 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
News of interest to former Christians
Reposted from the Freethought Cafe by J.C. Samuelson
On November 13th at 8:00 PM, the Public Broadcasting Service program NOVA will be airing a two-hour special that "captures the turmoil that tore apart the community of Dover, Pennsylvania in one of the latest battles over teaching evolution in public schools." The program is titled, Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, and features trial reenactments as well as interviews with those involved in the trial.
"Judgment Day captures on film a landmark court case with a powerful scientific message at its core," says NOVA's Senior Executive Producer, Paula Apsell. "Evolution is one of the most essential yet, for many people, least understood of all scientific theories, the foundation of biological science." She also says that one of the goals of the program is to "[h]eighten the public understanding of what constitutes science and what does not, and therefore, what is acceptable for inclusion in the science curriculum in our public schools."
For those interested in watching the program, visit the program website or look for local PBS TV schedules.
"Evolution is one of the most essential yet, for many people, least understood of all scientific theories, the foundation of biological science."
Tell me about it! I teach 5th grade math and science deep in the heart of the buybull belt. I have to be very careful when teaching units on adaptation. If I use words like 'evolve' or 'evolution' the kids seem to put up their guard. From their comments I can tell that they have been taught aspects of evolution by people who don't understnd the theory. They are taught most likely by church leaders or their Christian parents in a way designed to make evolution look stupid or impossible to prove. I try very hard to teach the proven factual aspects of evolution. You know the things we can see and prove today. I hope they will start to put two and two together as they grow in learning.
As with evolution, we can learn much from the past. Likewise, there is even more to learn from our future.
Human civilization faces a number of serious threats with roots deep in the past that must be abandoned before we turn our vision from the past to our future.
The seeds of the future paradigm are being formed even now. The soil will be prepared as humankind meets the great challenge ahead and evolve as a species into the dawning space age.
Some interesting considerations regarding this subject at:
http://religionforthespaceage.blogspot.com/
When we extrapolate the direction of starting a cult, it's time for our friend Wayne to take us to see a professional.
BTW, the term Space Age is so 1959; you may want to coin another. Hint: Heaven's Gate is already taken.
The space age began with the first vision of humankind exploring the space beyond earth, and will extend far beyond the brief life span of Anonymous.
Perhaps anonymous can give us a more appropriate term.
The suggestion of using “heaven’s gate” appears to reveal that anonymous is stuck in the past still grappling with the concept of a “heaven in the sky” or the absence of “a heaven in the sky”.
To anonymous, there is no heaven. That is a far more antiquated term than “space age” The word “Heaven” is just so middle age.
Don’t really understand the reference to cult, but this appears to be part of anonymous’ struggle with concepts like heaven, and gates to haven and stuff that people believe.
What is referred to is a discussion to consider how science, space exploration, and religion might evolve together in a compatible paradigm.
How anonymous could suggest this is related to the term “cult” indicates to me that the person simply likes to use the word regardless of context.
The use of “john, john, john, oh john” indicates to me that anonymous is speaking to me from some lofty place (perhaps behind a gate in haven) admonishing me for my daring to pose a question regarding the reality paradigm for the future.
By the way, my friend Wayne is a professional.
Independently, any word can work for your belief, but when you engage in interpersonal communication, and use that word "religion", you default to the mean understanding of that term. To me, any religion smacks of blind acceptance, and mind control.
Surely, we each strive to create something new and better, but using old terms, and perceptions, may not be the best way forward.
"Sorcerers say that we are inside a bubble. It is a bubble into which we are placed at the moment of our birth. At first, the bubble is open, but then it begins to close until it has sealed us in. The bubble is our perception. We live inside that bubble all of our lives and what we witness on its round walls is our own reflection.
(Castaneda, 1974)"
Religions, dirty the mirrors of inner-reflection, others... dream to see past the reflection... and while we are pondering the implication of it all - we live.
Using the word "religion", suggests you seek a following. Your use of the term, alienates you from those who seek truth beyond self-perception, and from all other religious groups.
Religion to me, speaks to "culture" and "socialization", the charters for such, do not include the search for objective truth - but for subjective validation.
If the goal is to coalesce the findings of research into an integrated whole, to give direction to people in their lives; then why not use the word "philosophy" instead of religion; Philosophy For The Space-Age. Philosophy is both a process, and a product - seemingly, happening at the same time - like cognitive emergence via neural looping...
The difference between religion and philosophy, is the continuous employment of the process... we get to see, through privileged eyes, where others have ended up at the end of the mental labor, by reading their views.
Some, we may find appealing, and attempt to take up their grail and move forward, and others... we just muse over environmental factors that contributed to their findings, and choose to not allow such influence to restrain honest research and learning.
Bertrand Russell (1872 – 1970): "It is because modern education is so seldom inspired by a great hope that it so seldom achieves great results. The wish to preserve the past rather that the hope of creating the future dominates the minds of those who control the teaching of the young."
My opinion; move forward, but do it without establishing a dogmatic and un-changeable "product" known as "religion"... If I see a book with the word "religion" on it, I by-pass the book altogether; if the author wasn't aware of the term's implications, then the author probably wasn't really worth reading anyway... if the author "did" know the implications of the term's (religion) implications, then I wouldn't want anything to do with the book anyway - because it would smack as dogmatic parlance.
I find it in my best interest to maneuver away from anything that even hints of religion. And while I may be anonymous for the most part on this site, my user name personality is one I like to keep as neutral an impartial as possible. Albeit, I definitely have a bias towards facts and objectivity, but… I do have my moments ;-) Take care.
I am no friend of religion and theology, but do appreciate the evolutionary role religion has played in the intellectual and social development of humankind up to this time.
As with business and war, religion has been a major factor in human evolution regardless of the unpleasantness.
In some sense, our ability to challenge the concept of Religion today exists because of the concept that certain human rights are ordained by God.
Some political/religious/warrior entity would likely dominate absolutely without this religions concept of individual freedom.
Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth even if some want to bow down and worship the horse.)
While I doubt my view of the concept “God” is the same as most “Religions” people, I still claim my “god given rights” with no concern for any possible disagreement in term.
Even more important to me, however, is the actual “reality“ of the current circumstance.
At the moment, the majority of humankind believes in some type of Religion and Deity, most often referred to as “God.
So, realistically, we have to start from where we are now at this moment and consider how we might effect a transition toward a future objective.
I agree that the term “philosophy would be preferred in many ways, however, I use the term Religion for a purpose.
Religions exist because people need something to provide answers to very human questions such as “why life?”, “why death?”, and “what does it all mean?”.
Science may give more accurate answers to these human questions, but science cannot give answers that make sense or give comfort to humankind.
I would prefer to replace the word “Religion” with “Ultimate Reality” and “God” with the “Unknown”.
In my mind the Ultimate Reality is ever unfolding and we are ever drawing closer to knowing the “Unknown”.
It will be more reasonable to cause a transition of existing religions people to a new religion, than a new philosophy or reality.
Another important factor is that most of humankind wants simplistic answers based on the sensory experience they have reflecting off the walls of their individual bubble. They do not want to be bothered by such matters being discussed here.
The “conceptual” product must be packaged and presented in a familiar vernacular and paradigm.
We are talking about an “opiate” for the masses…something palatable and satisfying.
Let’s call it Religion and conceptualize it as an evolving scientifically based rational that continually adapts to the new while building a “bridge rational” with the past.
The first thing is consideration…discussion over time can lead to actualization.
As noted by Dave8 in the prior comment quoting Russell:
“The wish to preserve the past rather that the hope of creating the future dominates the minds of those who control the teaching of the young”.
As we cannot blame the “Old Religion” for what is called “Religion” today, so we cannot blame a “New Religion” for the failures of the prior.
Dave8, I understand that you are not typical of the “mass” and well understand your reluctant to even consider the use of the term religion.
While I wish to appeal to individuals with your intellect and objectivity in the consideration of the concept for a futuristic religion, the religion would not be directed toward you.
On the base level, the Religion considered would be for the individual that has no interest in science or abstract concepts.
This religion would be for the person that wants the updated rational of today in a book – summarized,
At the same time the new religion would have to provide a level of reality for the astronaut in space and a “mystical” component for those who are inclined to a more intimate experience.
At this time in human evolution, I feel, Religion is necessary with all its social, emotional and moral components redefined.
Can hummanity actually do without religion?
Such a thing is not within the realm of potential or possibility. I am only interested in a discussion of the subject.
The inspiration for this discussion came from my reading of “The Planetarization of Consciousness” by Dane Rudhyar. Having read the book many years ago, in a dark moment, I pulled it from the shelf and was struck by the following text:
“…What need now to be transformed, if we are to experience globally a basic human ‘mutation’ in consciousness, are the very basic attitudes of both the mind and the feelings. The image-making power of the total being of man – his capacity to ‘see’ existence differently within a radically new frame of reference (and not only a new intellectual frame of reference) and to “feel” existence in a revirginized way — this image-making power must be given a new and far more consciously creative character.
“We can learn a great deal about this from the eminently pragmatic philosophy of old India — pragmatic in a way which seems transcendental to us yet is, in a basic sense, eminently existential at a higher level of reality. We can, however, ask too much from India, China, and Japan. Their ancient philosophies are essential as liberating influences; but to be free from the past of our civilization is only the first step. This can be a cathartic experience which leaves us either floating in some sort of subjective vacuum, or fascinated by some great (or not so great) Personage whose historical as well as spiritual role we may exaggerate in an orgy of blind and immature devotion.
“What is expected of individuals who would be ‘seed men’ for the New Age is quite a different attitude. Such men, Fathers of a global tomorrow, should take a step beyond the cathartic and ego-tranforming experience – a creative step. They have to act in terms of objective realtiy; but should they be chiefly philosophers, this action will operate essentially at the level of basic images and symbols – i.e. of living and creative ‘seed ideas’. This can be most powerful and effective action, for without such ‘seed ideas’ the world-culture which should develop next century would have no solid foundation. Any culture can only grow out of basic ideas, images and symbols provided by a few seed men who came during the last period of a proceeding culture.
“Even if there seems to be a violent radical breakdown of this proceeding culture – a seeming solution of continuity like the Dark Ages following the collapse of the Roman Empire –nevertheless the new culture must develop at first by incorporating some of the seed ideas and symbols of the past.
“So many seed ideas have been sown during the past humdred years! I can only hope that those which should be scattered by this book will have in them the power to feed the growth of men and women of the impending New Age in a harmonious, beautiful and serene manner and that they will fall upon soil rich with the manure of tragedies overcome and blessed.
“I hope and trust that they will belong to the constructive side of the great mutation which is taking place, perhaps not only in mankind but even throughout the entire biosphere, and that they will play a significant, even if small part in the process of unfolding of a planetary consciousness in the fruitful minds of self-consecrated and radiant human beings.”
(End of quoted text.)
Being associated with a number of traditions that expect major challenges and transitions for the Earth’s biosphere and humankind within the next five to seven years, this text made a strong impression on me as an individual human.
The impact of the Watts text was then enhanced by a statement read soon thereafter in James Gardners’s “Biocosm” . The item is from page 211 of the book”
“In a stunning preview of what the future may hold, the physician and biologists Lewis Thomas predicted in an essay published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1973 that if current trends of cultural and technological evolution persist, humanity and its artifacts will eventually coevolve into a single global intelligence.”
“He stated, “All 3 billion of us are being connected by telephones, radios, television sets, airplanes, satellites, harangues on public-address systems, newspapers, magazines, leaflets dropped from great heights, words got in edgewise.
“We are becoming a grid, a circuitry around the earth. If we keep at it, we will become a computer to end all computers, capable of fusing all the thoughts of the world.”
With the emergence of the Internet the evolution of the “global grid” appears to be in well on the way to reality.
Facing, what for me might be a immediate major defining event for humankind, and not wanting to focus on the potential event but rather on the regeneration from the event, my interest in ‘seed ideas’, not structures.
Should I still be in human form seven years hence, for the sake of my granddaughter, I hope we find little or no destructive change.
All I can actually do is think, consider, discuss, and hope.
John: "Can humanity actually do without religion?"
I think the term is over-rated, and ambiguous. Many people are religious based on social or cultural needs. It becomes a conduit to give them what they need, or at least "perceive" they need.
I believe it is for the individual to determine their "needs", with cognitive clarity. Religions, by and large, instill a pseudo-need set in the follower, and present the cure.
Can humanity find another means to have their needs met, beyond religion?
Well, that depends on the need, the religion is filling. If it is a social need being met, then, the question becomes, can a person find social fulfillment beyond a religious setting, that invokes conflicting logic as its mainstay.
John, you are trying to strategize a way to appeal to a host of people, with diverse needs. It's been said, a person can't please everyone, because everyone seems to have different physical/psychological needs/values at varying times in their life, and between different cultures.
There would have to be a massive convergence, within the physical (biological to inert) and psychological (differing stages of neural development between age groups) realm, across an entire globe, in order to establish and attempt to meet a common global need.
I'm a naturalist, for the most part... and I fall into the category of atheism. Want to think abstract for a minute :-)
My atheism is hereditary. Not in the sense, I was born with knowledge that repelled me from religion/religious teachings... but in the sense, my cognitive personality, creates a mental "need" that demands compliance - the "need" for logical coherence and fulfillment.
I fall under the umbrella of atheism, based on genetic "circumstance", to deny it, would be the equivalent of denying my blood type or natural hair color.
Just as an infant, or a mentally handicapped person falls under that category based on circumstance. The distinct difference in our circumstances is that I actually have the ability to repress my natural cognitive process - by "choice".
When I hear someone ask me to go to church, or to join their religion - I understand I would have to compromise needs, between social/cultural and cognitive.
The point, is that everyone steps up on the biological scale at birth, with initial needs, that continue to transform as a person grows.
Many religious denominations attempt to take care of the social/cultural needs, but fail to meet cognitive needs, all along the way through maturation. Well, fail is an understatement, many religions practice mental manipulation; where they teach a child to fantasize and reject their reality, in order to accept a religious belief system.
So, John, the reality is that you are competing with institutionalized organizations who are using deception/influence and psychological operations in order to maintain a followership.
You may be the victim of circumstance as well, I suppose. I mean, if you attempt to create an honest organization, that promotes some "form" of a God/s, you will establish a theological first principle, and be a member of the category "theism". The establisment of your "theism", in practical terms, makes you a religion.
If you wish to draw intellectuals, you are going to have to define the term "God", by giving it an identity in context to this physical Reality.
If you can't, then the term "God", is a conceptualized "ideal", or basic idea.
If you define God as "Ultimate Reality"... and Reality is Nature... and Nature is the Universe, then, you are promoting a form of pantheism. However, you may be appealing to panentheism as well...
http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Panentheism
I have a problem with using terms that are extremely volatile and ambiguous, and "God" is on my long list. If God is Nature, then why not use the word Nature.
Alas, in the end, literary persuasion will only go so far.
Regarding the technological advancements that are bringing people together. I agree, we are converging as a global culture, and with growing pains. However, technology is just a conduit or transporter for information, biologically speaking, people still have to be cognitively capable of integrating and wielding the information they are given.
John: "“Even if there seems to be a violent radical breakdown of this proceeding culture – a seeming solution of continuity like the Dark Ages following the collapse of the Roman Empire –nevertheless the new culture must develop at first by incorporating some of the seed ideas and symbols of the past."
A thing is, based on its nature, and what it does. Is it not possible, to incorporate symbols of the past, that do not force the conclusion of a God to the forefront - before accepting a person for who they are?
The core symbology within our existence rests on material knowns, not the abstracts of unknowns - we have to con ourselves into believing that those exist, by rejecting our knowns.
I felt that this "God phenomena” could and was being detected at the quantum particle level by the scientific community.
I was actually quite satisfied and pleased with this model and felt it might survive the hungry wolves of doubt that constantly roam my paradigm (bubble) looking for scraps of falsification. There is no concept of sacred to this pack.
While I recently threw my prior model out, it is still out there in the junk yard of my abandoned models. Some I recall with shame, and keep them hidden even from myself. Some I keep within distant view, at times recalling the splendor of viewing existence through the lenses of that particular model.
My prior model, I must admit, still beckons to me like an exiled pet peering expectantly for my attention. (But then there are so many favored but abandoned relics out there.)
I did not, however, turn my prior concept into a Santa Clause; it would be more like en sof. The word “God” to me is no more than air rushing over membranes. People do with the word what they will.
If some people, the sheep, need a rational opaite,, then let them graze in peace. Matters beyond the pasture are not of their concern.
I did feel, however, that the scientific community was on the threshold (next decade) of detecting the source of the constant physical “laws” that governs matter and existence as we know it.
I had felt that homo sapiens, as a species, had been affected in some way (perhaps space visitors with genetic code or perhaps in a “thought” from the pure intellect “God phenomena”.)
Without question of the source, I simply accepted that each individual human had an “element” of the “God phenomena” in the human intellect. In fact I felt, when the primate component was removed from human behavior; we could see glimpses of the “pure intellect” in that human.
I justified “holy” men, as humans that had been filled as much as possible with this pure intellect. Holiness was simply a matter of degree for me back then.
When people used the word soul, I translated “an experience in thought from an individual that is retained in the memory of the pure intellect background (God phenomena), or more simply, a temporarily “separated piece of intellect” returning to the whole intellect (God phenomena) in something that could be described in metaphor as “universal memory”.
(very old greek)
Shades of my more pagan ways are also expressed in this understanding of “soul”. In many of these traditions the real “playing field” is the mind.
The manipulation of physical manifestation through the “laws” of cause and effect always held a strong component of “influence” from the “unknown that is reached for in silence”.
In abandoning this prior reality model, it was necessary to abandon the concept of “soul”.
I had always felt that some part/element of the “god phenomena” was within the being of each individual human.
I had felt that as more individual humans realized the “god phenomena” within their intellect and connected consciously to that intellect, over time, human kind would wake up the reality of the single human community fully integrated in the life on earth.
I imagined that the intellect of the “god phenomena” would connect with humanity and earth at a global level. (“Heaven on Earth”)
I did feel, however, that the scientific community was on the threshold (next decade) of detecting the source of the constant physical “laws” that governs matter and existence as we know it.
(Should we actually find empirical indications that there is a “strong anthropic principle” embedded in the physical laws governing the Universe: “The notion that the physical laws and constants of nature are cunningly structured in such a way as to coax the emergence of life and intelligence from inanimate matter,*” then I will bring the prior model back for updates and adjustments and return it to current status.)
While my current model is very temporal and fluid at the moment, I do now realize, through the lens of my developing model of reality, that individual humans are no more, in a sense, that the ape
As there is no individualization say to a single pumpkin, likewise there is no individualization to the single human primate.
I no longer see any reason to “awaken” anything in individual humans. If they are hungry for cake, let them eat cake. In a pointless universe, what possibly could be the point in human experience?
In fact, in shattering my prior reality model, I declared invalid a “connection” perceived by myself from early childhood.
The one constant “reality” for me, through an overwhelming forest of concepts and knowledge, was “the presence” I had acquired before starting grade school.
This “presence’ was comfortable with any name or conceptual robe I chose to place on it. It was ever ready to play with me in an expression of its abiding influence.
I called upon it in thoughtless habit with no purpose but mindlessness. And, perhaps in an example of personal delusion, it showed me wonders and magic. It whispered unheard logic in fresh wisdom spilling into my mind. And at times it seemed to “change things” for me.
Then I declared it false and delusional. I disconnected as a mad man suddenly becomes sane.
Suddenly I began to see the world at face value alone…”the raw real world”. I wondered how I had deluded myself so effectively over so many years.
I was completely devastated and miserable for a few weeks. Having been “conceptually” reborn a number of times, and even being associated with traditions with “death” rituals, had not prepared me for the bleak landscape this real world appeared to me without any “support” or understanding. I had no model to look through, or to rationalize with.
During this time, what I’ll describe as a “native American” experience with nature, the “connection” was reestablished to my great surprise and satisfaction.
Unusual for me, I was “inspired” to challenge nature for a sign. (Not something simple, easy, or likely to occur).
I held nothing but skepticism for such experiences and would not normally make such a challenge so casually.
While it is inappropriate to even mention the event openly, I will refrain from describing the event further so as not to diminish the very personal experience.
As I dfelt once long ago as a new man, I have no question that I am connected to something. Something I can experience and interact with.
(I like to think).
I just have no idea what it is, or if this is some chemical mental delusion.
I do not think it is “God” or indicates “Deity” in any manner.
Knowledge of this “connection” preceded the concept of “God” and is rationalized in the old ways more like the function of an organism than something “spiritual”.
This would be compared as causing an itch to get the organism to scratch somewhere.
There is the “spiritual” component of using the “memory” of powerful forbears to affect the “mentality” of the organism and, thereby, cause the effect, but the concept of “God” is more like the ultimate organism, not a guy or lady that concerns itself(s) with human events.
Regardless, I like “believing” in the experience and I’ll take it at personal experience value alone.
My experience, however, has no validity for anyone else, and will not be “real” for me unless the “experience of presence” and favorable serendipity continues.
Let me, however, discredit my mentioned “experience” completely. I make mention to show how naturally this concept filled a vacuum within my mind.
For me it at this moment, the "presence" is only a unsubstantiated indication of something that may have been born out of despair and is not something I can recommend or even assure is “real” beyond my imagination.
I mention the experience to indicate how naturally these concepts fill a vacuum.
Dave8, your mention of being an Atheist actually prompted the above reminiscence.
I understand that an atheist takes a firm stand against diety of any type. What I do not understand is what replaces the archtypes?
From the point of view of an Atheist (not that someone can speak for all atheists) what would be a typical response to these questions:
1. If I am stronger than someone else, is there anything wrong with taking advantage of my strength to gain from that person?
2. If something is wrong, is the subjective point of view subordinate to the objective view?
3. Is there any basis for a moral imperative from a subjective point of view?
4. Would you agree that, for the individual, the lights of awareness are triggered on at a stage of biological development in the womb, and, at death, the lights of awareness are simple turned off -- end of story for the individual?
5. If the ultimate reality is that energy/matter began in an unknowable disconnected originating process that caused the random development of organized matter over a period of space/time until the process either collapses back into itself or continues in endless expansion and atrophy, does life, or a living incident, matter?
6. Is there such a thing as good and bad and who gets to decide?
7. Does the view of reality for the atheist extend beyond the interior bubble?
8. What gives you the most satisfaction and mental comfort being an Atheist?
Dave8, I find myself in a bleak new philosophical landscape with sand underfoot. The questions come from my wondering how I can take the reality I know regarding science, and combine it rationally into a reality for life as a human.
I seek, therefore I am bewildered.
j.
* Biocosm by James Gardner, Introduction, page xxiv
You've encountered me before? Alright, I'm sure you know, then, that I'm more of a "meat and potatoes" kind of guy when it comes to theology/philosophy, etc. You seem to be the polar opposite--more into the abstract "fringe" stuff, which is fine. After all, you certainly aren't threatening anyone, or doing any of the things that many(most?) of the religious fanatics who pop in, do. On the other hand, yeah, for those who are interested in the topic of discussion you are offering here, I can see how the slew of broken paragraphs might make reading a little more challenging. But hey, that's IMO. Carry on soldier.
Half of me was most comfortable with my sense of natural total integration into life and the living process, and half wanted to understand all I was being told about a god and such. This set me on the path as a seeker (yet all I have to do is withdraw alone to the forest beside the road for refreshment, thanks to my dad’s teaching). I have tried to learn and experience all I could about religions and spirituality but always found myself wanting as intimate a relationship with the essence of the religion as I have with life. Only the discovery of my Buddha nature and the Buddhist appreciation of life still appeals to me from my time amoung the religious. To not be unable to “experience” the essence personally of a religion was unacceptable to me. If there is a god, then I expect a similar personal relationship as I have with my beloved life through what we call nature. This often caused me problems understanding religions and participating in religions. I tried Christian mysticism, Sufi traditions and such, but only the pagan traditions seemed to work for me, and I really did not especially like the folk I often met in these circles. So I withdrew into the “Indian” part of my nature and frankly was quite at peace in a manner of solitude and retreat.
This was fine in the 80s and 90s, but there is another aspect of the Indian knowledge which began to disturb my peace. Indians rely a great deal on cycles. The knowledge of cycles is “powerful” knowledge and held in secret by Indian clans and wise people. As an example, when I became a “new man” in the Indian vernacular, I began to learn about cycles. This is obvious for example in planting and reaping. Up upto my great grandfather, men of our tribe would come to my great grandfather for advice regarding when to lay with their wives for the most likelihood of having a healthy child. There were a number of factors, but the primary factor was the knowledge of a cycle. My grandfather and the wise women of the clan knew that a woman is in cycle with the moon. When a woman “is in favor with the moon” she will have her period around the new moon. Unfortunately, if a woman did not have her period around this time, she was considered to be “out of favor with the moon” and she would have difficulty getting a “blessing” from the elders to marry. Women out of favor with the moon had more problems with childbirth and other maladies. While my great grandfather did not understand ovulation, he knew that the most likely time for a woman to get pregnant was around the full of the moon. While my great grandfather would not explain the cycle to the man, he would count the days until the full moon and instruct the man to begin lying with his wife a few days before and after the full moon. It had great predictability which was essential in my great grandfather’s line of work.
In the midst of my withdrawal, a disturbing realization broke through. One of the consistent cycles taught among Indian people is about to end and a new cycle begin. The Mayans, the Hopi, and a number of Indian and pagan traditions predict that we are now in the midst of a change that will become very obvious by the years 2012 – 2013. This would be of no concern to you, but for me, it always seemed so far off, that I never really thought much about it. Last year at a meeting of some pagan types the subject came up and a discussion of the “signs” sparked my memory of the teaching about this “great cycle”. One sign, for example. is that the seas will rise in a significant manner. Now I do not accept that any one can predict the future. I recall that in the time of the man we now call Jesus, that Paul went all over telling people that the dead jesus would reappear within their life time. He was wrong. And many times people have stood waiting for the end of time only to still have to pay their bills. But for someone who is very much aware of the role cycles play in nature; this is a very significant event. This is not to say that the world will end, or a great catastrophic event will occur. It will be the ending point of one cycle and the beginning point of another. It somewhat corresponds to the “age of Aquarius” and some European traditions. I, personally, feel it marks the end of life’s limitation on earth and the beginning of our exploration and “colonization” of other planets with life. But as is so often the case, there may be a challenge. We may need to find harmony as humankind to be able to meet any challenge that might occur. Should we fail in the challenge, the change might take another direction and our venture in space might be delayed or perhaps pasted by.
So, I became concerned for the living biosphere of earth and my fellow kind. I had been so proud when I realized that humankind might be destined for space exploration. There is ancient knowledge, expressed openly in genesis in the bible, but much hidden most often. The knowledge is expressed within this statement, “Anything humankind imagines, they can manifest”. If humans imagine a rocket, then they can create a rocket; same thing for atomic and hydrogen bombs. This can be true for some individuals, as well in a limited manner. (I can support this with empirical evidence if you wish.)
This is why your realizing that I mean no harm was so appreciated. Already I have feelings of affinity for Dave8 and now yourself. You likely do not have such feelings; however, if you do, then watch out, you may have some pagan/mystic tendencies. (just kidding) But I am doing what little I can to use the tools at my disposal to make some small contribution in preparation for what I perceive as a critical time for life and humankind on earth.
It was your statement “Carry on soldier” that really caused me pause. I prefer the comfort of my privacy, and home and garden and yet I broke my reverie to begin discussions like this. Normally, I would see no purpose in this, but I actually feel like a soldier in a way. I feel that you and Dave8 are likewise soldiers, soldiers for truth. Perhaps you are only interested in truth for yourself, perhaps you care about your fellow humans, but regardless, you are out here on the front lines of the wonderful new world wide web doing what you can.
Mentioning that you are a “meat and potatoes” realist caused me to consider you to be in a way like the most dear person to me in this world, my wife. She is a down-to-earth country girl, a retired school teacher, and centered firmly in reality. Yet like you, see is able to tolerate my abstract nature and actually shields me from the world. She even helps me hide out when in retreat. However, her favorite minister is Joel Osteen and she is a hopeless Presbyterian, I would not have her any other way. I cannot tolerate a woman that thinks I can give them some kind of answer…the most I can offer anyone is bewilderment, in about any dose they would like. My wife is good for my ego, as in keeping it humble.
boomslang, you hang in there as well brother soldier
j.
John: "1. If I am stronger than someone else, is there anything wrong with taking advantage of my strength to gain from that person?"
Depends on culture, and the context of the situation.
Example; you are walking forward, and a 30lb child follows you. You both see a nuclear triggering device ahead, and the child yells out; Allah has given me a sign and darts towards the trigger.
Here's the question to you John... Do you stop the child, and use your strength to "save your life" (gain), or do you allow the child to run forward and pull the trigger?
By using your strength, you have saved "two" people, at a minimum, from certain death.
The child may consider you "immoral", because the child doesn't value life; they value the illusion of an afterlife more. The entire culture, you may be exposed to at that time, may consider you immoral.
Do the cultural norms of a society, dictate what is moral?
I understand from the Christian point of view, I should fall down upon my knees and pray to God to strike down the little bastard. And if the devise did not go off, then somehow do something that would qualify as “turning the other cheek”.
A pagan would instantly begin to imagine the death of the child and impel him with one of the knives he carried for just such occasions. He would then meet with his clan and began to place totem within the territory of the child’s clan, put salt on their crops and other poisons on the land, steal some of their children for long term retribution (perhaps many generations just for spite --- they would be raised and tied up with the dogs likely in this event). Potions and philters would then be placed in the water on an ongoing basis to affect the mental stability of the child’s clan. A circle would be called each day in the morning and at night to send a vortex of “ill wind” over them. The Old Ones would be called upon and an ancestor would be assigned, and a death cult would be originated to collect bodies and bones of the child’s clan to place in a cave of torment to be maintained for as long as the pagan tribe existed.
Not really sure what an Atheist would do, likely not consult or consider cultural issues I would suppose, but do wonder what would be the likely Atheist reaction. Since the child has no soul and the universe has no point what difference would it make anyway? (Does anyone hear a tree that falls alone in the forest?)
The Native American person would, of course kill the child. If the child had wondered onto the native person’s territory for any reason, then the child would either be a slave for life, or traded for something of equal value as considered the child. As soon as the native person returned to the camp of his clan, the men would immediately go and kill every member of the child’s clan they could find, and then go around to all the clans in the tribe to call a war meeting. At the war meeting the men of all the clans would join together and begin a fight to the death war on the tribe of the boy’s clan. This war would only end when one or other of the tribes had been annihilated and their territory marked as one single territory. (Except perhaps for some of the women and children of the boy’s tribe to toy with.)
For the native American, weak people (unless they were elderly, and in some cases not even then if the tribe is threatened) were not worthy of life. When a person chases down their food and butchers it on a daily basis (Native American life was very, very, bloody), they assimilate the natural laws of nature. There is no pity, empathy or tolerance for the weak (except perhaps to give them a quick death if you hold no grudge against them and don’t want to draw it out a bit). The weak are to be dominated or eaten by the strong. Even the Greeks and Romans understood this paradigm.
Dave8: “The child may consider you "immoral", because the child doesn't value life; they value the illusion of an afterlife more. The entire culture, you may be exposed to at that time, may consider you immoral.”
I understand that the question is actually “If I was standing in my current community?” This would be an interesting question for everyone (out of the military) to consider deeply. For me, I can answer it in this way: Even though I have feelings of great affinity for the poor individual they now call Jesus, I am not a Christian, I am somewhat a pagan, and somewhat native American. It would be fortunate for the little boy’s people that I was not born under the sky of Scorpio in such a case.
Dave8: “Do the cultural norms of a society, dictate what is moral?”
No. The society establishes the cultural norm and the group consensus forms the general social paradigm for the society. This alone, however, would not dictate any particular moral paradigm. The early Greeks realized that without a “Moral” component, such as religion, the society has a natural tendency to degenerate into a more primal and primitive form or organization. Most of society today would consider this degenerative state of society to be anarchy.
j.
Just sayin'.
To be as brief as possible, the primary elements of America’s dominance – military, financial, technological – will begin to erode in an observable and more accelerated manner over the next 5 – 7 years. Asia has begun the ascendency cycle to dominance, likely to be marked historically with China’s taking of Taiwan. Result, “meat and potatoes and stuff” are going to cost a lot more dollars to purchase increasingly over the next few years. In this case we will experience the cycle change in a rising “cost of living”.
Note to stronger now: ” If the child was enculturated to the extent of being willing to lose its life to take yours, do you really think the people “that bred the mean little bastard” would not hunt you down and put the devise up…well, you get the idea. Better to kill the entire lair and rid the earth of the lot…no telling what next they might breed. (One glorious fight is all it takes to end the problem.)
j
If I was to be hunted, then that is another situation. One to be dealt with forcefully.
But, given the example, the matter at hand would be to stop the child, and I would.
The unknowable consequences would have to be dealt with in their own time.
What I would do to the child depends on the situation. If we were alone on the street, if there was enough time to catch up to him, if I had a weapon at the ready if I couldn't catch him, if I had duct tape or some other means to restrain him long enough to get away, if I could take the device with me, and a whole lot of other information that would dictate how I would decide to stop him and what to do after.(sorry for the run on sentence)
"Would you not at least wonder where the device came from..."
I'll worry about that after, for the time being the most important thing is to stop it from being triggered.
"and where the little boy got such a dedicated notion to kill you from?"
I would have enough information to assume that the kid got the notion from a muslim upbringing when he said "Allah has given me a sign".
Furthermore, It doesn't matter where he got the notion to blow me and himself to smithereens, at least not for the short term immediate response. That he has it at all is cause for immediate action on my part, if I intend to see what comes in the next few moments.
I didn't intend to disturb the conversation in progress all that much. It was a very interesting conversation to me. I just happen to be someone that thinks in extreme situations, like in the question posed, where action cannot be planned out further than a few moments, one has to do the best with what is given for that situation and deal with the consequences in like manner. It may not be conducive to the best decisions that could have been made, but any decision made will have to do.
I may have mistaken you latest question. Was I to assume that you meant after I had stopped the child from triggering the device, what would I do with him? If that is the case I would try to restrain him so that he would be found in a few hours, unharmed, and hopefully, giving me enough time to get the hell away from that kid and his people.
The more participating in a discussion like this, i feel, the better.
j.
John: "No. The society establishes the cultural norm and the group consensus forms the general social paradigm for the society."
Agree.
John: "This alone, however, would not dictate any particular moral paradigm."
Ah, but it "does" establish a "particular moral paradigm". However, it doesn't establish a "Universal" moral paradigm.
As well, many individuals in a society may not actually "agree" with the social moral paradigm.
John: "The early Greeks realized that without a “Moral” component, such as religion, the society has a natural tendency to degenerate into a more primal and primitive form or organization."
Morality is a categorical term, used to create a taxonomical boundary around a particular culture's value norms.
Those "value" norms, are based on "ideas/concepts" or "ideals", etc.
Obviously, morality or established values are necessary in society, because of the "distinction" between an "idea/concept" and an "ideal".
A concept is formed by taking a number of similar entities and deciding what makes them similar in an important way.
Take Atheism as an example; some people read definitions out of books because they haven't learned how to conceptualize. However, when one is capable of conceptualizing, they can extract the essential element from "all" known forms of atheist groups, and create a generalized concept that captures the essence of what it means to be an atheist - lack of belief in a god/s, would be that conceptualized essence.
Albeit, many people just like reading a book that will validate their bias/prejudice(s).
Point is; that the same holds true for morality in a sense. There are "values" that can be extracted/conceptualized from "all" citizens, such that a common "value" can be understood, and accepted as "valuable" by the majority of people.
For instance; "Life" is a "Core Value", recognized as the essence of what is inherent of every citizen in the U.S., and every nation for that matter. While, a person can "deny" the "value" of life, they can not deny the concept – the very value being targeted is inherent in their being – they need only recognize it. And, importantly, the concept of Life is "measurable", it is a "concrete" idea that laws and standards can pivot around.
Citizens, can "plan", and act with self-determination, because they are not paralyzed by a perpetual ambiguity. A sense of justice and fairness can be established, and the actions of citizens can be measured accordingly, in an "objective" sense.
Let's look at the alternative; the Ideal, which is a religious construct.
In order to “conceptualize” the common essence of something; it has to be established. Ideals are the perfect representations of some material thing. The important thing however, is that one can’t extract or conceptualize using an “Ideal”, there is no physical tie that a citizen can relate to. One can only value something they wish to “preserve”.
Sounds simple enough; until one realizes that the value of an “Ideal” is, in the “vision” alone; it’s preserving a thought that has no proof of concept, and by its very definition can never be achieved.
Citizens can not act, nor plan with self-determination, regarding an Ideal, because they are paralyzed by perpetual ambiguity. A sense of justice and fairness can not be established, since the actions of citizens can never be measured, in an objective sense.
All laws and standards (morality) that could ever be established would be totally arbitrary. In a sense, an “Ideal”, just establishes how something “isn’t”. To value the “Ideal”, in order to establish morality as a cultural norm – is nothing but frivolity, and a dogmatic assertion.
Let’s suggest that the notion of an Ideal Life exists. One can not preserve or act morally, in relation to the notion of an “Ideal” Life, because every person could potentially hold what an “Ideal” Life, would consist of, and base their ethical decisions in life based on that arbitrariness.
To preserve and value an “Ideal”, by which one makes decisions on in life, is to preserve “uncertainty” of behavior within a citizenry.
There is the implied assumption that “morality” brings about a common behavior, based on a common understanding of value norms. Anarchy is not conducive to such norming; collective thought is not a mainstay for such a platform. In order for morality to coalesce, and take on the form of something established and consistent; there must be objective standards by which values are derived, and there must be a driving need for the majority of a culture to respect those values, and there must be the expectation that by following established rules and standards; successful preservation of values must surely follow.
Without those basic drivers, morality as a generalized concept within a culture can not emerge. And, morality as a set of value norms is “not necessary” for a culture to adhere to, it just isn’t pleasant as the Greeks and many earlier cultures found out.
It may be worth discussing the distinction between anarchy, and the ensuing chaos due to strict adherence to a non-collective focus, and the similarity of uncertainty that emerges from organizations that use Ideals to establish their standards for living.
Morality as cultural phenomena ebbs and flows based on environmental changes.
If only one person lived on the earth; would there be such a general term (used to effectively communicate all subsumed articles) as “morality”… or would there just be the cognitive recognition of success and failure to meet desired needs?
Although, I described morality as the categorical term that overarched all cultural values; it could be pointed out, that morality implies that there are actions that are inherently “wrong”. The only “wrong” a person can do, is the “wrong” described by a second party.
Regarding the child and triggering device; I have no problem asserting that I would use force to preserve what I value; self-determination. A child, who attempts to impose actions that directly remove my ability to self-determine my fate, has forfeited their right to self-determination. Thus, my action of using strength, even at the restraint of a child, preserves self-determination for both of us at a later time.
If that child wants to kill themselves, because they “value” an “Ideal”, and to “succeed” in achieving the Ideal state is some form of venerated martyrdom, then so be it; but I will isolate their martyrdom as much as possible to their demise.
If we talk rationally, then we must talk logically, if we talk logically then we must talk about success/probability; if we talk about success we must talk about vision and a desired end-state; if we talk about that, then we must talk empirically and objectively about “ideas”, not “Ideals”.
Dave8, for a brief time in my early days I was a technical writer. It was my job to discuss subjects and issues with the technicians and then attempt to explain it to less technical people in various written forms. I find myself having to use some of those skills to fit the complexity and level of your thinking into my more limited mental capacity. So, my responses will be mere over simplifications perhaps. I understand I will miss some of the very important subtleties of your statements and please correct me if I “restate something in ignorant simplicity” that does not reflect your actual meaning.
I take one aspect of your position to be that “conceptualizing an idea” and then setting it up as an unobtainable “ideal to be sought after and achieved by a society is harmful at the individual, and perhaps community level. I further take it that you suggest that religion follows this formula, perhaps, with even more sinister “value norms” thrown in for absolute control mechanisms.
Dave8, we are in agreement, if this represents an agreeable response.
Regarding Atheism, I’ve never really read and know very little about what the term means other than as you suggested “an atheist is an person who is anti-theism and opposed to the concept of deity in any manner, shape, form, or insinuation”.
My first association with atheist was while working with the scientific and technical types mentioned just prior. I did not think of them as being so much anti, than objective. They looked on “religious faith” as a bias that might affect the empirical integrity of the project. Some were likely even religions, but it did not matter, a good scientist must be anti anything except the proven and reproven facts. My dad had thought of the earth as a living organism, my mom thought god had given us the dead earth and everything on it to dominate as something sort of “unliving”; and these wonderful, intelligent atheist people told me it was something very, very different and unfolded an wonderful new reality for me to swim about in.
Yet, even though I feel I have some reasonable understanding what an atheist is not, I find I have no knowledge to draw on in understanding what an atheist is. Not that it is impossible to understand having a totally negative mindset regarding the issue. At one time I found it personally amusing how many really secret, secret, traditions describe “god/ultimate reality/cause” only in negative terms – god is not this or that. Are there really books that describe what an Atheist actually is?
Dave8: For instance; "Life" is a "Core Value", recognized as the essence of what is inherent of every citizen in the U.S., and every nation for that matter. While, a person can "deny" the "value" of life, they can not deny the concept – the very value being targeted is inherent in their being – they need only recognize it. And, importantly, the concept of Life is "measurable", it is a "concrete" idea that laws and standards can pivot around.”
(It would be interesting to have a sociologist’s point of view regarding this subject.)
We take what exists now in terms of society and civilization much for granted. What we have now is the results of a number of factors (for brevity to ignore) including something to keep the people socialized and civilized. Anyone who has read about the morality toward the end of the black plague when religion failed, or what it was like in America’s wild west (not that log ago), would likely agree that there has to be something, with authority, to “force upon the general mass population of people” to keep them social and civilized.
When I use the term “religion”, I simply mean “something people believe and accept, in general, as the ultimate and defining reality”. I envision a religion where the intellectuals gather the latest scientific knowledge and refine it in a degree of “intellectual” levels for the people to accept and live with. It should be understood that as knowledge grew, the religion would be refined.
Please, do not think I am suggesting that a Religion even have a concept of God – expect at the lowest level for people who want reality translated in that context and vernacular. It would simply be a “version” of the religion, like King James has his personal “version” of the Christian bible.
At the basic level of social organization, humans began to accept and, most often, elect leaders. At the basic level, strength and intelligence are the primary factors that identify leaders. Human beings are born and grow in early live with a primarily “subjective” perspective on life, the society, and the world at large. It is a major achievement to affect a change to an “objective” and “collective” perspective on life, the society, and the world for the individual.
Some “idea and obtainable ideal" has to the conceptualized and imposed on the society by leadership to establish a social identity and sense of cohesion within the mentality of the individual. Since aberrant behavior is a certainty, the social authority must have the capability and wiliness to restrain an, if necessary, destroy individuals who will not meet the norm or threaten the well being and order of the society or civilization.
Dave8, do I detect some “special feeling” for individual human life in your most recent post? Even very religious people like Columbus found it easy to harm and kill the people they found on the islands off South America. I would think that an atheist would (and please no disrespect here) see a human primate child, the same as an ape child. I would think that from an atheist point of view there could be no empirical proof of difference. If an ape child threatened even to bite my arm, I might harm it in automatic defense. (sorry) Is there some little bit of “human sentimentality” among atheists?
And one final statement in this post: I’m really confused about how we might treat this little failed murderer. Likely, he was able to set off the devise and is now trying to figure out what to do with 70 sexy virgins.
Thing is, in my scenario, I am left with his, and his people’s blood, all over me having expecting a hero’s response, only to now feel embarrassed and brutal having taken the threat of annilation so seriously. In retrospect, I say, we should just put up a sign that says, “No Deadly Devices Allowed”.
j.
j
I don't want to read between the lines, but perhaps, the unwritten message is to carry this conversation elsewhere.
So, I will do that. If you have a personal "secondary" e-mail address, then I will communicate via that method with mine - just drop a line.
Regarding, the answer to your moral dilemma and doing away with weapons altogether. It's not an option, if civilization is to remain stable. There are those, whom don't hold the cognitive capability to wield complex weapons, yet they could overpower those with higher intelligence, the equalizer, is intelligence and tool creation.
Also, there are people with the cognitive capability and intelligence to build complex weapons. And, yet, there are conflicting visions among nations, on how global resources should be allocated/dispersed and what an end-state governing body should look like.
Figure out how to equalize intelligence; and how to create a model for a globally stable resource management system (while fending off those who disagree), and it may be possible to do away with the vast majority of weaponry.
I'll say this, there will always need to be total transparency between the governing body and its citizens in order for such a system to work - Aristotle said as much as well.
Prior you had mentioned your reluctance to participate in the blog considering Religion for the Space Age because of the use of the term Religion. I hope you will reconsider now.
Our discussion, in the blog prior to this, had great influence in my starting this new blog. I hope to use this blog to create a small presence on the Internet for this discussion and to use some of this material to develop a website regarding the consideration.
I would like to play some little part in the beginning of worldwide internet discussions regarding ultimate reality and the need for change in Religion.
The reality of science must be realized and incorporated by the religious leaders into the doctrine of the religion. This can only happen when the people demand it and force it on the religious leadership. Yes, I just realized that I am suggesting a revolt within the religions. Let’s call it a revival. As audacious as it may sound, the internet is a mighty new world forum where just such a conversation could begin, has begun, perhaps not with us, but perhaps this blog for example.
To make my point, the scientific reality of the 40’s has not yet entered the paradigm of our society in general. From this level of knowledge, our current society is almost entirely unaware of the scientific reality of today, and thereby true reality itself. For example, when Einstein proved that the speed of light was a constant, his difficulty was in explaining that sometimes light seems to slow down because of the effect gravity has on time. Even today the average person might not agree that the speed of light is constant but that time is not – time can be effected by gravity and thereby seems to change the speed of light.
As people link and communicate via the internet, the global knowledge will begin to effect the intellectual level of humankind worldwide. The absurdities of the Religions will be realized and the need for new vision will be great.\
I intend to begin to describe an example of how such a scientific based religion might develop based on scientific principles on the new blog. I would, very much, appreciate your sharp thinking in this consideration. I expect to have this on the blog by next weekl.
We can discuss if the word God must be abandoned or modified and updated in some manner to provide a social transition. We can discuss how such a social transition might begin in America and around the world. We might even envision a world symposium to consider the subject. If adopted this transition would be the subject of religious services all over the world in a mass education to update the antiquated doctrines and dogmas now revealed as false by the newly emerging global paradigm being formed by the internet.
So, Dave8, I ask that you link up with me at:
http://religionforthespaceage.blogspot.com/
We can establish a more private communication from there, if you prefer, however, I must admit that I would like to have the benefit of your thinking in this project and reflected in the forthcoming website and communicational enterprise that will follow.
Dave8, I was about to retire, having prepared a little post for this blog awaiting your response. When I saw your post, I felt inclined to remain awake for a time and respond. I truly enjoy the quality of your dialectic and have gained much in something most precious to me in our discourse – knowledge.
Since I have the following little item ready, I’ll post it anyway, as well.
j.
In this model we begin with the same rational we hold for what scientists call “the big bang” originating theory. Science says we can know nothing about the moment prior to the big bang or what might have existed before the big bang; therefore, it is not to be considered at all. In the model we are proposing, there should be no consideration of source or such in a similar manner.
For this model, we use the metaphor of a dream. Because we experience dreaming personally, we can understand fully and relate to the concept of what a dream is actually like. I will begin following to speak to the person that might be trying out this conceptual model:
You begin by contemplating the knowledge that matter and energy are the same thing basically, or rather for this model “perceptive levels” of the same thing. In this model, matter is the dream level state. All forms at this dream level state are “dream objects” formed in matter from the substance of all dream objects – which is energy.
For example, if a scientist was to explain what an individual person is made up of at the atomic level, or more interestingly. at the quantum particle level, he would be describing an organization or system consisting of dynamic energy. The scientist would not be able to determine why the particles formed into a living, thinking, human being, or make this determination of the form by considering the particles.
So in our model, the forms are like objects in a dream and the substance of the dream is a vast field of energy. We are just a dream object our selves. Now there is no faith or need to believe anything in this model. We do not ask questions in this model.
So to apply the model temporarily as you would using a pair of glasses, simply sit in quiet contemplation of the concept that we are held in a dream that is actually a vast field of energy. Attempt to think about this concept as deeply as possible. Consider what the substance of your dream objects might look like. The idea is to think about it so long and deeply as to make a strong impression on the mind.
When you feel that the concept has “sunk in” as a deep consideration, begin to think about some little way you would like to see the dream change in your personal life and environment. Do not choose something difficult – choose something like a small change in the workplace. Begin to consider how the small change might happen and what might cause such a change. Consider how you might take some action that might help cause the change. Should an idea come into your mind regarding an action you might actually take, then attempt to incorporate this into your work activities.
At some point within the actual environment you had considered for change, bring to mind for a while your contemplation of the dream model and that all you are seeing is simply dream objects (matter) in a field of energy that is not as “solid” as they appear. Hold this thought for as long as convenient.
If the phenomena works for you by using this model, then you will see a change take place in a perhaps unimagined manner, but seemingly an effect of your cause. As noted prior, this is just an example of “positive” or “creative” thinking that is used to experience this phenomena of mental cause and effect – no big deal.
As noted, I abandoned this model, early on as a young man, but still like to give it a spin occasionally. Presented here is not actually the full model I had constructed before abandonment, but is an interesting component that helps us experience the somewhat abstruse nature of reality.
If someone gives it a try, let us know what, if anything happens.
j.
Since, I will be spending time updating this new blog, my presence here will be only an occasional perusal. So, Dave8, should we not meet in discourse again in the future, please know that I have enjoyed the liaison.
The blog summary:
What impact will science, technology, and space exploration have on humankind over the next century? Will the Religions of the world be able to adapt to the future? How might such a Religious adaptation and transformation develop? These are some of the questions that humankind faces as we look into the future, and these are our considerations here.
This blog begins with four different lines of considerations:
1. The Chosen Species considers the biology and nature of space exploration and seeks to answer the questions “Is humanity responding to an evolutionary imperative to protect life on Earth and propagate life beyond our planet, and is the universe receptive to life?”. Is life in the Universe an accident doomed to expire in isolation in the vast abyss of space, or is life an attribute of the Universe in the process of expansion and development? The determined biological and “natural” reality regarding the relationship of life and humanity to the Universe will be an essential aspect of any Religion in the future.
2. Our Holistic Viewpoint considers human cognizance and perception as it relates to human reality. While it will be necessary for humans in the future to understand the complexities and components of ultimate reality, it will also be necessary to frame such complexities and components (such as particle physics) in terms and forms that are recognizable, understandable, and functional for human society. Because the ultimate reality of the future will likely include rapid development of new and increasing knowledge, this evolving knowledge must be translated and introduced into the current reality paradigm for humanity. It may well be the role of the Religion of the future to meet this challenge. We will consider how a Religion for the Space Age might be the keepers and teachers of the evolving “Ultimate Reality” for human society.
3. A Fundamental Fallacy considers, perhaps, the most difficult and volatile subject regarding a Religion for the future: the Soul. Can future reality support the notion that a select portion of individual human personalities have been, are now, and will be into all future time, held in a suspended state of eternal separation from the sum of the totality of the Universe? This will likely be the ultimate, and most divisive, challenge for the Religion of the future.
4. Nothing Available of the Theological Shelf takes the position that the major Religions of today are focused on the past, and myths from the past, and are ill suited to serve the traditional role of Religion in society as humanity embarks into the future. This line of thought will consider how Religions of today might make a transition that will be compatible with the scientific and technologically driven human reality of the future.
In January 2008, a website will be published, in association with this blog, to further this consideration in our global community via the Internet over the World Wide Web.
This late in the post doubt you will get this but wanted to invite you to visit the new site:
http://www.spaceagereligion.com
This line of thought will consider how Religions of today might make a transition that will be compatible with the scientific and technologically driven human reality of the future.
---------
John,
I'd much rather NOT see this transition of religion you speak of here.
As science has increased it's knowledge of our universe, religious institutions tend to either fight against any knowledge that bolsters a case for not requiring any gods (e.g. evolution), or it adjust itself by creating new excuses to explain how their god fits within the scope of that new knowledge etc..
Right now religious nuts threaten to destroy our earth, either directly or by neglect.
When we expand the human environment to include other worlds, the last thing I want to see is religion coming along for the ride to those worlds, where the fate of those new worlds would also be subject to the whims of the religious.
I can't speak for everyone here, but I'm sure hoping that by science advancing it's knowledge, it will eventually be religion's death sentence; along with the many other metaphysical beliefs that so many humans adhere to so passionately .
I'm not sure why you've created a website who's intent seems to be to wonder how religion will continue to fit in with advancing science (or at least that is what I got from peeking at your site) ?
It's almost as if you're trying to find a way to keep religion intact as we move into the future?
If that is your intent, then I can't agree that your intentions are good one's, as religion does far more harm than good and always will.
ATF (Who's wish for the future would be one, where most folks are content with living in reality and not some surreal mental delusion)
(Do you really feel that any of us have an absolute intellectual understanding of what is absolutely and totally real with no surreal mental delusion, bias, misunderstanding, or unknowns?)
I understand your loathing of religion today. Just the idea of people causing passenger airlines to crash into buildings and such, and the looming threat of nuclear destruction by religious people, is enough to cause any sane person to question the validity and rational for allowing such harmful institutions. Such institutions, that sponsor such behavior, should be outlawed. Keep in mind, however, that the Religions did not just spring up full blown and corrupt. Some began by ancient tribal people just *remembering* a leader who had died over a number of generations, building larger and larger myths. I once asked an old American Indian man what was God and he responded, *The first man long ago that died and was remembered in the very beginning of our being as human people*. Most religions today are offshoots of a man or woman who attempted to make some sense or rational about life and existence. Understanding birth and death is an obvious question that comes to people over time and religions often grew from the fertile grown of this interest and concern. (People generally do not question birth, but most question death.)
So religion has a history that goes back to a person beginning a conversation that grows into a *message* that people choose to listen to, repeat, and believe. It is like a game we played as a child called *gossip* where one person whispered something in another person’s ear and that person repeatied the statement into the ear of the next person until over a chain of people a final person repeats the statement out loud. The certainly of the little game is that the beginning statement and the ending statement will be different very different, often hilariously so. In a similar manner, the resulting religion that growns over time eventually has no resemblance to the original information that started the religion in the first place.
To save having to restate something I wrote yesterday regarding this subject, I’ll quote it here with reference below:
“People have tried to convince me over the years that humankind will never really understand existence, life, intellect, or the Universe. The half of me that is in the modern social paradigm of America today came to assume this is an absolute Truth. I believed in it.
The other part of me (pagan) felt everything is integrated and reflective of various aspect of the whole (which could be a whole community of hierarchy). For example water would be a reflective aspect of an archetype. Just as Zoroaster taught that there is *beingness* in matter, For example he taught that water is a representation of a spiritual being, the archangel Ardvisura Anahita. In that same tradition our planet Earth is the body, or crystallization from light, of the archangel Zamiat. As above (the higher plane) so below (the lover plane). This half of me felt that I had and knew my place in the mix and knew all necessary to really enjoy it all.
Then I began to learn more about what’s going on at the frontiers of science, particular partial physics, cosmology,and complexity theory. (What is being discovered and realized regarding the vacuum (nothing) is mind boggling.) The bit of mystic experience I have, along with some the Hindu stuff I picked up years ago began to sang in splendid harmony with what I have been reading in fringe science over recent years.
I am now convinced, if we do not destroy our civilization over the next few years, (unfortunately likely at this moment) that humankind will come to understand the Universe and what it is all about. That part of me that had believed in the absolute truth of never knowing is now alert and anxious for the next scientific breakthrough. (The breakthrough to an absolute truth about it all) I can posit more on this if encouraged, but I feel one only needs to consider the evolution of humanity over the last 100 years to see the trend line and where it appears to be going. (Outer Space).
I feel we are in one of those extraordinary transitional periods as with Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton where science will effect a major change in reality that will once again transform Religion. My position is that with this transformation, this time, let’s throw out the false and bad stuff. My mantra in this little quest is “the Truth will set us free” and I feel science is on the threshold of learning much more about the Truth which will show humankind a wondrous new vista back to our past and into our future in the Universe. Again, I will not go on with this, but I could not have come to this conclusion without good reason and am currently working on an article regarding the subject for another website.
So, I predict that Science, in the next few years, will begin to challenge and ultimately force the Religions to reconsider the very basis and reason for the religion’s existence. Yet, I am similarly convenience that Science cannot provide counseling service to the people after it shocks them out of their minds with an entirely new social reality paradigm. Religion will be there all structured and ready to do the job.
An interesting aspect of most Religious institutions is similar to that of Rome in the time of the Caesars. Just a few elite rule over a mass of slaves. Yet once the slaves realize the frailty of the elite, and the falsifications that held them in restraint, then it is easy for the congregation to remove or revise the doctrines and dogma along with the priests, pastors, and such.
Now, I feel, is a good time to begin talking about it.”
The quote above is from a blog titled *Atheist Haven*
http://atheisthaven.blogspot.com/2008/01/space-age-religion.html
I feel that humankind cannot do without religion, not because religion is so necessary, but rather, that which caused the creation of religion is essential to human society and civilization. If we do away with religion, then humankind will begin to cause the creation of something that meets his essential need a once more nd perhaps call it something else.
john.
Thanks for the open invitation to freely discuss items of interest.
John: "Since, I will be spending time updating this new blog, my presence here will be only an occasional perusal."
Ditto
John: "So, Dave8, should we not meet in discourse again in the future, please know that I have enjoyed the liaison."
Likewise, John, the liaison has led to many new trails of thought.
John: "The blog summary: What impact will science, technology, and space exploration have on humankind over the next century?"
You suggested a while back, that you were interested in space exploration, NASA, etc. Many perceive Robert Goddard to be the father of space flight, based on his contributions to rocket science. To discuss the future, requires one to understand the limits of scientific possibility.
Robert Goddard: "It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow."
John: "Will the Religions of the world be able to adapt to the future?"
Yoda: “Do or do not... there is no try.”
All that we do - we do; in either case of do or do not. There is no "attempt" or "try" - our doing, is inescapable and Reality reflects that which we do - with perfect congruity. In abstraction; we are always, 100% physically successful in all that we do; albeit, the physical successes of our actions, may not necessarily render the effect(s) we mentally desire. From a space operations point of view, such dysfunction would be descriptive of a corrupt/disoriented C2 (command and control) interface (mental) with Reality.
In order to adapt, one must be capable of bridging the gap that continues over time, between environmental challenges and one’s competence of reason and logic. It would seem that the greater/more complex the environmental challenge, the more competent one must be in reason and logic.
Like many words that have multiple meanings, it’s best to abstract the essential element or golden thread that runs through all of the possible meanings, such that any discourse on the word can be useful.
For instance, “religion” has multiple meanings by definition; however, I understand by abstraction that “devotion” is the underpinning element that embodies all terms of religion – devotion to either, a person, place or thing (idea).
So, your question about religions being capable of adaptation in the future, becomes a question of an individual devotee or a group of devotees to some noun, and if such devotion will prevent their adaptation to a changing environment.
In my humble opinion, if one’s devotion to a; person, place or thing (idea(s)), demands/requires mental compartmentalization in order to achieve a mental balance between conflicting information, or demands/requires that one remain incompetent in the skill of reason and logic, then… the greater the probability that such an individual or group will not survive ever-demanding environmental challenges.
An obvi