out they will suffer third, second and first degree burns.

A beautiful picture you paint Bgmark. Is that why Gorse W Bush was so keen to start another war in the Middle East? And I thought it was oil. Silly me.

Can you give references for this?

Blacknad.

Here in the land of Oz we do not often meet up with the Rapture and it is not usually given as a reason for the Iraq War. Could someone explain to me-what it is, and--why it is relevant here even in the Relgious Philosophy topic (itself an interesting choice for a science forum, but we have already argued that), ---and do ordinary people anywhere really think that this idea gives them the right to trash the planet?

I too will be interested in the references.

The late Jerry Falwell's Liberty University has the vague viewpoint that Global Warming is a giant hoax designed to foster [evil] globalization. "...or something crazy like that," I said incredulously.

There is a whole 'nother branch of Evangelicals which believe 'stewardship' is a good thing (and GW is real and worrying).

At least I think I've heard that on the news.


~Samwik

Need to be wary of generalizations. The views you refer to above (need to be good stewards etc.) are held by the majority of Christians as far as I am aware. Of course, the fundy nutters are always the most vocal so their views are most likely to be seen as representative of Christianity in general.

My church for instance has as far as I can remember been very hot on environmental and world resource issues. I have moved from driving a 2.0 liter estate to a small 1.6 hatchback and do as much as I can to lower my carbon footprint. It is the same for many others in my church.

Boy do we get a bad press - there's so much criticism of us that I'm almost believing it and feeling that perhaps I really am evil and the cause of most of the world's woes. Maybe they're right - maybe I do need to be wiped out so that humanity can progress.

Regards,

Blacky.

iraq has little to do with it...but russia is the northern gog in the Bible, not iraq or iran

Ezekiel 38
10 Thus saith the Lord GOD; It shall also come to pass, that at the same time shall things come into thy mind, and thou shalt think an evil thought:
11 And thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages; I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates,
12 To take a spoil, and to take a prey; to turn thine hand upon the desolate places that are now inhabited, and upon the people that are gathered out of the nations, which have gotten cattle and goods, that dwell in the midst of the land.
13 Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?
14 ¶ Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say unto Gog, Thus saith the Lord GOD; In that day when my people of Israel dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it?
15 And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou, and many people with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a great company, and a mighty army:

Iran would be at least 10 years away from building thermo nuclear warheads, and at least 15 years away from making rockects that can hit the US, who could destroy iran with one sub. How could this cause a final battle as written in revelations 6, where people hide in caves. here is an alternative movie to algores http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4boaEbtjByU

bgmark, if you'll excuse what may turn out to be a stupid question, what philosophical point are you making?

(I would have checked out the link, but we don't have access youtube.com in these parts)

RedE, I will second your question. Bgmark, don't be shy: Tell us. we can always agree to disagree, agreably.

Hiya bgmark,

Still waiting for you to substantiate what you have said.

This is what is said about the land of unwalled villages:

"I will invade a land of unwalled villages, I will attack a peaceful and unsuspecting people – all of them living without gates and bars."

'Peaceful', 'unsuspecting'? Do you really think that could be describing America?

1. How do you know that your references are talking about some time soon?

2 How do you know it is talking about a nuclear war?

3 How do you know that America is involved?

Have you really thought this through or are you just going on what someone has told you?

Blacknad.

Russia = gog? Please explain...

We've just shifted so, no doubt to everyone's relief, I've been unable to pass comment. Now, bgmark, supposing prophecy is possible don't your quotes from Ezekiel fit the Mongol invasion quite well? Perhaps the prophecy has already been fullfilled.

That's a key point. I claim (with sound reason) that foreknowledge is possible, so I want to avoid saying something hypocritical here; but does one believe that the Bible makes this kind of prophesy? If so, then maybe it's a free-for-all regarding the interpretations.

Where's the science in it?

If it's devoid of science, what spiritual value does it have?

If it's devoid of spiritual value, what other value does it have?

So it has come to this. We are discussing prophesy!!!!! (Foreknowledge is often, even unconsciously based on known data, prophesy is the result of divination etc, often aided by hallucenogenic substances.)

Prophesy cannot be proved until after the event prophesied has happened, so we cannot prove the worth or truth of a prophesy and we should probably not base a country's foreign policy on it, even if it does come from the Bible.

Perhaps we should have a Nostradamus thread (and please, before anyone takes that up, I am being deeply cynical!!)

PS I have only ever heard of Gog and Magog (mythical giants), never a "gog". What is it? Can't find it in a dictionary?

Ellis: "So it has come to this. We are discussing prophesy!!!!!"

Yes. That resembles my initial reaction, too; but it's a legitimate aspect of the philosophy of religion, since a large number of religious people believe that there have been prophets and that the Bible contains prophesies, and this belief appears to influence their world view. bgmark is entitled to express his view and I hope he will respond to our queries.

One of my old teachers told my class a quote that went something like this

"Why not follow a religion, if you follow one and there is not a God, when you die you wont know. But if you don't follow a religion and their is a God your screwed" Author Unknown

(the actual quote used a word more sophisticated that screwed but i think it gets the point across)

I think this philosphy is logic at its finest. ( i personally follow my religion for other reasons but to me this logic seems undeniable )

Ellis: "PS I have only ever heard of Gog and Magog (mythical giants), never a "gog". What is it? Can't find it in a dictionary?"

In the quoted book of Ezekiel, Gog was from the land of Magog, which was ruled by Satan. In later times, Gog and Magog became the symbols for any force opposed to religion or its adherents.

J294: "I think this philosophy is logic at its finest."

It appears logical until you introduce truth, sincerity and honesty into the equation - it then becomes fraudulent and hypocritical.

To go back to all religions, try this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070524/ap_on_re_us/atheist_authors

It is entitled "Angry Atheists are Hot Authors" on the Yahoo news link. Some of you may have already seen it.

Good link, Terry.

From the link: The Rev. Douglas Wilson says,

"It sort of dawned on the secular establishment that they might lose here," said Wilson, who is debating [Essayist Christopher] Hitchens on christianity today.com and has written the book "Letter from a Christian Citizen" in response to Harris. "All of this is happening precisely because there's a significant force that they have to deal with."

It certainly is; but in terms of the negative effects of faith and belief, I don't see God as the problem (quite the reverse). The problem lies in the excess baggage. Science, education, technology, social evolution are all threatened by many believers' dogmatic, irrational, false descriptions of the physical universe. More broadly, mankind is threatened by - and surely we have it all in these threads by now - the pretext for extreme aggression inspired by one religion against another. The atheist has also been the victim. Can spirituality never be recognised unless it's encumbered by the paraphernalia of religion?

If I might make a slightly tounge-in-cheek comment.
This applies across the board; not just with religions, but with any situation where there are two "camps."
For instance, global warming.


Great summation rede:
"Can spirituality never be recognised unless it's encumbered by the paraphernalia of religion?" -R.

~SA

Redewenur wrote:

"I don't see God as the problem (quite the reverse)."

I wouldn't have agreed with that when I first joined SAGG but I certainly do now. Thanks to Blacknad especially but Sam, Rede and others have opened my eyes in that regard. Like you, Rede, I now accept that the "the excess baggage" associated with the Judeo-Christ-Islam genus of religions is the problem. Interestingly there are few books actually criticising this baggage. I guess most here accept Adam and Eve, the flood, tower of Babel etc. as myths. But try to find books dealing with the problems of evidencce for Abraham, Moses, Solomon, a mighty ancient Judean kingdom, etc. I've done my own research on the subject but can any of you name any books on the subject? Are authors afraid to tackle the beliefs? The stories were all myths developed mainly to justify taking over tracts of land. Maori myths in NZ served much the same purpose. Regarding these myths as a true and accurate history and using them to justify actions today is the problem with religion. That's probably the element we should be attacking.

Samwik wrote:

"This applies across the board; not just with religions"

I made a comment on another thread ages ago that atheists may fall into the same trap. Let's hope not.

J294-Thanks for the gog explation. Still doesn't seem to make much sense even in context.

Your quote:

"Why not follow a religion, if you follow one and there is not a God, when you die you wont know. But if you don't follow a religion and their is a God your screwed" Author Unknown

....is one of the most cynical reasons I have ever heard for accepting the teachings of Jesus as the Risen Lord and Saviour and spending the rest of one's life giving lip service to God. Do you not believe that He may prefer the honest atheist?... After all, being omnipotent He would be able to judge the falsity of the persons' belief and possibly be a bit cross. Do not forget Jesus did not like hypocrites!

Re Prophesy!!!
I really think that it comes into the realm of problematic things terry refers to, that ahere to ancient religions, like slapping children, killing and pillaging, waging war, executing people who are of different faiths, all the myths (yes they are just that, myths), the attitude to women, gays, foreigners, and heaps more that we ignore or deny everyday. Really it's not even Not-Quite-Science!! And nowadays it's probably illegal too given the means used to achieve the trances and visions in Ancient Times.

Author Unknown.

It is obvious that Author is not good at spelling

BTW, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
Pascal made a similar argument.

In my personal opinion, I believe in doing good for its own sake. Tomorrow, if we all agreed to simply keep the Golden Rule--My version is: Love others as they need to be loved--the world would become heavenly, and GØD--goodness, order and design would be the order of the day.

Would I like for all people to practice this simple kind of religion? You betcha. Why? Because each and all of us would be better off. No organized religion would be needed for this to happen. Fellowship groups like the kind to which I belong, maybe, could help. But they are not absolutely necessary.
Check out http://www.pathwayschurch.ca Join th forum.

Goodness, order and design should be part of anyone's aspirations regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof.

It is good manners- not religion.

Yes, but manners have to be taught.

...and apparently, if you don't have an institution to pass these on, they seem to fade away within a couple of generations.

I don't think the "institutional" answer (religion) is the best way to go; but without it, what else is left?

~SA

Samwik. I firmly believe that ethics and behaviour should be school subjects. Separate them from religion. They're simply survival mechanisms.

samwik: "Yes, but manners have to be taught."

To a degree, yes, but I think that they are 'learned' as much as 'taught', in the same way that a child learns its mother tongue.

samwik: "if you don't have an institution to pass these on, they seem to fade away within a couple of generations...I don't think the "institutional" answer (religion) is the best way to go; but without it, what else is left?"

We do have other institutions (and in my opinion far more important ones), the most important being the home and family, followed closely by school. Society as a whole, however, determines what is "mannerly". Conformity is promoted and enforced, as mentioned, within the home and educational institutions; but society, in general, encourages the maintenance and perpetuation of good manners by social-pressure. People are rewarded and punished for their behaviour from day to day. For example, successful interpersonal relationships, and often one's livelihood, depend upon one's ability to comply with a socially acceptable code of mannerly conduct. This is part of the matrix of social structure, in which religion may or may not play a significant role. If religious institutions were to vanish altogether from English culture, I wouldn't be concerned about the future of good manners.
______

Terry, I just saw your post.

I agree, except that I think it's important to differentiate between manners and ethics, which overlap but are not the same.

To recap on what we already know: "manners" includes rituals that have no intrinsic ethical value, and the rituals can differ between cultures. They often signal recognition of status, rather in the way that a dog will lower its head to acknowledge the dominance of another dog. Among humans the system can be quite complex and good knowledge of the local social “pecking order” is sometimes a distinct social advantage.

Manners are much underrated. In fact they "oil the wheels" of everyday behaviour and make it possible for people to exchange ideas etc. in a cooperative environment, and allow for dissent.

Personally I would be happy to see the end of institutionalised religions of all sorts. Many religious customs have grown to include condoning extremely bad manners, and sometimes have encouraged dodgy ethics too.

The Golden Rule, as I have said before, covers most situations. That is--do as you would be done by.

Ellis: "That is--do as you would be done by."

That's what my ol' dad (he was an agnostic) used to repeat to me when I was knee high to a grasshopper. It was reflected in the sentence often heard in the school playground: "How would you like it?" - which is fine unless you're talking to a masochist!

I agree about the Golden Rule (also as Revl. says); it seems to be the basis of social sustainability.

I didn't mean to "conflate" manners with religion quite as much as it came out.

But it seems to me that without something stronger (and more standardized) than an individual's family and school, there is not enough self-sustaining momentum for respect, civility, manners, whatever we call it (that which allows us to connect progressively).

...speaking about "What are the schools teaching...?"

I guess I should think more about this at home too; I shouldn't be relying on the schools!

~SA

samwik: "But it seems to me that without something stronger (and more standardized) than an individual's family and school, there is not enough self-sustaining momentum for respect, civility, manners, whatever we call it (that which allows us to connect progressively)."

If you come up with that "something stronger" you'll convince me.

Meanwhile, I think we learn the manners of the culture from our interaction with society as a whole, and mostly from those parts of it with which we have most contact, usually family and school.

Ethics is a deeper issue which benefits from a good deal more consideration. As for the much vaunted guidance of religion, it cannot be relied upon as a source of inspiration or example.

I would return to Ellis' "Golden Rule". Thinking on that frequently, meditating on it, and practicing it, would no doubt be of far more worth than paying credulous and absent-minded attention to the speeches and sermons of dubious wise men and preachers. It probably doesn't have the same "feel good factor", though; nor does it provide the illusion of belonging to a righteous and morally elite club.

As I wrote above, we need to love others as they need to be loved. Then the world would become heavenly, and GØD--goodness, order and design would be the order of the day.

To the above I will add: And the role of family leaders, especially parents, the lay and clergy leaders of churches, synagogues, temples, mosques and other communities--which really represent nothing more than enlarged families--is to teach our children, and to encourage everyone in the family and the community, to work together in a healthy-kind of cooperation.

THE GOAL OF A LOVING, POSITIVE MENTAL ATTITUDE
A healthy, loving and positive mental attitude is the key to our building healthy families and communities. It will help us find meaningful, and socially-useful employment--the cure for poverty and a great preventative for war.

We are not here to be selfish and greedy war-mongers; to make life miserable for one another. We are here to help make the world a safer place in which all classes and creeds can to live in peace and harmony. When we are ready to go, we will leave the world a better place than we found it.

The loving attitude encourage families, and those who gather in enlarged families (the churches, etc.) to keep up the good work. Constructive criticism can always be of help, but being hyper-critical does no one any good.

Keep in mind that spiritual love (agape) in not just about sexual attraction (eros, okay in the right context), not just about sentimentality and superficial friendships (philia, very good when sincere). With this in mind think about this question:

How, in what ways, do YOU love (that is, choose to be) to be loved? For example, there are times when I just want to be left alone and make my own mistakes; I do not want to be "should" upon, constantly, by others.

Perhaps this is why moralizing and dogmatic parents and clergy often do more harm than good.

Sermonizing, that is, telling people: "You should, you must you ought, and if you don't God will let the devil punish you...", just doesn't cut it anymore.

Ellis wrote:

"do as you would be done by."

I've just read Charles Kingsley's "The Water Babies" again. The fairies are Mrs. Doasyouwouldbedoneby and Mrs. Bedonebyasyoudid. Quite a good tale really. Probably where your father got the name.

Rede. I agree totally with your comment, "we learn the manners of the culture from our interaction with society as a whole, and mostly from those parts of it with which we have most contact, usually family and school." Especially family.

"...and other communities--which really represent nothing more than enlarged families...to work together in a healthy-kind of cooperation." -Revl.

I am reminded of how, in the 1960's & 70's, we rejected organized religions because we could see the hypocracy and negative consequences; while we explored Eastern mysticism, tried to "see God," and dreamed of communes.
:wistfully:

Terry...great minds....

"...we learn the manners of the culture from our interaction with society as a whole, and mostly from those parts of it with which we have most contact, usually family and school." -rede.

I don't want to be the only one speaking for the US, but family structure has been getting a pretty bad reputation around here lately (and rightly so). Lots of problems to point out (not that there's anything wrong with any individual's circumstance, but...); divorce, single parent families, blending families, welfare families, tired families, working parents families, rich families, and nanny families.

I'd argue that media is a major influence on socializing kids these days. Taken together with "Peers," which mainly amplify the media influences, and which have become a larger part of the "School" experience, media and peers may be a larger influence than "family & old-school," these days (at least in some areas [in many areas] ).

~SA

samwik: Re: manners, ethics and socialization:-

Sounds like you're saying that, for the majority of kids in the US: -

(1) Life circumstances preclude sufficient interaction with their parents/guardians.

(2) The adult element of the school environment, i.e. teachers, and the school curriculum, are insignificant influences.

(3) The predominant sources of role models for manners, ethics and social behaviour are:
---(a) the media
---(b) other kids

Is that right, or not quite?

Yes, good summary, rede.
I don't want to say this is exclusively what's going on, but symptoms can be seen (the general coarsening of the media, each successive movie having bigger explosions or bloodier scenes, etc.).

There's plenty of good wholesome stuff too.

But it's a struggle....
(...as life should be?)

more Later,
~SA

samwik, I think you're right. The huge growth of electronic information technology, the simultaneous decline in face-to-face human interaction, and the diminished role of 'significant' adults in the lives of many children and adolescents (for the reasons that you gave), must surely result in a shift of influence. The only debatable points that I can see are the degree of the shift and the extent of its effect.

Hello Revlgking,
You do realize that the "parable" you quoted is actually a short story called "The Last Question", written by Issac Asimov, in 1956 don't you?

Sorry, I spelled "Isaac" wrong in that last post.

OK, maybe my memory is faulty and Isaac wrote a different story, but the fact remains that there is an identical story: Answer’ by Fredric Brown. ©1954, Angels and Spaceships

I need to check my sources a bit more before I post, I guess.

Hi Jareb. Welcome!

Info: -

You can use the edit button to correct errors (which I have to do frequently!), and to avoid multiple posting.

Yes, and here is the source: http://www.alteich.com/oldsite/answer.htm Answer’ by Fredric Brown. ©1954, Angels and Spaceships. Thanks. Google (the infallible? source ) found it for me.

When I wrote my story, and used it in a sermon, I had no idea where I got the idea, or where I got the punch line, "There IS now!" I read very little science fiction.

Here's a thought: Perhaps I could expand on my version by adding:

"There IS now..." There was a long minute of silence.

"And I am pleased to tell you that what you and your son have done is this: Guided by the love--the sumum bonum, the highest good--and respect you have for one another's enriching differences, and for all the truth the sciences are capable of uncovering, you have succeeded in getting in touch with the ever growing and all-knowing source of all knowledge, wisdom and power that is deep within the heart of all humanity, collectively speaking.

THE COLLECTIVE WE
NOW, listen closely. From this point we will use the collective "we". We are ONE with YOU and ALL that is: Depending on what we human beings choose--We are free to love or to hate; to can say yes, or no, to life--we can use this knowledge and power to destroy, or to create. When we choose the destruction things and of others. However, beware, in doing so, we choose self-destruction.

THE AFFIRMATIVE APPROACH
One final thought. And we will put it, affirmatively: We will always practice the art of mindfulness. We will be mindful of that which divides us and of that which unites us. We are especially mindful to be careful not to use words which divide us.

In all things, we choose to work for that which does not divide and separate us from the good of all of us. Instead, we choose that which creates the highest good for all. All each individual needs to do is to provide the will-power, we will provide the do-power. Any questions or comments?
===============================================================
Here we can add you more affirmations:..........................

AGAPØ--All goodness and providence, everywhere present--Love.
============================================================
Among the famous sayings from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 9: 14-17, Mark 2: 18-22 and Luke 5:38-39) have to do with what a waste of good effort it is to destroy a new coat to fix an old one. "Nor does anyone pour new wine into old wine skins" he said.

It is for this reason that I feel that there are times--especially when I feel the old words have lost their true meaning--when I need to coin new words.

GØD is AGAPØ
As I have said elsewhere, the Greek for "I love you" is agapo; the noun is agape. Now I take this word, spell it with capitals and get AGAPØ, as an acronym for "all goodness and providence everywhere present". Now when I read in John 4:8, "God is love" it makes sense to me.

Thanks for reminding me what your symbol (lazy theta?) means.
"Everywhere present," I'm assuming is....

Similar to simply, "God is."

Happy Sunday Revl.
Feel the building Zeitgeist!

~SA

Ø, is a mathematical symbol for the set without elements, or numbers, or the empty set.
Maybe some mathematician can answer: Does this mean that, mathematically speaking, there is such a "thing" as a point without dimensions? That there is a nowhere? Or a circumference that is without limits? There is an everywhere? HMMMmmmm!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_mathematical_symbols

"God is" indeed!

As I understand it: The verb 'to be' is the only verb which I can apply to God. I find it unacceptable to think of God as an objective being who sees, hears, tastes, touches, smells walks, talks, whatever. I like to think of God as the no-thing and the every-thing. I like to think that we have time and space so that everything doesn't happen at once, and everywhere, at the same time.

BTW, I have no objection to who people feel the need to think of God as a loving Heavenly Father, as long as this helps them be moral, ethical and loving people who do not impose, with dire threats, their concept of God on others.

Yes, I would agree with Revlgking about that one.

Although the Golden Rule is mentioned in The Water Babies, (it was a sentiment much in favour in Victorian Times), the saying itself is very much older and forms the basis for honourable conduct for most, perhaps all, organised religions. Now that's a word not often used today--honourable! It pre-supposes honesty and fairness, both much in decline I feel.

Wow! that sounds like a grumpy old woman, but of course a well-mannered one!

Rev wrote:
BTW, I have no objection to who people feel the need to think of God as a loving Heavenly Father, as long as this helps them be moral, ethical and loving people who do not impose, with dire threats, their concept of God on others.

I never thought it would happen--but I fully agree with this sentiment,Rev--from the other side of course!

I think somewhere along the way someone needs to remind the fundamentalists that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. It is possible to be moral and ethical and loving without trying to ram it down someone else's throat. I agree with Ellis. Having had my son introduced to theology, courtesy of a head start program, I find it repugnant to have people cramming their idea of religion down a young child's throat with no thought of the damage they're doing. He came home from head start, scared shitless, wanting to know if God the father was going to find him and hurt him like his own daddy had. He'd been molested by his own father at the age of three, and whoever the nice lady was then told him about God the father, I hope she rots in hell for what she put my son through.

Thank you for that, Rose. You arouse a great deal of compassion. I agree, it's possible to be moral, ethical and loving while just shutting up and getting on with it. That ought to be enough to make the world go around.

Ellis wrote:

"the saying itself is very much older and forms the basis for honourable conduct for most, perhaps all, organised religions."

And science. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I agree with you. We don't need to believe in God to "be moral, ethical and loving people". I posted somewhere a news item from NZ about a religious group protesting about a government move to stress we have no state religion. Religious tolerance? Not when it comes to recognising a right to no religion thank you.

I heartily agree.
BTW, this I why I coined the acronym GØD--goodness, order and design (regardless of the source). I did it to help myself get away from the god-ideas as spread by all the fundamentalism--and there are numerous forms. I now find it impossible to think of GØD as a father or a mother.

Think of these questions: Is there anything beyond the physical edge of the cosmos (the macro)? If so, what is it? I believe there IS, and I call it GØD.
Is there something at the very heart and center of the atom (the micro)? I believe there IS. I call it GØD.

A brilliant scientist I dialogue with (at Brainmeta.com ) who abhors organized religion--I prefer to say, sick religions--but does not want to call himself an atheist, calls it Nature. I have no problem with this. We have dialogued for years. No problem. He is the one who told me about the math-symbol Ø I use it to symbolize that in and through all things there seems to be a divine order which is ours to explore (the role of science), uncover and put to good moral. use

We always need to keep in mind that children, before they reach the age where they can think rationally, and people with child-like minds tend to think objectively, literally. This is why some children will ask questions like: Who made? Or, how big is God?

IN MY 30's I BEGAN QUESTIONING TRADITIONAL THEISM
Years ago--trying to explain to my five-year old son (now 47) something about the idea of God I said: God is in all of us. A few minutes later, he asked: "Dad, if I cut you open, would I find God inside you?" We had a great laugh, and a good talk, about that question. Soon he was on the road to thinking rationally. As Paul, in 1 Corinthians 13, puts it: "When I was a child I thought and spoke like a child..."

This kind of child-like thinking is not necessarily a bad thing in its place, as long as we recognize the limitations of this kind of thinking and can help ourselves and our children mature.

I repeat: It is my experience that children, before they reach the age where they can think rationally, and people with child-like minds tend to think objectively, that is, literally.

Keep in mind: I have all the respect in the world for children and for people with humble and childlike-minds. Children and people who think this way will ask such questions like: Who made God? Or, how big is God? Where is he? Can he see and hear what I am doing right now? Does he know everything that I have ever done and ever will do?

EXAMPLES OF THE CHILD-LIKE MIND

Okay, Rev., here is what I understand you are trying to say: You want your readers to understand that, while it is cute, and mostly acceptable, to be child-like in our thinking, it is a limited kind of thinking.

Please feel free to correct me if I am on the wrong track, but it is my understanding that you want people to be free and to think for themselves. You want people to have a concept of God that is compatible with their maturity.

For example, as a child I thought of God as being like my father. It so happened that my father was a good and strong person. I was fortunate. However, can you imagine what would have happened if my father was otherwise?

LET US BE CLEAR AS TO WHAT WE MEAN
Like the Rev., I want to know what it is that people have in mind when they use the term 'god', or 'God'.

Therefore, I ask atheists: What do you have in mind when you hear, or use, the term 'God', or 'god'?.

Keep in mind that, like the Rev., I do not think of God as a personal being, out there, separate and apart from all that is, including the physical universe.

Check out the work of David Sloan Wilson: Though he is an atheist he does see the value of and role for religion.
http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2007/06/david-sloan-wilsons-evolution-for.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sloan_Wilson

IMO, David Sloan Wilson is a panentheist/unitheist. His "atheism", I believe is because of the premise of theism. Most theists, but not all, speak of God as if he is a personal and male being, who wills, acts, senses, sees, hears and rules all nature as if He were a loving heavenly Father. They think of nature as just a collection of material things. Wilson rejects this.

As a unitheist, so do I.

For the sake of new readers I need to summarize: As a unitheist I think of GØD being itself to which only the verb "to be" applies.
GØD simply IS: that which is in and through all that is, all nature--physically, menatlly and spiritually. Nature, IMO, is more than a collection of bits and pieces.

Rev, you keep referring to "God" as though it actually exists. If it DOES exist, does it give a STUFF about how we conduct our affairs, and if so, why should it?
Please keep your response, if any, to less that 100 words.

What mortal can know the mind of an infinite being? Consider the butterfly effect over millennia.

Scpg02 wrote:

"What mortal can know the mind of an infinite being?"

Or even if such a thing exists.

I have had personal experiences that prove to me that one does exist. Beyond that it would be a matter of faith.

Scpg02 wrote:

"I have had personal experiences that prove to me that one does exist".

I'm sure what you meant to say was, "I have had personal experiences that prove to me that something I cannot explain occurred".

Same here. Several times. But I didn't jump to the conclusion it was the work of an Infinite Being. Mind you I was never taught that such a being existed when I was a child. I consider I was fortunate in that respect.

I said what I meant.

And what "Infinite Being" would give a stuff about Mortal Men?

You obviously have never read the Dune series.

No. I didn't, Herbert was too "dry" for my liking, sorry about that. Or were you being facetious? In this type of communication, it's so hard to tell.

Yeah that's why I like using my smilies. They add something to the message.

The last three books deal with an extremely long lived God like figure who is able to see not just the future but all possibilities. With this knowledge he can mold civilization into what he wants it to be.

Wolfman, have you read my STUFF. If so, you obviously misunderstand my STUFF.

IMO, GOD does NOT exist as a being; GOD is existence as I experience it, and is as real as our next breath (The Bible uses air as a metaphor for spirit). Take note of the air we breathe. Let us try living without taking our next breath. I find it impossible. How about you? Can you live, physically, without breathing?

Now define the god you think I believe in.

Rev, it sounds as though you're infatuated with some nameless, formless "entity" that doesn't belong being discussed in a Science Forum.
If you don't mind my saying.


Try this Forum - "The-Face-On-Mars-Is-Keanu-Reeves.com"

scpg02

"The last three books deal with an extremely long lived God like figure who is able to see not just the future but all possibilities. With this knowledge he can mold civilization into what he wants it to be."

This is a god-like figure that evolved as a "child" of the cosmos, subject to the laws of physics, rather that the 'purpose' behind the cosmos. Which do you think you experienced? - or would your description be different?

I think my experience would fit into the purpose behind the cosmos category.

I've also had what I would call past life memories though I don't believe in reincarnation. Go figure.

As for the Spirit of God that has been mentioned, I have no problem reconciling that with the Chinese concept of Chi or even the fictional "force" in Star Wars.

I also enjoy concepts such as a quantum hologram.

Yes, purpose. It's the experience that tells you that it all means something. Something wonderful.

ScpgO2, and Rede, do I take it that, unlike Wolfman, you are not just materialists, or atheists. That is, you are not among those who see the material world as the untimate reality.

Wolfman, feel free to correct me if I misread your stuff. And don't misunderstand me: I love the natural world, especially when it is behaving itself and giving us of it beauty and bounty. I am an advocate of ecology. I think of Nature as the body of GØD. BTW, Wikipedia has quite an article on Ø. It is common in Scandanavian languages. Check out what it says about its role in maths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98

In my humble opinion, before there was the primordial ball, which became the BIG bang, there was what I call the Ø--the no-thing. That is, GØD in the micro. Compare it with the string theory.

Outside the billions of galaxies which we call the cosmos, the result of the big bang--15 billions of years ago--and subject of all the studies by all the sciences, there is also that which I call the Ø. But here it stands for the-everything--GØD in the macro; that which is beyond measure; and which boggles the human mind just to think about it.

BTW, Wolfman, I assume you are a happy, moral and positive atheist.
If so, why do atheists always avoid defining for me what they mean when they use the term 'God'?
What do you think I have in mind when I write, G Ø D?
I certainly do not have an objective male or female being in mind, one out there separate and apart from us.
BTW, why do atheists try to get unitheists to stop posting here?
Do we challenge atheism and materialism too much? After all, I see all of nature as part of GØD.

Again I ask: Can we live, physically, without breathing in the spiritual breath of life?
===============000000000000=================

GØD is The One
---------------------------------------
I find myself at one with ALL around me.
I'm one with mother earth, with sky and sea.
I find myself at one with space and time,
And one with all pervasive gravity.

I feel GØD's power in every tiny atom;
I see GØD's face in galaxies above;
But best of all, I feel GØD's power within me,
The power of GØD's unifying love.

I like M theroy better.

I am a full fledged believer in God. As for ecology being the body of God, we were put on Earth to worship God and tend the garden. I would no sooner worship the Earth itself then I would the sun.

Yes, I would agree with Revlgking when he said, "GOD does NOT exist as a being; GOD is existence as I experience it, and is as real as our next breath (The Bible uses air as a metaphor for spirit)."
Perhaps everyone's definition of God is different. For some he is the one sitting on a throne with long hair looking down upon us, others is the world itself, others is a baseball, others is nothing, and everything. Perhaps not existing in the physical realm, but there is something else surely out there. Active or passive, wise or foolish, omnisicient or unskilled, he is there. And he is not there. He is, he is not.
And yes, this could go in a science forum because we are trying to know or discern something, as the route of the latin word we get science means.

Nah. Even though if you ask me I will tell you that I am Christian and believe full body in the Bible it goes beyond that and is worthy of discussion on a science forum.

Take M theory. That says there are 11 dimensions? God is that which exists on all dimensions simultaneously. What's that theory about time, that all choices that can be made are made in parallel universes? I don't believe that idea is correct but for me God is that which can see all possibilities and directs life to his desire. Forever the artist painting the picture of life. The creator did not just throw the bucket of paint on the wall and say perfect. Creation was not just a singular process but life itself.

Let there be light! Not a magician’s trick, now you see it, now you don’t. Creation was birthed out of a tremendous force of will. God’s will. And we were created in God’s image. Not a being of two legs and two arms etc but creators of life. Eternal beings that are a part of the very fabric of existence changing the very nature of that existence though our force of will. Observing the particle changes it.

Thanks. Above, there is lots of grist for the mill of thought. Thanks for agreeing to offer your sincere thoughts. This is fun when we agree to dialogue and to disagree, agreeably.

scpg02, what is M theory?
You say you agree to "tend the garden", right? I agree; it is a good idea.

Where did I say: We are here to worship the garden, ecologically? Please, do not put doctrines in my head which I do not offer. Ecology is about: Tending the garden. Got it?

Tim: I like the way you put things.

M-theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physics, M-theory (sometimes also called U-theory) is a proposed "master theory" that unifies the five superstring theories. Drawing on the work from a number of string theorists (including Chris Hull, Paul Townsend, Ashoke Sen, Michael Duff and John H. Schwarz), Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study suggested its existence at a conference at USC in 1995, and used M-theory to explain a number of previously observed dualities, sparking a flurry of new research in string theory called the second superstring revolution.

In the early 1990s, it was shown that the various superstring theories were related by dualities, which allow physicists to relate the description of an object in one string theory to the description of a different object in another theory. These relationships imply that each of the string theories is a different aspect of a single underlying theory, proposed by Witten, and named "M-theory".

M-theory is not yet complete; however it can be applied in many situations (usually by exploiting string theoretic dualities). The theory of electromagnetism was also in such a state in the mid-19th century; there were separate theories for electricity and magnetism and, although they were known to be related, the exact relationship was not clear until James Clerk Maxwell published his equations, in his 1864 paper A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field. Witten has suggested that a general formulation of M-theory will probably require the development of new mathematical language. However, some scientists have questioned the tangible successes of M-theory given its current incompleteness, and limited predictive power, even after so many years of intense research.

Introduction to M-theory
Essier read.

If I recall correctly without going back and rereading all of this, instead of the singularity of the big bang you have to membranes that ripple. Where they touch is where you get your "big bang" or a universe. This allows for multiple universes as well as the membranes would touch in more than one spot.

I am an advocate of ecology. I think of Nature as the body of GØD.- Revlgking Post #22393

Sounds interesting, to me. I always keep my mind open to the latest findings of moral, ethical, loving and well-motivated scientists.

Keep in mind: I believe in education, not in indoctrination. In the face of new evidence I am not afraid to change my mind.

What is your point?

Are you implying that nature is foreign to the one you call God? Note this: I did not say: Nature IS God. That is pantheism. I am a unitheist, or panentheist. Check it out in Wikepedia.

BTW, did you know that our word 'worship' is simply a contraction of our words 'worth' and 'ship'?

You said nature was the body of God therefor implying that nature is God. Nature, is God's creation not God.

My body is not me; I have a body, but it is only a reflection of who I am. IMHO--I always like to use this expression to try to avoid being dogmatic about these difficult concepts--

--God (I'll use your spelling) has a body. As you put it: it is his creation. Even Jesus referred to "bread"(part of nature) as: "This is my body..."
IMO, God ecompasses ALL things, including nature.I always point this out in dialogues I have with atheists when they ask me for evidence of God. I always say: Open your senses, see, hear, take a breath (spirit). The Psalmist puts it: "The heavens declare the glory (the splendid character) of God..." Isn't the earth, and all nature on it, part of the heavens?

BTW, It is perfectly okay to disagree with me, just as long as we treat one another according to 1 Corinthians 13---"Love is kind..."

ABOUT PANENTHEISM, OR UNITHEISM, AS I LIKE TO CALL IT

Revlgking asked:

"why do atheists always avoid defining for me what they mean when they use the term 'God'"?

Hang on Rev. How do you expect us to define something we don't believe exists? Even people who do accept there is a God can't agree on a definition. As Tim said, "everyone's definition of God is different. For some he is the one sitting on a throne with long hair looking down upon us, others is the world itself, others is a baseball, others is nothing, and everything. Perhaps not existing in the physical realm".

Which of these definitions would you like us atheists to define as being the one we don't believe in?

TerryN: Recently, over the CBC (Canada's public radio) I heard Richard Dawkins, Author of, "The God Delusion" discuss what he hoped to accomplish by writing his book.

He gave an excellent and detailed interview about his latest thinking and sounded quite calm and rational. Not once was he nearly as strident as he came off in his book.

Others who responded to his comments noted this. He said: "I would love to sit down and have a calm dialogue with clergy and lay monotheists and discuss what we all mean when we discuss the god-concept..."

He must have had some idea of god in mind, or he would not have bothered raising the issue. Not once did he say: "Discussing theology and people's concept of God is a waste of time; I can't be bothered talking about such nonsense. It is like talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." BTW, the latter was Bertrand Russell's position. Is this yours?

You say you don't believe God exists. Agreed?

Is it too much for me to ask you: Define what you mean by "exists". In what way does God NOT exist? Are you thinking strickly in three-dimensional terms, or what? What is existence?

There is documentation for a precognitive collective consciousness. I can’t remember what it was they were measuring but it changes dramatically right before events such as 9/11.

Revlgking wrote: "I believe in education, not in indoctrination."
So do I. Being educated would seem to imply learning something without dogmatism and propoganda while presenting something as most likely the truth. Sadly in the public schools of America, this not done. Now I realize this is tangent.
But to answer Revlgking's question:
Yes, I beleive in a God, although I have not the authority to say he "exists" in three dimensions. Perhaps he does, perhaps not. Perhaps he is everything, perhaps nothing. None of us knwows, and we should not pretend that we do due to "scientific" explanations and such. We simply do not know all that there is lurking in this vast void we call the universe. And to me that seems a rational and irrational explanation of the matter depending on your point of view.

"He must have had some idea of god in mind, or he would not have bothered raising the issue. Not once did he say: "Discussing theology and people's concept of God is a waste of time; I can't be bothered talking about such nonsense. It is like talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

Notice, however, that the discussion is taking place in a broadcasting station and not in the pages of IEEE Spectrum or Nature or Home and Gardening, for that matter.

"why do atheists always avoid defining for me what they mean when they use the term 'God'"?
Because that is potentially an endless subject.
"Well, what if god had blue eyes?"
No, I don't believe such a god exists.
"Well ... what if God had red eyes and a blue tongue."
No.
"What if god had no god or corporeal form?"
no.
"What if god was EVERYTHING?"
Why use such a loaded term as god to describe a common concept?
"But what if god is just the good stuff?"
and so on...

Tim
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, include...

Tim, writes
Excellent!

Tim, in allowing for the mystery in all of nature, it looks like you and I are on the same wave length.

IMHO--my humble opinion--there is more to GOD than three-dimensional and material nature (3DN) but surely, if GOD includes all things, GOD is at least that.

GOD AS A DIAMOND WITH AN INFINITE NUMBER OF FACETS
Think of GOD as a diamond with an infinite number of facets capable of reflecting light and colour in an infinite variety of forms and colours, including that which is visible, and invisible, to the naked eye. It is not by accident that the Bible speaks of God as the source of all light.

Without being able to see all the facets and all the colours of the diamond, at the same time, I know that the whole diamond is there, because of the outline and the few facets that I can see.

Or think of the world's oceans. I have only travelled in two of them--the Atlantic and the Pacific. Of these two, I only know very little. But I know the whole oceans are there, because of the small area I do know.

GOD is such an inclusive concept, I am convinced that GOD even includes those who say I do not believe in GOD. After all, do birds have to believe in air to take flight? Do fish have to believe in water to swim? IMHO, air and water, like light are facets of GOD.

AIR, LIKE LIGHT, IS A FACET OF GOD
This is why I usually ask atheists: If you really don't believe in the breath of life--IMHO, another facet of GOD--why do you keep on breathing the pneuma (Spirit) of GOD.

In John 4:24, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman, "God is Spirit'. The NT Greek for Spirit is 'pneuma', which also means air, wind or breath. From 'pneuma' we get words like pneumatic, pneumonia and pneumatology--the study of air, wind, breath and spirit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatology

Keep in mind that materialism is fairly modern phenomena. The ancient thinkers made little or no division between body, mind and spirit. Perhaps modern physicists are bringing us back to this way of thinking--LIFE AS A UNIFIED FIELD. And life, for me, is another facet of GOD.

TFF, I presume you write as an atheist. However, you say the following with which I agree: I presume you are having fun with the rest of your nonsense comments, which I hope we can agree makes about as much sense as does the Bible when it tells us that God "walked in the Garden of Eden" and that he made a talking snake (Genesis 3:1) which Eve blamed for tricking her into disobeying God.

BTW, I try not to objectify or to localize the GOD-concept, in any way shape or form. As GOD includes breath and life, how's your breathing and living going?

Revlgking wrote:

'Define what you mean by "exists"'.

Now, the one thing we can be sure of, however you wish define God as being today, we are not talking about the God of the Old Testament. We both agree with this idea because you write it 'makes about as much sense as does the Bible when it tells us that God "walked in the Garden of Eden" and that he made a talking snake (Genesis 3:1) which Eve blamed for tricking her into disobeying God'.

And yet the Old Testament is what most people in the West rely on for their definition of "God". I'm on your side if you simply wish to wean people off this definition. As far as I'm concerned you can call anything you like "God" after you've done that as long as you don't use this idea to justify unethical political decisions.

"I presume you are having fun with the rest of your nonsense comments"
Of course I was having fun. Everything that exists is god. Nonsense exists. Therefore god is nonsense.

ABOUT THE DANGER OF TAKING THE BIBLE LITERALLY, AND AS A RULE BOOK
TFF, Recently, I got an item published in the National Post--one of our two national dailies here in Canada.

It had to do with the controversial question regarding whether or not the churches should accept gay clergy and the marriage of gay couples.

In a letter to the editor, one reader, who did not indicate his/her gender, argued that the Bible, especially Paul's letter to the Romans, makes it clear in no way should the church ordain practicing homosexuals as clergy and bless gay marriages.

I pointed out:

As a matter of fact, in Romans 1: 26 to 28--The Good News Version--Paul does lists sexual "unnatural acts" as sins worthy of death. But he also includes sins like jealousy, malice and gossip, boasting, pride, failing to show pity and kindness for others, and even the failing to keep promises. Politicians, beware!

If this list is taken as definitive of who among us should be put to death, there wouldn't be very many people left alive to sit in church pews.

In addition to the above, the Bible also recommends, ethnic cleansing and slavery (Deuteronomy 20), Holy Wars (Isaiah 13) and the public stoning to death of all sex offenders and even disobedient children.

Also, read what Paul says about women in general. In 1 Timothy 1:8 to 15 he writes, "Women should learn in silence and in all humility. I do not allow them to teach or to have authoirty over men; they must keep quiet..."

Let me assure readers that, IMO, the Bible contains many beautiful, true and good passages worthy of praise. But much of it is dull and boring reading, often silly and sometimes downright dangerous.

The above are just a few--I could add hundreds of more verses--of the reasons why I am very careful not to assume that all the rules set forth in the Bible are to be taken literally and followed as the law of the land, or even of the church.

TFF, you write: "And yet the Old Testament is what most people in the West rely on for their definition of "God".

Thanks for pointing this out, TFF. For years I have refused to believe in the "God" as described in much of the Bible. Because of this stand, some "Christians", with judgement in their voices, over the years have called me an atheist.

When this accusation is made I simply respond: I believe in what John said about God. And it is in the Bible. He said, "God is LOVE". If you refuse to accept this, I hope we can at least agree to disagree, agreeably."

TFF, thanks, also, for the following comment: "I'm on your side if you simply wish to wean people off this definition."

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I HOPE TO DO...I hope to get people to stop thinking of God in the same way that young children think of Santa Claus. I want people to grow up and think as rational grown ups.

Then you add: "As far as I'm concerned you can call anything you like "God". After you've done that, as long as you don't use this idea to justify unethical political decisions."

Please expand on your last comment. What do you mean by "this idea"?

I don't recall writing any of those things.

I apologize. It was TerryNZ, in his post #22459 - Yesterday at 04:38.
LGK

Revlgking wrote:
"Because of this stand, some "Christians", with judgement in their voices, over the years have called me an atheist."
Well I dont.
But I disagree with your implination when you wrote: "Paul does lists sexual "unnatural acts" as sins worthy of death. But he also includes sins like jealousy, malice and gossip, boasting, pride, failing to show pity and kindness for others, and even the failing to keep promises. Politicians, beware!"
Well everyone does those things, and everyone dies. Simple as that, perhaps our society is different than Paul's, or he just went too far. And do you mean the Bible promotes a holy war in the sense of Islamic jihad? Curious how Ive never noticed that.
But anyway, "THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I HOPE TO DO...I hope to get people to stop thinking of God in the same way that young children think of Santa Claus. I want people to grow up and think as rational grown ups." is wisdom, indeed. So many people are deceived that religion is just faith but no rationality. Well, to me it seems it is not exclusively that. God could be anything or nothing, as I have said. You dont have to beleive in Him or think you do, but surely there is something you beleive exists? Perhaps he is not Jesus of the Bible, or God of the Old Testament, but perhaps the hand of nature, or your TV, or something. Perhaps He could be different to everyone else, or perhaps not. You decide, and as Revlgking said, lets agree to disagree, because that seems the most rational agreement (techinically disagreement, oh no a paradox!).

Tim.. Please believe me... it is not necessary to believe in the divine or the existence of any other supernatural phenomena. People who need faith will, hopefully, form their faith from exploring their own beliefs and not solely the direction of others- just as you are presently doing. This form of self exploration, whilst it is encouraged in some of the teachings of Jesus, is not usually a feature of the God of the Old Testament and is often lacking in estabished church dogma as you have found.

TheFallibleFiend wrote:

"I don't recall writing any of those things".

But feel free to claim them if you wish.

Revlgking wrote:

"Please expand on your last comment. What do you mean by this idea"?

Well, first of all there's no fullstop between "God" and after in my original comment. Lets just look at most of the trouble spots in the world. Belief in a god is used to justify everything from occupation of territory to the acts of terrorism committed in response. Sure, the basic causes may be the economic advantage of certain small groups but they gather support for their cause by claining they have their own god on their side. The phenomenon is not new. States in ancient Sumeria, the Middle East and and Egypt adopted the same tactic.

Tim wrote:

"do you mean the Bible promotes a holy war in the sense of Islamic jihad"?

Fraid so. That's how most of the rest of the world sees it anyway. All you Christians, Muslims and Jews fighting over which sub-sect worships the one true G$D.

"Belief in a god is used to justify everything from occupation of territory to the acts of terrorism committed in response." comments TerryNZ

Terry, keep in mind, evil people, including evil theists and atheists, will use anything to justify their actions.

Tim: About "Holy War", check out Isaiah 13:1-5--King James version--and tell us what you think it means.

BTW, THE LIVING BIBLE--a version approved by most fundamentalists--talks about the "Lord of Hosts" (God as the field marshall of a massive righteous army) destroying the whole land of Babylon, modern Iran. Sounds like a holy war to me.

Revlgking wrote:

"evil people, including evil theists and atheists, will use anything to justify their actions."

Yes. But it's much easier to raise allies if you claim supernatural support. I can't imagine anything atheists might be able to use as a substitute.

Regarding the Bible and Holy War. Tell me again of the noble deeds Joshua and his partners in genocide justified by claiming their god commanded them to do it. Perfect alibi. Mind you there's a great deal of evidence it never actually happened anyway.

TNZ, I see you agree that evil is evil, regardless of the source. Good for you! It seems you, also, agree that atheists have no supernatural substitute for their cause. In other words, they have no invisible means of support. Sad, eh?

But seriously: As I understand it, individual atheists believe that they have no future beyond their personal deaths. I presume that you, also, believe this to be true for all atheists, collectively speaking, right?

If this IS true, what does atheism have to offer anyone about the future?

Nothing, just a dead end.

If atheism is a fact, the reward to those who live short and miserable lives is even less. It seems to me that atheism is a hopeless philosophy of life. Not much fun, if you ask me.

In addition, if atheism is a fact, there is no reason to blame atheists who become criminals and who decide to look after number by taking advantage of others in order to get the most out of life for themselves, now. What have aatheists got to lose by being immoral?

On the other hand, unitheism/panentheism, and other forms of theism, may prove to be false; but if they are false, no one, not even they, will ever know, right?

However, if they are proved true, think of the fun believers are going to have with non-believers, in any future life there happens to be.

BTW, if there really is a life in the future, I hope to see many atheists there. Seriously, I promise to accept you as you are, and not make fun of your lack of optimistic faith, okay?

Yes, I read Isaiah 13:1-5
To me that doesnt seem like its promoting a holy war, although it is fine propoganda. It is merely poetry (Isaiah is a mighty fine poet, one of the best in my eyes, and in some of my poems I have adopted his style). It is a poem or revelation; "the oracle...whcih Isaiah the son of Amoz saw." (13:1)
But beleive me, it is not promoting extremists armed with bombs to attack citizens nor use any force on others.

"It seems to me that atheism is a hopeless philosophy of life." I would disagree with that statement although myself not an atheist, i can see where they come from by acceptence. There is hope for all, regardless of worldview.

"In addition, if atheism is a fact, there is no reason to blame atheists who become criminals and who decide to look after number by taking advantage of others in order to get the most out of life for themselves, now. What have aatheists got to lose by being immoral?"

Well, at least you didn't make the common and stupid statement, "Atheists can't be moral." It depends on what one means by 'blame'. With no god there is no 'goodness' in the universe. That doesn't mean we can't individually and collectively define what we will consider acceptable behavior. We can make very rules that promote some agenda that we agree to or we can make rules orthogonal to any agenda, i.e. stupid rules.

As I wrote: "In addition, if atheism is a fact, there is no reason to blame atheists..."

Let me put this another way by asking a question: Other than virtue--moral excellence--being its own reward, what motivates atheists to be virtuous?

I presume rational atheists and theists, have a fear of breaking the law of the land and facing punishment in this life.. But only theists have a fear of facing some kind of judgement after death.

Revlgking wrote:

"if atheism is a fact, there is no reason to blame atheists who become criminals and who decide to look after number by taking advantage of others in order to get the most out of life for themselves, now'.

I suspect that in general atheists are less likely to become criminals. They don't rely on fear of future divine punishment to make them honest now. You ask, "what motivates atheists to be virtuous?" Being virtuous makes life a lot easier. You're not looking over your shoulder all the time to see if you've got away with something. Besides I have said elsewhere that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Most religions have the same idea but phrase it differently.

The problem we all have is that it's as difficult for someone who believes in God to see the world through atheist's eyes as it is for an atheist to see the world through a god-believer's eyes.

TerryNZ writes:"The problem we all have is that it's as difficult for someone who believes in God to see the world through atheist's eyes as it is for an atheist to see the world through a god-believer's eyes." Indeed true.

Terry you speak of atheists and theists seeing the world. Indeed, we not only see the world, we sense it, and experience it, with all our senses.

Atheists, like most theists keep talking about God, as if he is someone, separate and apart from us and the universe, in whom we either believe, or don't believe.

I wonder how many atheists are willing to accept that there is another option--a god-concept which, like process theology (Wikipedia), includes all of nature: Unitheists/panENtheists, not only sense the physical universe, we accept that it is the outward and visible sign, or being, of GØD as invisible being in and through all natural things. This is that which imprints upon our souls and motivates us, those of us who are willing, to be loving and virtuous beings.

Belief can lead us to knowledge, which is MORE THAN JUST A BELIEF, it is fact.

In a famous BBC TV broadcast, FACE TO FACE, IN 1959--I think I remember hearing a clip from it over the CBC--the great Carl Jung, whose father, BTW, was a minister in Switzerland, was asked: "Do you believe in God?" he replied, "I do not need to believe in God, I KNOW." He was inundated with letters asking him what he meant by "God" anyway.

The January 21, 1960 edition of the LISTENER--the BBC newsletter--he wrote a detailed letter outlining what he mean when he said that he had a 'knowledge of God'. In another post I will expand on what he said.

TerryNZ, you say that, "Being virtuous makes life a lot easier."

Perhaps this is true, for all of us, especially those of us who have a sensitive conscience. But surely you are not suggesting that being virtuous always makes life easier on this earthly plane.

I know that I feel very guilty, even when I do things, which are not necessarily against any law.

For example, as a minister, there were times when I felt guilty when I held back from visiting parishoners who I found boring. In the church-trade these are called "sins" of omission--failing to do the things we feel we ought to do. It is not against any law to avoid such people, but clergy often feel badly for not wanting to put up with them

In addition, keep in mind: There are times when "being virtuous" can present us with all kinds of problems. For example, it caused Moses, Socrates, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Joan of Arc, Mohatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and numerous other great leaders, a lot of physical and mental pain. For some it even caused their deaths.

You say, "You're not looking over your shoulder (to see if God is watching you?) all the time to see if you've got away with something." You are talking about the God of theism, right?

But, keep in mind that the real world is filled with more than imagined angels, demons and gods. There are real vilains out to there, ready to take revenge on us, especially if we have the courage to expose their vilainy. With or without God, being virtuous can sometime be very costly, don't you think?

You say: "Besides, I have said elsewhere that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Most religions have the same idea but phrase it differently."

Is this latter--the law of karma--part of your atheist philosophy (religion)? BTW, tt is mentioned in Galatians 5--the writings of St. Paul, in the New Testament.

I still maintain that atheists see the world with wonder and delight, whilst living a 'good' life. They just don't see the need for 'invisible means of support'. ;-)

Good for you, Ellis? Theists and unitheists agree with you about the way you see the world.

BTW, from your last sentence, I take it you only accept that part of the light spectrum which is visible to the naked eye, eh?
What are the dimensions of wonder and delight? And the imagination? Faith? Hope? And Love? And how much do they weigh?

And here's a question: If Jesus, just before he was arrested and sentenced to death, had become convinced that there was no life beyond the grave, would he have given up his life for the sake of others? Why would anyone expect him, or anyone, to do so?

Keep in mind: I would not blame an atheist for refusing to sacrifice his one and only precious life.

First let me say that I don't speak for all atheists. Second, I reiterate that none of this has anything remotely to do with science.

"Other than virtue--moral excellence--being its own reward, what motivates atheists to be virtuous?"

I guess I think that's enough for atheists.

"I presume rational atheists and theists, have a fear of breaking the law of the land and facing punishment in this life.. But only theists have a fear of facing some kind of judgement after death."

All true. Here's the thing: neither punishment in this life nor the next is entirely sufficient to keep people from doing evil. Of course, in my view 'evil' is a human perspective - and because of the law of unintended consequences we need to be very careful how we apply the term.

There is a sense, however, in which this stuff (minus the mystical junk) could eventually be amenable to some scientific analysis - and that could very well be an outgrowth of economic theory. Econ started out as a (very) soft science, but has really made dramatic progress in the last few decades. Nowadays there exists a body of theory that might permit analysis using techniques from my own chosen field of science, complex adaptive systems (CAS).

There is some interesting work that has been done to examine the effect that rules and policies have on organizations.
Check out the first four paragraphs of this Scientific American article: http://people.icoserver.com/users/eric/hbr_swarm.pdf

Also, the first 3 paragraphs of the following Harvard Business Review article:
http://people.icoserver.com/users/eric/hbr_unpredictable.pdf

I met Dr. Bonabeau when he came to speak at a CAS group I started at work. He's brilliant, but he's not the only person doing first rate research in this subject. I've fixated on his articles only because 1) they don't have a lot of the mathematical baggage of a lot of the CAS work that gets done and 2) they clearly convey the sense that these techniques (agent-based modeling and genetic algorithms) are getting to the point where they're able to support experimentation into 'higher level' problems (i.e. policy).

The potential linkage to ethics is pure intuition at this point. I'm looking at the possibility that some of these ideas might be applicable to examining policy issues or organizations a bit larger than corporations: government agencies or entire governments. I'm attempting to develop a research program for examining these issues, but it's a bit of a hard sell.

As you write TFF: "There is a sense, however, in which this stuff (minus the mystical junk) could eventually be amenable to some scientific analysis - and that could very well be an outgrowth of economic theory."

Under the general heading of pneumatology--the study of the human spirit--it is, IMHO, already amenable to analysis.

PNEUMATOLOGY--a soft science. IMO, the use of it is of great value to understanding sociology and economics. Without faith (confidence) what is money worth? Who would invest in the markets, without faith?

MEASURING FAITH
For example, give me 100 people, or more, and, within a few minutes, I can--using what I call pneumatherapy technique--demonstrate who of the group will be among the 20% of the population who make good "trance subjects" and have the ability to demonstrate great faith, in good, evil, or just plain nonsense.

IMHO, faith, like hope and love, is a pneumatological tool, originating in the human spirit (pneuma). It has been used by autocratic tyrants like Hitler to destroy freedom, and by democratic statesmen like Washington to establish it.

Aldous Huxley, in his 1962 novel, Island, calls attention to the social significance of understanding the nature and function, for good or ill, of the normal human ability to go in and out of the trance state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_(novel)

THE FOLLOWING IS VERY SIGNIFICANT
In a foreword written twenty years after the original publication of Brave New World, Huxley wrote:

Quote:

If I were now to rewrite the book, I would offer the Savage a third alternative. Between the Utopian and primitive horns of his dilemma would lie the possibility of sanity...In this community economics would be decentralist and Henry-Georgian, politics Kropotkinesque co-operative. Science and technology would be used as though, like the Sabbath, they had been made for man, not, (as at present and still more so in the Brave New World) as though man were to be adapted and enslaved to them. Religion would be the conscious and intelligent pursuit of man's Final End, the unitive knowledge of immanent Tao or Logos, the transcendent Godhead or Brahman. And the prevailing philosophy of life would be a kind of Higher Utilitarianism, in which the Greatest Happiness principle would be secondary to the Final End principle–the first question to be asked and answered in every contingency of life being: "How will this thought or action contribute to, or interfere with, the achievement, by me and the greatest possible number of other individuals, of man's Final End?"

"Under the general heading of pneumatology--the study of the human spirit--it is, IMHO, already amenable to analysis."

There is no reason whatever to think that such a thing as "spirit" exists as anything other than a metaphor for one aspect of the human mind. The example you give, even granting that such a thing as "trance" exists, is clearly an application of psychology. Just because astrology and astronomy both concern stars doesn't mean that every advance made in astronomy is evidence for astrology or that astrologers have a contribution to make to astronomy.

I found that quote by Huxley very interesting, although I dont get how Brave New World got into the conversation (one of my favorite books).

"Science and technology would be used as though, like the Sabbath, they had been made for man, not, (as at present and still more so in the Brave New World) as though man were to be adapted and enslaved to them."

Curious, how the science in that society (cloning, hyptnotism, worshipping the car manufacturer, drugs, and in a sense stem cells) destroys it and lets no room for personal freedom. Is this the direction our science is moving in? As opposed to Orwell's 1984, Brave New World envisions a world based not on hate and opressive dictatorships, but on "love" and laziness, in a sense. For the people, using their total freedom choose to have it taken away by making everyone the same or using drugs when upset. Could this be the way our country is headed under science for the people?
It is worthy to note that the characters in Brave New World, under love and freedom, end up as the same as in the culture of 1984, based on hate and tyranny.
Just a thought.

It has been a long time since I read BNW; however, I think one of the major themes of it is that the the pursuit of trivial "happiness" can result in a form of slavery.

Also, BNW is an oppressive dictatorship:
1) people are genetically bred to do certain things - epsilons are not alphas;
2) people are conditioned to act in certain ways.

It's important to realize that due to bad eyesight, Huxley was stymied in his pursuit of being a doctor. He could not participate in science the way his famous brother and grandfather did. He advocated the use of hallucinogens.

One thing that a great writer can do - and Aldous was certainly that - is create contrived scenarios to illustrate their opinion, regardless of how that opinion stands in relation to the facts or to good sense.

Another example is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who created Sherlock Holmes. Doyle's absolute mastery of the language could create in the mind of the reader the inescapable illusion that Holmes was being logical. Doyle was a vastly better writer than he was a logician. So was Aldous Huxley.

"The example you give, even granting that such a thing as "trance" exists, is clearly an application of psychology." TFF

Are you sure of what you speak? IMHO, the trance experience--of which I have had practical experience--is very much a part of the traditions of religion and the prophetic tradition--As WS Kroger, in his great book, Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, makes abundantly clear. Prophetic visions, including the Koran, came out of the trance state.

BTW, when I majored in psychology in the 1950's www.mta.ca it was then under the department of philosophy. I have been a student of the philosophies and the psychologies all my life.

This prompts me to say: There is so thing one singular field called "psychology"; there are schools of psychology--for example, there is behaviourism--Watson and Skinner-- which is contra to the analytical schools like that Freud, Jung, Adler, etc., Then there is structuralism like that of William James.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=psychology&fulltext=Search

YOU SEE I TEND TO BE PRAGMATIC IN MY APPROACH TO PSYCHOLOGY--as I do with religion.
One of the early advocates of pragmatism was William James, Harvard. He wrote the classic,
THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE--A Study in Human Nature:
===============================================================
It is a book that comprises his edited Gifford Lectures on "Natural Theology" delivered at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland between 1901 and 1902.

"Scientific theories are organically conditioned just as much as religious emotions are; and if we only knew the facts intimately enough, we should doubtless see 'the liver' determining the dicta of the sturdy atheist as decisively as it does those of the Methodist under conviction anxious about his soul. When it alters in one way the blood that percolates it, we get the Methodist, when in another way, we get the atheist form of mind."

These lectures concerned the nature of religion and the neglect of science, in James' view, in the academic study of religion. Soon after its publication, the book found its way into the canon of psychology and philosophy, and has remained in print for over a century. James would go on to develop his philosophy of pragmatism, and there are already many overlapping ideas in Varieties and his 1907 book, Pragmatism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=psychology&fulltext=Search

I later discovered that the achaic term for psychology was pneumatology.

By the way, one of my other intellectual heroes is Carl Jung, who I believe was more of a pneumatologist than a psychologist. I also love the ideas and work of Milton Erickson, MD, father of North American hypnosis, and one of the founders of neurolinguistic programming (NLP)--a very practical and effective form of what I call pneumatherapy--healing of the self, or self-actualization, holistically--body, mind and spirit.

I respect the animal kingdom, but IF WE WERE JUST ANIMALS would we be having this interesting dialogue?

In MHO, we are spiritual beings who happen to have a mind and a body. We differ from animals in that they are mind and body beings. If anyone can demonstrate otherwise I will keep an open mind, and spirit.

Also, check out the work of Abraham Maslow http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/maslow.html
...and Victor Frankl, logotherapy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logotherapy

As you can see, I am very pragmatic and eclectic in my approach.
Yes, I am in favour of useful medicines, especially those found in good foods.

If there really is such a thing as a "trance" and that is a huge "if", imo, how could it not be a subject of psychological study?

I do not think it is obvious that such a thing exists or not - only because I have not studied it in any depth. I can easily imagine, though, that there are many 'facts' about trances and altered states of consciousness which are widely known and a lot less widely refuted.

It is not clear to me the extent to which Jung's work constitutes actual science.

TFF, a healthy skepticism, in MHO, is a healthy thing. Congratulations! I began my student-life as skeptic. I still think of myself as one.

However, When I observed the trance phenomenon save my daughter's life when she was seven and one-half years of age, I began to take it seriously. Since then, I have seen it work in thousands of cases, including major dental-surgery. I had major dental surgery done a few years ago.

At my request, and without any anesthesia, my dentist did fixed-bridge surgery on me to replace two missing teeth. After the surgery. he declared: "I am amazed..."

BTW, going into trance does not, necessarily, involve going into a state of unconsciousness. I was completely alert during the surgery on my teeth.

Since the experiences that I actually had with my daughter's health, my personal health and that of many others, I have become less and less skeptical regarding the power of the mind over the body. All this is prompted by, what all forms of theism, call the spirit.

BTW, there is no rule which says that you have to accept that you are a spiritual being, who happens to have a mind and a body. The choice, spiritually speaking, is, exclusively, yours.

If you so wish, you are perfectly free to conclude that you are nothing more than a clever animal with no conscious future as a human being.

BTW, I presume you have no objection to those of us who are inclined to choose otherwise. Agreed?

I could add: If we who believe that we will survive to live in the future are WRONG, who will ever know and be able to make fun of and ridicule us?

But if we are on the money, think of the fun we will have.
Be assured, I will not ridicule anyone; I plan just to have fun, okay?

I have no objection to those who are inclined to believe in spirits, souls etc., so long as they do not attempt to masuerade their personal convictions as science.

I am glad you agree that it is okay to have personal convictions. After all, perhaps all that we call the sciences, today, got their beginning when someone started with a personal conviction that such and such could be possible. Too bad many of the early scientists--some of them clergy--for example, Copernicus--had to suffer, and not just ridicule, for their convictions.

I like the saying, which I think Will R. Durant uses in is his great STORY OF PHILOSOPHY: All science begins as a philosophy and ends as an art. This is why I believe we always need to make room for the "not quite sciences", yet.

BTW, who here is willing to actually say: "I am not a spiritual and human being. I am not a soul, a free and unique individual--one who has some self-awareness that I am me and not someone else. I am simply a clever, domesticated animal.

Any time someone more clever than I chooses, they are free to own and use me. I hope to be lucky enough to be someone's pet. I hope I will at least get a rich owner who is willing to feed me well and take me for my daily walk."

Y'know, I think it's just the semantics of how the word "spirit" is used, that is making this seem like a discussion from two different sides. Whether "spirit" is quantifiable, objective, or extant in whatever mode, shouldn't be the source of a disagreement. The effects of "spirit," what we see as manifested in a person that can be attributed to "spirit," or how a person relates to the world around them (motivated by what one might call spirit), is the same for both "sides" of this discussion.

Hey, I wrote this (above) after TFF's 11:56 AM response. It still seems like a good point. My issue now, is with the semantics of the word "animal," as Revl uses it. There seems to be a big difference between the spiritual human and the domesticated animal.

I think that there is a big difference in their (our) respective levels of complexity, but not so much of a difference in the respective content of "spirit." I could even argue that other animals have more spirit than humans (of course, depending on how you define spirit).

I find myself seeing both points of view as valid and equatable; but needing a bit of interpretation, or translation, based on the semantics of the word, "spirit," or the word "animal." It's mostly in the objective/subjective point-of-view area that I see the difference of opinion. Ultimately, I think there is very close agreement here (except for the semantics).

We're all just trying to understand and classify the world as best we can. If that is evolution's goal, then we should cetainly appreciate the differences in points-of-view that contribute to the evolution of understanding.



I might be willing to raise my hand here, but I'd like to qualify the perspective from which I am agreeing to be called a domesticated animal. From the perspective of both BNW and 1984, aren't we all already kind of at that point?
*_*

But now I'll go back to deluding myself into thinking I'm unique, etc., and be happy again.

~SA

Good stuff, SA! Now sit! And give me your paw! And I'll give you your treat.

What we believe we are may hold no relation to what we actually are. I am an animal. For the most part I am domesticated. So are you. You act like that is a small accomplishment. I'm baffled that anyone could not see the wonder in it.

There is no evidence whatever to suggest that souls or spirits exist as anything other than metaphors or artifacts of the mind.

"There is no evidence whatever to suggest that souls or spirits exist as anything other than metaphors or artifacts of the mind."
Yes, there is. Hence my disagreement with you in your assertion that there is no souls or spirits. It could be a result of our evolutionary instincts passed down through the ages, which gives us reason and logic. For that is the best way to survive, as man tries to subjugate beast, and has found that fit to pass down. I was just reading Doyle's "The Lost World" and have found that in the book, how the "indians" defeat the hominids through superior brainpower and tame the dinosaurs.
We have a spirit. That is how I am thinking and typing this at this very moment. How else would we be able to do this?
"I think, therefore I am," as Descartes said.

There is no credible evidence for souls. There is plenty of imagination and tin-like.

If reason and logic were the best things to help us survive, I suspect we'd be a lot at it than we are. The problem is that the world around us is changing. And we're getting to the point where that actually might be true.

As I said in another thread, Doyle was an irrationalist - a far better writer than he was a thinker.

Thinking is also what the brain does. There is no credible evidence that mind or spirit or soul exists separate from brains. Furthermore, damage to the brain CAN affect the effect that is called spirit or soul. A reasonable conclusion without all the mystical mumbo-jumbo is that soul is just another name for what the brain does.

Some thoughts on the above conversation:

The discussion is about experiences of the mind - experiences that require consciousness. In this context, I would expand the meaning of consciousness to include the experiences of dreams and dreamlike states, in which we are aware of phenomena that are not exclusively related to immediate sensory input.

We all experience consciousness. We don't deny that there is such a phenomenon. Yet no one knows what consciousness is. The brain is a biological device from which consciousness appears to emerge. Since we don't know the nature consciousness, we should be cautious about making assumptions or claims that suggest that we do.

There is room for speculation as a basis for scientific enquiry. The brain may not be the only environment from which consciousness can emerge. There may a 'large scale' consciousness that exists beyond the confines of the localised biological apparatus. As yet there is no proof, and it is wrong to make claims without evidence - but, as Carl Sagan said, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

We may reserve judgement, pending the results of research; but experiential evidence makes a significant, and often over-riding, contribution to the understanding of the experiencer. Scientists are sometimes inclined toward dogmatic denial, when in fact they should be prepared to say "there may be truth in that - let's try to find out".

"Scientists are sometimes inclined toward dogmatic denial, when in fact they should be prepared to say "there may be truth in that - let's try to find out"."

Sounds good to me. after all, science, IMHO, in not just about demonstrating what we know to be true, or false; it is also about exploring the whole of nature--physical, mental and spiritual--and our being willing to experiment in order to uncover new truths, or improve on old ones.

This question just came to mind: Are animals capable of being moral and human-like beings? Or are they dominated strictly by their instincts?

BTW, I plan to start a thread about "ethics"--the science of moral and human behaviour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

To say that we don't know some things is not the same as saying we don't know anything. We do not know that biochemical processes are necessary for consciousness, but we do know that that is the only place we have ever observed it. I exclude, of course, people who have talked to clocks or bananas during LSD trips.

There's always room for speculation, but most of what's been said is not speculation. Instead it's been assertion and assumption. There's even room for scientific inquiry (by which I mean actual scientific inquiry and not the pretend stuff) if consciousness, soul, mind, are indeed by-products of the brain or some other physical system instead of some mystical "force" or "energy" ("force" and "energy" being the favorite words that non-scientists use when they want to pretend they're saying something scientific).

There are other animals on this earth right now that can be said to think. There may well be aliens who think. There is some reason to think that machines might some day 'think'. But we have no reason whatever to believe that rocks think or vacuums or toaster ovens.

And, Rev, ethics is not a "science" of anything.

Yes, I agree with what you're saying, TFF (almost completely). The semantics might be an obstacle. Are thought and consciousness one and the same?

"The semantics might be an obstacle."

I agree: It sure is!

But surely not for those who affirm that all sciences are "hard" sciences?

Now, let us have the "hard" evidence that ethics is not a soft science?

Thanks coberst [General Sci]

So the point here is:
Well I can't take the time now, but....

AI:
Shouldn't we be able to construct AS {artificial spirit}.
Based on my thoughts about AI {cite that} ummmm... AS should almost be a necessity to achieve true AI.

...and this is just another way of pointing out that both Revl. and TFF are saying about the same thing, but just with different personal definitions of the basic words like "spirit." Differing definitions are based on differences in the objectivity/subjectivity spectrum.

...and thanks Tim for proving the point about how important our definitions are to seeing the truth. That one can read and write, or master the dinosaurs (or domesticate animals), is defined as proof of a spirited nature.

Happy Fourth!
~Later

p.s. ...nice question!

As a Canadian, with numerous American cousins--BTW, I did postgrad studies at Boston U and Harvard in 1954/1955--I love all you American cousins. Happy Fourth!

Here, we just had a happy first--July 1867 was the day of our birth. What a continent!--NORTH AMERICA. Let us build it into...just use your imagination, okay?

samwik: "thanks Tim for proving the point about how important our definitions are to seeing the truth"

Very often, even our most carefully worded definitions can be nothing more than hazy representations of our understanding or experience. Short of telepathy, we can only hint at what we mean by using various symbols, metaphors and analogies. At the end of a conversation we may feel that we've succeeded in conveying a message accurately, only to discover later that we failed completely.

As a teenager, I was just getting into classical music in a big way. At that age, your hearing is at its best, so real 'listening' can take you to other worlds. Anyway, I would sometimes be experiencing one of these abstract 'other worlds' when one of my family would enter the room and say something like "ooh, that's nice, it makes you think of the Himalayas". I don't know why I should have been so exasperated, but I was. Maybe because my personal experience seemed to me to be several orders of magnitude better than any mundane vision. The point is, we just can't assume that everything that's going on in the world outside of our minds is interpreted in remotely the same way in the minds of others.

It's hard isn't it. No wonder some people like mathematics. When we say 2 + 2 = 4, no one asks us what we mean by "2"!

ATHEISM AND TESTOSTERONE?
Recently, I had the following interesting question raised in brainmeta.com http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15585&st=30&#entry80392

One member, Cybert, told the forum that he had been castrated and the zero testosterone in his body helped him confirm his atheism and anti-mysticism.



I responded: Browsing, I just happened to catch this question posted some time ago.
GØD, G-d, or God, IMHO, isn't anything, objectively real, or subjectively imagined. Like all that we call nature--the cosmos and the ineffable vacuum, that in which the cosmos has its being--GØD simply is...No other verb than the verb "to be" applies when speaking of GØD, which, IMO is the absolute and unique wholly other.

I have no objection to child-like thinkers who imagine GØD as being as one (usually masculine) who is like a benevolent heavenly father. But for mature and rational people to create a god, even mentally, is just as much idolatry as creating a physical object. If this is what Cybert is against, he is simply anti-idolatry, not an atheist.

In order for anyone to be an absolute atheist one would need to say: "I do not consciously exist, and there is no such thing as existence.Existence, whether real or imagined, temporary or eternal, is an absurd concept, so contrary to reason that it is a laughable; foolish and ridiculous."


I trust that, once and for all, I have made it clear what I mean when I write the unique symbol of existence, real and absolute,"GØD". While it is possible to say that, existence, real and absolute, is absurd, it is logically impossible to deny that existence (GØD) IS. Do you disagree? Okay, try doing it, now.
==================
BTW, later today, my wife and I leave for a trip to the east coast of Canada. We will be visiting New Brunswick and our alma mater, www.mta.ca
Be back in about two weeks.

Samwik quoted Coberst:

"our abstract ideas are constructed with copies of sensorimotor neurological structures as a foundation".

Good point. That's probably why many humans are so convinced someone or something made the earth and the universe. Wqe can only conceive of a God in relation to what we do and how we act. We're usually fascinated to make things when we are children (many of us don't ever lose that fascination).

Anyway, are we all agreed that, whatever we want to accept God as being, the Old Testament provides not one shred of evidence as to what this God thing is? We can safely ignore anything it says on the subject.

"We can safely ignore anything it says on the subject"

Yep. Unless were living next door to fundamentalists...

Okay, I had a little epiphany today (several actually) while I was going thru my regular Sunday morning rituals.

"Spirit!" What does it matter what it is, or even if it is? We all know its effects when we see those effects in a person (or ourselves). I'm not trying to say we all have the same experience of "spirit," but that we all can relate to a something that enlivens us, motivates us, and makes us feel guilt, empathize, and feel joy and oneness. Number 3 in the dictionary says, "Life, will, consciousness, thought {re: redi's question; but I digress}; and the dictionary mentions, among many others, "intention" -which I usually include in a list such as this.

The point being (from above -coberst's reference) that the big hangup is in how we define the word, "spirit." Whether "spirit" is 21 grams of dark matter, or "-it" is just a meta-artifact of the meta-meta-cognition of our complex, representational, survival-based neural system, "spirit" has an effect that we are interested in.
Spirit makes both Intellectual Injustice and Economic Injustice an affront that deserves our attention.

I had the brief thought of trying to define "atheist" as a person who is keenly interested in spirited aspects of life, but just as strongly repelled by the word, "spirit." Of course it is the perceived definition of the word, "spirit," that is raising alarms in the atheist; but the point is the same. It is the definition of the word, regardless of the reality, that is problematic.

For the word, "spirit," I try to keep a number of definitions concurrently in mind; and consider it okay to translate what I think others mean into one of my reserve definitions. We surely do this implicitly, so we might as well do it explicitly; and having multiple definitions (like the dictionary) makes it much easier.

Not committing to one specific definition could be problematic too. Certainly someone devoting their life to a particular worldview would be rewarded by being more specific in choosing a definition; but if one wants to reach across worldviews, the ability to translate definitions is also rewarding.

I don't know how to define it, but I'm happy when I see it [...and that characterizes both "spirit" and porn!].
I should add that this little essay above also applies to words like G0d, Love, and Universe. It is possible to compare and contrast the differing definitions; but often it is not necessary if a discussion using these words is focused on some other goal. The goal can be missed if we're stuck on the definitions.

*_*

Although this above is a continuation of ongoing thoughts, it also came about more specifically after catching the Q&A section of a talk by Jeffrey Feldman on his book, Framing the Debate. Thanks BookTV.

Well worth a look, at:
www.frameshopisopen.com

~SA

Samwik wrote:

"The goal can be missed if we're stuck on the definitions".

And I think many times in this not-quite-science forum we suffer from this. No-one has adequately defined what they mean by God. As you say though, "Certainly someone devoting their life to a particular worldview would be rewarded by being more specific in choosing a definition". We had the ridiculous debate in some parts of the US when they first invaded Iraq as to whether Christians and Muslims worshipped the same God. How's that for arguing over a definition?

"We had the ridiculous debate in some parts of the US when they first invaded Iraq as to whether Christians and Muslims worshipped the same God."
Apparently I must have been asleep for those debates. Were you watching it on the news in New Zealand then? Because I never heard about that.

"The goal can be missed if we're stuck on the definitions". Reminded me of something C.S. Lewis once said, in a book he wrote, I think.

"No-one has adequately defined what they mean by God."
Okay, when i say God, I mean something so vast, so obscure, that it is impossible to put a definition upon. For He is different to all. Creator, Jesus, dark matter (or is it anti-matter, i forget, one of those), the evolutionary process, Zeus, gardening, celebrities, etc. The list goes on, for God Is, therefore being something. And that something is so infinitely higher than ourselves that we cannot even begin to describe it. Perhaps you are right, perhaps I, or all of us. Thus, my definition of God is that there is no definition.
Perhaps I was not making myself clear, and this just intensifies this debate. Sorry if that is the case, for my point is for all to have their own view of God, for He is all, in peace.

Tim asked:

"Were you watching it on the news in New Zealand then?"

Certainly was. And in the newspapers. Perhaps it was only a minority of fundy-mentalists in the Bible Belt and perhaps news services here may have picked it up because they found it amusing. There seemed to be no argument as to whether Jews and Christians worshipped the same God but those two religions seem to have now united against their common enemy. But if God is everything how can anyone be accused of not worshipping it? Unless they worship nothing. Even people who claim to be atheist get their kicks from something. I like music for example. For me, therefore, God is music.

"There seemed to be no argument as to whether Jews and Christians worshipped the same God but those two religions seem to have now united against their common enemy."
Let's be rational here, do you actually beleive that?

"But if God is everything how can anyone be accused of not worshipping it?"
Again, this is in fact a science forum, not some pointing-fingers forum upon the cons of religion.

"I like music for example. For me, therefore, God is music."
Now we're getting somewhere. If it wasn't for that statement, that post would have nothing based on credible evidence. Sorry thbat I was so harsh, but that demonstates in my eyes a lack of reason that people would think as such.

The debate, which I remember too, was about the fact that Jews, Christians and Muslims evolved from the same original faith- that is from the 'sons of Abraham'. Jesus and Mohammed are recognised as prophets in the teaching of Islam, but Jesus is not the Messiah. I am not sure of this, but I think that the Messiah is still to come in the Islamic faith, as he (not she in this instance I feel) is still to come in the Jewish faith.

So the God of each of these religions is, if not the same, at least closely connected.

Some interesting points above.

Terry: "There seemed to be no argument as to whether Jews and Christians worshipped the same God but those two religions seem to have now united against their common enemy."

Tim: "Let's be rational here, do you actually believe that?... ...nothing based on credible evidence"

- I believe that those three religions are supposed to be about the "one true God", the "God of Love" etc, and I also believe that their professed adherents have hardly ever stopped murdering each other in the name of their God. Right now, the current major bout of insanity is between the Muslim fundamentalist zealots and the infidels. Sure, we all know that the killers are a small minority, but they have a great deal of implicit support. On one side there are the Muslim suicide bombers, butcher/kidnappers and multifarious militia. On the other side there are (mostly) the "clean", "just", "Gods on our side" Christian USA and UK committing legalised genocide and leaving hundreds of thousands to a lifetime of maimed misery. As for the Jews, one need not question their alignment.

Tim, do you disbelieve that, or do you think it's irrational? Do you believe that it's not based on credible evidence?
____

Terry: "But if God is everything how can anyone be accused of not worshipping it?"

Tim: Again, this is in fact a science forum, not some pointing-fingers forum upon the cons of religion.

- Tim, please elaborate on your view that the sentence above is finger-pointing. It's a logical question; scientifically speaking, either God is everything or God is not everything. After all, you seem to agree that if God is everything, then music must be God. If God is not everything, then what kinds of thing are not God?

Science thrives through its theories being subjected to experiment, review, criticism, modification and so on. Do you believe that religion should be exempt from such review and criticism?

Regarding redewenur's first question:
"I believe that those three religions are supposed to be about the "one true God", the "God of Love" etc, and I also believe that their professed adherents have hardly ever stopped murdering each other in the name of their God."
Wouldn't that support that they don't worship the same God? Yes, it is their gods, but obviously not the same. Man naturally is in conflict with his brother; this is the result of millions of years of passing down the dominant traits (survival of the fittest). This in turn creates different points of view, so to speak, for different areas, as well as fighting. Now to say that Jews, Muslims, and Christians worship the same God would be irrational for an evolutionist to say, for that would go against evolutionary teachings. DA Morgan once said something about our conditioning in our local area a while back.

"Terry: "But if God is everything how can anyone be accused of not worshipping it?"

Tim: Again, this is in fact a science forum, not some pointing-fingers forum upon the cons of religion."

At its base it is not finger pointing, but its implinations are. Perhpas Muslims and Jews as well as Christians worship different gods, but God is All.

"Science thrives through its theories being subjected to experiment, review, criticism, modification and so on. Do you believe that religion should be exempt from such review and criticism?"
Of course not. Personally, I think all religions (Christianity including) should be critizised and "changed". Yet if that is done publicly, then i am taking away their rights and conditioned practises, therefore taking away their god. It is a fine line. For man does not like upheavel. History shows us that. For example; the French revolution, where the whole culture was up-turned. He bourg and sans-couluttes (sp?) and peasants revolted and took down the aristcrats, and to fill the void the Committe for Public Safety (a misnomer, to say the least) filled the void, headed by Napoleon. Within a generation, everything had been lost, and France was in ruins, only to have a handful more republics in the next century.
Perhaps a gradual progress is better than a swift modification would work better, as is happening already.

"So the God of each of these religions is, if not the same, at least closely connected."
No, not really. Hence the centuries of "fighting".

"Yes, it is their gods, but obviously not the same."
Obviously they ARE the same God. They just believe different things about that god.


"...for that would go against evolutionary teachings"
No, it wouldn't.

Tim: "Wouldn't that support that they don't worship the same God? Yes, it is their gods, but obviously not the same."

- OK, so what you are saying is that the God of your religion is the one true God, and the God of the other religions is not. Have I got that right?

No.

OK, Tim, thanks.

Tim wrote:

"Let's be rational here, do you actually believe that?"

Yes, I do. Of course the alliance has been used to mobilise support for an imperialistic war but that doesn't alter the way things are perceived through most of the world. "Money doesn't talk, it swears" as a famous Jew once said.

Tim also wrote:

"this is in fact a science forum"

No it's not. It's a not-quite-science forum.

Redewenur wrote:

"Right now, the current major bout of insanity is between the Muslim fundamentalist zealots and the infidels."

Aren't you forgetting the insanity that allows extremists of one religion to believe their God gave them a piece of land and the previous inhabitants can just go somewhere else? Mind you the same thing happened previously in America, Australia and to some extent in New Zealand.

Tim wrote:

"Wouldn't that support that they don't worship the same God?"

Now, if God is everything how is it possible for anyone to worship a different God?

You also wrote:

"Perhaps a gradual progress is better than a swift modification would work better".

I agree 100% with that comment.

Lastly I look forward to your answer to Redewenur's question:

"If God is not everything, then what kinds of thing are not God?"

So now there is only One True Church (that's the Popes' one ie Roman Catholic)according to the Popes' message this morning ---

So for people who enjoy fighting and not cooperating we can all go back to burning catholics and/ or protestants depending on the flavour of your religion. The Orthodox churches are apparently wounded (!), but sort of OK-- but all those fundies, well you're all on the way to Hell! Perhaps now we can stop fighting crusades and go back to the usual enemies. Am I alone in thinking that this is irrelevant rubbish.? But then I thought the crusades were over in the thirteenth century and here we are still fighting one.

What is your take on this Tim? Only one true god? So is he/she the Popes' one?

Anybody see that old animated film "South Park" several years ago? There was a scene in there that made as much sense as anything you'll see posted here.

After Armeggedon, upon reaching Hell, Satan advised that everyone present was there becasue they had followed the "Wrong Church". When asked "what WAS the RIGHT Church?", Satan responded, in the manner of a TV Game Show Host, "The correct answer is 'Mor-mons'. Yes, the answer we were looking for is 'Mor-mons'" Hilarious.

Terry: "Aren't you forgetting the insanity that allows extremists of one religion to believe their God gave them a piece of land and the previous inhabitants can just go somewhere else? Mind you the same thing happened previously in America, Australia and to some extent in New Zealand."

No, I wasn't forgetting, and in that case it's not just a few the extremists. In the UK I knew a medical consultant who, despite appearing perfectly rational in all other respects, was a bitterly anti-arab Zionist.

The insanity of religion has no bounds.

"The insanity of religion has no bounds."
The insanity of everything has no bounds.

Regarding the Pope's statement: I wish he could take that back, for it takes other people's rights away. For example, he alluded that Protestantism wasn't routed in the true Rock of which Peter started, therefore invalid. I would disagree because that not only creates internal divisions, but also other denominations to go against that, for they think they are the Church. What my personal philosophy is, is that you should not judge others, but love them. Perhaps Mormonism fits one person, and Lutheranism another, and Islam still another. But they should keep that to themselves, and not try to the point of bombings to convert, for that goes against libertarianism. God Is. He is all, everything; now I am not a pantheist, dont get me wrong. But everyone has a different point of view of God. When one gets too zealous of something (and not just religion, but also science, or cars, to use a few examples) they take away other people's given rights. That should not be so.

Tim- I think you can take comfort from the fact that Jesus said something along the lines of "where 2 or 3 are gathered together in My name, I will be there among them". Maybe going back to the source is easier, and ignore the later frilly add-ons! (I wonder if the Pope will ban the non-Latin bibles next).

PS And Tim- not everything is insane. It all starts to make sense when your grandchildren are born!!!

Wolfman- Have you seen the Rowan Atkinson sktech where he is the Devil sorting the dead in Hell. They are grouped according to type- and one lot are atheists. "Bet you're all feeling silly now!" gloats Atkinson. Makes me laugh every time! (I think I may have mentioned this one before, so forgive me if I have).

Let me tell you this; religion is one way for man to express himself. When it gets too far, and he demands others to convert to his, then it becomes out of hand. Last night I was watching Beauty and the Beast, and I realized something. Belle redeems the Beast by in effect redeeming herself. It is a tale of salvation. It is not a tale of Calvinists, nor Catholics, nor agnostics, nor Buddhist, but rather humanity itself. Religion if used incorrectly, is as bad as anything else, but it could also be good. Man is evil, but contains some good. There is something within him giving him at times some sense of nobility and honour, which might be masked otherwise.
"Maybe going back to the source is easier, and ignore the later frilly add-ons!"
Yes, exactly.

Tim wrote:

"religion is one way for man to express himself. When it gets too far, and he demands others to convert to his, then it becomes out of hand."

I doubt if anyone here would disagree with that statement. As TheFallibleFiend wrote earlier:

"Obviously they ARE the same God. They just believe different things about that god."

I've said for many years religion is like a pie. Each religion has part of the pie but they all believe they have the whole pie.

"I've said for many years religion is like a pie. Each religion has part of the pie but they all believe they have the whole pie."

Yes, Ive heard a story about four blind men, who are told to touch an elephant. The first touches the tail, and thinks an elephant is like a snake. The second touches a leg, and thinks an elephant is like a tree trunk. The third touches a tusk, and thinks an elephant is like a horn. The fourth touches its ear, and thinks an elephant is like a giant butterfly.
Now, this story is with faults, but it demonstrates that people could misjudge something based on their limited view. We see but a pin-prick in this cosmic universe, and yet we think that we know all or close to everything.

Job said:
"He stretches out the north over empty space
And hangs the earth on nothing,
he wraps up the waters in His clouds,
And the cloud does not burst under them.
He obscures the face of the full moon
And spreads His cloud over it.
he has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters
At the boundary of light and darkness.
The pillars of heaven tremble
And are amazed at his rebuke
He quieted the sea with His power,
And by His understanding He shattered Rahab.
By His breath the heavens are cleared;
His hand has pierced the fleeing serpent.
Behold, these are the fringes of His ways;
And how faint a word we hear of HIm!
But His mighty thunder, who can understand?"
(Job 26:7-14)

Yet today religion is claiming they have all the answers, with five different churches on a single street all with various creeds. What happened to "how faint a word we hear of Him!" Now perhaps that selection is not "scientifically accurate" but it is poetry from primitives Isaraelites (one of the best poetry, taken for what it is, and not dogma).

Perhaps we were created by a God, perhaps we were not. Scientifically, we do not know, which is why there is still so much debate surfacing around the subject. It is my thinking that tells me I was, that I was created in the image of my Creator. Does everyone think this way? No. Should they think this way? In some cases, if that is what is noble for them to do, and if does not harm them. They should not be forced, though. Freedom and love require a choice. That each of us should make personally, whether it be a Muslim, or Atheist, or Weslyan. We all see a piece of the large pie. The fact that there is such pluarlism in our culture -the culture of humanity- shows our small scope of knowledge. If we knew everything we would be robots, and there would be no room for freedom, and we would in fact know nothing, therefore (a paradox). Yet we do not, creating opinion scoured off unproven "fact". Yet we are conscious of the world around us. Able to choose, which none can take away from us. It lies deep within our surface, not measurable nor empirical, that serves as a guiding force.
"I think, therefore I am."
We do not know, we think. We think we know. Yet if we would know, we would not know. A paradox, our race. It is what creates Love and Freedom. Two of our most noble traits, which tower above all the rest. Hope.

Some very good points, Tim. I like your discussion regarding claims to knowing absolute truth.

"It lies deep within our surface, not measurable nor empirical, that serves as a guiding force"

- But it's empirical enough to the one who experiences it, wouldn't you say?

Tim. I agree with much of what you say, but your comment, "I was created in the image of my Creator" raises a series of questions in my mind. Is your skin brown, black or white? Is your nose large or relatively small? Are you tall or short? Can you see the problems your statement raises? Can people who don't look like you accept their God looks like them? Reminds me of the story of the Klu Klux Clansman at a seance. His friend appears from the after-life and says, "I've got good news and bad. Good news is I've seen God. Bad news is she's black".

"But it's empirical enough to the one who experiences it, wouldn't you say?"
Possibly, for some.
What I mean by in the Image of my Creator is that humans could have been designed with certain traits that our Creator would have bestowed on us, i.e. the capacity for truth and honor, and for less noble traits. It is not so much, "I'm white, so all who are not white are not like God." I am talking more than the mere physical realm.

Tim: "What I mean by in the Image of my Creator is..."

I understand that your personal, considered interpretation is not a fundamantalist/literalist one. Looking at it in Christian terms, I can imagine that if you strip away all the downside of human nature, what you might have left would be the wholesome, or "holy" part - the essence that is in the image of God. Is that, in your mind, the same as what you said?

Then, of course, there are the theological views regarding the downside - but that's another matter.

That downside is part of human nature, we would not be human without it, so our divinity which created us in his/her image should have had the opportunity to create us 'all good' but couldn't,----- because we reflect the nature of our god ???

Ellis

"That downside is part of human nature, we would not be human without it"

Some say that we'll never be fully human 'with it'.

"our divinity which created us in his/her image should have had the opportunity to create us 'all good' but couldn't"

Yes, a popular argument says "If God is perfect, omniscient, omnipresent etc., why, with the benefit of perfect foreknowledge, create a flawed species then punish the pathetic beings with unspeakable suffering for getting things wrong?"

For Love, for Freedom of choice.

Ellis: "our divinity which created us in his/her image should have had the opportunity to create us 'all good' but couldn't"

redewenur: "why, with the benefit of perfect foreknowledge, create a flawed species then punish the pathetic beings with unspeakable suffering for getting things wrong?"

Tim: "For Love, for Freedom of choice."

This is, supposedly, a God of infinite power that, whilst it was able to create a species with a 'knowledge of good and evil' could NOT endow it with the capacity to always choose good.

OK, Tim if that's you're God. As Dauglas Adams' Vogon said, "Resistance is useless"

But Tim, you've introduced another philosophical problem. Your comment:

"humans could have been designed with certain traits that our Creator would have bestowed on us, i.e. the capacity for truth and honor, and for less noble traits".

Am I to take it you accept your God exhibits these "less noble traits"? Or are we not actually made in God's image?

Perhaps, as Redewenur wrote:

'OK, Tim if that's you're God. As Douglas Adams' Vogon said, "Resistance is useless"'.

"Am I to take it you accept your God exhibits these "less noble traits"? Or are we not actually made in God's image?"

No, He could not because we are given the Freedom of choice, which can elevate or de-elevate (if thats a word) us, according to our actions. But that is my God. For me, saying that I am in the image of Him does not mean that I am Him. I am merely somewhat related. There are glimpses of humanity's greatness through noble and honorable actions, is there not? Self-sacrifice, caring for others? To me, those are the rare times when man looks behind the veil and sees his Creator. When he rises up above this cosmic void, and gives it meaning. But I do not expect you to have the same views of God as I do.
"Resistance is useless." Now perhaps I am misinterpreting that statement but in my eyes I am not condemning others for their view of God, or if they think mine does not make sense. My point is that I am not resisting other's opinions about myself, and that I am letting freedom of choice and pluarlism which most do not ahold to.

Tim wrote:

"I am merely somewhat related".

More or less closely related than are chimpanzees, humans and gorillas? The other two species also engage in "Self-sacrifice, caring for others" on occassions.

The resistance is useless comment comes from "The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy". The Vogon utters the words as he is taking Arthur Dent and Ford Prefect to be thrown into deep space. I presume Redewenur was suggesting that nothing is likely to change your belief. I don't have a problem with that as you are prepared to accept freedom of choice and pluralism in others of us. It's when belief in the supernatural influences decisions which greatly affect others that I have a problem. But of course our beliefs always influence our actions.

Tim

"Resistance is useless" - as Terry said, you have your faith; it would be futile and presumptuous to argue that you should change it. This kind of topic tends to become a little 'heavy' at times, especially when it's related to the horrors of fundamentalism. Right now, that's not the issue, and we have good reason to lighten up a bit.

Firstly, you are clearly a well balanced person with respectable ethics; so, my position is that it's of no serious consequence how your beliefs differ from my own.

Secondly, being a member of SAGG, you probably have a keen interest in science - in the objective realities of the material world. That, I would think, would be sufficient to stand you in good stead in sifting the wheat from the chaff regarding theological world views.

From THE GREAT LEARNING [500BC], by Confucius, translated by James Legge [1893]

The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout the kingdom, first ordered well their own states.
Wishing to order well their states, they first regulated their families.
Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons.
Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts.
Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts.
Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge.
Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things.

"The resistance is useless comment comes from "The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy". The Vogon utters the words as he is taking Arthur Dent and Ford Prefect to be thrown into deep space. I presume Redewenur was suggesting that nothing is likely to change your belief. I don't have a problem with that as you are prepared to accept freedom of choice and pluralism in others of us. It's when belief in the supernatural influences decisions which greatly affect others that I have a problem. But of course our beliefs always influence our actions."
I agree with that 100%. Oh, it must have been a while since I've seen the Guide, since I dont remember that part.

"especially when it's related to the horrors of fundamentalism."
Good, because I'm not a fundamentalist.

Yes, I enjoy learning about science, as you suspected. Interesting quote by Confucius, makes sense though.

"More or less closely related than are chimpanzees, humans and gorillas? The other two species also engage in "Self-sacrifice, caring for others" on occassions."
Yes, that is what I was implying, actually. Somewhere along the evolutionary line something came giving less dominant traits. Something that gives them the ability to distinguish friends and those in need of help, and extend yourself to them. To me, that is among the most honorable and noble deeds a man can do. In a sense -and if I'm unclear in this, tell me and I'll explain- he is surpassing his past of constant struggles. Instead of letting go and acting upon instinct, he jumps in front of the bullet to protect his brother. The movie V For Vendetta (one of my favorites) expresses this: for when Evey is (or at least she thinks she is) being interrigated, she doesn't give up. They could take every inch of her, every inch except one, her Freedom which is largely masked inside our race. Such qualities in man do not demonstrate weakness or meekness, but show our capacity for love and kindness.

The story (myth) of the Fall of Adam and Eve illustrates this, as does evolution in my point of view.
The Bible Myth (i do not beleive that it physically happened)- God created two humans, put them in a Paradise, and let them choose their fate. They failed, ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. From this, they are largely wicked. But still, they are granted Freedom of Choice. In this view, Jesus fulfilled the gap lost at the Fall, and through recognizing Him they acheive eternal life. (At the end of the book of Revelation it shows the Tree of Life [which was present in the Paradise in the Garden of Eden in which God said they could not eat] given to them. In a sense, their choice of going away from the pack (active resistence as opposed to passive) will give them Love and Freedom.
Perhaps that is just a myth, as you (and I) think. It probably did not actually happen, and what I said there is not strictly my view, but that is what Christian beleive.

The Evolutionary Process, at its core, has a similar theme/message, I think. On the surface, they would seem opposites, but perhaps not. Search deeper, climb higher, and tell me. Does evolution have a Redemptive theme?
Evolution literally means "to roll out." When I hear that word, I think of a cone, starting at the point and getting larger, out-rolling. Progress. Homo sapiens coming from single-celled organisms.

Do you agree with that or not? Keep in mind that I am writing this with an open mind. Is it cynical in any way? My point is for pluarlism for one's God is different from anothers (who might not have any, he says).

Tim: "Does evolution have a Redemptive theme?"

1) Redemption from what, Tim?

2) Evolution has a had a consistent tendency toward producing ever more complex organisms. On this planet, it appears that at the apex of that complexity is the human brain. Do you see a redemptive theme in that?

Tim wrote:

"it must have been a while since I've seen the Guide, since I dont remember that part".

I sincerely hope you're not referring to the Hollywood movie of the same name! I actually can't remember if that movie has the scene in it. But if you haven't seen the British TV series try to catch a look, or, better still read the first few books in the series. Douglas Adams' viewpoint is very funny. The Hollywood version was spoiled, in my opinion, by the need to have a happy ending.

Redewenur. It's good to have an Eastern perspective in SAGG. I agree the quote from Confucius was great. And Tim, I agree that myths are a very important part of our lives. However I think the standard view of evolution, based on industrial revolution ideas of progress, contributes to the damage we inflict on our planet. We have to think of more than just "Homo sapiens coming from single-celled organisms". Perhaps you can come up with a story based on human evolution that has a redemptive theme.

Hello, again, all. My wife and I got back, last evening, from visiting the Fredericton and Woodstock area of New Brunswick, north east of Ontario. The Alumni meeting with old friends at http://www.mta.ca made for a very happy weekend.

The area is about 1300 kilometers from Toronto. From Toronto, this takes us about 13 hours of driving, at 100 Km's (about 70 mph)--mostly four-laned highway. We stayed, going and coming, at Trois Rivieres (Three Rivers, Quebec), which is half way. The weather was an excellent. It was just the right amount of warm rain--the whole 12 days.
=============================================================
I see that there has been a lot of quite interesting posts over the last 12 days. Good reading, too.

DEFINING GOD
TerryNZ comments: "And I think many times in this not-quite-science forum we suffer from this. No-one has adequately defined what they mean by God."

TBZ, have you read the way I sign some of my posts?

As has been pointed out, it is not easy for some of us to define "God": How can we humans, using what I feel are very limited human senses, define that which is ineffable--too great to be expressed in words? This is why I always ask atheists: "Tell me, what comes to your mind when you hear theists--and there is more than one kind--speak of God--and I will tell you whether I believe it or not?

I supsect that most atheists make the mistake of thinking that theists are all idolaters--that is, those who think of God as an objective being, out there.

Obviously primitive polytheists--and many are still with us in the modern world--think of the gods as objective beings who can control the lives of us mere human beings. Polythiests worship objective forms we call idols, as if they are gods. Unsophisticated ancient Greeks believed that such super human-like gods actually lived on Mount Olympus.

Let me simplify things by telling you what I do NOT believe: As I have said, often, I do NOT believe in a god who is an objective person or being who exists in any three-dimensional sense of the word. This is why I use the special symbol found in my signature. Take a look.

Physically speaking, I sense GOD in all of nature, in at least five ways: To my sight GOD is light, in all its forms; to my hearing GOD is sound, and to my touch, GOD is all that I feel. In addition, I taste GOD and smell the GOD in all that I call nature. Who would say that this is impossible?

Later, I will add how I experience GOD in my intellect and spirit, as part of the mix.

I will add to the above as I write:
GØD AS INTELLECT
Intellectually speaking, I think of GØD as all that I know, now. GØD is all that I know and all that I will ever know, now and in the future.

GOD AS SPIRIT
Spiritually speaking, IMHO, GØD is all that IS in all of nature. In other words, GØD is all that we call the conscious mind--in the micro and the macro.

GØD, also includes that which we call the very helpful and computer-like unconscious mind. Google on the work of Seth Lloyd, MIT--See his book, THE UNIVERSE AS A COMPUTER.

Last evening, I talked with Turner, a teacher and a pro musician, at his place. Theologically and philosophically speaking, he and I, obviously, see eye to eye, even heart to heart. With his approval, I posted the above from his 'puter.

GØD includes everything we sense with our senses; everything we think about, mentally and intellectually, and everything we relate to culturally and spiritually. GØD is the source of all creative faith, hope and love, within, around, below, above.

Atheists are free to reject and to choose not to relate to this GØD-concept, as defined above, but as one writer in the brainmeta.com forum puts it:

"...it is probably not possible to refute the existence of God, since the existence of anything and everything proves that God exists.

If God is defined as a Creator separate from his creation, then there is little or no scientific support for this claim. So whether God exists, or not, comes down to how we define God."

Atheistic existentialists have been known to say that the whole idea of existence and our consciousness of it is simply "absurd". No wonder many have lived lives filled with despair ending in suicide.

"...it is probably not possible to refute the existence of God, since the existence of anything and everything proves that God exists. "
It's probably not possible to refute the existence of God, but this "argument" is drivel, regardless.

"No wonder many have lived lives filled with despair ending in suicide. "
Yea ... there were tons of us at Jonestown.

Hiya Revl.
Welcome back.
Me too! Isn't summer wonderful! Almost daily I marvel that it is all still limping along (Nature/our ecosystem, biosphere, etc.).

re: "Atheistic existentialists have been known to say that the whole idea of existence and our consciousness of it is simply "absurd"." -Revl.

My thought was that it depends on how you define absurd.
...and y'know, it's not just a simple definition that matters, but how we inculcate the word.
Am I using that word right?
I mean how we take the word in and what it "means" to us individually.

We all define G0d into, or out of, existence. What bothers me is that even if I define G0d into existence, I may still have the wrong definition.

Anyway....
I'm reading E.O. Wilson's 2006 book, The Creation, and thought his take on religion was interesting. He points out that from an evolutionary standpoint religion (belief in overarching principles based on external powers or motives)(~my quick definition)... religion is a fairly recent development.
Hmmmm... I'm losing the point here.
Religion is maybe 30,000 yr. old, but science is only 300 years old (depending on how you gauge science).
That alone deserves some pondering, but....

I like his point that science is "The invention of this remarkable engine of testable learning...." -E.O.Wilson

...and after pointing out that our "learning" has doubled roughly every 15 years for the past 350 years, he goes on to conclude...

This "learning" has led us to a worldview or "image [that] has subsumed religious rivalries and reduced them to intertribal conflict." -E.O.W.

...well, I guess not all of "us." ...and I mean worldwide, not "us" here, personally.

...and I'm only halfway throught the book. More later.

Lately I've been thinking that Religion might be the answer (to climate change), since governments clearly won't be saving us.
This is basically the thrust of this book also.
Save the Creation.

~~SA

Come now, TFF, you must have a better rebuttal that that. Now tell me the god-concept you think I have in mind.

You write: "Yea ... there were tons of us at Jonestown." US? You mean atheists?

BTW, Jim Jones and his followers were not any kind of spiritual theists. Obviously, along with their leader, they were mentally ill and worshipped an idol, a material being, in the physical form of Jim Jones, as if he were God.

BTW, I am curious: Do not atheists think of matter as the highest good possible? If not, what is the highest good for atheists?

SA, about 'absurd'. That which is plainly not true or sensible; so contrary to reason that it laughable, foolish, ridiculous.

There is obviously more than one kind of atheism. BTW, I like to think it is possible work with positive and rational atheists for the greater good.

If I may....

Jonestown = sarcasm.
...and "drivel" is valid, because it all depends on our definitions.

I think you and I agree much more than most on the "nature" of G0d, and I like your descriptions and definitions; but I would use different words. I still have a different "definition."

So what does that matter?
What does matter is the result of our definitions, not the particular semantics of a definition.

The results of our various definitions are pretty much the same. We want peace and harmony, social and economic justice, sustainability and evolution. Things matter.

...and speaking of matter.... I think space is the highest good, as it generates both matter and energy. It's what's "behind" reality, as G0d is behind everything.

Later...
~SA

Rev, almost every question you ask is nonsense, b/c of the implicit assumptions. But first things first.

"...it is probably not possible to refute the existence of God, since the existence of anything and everything proves that God exists..."

This is a stupid argument. It takes the form "(Probably Y since X)" or "(X probably implies Y) and X." (it's a little more complicated than that, but it's not worth going into more detail, the argument is so utterly stupid) Using his pseudologic, it is not probably impossible to refute the existence of god, it IS impossible to refute the existence of god, b/c it's given that God is proved.

I know what your definition of God is. It means whatever you elect to have it mean at the moment. God is all things. God is everything. God is the spiritual. God is all things that exist; some things clearly exist; therefore god exists. I get your argument. It's as uncomplicated as it is unenlightening. But that definition of God is nonsense. It's not wrong. It's not right. It's just nonsense. There is a lot of baggage associated with the word God. Why use the word God to describe "all things" unless you are attempting to deceive. You are deceiving yourself and you are attempting to deceive others. Your every post on the subject conveys this. First god is everything. Then god is only the good stuff. It's a definition of terms that is intended to conflate and confuse what is being said. No surprise there, as you use the word "science" also in a way that attempt to deceive.

I didn't say that JJ's group were spiritual. But they weren't atheists either.

"Do not atheists think of matter as the highest good possible?"
That is possibly the most ridiculous thing ever posted on this forum.

Atheists have different views about what might be the highest possible good. Some of us possibly don't even believe in the highest possible good. I'm agnostic on the subject. But I'm pretty the set of atheists who think that "matter" is the greatest possible good is empty.

Atheism is not a system of ethics, nor does it subsume a system of ethics. The ways that atheists develop their ethics is either through adopting some additional philosophy (humanism, randian objectivism, what have you) or by instantiating a system of personal ethics (which may be transmitted by tradition).

I'm not even sure that atheism qualifies as a philosophy by itself. (In fact, I'm not even sure I care.)

TFF, believe me, I am sincere when I say that I like what you wrote in response to my comments. You dialogued. You expressed how you feel about things, your feelings.

Jean just called me to a very important and material phenomenon: "DINNER...!"

I hope we will continue to dialogue on this important issue. Maybe, we can invite SA in, as a referee, on what we write to one another, okay?

Rev. I agree with TFF. Your definition of God changes with the comment you are trying to combat. You said:

"To my sight GOD is light, in all its forms; to my hearing GOD is sound, and to my touch, GOD is all that I feel. In addition, I taste GOD and smell the GOD in all that I call nature".

In other posts you have claimed God is a word for all there is. But now you seem to be saying God is not dark. Anything you can't hear, touch, feel, taste or smell is not God. What controls all these things; the Devil, Satan, Ahriman? Of course it's not possible to disprove any sort of God exists if we keep changing the definition of what that God is, especially if we make the prior assumption there is a God in the first place. As TFF says it sounds like you accept God can be anything we want it to be. This idea has always ultimately led to the belief that once we have decided what our God is we can then try to exterminate others who don't accept our definition.

Rev. So you are back. I hope you had a nice break.

You miss the point about atheism-- it is that no matter what you define as G -strangeO- D is rejected by those who do not believe that the definitions are any sort of manifestation of divinity. I agree they may exist, I just reject the suggestion that they are evidence for G-srrangeO- D and are merely natural phenomena or part of the human condition. No god, no angels, no invisible friends, no sum of all existence- just humans trying to get on with it all. Why do you find that simple fact so confronting?

TFF writes: "I'm not even sure that atheism qualifies as a philosophy, by itself. (In fact, I'm not even sure I care.)"

Now this expresses what I feel is the essential nature and true essence of atheism; not being sure of the value of caring. Thanks for pointing this out to us.

John writes: GOD IS LOVE. Now Love is all about caring, and being willing to care.
==================================================
TerryNZ asks: "Anything you can't hear, touch, feel, taste or smell is not God."?

No. IMHO, God includes what we call evil. Isaiah 65 makes this point. However, I think of evil as being like chaos; it is good in the making. Creation (I prefer to think in terms of emanation) is about bringing order out of chaos.

You ask: "What controls all these things; the Devil, Satan, Ahriman?"

I am not a dualist, nor a fundamentalist. BTW, 'devil'--The Greek is 'diabolos', from which we get 'diabolic'-- literally means that which splits and divides us from our good.

TNZ, even my short signature makes it clear: in my opinion, GØD includes everything, even atheists. It even includes the right of atheists not to be included.

TNZ comments: "As TFF says it sounds like you accept God can be anything we want it to be."

If this is a question my answer is: GØD is, like all self-evident existence, self-evident.

GØD IS THE TOTAL PROCESS OF LIFE--part of the philosophy of the great mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/

Of course I like existing. I readily admit that I want to go on and on existing, ad infinitum, and growing as part of the eternal process of life, within self-evident existence, GØD, which I find it impossible to deny.

I see no advantage in denying that which is self-evident, do you? If so tell me what it is.

TNZ: "This idea has always ultimately led to the belief that once we have decided what our God is we can then try to exterminate others who don't accept our definition."

"Exterminate others?" Where did I say this? Quite the opposite. It is my firm hope that others will choose NOT to reject the opportunity to live on and on by exterminating their souls.

HELL IS NON-BEING
BTW, this is my definition of "hell"--non-being.
As Hamlet put it, the choice is, "To be, or not to be..."
I see atheism as choosing not to be. Correct me, if I am wrong. If atheists choose not to be, tell me, why would anyone make such a choice? It boggles the mind.

If death is followed by non being, none of us will ever know. But if there is being beyond death think of the fun those who believe are going to have with their atheist friends.

BTW, Ellis, I agree with you: "getting on with it all..." is what it is all about, if you agree to add: morally and ethically. I also happen to believe that there is an option: this "getting on" is without end.

TFF: "I'm not even sure that atheism qualifies as a philosophy by itself. (In fact, I'm not even sure I care.)"

You can be sure, TFF, that by itself, the rejection of a god-concept is no more a philosophy than the rejection of astrology, but why, indeed, should you care? In either case it's hardly a fact that's worthy of a second thought, unless you happen to be someone intent on repeating to the world, ad nauseam, how wonderful it is not be an atheist, and instead to be a member of the species who has a proper grasp of the value of "caring".

Have you good people got the message yet?

"not being sure of the value of caring"
That's far too general a statement. I'm not sure I care about whether atheism is a full-fledged philosophy. That doesn't mean I'm not sure I care about anything.

I see no advantage in conflating distinct ideas.
I see no advantage in misrepresenting reality or to drawing incorrect inferences.
I see no advantage to asserting that something is self-evident when it is not.

But, TFF, those tools are central to the rhetoric. Now, according to the above, you've evidently chosen "not to be" and are therefore in "hell", so just be a good atheist and admit to your spiritual, moral and ethical inferiority. That's the proposition, is it not? - or perhaps I misunderstand the condescending, self-righteous, holier-than-thou forum preachers.

Please keep in mind, I am not here to "confront", or to convert, anyone; I am here to DIALOGUE--to share thoughts and ideas which in themselves may be poles apart from one another, in the spirit of good will (Agape Love).

BTW, over the years, I have never taken a fixed-position on matters of faith and belief. Sure, I have taken positions, but I have always kept my options open. Circumstances do alter cases.

For example, because of the way I was raised, I used to refer to God as, "You", "He" and "Him", "The Heavenly Father of Jesus"--a kind of masculine and super-being.

Now you all are witnesses to the new way I write the divine name, in my signature. I do this to avoid concretizing GØD. With the help of a scientist, it happened about a year ago. Over the years I have changed my mind about several things, and I probably will make more changes in the future.

If I ever become convinced that all life ends at death--and I am now 77--and that eternal life is a meaningless dream, or vision, I will become an atheist. But I will need to see the hard evidence. Has anyone got any?

Until then I am sure you will grant me the right to believe, to have faith, in what I, in the company of billions of others, feel is a real possibility--that life does extend into the future beyond death.

Of course, atheists have the right to believe otherwise. But, surely, without evidence does it not have to be admitted that it is a matter of BELIEF, OR FAITH? Are atheists able to avoid matters of faith and belief?

Who was it who said: "Consistency is the bugbear of the small mind." The Bible says that even God repented, changed his mind.

ABOUT GOOD AND EVIL
CORRECTION: Instead of Isaiah 64:7, it is Isaiah 45:7 where the prophet writes: "I form light and create darkness, I make weal and and create woe, I am the Lord who do all these things." (Revised Standard version. The King James version says, "I create evil..." (I am not a Bible thumper who thinks of it as infallible. I quote it like I would any document.)

THE CHOICE IS OUR TO ACCEPT OR REJECT
We are free to accept or reject the theology that follows:
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have the same theology of the universe. All three believe there is an ultimate unity to the universe. To this ultimate unity they give the name which we translate as God. I call it GØD.

As my twelve-volume INTERPRETER'S BIBLE (Abingdon) Vol. 5, page 524 puts it: "God is the chief factor in everything that happens, favourable or unfavourable."..."The evil which God creates is not moral but physical, like disaster (cf. Amos 3:6 and 41:23. "Do good or evil.")"

Thankful that I am free to add my own thoughts and to put the above in my own words, generally speaking, because I reject any kind of dualism--Zoroastrian, Greek, whatever--I accept the total unity of the universe, or the cosmos--warts and all.
BTW, in THE REPUBLIC, II, p.379, Plato wrote as a dualist when he said, "God, if he is good, is not the author of all things...of the evil, other causes have to be discovered."

IMHO, dualists, like many theists, (including atheists)--not all--make the error of thinking of what I call GØD as an objective and personal being, separate and apart from us and the cosmos.

The Process Philosophy and Theology of Alfred North Whitehead, and others, IMO, have solved this problem. GØD is in the process of all existence. Human and thinking persons, collectively, are the personal expressions (sons and daughters), if they so choose, of GØD. Jesus declared, "I and the Father (creative power) are one..." In John 17:20, when he said, "That all may be one..." he goes on make known that oneness with God is goal of all humanity, if we choose.
========================00000000000000000=======================

Ready writes--I presume with tongue in cheek: "But, TFF, those tools are central to the rhetoric. Now, according to the above, you've evidently chosen "not to be" and are therefore in "hell", so just be a good atheist and admit to your spiritual, moral and ethical inferiority.

That's the proposition, is it not? - or perhaps I misunderstand the condescending, self-righteous, holier-than-thou forum preachers."

If you are referring to me, yes, you do, misunderstand. I do not think of myself as one of, "...the condescending, self-righteous, holier-than-thou forum preachers" any more than I think all atheists are immoral, closed-minded and dogmatic bigots.

Questions:
BTW, where did I write, or even imply, that atheists are morally and ethically inferior to me? Or that I am a holier-than-thou preacher?

===========================================
To any atheist: With the understanding that you have the right to remain silent, let's clarify things above by asking the following:

In my opinion life is about making choices.
Atheists, I presume you choose "to be" and to live in the now, okay?

But what is your choice regarding living beyond the death of your body?

If, around the time of your death, you were given the choice, would you actually prefer eternal death--that is, non-existence, an eternal dreamless and visionless unconsciousness of the self, and oblivion in the minds of others?

Or, would you choose something else? Given the opportunity, would you like to go on consciously exploring future possibilities? Would you like to be around in the year 3000, and beyond?

THE HELL OF DANTE'S INFERNO IS NOT MY IDEA OF HELL.
BTW, I do not think of "hell" as a place of eternal punishment. I suspect that many people are living in a kind of hell, right now, on this earth. I am willing to do all I can, to help people get out of this kind of hell. And I am willing to work with moral and ethical atheists. I have no time for cynics and hypocrits, of whatever brand.

I can't remember who first said it, but
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality by not dying."

If it helps you to sleep better or gives you comfort to imagine that "you" as an individual will transcend your own death, that's great. It hasn't got anything to do with science. It's not a scientific opinion - it's not even scientifically relevant.

But I wish you happiness, the same as I wish for everyone else and if that's what it takes, then great.

Revlgking

As TFF said, "If it helps you to sleep better or gives you comfort to imagine that "you" as an individual will transcend your own death, that's great."

If your dialogues on SAGG are part of what it takes, then so be it. I'll refrain from further comment.
______

TFF
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality by not dying."
That was Woody Allen.

Woody Allen also said about dying: "...I just don't want to be there when it happens."

BTW, Some us may die, like what happened at birth, without being aware of what is happening, but, for surely, we will be there. Agreed?

I have done the funeral of quite a few people who died in their sleep--BTW, a good way, to go, IMO, and one, if I had the choice, I would choose.

MY PERSONAL STORY
BTW 2, I grew up, virtually, in third-world conditions, surrounded by the deaths of several family members caused by TB. Until WW 2, which, ironically brought a modicum of prosperity to Newfoundland, most of the people on Bell Island--a mining and fishing town http://www.bellisland.net --lived on the economic edge, especially when the mines layed off workers.

For the record, my oldest brother, born in 1905, died at 25 leaving a daughter my age, now dead. Close to him in age to him, my oldest sister, her husband and her two young children all died. I was about 2 and 1/2. But I remember them. My mother nursed all three, caught TB, and she died when I was 5. My father became ill, not long after that. He died when I was 14, 1944. Health care for the poor, in the days before medicare, was virtually non-existent.

My older six surviving siblings helped raise my sister and me. We were the only two to get an education. The second oldest brother--the head of the family died two years ago. He was 92. My younger sister and I are the only ones left.

I tell these stories to point out that I grew up under no illusion that life is easy and that there is a god who makes life easy for us, automatically.

In 1942, during WW 2,--because of its iron-ore mines--Bell Island was attacked by enemy subs. Sixty-nine young merchant seamen lost their lives, when four iron-ore carriers were sunk near the loading piers and one of the piers was hit by torpedos. After both attacks, I was there and watched many of the bodies brought ashore. I was 12.

IMO, my experiences helped shape what I later came to believe: We have to accept life as it is and take personal responsibility for making it better. There is much more I could say about this, but I will leave it there, for now.

Revlgking: "I tell these stories to point out that I grew up under no illusion that life is easy and that there is a god who makes life easy for us, automatically."

Thank you for a very interesting post. It's often helpful in a discussion to have a broader view of the participants. The lack of such insight is, perhaps, the greatest obstacle to constructive forum debates, and cyber communication in general.

My mothers 3 oldest siblings died in infancy. My grandmother who lived to 90 never quit grieving for them. Our lives are much improved in many ways, but when life sucks, it sucks.

The good news for those to whom life is unbearable is that it's only temporary. I do not rejoice at the thought of my own death which will probably not be so many years off. I simply try not to think about it. I understand completely that after my death my body will decay, that my molecules will disperse, and everything that makes a "me" will vanish from existence. I am not my molecules. Nor am I my "energy." Rather, I am a particular complex organization. When the organization is gone, I am no longer.

Fortunately, my greatest hope for my life is nearly achieved. My kids know how to fend for themselves. They have each learned nearly all I have to teach them. They will go out into the world and they will work hard, play fair, spread joy, experience, learn, pay attention, think carefully, act responsibly - and if the time comes, they will not let one day pass that they do not let their own children know how much they are loved.

It will be a nice thing to see them do this. Maybe for a while.

Ready, needless to say, I, too, found your comment, following, most interesting:

"It's often helpful in a discussion to have a broader view of the participants. The lack of such insight is, perhaps, the greatest obstacle to constructive forum debates, and cyber communication in general"

Your post, and the post following, by TFF, begs a very important question: WHAT IS THE BEST WAY FOR US PARTICIPANTS IN FORUMS SUCH AS THIS TO HAVE A TRULY PRODUCTIVE DIALOGUE?

With this is mind, may I ask: Where do you feel we can go from here?

Within the physical realm, I defend the scientific method against all comers. It's the only reliable way to deal with the material universe. There is, of course, vastly more to the universe than can be grasped by our fledgling science, and there's reason to suspect that will always be so, no matter how wonderful future science may become. Well, that's science and its ability to answer the 'how' questions about our home - the universe, the multiverse, whatever it is. What science does not address is the question 'why'.

I've had my own objectively unproveable experiences which have told me, as clearly as any scientific experiment, that there's very much more to spacetime and consciousness than usually meets our awareness. Though such claims may be refuted, that's of no account. I know. That's sufficient.

My limited contribution, for what it's worth, is my unverifiable claim that (1) consciousness, information - can transcend the normally recognised limitations of time and space and that may or may not relate to personal existence beyond the demise of the physical body. (2) Through consciousness itself, without any analysis, there can be glimpsed an infinitely greater 'reality', with profound meaning and purpose. For the moment, I'll borrow Rev's technique and supply a label, i.e. "".

"" is the answer to the question "why".

"" is, eternally. From our perspective, "" encompasses all that has been, is, and ever will be, through the infinity of dimensions and the infinity of universes - and it includes in every detail, every part of you and me, physically and spiritually, eternally.

Perhaps "" is Rev's GØD.

There are, of course, problems involved in any discussion of such things (especially on a science forum!), so it isn't my intention to get into a prolonged and circular debate about it. Mine is yet another rambling interpretation to add to the long list, to categorise, pigeon-hole, and reject. We're only human. We cannot adequately describe that which is ineffable.

Ready, you mention: "Rev's GØD".

Keep in mind: I do not feel that I possess GØD, or the cosmos; I feel that I am possessed by it, if you get my drift.

I think of GØD as a concept of being in which I live and move, not as an object of being, separate from me.

How else can I say it so that I am understood? Any suggestions?

TFF, do you have any knowledge as to what way your grandmother's tragic experience affected her, and other members of the family. Did she go to any church?

In saying "Rev's GØD", I refer to your concept. It's like referring to Ptolemy's universe, without implying that it belonged to him.

Ready, thanks!

Ready comments: "What science does not address is the question 'why'. "

Ah yes! The why, the meaning and the purpose for being.

Such is my primary concern. My secondary concern is this: HOW we can make this meaning practical, in the NOW!
BTW, I am an enthusiastic fan of the scientific method--physically, mentally and spiritually.
==============================================

"TFF, do you have any knowledge as to what way your grandmother's tragic experience affected her, and other members of the family. Did she go to any church? "
She spoke about it, always with tears in her eyes. She cried sometimes. She was a Methodist and attended church every Sunday. She and grandpa gave a lot of money to their church. I liked and respected their pastor who came to my assistance on several occasions when grandma could not take "I don't believe" as an answer. She was sometimes bitchy and manipulative, but down deep she was a truly loving and caring person and most of the time she lived up to the principles she aspired to.

Very often, when I am about to waken, I forget where I am and what has happened. I get up and think to myself, "Boy, these kids of mine are SO amazing! I gotta call grandma and grampa and tell 'em!" Sometimes I'm happy and humming to myself halfway into my shower before it hits me.

I miss them both so badly and yet I know that they are gone. I will never see them again, except in pictures; never talk to them, argue with them; never taste grandma's potato salad or fried liver; never hear grandpa another of his silly jokes or sing one of his hymns.

My rejection of a belief in their immortality is not due to any feeling of malice or that I just don't care. I often *LONG* for this belief and wish that it could be justified intellectually.
I feel happy, though, or at least relieved that my mother is comforted by such a belief, this belief that I am not capable of having. I do not think my mother is an idiot or a weakling because of her belief. I don't even think her belief is unjustified - it's just not justified by correct reasoning or evidence.

I see the basis for the solution as being at once simple and hard: meditation. Thoughts, words and deeds proceding from that will be the practical expression of the meaning.
_________


It seems most likely that she has the required correct evidence within herself. That would provide reason and justification in full measure.

TFF wrote..
My rejection of a belief in their immortality is not due to any feeling of malice or that I just don't care. I often *LONG* for this belief and wish that it could be justified intellectually.
I feel happy, though, or at least relieved that my mother is comforted by such a belief, this belief that I am not capable of having. I do not think my mother is an idiot or a weakling because of her belief. I don't even think her belief is unjustified - it's just not justified by correct reasoning or evidence.

TFF-My own mother, a person with little religious convinction, but no animosity, now at the age of 95 finds great comfort in the ritual of worship. This is her privilege I suppose-- I asked her why she started this a few years ago, after not going to church for most of her adult life, and she said that though she did not think it did any good really the familiar ritual gave her comfort, and the people were friendly! Seems reasonable I suppose, but scarcely the stuff of convinced conversion. Maybe at what is the end of a busy life well lived she is having a bet each way, and I have your attitude that it is her business and I think no less of her and would not presume to convince her otherwise.

Revlgking wrote:

"over the years, I have never taken a fixed-position on matters of faith and belief'.

I've noticed. Often adopting different positions within the same post. I remember posting somewhere (I looked but can't find it) something to the effect we're all agreed the Old Testament tells us nothing about any entity that could be called a God. I even remeber you agreed, yet here you go quoting from it.

I've consistently found that the main weapon used by supporters of religion is to keep shifting the goalposts. You can't hold them to anything that they may not be able to squirm out of once the going gets tough.

I take no pleasure out of putting anyone in the position where they feel they have to squirm. That would be too mean, don't you agree?

BTW, as I understand it, honest scientists do NOT work from fixed-theories either, right? It seems to me that they always keep their options open for new information. Only dishonest ones fudge the facts to make them fit in with their theory.

BTW 2, you forgot to acknowledge that I did say I DO take positions on certain things. For example, blatant immoral and unethical behaviour is never an option, for me.

ANTHROPOMORPHISMS ARE, ALSO, NOT FOR ME
Until someone one can present me with the evidence--and I am willing to keep an open mind--I refuse to think of GØD anthropomorphically--that is, I refuse to attribute human forms or qualities to GØD, God, gods or things. Very few thinking religionists--Ffrom all the world religions--really think of God in a human-like form. Such is a form of idolatry. Perhaps atheists make the mistake of thinking that all theists believe in physical or mental idols. Do you?

BTW 3, there are many statements in the Old Testament, about God, which indicate that some of the Old Testament writers thought anthropomorphically. For example, Genesis describes "Him" as walking in the Garden of Eden and talking to Adam and Eve.

Check out Exodus 32:14."So the Lord changed his mind and did NOT bring on his people the disaster he had threatened." In 1 Samuel 15:11 God said to Samuel, "I am sorry that I made Saul king; he turned away from me and disobeyed my commands."

BTW 4, just because I quote the OT does not mean that I take it literally. Much of the Bible is metaphoric.

"BTW, as I understand it, honest scientists do NOT work from fixed-theories either, right?"

There's a difference between being open-minded and being stupid. Honest scientists know the difference between conclusions derived from their scientific principles and methods and those that are personal opinions.

The part relating to "fixed-theories" is ambiguous. Scientists are open to new ideas and new data, if not as individuals, then as a collective. That doesn't mean that every stupid pseudo-theory is considered likely.

"Wouldn't that support that they don't worship the same God? Yes, it is their gods, but obviously not the same. Man naturally is in conflict with his brother; this is the result of millions of years of passing down the dominant traits (survival of the fittest). This in turn creates different points of view, so to speak, for different areas, as well as fighting. Now to say that Jews, Muslims, and Christians worship the same God would be irrational for an evolutionist to say, for that would go against evolutionary teachings. DA Morgan once said something about our conditioning in our local area a while back."

The problem lies in that all three religions have gained misconceptions over the years. I've actually read the sacred texts (well, not all of the Qur'an, but most of it) for the three Abrahamic religions, and yes, they worship the same God. To say that they don't worship the same God is to say that they deviated from their scriptures. Allah is Yahweh is God. Although, I have my own opinions as to the true nature of the guy. He did some pretty bad stuff... And he sounds a heck of a lot like that other guy, Zeus, when you compare them objectively...... Both had courts of law on a mountain... Both were views as being in control of lightning... They have the exact same physical portrayal... And, when when you trace back the etymology... Jove, Jahhehvahhe, Jehovah... One thing I'd like to point out is that the OT deity, Yahweh, is never, not once, referred to in the New Testament. This isn't apparent if you're reading an English translation. They translate it all as LORD or God. But if you read the original versions, you'll see that YHWH (phrased as Yahweh so as not to be offensive) is used where the English LORD is, but YHWH doesn't appear in the NT (they never translated LORD in the NT). They used a different name... Thus a different deity... Think about it...

Tapion. And that's why I always specify I'm refering to the Old Testament as distinct from the New. There are problems with the New Testament, of course, but they are different to those in the Old. You may find it interesting to refer back to a thread called "Arabic and Aramaic". I pointed out there that a word often used for God in the OT is actually plural, "Gods", and there has been no effort to dispute the conclusion I offered there.

Try this to get there quicker if you're interested:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=postlist&Board=2&page=5

To bring the topic to this thread, the purported reason given by some is that the Jews made it plural to show importance. The Jews did do this, occasionally, but there is no record that they ever did it with that word for God. But, The Muslims, who did not pluralize select nouns to show importance, record the same stories and often have near identical usage, and it's plural there too, in the Qur'an. My personal opinion is that there were seven, including Yahweh, and they were the last generation of full deities describe in Greco-Roman lore. Whether they actually existed is a point of debate, and what they actually were (deities or egotistical powermongers, I usually go with the latter) is another debatable point too. Where they would have come from depends on the answers of the rest of those points... I tend to think that they were higher beings, but not divine in that they did not create, and were subject to evil deeds as well as good... Of course, I sometimes tend to think they didn't exist at all. It depends on my mood.

I think they all come from the mixing of beliefs that occurred over the long period humans have been running around the world trying to understand their existence. This explains the similarity of names found across different cultures. Most Gods may have originally been mighty men (sorry, or women) but none have ever been supernatural. Some working mums may be nearly so.

TFF, in your post, yesterday, page 18, I am sure you are not saying that are all scientists have always behaved morally, ethically and with infallible wisdom. In other words, "There is no bad science." Is this what you're saying?

I HAVE NOT EXPLORED ALL THE FOLLOWING, YET, but they do look interesting:
http://www.badscience.net/?page_id=4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Goldacre
http://badreligion.com/
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/003229.php

Obviously that's not what I was saying. Nor is it a reasonable inference from anything I've ever said or written. There is bad science and there is non-science.

tapion:
"Allah is Yahweh is God."
How exactly? Is that reasonalbe?

And yes, Yahweh is not named in the New Testament of the Bible mainly because......(are you ready for this?) it was written in a different language than Hebrew where the Old Testament was written in. Surely you would notice that!

"There is bad science and there is non-science."

"I think they all come from the mixing of beliefs that occurred over the long period humans have been running around the world trying to understand their existence. This explains the similarity of names found across different cultures. Most Gods may have originally been mighty men."
Yes, that's a good oberservation. But should you critize those same primitive people who could only percieve the world as so? No, of course not! For they set the stage for the current time, slowly but surely. If it were not for the Bible, this would not have happened; if it were not for the Quaran, this would not have happened; if it were not for the ancient Indian folklore, this would not have happened. Thus, it is not for us to critize them, but look upon the ancients with a different perspective. For it took away part of the wonder of the world about them by describing it with supernatural explanations.
Yeah, thats true.

"How exactly? Is that reasonalbe?

And yes, Yahweh is not named in the New Testament of the Bible mainly because......(are you ready for this?) it was written in a different language than Hebrew where the Old Testament was written in. Surely you would notice that!"

It's reasonable because all three of them worship the being described in the Old Testament, Yahweh. The Christians believe that the NT deity is the same as the OT... The Jews were the original worshipers... And the Muslims were an offshoot of the Jews, their stories in the Qur'an are exactly the same as the OT. If you've ever read the Qur'an, it's ignorant to say that they don't worship the same deity, especially just because you don't want them to be worshiping the same person, as most Americans who say they don't think the Muslims worship the same God (though they wouldn't say it like that) use as a reason. Yes, it was Aramaic in some parts. Despite the language change, the same name would have been used and adapted to Aramaic. It wasn't. However, even in the Greek, they have a different name in the NT than the Septuagint. Not to mention, the personalities are vastly different between OT and NT, and, the deity Yahweh is said to actually be there in the OT; not so in the NT.

Tim asked:

"But should you critize those same primitive people who could only percieve the world as so?"

Most certainly not. In fact I have a great deal of respect for the traditional Maori view of existence. Some of their ideas are difficult for me to accept of course. The difference between their beliefs and the ones you mention is that they had no writing. The Abrahamic religions have become locked into beliefs that were ossified 3000 years ago. At least traditional beliefs are able to evolve and adapt more readily. But in spite of that Christianity has evolved during its existence. Over the years Jesus has been portrayed as everything from a warrior to a hippy, depending on the mythology religious leaders of the time required.

I am glad we agree on that. I suppose that we can also agree that there is "science fiction"

Certainly. And there are some people who are unable to distinguish between them.

"But in spite of that Christianity has evolved during its existence. Over the years Jesus has been portrayed as everything from a warrior to a hippy, depending on the mythology religious leaders of the time required."

Yes, yes it has. And I could agree that there is science fiction.

Yes, Tim. And I have no objection to thinking of theology and pneumatology as being science fiction.

I am reminded of Jules Verne (1828--1905)
Predictions



I have a question for atheists: How do scientists who study such things as space/time account for the void, the theorized nothingness out of which all physical elements came ? Is there a scientific equation which covers this?
Thinking of this, recently, I wrote the following:

Gød, One With The Eternal Now
by: Rev. Lindsay G King
===============================
GØD is the one and all that is;
The one with cosmos, earth, sky, sea;
The one with time, the eternal now,
And all pervasive gravity.

GØD's one in faith and hope and love;
The one with knowledge, wisdom, power;
As goodness, order and design,
And present with us hour by hour.

GØD's in each living breath I take,
The root of justice and of peace,
The source of life, of health and wealth,
Producing joys which ne'er will cease.
================000000000================

Once again, you start out that God is everything and then narrow it down to just the good things. If god is order, then god is also chaos and randomness. If it is justice, it is also injustice.

There's a line from Pope's Essay on Man
"All nature is but art unknown to thee,
all discord harmony not understood,
all partial evil, universal good,
and spite of pride in erring reason's spite,
one truth stands clear: whatever is, is right."

--
If you're in to that sort of thing, consider the following, penned by Jacob Bronowski, in his Science and Human Values:

I, having built a house, reject
The feud of eye and intellect,
And find in my experience proof,
One pleasure runs from root to roof,
One thrust along a streamline arches
The sudden star, the budding larches.
The force that makes the winter grow
Its feathered hexagons of snow,
And drives the bee to match at home,
Their calculated honeycomb,
Is abacus and rose combined.
An icy sweetness fills my mind,
A sense that under thing and wing,
Lies, taut yet living, coiled, the spring.

---

"How do scientists who study such things as space/time account for the void, the theorized nothingness out of which all physical elements came ? Is there a scientific equation which covers this?"

It could be that physicists have some idea - I do not. However, I don't think that just because scientists do not know is a good reason to assume some lesser idea is true.

writes TFF.

Professor (Oxford) Antony Flew may not be a physicist, but I am sure he must be aware of what many physicists at Oxford are saying. He was an atheist until 2004, when the evidence convinced him to become a deist--God is beyond good and evil as we know them.

I DO ACKNOWLEDGE THE REALITY OF EVIL AND/or CHAOS
As a unitheist, I acknowledge the reality of evil and/or chaos. However, I see them as that which is in the process of becoming good. Love is the one power capable of redeeming all evil. All who try it find that it works.

Professor Antony Garrard Newton Flew (born February 11, 1923) is a British philosopher. Known for several decades as a prominent atheist, Flew first publicly expressed deist views in 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

Sometimes people loose their minds in their old age.
Also, being 'aware' and understanding are not the same things.

Revlgking

"How do scientists who study such things as space/time account for the void, the theorized nothingness out of which all physical elements came ?"

"Professor (Oxford) Antony Flew...was an atheist until 2004, when the evidence convinced him to become a deist"

I take the opportunity to repeat what I think has been said on the forum many times before in some form or another:

Science deals with the nature of the cosmos and the relatedness of its parts. It may determine, with a high degree of certainty, the causal origin of spacetime. It may, eventually, even indicate a 'unity' as a 'prime cause'. It doesn't, however, provide an answer to the metaphysical question, "why". This is for the individual mind to answer for itself, in its own terms. The individual mind is not accountable to others in this respect.

THANKS "ReadyWhenYouAre" for your patience and for repeating yourself. We need to keep in mind that new readers are coming on line even as we speak. This is why I like posters to state their position as we dialogue. It helps guests jump in. Perhaps we need to have a thread where we give a summary of the story of this dialogue thus far.

Hey, Anony, don't be quiet as a mouse, give us a groan, or a grunt now and then.

RWYA, HERE IS YOUR REPEAT:

QUESTIONS
1.Presuming you have a science background, may I ask, what is your branch of science?

UNDERSTANDING THE X-FACTOR OF BEING
2.If you are a scientist, is it your opinion that we delude ourselves in even trying to think about, let alone understand, what the void, the vacuum, the nothingness into which the universe is expanding, the space between atomic particles, the absolute within and beyond things, is?
3. Are physicists who propose the string theory physicists? Or are they theologians/philosophers?


4. In your opinion, is the study of metayphysics, including the study of the meaning, purpose and why of things, a waste of time?

5. "Not accountable to others"? Surely you are not saying that it does not matter what one believes?
6. What about the collective mind? Is it of no consequence?
7. Are scientists nothing more than clever computer-like mechanics?
8. Do scientists have any moral obligations?
9. Are you familiar with the work of Nikola Tesla?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

FROM THE PART ON HIS PERSONALITY--and what a brilliant and complex personality he was. He had a dark side as well as a good one.

What a brilliant and complex personality

RWYA, I have numbered my questions to make it easy for you to respond. You have the right to say, I pass, to any question.

TESLA, EINSTEIN AND GOD--Very interesting
=======================
[A BIT OF AN ANTI-SEMITE] Tesla was critical of Einstein's relativity work, calling it:
“ ...[a] magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king..., its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists...[69] ”

Tesla also argued:
“ I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties.

[WHAT TESLA SAYS ABOUT GOD IS MOST INTERESTING]
It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.[70] ”

Tesla, also believed that much of Albert Einstein's relativity theory had already been proposed by Ru&#273;er Boškovi&#263;, stating in an unpublished interview:
“ ...the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Ru&#273;er Boškovi&#263;, the great philosopher, who, not withstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Boškovi&#263; dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum...'.
[THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I HAVE READ THIS INFORMATION. ANYONE ELSE HEARD ABOUT THIS?]

TESLA, THE SON OF A CLERGYMAN, is remembered by his church

"What a brilliant and complex personality"
Dear god. You actually contributed something parts of which were interesting and relevant to a science forum. Congratulations on finally achieving an SNR greater than zero.

"1.Presuming you have a science background, may I ask, what is your branch of science?"

I'm a non-scientist, Rev. I'm not exactly a 'Jack of all Trades', either; rather a '7 or 8 of also rans'

Like a good many others, I've spent a great part of my life attempting to skim the surface of human knowledge. Had I felt that I could have skilfully plumbed the depths, then I would have been eager to do so. I know sufficient to recognise the awe inspiring potential of the human intellect as it expresses itself in the few, and I place a very high value on their methodology and assiduous dedication to the advancement of science. At this stage in our history, the survival and progress of our species, and the sustainability of this small planet's biosphere depend very largely upon their continuing efforts.

"2.If you are a scientist, is it your opinion that we delude ourselves in even trying to think about, let alone understand, what the void, the vacuum, the nothingness into which the universe is expanding, the space between atomic particles, the absolute within and beyond things, is?

As I said, I'm not a scientist; but I'll offer an opinion if you like.

"3. Are physicists who propose the string theory physicists? Or are they theologians/philosophers?"

My understanding is that they are best described as mathematical physicists. That is they make profound statements and create far reaching hypotheses about the physical world using the rigorous language of very advanced and abstruse mathematics. This requires neither theology nor philosophy, but that in itself doesn't preclude theologians and philosophers from being string theorists.

"4. In your opinion, is the study of metaphysics, including the study of the meaning, purpose and why of things, a waste of time?"

Speaking for myself, "study" in relation to "metaphysics, including the study of the meaning, purpose and why of things", is not an applicable word. I don't consider contemplation and meditation to be a waste of time. However, the insight and understanding involved is not directly communicable, and is inaccessible via objective study.

"5. "Not accountable to others"? Surely you are not saying that it does not matter what one believes?"

When a mind has discovered an answer to the fundamental metaphysical question, "why", that mind does not need to account to others for how that answer was derived. That is quite a different matter from "belief", which so often appears to involve insincerity, delusion and a distortion of objective reality that results in conflict and suffering.

"6. What about the collective mind? Is it of no consequence?"

It may be of enormous consequence.

"7. Are scientists nothing more than clever computer-like mechanics?"

Scientists are people.

"8. Do scientists have any moral obligations?"

No less than others.

"9. Are you familiar with the work of Nikola Tesla?"

Some of it.

".. [do] we delude ourselves in even trying to think about, let alone understand, what the void, the vacuum, the nothingness into which the universe is expanding, the space between atomic particles, the absolute within and beyond things, is?"

What many people mean when they say "think about" is to come to some firm, intellectually unjustified opinion and give it the same status as an opinion that's actually supported by evidence.

We can try to figure things out or we can play tin-like. Some times the best one can say is, "I don't know" rather than to just make things up. This is a form of anti-knowledge.

"What many people mean when they say "think about" is to come to some firm, intellectually unjustified opinion and give it the same status as an opinion that's actually supported by evidence.

"We can try to figure things out or we can play tin-like. Some times the best one can say is, "I don't know" rather than to just make things up. This is a form of anti-knowledge."

I would mostly agree with that. We see but a piece of all that is around us, and some can pompously proclaim, "I have the truth!". I have said this before, but in the Bible (Job 26), Job says something along the lines of "I know but the fringes of God's power." (I forget the exact quote, but you get the point). And then, thousands of years later, there are five different churches on a street proclaiming, "I have the answer, come here to my church!" It is also in the academic community; "I have the best equipment up to date, including a new observatory, come here!" In effect, there are so many variations of every theory and

Whoops! Accidently pushed the submit button in the middle of my rant!

Let me continue:
In effect, there are so many variations of every theory, agenda, philosophy, beleif, denomination, creed, politics that it is hard to distinguish any truth from deceit. They all want you to come; perhaps this is a behaviour passed down through the generations to have the best to thrive in your situation. But nevertheless, we never just say, "I don't know," to something, and instead make use a (as TFF said) anti-knowledge statement in its place.
Taking that aside would help us as human beings discover ourselves and our surroundings. We might realize it's not about us, or that we need to adapt to survive something coming at us. From that "I don't know," comes forth a truer knowledge to figure that out which is not known instead of beleiving the half-lies and lies designed implant certain emotions in us. Then we could truly learn about ourselves instead of making stuff up which has not been proven.
Am I right?

Tim, IMO, you seem to have a sincere and gracious attitude. For me this counts for a lot. We are called to gracious, faithful, true and loving, not to be right--the kind of right which makes others wrong.

BTW, grace--the beauty of manners, the being pleasant, kindly and courteous and making allowances for others to be themselves--is an importance concept in my religion.

Tim: "From that "I don't know," comes forth a truer knowledge"

Well said. A "truer knowledge" comes forth when the 'god-of-the-gaps' has been dispensed with.

A creationist when asked by one of his fellows, "How were the dinosaurs rounded up for Noah's Ark?" replies: "God did it". And so it has been with so much of religion through the ages. What is worse, the mythology is enshrined as sacred 'truth' that forbids contradiction and preserves ignorance.

At a meeting of scientists entitled "Beyond Belief 2006", one young fellow said that he very much disliked not knowing; to which many responded that they very much liked not knowing. - Two ways of expressing the same essential point, that 'not knowing' is what drives the advancement of knowledge.

Tim, understanding takes effort. It seldom just falls in your lap. That's not something we're really good at. There will always be people who mislead through greed, self-aggrandizement, general dumbness, or just plain being mistaken. Science doesn't guarantee us The Truth. It just gives us a glimmer of hope for finding the way out of our mistakes.

Rev, I am not ungracious, but I don't have infinite patience either. I really only have one virtue - I can respect and admire people for what they are and not what I expect them to be. I admire the fact that you help other people and that you try to make the world a better place. I think there is a link between philosophy and ethics and science. They are immutably linked together - all I say is that THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING and the conclusions of the first two should not be given the same kind of weight as the conclusions of the other. They can all inform and to some extent guide each other, but they are not equivalent.

To put the scientific seal of approval on ethics is downright dangerous. (But that doesn't mean science can't tell us something about ethics or help us refine or understanding of them.)

You don't understand science very well and so you don't see any problem lumping everything together. One sign of a well-adjusted individual is how well they have assimilated their disparate pieces of knowledge into a coherent web of understanding: but part of that understanding needs to be that things that things that aren't even subject to scientific analysis don't get the scientific seal of approval.

MORE ON NIKOLA TESLA--who, in his time, was one of a number of brilliant scientists--and there are still many with us--who did not avoid thinking about God and religion:
===========================================================
Interestingly, Tesla suggested that Judaeo/Christianity and Buddhism could come together and form a very good and non-dogmatic philosophy of life--open to agnostics--on which to build a better and safer community, now and in the future.

To the mix I would add any moral, ethical and love-advocating religion, including the moderate kinds of Islam, like Suffism, and other eastern religions. Avoiding cynicism, fatalism, determinism and judgmentalism, great unity can be found in the love of variety.

WHAT OF THE FUTURE?
It seems to me that many theists and atheists have this in common: They both talk about a God who, IMO, seems to be very limited. Just look at the evil and sin, pain and suffering, He allows to go and on without redress in this world. Theists have a blind faith in Him. Without evidence, they tell us that He will get around to redressing things, eventually.

Atheists, addressing the same god-concept of theism, have a blind faith that there is no Him. Correct me if I am wrong, please.

Until theists and atheists come up with the evidence that what they believe to be true, I choose go with what numerous process-theologians and philosophers, including scientists, are saying.

I see process-theologians as unitheists/panentheists. I think of thinkers like Edison, Tesla, Einstein, Alfred North Whitehead, Anthony Flew and scores of other scientists. I am sure there is a vast number of professional and lay theologians who think along such lines. ==========================================================

Revlgking

"I think of thinkers like Edison, Tesla, Einstein, Alfred North Whitehead, Anthony Flew and scores of other scientists. I am sure there is a vast number of professional and lay theologians who think along such lines."

(1) What do see as the significance of that?
(2) Does it influence you?
(3) Does it help you in your choice of what to believe?