 |
|
|
|
February 15th, 2011
07:00 AM ET
My Take: Science and spirituality should be friends
By Deepak Chopra, Special to CNN For most people, science deserves its reputation for being opposed to religion. I'm not thinking of the rather noisy campaign by a handful of die-hard atheists to demote and ridicule faith. I'm thinking instead of Charles Darwin, whose theory of evolution has proved victorious over the Book of Genesis and its story of God creating the universe in seven days. Since then, God has been found wanting when measured against facts and data. With no data to support the existence of God, there is also no reason for religion and science to close the gap between them. Yet the gap has indeed been closing. Religion and spirituality didn't go away just because organized religion has been losing its hold, as suggested by showing decades of declining church attendance in the U.S. and Western Europe. Despite the noisy atheists, two trends in spirituality and science have started to converge. One is the trend to seek God outside the church. This has given rise to a kind of spirituality based on personal experience, with an openness to accept Eastern traditions like meditation and yoga as legitimate ways to expand one's consciousness. If God is to be found anywhere, it is inside the consciousness of each person. Even in the Christian West we have the assurance of Jesus that the kingdom of heaven is within, while the Old Testament declares, "Be still and know that I am God." The other trend is a growing interest by scientists in questions about consciousness. Twenty years ago, a respectable researcher couldn't ask daring questions such as "do we live in an intelligent universe?" or "Is there mind outside the body?" That's because materialism rules science; it is the core of the scientific worldview that reality is constructed out of physical building blocks - tiny things like atoms and quarks - whose motion is essentially random. When you use words like "intelligence" and "design" in discussing the patterns in nature, immediately you are tarred with the same brush as creationists, who have hijacked those terms to defend their religious beliefs. But time brings change, and next week my foundation is hosting a symposium in Southern California where the gap between science and spirituality will be narrow somewhat, not on the basis of religion but on the basis of consciousness. Outside the view of the general public, science has reached a critical point. The physical building blocks of the universe have gradually vanished; that is, atoms and quarks no longer seem solid at all but are actually clouds of energy, which in turn disappear into the void that seems to be the source of creation. Was mind also born in the same place outside space and time? Is the universe conscious? Do genes depend on quantum interactions? Science aims to understand nature down to its very essence, and now these once radical questions, long dismissed as unscientific, are unavoidable. My conference, called the Sages and Scientists Symposium: The Merging of A New Future, is only one in a wave of gatherings through which hundreds of researchers are working to define a new paradigm for the relationship between spirituality and science. It is becoming legitimate to talk of invisible forces that shape creation - not labeling them as God but as the true shapers of reality beyond the space/time continuum. A whole new field known as quantum biology has sprung up, based on a true breakthrough - the idea that the total split between the micro world of the quantum and the macro world of everyday things may be a false split. If so, science will have to account for why the human brain, which lives in the macro world, derives its intelligence from the micro world. Either atoms and molecules are smart, or something makes them smart. That something, I believe, will come down to a conscious universe. Agree or disagree, you cannot simply toss the question out the window. It turns out that the opposition of science to religion is a red herring. The real goal of a new science will be to expand our reality so that spiritual truths are acceptable, along with many other subjective experiences that science has long dismissed as unreliable. We are conscious beings who live with purpose and meaning. It seems unlikely that these arose form a random, meaningless universe. The final answer to where they came from may shake science to its core. I certainly hope it does. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Deepak Chopra. soundoff (1,568 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next »
« Previous entryPhiladelphia Catholics demand changes in the church
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Editor's Note: Deepak Chopra is founder of the 
Heaven, Hell and String theory:
One version of string theory has the Universe existing in 10 dimensions. In my view, the first dimension is time. Beyond time, there are nine dimensions, the nature of which, define our perceived universe, Heaven and Hell.
Imangine the three dimensional world that we live in. As I shalll explain later, we live in dimensions 5, 6 & 7, plus the dimension of time. This is our physical realm. Dimensions 2,3 & 4 are the lower realm, or Hell. Dimensions 8, 9 &10 are the higher realm, or Heaven.
All of our possible futures exist in the higher realm. In living our lives, we, ultimately, choose our own present form all possible futures. We, as humans, are the focal point through which the future becomes the present. Each point in the physical realm sees the present differently, since each point is separated form the others by time. Each person selects their own present, because no other persons present can be quite the same, except for the phenomenon of quantum entanglement.
Once experienced, all of our presents are recorded in the lower realm. The unused futures are discarded. Once discarded, unused futures can no longer be accessed and your possible futures are diminished. The recorded presents become our past. Once recorded, the past can never be undone. Each of us will record an infinite number of presents in lower realm in our lifetime.
I will stop here, since, at this point, science gives way to spirit. Maybe, some day, science will be able to take this farther. After all, there is another version of string theory that has 28 dimensions. My 10 dimensional model has 3 dimensions X 3 realms + time. A 28 dimension theory might just be 3 dimensions X 3 realms X 3 higher levels + time.
Deepak Chopra~ Thank you for bringing this thought of "the conscious universe" to light. We may all call it something different, but doesn't it show up as the same thing? We still experience the world and its interactions within the same field, just different perceptions of it. "All roads led to Rome," as they say. And we all need our own understanding of it to get there.
Blessings to you, sir.
World: Seek psychiatric assistance.
I resent the term noisy atheists. Have we not been listening to noisy Christians for centuries?
I have been looking at quantum physics,anchient astrology,anchient archeology,anchient,language and anchiant architecture.It seems when it comes to science,we aren't the most intelligent people to walk the planet.We just think we are.
I do not believe Darwin proved Genesis wrong, because it seems to me he did not understand it well enough to argue against it. There is Bible scripture that says, A day with God is as a thousand years with man" and there is another passage that indicates that one had not entered into God's rest, and that seventh day rest Our Creator did after His creative work was still going on at that time, then for over a thousand years. After Jesus rule of a thousand years, He will turn things back over to His Father. How long are God's days ? He does not sit here on Earth where we have 24 hour days, they may be many thousands of years long. Were some things created instantly? There is a video series called, "Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution" that I got from my local public library that shows some very good evidence that He did. He shows many examples of things that could not have evolved into what they are, but that they had to have been created just the way they were with some amazingly designed protective devices or they could not have survived for any time at all. He also tells about some things some evolutionist continue to say even though they have been proven to be untrue. He gives an example of two different things having to have been created at the same time or neither would live one more reproductive cycle. One problem I run into often when talking with people who claim Christianity as their belief is that many have never read or listened to the Bible all the way through. The first recorded copy of the Bible I got in the early 60s cost me $135. at a discount, today it can be downloaded free, or one can get it on DVD in the U.S. for $16 or less with the postage included. Another problem I find is related to not knowing what the Bible says and is sort of as Jesus indicated when He said "These people profess me with their lips, but there heart is far from me", I call them the ABTC people, because they seem to want their "Christianity" to be anything but true Christianity. If Jesus is the Boss, and I want His approval I better try to measure up to what he wants and to promote what I know He believes and wants promoted. I hope "Christianity" is the right religion, if it is not then I have wasted a lot of time and money, or perhaps not, for if one lives up to the values, beliefs and principles of true Christianity that one would be one of the nicest people to live on Earth with and as a child of 6 I realized I did not like any of the people in my neighborhood very much, not much at all.
Wow, there's a lot of pontificating going on here. I just want to say "NO." Science and spirituality should not be friends. Science does not need spirituality and can only be diminished by it.
Deepak Chopra is in DESPERATE need of an introductory physics class. Saying "quantum" this and that, and using it as evidence for his hypothesis is only accepted by those who don`t konw the science (including Chopra). Please give the names of ACTUAL physics papers, or even real live physicists that support your claims.
"Twenty years ago, a respectable researcher couldn't ask daring questions such as "do we live in an intelligent universe?" or "Is there mind outside the body?" – how do respectable researchers test or prove these claims now? What do you define as "mind"? What is an "intelligent universe"? There is no scientific evidence of a soul. These aren't even real questions that science can address.
I don't know the answers to the wonders of the universe, and neither does Chopra. He does misrepresent science to sell books. If you are looking for truth, look for evidence. If you simply want someone to give you a comforting story, buy a Chopra book.
Much warming healing love to you Mr. Chopra for continuing and elevating a very important societal deliberation. As one who is labeled spiritual, philosophical, "deep", and all the rest of the ten thousand descriptions meant (sometimes) to pigeon hole, define, and limit, it is a joy to read of your efforts and your thoughts. Keep on pushing brother. I can firmly say I am not at odds with science - legitimate, useful, and possessed of compassion for all living beings. The same would be true for religion, politics, and all else that claims to know and/or lead the way for the masses of individual lives. No sir, there is no quarrel with science or religion. The path does not allow for such a quarrel. The path dictates it be so. Thus, I sit still and know God from both science and religion. I seek not. I care not. But I overflow with love for the scientist and the preacher, the saint and the sinner....the conservative and the liberal...etc, etc, etc.... What could be better than this? I utilize and marvel at technological advancement. Such advancement leads me to thank God for the pliable nature of the intellect, and for the world (test lab, proving ground, experiential environment) provided for us living beings to one day - get it right.
May we one day get it right by realizing the path to our internal potential and thereby gifting the world the natural excellence of ourselves in all we do - as God intended (I believe). If we can do this as a mass, Mars is a hop, skip, and a jump away.
..or as Billie put it, "The difficult I will do right now. The impossible will take a little while." You can see this concept on display in the revolutionary efforts of our brothers and sisters all over the world as spirit awakens to topple entrenched illegitimacy long thought to be immovable. I hope American leadership (and indeed all leadership) is paying close attention to the juggernaut that is a spirit on fire, organized and amplified through technology.
See God change things as things change (no matter who might step forward to take credit...for legacies' sake, for fame's sake, for fortune's sake - for all things feeble, fleeting, and frail), and be still - and know God.
In trying to locate my previous comment, I had the pleasure of reading through a great many of the comments assembled here. The feeling that arose during reading was one of perfection, for there was sadness to be tasted as well as joy...honorable steadfastness, as well as cheap and tacky ploy.
All is perfect in a world of saint and sinner and of science and religion. Nothing is out of place or left undone. Striving is on display (on set) within the commentary; striving to understand, striving to be right, striving to know, striving to emerge victorious, striving to distinguish oneself - even in a virtual environment of general anonymity (tsk– tsk)....
The ego is the longest running comedy on the planet. It produces the funniest postures and scenes, to be enjoyed by any and all who can...for however long, distance self from the stage of ego, and take a seat in the audience of loving acceptance, and thereby appreciate the irony, the satire, the drama, and all else involved in an a frantic and frenzied ego production, brought to you by the people at Self Interest Bloated and Perverted Inc..
I only wrote again because I wanted to address the Deepak Chopra as charlatan shtick. Is Mr. Chopra a charlatan, simply engaged in illusion and myth in order to secure wealth? I could care less (each must walk the path for self), for Mr. Chopra is not the central point. He is, as all the rest of us, a precious and important, yet, minute and/or minuscule (in bodily form) component of a much larger tapestry of concern. There are no earthly gods in this "No-I" world.
I do not see the need to begrudge the brother the conversation or his supposed wealth (monetary). On the latter (his wealth) how is that gernane to the conversation?
Let me go street:
Stop being a hata (HeyTa) - fool!
I am not defending the brother. I do not know the brother. However, this article does touch upon a very important (to no–I–or–me) contemplation/consideration concerning the notion of existence. Science is a byproduct of existence, and not existence itself. Don't get it twisted - fool! I do not need to convince another of anything. Yet let me tell you about atheists who on planes experiencing serious turbulence are heard to say - "Oh My God" - or " Lord Jesus". Let me tell you how science can put people on the moon but science can do nothing to stop human corruption, evil, fear, and the cycle of ultimate and eventual death - fool! Let me also tell you about atheists who rail against religion by saying something such as - "They are always asking me to believe in their God", and then that same atheist demands that you bow down before whatever God they are espousing, even if that God is no God. Oh what a tangled fricking web we weave when we start to heave up thick chunks of ego and call it - the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Love to all, even (and maybe, most importantly) the hatas. ...and of course, they know who they are.
@Nonimus
Thanks! I had no idea there were actual org-anizations working towards promoting Scientific Pantheism, though I started having inklings back in the 70’s, that logically something along those lines had to be the next step. Guess too many hours in a cubicle and raising a family since.
I’m still a little skeptical of creeds and org-anizations, knowing where they have led in the past, but many ideas on the links are appealing, so I will investigate further. I also don’t jump at far out mystical/scientific concepts, just because they sound cool, though I concede possibilities, knowing how uninformed perceptions can misinterpret actual conditions.
Wikipedia’s definition:
Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. The word derives from the Ancient Greek: (pan) meaning ‘all’ and (theos) meaning ‘God’. Pantheism denotes the idea that “God” is best seen as a way of relating to the Universe.[2] Although there are divergences within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions are the Cosmos as an all-encompa-ssing unity and the sacredness of Nature.
=========
WORLD: However, the evaluation of the first and third definitions of “negated beliefs” in the statement... “Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god”, seem to be incorrectly based on just western concepts. In truth, everyone has a personal concept of God/Universe/Nature, based on personal experience, whether they have ever been introduced to science, philosophy, or religion.
Also, “creator god” is used in the limited Western concept (possibly because many Westerners can’t perceive of a creator god that isn’t also anthropomorphic)...instead of the Eastern idea of God/Universe/Nature in an eternal state of creation/destruction as eternal recombination of matter.
I see an anthropomorphic concept of God… that God/Universe/Nature acts in human ways… as either a conceited sin of pride or a poetic metaphoric description, that is in objective reality, almost impossible to ignore in any Western culture. So I will agree with negating the anthropomorphic creator god belief (for me personally), but not eliminate the personal aspect or Eastern form of a creator god
I became aware of the concept of Pantheism, through an in depth PBS series on the philosophers from Socrates through Satre including Spinoza, and follow up reading; along with similar investigations of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism.
I learned eventually, that similar thought can be found in Western religions, once you get beyond the usual focus on literalness and supernaturalism… and see meaning behind metaphor, allegory and parable… reinterpreting them based on new concepts derived from current knowledge, just like science revises its theorie.
So it’s been a long journey, not as-sociated with any particular group very long. Thanks again for the links.
http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm
NOMINUS: You make judgments of other viewpoints being “childish” versions of God without any basis for making that distinction.
WORLD: Then you describe the perception levels and proofs, for just a small sample of such versions from just a portion of this blog.
BASIS: “ manmade tribal mythology” “ imaginary supernatural beings” “the mumbo jumbo that religion has “ “Science does not prove anything” “total gibberish” “your imaginary friend” “the awful ones that presently plague us” “their belief is horribly twisted” ” believing mindlessly in myths and fairy tales” “childish tribal myths” "is full of sh_t!" ”pushing science gabble. Just as an astrologer” “please explain to me how science proves anything” “Religion is based on what someone stated a long time ago and cannot be changed” “book of rules, which once it is written down it can't be changed” “Religion is equivalent of magic” “met a few rational atheists, but not many. Most I've met are spewing the wholly irrational garbage they pick up from their own min-go.. *ahem* 'influential leaders and scholars” “God is fictional down to the very root, the bible” “Kinda like how Marvel Comics continues to churn out stories about Thor” “merely myth” “contemporary lying scholars” “is a retard. and only is in it for the money” “it's just the imagination of man vs. the wisdom of man” “God could be like Galactus in the Marvel comics” “lies upon lies” “The fact that an explanation actually is provided is all that the fans really want.” “they'll give up any attempt of actually making sense out of it, and just take it on faith that it works.” “creates complex explanations to (continue to) deceive” “usually at some conflict with real science” “soley based upon faith and a book written a couple of thousand years ago” “is a self-serving lout. His arguments are devoid of facts, and his masquerade as a scientist, or whatever, is galling” “attempting to debunk the integrity of the bible, and glorify the theory of evolution is simply a tactic to lure unsuspecting seekers to abandon reason and science in order to embrace an illogical, unverifiable, subjective based explanation of the universe. Fizzled matter is the source of our existence? Give me a break!”
WORLD: Now say it all over and over again until you tire of it. Once is too much for me. Again how would you classify the level of such logic? I thought childless was kind; ramblings of the post traumatically insane maybe? Certainly not those interested in the science of studying human belief and knowledge systems… or those who might respect God enough to see IT’s logical evidence everywhere. Can you not see the philosophical and moral as well as the scientific blindness? Why do those who ask everyone else to prove their beliefs, feel so special that the same is not required of them?
NOMINUS: If complete control means ident.ity, that does not imply that complete control is needed or necessary forever and at all times. Imagine something that has ulitimate control of a pre-big bang universe, a singularity. It should be possible, as imagined, for such a thing to release control of said universe and allow it to expand and develop on its own. That is but one imaginable scenario that would not need an active present God. Take that one step further and imagine that singularities can be produced from something like a quantum foam and no God is necessary.
WORLD: What exactly is your definition of COMPLETE CONTROL? It seems to be lacking completeness. It should mean controlling everything, not just pushing a boat out on the stormy ocean of the universe and walking away forever, or even returning every once in a while to check up. That’s temporary control, not complete control; something for which the lesser gods were done away with, if you can think about it metaphorically.
Speculating about the Big Bang is on the same level, as speculation about one instance of creation, by a creator God who does IT’s thing and disappears… or even one that stays. Matter does not create from nothing; it is other matter just reconfigured, even at the quantum sub-atomic level – we just aren’t smart enough, to understand that enough to prove it yet with scientific equations – so we say it is unpredictable, rather than we haven’t figured the logic out yet. Whether we ask what came before the Big Bang, or what created God, the value provided by an answer, is about the same for purposes of every day existence – nil.
How do we know that the Red Doppler Shift proposed as evidence for the Big Bang, isn’t just the result of the extreme distance between galaxies, rather than everything rushing away from the source? Are the planets getting farther apart within the solar system too? Is matter within us expanding? That could explain this weight I didn’t have when I was younger. I’m just expanding with the universe. Ah we have a cause for the obesity problem.
Perhaps evidence more compelling than what I’ve read does exist… but regardless, we still have firm evidence, based on all prior scientific knowledge… that whatever the truth is, about “creation” and everything else… is it is all logical, following natural law, even if its natural law we don’t yet know. Reading some of the speculative theories about what was beyond the big bang at least points to an never ending universe, World Without End, though all the speculation and complex theories seem just as far fetched to normal human application, as similar complex religious theories that are ridiculed so much.
Everything within nature interacts by cause and effect… in effect linking everything into one big living Universe. All matter is moving and in interaction at the atomic and sub-atomic level, working logically, even if it is beyond our understanding. Don’t tell me that the tornado that blew my house away, to volcano that erupted underneath of me, or the flood that washed away my town, had no logic or reason behind their actions because they consisted of inanimate matter,
If we require free will to prove intelligence, I would argue that what we think is free will, is nothing more than programmed response, acted out consciously or subconsciously. We do things because past experience and observation have led us to believe we can or should… and that either consciously or subconsciously, we believe we will benefit somehow from the action.
The same applies to what we call creative thought. Just because we do it subconsciously does not imply something different about our intelligence than lesser forms that act subconciously. Animals are no different and don’t tell me we fully know what they do or don’t think, any more than we know what anyone else thinks. Anyone owning pets can tell you there’s an intelligence there. Plants have their own similar, though lower level intelligent responses, as they grow towards the light or water. The level of logical response to stimuli, or “intelligence” becomes less of course as things devolve to lesser matter, but is there none the less. Science has proven these things. Stimulus/cause results in predictable effect for those that can perceive it and that’s the rub… not everyone does at the same level.
The Universe, known and unknown, is possibly not the most used definition of God, at least in the western world… but it is the Pantheistic version that jives so much more with science and is not a misappropriation of the smaller definitions of God, merely an unfamiliar definition to those with less knowledge of various more advanced religious and philosophic thought, within and outside those religions … The idea of Pantheism also thoughtfully considers why there is, rather than ridiculing, such a wide range of philosophical and ritual beliefs from a scientific perspective… without having to classify large groups of people, as senseless idiots from one end or destined for hell from the other. Since everything is logical, there can be nothing existing that is senseless; just things… and people… we don’t yet understand.
NONIMUS: Unless God is defined as the mindless action-reaction of physical laws, then I don’t see the necessity for a God.
WORLD: Definitions again…Mindless? Doesn’t that mean senseless, illogical, beyond any understanding. Chaos? No God or the Universe is not senseless, mindless or illogical.
Logical cause and effect…and mindless… seem to be opposites? Mindless leads to an impossibility of understanding. The Universe is definitely not mindless.
How about intelligent cause and effect, that is logical in the human conscious and human sub-conscious, both based on human experience… plus intelligent cause and effect in that which is beyond any human conscious – another trinity, that is actually one again. Intelligent reaction to physical laws! Please note, intelligent does not imply a human like being as God, by this definition… since part of it is beyond the human capability of conscious or unconscious perceptions… so creationists can stop celebrating.
So we have a God of intelligent cause and effect throughout the known and unknown Universe. What other kind of God could there be that would make sense and be worthy of our study, via science, philosophy… and the psychological rituals of religion and every day habits… all of which will always require refinement, as each individual learns more and more?
It’s in the sub-conscious and conscious, based on past experience, that true faith is born, working as a stimulus towards understanding that which is currently beyond person’s conscious… be it science or philosophy or any human ritual to remind us of our place in it all.
These forms of consciousness will of course be different for every person, based on personal experience… so that is where a personal God comes in…one that fits each person’s current level of understanding… a living, hopefully growing perception as knowledge increases, instead of a fixed idol or icon… but if it provides a person a non-harmful useful comfort and positive function, then what genius has the right to deprive them of that, with ridicule that their understanding is different and better, when the person being ridiculed at the time, does not possess the knowledge required to have the same understanding of the person ridiculing. Just ask a few Arab and North African rulers, scientifically, what putting yourself so high above others will get you.
In the part beyond human conscious, where a person can’t instantaneously grasp cause and effect, that’s where faith leads to the poetic and sometimes seemingly delusional metaphors, used by religion to describe God or whatever aspect is just beyond perception when the person only has incomplete information, but still needs something to help us retain what understanding they’re starting to build. Again I agree there may be more precise knowledge, but face it, most people don’t and probably never will understand science to level expected, to do away with these devises. In the meantime why deprive those of what meaning they have, when they are not capable of replacing it with something just as, or more, psychologically useful.
NOMINUS: And, if God is defined that way then there is no distinction between God and the common understanding of science and therefore no need for the term God.
WORLD: Sorry once again, but science does not know everything or the quantum part would be figured out in finite terms rather than probabilities that’s sound like we spent millions of dollars to get answers like “but teacher I was almost right, let me try some more”…and pre-big bang theories would be figured out and not quite as fantastical and humorous as they sound to average person. We have to have faith that logic will prevail, when and if we ever understand the accurate prediction of sub-atomic level matter and beyond. The term God has always been a word to explain what we know and beyond in terms the people receiving the message could understand. You seem to confuse your lack of a need for a definition of God, with what you perceive to be everyone else’s, and they obviously disagree in very large numbers. Reconcile like a scientist, and you know that doesn’t mean you discard the data you don’t agree with.
WORLD: Is your last question quoting Pontius Pilate or the High Priest?
NONIMUS: I’m not aware of anyone saying that previously, but I wouldn’t be surprised if I had seen something similar before and just don’t remember where.
WORLD: When I read that question, I just had a sudden flash of understanding about why Jesus wouldn’t answer when one of those two asked a similar question. If someone seems to have no hope of understanding, words fail in trying to explain in any reasonable amount of time. Thus I’m up all night working it through, for myself if no one else. Hopefully someone else will understand as well, but if not, I still feel better. Respectfully understand the concept?
WORLD: Please read the rest of my posts here and ask again if you have specific non-open ended questions. I can't provide the meaning of life. Give me some reasons why you think Natural Law, what we know and don't know, isn't God and indeed the only God Supreme... and maybe we can start from there if the posts don't help.
NONIMUS: Although not a question per se, you ask for a response.
Does the carbon atom in the period on the period key of your keyboard know my thoughts or fate? Can I know it’s thoughts or fate?
WORLD: You yourself said there were different levels of intelligence. I agree. It could affect your fate if it and other carbon atoms wore off and I was not aware of where the period existed on the key board, left it out and withdrew $1000 from your bank account, instead of $10.00. If you studied the normal wear of the carbon atoms you might predict in advance when you needed a needed a new keyboard. There is logic and intelligence involved, even if it is at a miniscule level, normally not useful at the normal people level.
NOMINUS: Can God make the electron not follow the laws of physics?
WORLD: NO. Not the true laws, but considering quantum physics and if our ability is still stuck in probability, instead of predictability, perhaps in some instances it might appear so when it shouldn’t.
@WORLD: Is your last question quoting Pontius Pilate or the High Priest?
NONIMUS: I’m not aware of anyone saying that previously, but I wouldn’t be surprised if I had seen something similar before and just don’t remember where.
WORLD: When I read that question, I just had a sudden flash of understanding about why Jesus wouldn’t answer when one of those two asked a similar question. If someone seems to have no hope of understanding, words fail in trying to explain in any reasonable amount of time. Thus I’m up all night working it through, for myself if no one else. Hopefully someone else will understand as well, but if not, I still feel better. Respectfully understand the concept?
WORLD: Please read the rest of my posts here and ask again if you have specific non-open ended questions. I can't provide the meaning of life. Give me some reasons why you think Natural Law, what we know and don't know, isn't God and indeed the only God Supreme... and maybe we can start from there if the posts don't help.
NONIMUS: Although not a question per se, you ask for a response.
Does the carbon atom in the period on the period key of your keyboard know my thoughts or fate? Can I know it’s thoughts or fate?
WORLD: You yourself said there were different levels of intelligence. I agree. It could affect your fate if it and other carbon atoms wore off and I was not aware of where the period existed on the key board, left it out and withdrew $1000 from your bank account, instead of $10.00. If you studied the normal wear of the carbon atoms you might predict in advance when you needed a needed a new keyboard. There is logic and intelligence involved, even if it is at a miniscule level, normally not useful at the normal people level.
NOMINUS: Can God make the electron not follow the laws of physics?
WORLD: NO. Not the true laws, but considering quantum physics and if our ability is still stuck in probability, instead of predictability, perhaps in some instances it might appear so when it shouldn’t.
NOMINUS: Does the Universe/God understand all the consequences of the impending collision (3-5 billion years) between the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxies?
WORLD: NO, The Universe will again act according to natural law at the appropriate time. The forces to cause are already logically at work considering the impending portion of the question. In all honesty, we never fully understand all of the consequences of our actions, either before they happen and just as often even during or after they happen. So in that regard all of the elements of the universe are totally affected by cause and effect, before during and after, while our conscious brain never is completely aware of all our impacts, in any of the stages, though we might deceive ourselves into thinking we are.
NOMINUS: If the answer to these questions was no, then what is the distinction between God and science?
WORLD: Nothing if you include the study/formulations of philosophy and psychological benefits of religious ritual, along with other social sciences, as part of science… instead of classifying them as belonging to just a bunch of crazy loonies with no cause for their actions. If you exclude the additional items above, as seems to be the case in many arguments on this blog, then science is incomplete in defining the Universe/God, and their absence is the difference. I don’t exclude them.
NOMINUS: {open-ended, sorry. Don’t answer this one:} If any answer is yes, why do you think that is so?
WORLD: No need to answer.
NOMINUS: If you consider the belief in “the man in the clouds” God to be childish and consider the belief in a Pantheistic God to be “think[ing] in larger terms,” or more “developed,” then can you not understand the idea that belief in any God is considered childish? The physical laws, known and unknown, support the universe as we understand it without imagining any type of Supreme ent.ity/consciousness/universe-is-god.
{open-ended version:} Why is God necessary at all?
WORLD: Explained above. Your ideas exclude human psychology, sociology, history, tradition and on and on, therefore ignoring data in the overall equation jumping to incomplete conclusions that only make your scientific self feel important. I try to see the value and importance in all its objective reality. These concepts exist and have affected human consciousness for ages and will not go away just because you prefer to ignore the data.
NOMINUS: In my response above I described a pre-big bang God, I believe this is more of a pandeist concept as opposed to pantheist, but is that not possible? Or, are you claiming that the laws of physics are the active decision/volition of the God/Universe?
Are these specific and closed-ended enough?
WORLD: Again covered above. I believe the concept you call pandeist was philosophically proposed a few hundred years ago, though I’m not quite sure the term is correct. No I do not believe in an imaginary pot stirrer who then left the kitchen. I keep sensing you think I believe God steps in and does supernatural things and then runs away to tease another day, when that is the farthest from my belief… but also our conversation is limited somewhat by the limitations you seem to put on the word God as well as other words like Complete as in control. Perhaps I am misunderstanding as well when it seems like all you want to consider is the cold hard facts of matter without accounting properly for the human condition to misunderstand them completely and yet be able to draw out useful meaning though imprecise, anyway, and the impact such actual conditions have on your objective reality, which isn’t if you exclude them.
NOMINUS: You asked, if I paraphrased it correctly, ‘Why is Natural Law not God?’ If by “natural law” you mean physical laws as in, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law linked from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law_(disambiguation) since you didn’t provide a definition, then I would say that there is no evidence of consciousness, understanding, affection, motivation, cognition, or volition behind the movements and properties of the universe as a whole or in part, other than in the discrete lifeforms that have the biological support systems proportional to their level of these attributes or functions.
Alternatively, if by “God” you mean just the physical laws, known and unknown, then I would agree, with the minor exception of the term God. If God is the ‘all of and nothing but’ the physical laws, then calling it God is unecessary misapproprtation of a common term.
WORLD: I see no difference between Natural Laws and Physical Laws. Neither are fully understood by science and probably never will be. If they were, we could put a bunch of scientists out of work as save the budget a bundle. We should be able to agree that all things function in a logical matter as proven by science, regardless of what seem to be lame excuses for not understanding or fully proving recent “discoveries”. Wow. “We discovered we’re not really sure, but heres some wils a** guesses” is what they seem to amount to, and no different than the one comment about religion trying to baffle everyone with such complex theories.
I and many many others would argue that science is unnecessarily attempting to misappropriate the word that God was intended to represent. You must also understand that God seems to only be a misappropriated common term, to those who wish to use it in their common perceived misappropriated derogatory sense. All that said, RECONCILE to make such “senseless things make sense, like a scientist should. The cry of a scientist should not be “WE DON”T UNDERSTAND you people so we’ll make up lame explanations about you”.
Al-Baqara sura 02:
Wait they for naught else than that Allah should come unto them in the shadows of the clouds with the angels? Then the case would be already judged. All cases go back to Allah (for judgment). (210).
Quick question, is your position close to either of these?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_pantheism
http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm
@World,
Or this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism
As if addressed to the middle east (Falling Dominos).
Al-E-Imran sura 03:
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
Say: O Allah! Owner of Sovereignty! Thou givest sovereignty unto whom Thou wilt, and Thou withdrawest sovereignty from whom Thou wilt. Thou exaltest whom Thou wilt, and Thou abasest whom Thou wilt. In Thy hand is the good. Lo! Thou art Able to do all things. (26) Thou causest the night to pass into the day, and Thou causest the day to pass into the night. And Thou bringest forth the living from the dead, and Thou bringest forth the dead from the living. And Thou givest sustenance to whom Thou choosest, without stint. (27).
Al-Hajj sura 22:
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
O mankind! A similitude is coined, so pay ye heed to it: Lo! those on whom ye call beside Allah will never create a fly though they combine together for the purpose. And if the fly took something from them, they could not rescue it from it. So weak are (both) the seeker and the sought! (73) They measure not Allah His rightful measure. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty. (74).
It follows that the Quran ch-all-en-ges the mankind by two scientific miracles:
1) mankind can never create a fly and 2) if the fly should sn-at-ch away anything from them, they would have no power to release it from the fly (they can never take it back from the fly)
Then, what is the co-n-clu-si-on?
Not only the fly is we-ak but man also is as we-ak as a fly.
It is said that:" The first step to know the truth is by knowing yourself"
Can find more if searched for following;
(the fly in bible and quran by; Ibrahim Khalil)
Hope it gets through filters(http://www.articlesbase.com/authors/profdr-ibrahim-khalil/14726)
Watch Deepak Chopra get clowned by Penn & Teller, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, etc, etc, etc. This guy is just out to make money for himself. Nothing wrong with that... profiting off of America's insatiable desire for religion. Capitalism at its finest.
Peace.
If Deepak is interested in a scientific understanding of consciousness, why no reference to Dan Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained"?
I'd love to see Chopra and Dennett debate about consciousness.
Al-Ahqaf sura 46:
And when We inclined toward thee (Muhammad) certain of the jinn, who wished to hear the Qur'an and, when they were in its presence, said: Give ear! and, when it was finished, turned back to their people, warning. (29) They said: O our people! Lo! we have heard a scripture which hath been revealed after Moses, confirming that which was before it, guiding unto the truth and a right road. (30) O our people! respond to Allah's summoner and believe in Him. He will forgive you some of your sins and guard you from a painful doom. (31) And whoso respondeth not to Allah's summoner he can nowise escape in the earth, and he hath no protecting friends instead of Him. Such are in error manifest. (32) Have they not seen that Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth and was not wearied by their creation, is Able to give life to the dead? Aye, He verily is Able to do all things. (33).
The verses above confirms that the holy books were sent for ;
Mankind (the Water Creature).
Jinn (the Fire Creature).
God is Light,Angles created from light,brought books of light,to give light for those above,to lead them out of darkness and as savior for them from tournament of Hells.
@Muneef
The drivel above confirms nothing except that you and a couple of billion others have been completely sucked into a ridiculous manmade story involving non-existent supernatural beings, and that by your own admission, condones child abuse of "ripe" 10+ year old girls. Your religion is sick and so are you!
Told you to reduce your consumption of Red Hot Chilies that causes all that HotAir...no one can stand where that all come from...!? Only God knows who or what are you to speak like that...after all you might not equal a .... To say a word.
Al-Baqara sura 02:
And when My servants question thee concerning Me, then surely I am nigh. I answer the prayer of the suppliant when he crieth unto Me. So let them hear My call and let them trust in Me, in order that they may be led aright. (186).
Al-Anfal sura 08:
That is because Allah never changeth the grace He hath bestowed on any people until they first change that which is in their hearts, and (that is) because Allah is Hearer, Knower. (53).
Eric G
Eg-ypt and what we now call Tur-key, Iraq and Iran, conquered Jerusalem several times for many years. The thought to be "purity" of the faith was not kept during these times as some might think... the faith and the people holding it, learned different ideas of the other religions... that caused evolution of their faiiths.
Ab-raham, before thinking better of it, went to sa-crifice his son in an area where others believed in ch-ild sa-crifice – was there any connection there and if so, what others are we not told about in the Bible? When the Hebrews were taken into Babylon... and then set free to return by the Persians, who then ruled Jerusalem for about two hundred years... the idea of a good force and a bad force, took hold from the influence of Persian Zoroastrian religion with its idea of a good God Ahura-Mazda and a bad God Angra-Mainyu, who were always in compet-ition and humans had to support the good to win over the bad.
The post above was a repeat from an attempt further up, where its more in context.. due to my frustrations with sophmoric filters that see bad words every where they aren't intended. Reminds me of some of that old time religion that I grew up with 🙂
World.
To support that there were caravan travels called the summer and winter voyages.
Quraish sura 106
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
For the taming of Qureysh. (1) For their taming (We cause) the caravans to set forth in winter and summer. (2) So let them worship the Lord of this House, (3) Who hath fed them against hunger and hath made them safe from fear. (4).
Thanks Muneef. Speaking of caravans, I just finished reading a book a few weeks ago called "The Masters of Wisdom" and a great part of its second half was devoted to Islamic Spiritual Leaders of Central Asia in the area of Sammarkand, which I believe would be in the area of Turkmenstan or Uzbekistan today. It talked of how these masters were known for their wisdom and their ability to help their faithful followers survive the many invasions of the Mongols and such... because even the heathen warriors who went on to ruthlessly sack Bagdad and other great Islamic cities of the Middle East, could only respect these men and their followers for their wisdom.
The book implied that because they had lived there on the Silk Road, the trade routes between China, India and Europe and Africa... they had become aware of the similarities of the religious ideas that passed back and forth along the trade routes and used that knowledge to the benefit of their people.
Some of it was about Sufi like teachings on meditation and going only within and I will have to admit it was borderline a bit too mystical for me to understand... but then I tried to picture how they may have been influenced by Eastern meditation and that not by having the knowledge we have today, perhaps that made more sense then and perhaps even for some people it makes sense today. I can see how mystics could devlop ideas not grounded in truth though. But perhaps it was also a misunderstanding of the books author as well. Being a lover of music though and the meditative spell it can put you under, I could relate to that mediative part of their teachings, though I doubt I could be much of a whirling dervish. Still I respect anyone who respects human limitations in understanding God and focuses more on the positive efforts of understanding our similarities and trying to understand or reconcile our differences.
A book I am reading now is called "Sea of Faith" and its about the interaction between Christian and Islamic culture in war and peace around the Mediteranean Sea from 600 to around 1700 I think. So many times our two cultures worked together in peace for the benfit of both, in addition to the wars of Jihads and Crusades, that we always seem to hear about so much more. And I would be wrong to limit it to two cultures, as there were many on both sides that often fought with each other, Christain Crusades against Christains like those against the Albigensians, Cathars and Hussites and Moslem Jihads against Moslems, like the Ummayads and Abbassids and the Berber Almovarids. Some were terrible times, but often many many years of peaceful interaction in between. I hope that recent events in North Africa and the Middle East may lead to more productive times of peace. Though it looks like some of it may get uglier before it gets better, lets hope that many are spared and that times will be better soon.
Thanks again for your thoughts and kindness.
World.
The verses under speak as to how old that spot on earth is that Abraham and Son revived,purified the eldest house of worship on earth which was made as a place of cross roads and transit for trade caravans it was as a modern Hub for caravans for the east and west trade (Summer and Winter Caravan Voyages).
The place was a place of worship even before Abraham and Son but as seemed died for long time before having Abraham and Son revive,rebuild,purify.
Then God says that; (And for every nation have We appointed a ritual,that they may mention the name of Allah)?
meaning people may have different rituals but but in the end the worship should be purely for God Allah and non else of any form...!
The God repeatedly speaks reminding the riches to pay the poor-dues, to feed the hungry,to pay or contribute in charities and charities works.
Those riches and powers in Tunisia were not paying poor-dues or cheat in that? Not feeding hungry or pay charity as should or storing money abroad in banks or holes under ground rather than investing it to generate business and good living for the nation nor even the slightest right of freedom ! The result we had seen of that.
Egypt had the same faith for being on the same track and now being followed by Libya for same reasons,mostly was told to be freedoms...
For the people in the west they might be happy with their systems and would never think about doing same as those nations towards their government? Then who would be there to blame for the raise of poverty at least among believers who had always paid dues to Churches? Meaning now How Rich are the Organized Religions that are known say as an example;
-The Jews (Main and all branches)?
-The Christians (Catholic/Protestant/All Branches)?
-The Islamic (Main and all branches)?
Are those going to the poorest of their country land nations before any other neighboring or overseas nations...! Will those be the second to revolt against by their people after or before overthrowing governments
World.
Al-Hajj sura 22:
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
And (remember) when We prepared for Abraham the place of the (holy) House, saying: As-cribe thou no thing as partner unto Me, and purify My House for those who make the round (thereof) and those who stand and those who bow and make prostration. (26) And proclaim unto mankind the pilgrimage. They will come unto thee on foot and on every lean camel; they will come from every deep ravine, (27) That they may witness things that are of benefit to them, and mention the name of Allah on appointed days over the be-ast of cattle that He hath bestowed upon them. Then eat thereof and feed therewith the poor unfort-unate. (28) Then let them make an end of their unkemptness and pay their vows and go around the ancient House. (29) That (is the command). And whoso magnifieth the sacred things of Allah, it will be well for him in the sight of his Lord. The cattle are lawful unto you save that which hath been told you. So shun the fi-l-th of idols, and shun lying speech, (30) Turning unto Allah (only), not ascribing partners unto Him; for whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, it is as if he had fallen from the sky and the birds had sn-atched him or the wind had blown him to a far-off place. (31) That (is the command). And whoso magnifieth the offerings con-sec-rated to Allah, it surely is from devotion of the hearts, (32) Therein are benefits for you for an appointed term; and afterward they are brought for sac-rif-ice unto the ancient House. (33) And for every nation have We appointed a ritual, that they may mention the name of Allah over the beast of cattle that He hath given them (for food); and your God is One God, therefor surrender unto Him. And give good tidings (O Muhammad) to the humble, (34) Whose hearts fear when Allah is mentioned, and the patient of whatever may befall them, and those who establish worship and who spend of that We have bestowed on them. (35).
World.
Al-Hajj sura 22:
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
Al-Hajj
Whose hearts fear when Allah is mentioned, and the patient of whatever may befall them, and those who establish worship and who spend of that We have bestowed on them. (35) And the camels! We have appointed them among the ceremonies of Allah. Therein ye have much good. So mention the name of Allah over them when they are drawn up in lines. Then when their flanks fall (dead), eat thereof and feed the beggar and the suppliant. Thus have We made them subject unto you, that haply ye may give thanks. (36) Their flesh and their blood reach not Allah, but the devotion from you reacheth Him. Thus have We made them subject unto you that ye may magnify Allah that He hath guided you. And give good tidings (O Muhammad) to the good. (37).
What does the National Geographic say about if any of those earlier nations were dag and found..? Same would now be mentioned in modern history (The Domino Effect) taking over tyrants.
Al-Hajj
Those who, if We give them power in the land, establish worship and pay the poor-due and enjoin kindness and forbid iniquity. And Allah's is the sequel of events. (41) If they deny thee (Muhammad), even so the folk of Noah, and (the tribes of) A'ad and Thamud, before thee, denied (Our messengers); (42) And the folk of Abraham and the folk of Lot; (43) (And) the dwellers in Midian. And Moses was denied; but I indulged the disbelievers a long while, then I seized them, and how (terrible) was My ab-hor-rence! (44) How many a township have We destroyed while it was sinful, so that it lieth (to this day) in ruins, and (how many) a deserted well and lofty tower! (45) Have they not travelled in the land, and have they hearts wherewith to feel and ears wherewith to hear? For indeed it is not the eyes that grow blind, but it is the hearts, which are within the bosoms, that grow blind. (46).
Told believers are not to fight against each other for and about faith ;
Al-Hajj
Unto each nation have We given sacred rites which they are to perform; so let them not dispute with thee of the matter, but summon thou unto thy Lord. Lo! thou indeed followest right guidance. (67) And if they wrangle with thee, say: Allah is best aware of what ye do. (68) Allah will judge between you on the Day of Resurrection concerning that wherein ye used to differ. (69) Hast thou not known that Allah knoweth all that is in the heaven and the earth? Lo! it is in a record. Lo! that is easy for Allah. (70) And they worship instead of Allah that for which He hath sent down no warrant, and that whereof they have no knowledge. For evil-doers there is no helper. (71)
Al-Hajj
Allah chooseth from the angels messengers, and (also) from mankind. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Seer. (75) He knoweth all that is before them and all that is behind them, and unto Allah all things are returned. (76) O ye who believe! Bow down and prostrate yourselves, and worship your Lord, and do good, that haply ye may prosper. (77) And strive for Allah with the endeavour which is His right. He hath chosen you and hath not laid upon you in religion any hardship; the faith of your father Abraham (is yours). He hath named you Muslims of old time and in this (Scripture), that the messenger may be a witness against you, and that ye may be witnesses against mankind. So establish worship, pay the poor-due, and hold fast to Allah. He is your Protecting friend. A blessed Patron and a blessed Helper! (78).
It might funny there are many books to read and many books to study from that a good thing but there one book that when you study from it you will understand the past present and future and no that there is one in control of the world and everything in it and that is God who gave us a way of out and that though his son Jesus and gave us the Holy Spirit to lead and guide you that your conscience the bible tell us everyone born has a conscience of God.
If that is all that you require, that is fine, so long as you never try to restrict other people's understanding of God to just that one book or worse, just your one of the many understandings of that book. And actually I should say books as there are many translations of the Bible with various "books" added and missing, when considering Christianity in all of its forms around the world. Keep your faith and trust that it can always grow if you so desire.
East middle or far had seen the light of before the west which was in the dark ages then although it had the books before the East or as much as the East? But still the books were aiming at the majority of simple minded to understand...and am sure if God wanted to mention airplanes at that early time he would have mentioned it as flock of birds to reach the mentality of men then.but it is our turn now to translate it scientifically as to possibility with our present knowldge. Still we will continue bases findings for a clrearer picture...after all we do believe that History Repeats it's Self but in different ways and different means bases every era's capabilities and intelegance.
Peace.
I think you have posted your most profound statement ever. "the books were aiming at the majority of simple minded to understand".
Ancient holy texts have been proven to be scientifically inaccurate. Now, the texts have lost their socal relevance as well.
Any text will loose credibility if it contains a descripiton of the creation of the universe along with instructions of how you can beat your slaves. Please look to yourself for inspiration. Accept your failings as your own.
Eric G.
I was just thanking you at the other blog?! Although not sure what you did not like although think actually at that time all were simple minded people who worshiped other than God such as idolaters,pagans but the few who were intelligent there and then at such time were the Jews and Christians having received their books before others in the area... So God says for every thing he was giving a similitude for them to understand and below are few verses chosen in that regard for it's moderate terror if you wouldn't mind although filters not allowing I will try.
Eric G.
Al-Baqara sura 02:
Lo! Allah disdaineth not to coin the similitude even of a gnat or anything above that. Those who believe know that it is the truth from their Lord; but those who disbelieve say: What doth Allah wish (to teach) by such a similitude? He misleadeth many thereby, and He guideth many thereby; and He misleadeth thereby only miscreants; (26).
Ibrahim sura 14:
Seest thou not how Allah coineth a similitude: A goodly saying, as a goodly tree, its root set firm, its branches reaching into heaven, (24) Giving its fruit at every season by permission of its Lord? Allah coineth the similitudes for mankind in order that they may reflect. (25) And the similitude of a bad saying is as a bad tree, uprooted from upon the earth, possessing no stability. (26) Allah confirmeth those who believe by a firm saying in the life of the world and in the Hereafter, and Allah sendeth wrong-doers astray. And Allah doeth what He will. (27)
Az-Zukhruf sura 43:
And when the son of Mary is quoted as an example, behold! the folk laugh out, (57) And say: Are our gods better, or is he? They raise not the objection save for argument. Nay! but they are a contentious folk. (58) He is nothing but a slave on whom We bestowed favour, and We made him a pattern for the Children of Israel. (59) And had We willed We could have set among you angels to be viceroys in the earth. (60) And lo! verily there is knowledge of the Hour. So doubt ye not concerning it, but follow Me. This is the right path. (61).
Al-Muddaththir 74:
We have appointed only angels to be wardens of the Fire, and their number have We made to be a stumbling-block for those who disbelieve; that those to whom the Scripture hath been given may have certainty, and that believers may increase in faith; and that those to whom the Scripture hath been given and believers may not doubt; and that those in whose hearts there is disease, and disbelievers, may say: What meaneth Allah by this similitude? Thus Allah sendeth astray whom He will, and whom He will He guideth. None knoweth the hosts of thy Lord save Him. This is naught else than a Reminder unto mortals. (31).
Eric G : Now, the texts have lost their socal relevance as well.
WORLD: I'll agree that some of the science relevance of ancient relgious texts may be poetic and effort might be required to understand... and I also agree that all science isn't there.... However the social relevance is all around you in laws and just the every day way humans interact with each other.
Eric G: Any text will loose credibility if it contains a descripiton of the creation of the universe along with instructions of how you can ...beat... your slaves.
WORLD: Thats like those who believe the same about reading books or doing things not related to their religion. You don't have to believe everything you read, but you can learn something from everything you read if you want to. As Muneef said earlier, you also may not understand everything you read now, but later after other ideas, perhaps a light bulb will go on.
The Romans had slaves. That doesn't mean we can't learn anything useful from the Romans or that we should throw everything we did learn from them, out... like their form of democratic government; or where would we be if we refused to use concrete, because the people that discovered its use, had slaves. No book, person or group of people are perfect, but that does not mean they have no value.
ERIC G: Please look to yourself for inspiration. Accept your failings as your own.
WORLD: Each individual may like to think of their self as the center of and in total control of their universe, but no man exists alone. Inspiration can be found in many places outside a person and failure is the result of interaction between an individual and the universe around them... and therefore not just the individuals responsibility. There are many starving people who had little to do with their life threatening situation. Folks who had their homes or lives destroyed by Tsunamis, Earth Quakes etc. may not necessarily be held at fault for failures that resulted. Even on projects in the work place, a persons failures are highly dependent on people they work with, work for and other conditions that may be beyond their control.
True it makes some bosses and priveliged people feel better if they can think other peoples misfortune is all the suffering persons fault, but just because its easy to feel that way, doen't mean its right. Yes we have some, but not total, control and responsibility for the lives we lead.
World.
Thank you for your rich wordings which shows how much wise you are. And you are right about the light bulb that is in the back of our head that has to be fed in order for it to work.
@World: Are you saying one should be selective when reading anceint texts as to which lessons are valuable and which are outdated and irrelevent? If not, then you are suggesting that every word in the texts is accurate. If so, then the entire text must be discarded when proved inaccurate.
Eric G (need afew post to find the baaaad word)
Using our brain is exactly what many modern religious people are saying. My textual knowledge is more along the lines of the Bible because that was the culture I was born into... though I must add, that I too rejected the monolithic form of Christianity as perceived by most, which in itself is an illusion based only on the particular form they were raised with.
It took years of studying the history in which the Bible was written, learning about the other influences that often aren't taught in religious settings... and considering those religious influences, as well as the scientific and philosophical influences... to reach to the conclusions I have reached today – though I admit they still aren't and never will be perfect (like when I said IT doesn't care. In actuality, IT does care... for when you and those around you do what is right, you will be rewarded and when you don't, you will suffer – maybe not instantly but it will happen and sometimes it may be your offspring that suffer... and lets not necessarily get right and wrong today, confused with very old perceptions, though many of them still hold true – and no you don't destroy the world or books because you don't agree with everything in them).
As for the Biblical influences, from Abraham to Jesus, there were many journeys that took place between Sumeria/Babylon/Persia and Egypt. Not to mention the Greek and Roman philosophy that filtered in with their conquests over 300 years. Plus the Middle East sets right in the center of trade routes that passed goods and ideas, back and forth between China and India on one end and Africa and Europe on the other.
One who reads the Bible with this awareness understands the changes that took place as a result... and I agree with you that many who profess to be Christains have no idea of this concept, thus we get burdened with their incorrect literalness regarding possibly now irrelevant texts (I refuse to say that most are irrelevant though and the ones that are, still add perspective to be learned from).
Eric G (continued)
Anyway, just from reading the Bible alone, we know that Ab-raham, Joseph, Moses and even Jesus spent some time in Egypt, where there were great teachers of the earliest Western attempts to know the Universe... the Egyptian trinity of Isis, Osiris and H-orus, where Osiris was the dying and resurrecting God, was followed by the monotheistic Ankenaten pharoh, around the time of Moses...Ankhenaten attempted to change Egypt's pluralistic gods to one, Ra the sun god, who rose in the east and died in the west daily, only to be reborn the next day. So was there any relation there between Ankhenaten and Moses?
In Jesus time when he fled Herod with his parents, the largest group of Jews where he possibly fled to, were located in Alexandria, a place where 300 years earlier Alexander, who conquered as far as India and tried to have his subjects learn about and understand each other... had followers that built the great library of Alexandria, holding much of the knowledge of the ancient world. I have read that there were also Hindu and Budhist missionaries in Egypt at the time. So perhaps this is where some of Jesus' Budhist like thoughts, that were so different from Jewish thought of the time, originated.
Eric G
Eg-ypt and what we now call Tur-key, Iraq and Iran, conquered Jerusalem several times for many years. The thought to be "purity" of the faith was not kept during these times as some might think... the faith and the people holding it, learned different ideas of the other religions... that caused evolution of their faiiths.
Ab-raham, before thinking better of it, went to sa-crifice his son in an area where others believed in ch-ild sa-crifice – was there any connection there and if so, what others are we not told about in the Bible? When the Hebrews were taken into Babylon... and then set free to return by the Persians, who then ruled Jerusalem for about two hundred years... the idea of a good force and a bad force, took hold from the influence of Persian Zoroastrian religion with its idea of a good God Ahura-Mazda and a bad God Angra-Mainyu, who were always in compet-ition and humans had to support the good to win over the bad.
Eric G
The Persians also had their Sun/Son of God Mithras, often shown with the rays of the sun behind him, like the halo of Christain religious figures and the points of crowns for human kings. Of course the Christain popes and bishops etc. still wear hats like the Egyptian Pharohs, and the beehive shaped crowns of Persian Kings who were known as the "King of Kings" because they ruled many kingdoms, and the little beanies that look like the top of an acorn, I suspect relates to the Celtic Druid worship in Oak Groves. Old traditions carry on, no matter how much denied, and in a poetic way relate to the bible verse to "Honor your father and mother" or in other words your ancestors and elders, because without them you wouldn't be here. Honor does not mean worship them as infallible though.
Then there's the mysteriously missing gap of three hundred years in the Bible, between the Old and New Testaments, roughly the time between Alexander kicking out the Persians and the birth of Jesus. Interesting that Matthew restarts with Persian Magi, their priests and the source of the word Magicians, using the stars (astrology) to find and honor Jesus. Was this an attempt at the reinstatement of Persian thought, after influence of 300 years of Greek philosophy. I suspect the Romans either deleted the Greek history out of jealousy, or to make Jesus' messages seem more radically new than they actually were. Perhaps some of that will be learned from texts of the Essenes or Gnostics or Zoroastrians as we learn more.
Then after that, the disciples and their followers had to adapt their ideas and formulate them in ways the Romans and Greeks and Persians and Indians and Africans (Ethiopia/Egypt) of the time could understand. So there were and are so many forms of Christianity the world over, the same as many other religions have their many sects.
So there is truth in the ancient texts, and those texts show that the truth evolved based on human knowledge evolving... and we know human knowledge always has it faults... but I refuse to believe more in Satan or whatever evil power makes people afraid to advance our understandings.... and I try to put my faith in the Universe leading me to the right conclusions. Some might think of that as trusting in God more than Satan. Use whatever image fits. Throwing out history does not fit into that picture though, as "Those who cannot remember the past, and also convince those around them to remember it, are condemned to repeat it". I added that middle part about convincing others, because in my career as a computer systems builder, I often remembered painful experiences and their causes, wanting to avoid future repeats... but was often not able to do so, because others either could not understand the level of complexity involved enough to want to avoid the pain, or because they were not involved in that past history and therefore could not remember it. Religion is like that too. Learn from the past or repeat it.
I would love to hear more from Buddhists, Hindu, Taoists etc. as I still believe there is a core commonality in all human experience. (Muneef thanks for the compliment and your similar efforts).
Eric G. @World: Are you saying one should be selective when reading anceint texts as to which lessons are valuable and which are outdated and irrelevent? If not, then you are suggesting that every word in the texts is accurate. If so, then the entire text must be discarded when proved inaccurate.
WORLD: Your logic is incomplete, flawed and repeating it over and over does not make it true:
ENTIREBOOK = TRUTH – UNTRUTH means that TRUTH does not exist and
ENTIREBOOK must be rejected
ONLY if ENTIREBOOK = UNTRUTH
If we apply such backwards logic, as the argument you put forth implies... to your brain...
unless you know everything, then you need a labotomy (brain removed).
Sorry to be so blunt, but this is about the umpteenth time I've seen the same flawed logic used verbatim. So don't take it personal, just everyone please STOP repeating untruths or partial truths like mantras, thinking if you just keep repeating them that they will become TRUE... they are still NOT TRUE and your doing the same thing you probably are accusing others of doing.
Eric G: Pride goeth before a fall. I could claim a typo but the equation should have been ENTIREBOOK = TRUTH + UNTRUTH and it was fully my error in haste... but neither you or I or anyone else requires a brain removal because we ALL know some TRUTH to start building on.
@World: Thank you for your lengthy responses. I would argue that your logical comparison is inaccurate, but I would need some clarification on your statements to be sure. Are you stating that religious texts are relevant while accepting that there are some truths and some untruths included? Are you stating that those who read the texts can decide what is relevant?
At the risk of being the target of more of your suggested medical procedures, I would like to point out that it is you that is making an argument from as-sumption. You are arguing that individual interpretation of the texts dictates truth and accuracy.
Eric G.: Thank you for your lengthy responses. I would argue that your logical comparison is inaccurate, but I would need some clarification on your statements to be sure. Are you stating that religious texts are relevant while accepting that there are some truths and some untruths included?
WORLD: Yes! Scientific, philosophical, and religious thoughts, are all flawed with our limited human perceptions based on
our own human experiences and the evolution of those thoughts over time. Scientific knowledge is not as complete as some seem to think...and not everyone will ever be able to understand the universe as much as Einstein, much less any complete concept of the Order of the Universe. That even Einstein was not able to reach... and I suspect no one ever will. There's always another la-yer. One more step into the infinite. However, its all logical once we understand.
So I guarantee you that on the edges of science, or even among those of differfent scientific diciplines, there are just as many misunderstandings and misbeliefs, some of which will eventually be proven and some which will not. Its all a journey, not a destination.
You can't throw it all out because its not complete and perfect. If those are anyone's expectations before they think they can learn something, they will go through life as an imbecile and die as one, most likely sooner than they want. The universe doesn't tolerate ignorance long. That's another reason religious and philosophical thought are just as persistent in history, as science. It doesn't mean there are or were not ignorant thoughts or personalities imbedded in any of them though.
You can only claim the irrelevance of religious texts once you've:
– studied them
– understand at least most of their content
– understand the unbiased history around them
– understand their impact on the world around not only you, but everyone else as well
Once you understand that even a little... any claim of irrelevance becomes itself irrelevant, or just prideful arrogant ignorance. How can anyone reject such a large part of human experience over the ages, without a huge ignorance in their character or mind? If you're a scientist and never leave the lab or the confines of your professional thought, perhaps you need to get out more and widen your knowledge.
Now you can argue some people's interpretations are irrelevant and dangerous, much like scientists on the bleeding edge often do with other scientists, and you will get no argument from me. However, you can't argue all interpretations are irrelevant and dangerous.
I choose to see the logic of why all things exist, even the ones I might not necessarily agree with or like, but I don't make my own understanding a fixed destination that everyone else must meet... and I don't think any person has that right to impose on me either. I know everyone arrives from different situations, bringing different understandings from their experiences, and thus the journey will be different for them.
Eric G: Are you stating that those who read the texts can decide what is relevant?
WORLD: In the US, that is your right. And it should be everywhere. However, it is not anyones right to demand that others believe or understand exactly as they do, so I have issue with preachers unwilling to see other view points. I have no dellusion that some one on the other side of the world should believe by our understandings, because we think we know it all. We don't and neither do they. We should accept other cultures, interact respectfully with each other and the truth will make itself known. If respect isn't there, then by all means remove yourself from that situation. And don't confuse fear with respect. Respect comes from honorable actions.
Consciously or unconsciously people are forced to bounce what they read in the texts and verify for their self, what truth they see verified in experience, somewhat scientifically. For instance, to eat ham in desert cultures where no refridgeration exists and things may not be thoroughly cooked, can very easily cause you to die of disease. Thus to protect the group, rules were made against eating ham. Science introduces refridgeration and thorough cooking and the truth changes. Some are still enti-tled to avoid ham if that makes them feel safer for whatever reason, but scientifically we see no reason any longer to do so. On the other hand, what if some time in the future we discover through science that some other serious health issue still results from eating ham? We do the best we can with good intent and submit ourself to the mercy of the universe. No one is perfect.
Eric G.: At the risk of being the target of more of your suggested medical procedures, I would like to point out that it is you that is making an argument from as-sumption. You are arguing that individual interpretation of the texts dictates truth and accuracy.
WORLD: It does not dictate truth and accuracy, but works towards it at the level each individual can absorb. You don't hand out advanced chemistry books to 4 year olds unless by some miracle they have already absorbed the prerequisites. Again how do you think science reached its understandings? Did cave man scientists start off by knowing everything and things have been that way ever since? No.
Anyone making a thorough scientific study of religious and philosophical thought through out the world, including not only a culturally self centered conceited study of Judeo-Christain-Islamic Western forms alone...would find a much more rich variety of understanding, meeting the needs of the many levels of developed conciousness in the human species.
There is only one truth. We are all working toward it conciously or unconciously. We don't all start from the same place and we will never all be at the same level of understanding.
HUMANTHOUGHT = TRUTH + UNTRUTH
Strive for HUMANTHOUGHT = TRUTH
Understand that the real equation though, is so much more complex than we usually wish it were.
It can't be refuted with simplistic incomplete and incorrect logic tricks, that sound cute
@World: I am glad that you think logic is "cute". Logic and reason do not care what you think about them. You are claiming that religious texts do not need to be accurate, (or even factual) because the message needs to be "dumbed down" so the masses can understand it.
You now have two choices available to you.
1. You lack the capacity to understand scientific theory and thus think it is acceptable to consider unsupported myth as truth. This is an argument from ignorance.
or...
2. You understand the verifiable evidence supporting scientific theory and refuse to accept it as truth. This is an argument from dishonesty.
You seem to be fond of equations, but lack an accurate understanding of them. Here is a simple one for you, please tell me if it contains any "cute logic" tricks.
TRUTH=TRUTH
Please let me know which of the two options you will be basing your posts on in the future, ignorance or dishonesty.
Or, you can try to drop your condecending tone and have a rational discussion like an adult.
Eric G to @World: I am glad that you think logic is "cute". Logic and reason do not care what you think about them.
WORLD: The exact phrase was " simplistic incomplete and incorrect logic tricks, that sound cute". So to do better, you provide a new post of similar quality?
Eric G: You are claiming that religious texts do not need to be accurate, (or even factual) because the message needs to be "dumbed down" so the masses can understand it.
WORLD: No you've translated my words to your convenient meaning. You've used this concept many times before your self, almost verbatim I believe.
Next trick. I'll bet its a good one!
Eric G: Now you have two choices available
1. You lack the capacity to understand scientific theory and thus think it is acceptable to consider unsupported myth as truth. This is an argument from ignorance.
or...
2. You understand the verifiable evidence supporting scientific theory and refuse to accept it as truth. This is an argument from dishonesty.
WORLD: BOTH WRONG and copied again! And you accuse me of being condescending, ignorant and dishonest? Your inabilty to construct a valid logical premise is what started all of this, and just lashing out a few more poorly constructed ones based on false premises and insults doesn't prove anything.
G.: You seem to be fond of equations, but lack an accurate understanding of them. Here is a simple one for you, please tell me if it contains any "cute logic" tricks
TRUTH=TRUTH
WORLD: Everything equals itself and its all true. That's the great leap you want me to understand? Okay we agree.
Eric G: Please let me know which of the two options you will be basing your posts on in the future, ignorance or dishonesty.
WORLD: I think I woukd have to use both to have any hope of communicating on your level.
ERIG G: Or, you can try to drop your condecending tone and have a rational discussion like an adult.
WORLD: You're kidding right? There is no tone in email, Only what you think you hear. Why have you made more or less, this exact same post, so many times in the past. Wouldn't waving a white flag be just as effective or this the tried and true last hope maneuver? Rational discussion like an adult? Do you actually read and understand what you write.
Here are som parting thoughts from a wise man. Scientifically test them:
"There must be someway out of here,
Said the Joker to the Thief,
There's too much confusion,
I can't get no relief,
Business men they drink my wine, Ploughman dig my earth,
None of them will level on the line,
What any of it is worth!
Outside in the cold distance,
A wild cat did growl,
Two riders were approaching,
and the WIND BEGAN TO HOWL"
excerpt from "All Along the Watchtower" By Bob Dylan