In defense of religion
Last week the journalist Christopher Hitchens died. Thousands of column inches have been written about Hitch – brilliant journalist, iconoclast and, most noisily, atheist. For Hitch, like Richard Dawkins, was a bully atheist – not simply a non-believer, but an anti-theist, desirous of crushing the all notions of faith in anything other than what has been scientifically ‘proven.’
Although I found many of Hitch’s ideas about organized religion and religious myth refreshingly contrarian, like many atheists, Hitch confused religion with belief in the divine or indeed a sense of the spirit. To him all spiritual or religious devotion began and ended with literal belief in the white-bearded being sitting on a cloud.
Like John Diamond
Hitch reminds me of the late British writer John Diamond – both sharp as a needle, forthright in their unshakeable opinion; both claimed by the same disease – cancer – in the same place, the throat; both profoundly materialist. The only difference was the target of their bile. For Hitch it was organized religion; for John Diamond, alternative medicine.
Both, ironically, were profoundly religious, but they had placed their faith in the infallibility of science. Diamond, for instance, had been assured by his doctors that his cancer was easily treatable. Over the years, he submitted to all the best that modern medicine throws at cancer: chemotherapy, radiotherapy and several rounds of mutilating surgery that eventually left him without a tongue and consequently the ability to speak.
And through all of years of treatment, John kept up a running commentary in his column of all the pain, humiliation and degradation of modern orthodox cancer treatment, all the while constantly reaffirming his faith in it as the only possible recourse.
So unshakeable was Diamond¹s faith that when orthodox treatment turned out not to work, he refused to seek any alternative treatment and stoically accepted his fate. How are you, people would ask. Dying of cancer, he would respond. Technological medicine had spoken and he, the willing disciple, felt compelled to obey.
Snake Oil was to be Diamond¹s final oeuvre, a broadside attack on alternative ‘ologies’ of all varieties. He got as far as a rant, but died with the words ‘Let me explain why’ lit up on his computer screen. He never did provide a shred of evidence in support of his views, but that didn¹t stop the press from lauding his book as a refreshing return to sanity and rationalism.
It was as if believing that nothing exists beyond current human knowledge or understanding represents a type of metaphysical machismo - the hard-man
realist compared to the quiche-eaters among us who happen to believe that another paradigm, even if we don¹t yet fully understand it, may be out there.
A totalitarian concept
Hitch’s views were strikingly similar. Hitch once wrote that an atheist could ‘wish that belief in god were correct,’ but that an antitheist ‘ is someone who is relieved that there's no evidence for such an assertion.’ As Hitch argued in his book God is Not Great, any belief in the concept of a supreme being is a totalitarian concept that crushes individual freedom.
Scientific discovery and freedom of expression, in his view, should replace religion as a means of providing a moral frame work and the story of human civilization.
The problem I have with most atheists is an intellectual one. First, they do not understand the limitations of science – that science is, at best, an approximation of the true story. Atheists regard science as an ultimate truth when science is finally just a story, told in installments. New chapters refine — and often supplant — the chapters that have come before. In placing so much faith in science, they simply replace one religion for another. God simply becomes Newton.
The second problem with atheism is that the arguments in favor of nothing out there are usually specious and easily dismissed. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig made mincemeat of Hitch during a public debate. When he offered to debate Richard Dawkins, Dawkins, at the last minute, pulled out – and small wonder. Craig uses philosophical principles to hoist atheists by their own petard.
Why God exists
Craig, who went ahead and debated Peter Millican, Dawkins’ stand-in, argued, among other points, that
- the cause of the universe must be transcendent and supernatural.
It must not have been ‘caused’ by anything because it had to start somewhere and there cannot be an ‘infinite regress’ of causes.
- It must be eternal, because it created time.
- It must be non-physical, because it created space.
In other words, what was here before the Big Bang? There are only two possibilities for such a cause – an abstract object or an agent. Since abstract objects cannot cause effects, the cause must be an agent.
- God must exist because there is an objective morality; ie, we all know that it is wrong to kill.
- God must exist in order for evil to be in the world.
Craig goes on with a number of intellectual arguments that cannot really be countered by philosophical argument, but perhaps most persuasive to me is recent evidence that Nature has designed us with a God Spot – an in-built ‘bias in the mind’ toward viewing the world in religious or spiritual terms and a belief in the afterlife.
Hard-wired for belief
This was confirmed by a three-year study carried out by University of Oxford’s Center for Anthropology and Mind. According to Roger Trigg, a philosophy professor from the Ian Ramsey Centre in the Theology Faculty at Oxford and co-director of the project, ‘The mind is open to supernatural agency. It is certainly linked to basic cognitive architecture – in other words, the way we think.’
The project found that children naturally believe in supernatural agents and both adults and children naturally imbue the natural world with purpose and design.
Nevertheless, noted Trigg, humans are not necessarily monotheistic. This supernatural ‘instinct’ could manifest in polytheism or other belief systems.
This project, called the Cognition, Religion and Theology Project, led by Justin Barrett of the Centre for Anthropology and Mind at Oxford and Trigg, comprises 57 researchers who conducting more than 40 studies in 20 countries consisting of both atheist and religious societies. Basically, concludes Trigg, their evidence shows that ‘you cannot separate religion and public life.’
What this study suggests is that although our sense of God is not hardwired into any specific place in the brain, a fundamental aspect of the human experience is a sense of awe and a desire for the transcendent, one that can never be reduced to F=Ma. That experience may be intensely individual, but the sense we all have of something larger than ourselves is an essential part of being human.
To believe anything less is to be guilty of, well, fundamentalism.
Have a blissful holiday, filled with transcendent awe, and a happy, healthy, abundant New Year.
eNewsletter Signup
9/11 Peace Experiment
 |
Comments
Posted On
Dec 23, 2011Posted By
Your writing is brilliant, Lynne. That God, the ultimate agent, for you!
Posted On
Dec 23, 2011Posted By
Ooops! I meant to say THANK God... Love you, Lynne!
Posted On
Dec 23, 2011Posted By
I found the same thing about Hitch. His beef always seemed to be about religion but he equated religion with God and in my opinion they are two separate identities. I agree with him on some of his religious ideas. Not on his "NO God" ideas.
Posted On
Dec 23, 2011Posted By
My religion is love. My God is Love. Not the mushy gushy boy girl stuff, but the whole, genderless spectrum! thesacredfemale.wordpress.com/.../... .
In Hindu mythology, the Universe was created on Shiva and Shakti's first orgasm. I wonder if Cosmologists see the irony in calling it the "Big Bang theory"
Most religions today are misogynsitc, so I pay little attention to that aspect of them. History says differently, once you go back 3000 years or more. Misogyny is not to put women down, it is to keep men down!
However, science is just beginning, and all they put out is theory, that changes as they learn more. Stay tuned. Some day they will catch up with love.
Posted On
Dec 23, 2011Posted By
Hello Lynne. Thank you for your posting. I am a Course in Miracles student, and I feel this passage from the Course, which I have posted a link to at the bottom, is relevant to your topic. It's funny....I have come to realize that what I deny, I truly value, for the Course states that we live in a world with upside down perception. What I "don't like" points to what I VALUE. What I deny, points to what I LOVE. And stress is the indication we are believing something untrue about God, ourselves, Life....I also see that it is quite ridiculous to defend my "right to be wrong" about myself which is really a cry for Truth. "Help me" I have forgotten who I am. The call for God. As the Course states, there is only Love and the Call for Love, God or the call for God.
Blessings and peace to you.
A Course in Miracles "The Acceptance of Reality" Chapter 8 - section 10
Posted On
Dec 23, 2011Posted By
Well said well researched. It's hard to imagine that some people can't see the miracle of birth and life and of course its mystery.
Namaste
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=hawkart57[/youtube]
Posted On
Dec 23, 2011Posted By
I have been saying for years that science and religion will one day prove each other right! In the meantime, everyone has the right to choose their own path but I believe that eventually we will become enlightened enough as a species that we will value the differences instead of discriminating against them. We have a long way to go, but the journey will be a blessing and a joy when it's done...not so much along the way!
Posted On
Dec 23, 2011Posted By
The authors of the twelve steps of Alcoholics Anonymous understood this and the twelve steps are built upon the foundation of spiritual principles. There is a power greater than myself that can restore me to sanity. I do not even have to define it or understand it, I only need to acknowledge and accept that it exists and become willing to turn my will and my life over to the care of that power.
The twelve step philosophy has been adopted and adapted to many human issues that keep us separated from our selves and the source of our being. Millions of people, through the application of the twelve step philosophy and method of self-examination, have experienced incredible transformation of their lives. I count myself luck to be one among them.
Thank you for sharing your gifts and your unique perspective with the world. It is - and we are - better for it.
Posted On
Dec 23, 2011Posted By
I still believe that Lynne peddles utter nonsense, her so called scientific evidence is not robust enough. I would happily belive in a god/ spiritual power if I could actually interact with it and see it was really there. Seems Lynne makes a lot of money selling books to gullible people.
Posted On
Dec 23, 2011Posted By
I think that god and/or spirit is like gravity or the wind--invisible. And if you didn't have a name for it and didn't understand its effects, how would you be able to perceive it? It would simply appear to be the way things appear.
Would you even ask why an apple falls? Or why a tree sways.
How do you know that you are not interacting with god? You just think that you aren't.
Posted On
Dec 27, 2011Posted By
@greatguy - I understand some of these spiritual ideas are scary to try and grasp... in the sense that, they are not easily measurable or knowable, and to accept them as real is to suddenly be standing on shaky footing - how can you judge what is real or not?
This was a concern brought up for training people in certain clandestine psychic programs... if the people weren't stable enough at the outset, to shake their foundations of reality would be dangerous - either way, to wholeheartedly believe that which they could not measure or judge for themselves, or to reject it without weighing the evidence.
So you're here. You're looking for something which will make you believe, but you are unconvinced. If this is your real path, and you are an honest seeker, than I will do my best to offer some things which made some things more clear for me.
Posted On
Dec 27, 2011Posted By
@greatguy - so here are some things which made things more clear for me on my spiritual path:
Carl Gustav Jung, and his idea of synchronicity, especially as further in the celestine prophecy series by james redfield made me truly wonder, to begin to LOOK for the spiritual happening in everyday life... and in so doing, I believe I was more able to see it when it was there.
The book 'the tao of physics' is a good book showing similarities between the intuitive knowings of ancient mystics, and the knowledge of reality we are just beginning to achieve through science, like particle physics and quantum mechanics. the movie 'the quantum activist' goes into this- 'orbs: the veil is lifting' goes even further on this.
the book 'learning how to learn' by Idries Shah shows some pitfalls of religion, and how to recognize its worth
Posted On
Dec 27, 2011Posted By
@greatguy - if you need to understand spirituality with your mind, and are willing to go through some effort in order to do so... the book 'godel, escher, bach' by Douglas Hofstadter may give you some tools to... begin to see... the message in the spiritual in the more analytical, logical, scientific sense.
I found Lynne's book the field more of an awakening then this one, which I only managed to read a little of in my high school days... it was quite a bit to try to absorb... but it opened my mind on so many levels... I was able to then receive these advanced teaching of spiritual truth in a way that they did not entirely conflict with my rational, intellectual understanding of the universe. but i was also into sci-fi, like the series 'sliders', seen books on how ancient beings may have tried to teach early people's on this planet advanced knowledge in ways they would understand... so that sometimes truth was hidden in such things beneath the surface.
Posted On
Dec 23, 2011Posted By
My Theory of How Come is rooted in my sense that each of us is a unique expression of Life-Energy, of forever-flowing "God-Energy." Uniqueness is defined by a pre-physical Field of Consciousness -- a "Filter System" at about 8th Dimension. (The WORD becomes Flesh.) Rather than having an "intervening God," we've been created with a Conscious Mind which CAN intervene -- if it knows to.
Kahneman's latest book speaks of System 1 and System 2 thinking. I see that System 1 is our instinctive think-feel, guided by the info in the Filter System. System 2 comes about when (if) the Conscious Mind interrupts the instinctive to COPE with life in a different manner.
Most therapy (and religion) is about COPING, or using Willpower to interrupt instinctive think-feel, and DO/FEEL BETTER.
TRANSFORMATION of information in our own Filter System is an added option. Transformation changes our instinctive reactions, and is at the heart of evolution.
Posted On
Dec 23, 2011Posted By
In the spanish language the word religion comes from the latin "Re-elegir" which means to choose again.
I am also a Course in Miracles student and Teacher, and I believe that is the bottom line. Here on earth we are having an experience in duality, we have been making many mistakes but if we choose to we can rectify and choose a more peaceful way of living. It is necessary to commit yourself to this pathway, then you will feel the presence of Divinity, once we work through all the veils. It´s hard work, very tiring at times but there again is there an alternative to get back to Peace?
If Peace. wellbeing and blissfull Love is already within me then why am I not experiencing it now. Perhaps I´m blocking it out in defence. This is where the dance begins............
Posted On
Dec 23, 2011Posted By
I absolutely agree that religion plays an important role in life and has been around for many centuries. It has offered sustenance to believers during hugely turbulent times. In addition it has been given to us as an inheritance and as ancient peoples stated that we must honor our ancestors for 7 generations if we fail to pass it on our legacy for the next 7 generations will be a poor one.
My understanding is that attending a service with other believers is in essence a transmission of Divine energy provided you go with a pure heart and a desire for connection to the Divine.
Somebody mentioned AA and 12 step and it is exactly the same reason it works. Group energy and surrendering your problem to a Higher Power of your own choosing.
In his book Power vs Force David Hawkins shows that group energy raises consciousness levels hugely and provides a transmission of Grace.
Posted On
Dec 23, 2011Posted By
I believe our origin comes from the extraterrestrie ls. In the Bible they are called Elohim which means literally translated "those who com from the sky". For more details please go on www.rael.org
Posted On
Dec 23, 2011Posted By
Dear Lynn,
great piece of writing to which I add Einstein's observation on religion: “Science without Religion is lame. Religion without Science is blind."
Then I'd add Ted Kaptchuk's observation on healing and health: ""Anything that gets people away from the conveyor belts that move from the pharmaceutical houses to doctors and on to patients is worth considering. Anything. We need to stop pretending it's all about molecular biology. Serious illnesses are affected by aesthetics, by art, and by the moral questions that are negotiated between practitioners and patients. Chiropractors never say that your pain is in your head. But orthopedists do it all the time. What a fucking way to try to help somebody heal. Do you know how evil that is?"
I too wish you much joy, peace, health and happiness for this magical holiday season and great success for 2012
Hans
Hans E. Parge PhD
Your Merchant of Health and Beauty
Posted On
Dec 24, 2011Posted By
there is no god, no heaven, no hell, no demons, no angles...when you die you die..i thought you had a religious sense to you Lynn...i do NOT support NOTHING that is relgious or spiritual
Posted On
Dec 28, 2011Posted By
Whoa, cowboy. You're use of a double negative means you've said you DO support religion and spirit. If you want to make a strong statement, try to do it intelligently.
Posted On
Dec 24, 2011Posted By
On a now "old" documentary called "what the hell do we know, 2004 I think" top of the edge quantum specialist were literary saying that the old sage were right. They were saying that in the depth of their quantum physics,they were starting to meet god.... Unbeliever scientist were being reconciled with the idea of God... Of course the pointed white bearded old man... I encourage everyone to watch that movie again, and it's sequel, deep down the rabbit hole which added some interesting stuff...
I wrote some time ago on my blog a small piece about what I believe to be conscience,,, it is in French and poorly written I may add but you may get an idea why God exist and doesn't at the same... Aren't we all gods??
Peace to all and a merry Christmas...
Posted On
Dec 24, 2011Posted By
I agree whole-heartedly with Lynne McTaggart's article (and she writes well).
I was particularly interested in her summary of William Lane Craig's defense of . . . "Why God exists."
1. "the cause of the universe must be transcendent and supernatural."
My response: It's not clear to me that this is so. In fact, I would not say that the cause is transcendent (in the sense of being supernatural). When we factor in consciousness as an intrinsic element of reality (i.e., nonphysical consciousness is natural), then the universe and all its spiritual leanings, longings, and awareness are wholly natural.
[more to come . . .]
Posted On
Dec 24, 2011Posted By
2. "It must not have been ‘caused’ by anything because it had to start somewhere and there cannot be an ‘infinite regress’ of causes."
My response: I'm having a little difficulty understanding Craig's logic here: First, he says the universe "must not have been caused by anything" [with which I agree, except to add the qualification: "by anything transcendent/supernatural. It could only be self-caused."]
But then Craig says: "It had to start somewhere . . ." How does this follow? In fact, it contradicts his first statement.
Instead, I would say that the "universe" (meaning "all that is") never started anywhere. It always existed (call it "Cosmos" or "Creative Ultimate," even "God," or whatever.) I'd say that our 13.7 billion-year-old universe began as one event within an eternal Cosmos of an infinite number of such events, occurring over unimaginable stretches of time.
Posted On
Dec 24, 2011Posted By
The key here is that change, or time, was begun by a first cause. A static universe would not require a cause; it always existed. Nothing created it. It simply was always in existence. But an energetic universe requires a cause, an energetic first cause. The very nature of the universe is energy. The causative agent, energy, is eternally active, by the Newtonian law of conservation of energy. Can we define God as prime mover, first cause, eternal causative agent? That much is firm ground. I'm reminded that some visionary thinkers, scientists among them, believe the universal energy to be consciousness. So hen the first cause, energy, or God, is consciousness. Hence first cause is energy is consciousness is God. From here can we find our way to our personal God? I believe so, within logic and within intuition. Now we can justify our inclusion of love, passion, reverence animating our world.
Posted On
Dec 24, 2011Posted By
2. "It must not have been ‘caused’ by anything because it had to start somewhere and there cannot be an ‘infinite regress’ of causes."
My response: I'm having a little difficulty understanding Craig's logic here: First, he says the universe "must not have been caused by anything" [with which I agree, except to add the qualification: "by anything transcendent/supernatural. It could only be self-caused."]
But then Craig says: "It had to start somewhere . . ." How does this follow? In fact, it contradicts his first statement.
Instead, I would say that the "universe" (meaning "all that is") never started anywhere. It always existed (call it "Cosmos" or "Creative Ultimate," even "God," or whatever.) I'd say that our 13.7 billion-year-old universe began as one event within an eternal Cosmos of an infinite number of such events, occurring over unimaginable stretches of time.
[more to come . . .]
Posted On
Dec 24, 2011Posted By
So, while I agree with Craig that the Creative Ultimate (Cosmos) is eternal (never had a beginning), I don't follow along with his reasoning that it "created time." Time, necessarily, always existed.
4."It must be non-physical, because it created space."
My response: Here, again, his logic seems to be inverted. I would say that "If the Creative Ultimate created space, therefore it could not be non-physical. Only something physical (e.g., energy) can produce something physical (e.g. more energy or matter). Similarly, only something non-physical (e.g., consciousness) can produce something non-physical (e.g., minds).
Space, being physical, can come only from physical precursors. So, if we know that the Creative Ultimate created physical space (as Craig says), then the Creative Ultimate must be physical -— not just non-physical, as Craig concludes.
[more to come . . .]
Posted On
Dec 24, 2011Posted By
And, furthermore, if the Creative Ultimate created nonphysical consciousness, then the Creative Ultimate must also be non-physical.
In other words, since the actual world we live in consists of both physical (matter/energy) and non-physical (minds/consciousness), then the Creative Ultimate must also be both physical and non-physical.
I make these observations because Lynne McTaggart says that William Lane Craig's logic "made mincemeat" of Christopher Hitchens. That surprises me because Craig's logic is actually very weak, or worse, full of holes. And I'd be surprised that a man of Hitchens' intellectual caliber would not have picked on, and unmercifully attacked, those weak spots. But perhaps not.
[more to come]
Posted On
Dec 24, 2011Posted By
After all, Hitchens' bullying anti-athesism revealed a mightily self-limiting intellectualism (as does any mind that obsessively clings to the metaphysics of scientific materialism). Given his intellectual biases, Hitchens could never have accounted for the fact of his own consciousness, his own ability to feel, be aware, and make choices. Yet he made good and demonstrative use of these capacities. He (like all scientific materialists) was a walking performative contradiction. His very way of living and acting contradicted what he claimed (e.g., that anything non-physical didn't —- couldn't -— exist). His own mind was never to be found anywhere in the world of the physical objects he held so dear. Yet he used it all the time.
[more to come]
Posted On
Dec 24, 2011Posted By
A much more robust argument in favor of "God" (if we define this as the source or ground of all that exists -— both physical and non-physical), is:
(i) Fact: we live in an actual world where both matter and mind (energy and consciousness; the physical and the non-physical) are real.
(ii) therefore, whatever the unmanifest source of the actual world is, it must be brimful of possibilities for the existence of manifest matter and mind.
(iii) therefore, the Creative Ultimate must be both potentially and actually physical and non-physical.
In other words, the "spiritual" domain (non-physical existence) and the physical domain (material existence) always exist together in some form. We can justly call this "God."
God-as-Spirit is always God-embodied. "Spirit" expresses itself as consciousness and embodiment expresses itself as the physical cosmos.
Posted On
Dec 24, 2011Posted By
In a timeless universe, the universe has always existed. It will always exist. It had no cause. It needed no cause. But a universe characterized by continuous change requires a prime mover. Something had to start change. Therefore we require a cause. Was the something God? Yes, if we define God as the prime mover. Was he then eternal? Yes, because he preceded change, which is time. Does he intervene? Why not? Did he wind up a clockwork universe? What is the evidence for a universe in which he can intervene? Randomness? Alternative universes? Logic can only take us so far. We always wind up at a fork in the road. Take your pick, which can mean choose your religion. Choose your faith. But the prime mover, the first cause, God, exists.
Posted On
Dec 24, 2011Posted By
I have worked in the nursing field for 40 years. Within that time, I worked in the ICU for 25 years. I was at the bed of the dying many many times. It is uncanny the experiences patients have. They report angels, loved ones, sentient beings. They talk to them and often tell me, they can see them now: in the corner of the room, sitting at their bedside. They are lucid. Ask a nurse, they will tell you life does not end, we just change addresses.
Oh, yes, in a code...secretly we whisper to the patient whom we know is still with us until they decide to move on or stay. we not only have respect for life but respect for death.
Posted On
Dec 24, 2011Posted By
Do we really know anything? I'm not sure I do...it has been a continuous journey of reflection and wonderment? Shortly after my grandaughter's birth a year ago...I held her in my arms, and looked into her eyes...I knew without a doubt, a force much larger than myself was at work...I felt an energy of what I would call LOVE or perhaps a universal connection not just because she was my grandaughter but something much more. Scientifically I cannot prove anything...and yes it was a subjective experience of mine...but it was as real as it can get!
Posted On
Dec 24, 2011Posted By
You got it! Some of this stuff is not meant for our left brain, so we can't "know" it. But your right brain is working just fine!
Posted On
Dec 28, 2011Posted By
Dear Lynne,
You write well and always full of meaning. However in my opinion. God as a being or spirit does not exist. If He or it did exist, would he or it have created a perfect world and allow us humans to defile and destroy it? Would he allow so called natural disasters to kill thousands of people? Would he the so called essence of love allow so many valuable and good people to die from disease, starvation and the atrocities of war? Would he or it allow whole Planetary systems to be destroyed as in super novas? No of course not!
Posted On
Dec 28, 2011Posted By
@ken jackson - Hey Ken, I get where you are coming from, and I bet a lot of people feel that way. In philosophy and religious studies, this is debated as 'the reason for the existence of evil'. In some Asian philosophies, they talk about yin and yang, sort of representing masculine and feminine qualities, or duality in different ideas... and that we can try to see beyond the duality, into how each of these opposites define each other... our joy is sometimes judged in strength in comparison to the sorrow we've had... they define each other, almost cannot exist without each other. Is a perfect world, one where we never experience any problems, suffering, or stress? In space, without the resistance of gravity, a person's muscles atrophy, their bone density decreases, and their immune system weakens. A certain amount of adversity is what pushes us to grow! So if death is not the horror we sometimes think, but moving to spirit - and life is a game of spiritual growth...
Posted On
Dec 28, 2011Posted By
I agree maikeru333...We cannot know one without the other. If God created a perfect world then what would be the reason to create man? If everything is perfect, then what can be learned if not from the opposite? I read many years ago...don't remember where or who...but it resonated with me all these years. In order for us to understand "a thing" we must first know it intellectually but we must also have an experience of it to fully understand it. If God is within, then God is trying to fully understand all his knowing through our experience of it. And I believe that is where religion falls short. It stifles the full experience and encourages the "follow what I say because I know better than you" attitude. Just as you have said, if you don't know sorrow how can you fully feel joy; the deeper your sorrowful experiences are the deeper your joyful experiences will be too.
Posted On
Dec 28, 2011Posted By
So, Ken Jackson, I believe that OF COURSE God would allow these things so that we may know their opposite and CHOOSE to move into the joy knowing what the sorrow really is by experience. I hope that helps.
Posted On
Dec 30, 2011Posted By
I don't understand the logic of "God must exist in order for evil to be in the world." Could someone explain or refer me to sources that will explain? Thank you!
Posted On
Dec 31, 2011Posted By
@sheila hi sheila, I don't think anyone said "God must exist in order for evil to be in the world."
Are you taking this from somewhere else?
I think the argument was kind of the opposite, that evil being in the world, does NOT mean there is no God...
Good and evil are judgments, based in duality, an individual's set of values and goals, which put some things as positives, and others as negatives... there is some commonality between people on some of these, so we end up with shared value systems...
the idea of a perfect world, or that in a world with a 'good' God, nothing 'bad' would happen, is one example of such 'dualistic' thinking... or essentially thinking where we simplify problems to more or less generalized yes or no answers, for all situations... where the truth is often more complex, involved specific individual, and situational context. In Reiki/shamanism teachings I received, it was suggested to think instead of cause and effect
Posted On
Dec 31, 2011Posted By
@sheila
So, to go a little further... in a material sense of the world, death is something we always avoid, striving to live as long as possible, concerned primarily with our physical needs, etc. If we change the paradigm to believe in life after death, or in reincarnation, the idea of continuing indefinitely in one particular life, potentially as quality of life is declining, doesn't seem to make as much sense. If we say that having our physical needs met and simply living as long as possible is not necessarily a person's highest goal - that they have a destiny, a spiritual path, an imprint to leave on the world, and a lesson to take from the world to leave with their soul... then suddenly, perhaps, the futility of struggling to live indefinitely in a world where death is inevitable more or less... may seem less necessary... one may live for this spiritual purpose, perhaps, and maybe even know when it is time for them to move on... to other things
Posted On
Dec 30, 2011Posted By
One of the principles of the Baha'i Faith is the fundamental harmony of science and religion. The thoughtful recognition of this, among other principles, is noted in Baha'i teachings as essential to the building of a peaceful, global society.
Here is a link if you would like to learn a bit more about this perspective:
info.bahai.org/.../
Posted On
Jan 01, 2012Posted By
@maikeru333: Thank you so much for your generous and thoughtful response. I do believe, though sometimes forget, that I/we have a spiritual purpose which transcends physical reality. Thank you for reminding me!
Re: "God must exist in order for evil to be in the world." This was one of the things that Lynne noted that William Lane Craig argued in his debate with Peter Millican.
I still would like to understand the logic of this. Can you elucidate it in any way?
Oh, I just found a video of the full 2+ hour debate: www.youtube.com/.../
Maybe listening to this will help me. Would still appreciate any input you may be able to offer.
Warmly,
Sheila
Posted On
Jan 02, 2012Posted By
This is a very different take on what is being said. I believe our life on earth is preplanned prior to our arrival. An atheist like Christopher Hitchens has choosen to come to earth to work on some type of issues that would relate to his belief system. (Seems significant his given name is Christopher!) So for whatever those issues were, I do have compassion for him & those like him & hopefully the earth school taught Christopher well. On a side note, a little comedy is always refreshing. It would've been interesting to be in the spirit world when Christopher did arrive to see his reaction - "Whoops, thank God I was wrong!"
In love & light to all!
Posted On
Jan 02, 2012Posted By
So how come ono one has ever come back from the dead to tell us there is a heaven and god? May be Hitch will do? Religion and god is man made and had no scientific basis.
Posted On
Jan 02, 2012Posted By
One guy did!
Posted On
Jan 02, 2012Posted By
@greatguy
Have you heard of near death, and out of body experiences, greatguy?
There is actually a lot of information about people having been to the other side, and coming back with reports about what they experienced.
Is this what in particular interests you?
It is certainly something you could research.
Posted On
Jan 02, 2012Posted By
I have looked into near death experiences, it is more to do with chemical reactions in the brain, than god.
Look up the work of the brilliant Ramachandran.
There is not god, no one has come back from death, if they had I am sure we all would know about it.
Concentrate on this moment, and make what you have great and happy.
Posted On
Jan 02, 2012Posted By
Absolutely: altered brain chemistry! But, we have the arrogance to believe "un-altered" brain chemistry is "normal." It is certainly common, but is it what we are meant to be? Is what we call "human" actually sub-human because all our genes are not popping properly, altering our brain chemistry? Just a question.
Posted On
Jan 02, 2012Posted By
In response to Art Noble
You are misinformed or deluded, no one has ever come back from the dead, religion pretends people have.
This new age nonsense is harmful to human progress, it is science that has done more for human kind than 100,000 years of religion
Posted On
Jan 02, 2012Posted By
1. Over a billion people believe this. That sort of puts you in a minority.
2. Who's to say it wasn't a coma or 3-day, near death. They didn't have bell ringers then.
3. The story is about 2000 years old and that takes it out of New Age.
4. However, religion does a great deal of harm with their various "Doctorines of Discovery." "Malleus Maleficarium's," "Sharia Law" and general misogyny and misanthrophy. Science is just beginning to overcome this.
Posted On
Jan 02, 2012Posted By
Sorry to have to disagree but, having had a near death experience myself, I firmly believe that there is something beyond what we know here and now. I too question religion and actually believe strongly that it is the very root of what our problems all stem from today. However, it serves a purpose for those in need and we will eventually evolve with the help of science to an enlightened state. We have a ways to go but things are speeding up and my experience tells me that there is a source that guides us though all our perils. I don't need someone else to tell me how to believe, I believe we should all make these decisions for ourselves, with the HELP of others IF WE CHOOSE. Science and "religion" will be one some day. One serves a mental purpose for mental growth and the other serves an emotional purpose for emotional growth. Both need to exist for all to flourish.
Posted On
Jan 02, 2012Posted By
@greatguy
I see that you have more faith in science than the inuitive and spiritual paradigms, Greatguy.
Someone quoted somewhere on this article albert einstein saying without religion, science is lame. Without science, religion is blind.
There is a documentary movie that might appeal to you called 'the quantum activist', where a quantum physicist does his best to describe the nature of consciousness from a scientist's perspective, relating to quantum physics.
I feel like this may clear some things up for you, for instance certain spiritual terms or analogies analyzed in a scientific light of what may be going on.
Shakespeare said would a rose, by any other name, still smell as sweet... ie even if we call things by different names, or see things from a scientific or from a more religious perspective, if we are talking about the same phenomenon, but different people tried to explain it in terms of what they know/believed...
Posted On
Jan 02, 2012Posted By
... continued from above...
...would they argue that each other were wrong, when they point to a thing, even though they are seeing the same thing, but describing it differently?
There is a zen story about the three blind men, and the elephant, that illustrates this point a little bit.
One blind man was touching the elephants leg, and said it was a tree.
The second blind man was touching its trunk, and said it was a snake.
The third blind man was touching its ear, and said it was a fan (or a leaf, or...?).
So they all were speaking truthfully about their experience of the same thing, but because they could only perceive their own part of the whole, they had an incomplete view of what they were encountering. I do not think in the story, that they discuss their perceptions, and like sherlock holmes, eliminate the impossible, and find out, through synergy and sythesis, what this bigger thing is... this elephant.
Posted On
Jan 02, 2012Posted By
... The book 'flatland' (free online somewhere) goes into this same idea about people in 2 dimensions encountering a three dimensional world, and not understanding how the laws of their world were being 'broken' ... or a snake transforming into a tree sometimes, and sometimes a fan or leaf... but which perhaps is truly an 'elephant' 'all the time' ...
a site called the eleventh dimension goes into the science multiple dimensions... there is a cool flash video.
there is a documentary called 'thrive', but it might not be something you are ready for greatguy.
Sometimes people have 'confirmation bias' - seeing what they want to see, rejecting evidence which doesn't agree with their beliefs.
Instead, one might try starting from their own experience of what makes sense.
If one is willing to look for, and can find, elements of truth in something, they may finally see the elephant there.
RSS feed for comments to this post.