romansh

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.

This post was inspired by Ashpenaz's comment: Which in of itself is fair enough. But I do wonder why? Of course I have some opinions this and in large part it is because we are social animals and it is important we are part of a tribe. When we say want to follow Jesus, do we we mean we want to follow recollections and imaginations of ancient scribes of what they thought Jesus actually said and did? Because that is what we are in fact doing. Obviously some embellishments may have slipped in along the way. Do we really believe we are going to follow Jesus and walk on water? I don't think Ashpenaz had this in mind for one second. So do we need to be a follower of Jesus to be kind and compassionate to one another? Ultimately that is what the teachings boil down to in a secular sense. The simpler and more modern interpretation might be the Gandhi Be the change you want to see in the world. I am reminded again of an exchange between Campbell and Moyers

Welcome Ashpenaz

Welcome GreenMachine Like you I don't identify as Christian, but I have to say I don't believe in Christ. I think, Christianity ... especially some of the more evangelical flavours don't have a very accurate picture of reality. In my nomenclature, Christ is the myth, and Jesus the possible historical person that some aspects of the myth is based on. I am willing to entertain some Campbellian some interpretations of the myth regarding Christianity (and the like). Progressive Christianity I see as a Sophisticated Theology© and some see this as enabling theological belief. I see Sophisticated Theology as a stepping stone for people to go out into the world and be fully immersed in it, to use a Christian visual metaphor. Welcome again. rom

I am careful with this. Is it the ego doing the abandonment to somehow get a 'better' ego. Perhaps in Joseph's words our ego perhaps could be accepting of egos. I would not be be me without my so called ego. I must admit I see ego as bit of a fiction, similar to a self. Perhaps we can lose our egos by understanding them as fictions?

Yeah lol, but I can't help seeing the the Buddhist concept of reincarnation in the same light as Christianity's heaven and hell. Live a goodish life and you come back as something better, live a bad life something worse. Live an ideal life, there is no need to come back. Thich himself lives on in actions: his books, lectures, discussions, footsteps, the way he has treated people. His book in this thread has left an imprint on me ... its fading with time. His concept of interbeing, less so.

It is not on my reading list, but I will interrogate the missus should I catch her dipping into the book.

Thich Nhat Hanh passed away in Vietnam Saturday. If he did everything right in this life he won't be be reincarnating. Interbeing!

I've not read the book, but I know my wife periodically dips into the book, as a meditative resource. I asked her about it. She basically says she ignores/glosses over the 'Christiany' bits and examines the underlying message. She said if I could ignore the Christian stuff I might agree with some of the underlying messages. I asked for an example and the one she gave went something like, "Things have all the meaning that I give to them." Implying things have no meaning in of themselves. Of course there are tautological problems here, but that's OK. Seems a little Buddhist to me. As for "All you need is love" - I find I either have it or not ... and that is OK. As for praying and hoping for guidance from a Holy Spirit, each to to his own, I suppose.

Been there, done that. WA, The place on the whole ... did not seem that religious when I was there. How do your kids get on with the religious bits of the family?

Welcome ... from this forum's devout agnostic

I think I have mentioned this before. I have an internet friend who describes religions (in a positive way) as training wheels for adults. Religions are the Santa Claus for adults. For those of us who can't work out how to live life (Joseph might add in an accepting way). So for me the question is, can adults live life in a way as role models so that our kids pick up on how to live life also. Be the change you want to see, sort of thing. We need to remember though as our kids get older, their friends will have a greater influence than the parents.

jeanied's story above (to which Jennell replied (ten years ago)) is what is not just "wrong" with Christianity, but as a whole an undesirable in society. The objective of these books seem to be more to inculcate a belief rather than induce a desired behaviour. What's the saying, "Give me the child until he is seven ... "? Apparently Aristotle. Of course this is only partly true, but there we are.

Well if we are playing the perhaps game ... maybe some later scribe made up the whole thing?