.
See:
.
Holistic God – Holographic Gaia --- Panentheistic Source of sum of all perceptions and of attuned focusing to illusions of patterns of measurable physics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnvM_YAwX4I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG9FO7JGWq4
Elohim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCkCMcEs5dw
MANIFESTING GAIA: If God breathes physical reality out of nothing more than Will To Math, may we, in God’s service, midwife panentheistic breath of life into what may heretofore have been conceived, in Gaia, only as myth? May we, in organizing computer resources, so midwife organization of math as to birth Gaia out of emergence and into actual manifestation? By skilful inculcation of myths of Gaia, may we, to astonishingly practical extent, discover Gaia in reality?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnvM_YAwX4I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG9FO7JGWq4
Elohim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCkCMcEs5dw
MANIFESTING GAIA: If God breathes physical reality out of nothing more than Will To Math, may we, in God’s service, midwife panentheistic breath of life into what may heretofore have been conceived, in Gaia, only as myth? May we, in organizing computer resources, so midwife organization of math as to birth Gaia out of emergence and into actual manifestation? By skilful inculcation of myths of Gaia, may we, to astonishingly practical extent, discover Gaia in reality?
In this, I may need to study more on Joseph Campbell. But I certainly need to listen to Israel _ Kamakawiwo'ole.
SAME MYTH, DIFFERENT DELUSIONS: Most modern religions share in essentially the same myth, but employ different ceremonial methods and emphasis for conditioning behavior. For example, Islam tends to misuse “God” to justify extreme sorts of “aversion therapy,” often going so far as to preach death to apostates or infidels. Retro-Muslims wish for “God” to regulate all details of every person’s life, by sort of tattooing regulations on the insides of our eyelids. Although Christianity tends to emphasize positive reinforcement, it is misused by many to reduce to “God is love,” therewith reducing God to love for tolerating every individual’s every conceivable sort of affront to civilized behavior. Modern-Christians want to explore the world, only periodically to run back to God to report or revel in findings or adventures. In other words, Islam emphasizes the stick, while Christianity emphasizes the carrot. But, neither form of emphasis is sufficient in itself.
DESPERATE TIMES: Civilization desperately needs for modern religious adherents to appreciate the importance of God, without allowing the concept of God to be used by control freaks to reduce adherents to behaviors that threaten not only civilization but our very planet and ground of being.
MONSTROUS CONFUSION: In Western Civilization, monstrosities have grown for twisting the problem of how best to respect God. Some are illustrated by Ben Stein, in the movie, “Expelled.”
WALL OF SEPARATION: In the U.S., Academia is twisting the Constitution, as if it requires not freedom to practice religion but compulsion to banish religion. But nothing in our Constitution forbids the government from encouraging a general respect for an enlightened, Higher Will, or Source of moral purposefulness. Rather, all that is forbidden is State sponsorship of any particular religious form, ceremony, or requirement regarding how one must go about particularly, as one accords due respect for variously shared notions of morality.
Indeed, scientists (in notion of “gene of altruism"), humanists and ethicists (in notion of morality even without express reference to God), and legislators (in notion of traditional sensibilities meriting consideration in enacting, interpreting, and applying laws) all respect civilization’s need to limit, inculcate, or encourage behaviors within morally acceptable limits. That is, all tend to advocate moral responsibility for exercising or restraining Will in respect of degrees of freedom. And Will, within parameters allowed by law --- whether such law be mathematical, natural, man-made, or spiritual --- is just a general label for panentheistic God.
Why, then, should anyone of rational persuasion, common decency, or good will, wish to pretend some sort of perfect “wall of separation” by which to forbid government, country, school, or mentors from seeking to inculcate each succeeding generation with a general sense of enlightened, empathetic, good Will?
Encouraging students to afford philosophical respect for the “better angels of our nature,” without advocating any religiously revealed particularity as being presently required in order not to disobey the eternal will of God, does not violate any “wall of separation.”
For that matter, insofar as “wall of separation” is mere figure of speech, not descriptive of any known physics, such metaphor cannot very well afford precise basis by which to enforce or guide evolving needs and moral concerns of our civilization.
*****
GAIA:
Intuitively, there IS a whole (“WILL”) that functions synchronously and simultaneously in respect of ITS SELF WILL. But, each perspective that finds a niche within IT interprets, appreciates, or perceives IT differently, because the functions by which such Whole multi-tasks to relate to each Part are differently Mediated. No Partial Perspective can perceive or interpret the Whole as IT truly IS. But, that does not mean that an intuition or implication of the existence of the Whole is incorrect. Nor does it mean that a partial perspective should not benefit, spiritually, by being open to attempting to intuit or receive guidance from such Whole.
Intuitively, there IS a whole (“WILL”) that functions synchronously and simultaneously in respect of ITS SELF WILL. But, each perspective that finds a niche within IT interprets, appreciates, or perceives IT differently, because the functions by which such Whole multi-tasks to relate to each Part are differently Mediated. No Partial Perspective can perceive or interpret the Whole as IT truly IS. But, that does not mean that an intuition or implication of the existence of the Whole is incorrect. Nor does it mean that a partial perspective should not benefit, spiritually, by being open to attempting to intuit or receive guidance from such Whole.
As we profess that the Constitution "lives," but that God does not, so reigns Evil.
****
Quality of Existence of Heaven and Hell:
Intuitively, Heaven (Goodness) and Hell (Evil) exist metaphysically, not physically, as qualities or orientations in relation to which “Will” comes to appreciate itself and its experience.
Heaven entails Will’s orientation of empathetic hope for IT’s presentness and IT’s posterity, while Hell entails Will’s orientation of hopelessness.
The spiritual existence of both Heaven and Hell depends upon an empathetically interconnecting appreciation and tension of Will. Neither Heaven nor Hell exists entirely independently of the Other.
Somehow, in the tension, we experience artistically-meaningful, self-definitional purposefulness. Thus do our spiritual delusions become not entirely unreal. Thus is oft quoted, “[T]he play is the thing.”
.
*****
.
Physics As An Ultimate Bookkeeping Trick:
The Stuff that manifests to us as matter, energy, space, and time seems to have derived, and in its interrelations, continues to derive out of, or in respect of, an “Original, Ultimate, or Superior Source of Somethingness” — either “Will of God” or “Paradox of Nothingness” (or virtual particles or apparitions, appearing as tricks, out of otherwise nothingness).
Intuitively, the manifesting, physical stuff we measurably and mathematically experience emerges or derives out of and/or in respect of an “Ultimate Source” that is beyond our measure or math. We may be faithfully receptive to intuit IT and/or to respect IT, but we cannot measure IT or deal with IT empirically or scientifically. We may intuit that what seems to be manifest and physical may, in relation to IT, be some mere trick of math or imagination in respect of IT. That is, all that we empirically experience may be product of Bookkeeping-Trick-Of-Currency or perspective (or faith, credit, trust) of Will-To-Math.
Intuitively, Heaven (Goodness) and Hell (Evil) exist metaphysically, not physically, as qualities or orientations in relation to which “Will” comes to appreciate itself and its experience.
Heaven entails Will’s orientation of empathetic hope for IT’s presentness and IT’s posterity, while Hell entails Will’s orientation of hopelessness.
The spiritual existence of both Heaven and Hell depends upon an empathetically interconnecting appreciation and tension of Will. Neither Heaven nor Hell exists entirely independently of the Other.
Somehow, in the tension, we experience artistically-meaningful, self-definitional purposefulness. Thus do our spiritual delusions become not entirely unreal. Thus is oft quoted, “[T]he play is the thing.”
.
*****
.
Physics As An Ultimate Bookkeeping Trick:
The Stuff that manifests to us as matter, energy, space, and time seems to have derived, and in its interrelations, continues to derive out of, or in respect of, an “Original, Ultimate, or Superior Source of Somethingness” — either “Will of God” or “Paradox of Nothingness” (or virtual particles or apparitions, appearing as tricks, out of otherwise nothingness).
Intuitively, the manifesting, physical stuff we measurably and mathematically experience emerges or derives out of and/or in respect of an “Ultimate Source” that is beyond our measure or math. We may be faithfully receptive to intuit IT and/or to respect IT, but we cannot measure IT or deal with IT empirically or scientifically. We may intuit that what seems to be manifest and physical may, in relation to IT, be some mere trick of math or imagination in respect of IT. That is, all that we empirically experience may be product of Bookkeeping-Trick-Of-Currency or perspective (or faith, credit, trust) of Will-To-Math.
.
****
.
Regarding Holistic God – Holographic Gaia -- Panentheistic Source, of sum of all perceptions and of attuned focusings of illusions of patterns of measurable physics, consider:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnvM_YAwX4I;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG9FO7JGWq4;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCkCMcEs5dw.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnvM_YAwX4I;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG9FO7JGWq4;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCkCMcEs5dw.
11 comments:
From http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2008/03/06/ben-stein-smart-bombs-darwinian-bunker/#comment-16007 :
“Selection; however, will occur for those traits that provide an edge.”
Well, could any trait provide an edge within any system that were not “willing” to allow it to have such an edge?
After all, neither the trait nor the system within which it is found are stagnant; rather, both are “moving targets.”
Why, then, should the wider system “just happen” to remain favorable to any particular trait, even as the system as a whole is continuously fluxing?
I am not confident that any purported explanation of the process of selection “as not being random” is complete. Nor am I confident that the process of selection is not in some sense “willfully guided.” I doubt we can “know.”
Rather, I suspect we merely conceptualize differently, for different contexts and purposes. For scientific purposes, it is practical to conceptualize “as if” all events, at ultimate level, must be completely “indifferent.” For moral purposes, it may be practical to conceptualize “as if,” at ultimate level, each of is merely a perspective of a unifying, guiding, empathetic, “Caring Will.”
From http://www.johnkharms.com/mirror.htm :
“One of the key proposals of this text is that Universe's are resonance systems. This may be a key insight. Universe's that are out of phase with the matter and space that compose our bodies, go undetected by us. Virtual particles, that go largely undetectable by particle detectors are explained as being out of phase with the matter composing the detector. In many ways, the tag-along Universe mirrors our own. These comparisons of our Universe with the mirror Universe will be discussed in greater detail--including time travel and unlimited energy. The image provided in the text hopefully will add some clarity to these concepts.”
….
For example, in the two-slit experiment of quantum mechanics, it is demonstrated that: light + light = darkness. It appears to the author that the primary way to reconcile this with the conservation of energy principle is to suggest that there is a mirror Universe that is accompanying our own. So, there is a constant interaction of our Universe with this tag-along mirror Universe.
….
Moreover, in the mirror Universe, entropy always decreases. So, over time in the mirror Universe things become more orderly as in our Universe things become less ordered as time passes. Entropy is, therefore, also a conserved quantity, but again only if both Universe's are taken into consideration! ---Conservation of entropy.
….
A methodology for transporting human beings to this other Universe would be a technology for shifting the phase of the human body to that of antimatter. Hence, our present state of vibration would have to be precisely shifted to leave this phase of our Universe. This might be the key to time travel into the past (since as mentioned above the mirror Universe operates in a backward in time mode). Thus, the key to time travel into the past may also be to precisely shift the phase of the matter that makes up the human body.
….
… cold fusion might be achieved through the shift of phase via pressure on atoms.
….
All elements that make up the Universe are all identical, except for their phase and wave speed.
See also http://www.johnkharms.com/index.html.
John (of harmsjk3@earthlink.net),
On a lark, after watching some stuff on the tube, I googled a bit about resonance and found your interesting site.
No doubt, for many of your “outside the box” ideas, scientists, for professional survival, cannot very well be seen to take your notions seriously. (I am a lawyer, so I can think whatever I want.)
I believe there is purpose and place to your intuitive musings.
Alas, there seem few simple ways to show empiricists that some insights may have worth, even if not reducible to measure. Yet, who knows. Some of your notions may eventually pan out to be testable in some fashion.
A couple of comments:
REGARDING POLITICAL PARTIES:
I believe you expressed a wish that political parties be abolished, prompting me to consider why and how patterns of gangs, cliques, clubs, factions, political parties, and sects must come to coalesce and form.
I suspect they must form, because empathy consists in a mix of emotions that coordinate with an encompassing ambiguity that seems inherent to all existential angst. People seem to need to square off against opponents in order to define their own purposes.
Still, I tend to be uncomfortable with candidates selected by all present factions. I prefer being an “extreme moderate,” a description purportedly used by Benjamin Franklin.
For me, neither of our presidential candidates fills the bill for an “extreme moderate.” By that, I do not think now is the time for America to be compromising its energy independence, laying aside its borders, indulging false entitlements, or abetting the rise of aristocrats.
REGARDING RESONANCE:
Your notions about resonance prompt me to consider as follows:
Perhaps the “real distance” between my compartmentalized perspective of Will and yours may be nothing more than such imagery as is required in order for each of us to resonate in respect of an “anthropic illusion” of separateness of experience of the other.
Each preserves his experience of separateness of identity or perspective only so long as every aspect of his “physicality” coordinates in resonating respect of such illusion.
Perhaps, each universe preserves separate integrity only so long as its holography respects a separately compartmentalized Resonance Of Will. Within its own universe, each expression of fractal patterning may preserve separateness in holography only so long as its identity relates to a common defining resonance.
Perhaps, except in reference to shared resonance, there is no meaningful pattern, holography, identity, perspective, universe, or expression of Will.
If means can be devised to worm or leap between defining or polarizing resonances, what limits of “physicality” may be transcended?
In interacting with presentations of illusions, apparent spatial distances and sequences in chronology may be as vast as are our capacities to conceptualize mathematics. Perhaps, in “superior reality,” we share a common resonance of Will-To-Math; whereas, physical space is mere illusion, subordinate to our shared resonance of “Meta-Will” (the unifying element).
I have only a rudimentary background in math. Instead, my concern relates to the history of civilization.
Yet, if your notion about resonance makes sense, it may mean something in respect of enlightened empathy, which presently seems sorely diminished.
Matter, energy, space and time are made manifest, interdependent, interrelational, perceived by awarenesses, and harmonized within limits made manifest in rules of inertia. We seem unable to know, in a direct perceptual sense, whether such harmonization of manifestations exists independently, or whether it is “caused” by some kind of unseeable, metaphysical mush, beyond our abilities to scientifically measure or predict. But, we can, and do, sense identity, animation, drive, spirit. We cannot exist without experiencing purpose. In so sensing, we “know” we have moral goals; that there is more to existence than directly meets our abilities to see, hear, feel, smell, or taste. So sensing, it seems not a great leap to intuit, envision, or receive revelations regarding, a more perfect, guiding, harmonizing, comforting spirit. That spiritual “oneness” is what Jesus melded into.
From Wikipedia:
GOD TRANSCENDS BEING: As John Scotus Erigena put it to Frankish king Charles the Bald in the year 840 A.D., "We do not know what God is. God himself doesn't know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being."
MIND OF GOD: Leibniz had arrived at a radically different understanding of the universe and the things found in it. According to his Monadology, all things that humans ordinarily understand as interactions between individuals and all things that humans ordinarily understand as relations among individuals (such as their relative positions in space and time) have their being in the mind of God but not in the Universe where we perceive them to be.
INTUITION: The salient element here is that space and time, rather than being real things-in-themselves or empirically mediated appearances (Ge: Erscheinungen), are the very forms of intuition (Ge: Anschauung) by which we must perceive objects. They are hence neither to be considered properties that we may attribute to objects in perceiving them, nor substantial entities of themselves. They are in that sense subjective, yet necessary, preconditions of any given object insofar as this object is an appearance and not a thing-in-itself.
PATERN RECOGNITION: The human brain seems to be hard wired for pattern recognition. A very telling indication of organic structures for pattern recognition came to light when researchers discovered that the image of a moving object in crossing the retina is processed right in the retina and sends an almost instantaneous message: "Movement!" to the brain. So "movement" turns out to be an automatic processing of raw incoming data into a special signal having immense survival salience to the organism.
TRANSCENDENTALISM: Transcendental is the philosophy that makes us aware of the fact that the first and essential laws of this world that are presented to us are rooted in our brain and are therefore known a priori. It is called transcendental because it goes beyond the whole given phantasmagoria to the origin thereof.
….
From this it follows also that the objective world as we know it does not belong to the true being of things-in-themselves, but is its mere phenomenon, conditioned by those very forms that lie a priori in the human intellect (i.e., the brain); hence the world cannot contain anything but phenomena. (Schopenhauer.)
….
Kant's system requires the existence of noumena to prevent a rejection of external reality altogether, and it is this concept (senseless objects of which we can have no real understanding) to which Strawson objects in his book.
….
On Allison's reading, Kant's view is better characterized as a two-aspect theory, where noumena and phenomena refer to complementary ways of considering an object. It is the dialectic character of knowing, rather than epistemological insufficiency, that Kant wanted most to assert.
….
The nature of knowing had, before Kant, long been considered a direct and straightforward matter. Hume challenged such common sense ideas on the grounds of physics, and Kant responded by accounting for the processes of mind which humans bring to ordering physical inputs into human awareness.
Moral Empathy for Machine Intelligence ---
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE:
Snippets from http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4287680.html?series=60:
"The first real AI would be something that we don't even understand," says Wright, "because we didn't program it. It will be more dissimilar in the way it thinks, than we are to a mouse."
….
There's no sense of alarm in Wright's voice when he describes this self-refining machine intelligence—no more than when he casually mentions the notion that, as technology progresses at an exponentially faster rate, towards the so-called singularity, any number of breakthroughs could, as he puts it, "cause the world to go extremely non-linear." When he provides, as classic examples, a computer AI taking over the world, or self-propagating nanobots turning everything into a grey goo, it's impossible to tell whether he's joking, or worried, or simply fascinated. But when he's asked whether that hyper-advanced AI would retain its knowledge of humanity, Wright says, "I would imagine that it can understand us. But the really scary part of this is that we don't know."
.
Comment abouot Anekāntavāda:
The concept of anekāntavāda seems not altogether dissimilar from Soros' notion (and rather unprincipled use of) of "reflexity," as well as Godel's theorem of incompleteness. Every mortal perspective has its imperfection, or Achilles heel. What helps see us through, morally, is judgment availed of insight, informed not just in book learning or in personal will to power, but through humble, empathetic appreciation and experience of a variety of perspectives. Effete elites twist to ignore as much, at their peril.
OF “IS” AND “OUGHT”:
Regarding http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html:
While there is no aspect of the mind that does not correspond to any area of the brain, there is also no area of the brain whose function can be explicated completely, coherently, and consistently.
While the ability to synthesize sensory input into a coherent picture of the world is associated with physical regions of the brain, the physics that accounts for the brain cannot be explicated completely, coherently, and consistently.
If the question now arises, where in all of this is the soul, a similar question arises, where in all of physics is the real essence.
If the question arises, where is the soul hiding, so also may the question arise, where is the essence of physics hiding or existing?
What does The Soul do? Well, what is IT, from, for, and by which we come to appreciate perceptions and choices?
Why be concerned with traditional dualist philosophy? Why suppose The Soul should ever depart, be evaluated, or be meted with eternally limiting rewards or punishments? Why not instead simply intuit that IT apprehends patterns of empathetic appreciation?
While evidence is undeniable that our identity, our personality, and our behavior are unified with the brain, so also is it undeniable that the brain is not, in itself, the complete, coherent, and consistent explanation for our behavior.
Indeed, a same brain may be amenable of experiencing variously different moods and even personalities, such as in sensitivity to sudden environmental changes.
It not that God must damn people for their genes, but that God may be empathetic in all events.
If an imbalance in brain chemistry produces an alteration in consciousness, and a chemical that corrects this imbalance undoes the alteration, it would be true that at no point does the soul measurably enter this equation, but it would also be true that at no point may it be said that The Soul does not immeasurably appreciate the patterns.
Simply put, the purpose of embodied life on Earth need not be considered as a testing ground where people are allowed to freely determine their eternal fates. Rather, the purpose may be for The Soul to engage empathetic consciousness.
That each person may not constitute a completely separate or independent free will is not to say that there is no Source of Will.
Snippets from http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html:
“... the three basic aspects of consciousness - identity, personality, and behavior - are in all respects unified with the brain, and can be altered or disabled by damage to the brain. Brain damage can fragment the fragile boundaries of the self, splitting a single individual into non-overlapping spheres of consciousness that perceive and desire completely different things, or shattering the continuous thread of awareness into a multitude of fleeting selves cut off from themselves and from external reality. Changes to the physical structure of the brain can exert dramatic effects on personality, turning a friendly, hard-working, dedicated individual into a vulgar, abusive, lazy and reckless scoundrel. Conditions that affect the chemistry of the brain can entirely control behavior, robbing an individual of the ability to act or denying them the ability to stop themselves from doing so.”
....
“After all, most theists hold that the total destruction of the brain upon the death of the body will have no effect on the soul: how then can the destruction or alteration of small parts of the brain during life have such a dramatic and profound effect on it? Once we acknowledge that the brain mediates and controls all the aspects of consciousness to an overriding degree, what then do we even need to postulate a soul for?”
....
“... religion itself is explicable as the result of the workings of the brain. Neuroscientists studying the biological roots of religious experience have made some discoveries that may be startling ....”
....
“... under epiphenomenalism consciousness itself is one lifelong post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.”
“... we are left with the conundrum of how an immaterial soul can possibly alter the state of the body. Since no adequate resolution to this problem exists, I propose that strict materialism is the only possibility remaining that adequately accounts for the facts.”
....
“... brain is a self-adjusting system causally potent upon its own operation, a web of feedback loops that has reached a critical point of complexity where it can perceive its own workings.”
[PERSONAL COMMENTS: But, under Godel, there is no adequate accounting for all the facts. And, even if all facts could be physically measured, how would we then derive “ought” from “is”? I intuit “God” is the existent or concept in empathetic respect of which we properly focus our mores and purposes.]
....
“How can it be maintained that a person has only one immutable soul when people are constantly changing throughout their lives?”
[PERSONAL COMMENTS: Well, how is it that the only constant may seem to be change? Why believe the Source for any constant must be confined separately and apart to each person? Rather, in conceptualizing the Source as common to all of us, are we not better led to respect civilizing, empathetic mores? In that, our moral responsibilities for our relational actions are temporal, not eternal, even though The Soul, of which each of us expresses only fleeting perspective, may be eternal. With such essence, all of us subsume with an Immortal.
To say, just because no single brick possesses the property of being a house, it does not follow that no arrangement of many bricks cannot possess this property, is not to say whether any single brick could possess the property of being a brick, had it not also acquired the property of being made, potentially, part of a house.
My belief or intuition is that the quality of consciousness could not arise in the absence of such quality to begin with. That is, I doubt there could be a state of “physics with absolutely no consciousness” or capacity for pattern recognition or empathy.
While the phenomena of “is” may be compatible with an atheist's worldview of physics, how does or should a vaunted atheist make himself compatible with the “oughts” of consciousness of choice?]
....
“Attributing the accomplishments of our minds to a ghost in the machine of our heads is an idea that can no longer be supported ....”
PERSONAL COMMENT: Meeting our need for “oughts” does not require that we make attributions to a ghost confined in a machine, but is also not inconsistent with panentheism, i.e., a Ghostlike Source of interpenetrating empathy for every perspective of existence.
BOTTOM LINE: Objective resolution of a basis for deriving "oughts" is not necessary, provided there is a rationalizing basis for subjective or intuitive resolution. Else, how could any atheist be inspirational or relevant in the least for helping to resolve any issue of morality or choice? In respect of panentheism, sacred stories may simply be interpreted for figurative values.
Re: http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/11/24/when_science_points_to_god:
“... the multiverse remains a desperate measure ruled out by the impossibility of confirmation.”
So, how is the multiverse idea any less metaphysical, unsupported, and wishful in its thinking than any other metaphysical “explanation”?
Surely, it is no more “scientific” to imagine an un-confirmable multiverse than a metaphysical source of consciousness?
Regardless, would not each and every such multiverse be subject to “the measurement problem” (i.e., necessitate some form of “consciousness” for collapsing its forms to measurable or meaningful apprehension)?
I like the new “scientific” slogan: “There’s PROBABLY no god.”
1) Did scientists somehow quantify the probability? (No.)
2) Do they sometimes thrown a little salt over their shoulders, just in case? (Probably?)
Comment by Dlanor, at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/false_pride_and_the_liberal_im.html:
Ranger Joe,
Thanks for the reference to Max Planck. I checked out some sites, at http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=10298, and http://www.angelfire.com/folk/infidel/MaxPlanck.html, and http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/NobelPr.pdf.
Some cursory second-guessers on some of those sites were prone to denigrate Planck, rather too quickly and arrogantly, I think.
One says “he [Planck] had not found support in mathematics”. Perhaps, but I suspect Planck intuited support in mathematics. I would be slow in conceiting to discount Planck’s intuition. I rather suspect Planck intuited a God-connection that is deeper, less confined, and not so one-on-one restricted as to coordinate only with perimeters or parameters of our skins.
Some, in FALSE PRIDE, seem too quick to use “either-or” logic (which is fine for concerns which are measurable, to the extent they are measurable) to project to Planck a shallow interpretation of “miracles.” But, I see no logical or scientific reason to believe nature should preclude us from intuiting the “hand of God” as directing or synchronizing much of what we can only measure as “random.”
Apart from Mind of God, what in nature offers a better candidate, for imbuing us with enlightened purposefulness, empathy, remorse, or morality? To posit an “altruistic gene” is not to grasp the answer, but merely to push the inquiry further back, to ask: Why, then, should conditions avail for advantaging a gene of altruism? After all, a “gene for psychopathy” seems quite useful for many leaders.
Regardless, what matters it to us, empirically, whether “physics” “really” manifests in respect of Mind-of-God or in respect of some ubiquitous Metaphysical-Particle-In-Itself? Either way, empiricists’ “ultimate explanation,” punting only to “nature,” remains beset by the metaphysical.
I rather liked this of Planck: “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”
Personally, I suspect (or believe) Mind of God, by “thinking in mathematical functions,” is the superior mix from which all our measurable physics is derived. And that, perhaps by definition, is beyond empirical proof, but not beyond mathematical intuition.
Again, thanks for the references!
Comment on http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/worshipping_the_weather.html:
TO Elcapt (“As an atheist, I reject all forms of mysticism ….”)
Well, as an atheist, do you accept forms for choosing how you should live your life? Surely, you do not require a complete empirical analysis before undertaking each and every move. Rather, you no doubt often rely on tried and true habits, rituals, unspoken (perhaps even unconscious) beliefs.
Obviously, it is important to your sense of self for you to consider yourself an atheist. So, I mean no disrespect and I do not begrudge that. Nor do I consider you any less good on account of the way you prefer to label yourself.
Likewise, I hope you do not begrudge me if I consider that, from my way of thinking, you are likely “less atheistic” than perhaps you think you are. (I certainly do not begrudge you for considering that my theistic preference is flawed.)
I suspect many may consider “religion” as consisting in such organized or orthodox dogma, methods, and/or rituals as are intended to help us appreciate how we should, without being forced (except in respect of law), go about living our lives in respect of a higher Source of purposefulness. (Under that (my) definition, a code for justifying Islamofascism would be less a “religion” than a mind-enslaving virus.)
********
TO bipolar2:
Regardless of whatever may be my preferred definition, are you recommending some sort of historical definition for “religion” (or “institutional religion”) that was in use and intended at the time the founders of our Constitution wrote the “free exercise” and “establishment” clauses for our Bill of Rights?
If so, do definitions for our Constituton “live” (and slide?) for justifying the reigning in of rights to bear “arms,” but not for the reigning in of “religious practices” that amount to crime, sedition, outrageous forms of forced mind-enslavement, or non-scientific attacks on expressions of traditional religious rites and values?
But, do not preachers of Global Warming and of codes of Secular Humanism intend to relate dogma and/or rituals, in order to help us appreciate how we should, regardless of law (or science), go about living our lives in respect of a higher Source of purposefulness? I doubt (?) you would advocate that new (i.e., non institutional) religions must be favored, so that the government CAN establish them.
Do not advocates for Atheism, when they attack specific religions, often confuse and mix empiricism to argue against that which is mainly meant figuratively (non-literally)? To argue sensibly against religious metaphors, must not Atheists argue based on their own metaphors for denying a Source for how we should go about living our lives? In resorting to non-empirical based metaphors for arguing against a Source of moral purposefulness, are they not making religious-like arguments against the specific religion they are attacking? Were they to argue that we should not seek to respect a higher Source of purposefulness, would they not be invoking their own religious, non-scientific, faith-based “shoulds” and “purposes”? How, then, are they not being “religious”?
To the extent preachers of Warm’ism, Humanism, and Anti-Religion’ism base their arguments more in faith than in empiricism, why should such preachers have preferred place in schooling over, say, study of platonic notions of God?
Is the difference in treatment to be attributed to ignorance, principle, or power? If only to power, why should we “up with it put”?
Comment by Lonnie, at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/worshipping_the_weather.html:
If you shun long posts, skip on.
I ask my children, why does anything happen, because the laws of thermodynamics dictate it. (I generally state this as, “because Gibb’s free energy is minimized.”)
I ask my children what it takes to do anything. The obvious answer is time and energy. Of course in some of life’s endeavors we substitute money, but in regard to physics, time and energy. With enough, one can do anything, literally.
I instruct my children that there is truly only one important question: Why?
They have often, and so rightly, answered, “because God made it that way.”
To me, god is simply why.
To me, an atheist states that the question cannot be answered, that there is no ultimate answer to the ultimate question. By definition, there is no reason for all that is. Simplifying, there is no reason. Obviously, if there is no reason, then there is no reason. Tautological of course, but I mean to make that point.
How many times in these posts does someone claim that life has meaning, yet denies that there is an ultimate meaning? Yes, atheists are religious, because there are no true atheists, at least not as I have described them as believers in nonreason. Of course no one can believe in nonreason, it would obviate the ability to believe or reason at all!
I state it as overtly obvious that if there is no ultimate reason, then all subjective terms have absolutely no meaning at all. That is, there is no such thing as good, better, or best; there is only random, ultimately, quantum interactions that we humans happen to observe in some sense that we all, well, most all, agree (whatever that means) happened. Hmm, and it all seemed so simple in the last paragraph.
There are two, and only two, possibilities: either there is a reason for all that is, or there is no reason.
We all choose to believe that there is a reason. The simple fact that you are alive is evidence of it. You believe there is a reason to get up in the morning, to go to work, to earn income, to buy necessities (and frivolities), to not kill the jerk who cut you off, or stole from you, or humiliated you. Why? Because there is a reason greater than the moment. There is something more to live for than my immediate whim. Why? Just like the fictitious Mr. Anderson stated so clearly in the Matrix, “because I choose to.”
I chose to believe there is a reason. I choose to believe in meaning. My life has meaning, and so does the life of every single individual who has ever existed and ever will exist. Again, I choose to believe it. I have no reasonable alternative, unless I choose to believe that the entirety of the universe is merely a random convergence of 'brains which happened to result in a big bang that happened to occur as one of the many possible combinations of forces and constants that happened to be suitable for galactic and stellar formations that happened to have at least one planet in a zone where water was always available in the liquid state, where what we happen to call life happened to take hold and progress to the point we are today discussing the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, which of course is 42.
If I choose to believe that all that is just happens to be a peculiar fluctuation of quantum states in a vast energy-time circumstance that just happens to impinge on my electrochemical makeup in such a way that I think I think about it, then whatever I choose is as good as anything else I might choose, whatever good might really mean, whatever reality might be, since obviously it wouldn’t mean anything. (Read it again; it makes sense, and it is what I meant.)
Perhaps I like my own words too much. Probably. It’s hard to be humble…
Still, I find membrane theory nearly meaningless, and string theory seems as useful as a luminiferous aether, but for the most part, I choose to believe that our universe and our organic life on this planet has evolved from something that was, for practical purposes, nothingness, to all that we comprehend in all of its magnificent glory and terror. Yes, though obviously a theist, and at least by acclimation a Christian, even an evangelical and fundamentalist in most regards, I am an evolutionist. Still, I choose to believe that God created it all, and God had and has a reason for it all, and ultimately we will understand the meaning behind the why that we can only pretend to understand so far. "How can the gods meet us face to face till we have faces?"
Specifically speaking for myself, I know god is more than all of the theology and philosophy boiled down to its truest essence. I know I have no actual knowledge of god. Still, I worship God. I find it my nature, just as I find fidelity to my wife, and in fact, for the most part, fidelity to what I call good, to be part of my nature.
I think, therefore I am.
Like the notion that atheism is in fact a theism of a different type, and that environmentalism is a religion, the preceding statement is much older than anyone I know. It is also the start point. I think I am, so I might as well deal with it, unless, of course, there is no reason to do so. Therefore, I choose to believe there is a reason to do so. I do, and I always will, even if I am wrong, because, of course, I might be.
Perhaps I should try to condense this into something more concise. Well, not today.
For me, Christianity holds the answers. I do not suppose that all humans in god’s vast diversity will find it so. I suppose all honest individuals with fair effort will come to beliefs somewhat similar to my own, but ultimately I know (I hold it as truth) that the only criteria each of as can live by is our own conscience, which I also believe can be forced into a mold if we choose to mutilate it ourselves, or are doggedly coerced to it by others. Still, I find it silly that atheists choose to state that they do not believe in god at all. I suppose the ones who do not have an axe to grind and no hidden agenda are simply saying they do not accept my god. Cool. No problem. But why claim “no god?” No god really does ultimately lead to the conclusion that there is no reason. Atheism is literally the opposite of theism. Both are ultimately beliefs. Given my definitions (of course some will not give me my definitions), there is no such thing as an atheist. I suppose that makes me an a-atheist.
One thing I do not understand is how anyone can run around campaigning against something he does not believe in. I do not believe earth is now, nor ever was, visited by extraterrestrial craft. That is, there are no UFOs in the sense of Roswell and alien abductions. Still, I can’t imagine ever having any desire to take out an advertisement pointing out how impossible the energy requirement is to simply visit an interstellar destination. (Impossible in the sense of absurdly impractical.)
While it may be pointless to call atheism a religion, it is still practical and insightful. Atheism, no matter how a person internalizes and expresses it, is a belief system, the structure upon which one finds meaning and reason to go on.
It is reasonable to use the example of atheism to support the assertion that people are inherently religious. We, each of use without exception, hold certain views and beliefs as truths and dogma. It is fact. Even a hedonist supposes that his own pleasure is the ultimate good, the only truth worth pursuing.
Likewise, the environmental movement as it is manifesting in our world, is very similar to the christianity of the dark ages. Environmentalists hold the doomsayers to be above the rest of us and unchallengeable. Adherents make their confessions, they do their penance, and they even buy and sell indulgences. A Martin Luther will arise and nail his theses to a symbolic church door and begin the reformation to a more rational environmental responsibility that leaves religion and belief to other parts of individuals’ lives. It may be a while, but then again, a few more mild summers and cold winters may make it so self evident that the reform arises spontaneously.
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Anderson. The article is clear and insightful and worth reading and pondering.
I invite the self-described atheists to devote some soul searching to the question of the ultimate.
One post points out that vile individuals are closest to what I consider a common sense definition of atheism. Still, the evildoer merely assumes that god is impotent. If the evildoer truly believed there was no god, he would realize there was no reason to deny himself whatsoever he wished. His brutality would know no bounds until someone managed to stop him. Even then, does not such a wicked one suppose himself to be god, omnipotent and all-important? Hardly fits a general definition of atheist.
Theism does not necessarily assume reward and punishment. In fact, many religions assume only reward, and perhaps nothingness for those unworthy of reward. Others simply suppose that god requires of us good, good in the sense god defines, good in the sense we, for the most part, agree on. If atheism is the opposite of all we call theism, it surely cannot be, at least not as a dearly held belief of an honest and thoughtful individual. Certainly, as some have claimed, one can rationalize that god as so often described in theism cannot be. However, one can as simply claim that religion is no closer to truth than is nonreligion, avoiding atheism altogether. Despite my deeply held convictions and religion, I must allow the possibility that I, and Christianity, are not even close to the truth, but I can see from history that religion is absolutely essential to humankind. We will not be without it. Societal irreligion is impossible. As Mr. Anderson alludes, we cannot be without it.
Post a Comment