romansh

She started off with an experience ... studied the phenomena for twenty years and became skeptical of her beliefs. I can't help but think of this as logical. I find your assertion, just that an assertion. While I take your point on black swans not existing and I will excuse those living on the same continent as the Black Swan River, but if you were to claim that we should keep an open mind regarding black swans being indigenous to the Columbia River, I would have to go to a deeply solipsistic frame of mind to agree with you here Again, here I think you mistake logic and science. I find I have to keep reminding people science does not deal in proof. And just because science does not provide proof does not mean we have to sit on some fulcrum of a teeter-totter (see-saw) of our beliefs. While we might wish to believe in the possibility some luminiferous aether, the Michelson Morley experiment (and subsequent physics) has put paid to that belief. If I were to write: I think anyone who is not a consummate egoist must be open minded to the possibility that they are completely a product of the universe unfolding. This sentence would go down about as well as yours. There is evidence that the universe is "unfolding", but the supernatural seems to be events that we have not had the ability or chance to explain. Yes ... completely natural. Not just faces or just vision. And here you confuse we don't have an explanation with supernaturalism. I would argue supernaturalism is an abandonment of an explanation. I don't know how it was done, therefore supernatural, is not a logical proposition. A God of the gaps argument.

Joseph I will refer to again to Susan Blackmore ... she was a devout believer in the paranormal, after a personal experience; but after studying the pseudo-science and believing it (for twenty years if I remember correctly) she became a skeptic ... the evidence was just not there, at least for her. We can change our beliefs with critical study apparently ... the wrong way in Susan's case it would seem. Note the difference between we don't know how to explain and inexplicable or unexplainable. .

Am I there yet? I don't know. Though I find I am here ... it is where the universe has unfolded.

Just remember Steve, we don't really choose our wants. And speaking personally ... I am comfortable, though I have some, though incomplete, understanding of other people's discomfort.

Evolution of course involves change ... no problem here. It seems humans evolved from fish; but to still call ourselves evolving fish, while I think accurate I suppose, does seem a touch incongruous to me.

Our emotions are writ large in our biochemistry, as are our thoughts or at least the experience thereof. Despite the nonsense we come across, I am not aware of any reputable report of telekinesis, or clairvoyance and never mind the other pseudo-sciences you mentioned. Either way they are all written in the physical at least as far as I can tell. I linked to Susan Blackmore, she believed passionately in this nonsense. She even did a PhD on the subject but after twenty years of study and promoting the subject she realized there is no real evidence for these pseudo-sciences.

Here I extremely skeptical of your position Bill. First what exactly are these non material things? (in opposition to nature or otherwise). An exactly which laws are violated? bearing in mind these laws are descriptions of what we observe.

Bill I was going to give a long reply ... point by point. But I think this will be more effective. You are right science won't give us an answer as to whether we "should". It will though point to the underlying mechanisms and influences as to how we come to the "should" or not. And depending on our dispositions this will be very scary or incredibly amazing.

I can remember walking back from James' grave and thinking that evolution has imbued me (and most other people) for the capacity to feel grief. It was at that point I 'understood' it was pointless to fight the feeling of grief. I decided to experience it to the best of my ability. I also understand that the vast majority of people who mourned with me were not experiencing grief. That is OK too. Evolution gives us the capacity to feel grief, our immediate environment directs us what to grieve about should we lose that person. I learned very quickly what is the difference between grieving and mourning.

Bill and Joseph I generally agree with what you guys are saying, my emphases might be in different places, but that is fine. I certainly take a Campbellian view on these things. in that religion, and certainly much that surrounds Jesus and the Bible in general can be described by the word religion, describes four aspects of our lives. And these are (my paraphrase) awe, society, science and psyche. ... assp for short. Religion can give some of us: a sense of awe; for me I might get it when I visit a great cathedral or listen to a piece of Bach. science - an explanation of how the universe came into being and how it ticks. Plainly this aspect of religion has been superseded by the less dogmatic science of the last few hundred years. (note, I think people might be dogmatic but the process of science itself is quite agnostic). society, religion has been historically guidelines and to some degree how society works. Again with a nod to Norm's oath, we have had many hard-won gains (at least in my opinion) from our traditional views. and psyche ... a guideline how as individuals we may pass through life from babyhood to old age. What I do have a general lack of understanding of is why as individuals some of us are tied (to some degree) to our ancient religions and have a need to interpret these texts in a modern light. While I think it is intellectually challenging and perhaps fun to see how we need to interpret ancient texts with a modern understanding, why not go to our modern scientific understanding in the first place?

Soma The other thing the first law of thermodynamics tells us is we don't get something for nothing. So all our thoughts and stuff are a result of something ... and for us this proximate energy is the sun and these thoughts etc are written in stardust. A sort of scary thought is fundamentally quantum phenomena point to a probabilistic existence.

Burl I can't tell if this is meant to be tongue in cheek, but taking it at face value, science of this century would beg to differ. Also genetics (nature) is just a historical aspect of the environment (nurture). They are one.

The question is not whether a physical self exists or not. The question is it what it seems to be? Physically you do not hang on to the various parts that make up you. Your pattern of behaviour changes with time. There is nothing that is essentially Burl. Burl is simply a reflection of the environment that Burl finds himself in. This I think is what the metaphor of Indra's net points to.

The whole point is not to be reincarnated ... Don't get me wrong there are philosophies within Buddhism that I find not reconcilable.

I approach this more from a scientific or philosophical point of view. When we say self what exactly do we mean? I am fairly convinced that the thing I consider self is made up of other reconstituted life forms which in turn are considered to be made up of bits and pieces that are generally non life. And these are made up stars that made up of stars that have gone supernova or whatever. We are stardust. Evolution has imbued us with a capacity to have emotions of which we have love on a pedestal. Which is fine. Yet there is a fair amount of evidence that this love is chemically based (not just one but an amazing blend). In my experience we don't decide to love certain people we generally just do. I suppose some of us decide to try and manage to do it, but then their decision in turn is formed by past events. I can't help thinking that I am an eddy in the cosmos which sucks in particles and spits them out again. Some see this in a fatalistic light, I find awe in this view.

Why does it have to be a church Burl? I would argue most secular service organizations do this as well? Theology? I think Dawkins was a little cruel when he described this as a non existent subject, but I do think he had a point. Many of us here describe God as love. which is fair enough. But I can't help thinking we are missing out on all our other emotions. That evolution would allow us to have love and other emotions is for me a far more interesting subject than the "God is Love". plus why just churches and not mosques and temples?

Personally I don't miss church at all. I have not attended "church" except for christenings, weddings and funerals for the last forty five years. Since my confirmation. It was never a place of fellowship, in that just about everyone at least twice my age. So for this "fellowship" has been friends, neighbours, work etc. After James died nine years ago I felt a need to "give back". Ended up joining Rotary. I suspect any service club would have worked. I wonder if Texas is different in that it is heavily Christianized? The UK where I spent my formative years was effectively secular on a day to day basis. And even here in Canada the subject of church rarely comes up.

Other I tried linking to this before it is a summary of what Rex Weyler thinks are the words we can reasonably ascribe to a historic Jesus. I have no skill in asserting the accuracy of his statement, but having said that it would be really unusual if everything in the New Testament is a verbatim record of Jesus's words (and actions). Read into that what you will. But I think the question we are asking is what do we make of the myth of Christ? And here I think the various scribes have added on their own perceptions or perhaps spin. If Jesus did actually say something that is equivalent to: Otherwise, avoid rules and follow the truth you discover yourself. Act from awareness, not habit or convention. This I think is sage advice. ps The summary talks about the divine kingdom

Hi Bill Basically I agree with your summary ... your three points. Sure we can divvy each these further, but as broad classes they work for me. An option mentioned by Joseph was essentially pantheism, which I tend to have a soft spot for ... or as Dawkins has it sexed up atheism. In this sense is where theism and atheism meet on our circle of the other theisms. Regarding your frustration of the driver having not come to trial: In my opinion the purpose of the justice/penal system is or at least should be in a perfect world: Deterrence (the weakest of the reasons). Rehabilitation (the strongest in my opinion) Protection (of society, ie if somebody is going to carry on habitually with their undesired behaviour) Quite often people cite they want justice, meaning either want something back that was taken away. Obviously this is not always possible. But I do think this often turns into retribution and revenge masquerading s justice. This I don't think ultimately is helpful.

Well this thread seems to have died a death. What were the overall views of the book ... mine would have been three star? Also the little bit of commentary on meditation seems to indicate it means different things to different people.

On the Christian Music thread Burl asked whether I meditated on the music? it reminded me of these two quotes: I can't find the original context for this quote despite all of ten minutes of googling. But I did come across this page focussing on the negative aspects of meditation. There is also a page on the positive in the same website. Anyway ... why not meditate on what is important for each of us, rather than some particular aspect that is important for someone else? Here I would have a similar observation of Campbell and of Hanh. Here Campbell recognizes life is a meditation but that the spiritual might need special attention. If Hanh is right and all is interconnected through interbeing ... then it really does not matter.

The little bit I heard sounded nice. Having said that the laptop has crappy speakers. Regarding meditation ... a couple of quotes: and one from Joseph Campbell again: I meditate on the myths of science and philosophy. Hope that's OK.

Ah the Estonian paradox.

For me it is different - science sorts out the wheat from the chaff I imagine, Burl The example of Hanh's view of sexual misconduct is for me shows he does not quite understand his interbeing. Sexual misconduct is also the sun, clouds, rain and minerals except that he wears his dualistic hat on this one. Sun, clouds, rain and minerals are for him behaving badly.

You are welcome Soma ... it is that essay that allowed me to say yes to Burl's invite.