To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing.
Simone Weil
Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417
J'C: So we come full circle. To restore to science its destiny as a bridge leading toward God it must be purged of that religious view of humans as God's failure to create, at the very least, a species with no need for a re-birth mediated by religion but fully capable of themselves awakening the supernatural connection to God. All scientists I know who have made this connection, and they are many as I tend to live in a science dominated world, see their mission in science not as saving their souls, but to discover the world God has created with themselves as an integral part of it along with all other humans. They have purged themselves of the need for consolation or salvation of their religion and have made that direct empowering connection to God. Most Christian scientists have done this by a return to the Synoptics and the empowering first Commandment "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." [Emphasis mine.] There is no room in that commandment for consolation or salvation.
61 comments:
We're making progress. Science reveals the myriad of results of the interactions of universal laws. Universal laws are the basis of Creation and what sustains it. God's will, for want of better words, is the expression of universal laws. Our mistake in pondering the universe is with our concern for "results when in actuality the purpose of the universe is the eternal cyclical continuum of its process.
Experientially understanding "process" requires consciousness which we lack from our attachment to results. Again the question becomes what is man and why we are incapable of the consciousness that would allow us to experience what would be a higher perspective "normal" for evolved Man?
Atheism accepts mechanical evolution. Why should it deny its normal transition into conscious evolution rather then keeping the question open? In order to verify conscious evolution it is necessary to strive towards consciousness in ourselves which allows us to become "present" or alive in "NOW."
Striving for the conscious experience of human meaning and purpose is not consolation but rather sacrificing consolation for the impartial initial conscious experience of the inner chaos of the human condition.
Science rather then a tool for man's pragmatism becomes a means for impartially revealing God's will. What purpose does a galaxy serve or Mn within creation for that matter? Then it becomes possible to impartially discriminate between our animal side which is made for the purposes of our earth as is all animal life on earth, and the supernatural part of ourselves that has an evolutionary conscious potential.
The laws of science and of "being" are related. The more we can understand science the more we can see how these same laws govern Man's being which further allows us to appreciate both what we are and our "being" potential.
Both Simone and I have told you why "we" (you all) are incapable of the consciousness of the higher perspective. Religion seems to be getting in the way. Whether you go direct to God as Simone did, or go direct to the naturally transcendent as I do, religion and its denigration of humans just gets in the way.
Hi J
Two remarks to help clarify. The question is why religion gets in the way. Is it the fault of the essence of religion or of the human condition that peverts it?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"That is why St. John of the Cross calls faith a night. With those who have received a Christian education, the lower parts of the soul become attached to these mysteries when they have no right at all to do so. That is why such people need a purification of which St. John of the Cross describes the stages. Atheism and incredulity constitute an equivalent of such a purification.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 418
*************************
This is it in a nutshell. The essence of religion which leads to man becoming Man is diminished, secularized, and becomes a tool of ego concerns telling people what to do. The trouble is the human condition where the teachings of Jesus can degenerate into the spanish Inquisition. What is Man and why does this happen. It doesn't make sense but it is what happens. The logical question is what is man's nature to explain it?
You speak of going direct to the transcendent as though it is a simple thing. Simone felt it at fourteen and describes both the need and what she was capable of to further this need. I know how far I am now from what she describes. Have you felt this need and capable of this quality of conscious attention and detachment? Without it, we are open to all forms of self deception.
Excerpts from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin:
"At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth. After months of inward darkness, I suddenly had the everlasting conviction that any human being, even though practically devoid of natural faculties, can penetrate to the kingdom of truth reserved for genius, if only he longs for truth and perpetually concentrates all his attention upon its attainment. He thus becomes a genius too, even though for lack of talent his genius cannot be visible from outside. Later on, when the strain of headaches caused the feeble faculties I possess to be invaded by a paralysis, which I was quick to imagine as probably incurable, the same conviction led me to persevere for ten years in an effort of concentrated attention that was practically unsupported by any hope of results."
You can find many people in New Age cults flying around Saturn in their imagination. The kind of attention she refers to doesn't allow room for imagination. It requires getting down and dirty.
"A test of what is real is that it is hard and rough. Joys are found in it, not pleasure. What is pleasant belongs to dreams." -- Gravity and Grace
No consolation here, If one needs what Simone did they must be open to suffer the conscious experience of it. Not easy.
J'Carlin said...
Both Simone and I have told you why "we" (you all) are incapable of the consciousness of the higher perspective. Religion seems to be getting in the way. Whether you go direct to God as Simone did, or go direct to the naturally transcendent as I do, religion and its denigration of humans just gets in the way.
What J’C said goes double for me, too.
Any form of “Idealism” is at its core a denigration of Humans. Why is that so? “Being a Human Being” was perceived to be “insufficient;” Idealisms arose as “targets” for humans; these targets probably arose because some “thinkers” noticed most humans were busy just trying to survive and did not have a “Noble Purpose for Living.”
Noticing also that humans were a stubborn bunch and would not accept just any “Noble Purpose,” the Witch Doctors invented the “Noble Purposes of God the Creator.” Such Purposes could not be so easily ignored….God would “snuff you out” if Hesh got mad at you, so you better do as you’re told, “or else.”
Nick: Striving for the conscious experience of human meaning and purpose is not consolation but rather sacrificing consolation for the impartial initial conscious experience of the inner chaos of the human condition.
Is this the latest “Idealism” that you are proposing? And the motivation for adopting this Idealism is the “implied threat” of the “chaos of the human condition?”
The first is easy. The human condition is to strive for the transcendent, that state of mind where it is at peace with all it contemplates. The essence of religion is to "get in the way" of this striving so that the religion can mediate and control this search and direct it to the God of choice.
The easiest way to do this is to insist that the individual is incapable of reaching this state without the mediation of the religion. Which is why Simone insists on either St John's purification or atheism and incredulity as an alternative.
Science has no such impediment to the striving for transcendence, indeed, the transcendent moments of discovery are expected and necessary. Seeing the birth of a star in a Hubble image, or at the other end of the microscope understanding what the Golgi complex is doing in the cell. The religious thank God for showing them the answer, the atheist is no less sure as the transcendent state provides the validation of the insight. To be sure for the theist and the atheist alike there may be a lifetime of work ahead to support their hypothesis, and indeed it may take a whole culture of science to finally justify for example Einstein's transcendent moment when the interrelationship of matter and energy and the shape of space became clear to him. But the transcendent discoveries are the grist of the science mill.
EI I am not defining man as insufficient but rather as a seed for higher life. Is an acorn "insufficient" because it is not an oak? No, it is a seed with potential and exctly as it should be.
Man is this way. As a seed we are not insufficient. But as a seed we need the right conditions to grow into becoming ourselves which is beyond our comprehension.
There is no reason to blindly believe. The first thing is to verify within oneself and through the ancient means to "Know Thyself" what we are. If we come to see that it limits our conscious potential, then we seek how to deal with this problem.
There is no reason for negativity and concerns for manipulation. We first verify the human condition within ourselves. Those that experience they are in opposition to themselves then seek ways to deal with it.
J'C
********************************
The first is easy. The human condition is to strive for the transcendent, that state of mind where it is at peace with all it contemplates.
**********************
Do you mean peace of mind or peace of the heart? The ancients sought apatheia which is freedom from useless negative emotions that just deny consciousness.
You say confidently that Man does not need help from above for acquiring a conscious perspective . Why?
We see how secularized religions pervert man's conscious evolution. Perhaps we do the same. If we do, what is so odd about higher consciousness being eager to assist if we can become open to it?
We experience transcendent moments but what does it mean for our "being?" Is our being capable of evolution where transcendence is the norm? We simply don't know.
We do know that many people are drawn to it much like the leaves of a plant are drawn to the sun. What does it mean?
Before arguing about God, isn't it better to consider what is Man? Perhaps efforts to "know thyself" may reveal both the human condition and its connection to higher consciousness?
"Do You wish to know God? Learn first to know yourself." -ABBA EVAGRIUS, FOURTH CENTURY
The question is if the believer and non-believer can acquire the humility to appreciate the common sense of this observation rather than argue over God.
The Human Condition, per Wikipedia
Human Condition
"The human condition encompasses all of the experience of being human. As mortal entities, there are a series of biologically determined events that are common to most human lives, and some that are inevitable for all. The ongoing way in which humans react to or cope with these events is the human condition. However, understanding the precise nature and scope of what is meant by the human condition is itself a philosophical problem.
The term is also used in a metaphysical sense, to describe the joy, terror and other feelings or emotions associated with being and existence. Humans, to an apparently superlative degree amongst all living things, are aware of the passage of time, can remember the past and imagine the future, and are intimately aware of their own mortality. Only human beings are known to ask themselves questions relating to the purpose of life beyond the base need for survival, or the nature of existence beyond that which is empirically apparent: What is the meaning of existence? Why was I born? Why am I here? Where will I go when I die? The human struggle to find answers to these questions — and the very fact that we can conceive them and ask them — is what defines the human condition in this sense of the term.
Paradoxes of the Human Condition
The Human Condition is defined by the following three paradoxes:
1. Human imagination can take them anywhere, dragging their physical bodies along.
2. Humans are capable of the kindest, most noble things, but are also capable of the most horrible and terrifying things.
3. Many humans hope for everlasting life, but are always inventing new ways to destroy each other.
I don’t recognize vague terms such as “our conscious potential.” I might guess that what is meant is the potential to be conscious of more, i.e. becoming more aware, than we are now. My position on the matter is that we should hone the skill of using our Reason Faculty, first, and then expand our sensitivity to everything around us after establishing a firm foundation.
The various Gurus that have come and gone want to lead people down a path the Gurus believe will better the follower. There is nothing inherently malicious in such a relationship, but I’ve found that most all “Spirit Guides” have a destination in mind and that destination is not personal enlightenment. Regardless of intent, Spirit Guides invariably lead people to a destination of dependence upon the Spirit Guide, to one degree or another. This is a natural human process and a typical result of any “therapeutic relationship.” Our Parents, Peers, Mentors, Teachers and Spiritual Leaders all pair-bond with us and when they are guiding, they can’t help but take us to a place they want us to go.
“Anyone who claims insights that do not derive from sensory evidence and logical reasoning is, in effect, asking you to abuse your mind. Someone who claims, skeptically, that no real knowledge is possible is asking you to abandon your mind entirely. To be objective, people must know how to define the terms they use (so they know what they mean), base their conclusions on observable facts (so their beliefs are anchored in reality) and employ the principles of logic (so that they can reliably reach sound conclusions).” [William Thomas]
Journeys that are “beyond reason or beyond comprehension” are the kind that most Gurus want their followers to take. Arriving at that foggy destination further tightens the grip of the Guru; they know where they are and everyone else is uncertain.
Nick: We first verify the human condition within ourselves. Those that experience they are in opposition to themselves then seek ways to deal with it.
What knowledge can be taught that aids a person to recognize their own “opposition to themselves?” [This phrase has the sound of “double-speak,” a term that sounds impressive but has no concrete meaning, by itself.]
Hi EI
I think you will agree that we have a physical potential. If so why can't we have a conscious potential? Our trouble is that since we lack consciousness, we cannot appreciate consciousness other then for brief moments and through an intellectual premise.
A charlatan seeks to make slaves while a true teacher seeks to create free people: freedom from the psychological confines of Plato's cave. You would be surprised how many people want to be psychological slaves for the sake of escapism. Yet those like Simone demand inner freedom and truth and cannot be made slaves to escapism. As a broad shouldered Aries male, I am drawn to this attitude.
The human condition is known all over the world and in all legitimate paths.
http://www.unification.net/ws/intch7.htm
People always argue about what to do or if god exists but the reality that holds us in this madness is the human condition. Arguing just perpetuates the human condition. I believe that Christians, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, etc could come to agree that the real problem within ourselves and in the world today is the human condition that denies the conscious perspective necessary for us to become truly human.
The more we come to know the human condition within ourselves the more atheism and religion become related much like science and the essence of religion. I say "essence of religion" to distinguish it from religious perversion.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Einstein
If those like Simone, Jacob Needleman, Basarab Nicolescu and others agree, I believe I am in good company. The question is then how we can minimize the affects of the human condition so as to become open to the big picture?
Nick,
Thank you for the link in your last post. More than any of your many words, that link to the works of the International Religious Foundation speaks volumes and reminds me of a personal time in my life that involves the Unification Church and a very small portion of the World Scripture project. I was a time of personal tradgedy involving my first wife and it cannot be discussed in a public Forum. As JC and I exchange privately, I will let him know "who you are."
If you wish details, you may write directly to goberg@comcast.net The events are not pretty and I would prefer not to say anything that might be unpleasant or upsetting to you concerning those you have chosen to admire.
Goodbye
EI
Hi EI
I am no fan of secular Interfaith. I just used that link to show that the human condition is a concern all around the world.
My interest is in esoteric
Christianity and I've even been kicked out of a secular Interfaith site. I know how closed minded that crew can be.
NO UU for me I can assure you. The following is more my concern
http://www.hermes-press.com/esoteric_christianity.htm
I hate to think that something bad happened to you though I've been around the block enough not to be surprised by anything anymore.
Don't sink into the muck and mire
Nick
I meant exactly what I said by peace of mind. There is no dualism between mind and and brain, or heart, or liver, or gonads. I think of the mind as a conceptually different overlay on the brain which is responsible for evaluating, integrating, and correlating sensory data including reflexive sensory data from the mind itself.
Nick,
The concern for the human condition is not "worldwide;" this is a religious con. Look at the words they use to describe humans:
...the human condition is in reality characterized by suffering, war, oppression, poverty, vain striving, and disappointment. The starting point of Buddhism, the first of the Four Noble Truths, is that all life is ill--full of trouble and suffering. All religions recognize the correctness of this assertion in its broadest sense, that the human condition contradicts and defeats a person's true purpose as ordained by God or established by divine principles.
Bunk and deeper bunk. The "fall of man," the unbearible burden of Sin......
A third way of describing the human condition is by the theme of ignorance. Specifically, most people pass their lives in ignorance of God, his laws, and his purposes. Blinded by illusion or caught up in false values of materialism and egoism, their striving is in the wrong direction, one that leads away from God and towards their own destruction.
I try to refrain from using bad language but this unadulterated bullshit, pisses me off.
The question is a simple one - is this your perception of humans who don't conform to the universal religious doctrines and dogmas? Do you believe the only hope for the human race is to worship the God Described in the "World Scripture"?
If so, why are you approaching Atheists? Don't you understand that "We don't believe you!!"
No offense meant
EI
Know thyself may just be understanding that the human condition may or may not need a connection to a "higher consciousness." Perhaps the properly integrated human condition is complete within itself, with proper support from society. If the particular society is connected to a "higher consciousness" one must be extremely careful of the potential for abuse by the mediators for that higher consciousness.
Read this one and note the list at the bottom of the article:
http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/m/moonies/religious_front.htm
J'C,
For 40 years, Peter Popoff Ministries have been selling Miracle Spring Water and Green Prayer Cloths [that he personally blessed on his TV Show]for a tax deductable $20 Donation. My friend Beingofone has fallen prey to the folks selling "Ausome Water" for $20 per 1/4 ounce. The Rev. Moon Unification Church has even surpassed the accumulated wealth of the Roman Catholic Church because they invest in "profit-making businesses" rather than sinking their profits into charities or missions.
Our Theist friends are being conned and they're too busy preaching at us to see the frauds they represent.
J'C,
Have you ever sat in a Scientology Training Center, holding the "E" Cans in your hands and being guided through a carefully designed "brainwashing dialogue"?
I have, and it's not pretty.
For the partial link, loom up under the lettewr m, moonies
/m/moonies/religious_front.htm
Moral: Choose your society carefully. If it claims to be or seems to be religion, particularly if it is less than 200 years old it must be assumed to be guilty until proven otherwise.
My first exposure to Moonies was in NYC where most of the vegetable markets were run by Moonie "volunteers" exempt from labor laws due to religious protections. Prices were high but so was quality.
Scientology was founded in a drunken science fiction writers gathering when someone noted that religious charlatans were paid much more than even the most successful writers and L. Ron Hubbard said Hmmmm.
Or as Lazarus Long noted: The profession of shaman has many advantages. ... But it's lovely work if you can stomach it.
Time Enough for Love R.A. Heinlein (1973)
J'C
I agree comletely. But I also believe there is much wisdom in this Sufi proverb:
There wouldn't be such a thing as counterfeit gold if there were no real gold somewhere. - Sufi Proverb
My interest is in the gold. The fact that there are all these charlatens and their fools gold doesn't mean that gold doesn't exist. It is more logical to consider that the fact that they are so prevelant means that there is gold, "truth," of our being and its potential outside of the psychological limitations we've been conditioned to live with as "normal."
Simone is an example of one who had the intellect not to give her love to "false Gods." She never could have been duped into Scientology or Moonism. Yet she was drawn to the "good."
My interest is in the gold. The fact that there are all these charlatens and their fools gold doesn't mean that gold doesn't exist. It is more logical to consider that the fact that they are so prevelant means that there is gold, "truth," of our being and its potential outside of the psychological limitations we've been conditioned to live with as "normal."
Nick,
Face it; you swallowed the bait. The "Witch Doctors" had no hope of selling their con unless the average person felt the need for spiritual guidance; by denegrating the human, they could be herded like cattle into what ever pen the "Gurus" wanted them in. The Evangelists still make a great living by convincing people that no matter how moral or pure they are, they still carry the "artificial" burden of Adam's Sin.
The poor "Human Condition," the ignoraance of God's Plan, the lack of higher consciousness; these are the cons that "stack the deck" against a person's self and self-esteem. Sufficiently "beaten down," the clergyman rides in on the white horse to "save the humans from themselves" and show them the road to God; by that time the humans think there's no where else to go but "up."
It's simply a sham; always has been and always will be.
EI
After all the arguing the essential question remains that we avoid for the sake of arguing: What is Man?
Happy New Year.
Nick A. Happy New Year!
Humans are self-aware, cognitive, rational animals, acutely aware of their impending death, and searching for meaning and purpose in life. Some are capable of dealing with these issues without God. Others are not. The gold is finding the meaning and purpose and coming to terms with death. The fools gold may well be religion, and even possibly God. Although Weil and others seem to have found integration in God. But God is not necessary and certainly not sufficient.
My friend the lady bulldog says,"If they want to know what is "Man," tell them "Man is a biological, multicelled organism;" if they want further description, they'll likely ask for it.
JC
Humans are self-aware, cognitive, rational animals, acutely aware of their impending death, and searching for meaning and purpose in life. Some are capable of dealing with these issues without God. Others are not. The gold is finding the meaning and purpose and coming to terms with death. The fools gold may well be religion, and even possibly God. Although Weil and others seem to have found integration in God. But God is not necessary and certainly not sufficient
*********************
Why do you believe you are self aware? Have your verified it? Aware of what? The ancientsts advocated striving to "Know Thyself." If we are already self aware, what more is there to know.
Were you self aware when you walked into the room, turned on the computer, and began reading? Now by being reminded you may become aware that there is this presence called JC that is reading but was it there when you entered the room?
EI
My friend the lady bulldog says,"If they want to know what is "Man," tell them "Man is a biological, multicelled organism;" if they want further description, they'll likely ask for it.
*****************************
By this definition Man is the same as a bulldog. What is the essence of a bulldog, its unique nature? How does it differ from a clam for example. They are both biological multicelled organisms. What also makes man unique?
What makes man unique [from other living organisms]?
One could go to hundreds of sources of opinion and the opinions would vary by the hundreds. I’ll give it a try in a somewhat unconventional manner:
In a movie, John Cusack’s character is asked how his life has been; John answers, “It’s been a work in progress.”
In the movie “August Rush,” August, [who is an orphan searching for his biological parents] is asked to state what he wants to be if he could be anything in the world his heart desired; he answers, “Found.”
Hemingway gave the most profound insight into human death – [I paraphrase]” At the end of my life, I was learning so much and learning it so fast; I wish I could have lived a little longer.”
Most of us know little more about life other than “it is a work in progress.” When we’re young, we assemble a vision of what we think want to do and spend most of our young adulthood trying to do it. The very few that get to do what they want without inputting much effort are probably the unlucky ones; theirs will be a world of fantasy right up to the minute their idealized Nirvana turns into Hell, when Reality arrives to collect its debt.
We used to jest – “Dead at 30; buried at 70;” this jest turns out to be the truth way too much of the time. It usually doesn’t take too long when losing all of life's little battles to conclude that one has been mortally wounded and the only thing to do that makes any sense is to sit on the sidelines and wait for your turn to be buried.
When we want to commune with another human, we start by trying to find each other; since most of us spend the majority of our lives being lost, it’s rare when two “losts” make a found.”
After a lifetime attempting to find and learn the “One Great Truth” that will define our Legacy, in the end we discover that the One Great Truth is that there is not One Great Truth. Sheeeesh; what a waste!!
As strange as this may sound and after all of that pessimistic perspective, I still believe in the strength of the Human Will and the power of the Human Spirit. We’ve really got no other tool; we’ll just have to reason our way through the blackness until we reach the light; and we’ll need to do that pretty much alone, each of us, because no one else lives inside our skin.
When the few of us that will “make it” finally reach the 19th hole, we’ll sip Cognac, nibble dark chocolate and wonder where everyone else is. They’re probably just still stuck inside some Religion somewhere, trying to figure it all out.
So the bottom line is that we don't know what Man is. We can categorize certain things we subjectively believe he does but really do not understand objectively what Man does.
" Man is an exception, whatever else he is. If he is not the image of God, then he is a disease of the dust. If it is not true that a divine being fell, then we can only say that one of the animals went entirely off its head." Chesterton
*********************
This seems rather self evident. A lot of atheism suggests that it really is all there is. Science show that there is logic to our universe. Is it logical that Man should be a mass of contradiction?
Can we ever answer this without exploring the different conceptions of what man is. History has showm that we are capable of the greatest compassion as well as the greatest atrocities. Is this natural for what man is?
Can the logic of science aid in understanding what man is? I believe so if it isn't just a tool of pragmatism but a tool for the impartial search for truth.
Nick_A said...
So the bottom line is that we don't know what Man is. We can categorize certain things we subjectively believe he does but really do not understand objectively what Man does.
" Man is an exception, whatever else he is. If he is not the image of God, then he is a disease of the dust. If it is not true that a divine being fell, then we can only say that one of the animals went entirely off its head." Chesterton
*********************
This seems rather self evident. A lot of atheism suggests that it really is all there is. Science show that there is logic to our universe. Is it logical that Man should be a mass of contradiction?
We know lots and lots of things about what a human "is;" what we don't have is a consensus model of a human being.
Theists believe in a spiritual realm occupied by God and "human souls." Atheists don't believe God exists and most atheists don't believe in the existence of a spiritual realm or human souls. This disagreement of opinions does not effect the objective reality that is human beings.
Science uses the tool of logic to help discover, identify and characterize the patterns that exist in the Universe.
There is no contradiction in Reality; what is, is. The contradictions arise in the models of what is man. We just haven't got the models developed to the point where the truth of the model is inescapable by anyone, no matter what their ideology is.
EI
There is no contradiction in Reality; what is, is. The contradictions arise in the models of what is man. We just haven't got the models developed to the point where the truth of the model is inescapable by anyone, no matter what their ideology is.
************************
Very true. We know certain aspects of our common presence but really don't know what we are. Since we do not ourselves why is it so difficult that we don't know the workings of the universe either including the question of a Source for existence.
In short, why is it so difficult to simple admit that we don't know?
"The most important part of teaching is to teach what it is to know." Simone weil
If she is right, what does it mean to "know thyself?" If the more essential question is what is Man, what does it mean to know?
*************
There is no contradiction in Reality; what is, is.
*************
Quite true. Why isn't it true for us.
“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” George Bernard Shaw
*******************
Why must this be? If we cannot communicate beyond the basics and refuse to make the efforts to know thyself, is it realistic to debate a source and expect resolution?
Actually, Nick, we know quite a bit of stuff about ouselves but there is 10 or 100 times as much stuff out there to be learned that we haven't discovered yet. We are, however, learning at a much faster rate than ever before; it's only a matter of time between today's knowledge and tomorrow's.
We know certain aspects of our common presence but really don't know what we are. Since we do not [know?] ourselves why is it so difficult that we don't know the workings of the universe either including the question of a Source for existence.
It took us 200,000 years to get to this point in our knowledge; it might take us a few more years to get to full knowledge of Life, Love, the Universe and everything else. Be Patient.
There is no contradiction in Reality; what is, is.
*************
Quite true. Why isn't it true for us.
“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” George Bernard Shaw
*******************
Why must this be? If we cannot communicate beyond the basics and refuse to make the efforts to know thyself, is it realistic to debate a source and expect resolution?
Unlike all of the other living organisms, humans dream of changing Reality. That is exactly what we have done; not content to live in caves and hunt for food, we've built a new life with no limit to it's possibilities:
"What ever the mind of man can conceive and believe, he can achieve."
We debate to learn; logic is man's tool to discover non-contradictory knowledge. We also resist using that skill because it often leads us to answers we don't want to hear [that are often the unpleasent Truths of Reality.]
Our egos hold us back from being comfortable with the "I don't know" answers. Logic and debate are objective tools; if we would let them do their job, we'd get a lot closer to the Truth. Never Give Up; Never Give Up. That's who we are......Humans.
EI
You seem to believe that Man can only learn what he is through external knowledge; learning new facts. I'm not asking you to believe but just consider that some believe true self knowledge and what it leads to including an experiential conscious connection to a higher source can come in an additional way:
"Learning consists of adding to ones knowledge day by day; the way of the Tao consists of subtracting day by day until one experiences reality as it is, not as it is named." Lao-Tzu
Two complimentary directions leading to reality and the revelation of what Man is. We can deny the potential and value for these two directions or we can be open to what is not verifiable by science.
Yes Nick,
I do not recognize any other path to human knowledge than perception. The full details are at this URL:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/lso-beta/LSOBetaChapter1.PDF
That is The Logical Structures of Objectivism, Chapter 1: Knowledge
I should hope I believe every word of it as I helped edit it over a 16month period. I do not expect you to read any of it for the same reason I have no interest in pursuing any of the "Paths to Enlightenment."
Humans go through an entire lifetime of learning that involves this process:
"Knowledge is the conceptual
identification of facts, based on
the integration of evidence."
"A concept is an integration of units on the basis of common
features and common differences
from non-units."
"Reality exists independent of the knower."
"All knowledge is acquired by
cognitive integration."
"Any cognitive integration rests
on the prior awareness of the items
to be integrated."
"All knowledge depends on direct
awareness of reality."
"Perception is the only form of
direct awareness of reality."
Therefore,
"All knowledge derives from perception."
The fact that knowledge is Hierarchical and Contextual follows from the fact that it is derived from a perceptual
base by means of cognitive integration. Conceptual knowledge is hierarchical in the first place simply because it is abstract. Concepts are integrated from the
data of the senses and thus subsume a wide range of existents. Conclusions that employ those concepts rely on a wide variety of evidence, also drawn from
perception. In this sense concepts and conclusions as such are distinct from and stand upon perceptual awareness. That in itself is a hierarchical characteristic.
Since "there are no contradictions in reality," any item of knowledge must be logically consistent with all other knowledge.
All of that is pretty dry information and certainly not as fun as the many Koans I employed to dazzle my students, over the years.
We believe that this is the human process of acquiring knowledge; your acceptance of our belief is not required; we're describing to you the mechanics of acquiring knowledge as only a very abstract process can be described.
Now, consider the various "Paths to Enlightenment" you've learned:
which Paths require you to "not think" in one form or another? Which Paths ask you to silence your Inner Dialogue? Which Paths ask you to "Perceive Directly" without "decoding the received perception?"
We have nicknamed those paths, "The Paths to Enfogment" and "The Paths that lead one away from Knowledge."
If you'd still would like to add an Atheist to your Enlightenment experience, I suggest you find one that is unfamiliar with thinking. They're easy to spot and they won't be found here.
Nick A.:You seem to believe that Man can only learn what he is through external knowledge; learning new facts. I'm not asking you to believe but just consider that some believe true self knowledge and what it leads to including an experiential conscious connection to a higher source can come in an additional way
J'C: External knowledge is one source of self knowledge, but for those with the ability and interest to study within themselves and be aware of the inherent capabilities for wonder, spirituality and transcendence that is the birthright of every human, there is no need for a "higher source."
Not all can do this as they have been convinced that humans are inherently insufficient, or incapable of transcendence without help, or in the worst case fallen or inherently sinful. These humans are the natural prey of shamans, priests, pastors, and other pitchmen for God, and few are purified by atheism or science to find a direct path to God. Fortunately for the shamans, priests, and shamans, if they have done their job properly in getting people to believe in their incapability of doing it without help, the religious sinecure is secure.
Why do you believe you are self aware? Have your verified it? Aware of what? The ancients advocated striving to "Know Thyself." If we are already self aware, what more is there to know.
Were you self aware when you walked into the room, turned on the computer, and began reading? Now by being reminded you may become aware that there is this presence called JC that is reading but was it there when you entered the room?
J'C: I don't believe I am self aware, I experience it. I am aware of the sensory input to my mind, I process it as it relates to other input, and integrate it as self. To integrate it as self I must be aware of self.
There is no magical or supernatural external input that I need to connect with intermittently or continuously so J'C is wherever my mind is. It may wander in fantasy or transcendence, but it is always aware of itself and what is happening through it.
Self awareness does not preclude learning, in fact self awareness insures continuous learning as the self is continuously changing with new integrated knowledge.
EI, you said:
"All knowledge derives from perception."
What knowledge from your perceptions in your opinion is responsible for your perspective? For example I must be wary of you because you are guided completely by the knowledge of perceptions and logic.
Unfortunately there is no logical reason for you not to kill me or anyone else that could serve as an annoyance. It makes perfect sense to eliminate what is undesirable providing that you don't get caught.
The only reason you wouldn't kill me is from the fear of getting caught or some societal conditioned morality which is not logical so should be ignored.
So I guess your philosophy should be to kill first if in the clear and ask questions later. It is the logical thing to do when tormented by a nuisance. am I right?
J'C
External knowledge is one source of self knowledge, but for those with the ability and interest to study within themselves and be aware of the inherent capabilities for wonder, spirituality and transcendence that is the birthright of every human, there is no need for a "higher source."
************************
You've got me confuesed. What is transcendence for the atheist? What are you transcending and what does it mean to have transcended?
J'C:
I don't believe I am self aware, I experience it. I am aware of the sensory input to my mind, I process it as it relates to other input, and integrate it as self. To integrate it as self I must be aware of self.
There is no magical or supernatural external input that I need to connect with intermittently or continuously so J'C is wherever my mind is. It may wander in fantasy or transcendence, but it is always aware of itself and what is happening through it.
Self awareness does not preclude learning, in fact self awareness insures continuous learning as the self is continuously changing with new integrated knowledge.
****************************
You seem to be describing the same self awareness that a dog exhibits except that your responses seem more involved. Do you believe that the only difference between you and a dog is a more highly developed means for associative thought?
So I guess your philosophy should be to kill first if in the clear and ask questions later. It is the logical thing to do when tormented by a nuisance. am I right?
I hadn't thought of it that way before but since you put it that way......hmmmmm; it does sound like a good idea......
What knowledge from your perceptions in your opinion is responsible for your perspective? For example I must be wary of you because you are guided completely by the knowledge of perceptions and logic.
And I believe you should be wary of those that live at the whim of their mastrers; those that do not reason or use logic but simply react to the stimuli of the moment; those that do not know their Conscience Mental Faculty exists because they've never interacted with it before, during or after performing immoral/illegal acts.
Perception applies to both external abstractions and internal abstractions. For example: every person you know occupies a catalogued list of memories in your brain; one of the entries on that list is your evaluation of them which is dynamically updated every time any interaction occurs or any spontaneous thoughts about them arise. Each thought about them is accompanied by the evaluations "friend or foe," "good or bad," "trusted or not trusted," etc.
"Knowledge is Contextual:" on our first meeting you have been tortured for days and are chained to a dungeon wall. I walk up to you with a club in my hand and reach out with the other open hand and say, "Hi, my name is Igor and I'll be your constant companion for the next few days, if you survive that long." Would you attempt to return my gesture and try to shake my hand like you would shake the hand of a long lost friend? Would you have a concern whether or not I used logic in my reasoning or had formed a particular perspective about you?
Nick A: For example I must be wary of you because you are guided completely by the knowledge of perceptions and logic.
Please avoid straw man assumptions. If you don't know what interactions with others in society based on knowledge, perception and logic are, ask.
Spirituality and transcendence for all humans theist or not is going beyond ordinary logical, rational analysis to emotionally respond to a stimulus (spirituality) or a truth resonance in the mind which transcends rationality and logic.
Theistic responses are normally conditioned by indoctrination that such experiences can only come from God and then circularly use those experiences to prove God exists.
But Simone's transcendent understanding that God exists, is fundamentally no different from my transcendent understanding that the universe with all its spiritual wonders is the result of the natural expression of the fundamental properties of space-time.
EI
I hadn't thought of it that way before but since you put it that way......hmmmmm; it does sound like a good idea......
**************************
It is a good idea since it is logical.
***********************
"Knowledge is Contextual:" on our first meeting you have been tortured for days and are chained to a dungeon wall. I walk up to you with a club in my hand and reach out with the other open hand and say, "Hi, my name is Igor and I'll be your constant companion for the next few days, if you survive that long." Would you attempt to return my gesture and try to shake my hand like you would shake the hand of a long lost friend? Would you have a concern whether or not I used logic in my reasoning or had formed a particular perspective about you?
*************************
Yes, this is the way dogs and people react. We create programming. It explains why we can be simultaneously capable of compassion and atrocity. It is all a matter of conditioning when our lives are only structured through external perceptions and our mechanically conditioned reactions to them.
At a certain level of brain complexity self-awareness happens naturally. Dogs, elephants, cetaceans, probably all herding species, and higher predators are self-aware. As you note differences in capabilities for complex associative thought make self-awareness more complex the higher one goes in the cognitive ability chain.
J'C
Please avoid straw man assumptions. If you don't know what interactions with others in society based on knowledge, perception and logic are, ask.
********************
OK, what are they? Perhaps science can further them.
***********************
Spirituality and transcendence for all humans theist or not is going beyond ordinary logical, rational analysis to emotionally respond to a stimulus (spirituality) or a truth resonance in the mind which transcends rationality and logic.
**********************
So the problem isn't either the essence of science or religion but the pragmatic abuse of both. Their essential value is sacrificed by furthering the pragmatism of our corrupt egoism.
********************
But Simone's transcendent understanding that God exists, is fundamentally no different from my transcendent understanding that the universe with all its spiritual wonders is the result of the natural expression of the fundamental properties of space-time.
**************
True, the question is in our response. Do we tear it apart or attempt to love it: to open to its help?
I don't think you would call Spinoza religious fanatic. Yet how do you explain the following:
"... Love towards a thing eternal and infinite feeds the mind wholly with joy, and is itself unmingled with any sadness, wherefore it is greatly to be desired and sought for with all our strength." - Spinoza (TEI)
J'C
At a certain level of brain complexity self-awareness happens naturally. Dogs, elephants, cetaceans, probably all herding species, and higher predators are self-aware. As you note differences in capabilities for complex associative thought make self-awareness more complex the higher one goes in the cognitive ability chain.
********************
The question then becomes if Man is capable of more than just blind reaction and its expressions of associative thought?
Simone and much of esoteric thought says we are. As we are we are just performing mechanical necessities in response to universal laws. Organic life on earth including Man is just performing a mechanical necessity in its life cycles. However we have the potential to serve a conscious purpose beyond our normal reactive mechanical purpose which is uniquely human. We have the potential for conscious ACTION along with our natural inclination towards blind REACTION.
Spinoza and Einstein were what we might call today Pantheists. They found the transcendent in the beauty and orderliness and apparently infinite complexity of the universe that science shows us. Spinoza like Weil went directly to God for the explanation, without a religious intermediary.
Nick,
From the content of your recent comments concerning my personal philosophy, it appears you think a person who lacks a belief in Deities is necessarily an immoral person, unrestrained by God or Conscience and capable of "logically supporting any anti-social act that is conceivable." You couldn't be more wrong, once again.
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-32-452-FAQ_Objectivist_Position_Morality_Ethics.aspx
This URL includes a relatively brief description of Objectivist Morality/Ethics. Here's a slice of the Pie:
The virtues of Objectivism, define principles of action that lead to the achievement of objective values, considered in the full context of human life.
The key principle of the Objectivist ethics is rationality, as against mysticism and whim. The ethics is a code of benevolence and justice toward other people: holding evil-doers to account for their vices, but treating rational and productive people with good will and generosity. It entails integrity, allowing no breach between our principles and our actions.
A rational being practices honesty, loving the truth more than deception; and he lives first-hand, on the basis of his own judgment and effort, so independence is a virtue.
The Objectivist ethics places industry and productivity in one's chosen work at the center of life's concerns. It is the code of a person who holds his head up with pride, in an objective appreciation of his merits and in aspiration to improvement in the future.
Traditional ethics contrast the image of man as an animal with the ideal of man as an otherworldly monk. Man is by nature a ravening beast, on this view, and he must be taught self-denial and self-sacrifice to be angelic and meek. O
Objectivism holds that man lives best as a trader, acting rationally for his own sake and dealing with others by exchanging value for value. Traditional ethics extol courage in the face of death as a virtue; Objectivism counsels integrity in the long-term pursuit of happiness. Traditional ethics extol charity as the mark of nobility; Objectivism extols productive achievement, because no one exists merely for the sake of others. It is an ethic for those who want all life has to offer, consistently, over the full course of life.
What about the morality derived from God's many commandments?
What the Bible says about Morality
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/morality.html
This information at this URL presents what the Bible says concerning the below list of moral issues. There are no clear teachings about morality (or anything else) in the bible. You will find the verses in the Bible that are bioth Pro and Con on each issdue. Good luck figuring out which is the correct moral action at any given moment, today.
But here's what the bible says about:
Whether you should ...
be concerned with material things?
be wealthy?
call someone a fool?
call your father (or anyone else) father?
commit adultery?
covet?
curse people?
dance?
drink alcohol?
eat meat?
gamble?
get a divorce?
get married?
have long hair?
have more than one wife?
judge others?
kill people?
let others see your good works?
lie?
love or hate your brother?
make images?
marry your aunt or sister?
rejoice when your enemies suffer?
remarry after a divorce?
serve God alone?
swear?
take oaths?
work on the Sabbath?
The Morality of God, supposedly provided in his 163 [+/- [3], dependent upon who's doing the counting] Commandments to the Jews, is usually vague in description, contradictory in theory and practice, and only relevant to the times and social setting for which it was written approximately 2500-2600 years ago.
Nick - The response to your post on compassion and atrocity is here.
Nick - The intelligent response to your stimulus.
J'C
Spinoza and Einstein were what we might call today Pantheists. They found the transcendent in the beauty and orderliness and apparently infinite complexity of the universe that science shows us. Spinoza like Weil went directly to God for the explanation, without a religious intermediary.
*******************
Actually Spinoza and I think Einstein as well would be considered Panentheist which asumes the source outside of time and space rather then as creation itself.
The Christian God as opposed to the personal god of christendom is Panentheistic. Simone as usual has an interesting way of describing it. From Wiki:
Absence
Absence is the key image for her metaphysics, cosmology, cosmogeny, and theodicy. She believed that God created by an act of self-delimitation—in other words, because God is conceived as a kind of utter fullness, a perfect being, no creature could exist except where God was not. Thus creation occurred only when God withdrew in part.
This is, for Weil, an original kenosis preceding the corrective kenosis of Christ's incarnation (cf. Athanasius). We are thus born in a sort of damned position not owing to original sin as such, but because to be created at all we had to be precisely what God is not, i.e., we had to be the opposite of what is holy.
Further information: Apophatic theology
This notion of creation is a cornerstone of her theodicy, for if creation is conceived this way (as necessarily containing evil within itself), then there is no problem of the entrance of evil into a perfect world. Nor does this constitute a delimitation of God's omnipotence, if it is not that God could not create a perfect world, but that the act which we refer towards by saying "create" in its very essence implies the impossibility of perfection.
However, this notion of the necessity of evil does not mean that we are simply, originally, and continually doomed; on the contrary, Weil tells us that "Evil is the form which God's mercy takes in this world."[13] Weil believed that evil, and its consequence, affliction, served the role of driving us out of ourselves and towards God--"The extreme affliction which overtakes human beings does not create human misery, it merely reveals it."[14]
More specifically, affliction drives us to what Weil referred to as "decreation"--which is not death, but rather closer to "extinction" (nirvana) in the Buddhist tradition—the willed dissolution of the subjective ego in attaining realization of the true nature of the universe
***********************
From this perspective Man has the potential to connect with higher consciousness within creation rather than the source which is outside of time and space.
The universe is an expression of God's will manifesting through laws. Its value is in its processes rather then results which are transient by design. Man's conscious potential is to be part of a higher process then the processes that take place on earth.
********************
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. Richrd Dawkins
*******************
This is a natural subjective response when one is fixated on results in the universe. Its purpose and its beauty though is in the living process in obedience to universal laws.
The more science verifies process, the sooner it will recognize a source of laws.
EI
From the content of your recent comments concerning my personal philosophy, it appears you think a person who lacks a belief in Deities is necessarily an immoral person, unrestrained by God or Conscience and capable of "logically supporting any anti-social act that is conceivable." You couldn't be more wrong, once again.
***********************
No, I said that a person that is governed only by reason doesn't have a reason not to kill me. It cn be quite reasonable to do so.
What is reasonable about ethics? There is nothing reasonable about not stealing. It makes perfect sense to do so.
*************************
A rational being practices honesty, loving the truth more than deception; and he lives first-hand, on the basis of his own judgment and effort, so independence is a virtue.
*************************
What is rational about being honest? If a guy is trying to seduce a girl there is nothing rational about being honest. One lies like a rug. It is the way of the world.
If you "love" truth, it requires something in you that is able to love beyond self love. When rationality seves this ability, then we're getting somewhere.
It is both rational and logical to act morally:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/lso-beta/LSOBetaChapter6.PDF
The Logical Structure of Objectivism, Chapter 6, Social Virtues
It's 48 pages of the logical arguments as to why it is within a person's rational self-interest to act morally.
How does an infant learn the consequences of their actions? From their parents, mentors and peers and through actual life-lessons that are experienced through "Trial and Error." The abstract moral concepts come later; the simple ones come first; "Don't hit or otherwise hurt another person, and say you're sorry when you do hurt somebody; don't take what does not belong to you; play fair."
Fortunately, about 93% of humans are naturally empathetic and sympathetic to their peers. When a child sees a playmate crying or otherwise in great distress, their natural instinct is to provide comfort in any way they can, even if a bad action of theirs caused the distress to happen.
What is not logical and not rational is the theistic notion that humans are inherently evil and will choose to act in an evil manner whenever they believe they can do it without getting caught. That notion is a pile of very smelly crap!!
The most obvious evidence of a human's natural desire to act morally is the sheer number of people that choose to live close together; if most of them were evil, cared nothing about the welfare of their neighbors, lived like parasites off the productivity of others, how long would such a society last?
Once again, Nick, we believe that the majority of humans act ethically and morally because it is their rational self-interest to do so. The easiest path through life is the one where a person faces the least amount of resistance. In this case, The Golden Rule does apply and it makes good sense.
I wonder where you got that 93% number, EI? I would suspect at the kindergarten level the number would be nearly 100%. Social pathologies like mental illness and dysfunctional religions generally do not affect children until puberty when normal children be come aware of the world around them and begin to transfer respect for authority to intellectual mentors and if Religious to pastors, preachers and gurus.
For those religions that do not teach the inherent depravity and sinfulness of humans this dependence on religion, generally causes no problems for the ordinary believer. But for those religions that require submission to God to lift humans from the mire of "The way humans are," self respect, self awareness, and self actualization must be ceded to God and the mediator for God to do with as the mediator pleases.
Sorry Nick. I am not buying.
Sorry J'C,
I was tired and forgot how to do subtraction in my head.
Dr. Martha Stout, author of "The Sociopath Next Door" estimates 4% of the population are Sociopaths. Since the rigorous testing to determine if a person is a Sociopath requires some amount of cognitive development, young children cannot be tested. By observation, the estimate of those "born" as Sociopaths is approximately 2% however, this is a WAG.
EI and JC
You convince me even more that the essence of the problem is coming to grips with the human condition. EI wrote
****************
What is not logical and not rational is the theistic notion that humans are inherently evil and will choose to act in an evil manner whenever they believe they can do it without getting caught. That notion is a pile of very smelly crap!!
******************************
But this is not the theistic notion. the human condition is that we are hypocrites, We are both capable of compassion and atrocity depending upon which way the wind is blowing.
Buddha esplains it without hearts and flowers:
"Behold this painted body, a body full of wounds, put together, diseased, and full of many thoughts in which there is neither permanence nor stability. This body is worn out, a nest of diseases and very frail. This heap of corruption breaks in pieces, life indeed ends in death. What delight is there for him who sees these white bones like gourds cast away in the autumn? Of the bones a citadel is made, plastered over with flesh and blood, and in it dwell old age and death, pride and deceit." (Dhammapada 147-150)
Evil doesn't refer to societal actions but rather what we ARE in relation to human conscious potential: inner unity.
It is the same concept as in Christianity. We avoid sincere discussion of the "human condition" but without being open to its experience, what understanding can we possibly have to build a realistic foundation leading towards ontological understanding?
That is the beginning I think the sincere atheist and Theist searching for the experience of truth could be in agreement with.
EI, you want to emphasise one aspect of human reaction. But understanding will require appreciating the nature of the other side and why it has also become a part of human nature.
Would you call a man with a broken leg evil? If not, why think anyone suffering the human condition is by definition evil? A broken leg doesn't allow one to physically function as designed and the the human condition doesn't allow one to psychologically function as would be at this point theoretically normal rather than blindly accepting obvious absurdities. Because something is broken doesn't make it evil.
The above apologetic for the religious human condition is an example of the dysfunctionality of most religions that do not permit scientific data on the mind, sociology, and development to intrude on their dogma that man is depraved without God. It is a self fulfilling prophesy that not even God can change.
This is why Simone Weil is right that Science will reveal the intereactions of laws that also explain why everything turns in circles including the human condition.
Regardless of God, we are what we are. Once we admit it then the question of morality can be put into a more realistic light rather than fighting over whether atheism or theism is more moral.
Since we are as we ARE, everything is as it is. How then can either science or religion affect what we ARE to become more naturally human rather than arguing over respective idolatries?
We are as we ARE: Decent, sociable, caring, loving, self actualizing, and self controlled human beings until corrupted by religions like yours and others. Not all religions, just those that preach the depravity and sinfulness of all people. We are neither hypocrites, not capable of atrocity until taught to be so by (usually religious) leaders.
By the way the subject of this post is Science as a Bridge to God, not Religion as a Bridge to Hell. Additional off topic apologetics will be removed.
J'C
We are as we ARE: Decent, sociable, caring, loving, self actualizing, and self controlled human beings until corrupted by religions like yours and others. Not all religions, just those that preach the depravity and sinfulness of all people. We are neither hypocrites, not capable of atrocity until taught to be so by (usually religious) leaders.
By the way the subject of this post is Science as a Bridge to God, not Religion as a Bridge to Hell. Additional off topic apologetics will be removed.
*************************
It appears fanaticism has finally entered. Everything is as J'C says it is and because of that the natural ability for science to verify the universal laws that religion appreciates and also directs the human condition are denied. Science in your eyes is seen as too good to verify what the Perennial traditions have always known so approprite dialogue will be deleted in favor of idealistic wishful thinking and religious persecution.
Now you know why I don't trust Beliefnet. I'll be leaving.
This is not beliefnet, it J'Carlin's blog. Bye.
Postmortem:
1. Nick persisted in presenting arguments that were denegrating to humans and human life; some of those were generated from "The World Scripture" written by the International Religious Foundation, a subsidiary of the Unification Church.
2. Nick's admiration of Simone Weil manifested itself as an uncritical passion; she literally produced nothing but "superlative ideas and observations" for him.
3. No matter the language or "buzz words" employed, Nick was on a mission to "save us." [We shouldn't be chastized for not wishing to be saved by Nick.]
4. Your restraint and patience were admirable but probably excessive. Those that wish to "drive the cart over a cliff" should be restrained, sooner, rather than later.
EI
He was given enough rope to hang his cause. Religion as a Bridge to Hell is my attempt to do so.
Post a Comment