The Ballad of Science and Religion.

[H2O Man]

Be ye lamps unto yourselves.
Be your own reliance.
Hold to the truth within yourself
as to the only lamp.
-- Buddha

In the past week, a number of DU threads have focused on issues that divide people. A number of those issues involve the improper understanding of the relationship between science and religion. These issues divide this country, its communitites, many families, and even people on DU.

"On Science and Religion" was a thread where we attempted to find common ground. People from a wide variety of opinions and beliefs took part in a serious discussion, which considered the works of Einstein, Frankl, Gandhi, Pagels, Ouspensky, and others.

On this follow-up thread, we hope to discuss related topics in greater detail. I offered to start the discussion off by asking a question that should be of interest to people who embrace science and/or religion. At this time, most people recognize that human beings are at risk of destroying the Earth House Hold that sustains our species. Thus, my question is: What form of evolution holds the most promise for advancing humanity?

This is an open question, and I am hoping to get responses from a wide variety of points of view, including scientific and spiritual opinions from those who have been participating on the first thread.

In my next post on this thread, I will examine the idea of the evolution of the human consciousness. This clearly involves both science and religion. One thing I found interesting towards the end of the first thread was a quote regarding, "If you meet Buddha on the road .... kill him." I would like to consider it in terms of the teachings of Frankl, by comparing it with one of the harsh sayings of Jesus.

I would like to encourage people to contribute their thoughts to this thread. Thank you.

[indigobusiness]

1. I get all the organized religion I need here...

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/


---

Respect the right things, not the right schemes.

[DrWeird]

2. Not sure I understand the question.

"What form of evolution holds the most promise for advancing humanity?"

This is some sort of philosophical question. Obviously it's not a scientific one. So could you rephrase it please?

[indigobusiness]

3. Perhaps it is an evolutionary horse race between

science and religion?

[DrWeird]

4. Not understanding that question either.

I, for one, am sick and tired of the concept that the debate on evolution is one between science and religion.

It is not.

It is between science and pseudoscience.

[indigobusiness]

5. The legitimate scientific debate on evolution

hasn't been perfected.

No debate about its existence.

[DrWeird]

6. Now you're just rambling.

nt

[indigobusiness]

7. Hardly. Evolution is not fully understood.

How is that rambling?

[DrWeird]

8. That's not rambling that's a half truth.

And in the context of the Evolution/Creation debate, it's a full lie.

[indigobusiness]

10. I thought we were discussing the real world?

It was a fully fledged true statement. Which half threw you?

[DrWeird]

15. I, myself, was discussing the evolution/creation debate.

As is playing out in school boards across the country.

[H2O Man]

11. No one has advocated

"Creation" on these threads. The only discussion about creation that I recall was in regard to Carl Sagan explaining in his book "The Dragons of Eden" that the creation myth of the Jewish people was a wonderful poem that described the process of evolution. Other threads may be concerned with that issue; this one is not at all about creation mythology.

[DrWeird]

14. Ahh, I see.

Than I apologize for getting mixed up.

[H2O Man]

21. No problem at all.

You are a valued contributor on DU, and so it is certainly worth-while to explain what this thread is about, in hopes you will take part in the discussion. To a person, we all share your concern with the proposition that "creation" be taught as science.

[starroute]

16. I'd put that in a different way

The debate over evolution is not about science at all. It's between open-ended religion and static religion.

If the purpose of religion is to pick up where science leaves off and to speak of the origins and destinies of all things, then evolution is religion. The creationists are right about that -- but they're very wrong in portraying the dispute on the basis of "one man's opinion is as good as another."

Throughout human history, conceptions of the cosmos have gotten increasingly larger and more complex. In the earliest myths, there's only Earth and Sky and a single period of creation back in the Dreamtime, since when nothing has changed.

In the myths of 2000 years ago, there's far greater complexity, involving multiple celestial spheres and -- in the new religions of the time, like Christianity -- an attempt to understand human history as an ongoing story, with a beginning, a middle consisting of several stages, and a final dramatic conclusion.

The myths of today are a quantum leap beyond that, taking in vast expanses of space and time, the possibility of a multitude of different sentient beings, and the expectation of a future of change upon change upon change.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, most people found this prospect of an expanded, evolutionary universe full of a diversity of lifeforms frightening. (See, for example, the works of H.G. Wells or H.P. Lovecraft.) However, by the mid-20th century, most open-minded people had managed to accept that order of size and diversity.

But the fundies still can't get their heads around a universe in which they're not the center and where there isn't a single father-figure to control what happens to them. And Christianity itself is under great philsosophical strain due to its being focused on a single event which is held to have occurred at one particular instant in the evolutionary history of a single species in the course of the multi-billion-year lifespan of a rather ordinary planet in an undistinguished galaxy.

(I mean no offense to any Christians by mentioning this philosophical problem, but merely state it as a fact. The great growth of the fundamentalist cults at the expense of mainstream Christianity is perhaps its most obvious manifestation.)

[H2O Man]

20. Great post!

Very well thought out. Religion, like science, has to be living to be of any value. One of the problems with Christianity is that it stopped 2000 years ago. That has to be seen not as a weakness in the works of the prophet Jesus, but in the lack of understanding of those who believe that all they need to do is have faith and donate to the church in order to be saved. Many of the Christian churches have ministers with degrees in psychology; we might consider examining the psychological implications of how closed minds stunt human potential.

[The Traveler]

47. Neither science nor religion can contain the Truth

There is truth and there is the Truth and neither science nor religion can contain the Truth, though both can express a glimmer of it sometimes, and both can tell us many things that are true.

What is Science? It is merely that body of knowledge developed through the use of the Scientific Method. To claim that Science can contain the Truth is to claim that all human experience is approachable through that methodology.

But there are truths science cannot touch, yet are readily available through art or poetry or (dare I say it) spiritual experience and religion. A life experience explainable by science alone would be incredibly banal ... but science nonetheless enriches that experience in many, many ways.

As evidence of the limitations of scientific thought, consider the implications of Goedel's theorem, which basically informs us that a formal system of logic can be complete or consistent but not both. This appears to state a fundamental limitation of human reason. Science, of course, must be based upon such formal systems. Goedel's mathematics then tells us of the inevitable limitations of scientific thought. We have little minds, really ... and the Universe is a very complex phenomenon.

But humans have other capacities besides logical thought or pure reason. There is no need to ignore them or denigrate them while admitting the value of science. Scientists who insist upon doing so merely demonstrate their lack of experience.

Folk of religious persuasion are silly when trying to impose their mythic structures on the results of science. It merely demonstrates their ignorance. The hottest topic in this arena of pointless conflict is, of course, the subject of the theory of evolution vs the theory of "Scientific Creationism".

Creationism is not Science since it admits no evidence by which it may be rejected as an hypothesis. It is essentially an article of faith. To reject creationism, one would have to disprove the existence of God by experiment. Such experiments are impossible to design, since any hypothetic Almighty Power is unlikely to submit to controlled experiment or repeatable observation.

"Scientific Creationism" may be exactly correct (the Truth) but it is not a body of knowledge constructed by employing the Scientific Method, and so has no business being taught in Science classes. Philosophy, perhaps ... but not Science.

Similarly, the theory of evolution presents no threat to faith once one recognizes that phrases like "God created the world in 7 days" is a poetic expression intended to convey spiritual truth, not a measurement made with a clock. Still, poetry is equally incapable of communicating the Truth ... just like Science and it cannot convey to us the whole story.

If one concludes there is no God because (scientifically speaking) the Universe evolved over billions of our years, one is making the identical error.

The language of science is mathematical logic. The language of religion is poetry. Concepts expressed by one can rarely be expressed by the other. This, too, represents a fundamental limitation of human thought ... we can't resolve the dichotomies and paradoxes of our experience and talk about it with a single language. We don't know it all and I for one don't think we ever will. Aetheists choose to bow towards the truth of mathematics, religious folk towards the truth of poetry. I myself have no problem enjoying them both, and so refuse to choose.

In making that choice, I acknowledge there are certain questions that will never have completely satisfactory answers. Rilke suggested we love the questions anyway.

We can peel away layers of the onion, but the layers are infinite as far as we can determine. We can advance ourselves as individuals and a people by continuing to peel away, by continuing to advance on the "Natural" and the "Supernatural" and all the myriad ways of human growth and experience ... but I do not believe we will ever know the Question that would yield us the meaning of life, the universe and everything. The answer, of course, is well known to be 42.

[indigobusiness]

49. Good post, with many good points.

The richness of being and becoming and dealing with physical and spiritual reality lends itself to such elegant metaphors as peeling the onion. Just reaching an agreement on the relevance of such metaphors is sometimes an achievement. Part of the problem of the discussion is full agreement and understanding of the language and conceptual refrences. Some refuse to acknowledge the existence of an onion aspect, for instance. At some point the stumbling blocks must be ignored, and we must plow forward with the discussion, respectfully declining to turn in circles.

(Something that should be kept in mind) Larger Truth is, almost certainly, not a bottom-line determination but a gestalt.

[starroute]

52. It's metaphors all the way down

Science doesn't fundamentally depend on metaphors, though it may resort to them as convenient shorthand. (Electric "current," magnetic "fields")

But when dealing with things of which we have no direct knowledge, all we have is metaphor.

Religion is nothing but metaphor. Poetry is metaphor. Language itself is metaphor upon metaphor. Even "God" is a metaphor for something far deeper and more unknowable.

Joseph Campbell used to say something like, "Myth is a metaphor transparent to truth." The key word there is "transparent." When myths are taken literally, they cease to be windows to something beyond themselves and become brick walls.

The nature of fundamentalism -- whether Christian, Jewish, Moslem, or even Hindu -- is to deny the metaphoric nature of religion by insisting that its myths be taken literally.

In Campbell's sense, evolution as a myth is still transparent to truth. Evolution is a funny business. At one end, it's a scientific theory, full of talk about DNA and population dynamics and so forth. But at the other end it reaches further and further out into mystery -- the mystery of where we come from, where we may be going, and the meaning of living in a universe where reality constantly redefines itself.

[indigobusiness]

64. The problem is the comprehensive and universal understanding

of the metaphors.

[The Traveler]

80. Science does employ metaphor

and analogy in the development of formalism. The "appropriateness" of the metaphor is always subject to the results of experiment ... unless you are working with string theory in which case we just don't have the accelerator power (yet) to run the tests ...

Can it be that despite the vaunted accomplishments of our consciousness we have no direct access to that set of phenomena we label "reality"? All we really have access to are the maps of that territory we keep in our heads. And the maps, not matter how useful, are not the territory.

You and I and some others here seem to have formed similar maps. From my location on my map, it is easy for me to say "I don't know The Truth ... and I don't need to in order to proceed forward." I also choose to believe in something worth believing in, but because I do not have to presume knowledge of The Truth I can safely consider new information.

Literal interpretation of any holy text (or the complimentary error ... blind allegiance to logic and science) implies a knowledge of The Truth that I cannot claim. Evidence or experience contrary to that knowledge must be rejected lest the claim of ownership be refuted. Thus the map created by literal interpretation becomes increasingly at odds with other experience ... religion or ideology stagnates and becomes reactionary in a vain attempt to remain alive.

Literal interpretation must inevitably lead to dead ends and conflicts ... sort of theological street fighting in the cul de sac of some exurban neighborhood. Literal interpretation demands invulnerability in the conflict ... loss of any point threatens the entire structure. Thus the proponents of literal interpretation, out of desperation, are willing to contemplate or perform deeds which are contrary to the content of the teaching they are attempting to preserve.

When you think about it, literal interpretation imposes a horrible burden on the faithful, and one which in my experience is completely unnecessary. I think this extreme emotional distress and the cognitive dissonance of cut throat politics in the name of the Prince of Peace that produces so many emotional problems amongst modern Christians. It is why we see youth ministers banging 17 year olds, pedophilic priests, and ministers riding Benz's while advocating we "bomb 'em in the name of the Lord".

[indigobusiness]

84. Is that the Truth?

Maybe not, but probably shines some light on it. Bravo! Once again you carry the dialog on your back for a spell. Two particularly good points re: Reality and Truth.

Reality is like consciousness, it has more than one contextual framework. The reality of a bloodhound's world of scent and smell is rich reality and entirely beyond our ken, but an important component of Truth to the bloodhound. Yet our limitation in no way hinders our relationship to that very Truth.

Truth is an ideal, and I'm struck by your remark:

"...'I don't know The Truth ... and I don't need to in order to proceed forward.' I also choose to believe in something worth believing in, but because I do not have to presume knowledge of The Truth I can safely consider new information."

I can only wonder if you can safely consider new information presuming an absence of Truth?

[The Traveler]

86. A very perceptive question

Very. " can only wonder if you can safely consider new information presuming an absence of Truth?"

Perhaps the concept of a Truth (capital T, from which all other lesser truths derive) is useless. Perhaps it is itself an impediment to drawing better maps of experience. Perhaps there is no such thing ... perhaps we could never establish its existence if there were.

That is the crux question we have been carried to, isn't it? Right into the thicket so passionately argued by philosopher and fool alike. My position is that, if there is Truth (with a capital T), you couldn't prove it by me. And yet, I have cause to think there just might be ...

There are principles that seem to have the potential bind all the little truths together. Let me share a story.

I was a nerdy kid. Raised Catholic but didn't buy any of it. Darwin made sense to me, but astronomy was my passion. During summer vacations I would stay up late at night, armed with a telescope and watch the stars and planets dance across the sky.

I was about 12, one summer night when I just kicked back on the grass of my back yard and looked deep into the star spangled darkness. Yep, I was a nerdy kid ... I had just read an article on the subject of nuclear synthesis and stellar evolution. It was in Popular Science or something like that. One of the statements in the article claimed that the only way the element of iron could be produced was in the belly of a supernova. Certain stars in their dying throes explode in unimagineable brilliance, forming heavy elements which they spray into the sky like some cosmic cumshot.

I was a nerdy 12 year old and I did not express the concept to myself in those terms ...

But while lying there on the grass it suddenly hit me between the eyes. There was iron in my blood. Without it, breath itself was impossible. Stars had died so we could have iron and respirate. For some reason, it hit me like a sledge hammer ... the sky seemed to zoom in closer, and though flat on my back on the grass I felt a twinge of vertigo. I felt connected to all things ... and impossibly small. I heard a buzzing sound, as if I was in a room with a hundred thousand people and they were alll trying to whisper at once. Then I blinked and it was over.

It is really tough to describe this experience ... but I think that was the one moment in my life when I caught a glimpse of what, for lack of a better term, I call the Truth. And I was blinded.

That kind of experience is indescribably powerful and truthful ... but impossible to convey. The principle that binds the leser truths together in this story? At the right moment, the right confluence of mundane ideas and experiences can take one to the threshold of transcendent experience. What happens then is up to the individual. In my case, I flinched, blinked, ended it. I was a nerdy little kid and could not bear to cross that threshold.

After that kind of experience, one has no choice but to be a liberal. The emotional truth of deep connection to your fellow human is inescapable. Economic success alone cannot bring fulfillment. Later on in life, I would see conflict and combat ... one of the reasons war sucks is that innocent bystanders always catch hell ... the smell of burning baby flesh is difficult to reconcile with that knowledge of connection, of common origin.

Sometimes, I see no choice but violence. But when I do, I know many people have lost track of the truths laid out before us. Including me. The Truth contains, I suspect, the truths that I don't know you, and we will probably never meet, and yet we are bound together, and all of us are together bound to, for example, the corpses in the WTC and the streets of Fallujah.

But then I am probably delusional. I was a nerdy little kid ...

[H2O Man]

88. Re: nerdy kids

"Who then are the true philosophers? Those who are lovers of the vision of Truth." -- Plato

[indigobusiness]

90. Truth, lies, and video tape.

Truth is the well-spring of authentic existence. It is the overlord of meaningful experience. Truth is fundamental to the Logos and the logos. It is as built-in to the fabric of being as evolution.

While I might not know Truth...its absence rings.

Your satori story resonates. That peak moment transformed you, obviously. How eloquently expressed! Thank you for that. There is no question (to me, at least) that what you glimpsed was what you expect it was. That is the true meaning of born again; the sort of transformational awakening that leaves one forever changed, and with an understanding of something holistic and True. Truth is no mystery to you. Why be coy?

The 'threshold of transcendent experience' you mentioned is the big dilema...the letting go is the hardest part.

We are all dwellers at the threshold, I suggest we let go.

[hollowdweller]

78. I don't think that there is a real conflict between Christianity and

science. Who was it that said "miracles happen not in opposition to nature, but in opposition to WHAT WE KNOW of nature.

Now fundamentalists who believe literally that every word of the bible is true, YES they are in conflict, but most Christians I know are educated enough to know that God works thru natural means.

The creation story in the old story is more of a parable than a historical document. That even though he has been given everything he needs to survive, that man always wants more. Think of the Garden of Eden as the world, and we have enough oil to go around if we weren't selfish. Think of the Iraq as the apple in the Garden of Eden. In fact some people think humanity started around there somewhere. Think of Bush as Adam, and even though he knows he shouldn't he puts out all kinds of lies and rationalizations why he should have that apple(Iraq) Then instead of enjoying it God punishes him with the insurgency and all of his rationalizations are found to be lies and he is standing naked looking like a fool

[indigobusiness]

85. Welcome to DU, hollowdweller...good post

If you haven't seen the original thread, you might want to have a look. Some of the folks contributing did yeoman's work. Opened my tired eyes.

Hope to hear more from you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2766869&mesg_id=2766869

[H2O Man]

9. I can try ....

... although I must say that I had not considered it in philosophical terms. It actually is a scientific question. Briefly, one of the people discussed in the previous thread was Carl Sagan. In some of his works, he showed the connection between the use of the hand and the development of the brain. Our brain is what creates the level of consciousness we enjoy as a species. For example, our close relatives the Neanderthals, enjoyed a different level of consciousness.

It would seem highly unlikely that our species is going to undergo any major change in the mechanical .... meaning the structure of our brains, in the next 100 years. While I suppose it is possible that another layer of the brain will occure in the next generation, it's not something we should consider as our best bet.

At our present level, we seem to be very capable in the sense of creating technological advances; yet at our present level, we have an utter and complete lack of a wholesome control over that which we create. For just a single example, I would point to the high levels of TCE in the water millions of Americans will use tomorrow morning to make coffee, brush their teeth, and shower with. A far better explanation can be found in "Crimes Against Nature," by Robert Kennedy, Jr. It is a book about science, and why we need to change some of our habits very soon. Yet when I think in the context you mentioned, I would say that you are indeed correct, it does involve philosophy.

If we consider evolution in only the mechanical sense, then human self-destruction is not only possible, but very likely. In the purely mechanical sense, evolution of organic material follows a simple cycle of growth and decay. Again, humans are not going to have an organic growth that postpones decay.

Yet we have had, without any question, a significant change in consciousness since the use of the hand helped develop the brain. That is as true in terms of science as it is in terms of philosophy. So, in terms of the human consciousness, what evolution is possible -- and indeed necessary -- in order for our species to advance?

[DrWeird]

13. OK, I think I see what you're getting at...

you're really kind of stretching terms past their breaking point, from a scientific point of view...

So let me see if I can puzzle it out.

You're asking: "What possible human traits can be developed in order to ensure the survival of the human species?"

Correct?

Alright, so what do you mean by survival? That there will still be some humans somewhere? Or are you looking to protect the status quo? i.e. 5-6 billion humans consuming way to much material.

[H2O Man]

18. Not at all .....

For example, the first thread started with a discussion of Frankl, one of the preeminent psychotherapists of the 20th century. While some of his 31 books certainly involve philosophy, they also include classic works on psychology and others on neurology. So rather than seeing this as stretching science to the breaking point, it may be to our advantage to think with open minds and consider that there are options that have not been fully explored.

While I would likely be one of the least capable of maintaining the staus quo -- and surely among the least interested in identifying that as a goal -- I also tend to reject any philosophy that takes the stance that although there may be plagues and famine, some relatively small group will survive and thrive. We can do better than that.

[indigobusiness]

17. Michio Kaku thinks most civilizations destroy themselves

when they reach our level of technology.

I think your question is a good one.



Dr. Michio Kaku is the co-founder of String Field Theory, and is the author of international best-selling books such as Hyperspace, Visions, and Beyond Einstein.

http://www.mkaku.org/

[starroute]

19. I suspect co-evolution is more important than evolution

Humans have been wildly successful as a species -- so there's no good evolutionary reason for them to change.

However, the impact of humans upon the ecosystems of which they are part has been far from benign, and ecosystems have a way of evolving as a whole in order to maintain their own internal balance.

One way in which co-evolution has been expressed in human history is through the increasing tendency of the human community to form symbiotic relationships with various plants and animals. Perhaps the most important of these symbiotic relationships have been with those plants which have mind-altering properties.

There is even a theory I've run into on the Net which suggests that large-scale consumption of grains like wheat and rice has a somewhat tranquilizing effect -- and that the damping down of human aggression due to the Neolithic economy ultimately made it possible for large numbers of humans to live together in close quarters and thus was essential to the rise of civilization.

I would expect symbiotic relationships of this sort to be far more important to the development of the human community in the short term than any sort of purely genetic evolution.

[indigobusiness]

22. The plague was once (or twice) quite successful in Europe, too.

Humans have been the dominant species on the planet for an extremely short period compared to other species. Some dinosaur species were dominant for millions of years.

No other species has damaged the planet, nor depleted finite resources to the degree humans have.

Without an evolutionary leap, humans will prove to be a failed species
and go extinct. Along with the thousands of species humans forced into extinction.

edit to add- Starroute, you make a terrific point about the use of the natural tools at hand to unfold the human potential. The tools are available, but will we use them to grow or die?

[starroute]

26. It's as much a case of them using us as us using them

This is one thing that gives me hope -- that if co-evolution operates as I suspect it does, it doesn't depend on us humans making the decisions.

Certainly humans never domesticated cats -- it was the cats who decided that human towns and houses were nice safe places to raise their kittens and moved in on us. And even our common food plants may have "decided" that the disturbed ground around human encampments was a great place for their seeds to take root without competition.

Just as the willfulness of the US is causing the rest of the planet to form new alliances and adopt new ways of doing things that will eventually force the US to reconnect with the community of nations on an altogether different (and less arrogant) level, so human impact is reshaping the natural world in ways that will profoundly alter the human relationship to nature.

We Westerners are so used to thinking of ourselves as the dominant agents in whatever is going on that it can be very hard for us to recognize that we are part of systems which are larger than we are and which are capable of carrying us along with them willy-nilly. But that is exactly what is happening, perhaps all the more effectively for our being unaware of it.


On the subject of co-evolution, I'd like to recommend a book I read recently called "The Empire of Tea," whose author speculates that both the rise of the British Empire and the Industrial Revolution were the result of the British taking up tea-drinking in the 18th century.

And I'm also reminded that the late Terrence McKenna argued somewhere that the emergence of human consciousness itself was the result of a symbiotic relationship with psychedelic plants.

[indigobusiness]

29. It's high time Terrance McKenna made an appearance here.

Our collective conclusion seems to be that nature, both in whole and in many parts, is magically self-reflecting and aware E N T I T I E S.

"This is not necessarily the truth, this is what Wittgenstein would have called an exercise in searching for that which is true enough." This is The Great Timestream Bifurcation.
http://deoxy.org/mckenna.htm
http://www.deoxy.org/

Re-Evolution
by Terence McKenna
If the truth can be told so as to be understood, it will be believed.
Human history represents such a radical break with the natural systems of biological organization that preceded it, that it must be the response to a kind of attractor, or dwell point that lies ahead in the temporal dimension. Persistently Western religions have integrated into their theologies the notion of a kind of end of the world, and I think that a lot of psychedelic experimentation sort of confirms this intuition, I mean, it isn't going to happen according to any of the scenarios of orthodox religion, but the basic intuition, that the universe seeks closure in a kind of omega point of transcendance, is confirmed, it's almost as though this object in hyperspace, glittering in hyperspace, throws off reflections of itself, which actually ricochet into the past, illuminating this mystic, inspiring that saint or visionary, and that out of these fragmentary glimpses of eternity we can build a kind of map, of not only the past of the universe, and the evolutionary egression into novelty, but a kind of map of the future, this is what shamanism is always been about, a shaman is someone who has been to the end, it's someone who knows how the world really works, and knowing how the world really works means to have risen outside, above, beyond the dimensions of ordinary space, time, and casuistry, and actually seen the wiring under the board, stepped outside the confines of learned culture and learned and embedded language, into the domain of what Wittgenstein called "the unspeakable," the transcendental presense of the other, which can be absanctioned, in various ways, to yield systems of knowledge which can be brought back into ordinary social space for the good of the community, so in the context of ninety percent of human culture, the shaman has been the agent of evolution, because the shaman learns the techniques to go between ordinary reality and the domain of the ideas, this higher dimensional continuum that is somehow parallel to us, available to us, and yet ordinarily occluded by cultural convention out of fear of the mystery I believe, and what shamans are, I believe, are people who have been able to de-condition themselves from the community's instinctual distrust of the mystery, and to go into it, to go into this bewildering higher dimension, and gain knowledge, recover the jewel lost at the beginning of time, to save souls, cure, commune with the ancestors and so forth and so on.

snip

http://deoxy.org/t_re-evo.htm

[Xipe Totec]

73. We may ultimately thank Black Plage for Resistance to HIV

Individuals that have lower expressions of (chemokine receptor) due to variants of the CCR5 gene have an increased resistance to HIV; their macrophages are metaphorically more cautious about the signals they respond to. The most obvious case of a "more cautious" CCR5 variant is the allele that has a deletion of thirty-two nucleotides. Individuals who are heterozygous for this variant, CCR5-delta32, have substantially increased resistance to HIV infection; if infected, progress to full-blown AIDS is much slower than normal. Individuals that are homozygous for CCR5-delta32 are virtually completely resistant to HIV. In European populations about twenty percent of individuals are heterozygotes, and one percent are homozygotes in some populations. In contrast, the allele is rare in the Asian populations and virtually absent in the African populations.

Why is this deletion variant present in some populations in such high frequencies? HIV is, at most, a couple centuries old and, more likely, less than a hundred years old. That isn't sufficient time for natural selection to increase the frequency of a rare allele, such as is observed in the European populations. Furthermore, the selection pressures caused by HIV should be much higher in Africa than in Europe. It is also probable that the decreased receptivity to chemokines would be somewhat costly. Some biologists have suggested that the deletion allele could be a vestige of plague resistance. It may have led to increased survival during the Black Plague of the fourteenth century in Europe, and has had an unintended -- but welcome -- consequence of HIV resistance. The increased frequency of the variant in Europe would be consistent with that scenario.

http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/biology/textbook/humev/humev_9.html

[indigobusiness]

75. It's always about us,

isn't it?

[Xipe Totec]

76. Who else should we care about,

if we're not around to enjoy it? :smoke:

[indigobusiness]

77. Somebody has to stand up

for the Dark Age dead.

[H2O Man]

40. Guns, Germs, & Steel

by Jared Diamond, is a fascinating book on "the fates of human societies."

[Ms_Mary]

159. We lack empathy and foresight.

I'm speaking generally and mostly about the US, and if I get vague, it's been a long day and I'm having a couple of Heineken's to unwind. I'll try to form this adequately.

Without the ability to understand the complex interactions between man and nature, I do not feel we can better ourselves. We seem to have a myopic view of the world. We are most concerned with immediate conveniences, which is why we have the mass marketing in this country of absurd items like disposable toilet brushes, throw-away baby bibs, and one time use dishcloths with Dawn/Palmolive/whatever built right in to make it easier for us. We are a society of consumers and we are consuming the earth.

We are disconnected from the earth. We have to reach a level of higher concioussness that enables us to see how we impact the earth and how dependent we are on the health of the environment. Our quality of life depends on the health of the environment. We have to care for the places we live.

As for human interaction, we need to look towards peace and the empowerment of all people. This does not mean going on a rampage of forced democracies. Please, please, please, let us come to value life more. It's not okay to abuse other nations for corporate profit. We have to let go of the greed.

[indigobusiness]

12. Original 'Science and Religion' thread---link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2766869&mesg_id=2766869

[Az]

23. Biological evolution is no longer our predominant progress

Our science and prejudice have seen to that. The advent of our increased brain capacity gave rise to a new form of evolution on this planet. Social/Psychological evolution.

Thus our medicine and resistance to change have effectively brought biological evolution to an even slower crawl than it normally progresses at. But the arrival of social/psychological evolution has been explosive. We have had numerous series of plateues and explosions within our growing society. We currently find ourselves on the verge of another explosion. The problem is we don't know which way it will go.

[immoderate]

27. What about biological devolution?

Our advances in science have led to a genetic redistribution of physical traits that might not have served for survival in previous eras. There are conditions which would have meant certain death, that now can be carried to advanced age and in turn can be passed down to future generations that might have been lines that died out.

Also, there is a tendency now for people who work primarily with their intellect to have a survival advantage over those who do physical work. Work takes its toll on longevity, and physical strength is less a determinant in survival.

Surely, I am not denying the role that brain power has made in survival in the past. But of all the many species, intelligence has not been decisive in survival, most are quite dumb.

Humans have turned the balance around. We can preserve lines that would have had previously fatal physical flaws. And the otherwise physically weak can achieve dominance in our species.

Now I am not sure where this is going, I am at a loss to project, but it seems that we are entering a new type of phase in the evolutionary scheme. Some cause for optimism is the hope of genetic manipulation in the future, and the general resourcefulness that we exhibit since our species has achieved self awareness.

I'm just tossing some pieces of the puzzle in here and I don't know how they fit the picture of the future. So I'm hoping y'all will help me out.

--IMM

[Az]

28. Not devolution, but definately problematic

It is evolutionary stasis. We are preserving genetic trends that would naturally die out without intervention. Not only are we preserving them but we are extending lives that would die out before entering the genetic pool.

Devolution conotates a reverse process. Evolution doesn't go backwards. Read the Panda's Thumb for a description of this issue. Furthermore the process of evolution does not carry with it a value. That is change is neither good or bad. It simply is. It either creates a new form that works or doesn't. In the case our species somehow enters a phase that no longer works we cease and the roaches (or whatever) take over.

[immoderate]

30. Does not bode well...

I see a kind of limit on any species that advances to the point where intervention is necessary for survival. We've not only done it to ourselves biologically, but technologically.

--IMM

[Az]

31. Ah, but technology loops back in

as a form of evolution. The trick of course is we have effectively taken responsibility for our path. No longer relying on the vaguaries of natural selection. However taking such responsibility runs the risk of running us into a blind alley (of course the same is true of natural selection).

As we advance we will become increasingly dependent on our science and technology. Our species is already beyond the capacity of this planet without the advent of our agricultural and medical advances.

[immoderate]

41. I see that it's ALL evolution.

What is concerning me, and I have long had these thoughts, is that we, that is, most of us, could not survive on our own, if our systems of transportation and communication and other technologies were interrupted. This is aside from the fact that we have, to put it simply, overpopulated. I know that this is debated. It's not that there is no room for more people; it's that we have unbalanced the distribution of biomass, and upset the symbiosis of the mass of living things that comprise an ecology. Just one issue, is the exponential buildup of our garbage, something that did not even exist a few hundred years ago.

In an evolutionary sense, species come and go, and we're just one of them. But in a human sense we root for the preservation of our race(species.) Moreover, what we leave behind, may not be able to support future species.

I'm wondering if there is a natural feedback loop that prevents the survival of any life form that gets as smart as we do.

--IMM

[H2O Man]

43. Your last point

sums up the question perfectly: does human society reach a point where the gulf between our scientific/technological level is so far in advance of our moral development that our wings melt, and we simply crash?

[immoderate]

44. Yes.

And if we roll into that moral development, the responsibility of the individual to be aware of what our collective action is doing to our world, we have assigned a mighty task to each person.

--IMM

[Az]

98. No we are not naturally limited. We are ill

There is an illness infecting the system. One that refuses to allow another into the social mix. One that makes use of our own social structures to ensure its own survival. It cannot tolerate changes to the social order that would create an environment inhospitible to its structure.

It has been with us for most of our recorded history. It has been at the root of most of our conflicts. It is not a natural part of our biology. We can survive without it but it cannot survive without us. And for this reason it will strike us down in large numbers to ensure its survival. It has killed more than anything else on the planet.

And yet it casts itself as goodness and piety. Those that question it are ostrasized. In some societies those that do not pay homage to it are reeducated until they do or die.

It has to be learned by the newly born. It is not part of our nature. But it makes use of our nature. Thus it feels like it fits. That is because like all things evolutionary it evolved to fit its environment. Removing the infection is nearly impossible for others but the individual can remove the infection themself given the right information and the correct support. Thus it opposes any sort of information that may lead to an individual ridding themself of it.

Because it needs to infect an individual before they develop resistances it prefers to strike when they are young. Thus they prefer to own the education system. If driven out it will apply a great deal of resources trying to pressure its way back into it. It will use any means or any trick to get its presense back into the system. It is merely its own natural survival process. And that is exactly what it does. Survive.

For that which does not survive does not replicate. And that which does not replicate is no more.

[indigobusiness]

32. Have you noticed lately how our brainy selves

have developed clever systems which elevate to positions of power those of us who are among the least able to manage or be trusted with it?

[Az]

33. There is an explanation

As our science and understanding of the universe advances collectively it becomes increasingly difficult for individuals to grasp the entirety of it. Thus many simply give up on the pursuit and instead rely on those that have explanations. Be they scientific explanations or less evidentiary. As long as someone has an answer for them they can continue about their life. And living is the primary goal of most people rather than finding explanations for the quandaries of life.

[indigobusiness]

34. That's the reverse of what I was driving towards.

The irony is that, often, the most capable, able and adept are being shut out by our paradoxical and self-destructive systems. The morons are made kings.

It is sort of the Peter Principle in reverse.

[Az]

35. The Dilbert Principle

Those that are able to do certain jobs will never be promoted out of that position because the system will fall apart if they leave. So those that are incapable get the promotions and become management.

[indigobusiness]

37. That's hard to argue with.

Something like that.

[immoderate]

42. Lots of little problems here.

Aside from the contributions of Az, whose observations always seem apt to me, the leadership, political and social, is usually not the same as the technological talent. And the mass is often far behind all of that. The philosophers, who might put it all together, are few, and hold little power among all the competing immediate needs that motivate the mass.

In short, there are few if any, who comprehend the entire picture. And that does not lead to power and influence over the population who is not equipped to make decisions on other than their immediate sphere of knowledge.

--IMM

[H2O Man]

45. Another very good point ....

or actually two, that you made deserve more attention. First, you note that our society puts in "leaders" (and I recognize the short-comings of that word) who are neither advanced in the areas of science or morals. And second, the masses - or general public - tends to have a herd mentality, and a willingness to believe that someone else will step up and do the work required to "lead" us.

Now, of course the same is true for other nations .... the most obvious example today being England .... and I am convinced that we do well to study both England today, and when it was the British Empire .... as well as Germany (1900-1950) and Rome.

In each case, I think that the two points you raised hold true .... it was acceptable that if a man had a combination of money and knowledge, this brew of "power" was considered as the essential qualities for leadership .... without ever seriously considering that man's level of being. If we look at the federal government today, specifically the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court, we find that it not only acceptable, but actually fashionable for these men of power to be racists, sexists, petty, egotistical, vile, vain and vicious snakes.

The fact that people are ready and willing to let a criminal class hold the reins of power in this country is a topic of interest in both scientific terms -- as the fields of psychiatry and anthropology are indeed sciences, as well as of interest in spiritual terms .... because the public includes well-meaning adults who, in times of great social stress willingly place their belief in the most immature of religious belief systems.

[indigobusiness]

51. I was thinking more along the lines of sociopaths, megalomaniacs,

demagogues, and outright thieves...rising to through our system to positions of power. Not the merely unenlightened, uninformed or uneducated.

[immoderate]

55. Extremely important points by Indigo and H2O

And leads to one of the "Gotchas" of life. I call it the Wizard of Oz Syndrome. Scarecrow asks Wizard for a brain. Wizard replies, "I can't give you a brain, but I can give you a diploma." Have you ever noticed how many with advanced degrees, don't have a brain in their head? I'm not saying all, or even most, so flame me not. But it is a path for compensation, all too often.

The same with leadership, too often, (and once is enough) those insufficient in moral and intellectual qualities, as pointed out by H2O Man, as well as those with pathologies, as pointed out by Indigo, choose a path to leadership positions to compensate for their deficiencies. E.g., "I have no great qualities, but I can get elected, (or appointed)" as a compensation for inferiorities.

Whereas, the real talent may not have the time or temperament for assuming leadership positions.

--IMM

[aneerkoinos]

58. That's why

some societies have preferred drawing lot to election, so that talented people could not avoid public service.

[indigobusiness]

59. I'd vote...

for you.

[immoderate]

60. Anybody who actually wants to be President...

is too insane to be President.:nuke: :silly: :thumbsdown:

--IMM

[aneerkoinos]

61. Obvious solution

Get rid of such institute!

[indigobusiness]

65. Throw the baby out with the bath?

Must be a Greek thing.

[aneerkoinos]

67. Where's the baby? n/t

[indigobusiness]

69. Don't kick the baby!

[aneerkoinos]

70. OK, I will obey Satan

Number 9 of The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth states:

"Do not harm little children."

http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/Eleven.html


But again, where's the "baby" in Presidential Institute (other than Baby Bush), why would you or anybody consider it worthy preserving?

[indigobusiness]

72. I was suggesting

preserving the bath.

[indigobusiness]

92. Santa Claus is Satan...***PROOF***

Is Santa Claus Really Satan in Disguise? Quite frankly, the answer is yes!



The Devil Is In Your Chimney!

Is Santa Claus, Satan? (A Special Report Concerning the Origin of Santa Claus)



Freehold, Iowa - Satan's evil plan has created jobs for hundreds of thousands of old lecherous pedophiles throughout this Godly country every December. These filthy homeless hobos just lay on their urine-stained cardboard beds 11 months out of the year, dreaming of Christmas when they can drunkenly traipse into the warmth of departments stores and have innocent little Christian children sit on their vermin-infested laps. Unwary parents happily snap pictures while Satan's obesely wheezing drunks ask their children whether they've been "bad" and whisper lewd suggestions in their angelic little ears with their filthy booze-breath and cigarette-discolored lips. How many unsuspecting tots have suffered a quick grope before Satan's little helper moves on to the next hopeful child in line?

snip

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1299/santy.html

[indigobusiness]

95. Santa Claus...The Great Imposter?

(I wish they'd leave Santy out of this.)



Who, REALLY, is this man we affectionately call Santa Claus?

What do we REALLY know about Santa?

Is Santa just a jolly ol’, harmless, friendly fellow?

Or is there something or someone else hiding behind jolly ol’ St. Nick?

Before we look at Santa, let us establish some basic Bible facts:

The Bible clearly teaches a powerful, rebellious, subtle, evil being called the Devil, Lucifer or Satan.

Revelation 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
The Bible teaches Satan rebelled against God. Satan rebelled because he desires to be like God. Satan’s mission is to de-throne God and persuade mankind to rebel against God.

Isaiah 14:12-14
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
The Bible teaches Satan’s primary attack is the most vulnerable. In Luke 10:19, Jesus Christ compares Satan to lightning, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven". Lightning, like Satan, always travels the path of least resistance. The Bible also likens the devil to a "roaring lion" The lion is a "predator of opportunity". The lion looks for the injured, the youngest, the smallest, or the weakest – the one with the least ability to run or fight. So it is with Satan. He is actively "seeking" those "whom he may devour".

1 Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

snip

http://www.av1611.org/othpubls/santa.html
---

Oh, God...Oh, God...Oh, God....

[indigobusiness]

96. Santa Claus, Christmas, and Mushrooms.

"Mellow is the man who knows what he's been missing
Many many men can't see the open road.
Many is a word that only leaves you guessing
Guessing 'bout a thing you really ought to know, ooh!
You really ought to know"
-- Led Zeppelin


Figure 3. The Little People
Often associated with Gnomes, Fairies and ‘little people’, the beauty of this mushroom makes it a favorite for artists. Certain artists also reveal deeper symbolic information. The mystical aspect is generally reserved for those that happen to be ‘in the know.

---

The information on this website is for everyone. Humanity's connection with the gifts of the Gods and the myths surrounding them is as ancient as it is universal. This website offers you gifts, some of them can be found under Pine trees in nature. Just as presents are placed under trees and exchanged during Winter Solstice (Christmas) there is a present waiting for you under the trees if you have the understanding of where to look and what exactly to look for. These pages will offer explanations for this and many other mysterious things.

Mankind's connection with other life forms on this planet, including those in the plant kingdom, is often dismissed with ambivalence or ignored as unimportant. Plants that produce altered states of consciousness are similarly dismissed, or even reviled as something at odds with normal human consciousness. However, knowledge and usage of these plants may be the most important thing man has ever known. In an evolutionary sense the consciousness expanding substances incorporated into human diet are responsible for unique contributions to our genetic makeup and heritage. Make no mistake about it; these plants manipulated human DNA over the course of millions of years. The reality is that the plants that expand (multidimensionalize) consciousness are truly the bounty of the Gods. We are talking about substances that have played a role in the evolutionary genetic and chemical libraries of the human brain as well as the cosmology of the mind (Myth and Religion).

In a larger picture these earthly and heavenly gifts have contributed to humanity's ability to transcend the body. Consciousness based journeys within the vibratory fields (dimensions) generated by these plants are reportedly filled with beings, places and a myriad of indescribable things. Some of these things have become a part of human cosmology having manifested themselves into human myth and imagination. Either that or these real things have manifested themselves into our cosmology via our journeys within the realms of consciousness provided by these plants and/or chemicals. These plants are crucial to who humans really are and according to many ancient world traditions have been responsible for transforming primitive humanity, possessor of limited life, into beings capable of transcending the physical body and living forever. This is what many of the myths and religious stories are actually about.

These plants are very likely to have been instrumental in evolving human brain structure and chemical makeup and even consciousness to the point that remnants of the states achieved through their usage have remained as elements of what we call regular consciousness. We owe the advancement of consciousness and capacity for higher thinking to our plant allies. Still today the usage of these plants is beneficial to the mind in the extreme, thus we can recognize this recurring theme from the worldwide myths detailing the finding or receiving these gifts of the gods.

Mankind's connection with spiritual and physical beings considered beyond the veil of vision and time is an extremely complex and rewarding study. We can call it Philosophy, Mythology or even Theology but whatever you want to call it, it is a part of every human being's life journey in one way or the other.

http://www.jamesarthur.net/mushroom.html
http://www.jamesarthur.net/mm.html
http://www.jamesarthur.net/mm_01.html

[aneerkoinos]

106. Yule Goat

In my language (Finnish) we still use the pre-Christian pagan terminology, we call the guy by his original name Yule Goat (Joulupukki), and untill fairly recently before the evil spirit Santa Coca-cola (almost as scary as Ronald McDonald) possessed the guy (who buy the way lives in Finland, at Korvatunturi), he used to wear grey and a goat mask.

As for /Satan/Morning Star/Lucifer/Prometheus (very complicated (multi)personality he is), it's been said that LaVeyan Satanism is the most perfect spiritual expression of Americanism.

[indigobusiness]

109. And here I had you pictured...

as Zorba.

[aneerkoinos]

128. Ande opa vre koritsaki mou! Na chorepsume!

Now Zorba feels the urge to drink and dance!

[indigobusiness]

130. Don't forget to eat your mushroom.

Just one...little one.

[indigobusiness]

132. p.s. You've inspired me.

Ôþñá Indigobusiness áéóèÜíåôáé ôçí þèçóç íá ðéåé êáé íá ÷ïñåøåú.

[indigobusiness]

157. Drunk Santa (pic)

[Evening Star]

24. Just a couple of quick thoughts

Then off to bed

The basis of your question

From the ubook (whether you believe in the ubook or not, I have found some interesting, thought provoking philosophical gems within)

http://www.ubook.org/upapers/ubpaper103.html#P103_7_1

7. SCIENCE AND RELIGION

"Science discovers the material world, religion evaluates it, and philosophy endeavors to interpret its meanings while co-ordinating the scientific material viewpoint with the religious spiritual concept. But history is a realm in which science and religion may never fully agree."

Reason is the act of recognizing the conclusions of consciousness with regard to the experience in and with the physical world of energy and matter. Faith is the act of recognizing the validity of spiritual consciousness -- something which is incapable of other mortal proof. Logic is the synthetic truth-seeking progression of the unity of faith and reason and is founded on the constitutive mind endowments of mortal beings, the innate recognition of things, meanings, and values"

My belief is that human evolvment can only further itself through revelations in both science and spirituality.

If you are a believer in the higher power then we are to believe in divine intervention and god given revelation in both science & religion which is part of the ongoing process of the evolution of man.

I'll check back tomorrow night! Good thread!

[indigobusiness]

97. Thanks...hurry back.

I, for one, am anxious to hear more from your perspective.

Welcome to DU!

[indigobusiness]

25. And now for something completely different

Is Bush the Antichrist?



When President George W. Bush was appointed by five Supreme Court justices in 2000, right-wing Christians sang hosannas for the triumph of God's will over the electorate's. "President Bush is God's man at this hour," said Tim Goeglein, Bush's liaison to evangelicals. Though the Methodist president dishonestly conceals the whole truth about his apocalyptic religious beliefs, he has acted as an evangelist in office. As Esther Kaplan demonstrates in With God on Their Side: How Christian Fundamentalists Trampled Science, Policy, and Democracy in George W. Bush's White House, he's doled out millions to far-right Christian groups, systematically crushed secular left and nonright mainstream organizations from Head Start to the Audubon Society, and replaced policy and scientific experts with comically ignorant yet politically cunning fanatic provocateurs. Out with the American Medical Association, in with the American Family Association. Before Bush, the Internal Revenue Service hounded the Christian Coalition; now that Bush is, in extremist Gary Bauer's opinion, the de facto leader of the Christian Coalition, the government selectively harasses non-Christian groups, and a rightist apparatchik tried to sneak through Congress a bill legitimizing the kinds of politically targeted IRS abuses that would have made Richard M. Nixon proud.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0449/041208_news_antichrist.php

[Az]

36. As fun as that would be, no

As there is no God, Christ, or Antichrist.... er this is of course an opinion.

[indigobusiness]

38. You must not have got the memo...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2766869

[Az]

39. Humor

Joke.

Laugh.

[Beam Me Up]

46. What Is Consciousness?

This is the most important and fundamental question. Am I conscious as I am right now? This is not a theoretical question, nor an intellectual one to be discussed endlessly with much semantic confusion. Either I am or I am not. How can I know? What is meant by "I" and "know"? Are not my "I-ing" and "know-ing" one and the same thing with "my" "consciousness"? Is whatever degree of consciousness manifest in me at this moment the highest possible degree of consciousness for "man"? Is it even the highest possible degree of consciousness for "myself"? Are there qualitatively different "states" of consciousness? Won't whatever answers I presume to these questions depend upon my conscious "state"? So many questions, so little time.

On Edit: CORRECTION: It isn't a lack of time it is that I lack sufficient attention to this moment:

What Is Consciousness?

I realize that our task would be much easier if from now on we could be working with a precise definition of the word "consciousness." But it is important to stay flexible toward this question of the nature of consciousness. The word is used these days in so many different ways that out of sheer impatience one is tempted to single out one or another aspect of consciousness as its primary characteristic. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that our attitude toward knowledge of ourselves is like our attitude toward new discoveries about the external world. We so easily lose our balance when something extraordinary is discovered in science or when we come upon a new explanatory concept: Immediately the whole machinery of systematizing thought comes into play, Enthusiasm sets in, accompanied by a proliferation of utilitarian explanations, which then stand in the way of direct experiential encounters with surrounding life.

In a like manner, a new experience of one's self tempts us to believe we have discovered the sole direction for the development of consciousness, aliveness or--as it is sometimes called --presence. The same machinery of explanatory thought comes into play accompanied by pragmatic programs for "action." It is not only followers of the new religions who are victims of this tendency, taking fragments of traditional teachings which have led them to a new experience of themselves and building a subjective and missionary religion around them. This tendency in ourselves also accounts, as we shall see later, for much of the fragmentation of Modern psychology, just as it accounts for the fragmentation in the natural sciences.

In order to warn us about this tendency in ourselves, the traditional teachings--as expressed in the Bhagavad-Gita, for example--make a fundamental distinction between consciousness on the one hand and the contents of consciousness such as our perceptions of things, our sense of personal identity, our emotions and our thoughts in all their color and gradations on the other hand.

This ancient distinction has two crucial messages for us. On the one hand, it tell us that what we feel to be the best of ourselves as human beings is only part of a total structure containing layers of mind, feeling and sensation far more active, subtle and encompassing (like the cosmic spheres) than what we have settled for as our best. These lawyers are very numerous and need to be peeled back, as it were, or broken through one by one along the path of inner growth, until an individual touches in himself the fundamental intelligent forces in the cosmos.

At the same time, this distinction also communicates that the search for consciousness is a constant necessity for man. It is telling us that anything in ourselves, no matter how fine, subtle or intelligent, no matter how virtuous or close to reality, no matter how still or violent--any action, any thought, any intuition or experience--immediately absorbs all our attention and automatically becomes transformed into contents around which gather all the opinions, feelings and distorted sensations that are the supports of our secondhand sense of identity. In short, we are told that the evolution of consciousness is always "vertical" to the constant stream of mental, emotional and sensory associations within the human organism, and comprehensive of them (somewhat like a "fourth dimension"). And, seen in this light, it is not really a question of concentric layers of awareness embedded like the skins of an onion within the self, but only one skin, one veil, that constantly forms regardless of the quality or intensity of the psychic field at any given moment.

Thus, in order to understand the nature of consciousness, I must here and now in this present moment be searching for a better state of consciousness. All definitions, no matter how profound, are secondary. Even the formulations of ancient masters on this subject can be a diversion if I take them in a way that does not support the immediate personal effort to be aware of what is taking place in myself in the present moment.

In all that follows we shall continue to speak about levels of consciousness and intelligence within man and within the universe, for this idea is crucial in any attempt to reach a new understanding of science. But I wish, for the reader and for myself, that this more inner, personal meaning of the idea be constantly kept in mind.

From Jacob Needleman's "A Sense of The Cosmos," chapter 1, "The Universe"

[aneerkoinos]

66. Random thoughts

Perhaps one usefuss distinction could be (perhaps already assumed):

a) relative consciousness, "being consciouss of" (of observation, of being Me, of being awake etc), which is mechanically reducible at least to some extent and thus open to scientific scrutiny even by traditional means, and which opens up further questions about 'attention' and other factors in the process of relative consciousness, which to our knowledge has reached highest level of complexity in human beings, other primates and dolphins (which can recognize themselves in mirror). Bound by space-time.

b) objective/absolute consciousness, "awareness", undifferentiated, irreducible (at least mechanistically to matter), "holistic". Not bound by space-time.

Qualitative consciousness, "wetness" of wet, "redness" of red, (ie "qualia" of sensory experience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia), is today the usual argument about the irreducible "hard problem" of consciousness, that is used to reject physicalism, and consequently perhaps to give ontological status to "awareness".

As e.g. no clear, communicable distinction can be made between the qualia present in physical world(?) and qualia present in consciousness, they thus seem to be intrinsic, non-relational properties. Most, if not all life-forms experience qualia.

Relative consciousness would be thus reducible to both matter (brain) and "awareness". Not much can be said about properties of "awareness", though Quantum-Mind hypothesis looks very promising to me. Buddhists speak about "subtle mind" which continues after physical death and is attached again and again to some physical form in chain of re-incarnation, and if this is accepted, it brings another complication to the picture.

[TWiley]

48. C may have argued

that the gift of "creative intelligence" is granted to the newest of species on this planet. That gift belongs to the newest because they need it to work out their civilization. Cultures like bee's or ants could be viewed as examples of ancient civilizations that have become highly structured through the ages.

If an Apocalypse were combined with the loss of creative intelligence, then eventually technology would fade from the planet and a simpler form of human life would develop. Humans after such an event would probably marvel at power lines and wonder if some extra-terrestrial beings had left them for our contemplation.

Our civilization would then become dictated by the memories stored in our DNA and the laws of culture would be hammered into instinct. Our survivial as a species may depend on such an event.

Meanwhile, a fresh form of life would be developing to take our place as top predator. Such a species would need creative intelligence to avoid extinction. In time, the cycle would repeat itself.

Evolution always occurs at the intellectual level first. With that removed, it would take a different, and more physical path.

Ouspensky suggested that God might have been an artist, his canvas was this world, and his paint was DNA. Perhaps life does not evolve at all. Maybe it is the skill and dreams of the Artist that changes.

[indigobusiness]

50. Evolution is in play at every level and every moment.

It is part of the built-in urge of matter to be ultimately realized.

[aneerkoinos]

63. The Demiurge

Logos came to God. And God saw he was lonely. Thus in search of solace to His solitude, He separated the canvas and took up the brush. ;)

But knowing only lonelines, sorrow and pity for Himself, that creation became only image of grieff.

Logos came to Sofia. And She saw that it was image of grieff, not of compassion. Thus she took pity on the creation and gave it the spark of her wisdom.



I think there's lot of depth to the Gnostic creation myth, recreated here with some artistic freedom... ;)

[aneerkoinos]

53. Good old Hegel

Something like this?

Thesis: Authoritarianism, Theism, Male-chauvinism; anti-intellectual and irrational religion/spirituality based on belief/faith and obedience/servitude,

Anti-Thesis: Individualism, Liberal democracy, Enlightment, Atheism, Feminism; intellectual, rational science based on mechanistic materialism,

Synthesis?

Some observations:

In the thesis camp:

-evangelical fundamentalism: going strong and gaining earthy power, especially in US and parts of Islamic world, in Europe very marginalized. Violently self-destructive force that can't survive without perceived enemy, question how much "collateral" damage.

-Catholic Church: the bastion still standing fast, pressure building up from beneath. What will happen when John Paul II dies, open schizm between reactinaries and modernizers?

-rest of Christianity: growing mellow, gnostic revolution in academic theology, Jesus instead of Church and Bible, women and gay priests, open dialogue with other religions etc.

In the anti-thesis camp:

- science more and more specialized and fragmented, increasing difficulty to communicate meaningfully between branches and especially with public; communication left increasingly to jesuit movement of "skeptics", acting as aggressive guardians of the official truth: paradigm of mechanistical materialism. But paradigm growing thin, challenged by QT, post-structuralism, cognitive sciences and study of consciousness becoming new hip field etc.

- information revolution, modelling of complex systems, increase in calculation power is quality, not quantity; "statistical" truth theories etc. Consciousness merging with new communication technology as user-interface tresholds become lower?


Possible trends in synthesis:

- East and West, NOW the twain shall meet? Buddhist/Eastern science of mind becoming integrated in Western science in post-materialist paradigm; meditation part of new academic curricula? Serious, wide-spread empirical study of phenomena previously called 'paranormal'?
One prediction of new form of communication: Western born Tibetan Tulku hosting popular talk show on TV. ;)

Synthesis: what happens when Agent Smith and Neo stop fighting and merge?

[indigobusiness]

54. Woe, the bastard offspring of that union.

Oh, the humanity!
===

Speak in Tongues in 5 Days or Your Money Back! You'll be able to make up things that even you can't understand in a hot-footed hillbilly trance.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1204/tongues.html

[immoderate]

56. All I can say is...

Humma goopa gis trang gloopa munmun kooma tringa sun myung moon!

--IMM

[indigobusiness]

57. Actually...

I believe he nailed the most important contemporay issue.

---

The Devil Doesn't Rest in December! Get a leg up on that old rascal, Satan, by learning all about his lewd, deceitful ways...

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/subjectarchive/christmas.html

[aneerkoinos]

68. Are you sure?

Perhaps there are also other things you can say? :)

[immoderate]

74. FGWOG?

--IMM

[indigobusiness]

62. Nominate this thread...before it's too late.

One Rode An Angry Horse

by: Brother Merv Kilgore
Pastor Of The Church Of The Giving / Ragweed, Texas

RepublicanPress.com is pleased to announce the upcoming release of One Rode An Angry Horse by Brother Merv Kilgore. A book that is filled with compassionate conservative philosophy and good wholesome morals. It is a ground breaking, earth moving, get-down-on-all-fours, type of book. (cont.)

http://www.republicanpress.com/kilgore2.htm




http://www.republicanpress.com

[indigobusiness]

71. Fellowship Baptist Creation Science Fair 2001

Article by Dr. Richard Paley & FBCSF Staff
---

Students presented their projects in the Fellowship Baptist Church auditorium.

As a Creation Scientist, one of my greatest duties that I take great pleasure in is introducing the works of the Lord to the young generation. The sparkle of wonderment that fills their eyes in knowing the creative power of God fills my heart with the Lord's divine Love. It however saddens me greatly that the proponents of Evolutionism have corrupted this true purpose of science and are instead using it as a propaganda tool to spread Secularism. But what is education for if not to fight against ignorance such as that? Our children are the future face of Science and we must teach them to recognize the truth of the Word of the Lord so as to break the cycle of Evolutionism dogma that is paralyzing scientific development and making higher education a dumping ground for the excesses of materialistic philosophies.

Elementary School Level

Cassidy Turnbull and her uncle, Steve, who is not a monkey according to Cassidy's research. 1st Place: "My Uncle Is A Man Named Steve (Not A Monkey)"



Cassidy Turnbull (grade 5) presented her uncle, Steve. She also showed photographs of monkeys and invited fairgoers to note the differences between her uncle and the monkeys. She tried to feed her uncle bananas, but he declined to eat them. Cassidy has conclusively shown that her uncle is no monkey.

Middle School Level


Patricia Lewis displays her jar of non-living material, still non-living after three weeks.

1st Place: "Life Doesn't Come From Non-Life"

Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes.

snip

Honorable Mention:
"Geocentrism: Politically Incorrect" - Richard Cody (grade 9)
"Young Earth, Old Lies" - Melvin Knuth & Glenna Reher (grade 11)
"Thermodynamics Of Hell Fire" - Tom Williamson (grade 12)

---
(Much, much more.)

http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html

[H2O Man]

79. Exodus

What life has taught me
I would like to share
with those who want to learn ....
--Haile Selassie 2-28-68

Newsweek and TIME both have scenes of the Nativity on their covers this week. There are numerous references to "the Creation" myth of the western world on DU in recent days. While many people believe in these things literally, many others do not, and that is creating a source of tension in this country. And it would be safe to say that this lack of understanding in the United States is in large part responsible for much of the violence around the globe.

Most of the religious writings which our society is familiar with are the sacred texts that come from the Middle East. They are the foundation of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religions. All of their texts include a type of writing known as "esoteric." This means that these writings are used to teach lessons at two levels: the first usually includes the ordinary sense-imagery, and the second is a concealed, or higher learning.

In the gospels, for example, Jesus teaches publicly by telling parables. In his day, many of the religious leaders had grown comfortable with the Roman empire, and he was talented at exposing their hypocrisy with his stories. Many people on the religious left believe we are in a similar situation today.

There are some people who view parables much in the way they view the fables of a slave Greece that we call "Aesop," which shows that he was from Egypt. Again, people from the Middle East used stories with dual meanings to teach lessons about the human condition in the empires of their time.

Other people, who do not really understand what message these stories convey, or why they were told when they when they were, tend to scoff at them, and think they are nonsense. This is like a blind man scoffing at a description of color. These stories, or texts, are concealed only by those individual's low level of understanding. A person can call this a religious viewpoint, but it is equally a psychological issue.

By nature, higher learning is "hidden" from the lower levels of ordinary understanding, and for a good reason. Not only do many people scoff at this, as many on DU will at this post & thread, but more because history is filled with examples of the problems that result when higher learning falls on the lower level. We need only to think of Nazi Germany, African slavery, or the genocide of the Native Americans as examples. Many on the religious left are convinced that this country, and especially this administration, are capable of committing crimes against humanity. And Iraq is proof.

The level of understanding, as defined by Nazi death camp survivor Viktor Frankl, is a psychological process. Just as there were atrocities in Nazi Germany, and there were in Iraq under Saddam, there are horrors there today. And there is growing violence that threatens people around the world. We can agree that leaders like Hitler, Saddam, and Bush are psychologically impaired. That is from a scientific viewpoint. This impairment, which is a result of a serious confusion, leds them to behaviors that from a spiritual context we can call evil.

Evil, in sacred texts, is that which not only causes suffering for others, but which serves as a stumbling block to prevent our own growth in understanding. Let's consider a relatively unemotional example: stealing. We are all familiar with the commandment, "Thou shall not steal." And we can likely think of examples ranging from our own shop-lifting as a youth, to Kenny-Boy's ENRON. These are both examples of stealing.

Yet the psychological meaning goes well beyond that form of theft. To steal psychologically means to think that you do everything from your own powers. It means the taking for granted that you are righteous, and ascribing everything in your life to yourself. In fact, few people really know themselves; most people are more comfortable with their lower being than their higher potential.

The numerous drug industries have an investment in keeping people from knowing why they feel anxious, uncomfortable, or depressed. They do know how to manipulate the brain to keep people from considering what their life is actually about, the will to reason that Frankl describes as essential for human growth. The institutionalized society finds it easier to deal with a band of merry fools than a solitary wise man. And that is the reasoning for the theft of so many of our very selves in America today.

Many of the sacred texts, when properly read and understood, help us to understand the world we live in. They are helpful to me, as they were helpful to my friends who taught me, and as they were to those who taught them. They are not my insights; they are what life has taught me, and I would like to share them with others interested in them.

Peace,
Water Man

[H2O Man]

81. True words ....

True words always seem paradoxical
but no other form of teaching
can take its place.
-- Lao Tse


On the first thread, two of the contributers discussed a line from a popular book: "If you meet Buddha on the road .... kill him." I said that this is a variation of one of the harsh teachings of Jesus.

In Matthew 10:34-36, the Master says, "I came not to bring peace but a sword. For I come to set a man at variance against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's foes shall be those of his own household."

If we took this saying at face value, it sounds like President Bush: he is the war president, and has been a divisive force in the communities and families in this country. But of course it doesn't advocate this type of negative energy at all.

These harsh teachings are always intended to challenge our self-righteousness. This is as much a matter of psychology as it is of religion. A person's idea of what it means to be righteous must change in order for them to change. The sense of self-righteousness is what makes us resistant to change. Only a harsh challenge can make us examine ourselves honestly.

The results of the November election show us that a majority of Americans have a belief that they are right as they are, and that other people must change in order for the country to move forward. This satisfaction with self prevents us from seeing that we have the responsibility to change: in truth, to do more, we must become more. And we can not possible become more by remaining the same. The harsh teachings are intended to challenge those feelings of special merit and complacency that human beings feel.

Thus, this particular teaching does not refer to an actual family feud, creating divisions between the democrats and republicans among our relatives. It is intended to describe an internal upheaval. It is what is described by Frankl and Gurdjieff and Ouspensky as a psychological evolution of consciousness.

This harsh saying describes how a person must use the truth (sword) to sever our old ideas about ourselves. The "household" is internal, not physical. It means our thoughts, beliefs and viewpoints, and all of those relationships with aspects of ourselves that result from them.

The instrument of change is the sword, or truth in action. That truth puts a man at variance with those opinions that are the father of his self-righteousness. It is this potential, psychological path that offers the possibility of the next step in human evolution.

[aneerkoinos]

82. Jihad n/t

[indigobusiness]

83. This seems one of those admonitions

that operates on several levels.

While I'm sure your analysis has merit, I'd suggest a more literal interpretation might also be valid.

The over-arching message seems to be that any true spiritual path is a difficult one. And one where all compromises are pitfalls. The family context seems apt because it is most dear, yet even this sacred sphere is a part of the spiritual battleground if need be. "If your eye offends you, pluck it out." (Didn't Christ say that?) Even if the metaphorical eye is family posing insurmountable spiritual obstacles. The Buddha that must be slain comes in many forms.

This is practical wisdom. And the practicality of spiritual teaching is often lost in the sentimental claptrap. This sort of teaching is a complex way of reinforcing a devotion to the true, and a nonacceptance of the false -- wherever encountered.

[H2O Man]

87. " ..... all noble things ...."

"If the way which, as I have shown, leads hither seems very difficult, it can nevertheless be found. It must indeed be difficult, since it is so seldom discovered. For if salvation lay ready at hand, and could be discovered without great labour, how could it be possible that it remains neglected by so many people? But all noble things are as difficult as they are rare."

--Spinoza

[H2O Man]

89. " .... one must learn ...."

"There exists no more difficult art than living, for there are numerous teachers to be found for all the other arts and sciences. Young people even believe that they have acquired these in such a way that they can teach them to others. Throughout the whole of life, one must continue to learn to live; and what will amaze you even more, throughout life, one must learn to die."

-- Lucius Annaeous Seneca; c 4bc-65ad; advocate of Stoicism

[PurityOfEssence]

91. Religion is ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY

Thus, I completely disagree with your point that it "clearly involves both science and religion".

All issues of morality, decency and ethical behavior can be parsed out in rational terms, and are best approached like that. Focusing on guesses about things beyond our ability to know are fun and can be sources of values, but all procedure should be determined in a rational and emotional way.

Bringing religion into any discourse is COMPLETELY ANTI-DEMOCRATIC, since those of the preferred faith (or of faith itself, which is preferred) are thus an aristocracy and superior to others. Their word means more by definition, and that's not only idiotic and wrong, it's against the very soul of pluralism.

There's a reason why non-believers trend toward leftism: conservatism is close minded certainty expressed in rigid and simplistic terms, whereas liberalism is accepting of different opinions, change, shades of good and evil and an acceptance of one's fallibility. Believers will tend to be conservative, since they spring from the same mindsets: this is the answer, and that's it.

There is no need for religion. Have it, search for it, go right ahead and run amok, but your premise is absolutely invalid: religion is unnecessary. Science, on the other hand is crucial, and as we gain more ability to fuck things up in new and astonishing ways, we owe it to each other to know something about it and act accordingly.

[indigobusiness]

93. You contradict yourself:

"There's a reason why non-believers trend toward leftism: conservatism is close minded certainty expressed in rigid and simplistic terms, whereas liberalism is accepting of different opinions, change, shades of good and evil and an acceptance of one's fallibility. Believers will tend to be conservative, since they spring from the same mindsets: this is the answer, and that's it."

[PurityOfEssence]

99. There is absolutely no contradiction there; please state your case

The self-evidence of quoting me is no evidence at all; this is pretty damn clear. Rather than just quoting me and dancing a victory dance, please explain any inconsistency or contradiction in that quote.

[indigobusiness]

100. No dancing...it's contradictory on its face.

"There's a reason why non-believers trend toward leftism: conservatism is close minded certainty expressed in rigid and simplistic terms, whereas liberalism is accepting of different opinions, change, shades of good and evil and an acceptance of one's fallibility. Believers will tend to be conservative, since they spring from the same mindsets: this is the answer, and that's it."

You have declared closed mindedness is the problem and then state

"this is the answer, and that's it."

You exhibit your own closed-mindedness.

Any argument that uses a select set of facts rather than all of the relevant facts is worthless dogma.

You have a great deal of catching up to do.

[PurityOfEssence]

134. Boy, you can't EVEN read, can you?

Read the paragraph. Conservatives declare that they have the answer, and shut the door; this correlates to faith, which is a buttress to all doubt.

Since you're being such an icky snit about it, have a usage lesson: it's "close-minded", pronounced "close" as in "holding one's cards close to one's vest"; it's not "closed" as in what happened to the door of reason as it was slammed on the way out. It's not "closed" or pronounced as "clothes".

What it means is that the mind refuses to journey beyond it's prejudiced certainty of worldly wisdom.

Yes, I've declared that close-mindedness is the problem, and tag conservatives and tautological believers with this trait. Quite obviously, liberals are described as being comfortable with uncertainty and degrees of doubt.

Don't feign moral umbrage; you've slagged and derided more than enough. To bark with the posturing of maturity is silly when coming from one needing to fend off all doubt.

The very idea of a believer decrying the use of "selective facts" is laughable. Go catch up yourself.

[indigobusiness]

136. I feign nothing.

Hate is big with you, as is idiocy.

[PurityOfEssence]

142. Show me the hate

You can't respond to reasonable questions, so you resort to a rage of dismissal. You don't address a single point, all you do is bark and bloviate as you hurl invective and engage in infantile name calling. With each step, you amplify your intolerance.

I have no problem with people believing anything they want, but when it muscles into the lives of others, it needs to be fought. You demand some kind of aristocratic privilege for your sanctimonious guess, and anyone who crosses you is fair game for your full fury.

It's laughable that you accuse anyone of emotional meanness, when you premise discourse on the unassailability of your belief, and it's sad to dismiss anyone as an intellectual inferior when you can't even counter coherent arguments. Privilege is disgusting. Grow up and accept that your thoughts need to stand on their own, and if you can't take it, rage elsewhere.

Believers own this country. There's no place you don't hold sway, except for oddball forums like this. That's not enough for you, though; you need total dominance. This is one of the few refuges for those of us who don't cotton to superstition dominating reality, but it's outrageous to you that there's a place anywhere where your guesses might be met with the scorn the rest of us live with on a constant basis. Bummer. Join the human race. You have no right to be above reproach, and demanding that from others is nothing short of solipsistic self-worship. Deal with it.

Nobody deserves the right to have his/her beliefs held above reproach; non-believers get their asses kicked here on a regular basis, and so do believers. You just can't stand difference of opinion, and when met, you unleash knee-jerk dismissal and sanctimonious vitriol.

You haven't a shred of principle, or you'd argue the statements on their merits, instead of trying to pillory those who don't bow down at your self-proclaimed superiority.

[indigobusiness]

143. No thanks.

I try to remain unfamiliar with it. And I've tried to keep myself, and my beliefs, out of this discussion. You should try it.

[H2O Man]

94. Your post is weak

and shows a lack of understanding in every area you mention. But just for one example, by the silly standard you propose, Martin Luther King, Jr was a threat to democracy.

[PurityOfEssence]

102. Yours is pusillanimous

Yes, the worldview of someone who disagrees with your fundamental pronouncements must be crushed.

Many people live happy, fulfilled and joyous lives that are of great help to others while not being religious. Morality and ethics can be determined without some supernatural construct, and I defy you to point out where this is incorrect in any way. Instead, you merely sneer with a broad dismissal of an inferior intellect.

There's nothing in what I said that would cast King as an enemy of democracy; he was not in government, and even though his cause stemmed from his religious beliefs, he didn't just hold up the almighty as justification for desegregation, he used the arguments of rational fairness, biology and a host of social implications. I even stated that having one's morality come from religion wasn't a problem; it's using the religion as a proof or justification that is.

That was a profoundly shallow dismissal, and it's just a sad attempt to deny a refutation of the core of your argument. Religion is not necessary. If it was, the many people who do just fine without it wouldn't do just fine. Religion often gets in the way of morality and ethics, actually, because it gives wrote rules, instead of talking about the underlying morality behind those rules. To the many, when they encounter situations not specifically delineated in the book, they're lost; if you have morals and ethics determined by human interaction and innate fairness, you can navigate uncertain waters.

Religion's just fine for many people, but in extreme forms, it's pretty much trouble for everyone. The problem is that if one accepts religion as inherently "good" or "necessary", then the scurrilous and ugly versions of fundamentalism will be given WAAAAY too many breaks, and mommies will keep on killing their kids in Texas, clinics will be bombed, suicide attackers will continue, and the odd murders and general unseemliness will be allowed to continue. As a result, far too many Jews make excuses for Baruch Goldstein, Meir Kahane, Ariel Sharon, Menachem Begin, Bibi Netanyahu and others. Far too many Muslims make excuses for the many Wahabiists and other maniacs. Far too many Christians make excuses (or disavow) Hitler, Mussolini, McVeigh, Jim Jones and a host of other fun folks. Many of religion simply claim that religion is good because it's good because it's good, and thus absolve themselves of any fault; this in itself it shockingly dangerous to society at large.

If you want to make specific charges of my inability to understand the world, go right ahead; if you just want to sneer with a puerile self-satisfaction, then continue on your merry way.

[H2O Man]

104. Thank you ....

for providing a wonderful example of the self-righteousness that I had earlier described. I had been going to use an acorn that confused itself with a great oak tree as an example, but you did an even better job than I could have!

[indigobusiness]

105. The folly of your argument is in the personalizing of it.

To understand the nature and significance of the discussion, it is essential to step back and observe it in its abstract entirety.

This is not an emotional issue.

[Az]

101. Evolution and nature abhor a vaccum

Our social structure has developed with the affects of religious thought as part of it. While reason and science can go a long ways to explaining things they cannot instantly heal over the gaps the the loss of religion would manifest. These are naturally occurring gaps in our social structure now. Whether religion leveraged its way in there or not it is part of our makeup now.

Thus the problem isn't disproving or removing religion. Instead it is finding a way to consciously create a social structure that provides for the needs that religion has fullfilled. And its not just answers to big questions. Religions have taken the place of the social web. They are often what connect people to one another. As modern technology drive people further and further apart religions have found a new niche as the extended family. If we do not address these factors then carping about religion is pointless. You will always be seen as a disruptor and negative. In a word: Antisocial.

[indigobusiness]

103. First of all, it is important to understand what it is about.

Any opinion that is stated to prove itself, rather than to challenge and hone it, is worthless.

[Az]

107. It all depends

On what the criteria of those listening place upon the opinion. And that gets us back into the ramifications of dynamic social constructs.

[indigobusiness]

108. There are...

absolutes.

[Az]

110. Of course, but the problem is

How do we identify them?

[indigobusiness]

111. They are...

self-evident.

[H2O Man]

112. an absolute ......

"Why come to us? We're the toughest nut to crack. You think we turn our Elders over to anyone who walks through the door? ... We guard them like pure spring water... So what is it you guys want from the Elders? Secrets? Mystery?

"I can tell you right now, there are no secrets. There's no mystery. There's only common sense."

-- Onondaga Chief Oren Lyons; "The Wisdom Keepers"; 1990; page 64


There are absolutes. Common sense says that to say there are no absolutes is an absolute in and of itself.

To identify an absolute, common sense is of great value.

[indigobusiness]

117. "Nothing is absolute"...

is an affirmation of the absolute nature of nothing.

[H2O Man]

118. Absolutely!

I know, I know .... you weren't talking to me.

[indigobusiness]

121. I've given up...

on you.

[H2O Man]

124. Many have.

They are wrong. Just say "no" to being wrong.

[indigobusiness]

126. I

haven't learned how.

[aneerkoinos]

144. Sunyata

Nothing and only nothing is absolutely.

[indigobusiness]

145. That's got a beat

I could dance to.

[aneerkoinos]

146. No-thing

Good thing about English language, the word 'nothing' is very transparent: no thing exists independently. Funny thing that Buddhism, it really is philosophy/religion based on an irrefutable metaphysical axiom.

[indigobusiness]

147. It was explained to me

by the Tibetan Geshe that gave me my Buddhist name, when I took refuge.

[aneerkoinos]

148. So we got rid of things

Dealing with materialism was fairly easy. But what about mentalism? Is mind a thing, no-thing, neither, both?

[indigobusiness]

149. Absolutely.

All is mind.

[aneerkoinos]

150. If you say so

Good parry. ;) But I didn't ask what all is, I asked what mind is.

[indigobusiness]

151. All

But I didn't say so.

[aneerkoinos]

152. Who didn't say so?

You in post 148, you in post 150, both, neither?

[indigobusiness]

153. Just reporting.

I was hoping you'd explain.

[Az]

113. You are going to have to back that up with some evidence

Give examples. Defend your position. Clinging to authoratative statements isn't going to convince anyone. If they are self evidence then state one.

[H2O Man]

114. You assume

that I have a desire or need to convince anyone. One should never assume. There's one example of an absolute!

[Az]

115. And you assume I was talking to you

I wasn't. :D Check the thread.

But to address your point. It really depends on what you are trying to do. If you are being argumentitive and do not wish to contribute to the progress of a conversation I certainly understand how one would keep their agenda and beliefs hidden. But if you wish to increase the understanding and contribute to the process it certainly seems to be reasonable to add your point of view as clearly and honestly as you can manage.

[H2O Man]

116. You are right

about it being a response to another!

However, in regard to the message: if you put Indigo's name on it, it remains equally true. His statement will make perfect sense to some people, and no sense to others. Or with mine: some will find it makes perfect sense, others will not.

In your second paragraph, you write about someone keeping an agenda and beliefs hidden, were they trying to be argumentitive. I found that interesting.

[indigobusiness]

119. You're both wrong...

and I am right.

[H2O Man]

120. No.

I'm never wrong. And even when I am, it is someone else's fault. That is an absolute.

[H2O Man]

122. define no!

See?

[indigobusiness]

123. Blame

is wrong.

[H2O Man]

125. Not always ......

it's not an absolute.

[indigobusiness]

127. Absolute blame...

blames absolutely.

[aneerkoinos]

129. Nope

the argument disproofs itself by the use of plural.

[indigobusiness]

131. A remedial lesson, for our delinquents.

Nothing is absolute.

[indigobusiness]

133. Nobody claimed:

'Everything is an absolute.'

[aneerkoinos]

135. There are no absolutes

Ï Ðáí åßíáé áðüëõôïò.

Therefore, Yule Goat is absolute. QED

[indigobusiness]

137. "There are no absolutes"

is an absolute.

[H2O Man]

138. More .....

it is the question of "Yes!" versus "No!" all over again. Vote yes.

[indigobusiness]

139. The tower of babble wins again...

and meaning is sublimated.

I vote YES.

[aneerkoinos]

140. Absolutes are not

'Absolutes' and 'Absolute' are different categories. Only one of them is self-contradictory.

[indigobusiness]

141. Of course.

Semantically.

[indigobusiness]

154. Secrets of the Hebrew Letters

For thousands of years, spiritual teachers of the Jewish and Christian traditions have claimed that the Hebrew alphabet is composed of "holy" letters of special significance and superhuman origin. With the recent publication of Michael Drosnin's book The Bible Code, the release of Jodie Foster's film Contact and Fred Alan Wolfe's work on The Spiritual Universe, attention is fixed on the potential fusion of science and religion. A perfect time for Stan Tenen, a physicist and Director of the Meru Foundation, to take the stage.

By fusing mathematics and Jewish mysticism, Tenen has demonstrated that the first verse of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible generates a mathematical Torus. When a particular portion is removed from this 'doughnut', its shape mirrors the human hand. Tenen claims the Hebrew alphabet is based on the human hand, because it represents the function of differentiating self from other, inside from outside. "The alphabet links the inner world of the mind with the outer world of experience, just as our hands do," he says. "And," he continues, "The first letter of the book of Genesis -Bet- means 'house', something that distinguishes inside from outside; this is the most basic distinction you can make at any level of consciousness."

When Tenen broke the first word of Genesis into its 'subatomic particles' (the word is actually comprised of two smaller words, meaning "fire" and "six-edged thorn"), he took the "thorn" to mean a tetrahedron and constructed a model of it, placing the "fire," or torus "vortex" form, inside. Tenen noticed that the model, which he calls "The Light In the Meeting Tent" also reflected the polarity of perfect symmetry (the tetrahedron) and asymmetry (the vortex form). As he studied it, he discovered it was even more multifaceted than he had realized. "When I looked through the faces of the tetrahedron at the vortex, each view displayed a different letter in the Hebrew alphabet," he says. And," he mentions almost casually," I realized the 27 gestures that accompany the letters correspond to the 27 'preferred' pointing directions used in hyper-dimensional space."
snip
He says the Hebrew Bible is arranged similarly to a hologram: the first letter contains the whole, the first word expands on the first letter, the first sentence upon the first word, etc. "It's very much like what our scientists do," he says. "We include information with messages sent to outer space that explains how to decode the entire message-that's also how compression programs work on computers." He also believes the Hebrew Bible contains a function similar to the mathematical purpose of pi, and links consciousness and physicality the way pi links the radius and circumference of a circle: "Our radius is our physicality and the circumference is our life, our emotions," he says. "The ancient Hebrew alphabet is far more than a tool for everyday communication or the transmission of sacred texts; the letter forms themselves have intrinsic geometric and mathematical properties that point us to a profound knowledge of life and the nature of human consciousness." Tenen feels there are principles of law and order in the relationship between humans and the cosmos that, up till now, only Pythagoreans and Kabbalists have suspected. "What I've found," says Tenen, "is that these principles correspond to the numerical patterns of some of the basic geometrical forms found in the physical world. For example, the double helix, which is the form of the DNA molecule."
snip
Tenen has explored history using his theories and has found the same pattern again and again. "For example," he says, "You find it in Rumi's poem describing the Sufi Round Dance, in the Philippine Wine Dance (where you hold a wine glass in your palm and rotate it above and below your shoulder-the old Cleopatra dance), in the Grail Legend material, in William Blake's poetry, the Celtic Odin stories, in the weaving and basketry of Amerindian peoples and, literally, in every culture the world has ever seen"
snip
Though he has a degree in physics, holds numerous patents, has produced optical and electronic equipment for doctors and surgeons, and can visualize complex concepts in four dimensions as fast as computers at the University of Minnesota's Center for Geometry, Tenen claims that his only credential is integrity. He strives to be 'morally transparent'-the same on the inside as on the outside. "We have to remember," he says, "that the math is only a map; our feelings and experiences are the territory."


http://www.meru.org/Press/Atlantisrising.html
http://www.meru.org/FAQ.html

[indigobusiness]

167. This system has been transposed into music.

It has an interesting and unusual quality.

[indigobusiness]

155. Theory of the origins of religion

The visionary James Arthur is the opposite of the careful and straightlaced Dan Merkur in the field of the entheogen theory of the origins of religion. This book is so wide-ranging, it's hard to form a clear mental picture of its scope. Arthur has innovative coverage speculating about entheogens in Egyptian and Asian as well as Christian religion.

This subject is just getting started so there are few books and what few there are are speculative. The entheogen theory of the origin of religions *makes sense*, particularly when focusing on the specifically religious aspect of religion rather than other aspects such as political, ethical, or sociological aspects.

Scholars, including esoteric and Literalist Christian scholars, agree that entheogenic plants are basically reliable triggers for religious experiencing. Historians of religion are trying to use "psychology", "anthropology", and "sociology" to explain the origin of religions. These explanatory threads point to entheogens at the fountainhead of religion, religious experiencing, and religious myth.



This book provides some evidence but most of all provides the all-important *perspective* from which we can see how well it makes good sense to look to entheogens for the origin of mystic experiencing at the root of religion. There's really no reasonable argument against the entheogen theory of the origin of religion -- it enables a full-spectrum, integral-theory explanation of religion to finally come together.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1585091510

[indigobusiness]

156. Ego Death and Self-Control Cybernetics

Determinism and Transcendence
Entheogens and Religion
Myth-Religion and Mystic Experiencing
Christianity as Experiential Metaphor
Mystic-State Allusions in Rock Music

http://www.egodeath.com/index.html

Jesus and the Goddess
http://www.egodeath.com/jesusandthegoddessoutline.htm

The Eucharist Was Visionary Plants
http://www.egodeath.com/eucharistwasvisionaryplants.htm

Epilogue of Eysinga's Exegesis on the Gospel according to Matthew
http://www.egodeath.com/EysingaMatthewExegesisEpilogue.htm

G.J.P.J. Bolland: Philosophy of Religion
http://www.egodeath.com/BollandPhilosophyOfReligion.htm

[indigobusiness]

165. More re: The entheogen model of religion

The entheogen model of religion has elegance/coherence breadth of explanatory power. What about the non-entheogen theory? First, there isn't even one; it is an incoherent mess, chaos -- it is a wreck, it makes no sense. The contest is between truly a *systemic theory* vs. trainwreckish non-theory or whole patchwork of forced, unconvincing speculations requiring dragging in many dubious/arbitrary, contrived, made-to-order, invented-on-spot assumptions - lots of gaps and fake putty inserted (for example, different ancient psyche was source of religious-myth symbol meanings; ritual imposed highly intense impression on their psyches; were so sober they reluctantly used wine to purify water and strove to avoid effects, yet they talk about this mixed watered down alcohol as still causing divine madness); entheogen theory perfect & seamless. What argument is there against the entheogen theory of religion? There aren't any. There is every reason to suppose, no reason not to. Thus, there is a high probability that the theory or model is correct.

The character of Hellenistic/Christian mystery-religion doesn't sound at all like alcohol, but like visionary plants. Alcohol conflicts/contradicts the descriptions.

It is not possible to look at entheogens' effects then look at early Christianity & Hellenistic mystery-religions and then say "there is not a clear fit" or "there is definitely not a fit; it contradicts"? (if have reasonable knowledge of entheogens' effects & myth & MR). in some respects ambiguous; they evidently kept it so, but all makes sense deduced to be such, and there is some direct explicit evidence -- even though still *vertical* early and the entheogen theory of Christianity is only now forming/being defined for 1st time.

snip

Role of historical Jesus cause replaceable instantly perfectly with role of visionary plants. visionary plants demonstrably do exactly what Jesus is said to do: intense experience of the Holy Spirit, regeneration, transformation, new life sense; fixity experience, rebirth experience, end of time, self-sacrifice of one whole version of oneself, -- Jesus as symbol does not cause these claimed experiences; visionary plants do cause all of them.

Anointing can cause intense religious experiencing - anoint compare witches flying in book Claudia Muller-- vs. OT kings

Religion was claimed to involve *intense experience*, not like today's mood of sentimentality in ritual & abstract intellectual "symbol". non-entheogen theories fail to account for provide for intense experiencing -- unlike the entheogen theory.

Sacred eating and drinking is at the center buildup of myth stories.

Water from belly after Amanita has mixed-wine effects (quote the water from belly passage)

Makes clear sense of next cup will be with you in the next age, in the kingdom of god

Causes series like the core Jesus passion sequence: "The next time I drink this wine with you, it will be in the new kingdom, the kingdom of god" -- that is true for each initiate, comparing before and after the main ego death experience each person undergoes during their series of initiations.

Jacob Needleman writes in the book Lost Christianity that an Orthodox monk told him "I could tell you of things a thousand times better than your yoga"; Needleman could not imagine what he could possibly be alluding to.

Inner Christianity: A Guide to the Esoteric Tradition

Richard Smoley

http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/1570628106

2002

Richard Smoley writes:

p. 156: "... there is a rich heritage of spiritual techniques and practices in Christianity, though it has often been buried or hidden. During a visit to the Greek peninsula of Mount Athos, the center of Orthodox monasticism, Jacob Needleman had a monk say to him, "I could tell you of things a thousand times better than your yoga." But, Needleman adds, "he never said more, not even when pressed by the stunned interpreter."(2) While we will never know what the monk had in mind, some of the inner practices of Christianity have begun to come to the surface again."

2 - Lost Christianity, p. 36

Lost Christianity: A Journey of Rediscovery to the Center of Christian Experience

Jacob Needleman

http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/1585422533

[indigobusiness]

158. Misery of Mankind and Salvific Expectations

Art and religions, the classical quietists, are superseded and rendered obsolete by pure reason. Bolland reacts here to a statement of a certain F. Bacon in "The Advancement of Learning" which states that man is forced to be an actor in his own life and is unable to be a pure spectator, but that inspired and sacred theology offers a safe haven and Sabbath rest from all human efforts. Bolland asserts that pure reason may not exactly provide what religion, according to Bacon, pretends to provide, but provides something similar: ataraxy (cessation of anxiety). Religion is seen as dead in modern times, but the causes of religion are still valid and need to be examined throughout the book.

The roots of religion are seen in both cosmic fear of death, and cosmic nostalgia or yearning for the mysterious. Religion is not moral teaching nor superstition of illiterate peoples. Religious expectations in the extreme tend to apocalyptics. Those have been around at least since Babylonian times, as an old papyrus shows, and still abound in modern days, as seen for example in the case of the Theosophic Society.

The New Testament is full of salvific expectations, see for example Gal. 1:3-4, where Jesus is expected to come and save you from this evil age. The summit of these expectations are the Revelations or prophetic teachings of John, directed against the Caesar cult. These Revelations draw on a plethora of ancient symbolism, like Babylonian astral mythology (the serpent vs. the sun god/celestial mother).

The historical background hints strongly to late first century, under the rule of Emperor Domitianus. This emperor has been seen by for example Iuvenal as the return of former Emperor Nero, as seen from the mentioning of 666 as its cabbalist sum. The disastrous fire of Rome is 'predicted', but of course rather it is a retrospective statement as this infernal accident happened already under Nero.

http://www.egodeath.com/BollandPhilosophyOfReligion.htm

[donhakman]

161. Terrence McKenna added a touch of genius

to the debate by including the fractal nature of the universe with unfamliar dimensions where human consciousness has only a fragile foothold.

In this way he introduces a secular means of pointing at the unknowable without a religious arrogance of pretending to know.

Many of us are priviledged to peer into the fringes of other dimensions with different senses and points of view.

..........

I had an enlightening experience beyond our "flat world" that I will illustrate here.

[indigobusiness]

162. Indeed...and nice story.

Did you see the TM post above? #29

There's much info at that link.

[Swamp Rat]

160. Religion is a "human universal."

... according to sociologists and anthropologists (and those in the "hard sciences") and is therefore a subject of great interest to social scientists. I read a post that claimed "Religion is ABSOLUTELY UNNECESSARY" and "here is no need for religion." - Apparently some do not know much about science (the process of sciencing) and the nature of the human psyche.

While I have found myself at odds with "believers" in any particular religion, I respect the human need for it, and therefore find the anthropology of religion quite fascinating. Those who would bar the discussion of religion AND science may be disregarding the tenets of "good science," one of which is to investigate regardless of the content of the construct or subject, and/or perhaps may be blinded my a singular agenda.

[H2O Man]

163. Good points .....

Significant thoughts always get hostile responses from small minds. So the person who posted the silly statement was not a surprise. I told another person on here that I was afraid people would think I made his post up for a joke of sorts, to prove my point.

[Swamp Rat]

164. Now, if you accused me of making jokes to prove a point,

then I would agree. :D





I like your threads because I always learn something about myself and others. Strictly segregating religion from science, "COMPLETELY," is unwise at best. There are levels of separation with which I might agree, but since I have scientifically studied religion, I know there is a time and a place for such things.

Our discourse here, and debate with others ABOUT the debate, is a salient and prescient issue. Within all fields of great endeavor we will find tension between ideas and personalities. Isn't it better to let it play out rather than shut it down?

[indigobusiness]

166. It is best to keep it on track

and see where it leads.

[indigobusiness]

168. Ganesh, the original Santa?

Here's to the Original Santa!!

Most everyone knows the form of Santa, but could it be that Ganesha (who has been worshipped by Hindus thousands of years before western religions were ever created) was the original prototype? Let us look at some of the amazing similarities:

The Name: Santa is a Sanskrit word spelling meaning peace. All the MahaDevas (Great Spiritual-Beings) of Hinduism have several forms and numerous names denoting their various characteristics. Ganesha is called Santaya or the (Saint) bringer of the gift of peace. In Sanskrit, Nikila refers to the Lord of All. mmmm...Saint Nikila! Ganesha or Ganapati means Lord of the elements. Just like Santa driving his earthy animal team, Ganesha's rope/reins (upper left hand) signifies "reining in" or controlling the earth elements and animal senses. Ringing (sleigh) bells is always done to invoke Ganesha's presence. Ganesha is always accompanied by his little mouse (Mushika) ... not a creature was stirring not even a mouse!

Birthplace: Ganesha is the son of Siva ("God" to many Hindus) and their abode is on the world's highest, snowy peaks, the Himalayas (The North Pole?). The colors of the Saivites (followers of Siva) are red and white! In the worlds most ancient scriptures the Vedas of the Hindus, Ganesha is called Brihaspati or Lord of Speech and the primal sound (repeated 3x's) Om, Om, Om (Ho, Ho, Ho?).

snip

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:HgpfYD6dHEoJ:www.classicalyoga.org/most_everyone_knows_the_form_of_.htm+bad+santa+sanskrit&hl=en&lr=lang_en

[jesusq]

169. The Bible PROVES EVOLUTION

Silly Fundies, if they would just allow God a little poetic license, they would realize that the Bible PROVES evolution on the very first page. Of course we now know that the series of events described in Genesis happened over billions of years, not days, but the remarkable thing is that the ORDER that God is said to have created these things follows the order of evolution almost exactly. Am I the only person to have figured out that if indeed, GOD created all things, He did this by evolution? I have edited passages from Genesis to make this point.

1.) Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep. (primordial soup)

2.) "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." (continental plates shift, remember the lesson in school where the continents fit together like pieces of a puzzle?)

3.) "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." (this did in fact happen when the continents shifted)

4.) "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." (plant life was one of the first advanced life forms according to the theory of evolution)

5.) And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, (fish came after plants) and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." (dinosaurs and birds came next)

6.) "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." (amphibians, mammals, primates)

7.) Then God said, "Let us make man in our image." (finally, primates become more advanced and intelligent, until there was an advanced homo-sapien primate who discovered agriculture, language, music and parallel parking.)

Don't be a Liberal Fundie. It isn't a question of either/or. It can be both, as long as you don't insist on being so literal about everything.

[H2O Man]

170. true

very good!

[indigobusiness]

171. Yes,

you are the only one.