Realspiritik

Yeah, and then people try to turn you into a Saviour and build an entire religion around your unwilling a**!

Hi David, thanks for your sharing your thoughts and experiences. As always, you're very generous in sharing the ups and downs of your journey. What I've learned more than anything on my journey is that God wants us to help each other, to have compassion for each other, and also to have compassion for ourselves. There's no one person or one school of philosophy that has -- or ever could have -- all the answers. Not even Jesus has all the answers. But he's been an amazing teacher and friend for me, and I'll never be able to express my gratitude. Over the years, he and some of my other soul-friends who aren't currently incarnated have shared vast reams of information with me about the way the brain and soul are interconnected. But until it's time for the wider community to stumble on these truths for themselves, and see the merit in both the science and philosophy of complex emotions such as forgiveness and self-compassion, it's not possible for the "tide" to grow large enough and wide enough to spread the message equally and inclusively. As you know, I believe the dangers inherent in "revelation" and in forcing God's messages through "narrow portals" have created endless suffering for many human beings. For myself, I can only be glad and grateful that a whole host of God's loving children are now finding and teaching these messages in their own unique ways. We all need each other's help on the path of healing and redemption. God bless.

Hi Fatherman. I think one thing which can be said for certain is that everyone understands this and everyone has had to wrestle with it, so in talking about it, you'll find many sympathetic ears. I have a somewhat different take on the struggle with guilt. It's what worked for me, though I know everyone's path is unique. In the hope that my own experience may help you somewhat, I'll share a few thoughts with you about how Jesus taught me about forgiveness. (Somewhere, buried deep in the pit of TCPC threads long dead and buried, is a series of posts Jesus wrote about Forgiveness. If memory serves, the thread was called something like "The Practice of Forgiving." So it's probably still there if you're interested in digging it up.) One aspect that was very different for me than for many others was the timing. In the beginning of my journey with Jesus, he insisted on two things right from the beginning: (1) I had to learn how to be grateful and (2) I had to learn how to forgive. Another important early lesson was the question of judgment -- what judgment is as far as God is concerned, what judgment is not -- and the other two lessons (about gratefulness and forgiveness) always seemed to bring up the issue of judgment. In the beginning, I struggled and struggled with the question of forgiveness. I could understand intellectually that God is so amazing that God can forgive almost anything. In terms of the "almost," I was mostly thinking of my own errors. I was deeply ashamed of some of my past choices -- so ashamed, I convinced myself that although God could forgive everyone else, God probably couldn't forgive me. This particular bugaboo is what the Christian church (and some other religious traditions, too) has historically drilled into people under the guise of "humility" (not to be confused with "humbleness"). Jesus wasn't having any of it, though. He kept telling me it wasn't okay for me to believe I was unworthy of God's forgiveness. He pointed out numerous times that I wasn't "special" in my unworthiness. Of course, "special" is the code word for narcissism, and I really didn't want God to think I was a narcissist (I mean, how embarrassing would that be?) so I had to use all my courage and all my free will to stop trying to think of myself as the only person on the planet who wasn't worthy of God's forgiveness. It wasn't easy at first, and I now know that my brain was struggling to dismantle some old networks that were interfering with my emotional patterns, but eventually I managed to accept -- first at an intellectual level, then at an emotional level -- that I was at least on an even footing with every other human being on the planet. Another tactic Jesus used (because he understood how my brain was wired, whereas I did not) was the "constant reminder" tactic. He had me type a post to the fridge this note: "When you are forgiven, you are forgiven." In other words, no ifs, ands, or buts. Take your forgiveness and shut the heck up! So every time I went to the fridge, my brain saw the note and was reminded several times each day that learning to understand forgiveness was my most important task. It wasn't my soul that was struggling to master forgiveness (since all persons-of-soul understand forgiveness); it was my biological brain. I had to wrestle and wrestle with the complex circuits of my brain and try to get the "wind section" and "brass section" and "string section" and "percussion section" all playing the same piece of music together at the same time under the direction of my soul's true self. But to do this -- to get the inner orchestra back on track to its true potential -- I first needed to master forgiveness. It's forgiveness that helps you move forward when the wind section totally screws up its cue, or, well, you're a musician, so you know how many things can go wrong when a large group is trying to coordinate everything to make beautiful music. (Such is the reality of the human brain.) So when you make a mistake, this would be my suggestion to you: Don't even try to pretend you didn't make a mistake. You're human, so you make mistakes. God knows this and God has already forgiven you before you've even realized you've made a mistake or missed the mark. But as a child of God, God expects you to suck it up, not allow yourself to fall into a state of self-pity (the state of self-pity I was once a world expert on!), and use all that amazing orchestral brain power to be grateful for the mistake. So this is the hard part: how can you -- or anyone -- be grateful for a mistake? Well, you've probably already figured it out. You can be grateful for the chance to learn at a deeper level more about who you really are (a wonderful and blessed child of God whose brain has some piano keys that need tuning, but that's fixable with patience and courage!), what your true strengths are, what your true strengths are NOT, and what you can carry forward with you about the kinds of choices you want to make. I know it's the journey of a lifetime, and there are no quick or easy fixes, but God knows who you really are and God BELIEVES in you, even when you don't believe in yourself. Well, gotta run. Hope this helps a bit. Take care and God bless. Jen

Soma, sorry to hear about your dad. My mom will soon be transitioning, it seems, and it's been a challenging time for our family.

I like your answers, Jack of Spades. I hope you'll post more in the 8 Points sections, as there's been very little activity here and (theoretically speaking) it's the 8 Points that are supposed to draw us together as a community of open-hearted, open-minded Christians!

I remember BrotherRog! The books co-authored by Dom Crossan and Jonathan Reed (an archaeologist) are also great.

Hi Soma, Thanks for sharing your powerful and deep insights. I enjoyed reading your posts here. I haven't been on TCPC for a few weeks, but do recall you and your wife were going to be travelling in the East. I hope you found many new insights on your journey. God bless, Jen

Hi Jack of Spades. Yes, your experience matches my own. There is a self-righteousness in avowedly atheist writers that's matched only by the self-righteousness of some fundamentalist and evangelical Christians. I want to emphasize that I personally have no problem with anyone who isn't sure about God and is still asking questions and looking for new ways to approach faith. If someone is genuinely agnostic (unsure what he or she believes) -- maybe because of some really negative religious experiences in the past, which could put anyone off for a time -- I think it's really healthy to be asking new questions. With regard to "open mind, open heart," I think it's likely you and I are saying the same thing in different ways. I decided years ago to learn more about neuroscience so I could better understand the science that lies behind concepts such as "heart," "spirit," "intuition," and so on. For a while I even thought it would be possible to have logical, science-based discussions with those who've made up their minds to reject anything to do with God, faith, or the soul. I now realize I was naive in my original belief. But I've had an absolutely wonderful time learning more about God and God's many scientific languages along the way. So I don't regret my neuroscientific research and continue to explore it with great enthusiasm.

Hello, Jack of Spades. I understand and relate well to the experience you're describing. I've been a member here on TCPC since late 2004. In the early years, it was possible to find for those who hold a combination of liberal views, open-minded theism, and spiritual/mystical experiences to find a sense of community here. It's been increasingly difficult here to find a kind of safety or sense of inclusiveness for those of us who believe in God and seek to be in relationship with others who want to better understand how to live a life in full relationship with God. In my own experience, having several times objected to the way in which God is treated on a site ostensibly dedicated to the teachings of Jesus (who believed in God and loved God with all his heart, all his mind, all his soul, and all his strength), and having been repeatedly rebuked -- even demeaned by certain posters who don't believe at all in God -- I do understand the pain of trying to fit into a mould that tries to force one to deny the very substance of one's faith and the very joy of living with an open heart AND an open mind in a world filled with mystery, wonder, awe, and divine love. I encourage you to remain open to the loving presence of the Divine in your life. You're not alone in feeling the way you do, though I know it can be very difficult in our culture to be a person who lives by both heart and mind without rejecting the wisdom of either. (In neuroscientific terms, this means balancing and respecting both System 1 and System 2 thinking patterns within the human brain.) God bless you on your journey. Edited for clarity.

Like you, I believe we're spiritual beings having a human experience, and like you, I think it's important for us to embrace the humanity in our lives. It's when we stop forgetting that soul, mind, heart, and body are fully intertwined in our humans lives (Mark 12) and start making dualistic claims (mind versus body, body versus soul, and so on) that it becomes harder for us to hear the insights that come to us from our "best selves" (i.e. our true soul nature).

Romansh, I apologize for stating the basics to you. I was really thrown off by some of your statements such as "Blending nothing with materialism leaves pure undiluted materialism" which didn't sound like a comment based in science. However, now you've explained your background and the theories you adhere to, so I'll leave you to your theories, and argue with you no more. I've taken some of the same raw data as you and arrived at entirely different conclusions. Though Hawking and Mlodinow are positing a new form of determinism, it's again just a theory, and one I personally don't accept. Einstein was wrong about non-locality, as I'm sure you must know. Hawking and Mlodinow may also be wrong, though, for the time being, there's no way to be certain one way or the other. I note as I sign off on this one that your devotion to pure determinism in physics sounds no different to me than the certainty, determinism, and righteousness found throughout the history of philosophy and theology. In your certainty, Romansh, you sound to me like the pot calling the kettle black.

Good to hear you haven`t hated anyone in a long time, Romansh. Yes, it`s clear you and I aren`t using the term `non-Materialist` to mean the same thing. Classical physics (that is, Materialist physics) can`t account for quantum phenomena such as non-locality (quantum entanglement), or WHY photons are both wave and particle, or how quantum states can be superposed, or why magnetic poles in an object can`t be `separated` no matter how many times you cut the object into tiny pieces, or what causes gravity, or what black matter is, or what black energy is, or why the conscious observer effect can`t be dismissed, and so on (though, of course, we`re looking!). Probabilities are probabilities, not linear cause-and-effect algorithms. Materialist science operates at the macro level, which currently can`t be reconciled with the quantum level (or levels). I say this as someone who loves chemistry and has studied aspects of chemistry such as quantum mechanics, organic chemistry, analytical chemistry, physical chemistry, and reaction rates. Chemistry is all about the ways we can harness those little electron probability waves and coax them into creating useful substances for us (even in the kitchen, where chemistry rules!). But they`re still probability waves. And we still don`t know WHY they behave the way they do. And Einstein didn`t like this weird stuff (he felt there should be strict, causal processes underlying all observations), but that`s too bad, because Einstein was wrong. Thanks for the mention of oxytocin. You may have missed the part about my interest in neuroscience. I have lots of info in my files about oxytocin and other hormones and neurotransmitters. Enjoy your plain meandering!

Upon rereading your post, Romansh, I think there might be some confusion here about the use of terms. If I`m reading you correctly, you`re saying that non-Materialist physics means `nothingness.` Non-Materialist physics means quantum physics -- all the stuff that underlies our everyday classical Newtonian physics but doesn`t behave in the same way as the everyday matter we encounter in our human lives. Quantum fields and energies don`t behave in the simple cause-and-effect ways that everyday matter behaves. Quantum energies and fields make up most of the energy of the known universe. The stuff we think of as ``regular matter`` adds up to only 4--5% of all the energy in the universe. The universe is blended from both forms of energy -- both the regular (baryonic) matter that seems to follow Materialist laws, and everything else. Human beings don`t yet understand the ``everything else`` parts very well at all. But they exist. And it`s important for us to factor them into our understanding of consciousness. Sorry if I created any confusion in my post about the differences between Materialism and non-Materialism.

Okay, Romansh. So you and I don`t agree on anything. (The only point you agreed with was the statement I made where I agreed with you about the causal mesh, so that doesn`t really count.) You say, `Give me Carl Sagan over Jesus any day.` This is your right, of course. But again I must wonder what the point is when you continually undermine those who come here, to a Progressive Christian site, to share our thoughts and insights about the 8 Points, which are founded in what we see as the most healing and most uplifting traditions from Christianity and Jesus` teachings. Your criticisms of orthodox and evangelical Christianity aren`t news to those of us who come here to talk about Progressive Christianity. We, too, see problems with the certainty and righteousness of many orthodox and evangelical streams of thought. So if you`re hoping to save us from the perils of certainty and righteousness . . . thanks, but I don`t think we need saving. We`ve figured that part out already. I`m not going to apologize for talking about God or non-Materialist physics (i.e. quantum physics) or forgiveness or free will or choice. You may not believe in any of these aspects of consciousness, but your belief is just that -- a belief -- and you have no more right than any of the rest of us here to claim that your version of reality is correct. As for your statement that ``When I hate there is nothing free about that either,`` I just don`t even know what to say about that. Hatred is a choice, Romansh. If you feel hatred towards others, then no one but you can take responsibility for that. I forgive you, Romansh.

Beautifully put, Soma. Thank you. I think a lot of people imagine that church members all believe in the good soul. I dare say this is one reason some of the unchurched refuse to try it out -- fear of having to say they believe in the soul. Wasn't I surprised, then, when I had to explain to my committee of enlightened university theology professors that Christianity has a doctrine of the soul which has been operating since Jesus first began to teach and heal! The soul is so poorly thought of in some liberal and progressive theological circles that it's almost taboo to speak of it. When I read about recent findings in quantum physics and astrophysics -- with all the things we don't know and all the things we can't understand (even when we spend billions of enormous particle accelerators) -- I have to shake my head and wonder why people are so darned scared of the idea of the soul. As far as I can tell, the soul is "built" from energy particles that have little or no measurable mass. Since most of the energy in the universe also has little or no measurable mass, I can't see what the big deal is.

Good points, Steve. And yes, theologians and philosophers have been arguing about it for centuries. No argument there. Some aspects of Benjamin Libet's theories have been challenged and reconsidered: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-not-stand-in-the-way-of-free-will/. Not that this is a bad thing for either Libet (who wrote about "the readiness potential" in the early 1980's) or the researchers who've followed him. Our understanding of the brain is still pretty basic, all things considered. It's humbling to keep in mind that neurogenesis wasn't accepted as a scientific reality until the late 1990's: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_reinvention_of_the_self/P3/. Before this, scientific consensus held that people were born with all the neurons we were ever going to have, and no new neurons could grow in adult brains. It wasn't true, of course, but the minority voice who insisted it wasn't true were ridiculed. It also turned out it was the design experiment itself that created the conditions under which no new neurons could grow in primates -- too much stress was the culprit for lack of neurogenesis. When we're talking about something as complex as free will, I think it's important to be aware that our design experiments and our hidden biases and assumptions can affect the outcome. In fact, as I type this post, I'm seeing the connections between free will and neurogenesis in a new light. Under conditions of great stress (please see the Seed Magazine article for definitions) the human brain not only doesn't grow new neurons and new dendritic connections and stronger limbic system networks, but can actually start to lose them in critical places such as the hippocampus, which is essential for learning and memory. If one's brain is under great stress, and new connections aren't being made, and old connections are being lost, then one's inner experience of free will is going to look quite different compared to the inner experience of somebody who's had the kind of life advantages that help the brain function optimally (e.g. good nutrition, ongoing education, non-abusive family environments, non-abusive social and spiritual environments, non-abusive sexual relationships, access to fun and laughter and mature relationships, lack of chronic pain, and the like). I know from my own personal experience that I have much more personal control over my own thoughts, feelings, choices, and actions than I did when I was 20 years old. When I was 20, I was crackerjack smart and had an amazing memory for facts. But I wasn't emotionally or spiritually mature, and I know for sure I wasn't using all the parts of my brain in balanced, mature ways to give me the kind of control over my moral choices I now have. I was humbled to learn that being smart and well-educated has little to do with having a full and lasting experience of free will (that is, being aware of -- and eventually being in control of -- one's inner motivations, one's choices, and the possible consequences of one's choices). Free will involves taking responsibility for what goes on inside of your heart and your head instead of taking the easy way out and blaming everything and everyone EXCEPT yourself for the mistakes you make. Free will also involves letting yourself off the hook for all the things you couldn't possibly do and couldn't possibly know because you're only human. So free will and self-honesty are closely linked. The problem is that it's hard to be honest with yourself about what you CAN reasonably do and what you CAN'T reasonably do when your brain's learning and memory centres have been damaged. So then it becomes an issue that has to moved out of the realm of pure philosophy and into the realm of practical, everyday neuroscience: how do we help our children's brains grow optimally so they can use their brains in balanced, moral ways to improve their relationships with themselves, each other, and all Creation? No matter how hard we try, no one can escape the practical, everyday realities of brain science. Not even the philosophers and theologians.

Free will makes perfect sense to me, but maybe it's because I let go a long time ago of the idea that Materialist cause-and-effect is the only set of laws operating in the universe. I know you don't agree with me, Romansh, and I know you keep pressing the point that we don't have free will, whereas I continue to maintain the opposite position. Of course we're all part of the universe and subject to its causal mesh. But having free will isn't equal to (or the same thing as) having the power to alter reality by making new choices. If you're talking about the ancient idea that human beings can be mini-Gods by understanding and using "the laws of the universe," that's not free will. That's just old-fashioned narcissism operating under the guise of Ancient Near East Wisdom, with its modern versions including Prosperity Gospel, the Power of Positive Thinking, The Secret, and related works. Free will means that you have the right to choose how you respond emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, and physically to all the outside forces and events you have no control over. Free will means you get to choose whether to hate or to love, to hold grudges or to forgive, to hang onto addictions or to work towards healing those addictions, and so on. Addiction disorders often create the impression that we have no free will. But a recent book by neuroscientist Marc Lewis (The Biology of Desire: Why Addiction Is Not a Disease) provides evidence that addiction is a choice. Not a simple choice, but a cumulative choice. (Lewis was himself a drug addict in early adulthood.) Free will is about emotional and spiritual maturity, not figuring out how to make the universe bend to your will. Embracing a view of the universe that blends both Materialist and non-Materialist physics shows you pretty darned fast that NO human being is in charge of the universal energies and fields. That`s God`s job.

Yes. Western Christian orthodoxy has treated its mystics poorly, and has instead chosen charismatic prophets to guide the Church's path. We do, indeed, need to stop and listen to the soul, though at present the idea of the "good soul" is not in favour in our society or in our churches.

Thanks, Soma. Very nicely expressed. I'll add my thanks to yours, and say to Fatherman that God is always watching for the small, fertile cracks that seem at first like imperfection, yet can offer the best soil for seeds of fellowship to grow in. God bless.

I always assumed your handle had something to do with being a father. But, since being a mother is the most amazing experience I've ever had in my life as a human being, maybe I was being a bit biased (in a good way!) about your handle. Love what you said about male archetypes. You-know-who started laughing when I read what you wrote about tea and the Super Bowl. I don't think he'd fit very well into current male archetypes, either (though he does seem to have a deep appreciation for black leather and Harleys).

While I was making lunch, I suddenly remembered the commercial was for Nespresso. And yes, the commercial definitely seemed to riff off the Twins movie. That's how it seemed to me last night, anyway. Nice new photo and footer, by the way!

Sorry, Fatherman. I'll try to bit a bit more serious. I relate strongly to what you said above in Post #15. What you said about the way your experience the Now and the way an atheist experiences the Now is, I think, highly relevant to our ponderings about how to relationship with ourselves, each other, and God. As you know, I'm never content to just accept the feeling. I always have to understand what's going on at a biological level, too. That's just me. I know it probably bores the crap out of most other people, but I get incredibly excited, and feel very close to God, when I can discuss questions with them on a scientific level as well as a spiritual level. Anyway . . . I recently read a fascinating blog post on Scientific American about recent neuroscientific research into the differences between Happiness and Meaning. (I've capitalized these terms to make them stand out as two different human experiences). You can read the article here: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-differences-between-happiness-and-meaning-in-life/. As some of you may recall, I've been talking for years here about two different main circuits in the brain, which I called the Darwinian Circuit and the Soul Circuit. Subsequent research has led to a refinement of those ideas, and I see strong links between the theory I've been using (via Jesus) and Dual Process Theory, which posits two different but parallel processing circuits in the brain called System 1 and System 2. The brain needs both in order to function optimally. It's System 1 (the older of the two systems, in terms of evolution) that seems to allow us to imagine and extrapolate in creative ways and ask about God. It's System 2 (the newer system, with a lot of neural activity in the neocortex) that pushes us to be logical, meticulous, and rule-based. So, comparing Dual Process Theory to the model I've been working on, System 2 would line up well with the Darwinian Circuit and System 1 would line up with Soul Circuit. System 2 seems to urge us to seek Happiness (as currently defined by positive psychologists) and System 1 seems to urge us to seek Meaning. Again, in order for us to function well, and be in full relationship with God, we need both System 2 and System 1, and we need both Happiness and Meaning. So it's not a dualistic, either/or situation. We need both (as the Scientific American article explains). Being happy helps a person build meaning and purpose in their lives; having meaning helps a person be happy on a day-to-day basis. The really scary part in all this relates to neuroplasticity, free will, and the way in which human beings can and do choose to shape their brains. It seems it's quite possible for an individual to force the brain into building EITHER System 2 to the detriment of System 1 OR System 1 to the detriment of System 2. Our culture has recently fallen into the habit of constantly preferencing System 2 thought patterns, practices, and goals to the detriment of the different yet equally important System 1 patterns, practices, and goals. It gets to the point where the brain becomes literally blind to the intuitive and subtle and humbling nature of love, forgiveness, and related complex emotions -- not only in terms of relationship with self and each other, but in terms of relationship with the Divine. So a person who's driven themselves into cold, hard corner of relentless System 2 "vision" can step out into the bitter cold wind (interesting that you picked this example, Fatherman) and find Happiness in the immediacy, the sensory thrill, the "Now" experience of the wind's biting currents, but he or she won't be asking the deeper questions that relate to the wind's Meaning, or its relationship to God and with God, or its relationship to timing, or to humbleness, because those are System 1 questions, and the one thing System 1 relies on for proper function is . . . the human sense of Time and Timing! It takes time to sit down and mull over and contemplate all the meanings and emotions that can come to us when we listen to God and God's Creation through ALL our circuits and senses, not just the System 2 ones. Thanks for a good conversation, Fatherman. God bless. Edited for typos. I hope.

Hey Fatherman, I saw a zany new TV commercial last night with George Clooney and Danny De Vito. I can't even remember what the commercial was advertising. But George Clooney and Danny De Vito were really cool together!

Hi Steve. Yup. One never knows where the bouncing ball may land.

It might be wise, Steve, for you to qualify your statement with some expressions of open-mindedness, leaving open the possibility that perhaps you're not 100% right. I experience God fully and I experience God daily. My experiences haven't led to futility; instead, my experience of God has been indescribably healing and surprising and awe-inspiring and transformative. My experience of God has involved healing of past events and feelings and beliefs, discussions of present events and feelings and beliefs, and curiosity about how future events MAY unfold, though nothing in the linear future is carved in stone. I don't for a minute believe that my experience is the only way to know God. In fact, I believe there are countless ways to know God. Each of us has to find the right path and right language for own our needs. God knows our unique needs better than we know them ourselves. So Steve, if your path has led to follow the path you describe, that's fine. But please don't assume it's the right path for everybody. 'Cause it's not. God bless. Jen