All of us die. Most of us want to continue to live. That’s why the house was full that Thursday night.
Author’s note, Feb. 2006. In July 2004, Dr. Gerald Schroeder came to speak on this topic. While the lecture itself was delivered 18 months or so ago, its relevance remains immediate. We are yet born, we yet die - and continue to wonder at the first event and fear the second. Dr. Schroeder’s lecture increased my wonder at the second event as well.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - gonzo marx
ok..start with an easy Riddle...
guy is standing at the Pearly gates, and three naked couples are presented....he is told, "pick out Adam and Eve and you can go on in"....a quick look, he chooses and goes in....
how did he know?
now...on to your Points of Discussion...
Ruvy sez...
*Schroeder in his book "The Science of G-d" argues that the sign of the existence of the neshamá, the spirit that communicates with G-d, is the presence of writing which dates back 5,500 years.*
well now...interesting take...but other forms of Writing had been around at the same time, just not Hebrew...Phoenician cuneiform and the oriental languages....i don't know the early dates for India off the top of my head...
but i think you miss a Step...communicative abstract Symbology
the first time Ugh grabbed a pointy thing and sketched out a four legged stick figure then two(or more) two legged figures chasing ...you had Logos
the cave paintings in France, all the baby steps leading to verbal communication
yet...according to the hypothesis you seem to be putting forward, it's not till Adam is made, given a "soul" and taught to write Hebrew that we are "Man"...and, by extrapolation...only those children of Adam can even possibly have "souls"...
i'm sorry i don't have a link to the Russian experimental data...i read a bit about it many years ago...and have no documentation for substantiation , if interested..i'm fairly certain you could find it
as for the "big bang" and it being the Beginning...well...
some mathematical models lean towards a cyclic Expansion and Contraction...from a singularity to infinity and back again...over and over...
what was the original Source and the following Question...what begat that?
fuck if i know...
the Answer to the Riddle is, the man picked the couple with no belly-buttons : being both fully formed and not Born of Woman, they wouldn't have any...
just a Thought
Excelsior!
27 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Gonzo,
yet...according to the hypothesis you seem to be putting forward, it's not till Adam is made, given a "soul" and taught to write Hebrew that we are "Man"...and, by extrapolation...only those children of Adam can even possibly have "souls"...
Samples of writing - in whatever language - aren't really older than 5,500 years. I didn't specify Hebrew. I'm a descendent of Abraham, who was a Sumerian who left Ur with his father and family on Divine command. I just specified writing.
A painting is pretty and a picture is nice - but it does not indicate communication in the same way that writing does. The Cro-Magnon men thought - one can see thought in the remains of their handiwork, as well as in their paintings.
So the human-like intelligence that produced all this must have been highly developed. But a neshamá is a spirit that communicates with G-d. All that you cite is indicative of néfesh - spirit and instinct - on as highly developed level. English does not have two words for soul as does Hebrew.
Consider, Gonzo. Cain, after he kills his brother is afraid that he will be killed by others if he is to be a vagrant - what others? A literal reading of the text yields mommy and daddy and nobody else. Cain gets married. Who does he marry? His mom? His dad?
There were other people around who did not have the neshamá he did. They were male and female. He picked up one of the females and took the sign that G-d gave him and prayed. And he lived for seven generations.
The Torah is not to be literally taken in the sense that Protestant preachers would have you believe. It is a several layered cake, and when you read the text, all you see is the topping. It is truth, it is G-d's truth, but there is more to it than just the text as you see it. Go to my link to Aish haTorah at the first comment on my article "Purim Patrol." At the Aish haTorah site you'll find a tie between Purim and the Nürnberg trials after WWII.
28 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
One last thing, Gonzo.
Science is just as much a belief system as Judaism, Hinduism or the rest. It has different purposes and a different approach, but nevertheless, it has core beliefs to which all scientists ascribe, and to which they attempt to adhere, including Dr. Schroeder, and you. Somewhere amongst the axioms, hypotheses and theories, there comes a point when the fellow in the lab coat stamps his foot in anger and says, "it's so because I believe it is so!."
If he is a stupid man, he dismisses you and goes back to his Bunsen burner or computer or what have you. If he is truly wise, he covers his mouth in embarrassment and realizes the pile of shit he has just stepped in.
29 - Chromatius
Quantum mecahnics is not so much "illogical", as counter-intuitive. But so is Einsteinian spacetime, the last plateau of classical physics before the quantum revolution.
But they are logical, and therefore we can judge the logic of the positions/arguments, even though the math (and understanding based in it) is far beyond us...
For what it's worth (nothing), my own (logical) belief is that the wave/point duality, and the proliferation of sub-atomic particles, suggest quantum mechanics is a very partial view of a larger whole.
On the other hand what happens to the brain/mind at point of death will involve the failure of all logic, so near-death reports are dubious territory (even leaving aside the cultural issues).
I have a little personal experience of this area myself, but no revelations....
30 - Chromatius
"Science is just as much a belief system..." absolutely, but there is a difference.
Most modern humans understand very little of their material culture, technology and sciences. Leave anyone of us alone, we're unlikely to recreate even the basics.
So what we believe, what we 'know' has faith elements - I believe this guy because of his authority as a scientist. How do I know he's a scientist - well, white coat, white lab, his mates say he's a scientist (peer review)... the point is that most people believe but don't understand.
Nonetheless, leaving aside popular belief, authority and faith, the practice of science is a different activity to the practice of religion - pragmatic, empirical, evidence, argument, provability, falsifiability etc; whereas the science (as in organised body of knowledge) of religion tends to be interpretive - to better know the religious meaning of a text through history, allegory or some other hermeneutic.
In fact, it is in this area that Judaism has had the most profound impact on European/Graeco-Roman thought. And vice versa - e.g. the Kabbalah in the 12th Century CE is itself a product of this cross-fertilisation. Periods of great activity on this front include the 4th, 12th and 20th centuries - and the 'renaissance' - all key moments in the intellectual development of the west. But that's another story.
31 - Chromatius
"Like any intelligent scientist, he does not argue with the carbon dating. Neither do I. Note what I wrote Chris in comment #15 The giving of Adam a neshamá, a soul, took place 5766 years ago.
This does not mean that there were no men before then. The geologic record is clear. There were. And they did all the things you said they did in your comment. The geologic record does not lie."
So what you're saying is the divine had no real interest in its creation until then? Even the other creatures (humans) of similar appearance and ancestry, until this gift? Until the creation of this creature actually like the divine because of the soul, a creature part of a story, an escahtology, a divine destiny.
We're back to chosenness... do only Jews have souls?
32 - Chromatius
Expanding my last point - I was thinking, maybe I should have said the children of Abraham, rather than 'Jews'. Then I realised I didn't know who's meant to be descended from Adam and who isn't.
I'm aware that Genesis story is not a central element of Judaism, as it is in Christianity, but I don't know if it's still a creation story or not.
33 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chromatius,
Looking at this from a Torah/Kabbalistic point of view, there were three instances of "tzimtzúm," of G-d contracting Himself from the universe and allowing "slack" in His place. The first comes at the opening of Torah
1. Gen. 1:1 "With wisdom did G-d create the heaven and the earth. - 15 billion years ago.
2. The next comes with the creation of the néfesh (spirit) of the animals. - not sure
3. The final act of tzimtzúm is the creation of the neshamá in the man. - 5,766 years ago.
These are the three acts of creation in the universe.
Adam had a neshamá, as did Seth. So did Noah. In Hebrew, the term for mankind is "b'nei Adám" - children of Adam. So not only Jews have souls.
Chosenness is an entirely different concept and has nothing to do with the article.
34 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chromatius,
According to the Ramba"m, whom you would know as Maimonides, the act of creation was hidden and the text that you see is essentially for children and for people who are unable to draw their moral understnding any other way.
In Judaism, the act of Creation holds a very central significance, but for entirely different reasons than for Christians.
35 - Chromatius
Thanks. Don't forget #29 and especially #30, though.
36 - gonzo marx
Ruvy sez...
*Science is just as much a belief system as Judaism, Hinduism or the rest. It has different purposes and a different approach, but nevertheless, it has core beliefs to which all scientists ascribe, and to which they attempt to adhere, including Dr. Schroeder, and you.*
and here is the nut of hte conflict, Ruvy...you appear to be projecting your requirement of Faith on others (including myself)
NEVER in my mad ramblings have i stated "i believe" about anything...and definately not about science...
the big difference between science and metaphysics revolves around provable evidence and repeatable circumstance under controlled conditions
gravity works, whether one believes in it or not
my difficulties surrounding many of the baseline Postulates you espouse revolve around some Logical conundrums...the timeline as we have discussed is a central piece
you have the matter of Cain's wife rationalized to fit data...but we hit a snag again when it comes to Noah...
you get the Idea...
i know i cannot convince a Faithist of anything, and you do not have the data or evidence available to exit the realm of metaphysical speculation and enter into empirical scientific discourse
but thank you very much for the sharing of thought
Excelsior!
37 - Christopher Rose
People like Chromatius and gonzo marx are doing wonders at restoring my BELIEF that it is possible to have an intelligent exchange on this subject.
38 - Chromatius
I'm still puzzled what appears to be the apparent acceptance of evidence (geology, carbon dating etc) that there were humans before and at the time of the "creation of the neshamá" 5,766 years ago.
What's the status of these other humans? The ones who predate the neshamá, and those not bred from Adam's line.
Do they (or the 'good' among them) have a special status - perhaps like the 'good' pagans in Dante's inferno - or are they just not a part of the Divine's plan - of the Divine history and eschatology? Do they have souls (neshamá?), or just animal spirits (néfesh)?
39 - Bliffle
When you're dead you are dead. Dead and gone. It is only mans preposterous vanity that cannot accept his own death. Get used to it: there is no afterlife. Enjoy this one.
40 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chromatius,
You've posed a good question. The truth of the matter is, I don't know. I can guess - that after 5,700 years of interbreeding the neshamá has spread throughout humanity - but that is only a guess.
The data that Gonzo introduced at comment #24 about a few ounces being consistently missing from each corpse might tend in that direction. Here, as with NDE's, one is forced to rely on anectdotal evidence. One can quanify the anectdotal data, but go no further.
From the terms in the Torah, one can assume that all humans now possess a neshamá in addition to a néfesh. In describing the laws of Pessah, (Passover) it states that if one retains leaven in his household during Pessah, his neshamá will be cut off from that of the People for a seven day period.
Similar phraseology is used in other laws dealing with purity.
The reason is that Noah had a neshamá and according to the Torah, we are all descended from Noah.
Those humans who lacked a neshamá presumably perished in the Flood.
But there may be more to the story...
41 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
There is another issue here that I forgot to mention, but given that tonight we will again gather at the Israel Center to hear a Root & Branch presentation, I'm reminded of it.
The crowd that Dr. Schroeder spoke to 18 months ago was a crowd full of believers, like me. He didn't have to convince anybody of the idea of the soul actually existing. That he should have to prove a soul's existence to this audience would have been carrying coals to Newcastle.
The data he presented was designed to tie NDE's in to the description of death in the Torah, and to thereby suggest a different approach to what we view as "reality."
The Dutch study he cited in Lancet was peer reviewed by scientists and therefore deserving of the term "scentific evidence."
Whether atheists wish to accept this or not is their business, not mine. I didn't publish the article nor did I review it.
42 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy, people who don't buy into the god theory aren't atheists, that's a religious term in itself. People who buy into unsubstantiated theories are faithists, which may be a polite word for gullible, the rest of us don't need a label.
43 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Chris, you wouldn't happen to be involved in marketing, would you?
44 - Andy Marsh
My father had his second triple by-pass a few weeks ago...doctors told me he died three times over a two day period...my father said to me last week...you know that white light they talk about??? it's BULLSHIT! His words not mine...
...but I do tend to agree with him.
45 - gonzo marx
*all descended from Noah*
ok..that's another one of my sticking points...
one of the "Noahide Laws" is against incest, yes?
yet the ONLY humans after the flood were Noah, his wife, their sons and their wives....yes?
so....after the first generation, folks were banging their siblings and cousins...incest by definition...
worse yet...the genetic data tends to show a minimum human population of 200 is required for a stable breeding pool...otherwise you hit the diminishing returns points with defective recessive genes being propagated and killing more young than are born healthy...
just a Thought
Excelsior!
46 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Andy,
What your father said is precisely the point made by the Dutch study cited by Schoeder in Lancet which has a link at comment #20. Not everybody who died on the table and came back saw a white light. If "everybody" saw the white light, that would have backed up the theory that the brain shoots hallucinogenic chemicals in order to help the braqin deal with the process of dying.
Only 18% of the 344 people studied indicated such an experience. Since all brains are pretty much alike, then this phenomenon does not derive from hallucinogenic chemicals.
May your father experience a full recovery to health and remain with you for many years.
47 - Nancy
LOL, Gonzo. I can count on you to find the elements of absurdity & point them out in any argument. Ruvy is right: it IS an interesting argument, altho for me it's not credible. Gonzo/Chris is right: it reminds me strongly of the "pilpul" & numerology exercises in Chaim Potok's novels.
48 - Andy Marsh
thanks Ruvy, he is doing much better now...went home yesterday as a matter of fact...now...if we can keep him away from the Jack...
49 - troll
Andy - did your dad say anything about what he did experience - ?
troll
50 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Gonzo, I've been giving that a little thought.
It was the custom among royalty in the ancient Middle East to marry off sons to a half sister or cousin, with the half sister being the preferred choice.
If you set up a chart with Shem, Yafet and Ham, their wives and sons and daughters (you pick how many - it isn't that important) and marry off Shem's son to Yafet's daughter, Ham's son to Shem's dauhter etc, and do that for a generation or two or three with about 6 kids a piece (no birth control pills at the local druggist you know), you rapidly get to the minimal gene pool you are talking about.
Even the pope gave the men in Paraguay a dispensation to take more than one wife after the idiotic dictator there got Paraguay into a population reducing war with Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina from 1865 to 1870.
I suppose the Big Guy Upstairs would have done the same... He's more intelligent than any pope.
51 - gonzo marx
decent Thought Ruvy, but completely incorrect...
to wit: the 200 number is the baseline genepool of UNRELATED (read: further apart than second cousins) people needed to establish a pool
since ALL of the folks left on Noah's boat WERE related ( the brothers, i am counting on the wives NOT being related to Noah or each other) that still leaves you exponentially short
and even with polygamy...still leaves folks banging their sisters and cousins from at least the first to 5th generations
second Issue...as far as i am able to determine, NONE of those on the ark were, chinese, african, american indian, hindu, australian aborigine, scandanavians or kazaks
each of those people have distinctive physical traits which would take MUCH longer to evolve and set themselves as genetic norms for their populations than a few thousand years...
not to mention the written chinese history is unbroken for at least 5000 years and some works indicate a civilization even older
just sharing...
Excelsior!
52 - Andy Marsh
troll - pop said it was nothing but black...he told me he felt like just letting go...that it was very calming...but he figures there must be a reason for him still being here or he wouldn't be...
53 - chantal stone
this only strengthens my own theories that the Old Testament (i'm Christian) is full of very interesting stories that were often used to explain things that could not otherwise be proven scientifically at the time.
i do believe there are lessons to be learned from the OT stories, but i don't regard them as historical fact.
54 - Andy Marsh
didn't Noah live to be something like 600 years old according to the Book of Genesis?
55 - Chromatius
I have a NDE description from someone whose judgement I generally trust. This person has died at least twice, on two completely separate occasions, but remembers nothing of the actual events.
Nevertheless s/he had a dream later which s/he believes correctly represents the experience: it's like suddenly realising you're holding all these strings (which lead into different aspects of your life, including the body and the things you're doing) and there's absolutely no reason to. Nor do you feel like it. So you let them go, and then you suddenly move in a direction you never knew existed.
FWIW.
56 - Bird of Paradise
Ruvy, I am a Protestant "preacher" and am quite happy to accept the current scientific standard of the creation event ("big bang") at 13 billion years. I do not believe that Genesis 1 is talking about 24-hour days. I do believe that "Life, the Universe and Everything" (as a wonderful book was once titled) comes from the "mind" or "wisdom" of God.
I have for many years come to the same conclusion as you express concerning the existance of proto-human beings of various descriptions with cro-magnon, with his/her large cranial capacity representing the final stage of human intelligence.
From both a psychological and philosophical point of view there had to come a time when a "human" for the first time recognized their unique place in creation. One human at one specific moment in historical time somehow acquired the capacity to "step outside" of themselves and to see the world and the universe and their place within it objectively. At that moment that person became "enlightened" in a way that enabled them to conceptualize infinity and eternity and to become far more than the world's most intelligent animal he/she had been only a few moments before.
This spiritual and psychological tranformation not only marked the beginning of an incredibly rapid emergence of language and writing but also agriculture and science (which requires objectivity) as well as a clear vision of moral and ethical boundries all of which were necessary for "civilization" to become a reality.
In this sense Genesis 1 & 2 although written in a literary style that is both poetic and metaphysical, also manages to capture the reality of an actual moment in historical time . . . when human beings received "soul" from God and became "formed in the image of God" both male and female.
By the way, human racial distinctives had several hundred thousand years to evolve (micro evolution) before this spiritual/psychological moment ocurred.
I can't say I necessarily find Dr. Schroeder's "theories" particularly compelling from a scientific point of view but they are interesting from a theological and biblical point of view. Thank you for sharing them.
57 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
You're most welcome, BoP.
Actually Dr.Schroeder's concepts deal with the convergence of religion and science. It strikes me from what you write that you've already gone a ways down that path yourself.
Shabbat Shalom
58 - gonzo marx
still no answer to the Issues raisedin comment #51....
ah well...
Excelsior!
59 - troll
Gonzo - the Flood must have affected only the 'world' as Noah's people knew it
and the resulting inbreeding explains alot.....just kidding - don't start burning embassies
troll
60 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Gonzo, Got most of the post covered - but as for the first part, still thinkin' on it. I'm just an uneducated scribbler, you know...
61 - David Ben-Ariel
I heard Dr. Schroeder speak several times about "God and the Big Bang" at the Root and Branch lectures in Jerusalem in 1995 (when they began). I found them to be most fascinating, even awesome.
I believe the Bible is very clear that the dead are dead and buried, awaiting the resurrection to LIFE, not having "passed" to some other form of "life" that the pagans have preached.
The brain and thought are two different things, as Herbert Armstrong revealed that the "spirit" in man (not a soul - man is a soul - or conscious entity, but an ESSENCE) is what our Great Creator God uses to impart intelligence to us and enable us to develop a relationship with the Word.
Herbert Armstrong pioneered (under inspiration) in understanding this non-physical component that affects our brain and will be used to later restore us to life, a sort of spiritual DNA that preserves everything about us and is stored with God at our death.
What Science Can’t Discover About the Human Mind -- Perhaps Dr. Schroeder has read it?
62 - Bliffle
Vanity, vanity. All is vanity. What could be more vain than for any of us miserable mortals to think that there is some soul, some essence of themselves, that is so wonderful that it would persist after death? Foolish on the face of it. Only the gullibilty of weak humans can explain it.
63 - Bird of Paradise
Bliffle, Being a non-believer is no less a choice than being a believer. Each is a choice. From a neutral, unbiased standpoint one choice ought to be no better or worse than the other (this would be relativism speaking). Accordingly, your comment concerning "gullibility of weak humans" is a biased value judgement and neither objective nor helpful.
Strictly from an objective point of view, comparison research studies of religious believers and non-believers (the statistical criteria was more defiined than that) have repeatedly shown (in the US at least) that, on average, believers are happier, healthier, are more generous with the giving money and time to charitable causes (not just to thier "churches"), enjoy longer and more satisfying marriages and enjoy more satisfying sex than non-believers.
Have a nice day.
64 - Bird of Paradise
Bliffle again, Please explain to my why random evolution and natural selection brought forth in humans the capacity to conceive of life beyond death? Psychologically and anthropologically this capacity is clearly a higher and more sophisticated level of thought than it is a lower or degenerate one.
Based on natural selection alone, the benefits of such a concept must clearly outweigh the liabilities.
Any intelligent, questioning person (even an atheist) cannot escape the logic of this.
Freud and Marx, the vanguard of the future, thought that they had buried religion once and for all. It turns out that they were the neanderthals.
65 - gonzo marx
BoP sez...
*Freud and Marx, the vanguard of the future, thought that they had buried religion once and for all. It turns out that they were the neanderthals.*
an interesting take on it...and one almost worthy of consideration, except for the error in timescale
both Freud and Marx were overly ambitious idealogues whose tenets were nothing more than a secular "religion" in themselves...and thus, they remained far too close to the problem to have any kind of accurate Objectivity in many of these matters...
rather, Jung and Joseph Campbell...with their explorations into Myth and comparative cultural studies will do more, in the end, to expose the tyrannical bullshit involved in most oraganized religions that rely on "literalist" interpertation of "cannonized" words from Men
it's only when the snake oil salesman can convince the "mark" that he knows better and that his "product" will gain the mark "something for nothing" that the con-game can go on and the con-man skim some cash from the "believer"
i have no difficulties with anyone's Faith, my problems have always revolved around the insanity of "literalist" interpertations of written words form the hands of Men and taking them as if they were the revealed Word from the Mind of God...
(side note: no worries Ruvy, when ya can...i find the honest discourse as interesting as old talks between a gung fu teacher, rabbi and Jesuit over coffee when i was a youngster and just listened)
nuff said?
Excelsior!
66 - Christopher Rose
BoP: WRONG! Not being a faithist isn't a choice, it's the lack of the ability to persuade oneself that something which is clearly a ludicrous theory is plausible.
The statistics you quoted are broadly speaking correct, although I'd be prepared to dispute the good sex one, but that doesn't by any stretch of the imagination validate the god theory.
I'd also like to understand your highly confusing assertion that the ability to conceive of life beyond death is a sign of sophisticated thinking. Humans have long had the ability to make up stories and this is just another one of them. There is no life after death and there is no god.
You keep borrowing the language of reason but seem to have forgotten to apply the procedure to your own thinking. I really see very little difference between the Jews-Christians-Muslims, they all believe in the same totally unsupported theory.
Finally, we're not atheists, you're faithists; I find the term atheist offensive.
67 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Gonzo writes,
"...i find the honest discourse as interesting as old talks between a gung fu teacher, rabbi and Jesuit over coffee when i was a youngster and just listened"
Unless the rabbi were a m'kubal or a black belt - I'd put my money on the gung fu teacher.
68 - Victor Plenty
Christopher, if you find the term "atheist" offensive, then obviously your attempt to label others "faithists" is a deliberate effort to offend or insult them.
Thus you are clearly fanatical about your worldview, whatever you choose to call it. This trait is just as repulsive and dangerous in a nonbeliever as fanaticism of a religious origin.
Whenever someone claims a privileged status for their own worldview as the one and only truth about the nature of the universe, that person is caught in a dangerous self-deception. Insulting people over a difference of worldview is not nearly distant enough from feeling a need to shut them up by killing them.
In this particular discussion, Ruvy and the other believers have treated the nonbelievers with far more respect and courtesy than you have extended to them. They have thus proven it is possible, at least sometimes, for the religious to be more calm and less fanatical than those who are not religious.
Would that we all could learn to treat each other with greater respect, and move farther away from blood feuds that start over theological differences.
69 - SonnyD
Quite an interesting discussion. Looks like most of you have picked sides and are all perched precariously on your two-legged bar stools. Where are those who would add a third leg to the stool?
What I see here are a lot of fearful people on both sides. The believers, or faithist as CR would label them (even though he is offended by being labeled), who know they have not lived perfect lives and hope to have their sins forgiven if they join a group of similar people and follow all the rules they are taught, no matter how silly some of the rules are.
Then, there are the few who are even more fearful, who reject any possibility of anything existing beyond the realm of comprehension of our mortal minds. What a terrible fear of the unknown they must be harboring if they refuse to, at least, leave their minds open to the possibilities of maybe. Take a look around people, is this life really all that great that it is worth all the pain and hardships, all the loss and suffering that we experience for the small amount of joy and true happiness we find? Don't you ever have some small thought in your mind that you must be here for a reason?
70 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Victor,
Thank you for the kind words and clear analysis.
Sonny,
The convergence of science and religion is the three legged stool. Five hundred years or so ago, most scientists were theologians. Maimonides was a scientist.
There is another angle to be looked at here. Ancient Vedantic thought seeks G-d through science. This particlular angle is one I need to bring up to Dr. Schroeder because his view deals basically with Judaism.
Now I gotta get some sleep. It's late here.
71 - Christopher Rose
Victor: No, I must disagree. The word faithist is simply accurate. Nor does it follow that I am fanatical about my worldview. Frankly I'm disappointed there is so little to be reasonably fanatical about.
I didn't claim a superior position and I have also repeatedly said that I would fight to defend faithists right to believe whatever they want to. According respect to those views or having social and/or political decisions made on the basis of religious values is a whole different matter though. I would also not like to see major decisions affecting the lives of millions being made by astrologers, for example.
According to Ruvy, who I consider a friend, albeit virtual than actual, the god character turned up about 6,000 years ago. We humans were already here before that. So the entire basis of whichever strand of this phenomenon of god worship lacks any realistic grounding. Now if the Jewish-Christian-Muslim factions want to form some weird grand alliance and start saying that god was an alien with superpowers or something like that, you'd be in with a chance of persuading me there might be something in it. That would at least be plausible, if somewhat unlikely.
The truly tragic fact here is that our species is being lead astray by the clearly false god theory of creation. We humans have enough real and pressing problems to deal with without our natural spiritual feelings being corrupted by an outmoded and simply wrong creation theory.
If that all adds up to a lack of respect in your view, I regret that. Personally, I think I am being more than fair to a group of people with some frankly odd ideas, none of which can be validated. I have also not suggested any repression of people who, if they sought to impose their views, would pose a serious threat to my way of life. All in all, I feel I am being enormously tolerant and respectful. As is only proper.
Late add-on for SonnyD: I'm offended by being labelled an atheist, not by being labelled.
I don't believe I've said anything to deny the "possibility of anything existing beyond the realm of comprehension of our mortal minds". Frankly I hope and wish there is.
The only thing I have a "terrible fear of" is wasting my precious limited time on mindless, implausible and frankly odd theories of origin, belief and purpose that are clearly contradicted by vast amounts of evidence that literally surrounds us everywhere we look.
I think life is great and am too busy enjoying it to devote large portions of it to empty ritual, no matter how well meant or sincerely held.
"Don't you ever have some small thought in your mind that you must be here for a reason?"
I understand that to be one of the classic ego strokes of all time. Actually, life is what you make it and I choose to believe in humanity not elves, pixies, gods or stars as my guiding light. Now if this god was to turn up and reclaim his people, that would probably change things.
72 - Victor Plenty
As a nearly-15-year veteran of online debates between theist and nontheist worldviews (I actually started on it during the BBS era of the early 90s, before most people had ever heard of the Internet), I've seen these same hardened positions many times before.
Sometimes it's the believers who are the jerks, and the nonbelieving who sound reasonable and calm. Sometimes it's the other way around. All too often, both sides turn out to be jerks once they realize they aren't going to gain any converts to their worldview. Rarely does everyone debate with mutual respect. Even more rarely does everyone see the conversation as a golden opportunity to gain new insights from interesting people with different points of view.
From all these observations, I've come to a few conclusions about God. If any such being exists, She can't be very happy with the abusive behavior most believers fall into when they think they're honoring the greater glory of God and bringing the Word of Truth to lost sheep.
An atheist who is humble, who admits the Ultimate Truths of the Universe are still beyond the grasp of any human mind, and who treats different worldviews with respect, seems likely to do well in any afterlife governed by a merciful Creator. Such an atheist would certainly earn a higher standing in heaven than any of the fiery preacher types who spread hate and animosity in the name of religion.
The success of modern science also makes it clear that the Creator, if such a being exists, intended the universe to function according to laws that the human mind can grasp. Believers who seek to harmonize their belief systems with the discoveries of the scientific method are likely to experience more success and happiness in the world than those who cling to outdated superstitions and literal interpretations of their holy books.
Whether you believe in one God, in many gods, or in no gods, the key to success and progress remains the same: Retain the humility to deal with other human beings respectfully and learn new insights from them.
It's a blindingly obvious conclusion once you reach it, yet we so often fall away from it, it seemed worth the effort of reiterating.
73 - Christopher Rose
"Whether you believe in one God, in many gods, or in no gods, the key to success and progress remains the same: Retain the humility to deal with other human beings respectfully and learn new insights from them."
Quoted for truth
[copyright gonzo 2005]
74 - SonnyD
Did anyone seriously read Ruvy's post and get the point about bringing science and religion together? Did you read the part that says nothing is solid--not his podium or you or the chair you're sitting in? Everything is energy, electrons whirling around a nucleus and proton.
I can agree, to a point, with Dr. Schroeder. He says energy was created at the Big Bang. This goes against scientific findings that energy cannot be created or destroyed. I say energy created that which we call the Big Bang and that it didn't go Bang at all.
I say that energy exists. Not before or after, not then or now. Outside our concept of time or space. It just IS. As a famous (or infamous) president once said, "It all depends on what your defination of IS is." You have to adjust your thinking away from the material world you are accustomed to seeing, and think of everything as pure energy--the universe, you and your chair--just whirling electrons.
Now, here is the big What If. What If this energy also is made up of what we call intelligence and creativity? OK, it may be hard to imagine, but give it a minute's thought. What if this energy is aware and creative and is able to draw itself together into points. (Giving credit to another president) Let's call them points of light. Now, these individual points are aware of themselves as individuals as well as being part of the whole.
OK, now somebody take it from there. What could these points of light, energy imbued with intelligence and creativity, create and why?
75 - Bird of Paradise
Hmmm. "Faithist." I kind like it. "One who has faith in faith." Christopher, would it be insulting to refer to you as an "unfaithist" or "nonfaithist?" If you would prefer a positive label rather than a negative one you will somehow have to define yourself in terms of what you DO believe rather than constantly talking about what you do NOT believe.
Oh, and Victor, Ruvy and I are most certainly not trying to "win" any converts through reason, argument or persuation. People believe what they choose to believe.
I believe that Christopher's beliefs (or philosphy of life) are, to some degree, just as logical and reasonable as my own. My comments are more or less designed to demonstrate that the Christian faith is also reasonable and logical . . . if not in its metaphysical doctrines then at least in the demonstrable positive effects such "faithism" has on those who practice it.
I am also enjoying some of the creative ideas that Ruvy has spawned on this post. I can never understand, however, why folks who don't like an opinion get so wrapped up in trying to fight against it as if their life depended on it.
For heaven's sake! (oops, sorry about that, Christopher). For "observable and testable cosmos' sake!" The best part of "ideas" is to wiggle your way inside them and try them on for size! Closed minds will not or cannot do this. By refusing to consider the subject of metaphysics, theology or religion, a person effectively shuts down a significant part of their brain. It is as though a scientist refused to understand "meaning" or "beauty" in art, music or poetry because it was not quantifiable.
Language itself has been studied but, like most everything else, is still a mystery yet to be solved.
If a person is not comfortable with mystery and limits their thinking to only one small slice of the philosopical pie, they are missing out on most of the enjoyment of life!
As a Christian I hold fast to two or three several beliefs that I believe to be true. The rest is mystery and I am very happy to sink my teeth into just about anything to see what it tastes like.
As Deuteronomy puts it, "The secret things belong to God. But the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever."
Here, let us discuss the "secret things" and enjoy the ride!