romansh

So what what did the chemical reactions going on in his brain really mean? You seem to be suggesting that he really did not mean what he reported as his thoughts? I am not sure I buy that.

This is where I god stuck the other week when I read this: Now that he wanted Putin dead and hoped/prayed for his benign death, was not the problem. I get that, personally I would not be bothered about the benign bit. And I too admit, this is a dark side of me I am not overly happy with. It's the bit that Gulley thinks he has some insight into how these things work. As written he does not seem to realize that his hopes and prayers are, to all intense porpoises, irrelevant. That he thinks his prayer that God carry out an benign assassination at is behest would be heard never mind ignored I find totally amazing. I am not sure this belongs on a Progressive Christian website other than for discussion.

If you are trying to garner some sympathy I think you are fresh out of luck. The Aussies inherited a vaguely sensibly state of affairs from the Brits. As did the Canucks. Whereas, the poor old Yanks appear to have evolved a state of permanent political purgatory.

I read this a while back ... well half of it, got stuck in the middle. We seem stuck in some Christian dualism with the author. Zinn looks like he was an interesting guy. I think Gandhi summarized it in Be the change you want to see in the world. A critic described Zinn as having a Manichaean view of history. Had look up the word. Having said that, some Republicans want his books banned from schools, so he can't be all bad

I don't think one communicates with god, not in any meaningful way. If you are looking for a sense of deep connection, almost awe, then that's a different matter. I look out at this valley, this world, this universe ... this is enough for me. I don't want or need more. The god you are looking for may well be an illusion. This world is real, this is what we should be be having a relationship and communicating with. Does this make sense?

In pantheism ... you cannot disconnect from god. That is about as close as I get to god.

Welcome Noodles. Have fun.

Hi Elizabeth ... welcome In some ways I can't help, I never was very religious even at my peak in my youth. Only with a vague concept of god that did not interact much with my day to day existence. Over the years that too faded. My childhood by and large was good and life has been kind. Loving parents (but not necessarily good at parenting), a good education that I could take advantage, a loving wife of forty five years, a job that I enjoyed that took me to places all over the world. Basically a fulfilled life. That changed in some ways fifteen year ago this month. Our sixteen year old son died from a seizure that was not caught in time. This left a gaping hole in our, my, life. I suppose I now ask questions like how is this universe unfolding. what makes it tick, to fill that gap. I'm finding that the concept god is not necessary to fill that hole in my life. The fact we might look for answers in Jesus (or Genesis pun) is simply an accident of birth. It's like the proverbial drunk looking for his keys under the street light because it is where he can see and not because it is where he lost them. For an agnostic/atheist like me faith is not something I want to be attached to.

Welcome Soliloquy It is a quiet community and for the most par quite thoughtful rom

:rolf:

Occasionally I find a thread narrows and only takes up the left half of the monitor. I must have clicked on something, but for the life of me, I can't find how to go back to the full page. Does anyone else experience this and if so do they know the secret of getting back to the full page width?

The usual answers work here: moves in mysterious ways, infinite wisdom, beyond human capacity to understand etc etc. The questions for me are more philosophical than theological. What are the underlying causes for my beliefs, what are the mechanisms for the process called belief? But my point was Anaxagoras was ahead of his time, not beholden to the then going deity of his culture, had explanations for the reflected light of the moon. But not surprisingly, he was quite wrong in other aspects. ie the Earth was flat.

Good luck on your journey and hope you find your boots not too comfortable ... for me not being sure is an asset not a detriment. Google Gretta Vosper, you may find a kindred spirit there. Or at least you can compare the latest style of shoes ...

The recent bout of Islamic posting on here got me surfing the web and I came across this interesting chap: Anaxagoras Some salient points: He was born about 500 BCE ie a millennia before Islam. He was a Greek citizen born in what is now present day Turkey. He was an unbeliever in that he did not believe the Sun was a deity. He was the first known person to give an explanation of eclipses. He thought the sun was made of fiery metal. He thought it would be possible that the sun could rain down metal on the Earth, and people thought flaming meteorites landing on Earth proved him right. He thought of matter as homogeneous and heterogeneous parts, which with sloppy analogies might be atoms and their substituents. Anaxagoras thought heavenly bodies rotated. All this a thousand years before the creation of Islam. Anaxagoras

A fellow experiencer? I am having difficulty distinguishing observing and experiencing something. OK observing something is generally light related, but we experience sound, touch, taste, smell, plus others. So what do we think are the properties of this experiencer? Here we can test this concept a la Sagan's Dragon. Or are you referring to our own sense of consciousness with respect to experience?

I did not think of these as strategies per se. For example, logic is setting up axioms and seeing where the logic leads us. Of course the logic is not always intuitive. p 1 a panentheism god is love and in everything or of everything. p 2 do we find love in everything? conclusion ... if we don't think love is in everything (eg cancers, various vicious parasites) then we can dismiss a panentheistic god/love (or play semantic games with what we mean by love and consider a panentheistic god of love a possibility). Personally I don't see creation as loving though bits of the animal world appear to be. What other properties of a panentheistic god might we consider? And to keep vaguely on topic, from Gulley's #4 My objection is not that he he has a hope that someone might do something about Putin, (I have that too), but that he would pray for it. He will likely happily point out god does now work that way etc. The question for me is, does god work in anyway? I must admit i find his blog on spirituality a little vacuous. Any idea what he means by spiritual, other than everyone can have their own concept of what it actually is? I still don't have a clear picture.

What strategies have you tried to answer the question of the existence of panentheism? It sounds a little like akay's omnipresent god but without some Islamic attributes.

I think inquisitiveness is great Paul. But where should I spend my time being inquisitive? Quite often I play a game how to handle the concept of pixies or fairies under my garden shed. Of course I discount an earnest search for these pixies. But I wonder what thought processes do I go through to discount these pixies. How rigourous am I being? I end up with Russell's agnosticism regarding these pixies. But I note that others had beliefs in fairies ... notably Air Chief Marshall Dowding. He eventually ended up joining the Fairy Investigation Society which eventually folded in the nineties. I have read that belief in pixies and fairies was not uncommon in Victorian times. My inquisitiveness wonders how do these beliefs form? (Answer's obviously chemistry. ) So is a belief in fairies in some way similar to panentheism? Panentheism obviously is a bit more nebulous and nuanced. But what are the properties of this god in panentheism? Does it do anything? Is it just a single aspect of existence, eg love as thormas would have it? I am reminded of Carl Sagan's dragon. I'm not saying hide your light under a bushel Paul; but to unleash your inquisitiveness.

And? Is this a problem that needs answering now? Is it a problem that we never will know some things? But my point is: do we make possibilities up and perseverate about them eg panentheism? That is why as a theology I like pantheism. God and the universe are one so to speak. Dawkins's sexed-up atheism if you like. We can be moderately sure the universe exists (though so forms of solipsism and idealism may argue against this).

The question why? is bit of a blunt instrument. It (or can) begs the question so to speak. It assumes there is a purpose. Or in the case of unfolding is there a purpose? As a free will skeptic I have become suspicious of this and other concepts. But that is for a different thread. You are wise I think to ask if there is a why. So perhaps you might chase after your own personal whys and see where they might arise? I think why in the sense of how is far more interesting, but that is just me. Philosophically I think it is a sensible position to be agnostic in a Bertrand Russell way. He said in effect he was an agnostic wrt Christianity in the sense he could not disprove the gods of Homer either. But to the man in the street he would describe himself as an atheist. Why not panentheism? Perhaps pandeism, panendeism? Then we have the revealed religions eg scientology? Or some cargo cult? Then we have the other great classics, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam. Time is short Paul. Not knowing and not being sure (Russellian) I am all for. But at some point we have to admit somethings just don't make sense and move on with our lives. Technically I can't prove there is not a life after death, but the anesthetic I had for my appendix op two years ago is as good evidence as I'm going to get to not expect anything.

This Earthly existence isn't enough for you Paul? Surely some of our ancient texts point to solutions of being greedy My suggestion is to forget this more and concentrate on what we have ... and all we have is "now". In reality we don't have property or wealth. Evening our feelings of love, fear, hate. satisfaction, pride, guilt are just a blink of an eye in the tapestry of universe unfolding. Pantheism! I can't speak to your spiritual experience, but I would be extremely surprised if it did not involve chemical reactions. It would be like saying life does not involve chemical reactions. But you are right in a sense, with respect to consciousness. For me consciousness is a passive observer (if we examine it closely). We might crave the dopamine experience. The chemical structure of "Ecstasy" is remarkably similar to dopamine. Of course we might not want an off-the-shelf experience of spirituality. Having said that, Michael Pollan's How to Change Your Mind talks in the latter half of his book on the benefits of careful use of entheogens. Yes entheogens is the new term for psychedelic drugs. ie drugs that allegedly induce the experience of God. Interesting!

First a quick quote from John Bell ... died to early to get his Nobel award: It would seem that the theory [quantum mechanics] is exclusively concerned about "results of measurement", and has nothing to say about anything else. What exactly qualifies some physical systems to play the role of "measurer"? Was the wavefunction of the world waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer, for some better qualified system ... with a Ph.D.? If the theory is to apply to anything but highly idealized laboratory operations, are we not obliged to admit that more or less "measurement-like" processes are going on more or less all the time, more or less everywhere. Do we not have jumping then all the time? I must admit I find little benefit at looking at ancient texts for what we consider true today. We seem to highlight the agreements with what we consider true. Personally I try to stick with our modern science. But that's me. Also we get headlines in the news that seem to suggest reality does not exist. Sabine I find provides an interesting critique ... Has quantum mechanics proved that reality does not exist? Personally I find it difficult to subscribe to philosophies of idealism.

Depends on your take on free will Semantic joke! Yes in a no free will world, it is perfectly understandable. Do you know what he means by the word "spirituality"? I have mentioned before, I went to a funeral service to a pastor friend of mine. I am sure some of the congregants had worked themselves up into a "mental state" that was likely rewarding from a brain chemistry point of view. Is this what we mean by spirituality? And yet he specifically used "evil". If he meant no harm, fair enough. Is he choosing his words carelessly or playing to a particular audience, or saying what he means? This belief in something ... leads to a huge variety responses. Now it could be argued that atheism also leads to a variety of responses. Here I think understanding trumps belief and acceptance. If we succeed in understanding accurately how the universe ticks (not even in great detail, just that it does) then our responses should align to some degree. And of course agnosticism is pointing out to tread carefully as we can't be sure. It was a relatively short article on awe

I apologize ... a little hyperbole on my part. But to me it does demonstrate that Sophisticated Theology is a fairly broad stepping stone with a broad spectrum of beliefs even for this one step. "Spirit" is such a nebulous term that it is almost meaningless, it ranges from a pattern of behaviour to some transcendental state. Of course I side with older Biblical interpretations which encourages us not to think in terms of good and evil and the New Testament not to judge ... and here we have Naylor doing exactly the opposite! As to the Gulley quote ... I don't know Paul ... I find it far from convincing. I think Joseph's take on being accepting of the world a better guide. Though I think understanding of the world is better for me. Understanding the world might be harder work for some intellectually, and accepting of the world, harder work emotionally for others. And as to awe... I originally heard it on (Canadian) CBC radio. Here's a link, it gives slightly more detailed look at awe. I can attest to this kind of awe. But that is for another post.

I must admit Paul all this leaves me feeling a little despondent. It strikes me as pablum, almost in both senses of the word. I don't know what spirituality is for other people, but for me it is when rest of the universe seems to merge with me. Only lasts a few moments and happens rarely. For me it is a sense of awe. Apparently for about two thirds of the population this sense of awe is seen as something positive (true for me) and for the other third it negative or frightening. Anyway here's a bit about a study of awe ... Cirque du Soleil unlocks the mysteries of AWE | Cirque du Soleil I am reminded of the parable of Zaphod and the total perspective vortex, for a more humorous take.