RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (12) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: Intellectually Honest Christians?, Is it possible?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,16:07   

Quote
Ever read the Desiderata (a Christian poem)?  It could have been written by any Taoist or Buddhist:

Desiderata

You are a child of the universe,
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should...

Then there was the infamous National Lampoon parody:

Go placidly amid the noise and waste,
And remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
Avoid quiet and passive persons unless you are in need of sleep.
Rotate your tires.

Speak glowingly of those greater than yourself,
And heed well their advice, even though they be turkeys.
Know what to kiss and when.
Consider that two wrongs never make a right,
But that three lefts do.

Wherever possible put people on "HOLD".
Be comforted that in the face of all aridity and disillusionment,
And despite the changing fortunes of time,
There is always a big future in computer maintenance.
Remember the Pueblo.

Strive at all times to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate.
Know yourself. If you need help, call the FBI.
Exercise caution in your daily affairs,
Especially with those persons closest to you;
That lemon on your left for instance.

Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls,
Would scarcely get your feet wet.
Fall not in love therefore; it will stick to your face.

Carefully surrender the things of youth: birds, clean air, tuna, Taiwan,
And let not the sands of time get in your lunch.
For a good time, call 606-4311.

Take heart amid the deepening gloom that your dog
Is finally getting enough cheese;
And reflect that whatever fortunes may be your lot,
It could only be worse in Sioux City.

You are a fluke of the Universe.
You have no right to be here, and whether you can hear it or not,
The Universe is laughing behind your back.

Therefore make peace with your God whatever you conceive him to be,
Hairy Thunderer or Cosmic Muffin.

With all its hopes, dreams, promises, and urban renewal,
The world continues to deteriorate.
Give up.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,16:30   

Quote
Okies, let's talk. My Grandfather was full-blood Mescalero Apache. He taught me to think of things as a unified whole. I grew up thinking in terms of primitive animism, or a subset of pantheism. Now...let's look at some things:
Hmmm... It may not be altogether coincidental that my Pantheistic phase was also influenced by mescal-something-or-other.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,17:27   

Here's the way I see it:
[you are born...you live...you die]

Those brackets are the beginning and end of the experience we can share with others.

There is absolutely no evidence, none... no evidence whatsoever that god is anything that wishes to comminicate with us in our language or that life happens after death.

Wrong. That's not evidence. That's heresay. Nope. Neither is that. Wrong again! Sorry, that's been covered too.

So, intellectual honesty regarding religion can make only 1 claim: doing X makes me feel Y. Nothing else.

I can track with those who begin by noticing the "Great Chain of Being" and so on, but experience and words about the experience are not the same thing.

So, my answer becomes refined: You can not claim authoritative knowledge of god(s)(ess) supernatural events etc. and be intellectually honest.

Jesus made some sense. So did Budda. Mohammed had one or two things to say. But so did Samuel Clemens, GHandi, Monica Lewinski and my neighbor. I have what I call religious experiences frequently. Does that make me religious?

I suspect that, since you chose to use the words "intellectually honest christians" that you mean something like "Is it intellectually honest to believe in a god who intervenes in our daily lives and a heaven that awaits us when we die."

No. Of course not. There is not only no evidence for any religion but there is contraverting evidence. But who cares? I use many crutches to help me enjoy my time between the brackets. I suspect that is unavoidable and mostly benign.

Wishing a religion onto someone else  makes a lot of sense if that religion makes them stop peeing in your front yard.

That is, if you want them to stop peeing in your front yard.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,18:03   

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 05 2007,07:50)
Quote
Ever read the Desiderata (a Christian poem)?  It could have been written by any Taoist or Buddhist


or atheist. Because even though it does mention "God", by immediatelyfollowing that with "whatever you conceive Him to be" (presumably including non-sentient, non-purposeful, non-real...) that makes the term, if not meaningless, at least something an atheist can cheerfully accept.

Yep.


So I'm a little puzzled as to just what it is that all the hyper-atheists want to bitch about . . . . ?  So someone believes in God.  So f-ing what?  How does that pick anybody's pocket or break anybody's leg?  What difference does it make to anyone else?  Why should anyone get their undies all in an uproar over it?

Or someone DOESN'T believe in God.  Same questions.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,18:08   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 05 2007,08:05)
Quote
The fundies, in particular, fall into the "word" trap.  For them, The Words are, literally, all that matters.

Not surprising, I suppose, for a tradition that begins with "In the beginning there was the. Word, and the Word was with. God, and the Word was God."

Indeed, they are idol-worshippers, nothing more.  To them, God is, quite literally, a Book.

They demonstrate this clearly whenever you ask them simply "What is a Christian?"  Most churches will answer "someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ."  The fundies, however, invariably answer, "someone who believes in the Bible".

That difference is very telling.

The ironic part is that the fundies are completely oblivious to the whole issue.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,18:26   

Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 05 2007,08:11)
I feel as if some of you are adding to something I'm not saying.

You're right -- some are.  And it's not hard to see why.  To many of the uber-atheists, a theist is a theist is a theist.  They're all the same, and they're all the enemy.  To some of the hyper-atheists (more so at PT than here, thankfully), *I* too am the enemy, even though I'm, uh, not a theist.  That's because by refusing to help them stamp out religion, I am "enabling the theists", and am therefore myself no better than the theists are.

I'm sure you've seen that same attitude before --- remember all those fundies who declared that an infidel is an infidel is an infidel, and they're all the enemy --- and the "liberal christians" are the enemy too even though they are Christians, because by rejecting the One True Biblical Faith, they "enable" the atheists and are, indeed, no better than atheists themselves?

Apparently, to the extreme fringe of both sides, it's not enough to hold the "correct" ideas -- you also have to be zealous enough in stamping out the opponents, too.  Like the Maoists, no matter HOW ideologically pure you are, it's never pure enough.  (sigh)

Like I said, the evangelical fundies and the evangelical atheists simply aren't that different.

I did find it deliciously ironic, though, when *I* was pointed to as someone who treats *you* as being a fundie. . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
ScaryFacts



Posts: 337
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,18:44   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 05 2007,01:01)
I'm not surprised that intelligent, rational people can discuss loaded concepts without resorting to character assassination and underhanded tactics and I'm glad to see civility.


Just a quick note of thanks…I know many Christians come here and feel persecuted.  Despite the fact I often propose possibly nutty ideas, you guys and gals have consistently been gracious.  I do appreciate that.

 
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 05 2007,08:22)
The fundies, in particular, fall into the "word" trap.  For them, The Words are, literally, all that matters.  They in all seriousness worship a Book About God, not a God.
<snip>


This is a great post Lenny.

 
Quote (Russell @ Jan. 05 2007,13:18)
So. Aren't you glad you read all that? Hello? Is anyone there?  What I'm curious about is: how do thoughtful Christians deal with these questions? Let's just home in on the central one. What does it even mean for a "will" or a "mind" to exist independently of a brain, however broadly defined or analogized. That covers not only the central question of God, but the next obvious question: what, if anything, is meant by "soul"? (Other than synonym for "mind", which - at least among us carbon-based life forms - cannot exist without the support of an actively metabolizing body.)


Russell, thanks for making a thoughtful post.  I read this earlier today but didn’t have time to respond.  So I stewed on it all afternoon.

Lately I have given this a great deal of thought.

First, I’m not convinced God does “supernatural” things as we generally define that term—things that suspend the natural laws of the universe.  In my own life almost everything I see and have previously (up until today) described as “supernatural” are actually very natural things but weirdly coincidental. (Hat tip to MarkG)

For instance:  I get up and pray because I need to pay a bill I have no money for, and then get that exact amount unexpectedly in the mail.   The check was written and mailed days before I even prayed, and absolutely no physical laws were violated.

The reason I tend to think of them as “divine intervention” has to do with all too common coincidence.  If it happens occasionally, no big deal.  If it happens constantly, that’s something else entirely.  (More on that in a minute)

WARNING:  THIS NEXT SECTION CONTAINS COMPLETE SPECULATION

Is it possible the “soul” (as people throughout history have described it) is far different than we assume?  What if we all share a common consciousness that has yet to be discovered and explored?   If it is possible the universe will someday produce energy based life forms, isn’t it possible there might be some level of energy that some people are able to tap into (in a very limited fashion)?

[/speculation]

Determinism may also hold the key to “natural” answers to prayer.

I expect this type of thing will be either discovered or refuted as we gain a better understanding of quantum mechanics, string theory, etc.

Third, I don’t know that the Bible teaches the soul can survive without the body.  The picture we are presented with of the resurrected Jesus in the Bible is of a very literal, physical body.  He ate, drank, walked and talked with others.  He made it a point to demonstrate he was physical rather than a ghost.

Later Paul, some 30 years after Jesus’ death, had to reassure Christians that they would have a new body, just as Jesus had a new body, even if they had died.

The oldest book of the Bible is Job, an ancient morality play.  One of the remarkable things about Job was where Job says:  “Even after I die, I know I will see God in the flesh.”  The belief in a “new body after death” is a very ancient idea.

But this begs a VERY HUGE question:  If Christian teaching on this is accurate, then what happens between death and resurrection?  Deadman regularly goes and digs up decayed bodies.  Where are their souls?

This is one area where I don’t have an answer and I have to accept with some faith.   Possibly we will one day advance science to the point where the answer is explained or refuted.  

MarkG came by my blog and made a great which I replied to.  I think it has some bearing here:


http://whorechurch.blogspot.com/2006....1992167

 
Quote
MarkG said...
Is the probability of winning the lottery less than that of your friends bringing over a particular desert?

How many people pray that they win the lottery? If someone did so, and won, would it be due to God's intervention, or just luck?


The probability that SOMEONE will win the lottery is pretty good. The probability that a particular person will win the lottery is pretty small. In the US the probability that someone who wins the lottery has at one time or another prayed they would win is probably also pretty good.

No, I wouldn't claim it was divine intervention.

But...

If the same person wins the lottery 5 times in one year and, in fact, never bought a ticket that didn't win I would assume somehow they had found a way to cheat or there was some type of unknown force behind it.

 
Quote
Also, I don't know how many times you have prayed for things, but how often has God not delivered? Do you keep count of those times?


For a period of time between 1984 and 2000 I kept track of specific, measurable prayer requests as well as keeping a record of how many of those were answered positively, negatively or inconclusively over the next 24 hours.

It totaled tens of thousands of prayer requests. Overall the numbers showed around 93% were answered in the positive and less than 5% were in the negative.

However, even though some might find that impressive (especially those inclined to believe), when you look at the hard data it is less so. Many of the requests were based on activities I would be doing that day and would likely have resolved the same way whether I had prayed or not.

So while I am glad I kept those records, they are hardly as conclusive as many would think.

 
Quote
For me, proof of the power of prayer would have to include something completely unnatural (e.g. regrowth of a limb). Both ice cream cake and fudge exist, and people have been known to take desert round to people's houses, when invited; it's only polite. I don't know how popular ice cream cake is in the U.S., but I suspect it's not rare? Same goes for the hot fudge topping, or is it a bizarre combination that only you and your friends like? Either way, no laws of nature have been broken in this event, so I would put it down to coincidence.


I am going to post something about the supernatural at AtBC because I had a bit of a brainstorm and I want you guys to check me out on it. More at AtBC.

I agree that coincidence is a possibility. And I know I haven't written up any more of my experiences other than this one, but at some point if this type of thing occurs regularly, one begins to say it defies reasonable coincidence.

As I said, winning the lottery 5 times in one year would be so improbable as to cause us to look for another possibility than luck.

 
Quote

If your friends had brought ice cream cake alone, would you have thanked God? What about if they had brought chocolate cake?

However, if God did intervene to make your friends bring that particular desert, one has to wonder why he didn't intervene to prevent the starvation of the many people that died whilst you were eating it.


If there had been no hot fudge, then I would have recorded in my journal that my prayer had not been answered. I still would have been happy, but on those types of things I wasn't giving God any slack--if there is a god and he is behind this stuff, he's able to stand up to scrutiny.

Why do people starve and die? Why doesn't a supreme being put a stop to it?

Beats me. Anyone who tells you they have an answer (besides "there is no god") is lying to you. That's just one example of stuff (even Bible stuff) I find very difficult to explain.

 
Quote

I hope I don't come across as snarky. I really like your posts on AtBC, and see you as a reasonable person. However, in this case, I think you're seeing what you want to see.


No, you didn't come along as snarky. Look, even though I believe there is some explanation for the experiences I've had, when a Christian approaches me and tries telling me of this "miraculous answer to prayer" I get the heebie jeebies. Typically it is less than convincing.

I knew when I decided to talk about this stuff at AtBC people would be critical of my thinking--that's exactly what I was hoping for.
 
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 05 2007,19:26)
I did find it deliciously ironic, though, when *I* was pointed to as someone who treats *you* as being a fundie. . . . .

Lenny, I don’t recall doing that myself, but if I did it was the Jim Beam talking.  Please accept my apologies.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,19:00   

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 05 2007,12:18)
I could see how Jesus's helpful hints for harmonious well-being (individually and socially) were all points well taken. But it was continuously emphasized to me that this was all integrally connected with a whole suite of supernatural wonders (like Jesus had no human father, could go head-to-head with The Amazing Kreskin with magic tricks, not only revivified but became immortal, that I myself and other true believers would also be immortal...)  None of that ever seemed credible, to the extent that I could even figure out what they even meant by it.

As noted, there are indeed Christian churches who neither assert nor accept **any** of these things.

As I pointed out before, both the evangelical atheists and the evangelical fundies view things in pretty much the same way.  They both define "Christianity" in the same way, and they both define "religious authority" in the same way.  Indeed, the militant atheists tend to treat ALL theists as if they were fundies (as seems to have been recently noticed right here in this thread), just as the fundies tend to treat ALL non-fundie religions as if they were, for all intents and purposes, atheists.  

The real dividing line, oddly enough, is not between atheism and theism.  It's between those who share the Biblical-authority definition of religion (the fundies and the uber-atheists) and those who don't (everyone else). The fight between fundies and hyper-atheists is, ironically, a fight between brothers.  Under their different-colored plumage, they are the very same bird, and they chirp the very same shared definitions.  The only difference is that one side wants to ACCEPT these shared definitions, the other side wants to REJECT them.

Alas, that limits BOTH sides, and makes any other view of Christianity or religion, quite literally, inconcievable.  Over at PT, when I pointed out that the UCC does not assert the divinity of the Bible, does not assert that Jesus is the son of God, and doesn't even assert that God definitely exists, the hyper-atheists were utterly befuddled, and wondered aloud how such a church could even consider itself "Christian".  Like the fundies, the uber-atheists literally cannot conceive of any religious framework outside of the Biblical-authority-centered one preached by the fundies and accepted unquestioningly by the evagelical atheists. To both fundies and hyper-atheists, people who do not share that framework simply are not and cannot be "real Christians".

And that is why, whenever someone from a non-fundie Christian framework (and once again it should be pointed out that these constitute by far the vast majority of Christians, worldwide) comes to forums like this, they tend to get shouted down by BOTH sides of extremists.  Neither the evangelical fundies nor the evangelical atheists can understand anything the vast majority in the middle is saying, since it's not presented in the proper "authority-centered" framework, but in a different framework that is entirely alien to both extremes.  Both the fundies and the evangelical atheists view Christianity exclusively and solely in terms of "the Bible says this, and YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW IT".  And both are equally befuddled when the majority of Christians respond with, "Like #### I do (shrug)."

I suspect that has a lot to do with why the moderate Christian majority, for the most part, doesn't get involved in the whole evolution-creation "debate".  They view the argument as not really involving them --- and in a very real sense, they are right.  It doesn't.  The argument between hyper-atheists and hyper-theists is, essentially, an argument over authority -- does the Bible have authority, or does science (and therefore atheism -- hyper-atheists, just like the fundies, tend to conflate the two, just as both also tend to conflate "religion" and "fundamentalism").  To the majority of Christians, who neither claim nor recognize any religious authority (other than their own conscience), the entire argument is a non-issue.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,19:16   

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 05 2007,12:18)
Rev. Dr. emphatically denies being an atheist

No, not really.  I simply don't apply *any* category to myself because I don't think any of them are appropriate for me.  I'm not a theist, since I don't assert or accept the existence of any god or gods.  I'm not comfortable with "agnostic", since "agnostics" either say they don't know or say that no one CAN know --- but so many, on both sides, DO claim to know, whether rightly or wrongly.  "Atheist" to me means a positive assertion that god or gods definitely do not exist, and I see no basis for making any such positive statement.  The "weak" atheists say that there simply is no (*scientific* -- once again the "authority" question intrudes) evidence for god or gods, and that's fine and dandy so far as it goes, but then, there's no scientific evidence that space aliens exist either --- and that doesn't mean they DON'T. (shrug)

And, to be blunt, another primary reason why I don't refer to myself as an "atheist" is simply because I don't want to be associated or grouped together with people like PZ, Popper's Ghost and Norm Doering, who are, in essence, no different than the fundies -- I would not want to live in a world run by people like them, and I prefer not to be associated with them in anyone's mind.

Were I forced to categorize myself as SOMETHING, it would be as an "apa-theist".  I simply don't CARE if there is a god or not.  The question simply is of no significance to me whatesoever.  If there is, that's nice.  If there ain't, that's nice too.  Makes no difference to me either way.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,19:23   

Quote (BWE @ Jan. 05 2007,17:27)
No. Of course not. There is not only no evidence for any religion but there is contraverting evidence. But who cares? I use many crutches to help me enjoy my time between the brackets. I suspect that is unavoidable and mostly benign.

Yeah, verily.  I've often wondered why some people are so utterly contemptuous of people who lean on crutches to help get them through life.  Many of the hyper-atheists remind me of people who see someone using a cane to hobble across the road, run up to him, kick his cane out from under him and then scream "WALK ON YOUR OWN, YOU WEAK LITTLE PUSSY !!!!!!!!"

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,19:29   

Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 05 2007,18:44)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 05 2007,19:26)
I did find it deliciously ironic, though, when *I* was pointed to as someone who treats *you* as being a fundie. . . . .


Lenny, I don’t recall doing that myself, but if I did it was the Jim Beam talking.  Please accept my apologies.

Oh no, it was not you at all.  Quite the opposite, indeed.

Absolutely no apology necessary.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,19:42   

Quote (ScaryFacts @ Jan. 05 2007,18:44)
Why do people starve and die? Why doesn't a supreme being put a stop to it?

Beats me. Anyone who tells you they have an answer (besides "there is no god") is lying to you. That's just one example of stuff (even Bible stuff) I find very difficult to explain.

Oddly, I asked that very question of a "liberation theologian(*)" that I met in Nicaragua during the Contra War.  This was, without a doubt, one of the most interesting people I ever talked with --- he was a Catholic lay worker from Chicago whom I met in the village of Bocana de Paiwas, Nicaragua, where he talked with me after saying mass with his AK-47 propped up next to his altar -- and continually quoted the Bible and Marx to me with equal ease.  

His answer was, I thought, absolutely perfect:

"Q.  Why doesn't God help starving people?"

"A.  Because that is OUR job, not his."






(*) -- If anyone wants to see a real alternative to "conservative" fundamentalist theology, then "liberation theology" is something to look at.  Wow.  I'm exceedingly glad that there are people like that in the world.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,19:52   

Quote
Were I forced to categorize myself as SOMETHING, it would be as an "apa-theist". I simply don't CARE if there is a god or not.

Excellent.

Although I first read it as "ape-theist," acknowledging that, whatever spirituality there may be, it is embodied, and never detachable.

Let me share this essay, which I wrote perhaps 15 years ago:


The Chordate Self

I.

I was brushing my teeth, or doing something else as ordinary, when suddenly struck: I am arches of experience emerging from the workings of my body, a transparent structure of color and action, transacting with an environment that is itself built of both awareness and physicality. A reality that includes body and experience. I am a tower of mental and physical homeostasis and balance, built of many rooms of knowing and behavior, a structure of self.

We are bodies that make consciousness. Bodies like our own, in turn, may be fashioned by evolution only because such a body can make consciousness.  Not spirits dwelling in bodies, able to fly out, but a di-polar reality that rises and falls as one. This single self has, as one pole, the matter/energy/message that comprises body; as another, the consciousness/volition/memory that comprises self. Self is something aware body does.  

I am saying that our bodies are spirits. Our spirits are bodies.

Identity requires memory, and memory is information-in-context that requires, in turn, form and complexity and temporality. The emergence of life, consciousness and identity in history have therefore both required and resulted from the capacity of matter and energy to support and retain complex form. It is the compartmentalized physical transactions of matter and energy, and the capacity of matter and energy to accumulate information over contingent history, that permit natural selection to construct, among myriad other things, bodies and conscious selves. In doing so, matter becomes as much like spirit as it is like clay or ash.

Why do we resist the inclusion of matter/energy in our vision of soul? Because spirits constructed as bodies cannot be built to last. That I am conscious-body now, body-spirit now, and later will not be, packs both fear and poignancy into finite experience. From that fear emerges empathy and caring, because I know that you share the same untenable predicament.

In return, by accepting that awareness emerges from bodies, we fully share the history our of bodies across deep time, and the strange and evocative structures of our human bodies and brains remain our own, rather than something merely inhabited. I fold the natural history of biological structure into my own experience, and rejoice that my soul arose in nature.  

Viewed in this way, the experiencing self is grounded in evolutionary history, a structure of experience that is both individual and "transpersonal" in nature, a transpersonal experience rooted in history.

II.

Each of us partakes of a variety of levels of self-sense. Ordinarily, human experience is existentially social and verbal in nature, experience that is shaped by the "location" of personhood in an historical and cultural context, built from that person's unique history of environments, experiences, behaviors and relationships, through interaction with one's care-givers and the embracing culture they convey. Further, the biology supporting this experience in "cultural space" is unique to the extent that it originates with the genetic and historical particulars of that individual's life. These are the social and biological considerations of psychology, and are the most frequent referents of the Western concept, "self".

There are deeper, much older strata of self that have identity in all human beings, because rooted in structural features of the human brain that are deeply invariant across individuals. Some aspects of this deeply invariant human neurological organization are "recently" evolved and, therefore, organize experiences unique to human beings, while other structures are almost unimaginably ancient, organizing a base stratum of subjectivity that is common to all vertebrate animals, a transpersonal stratum that is vastly more ancient than the neurological powers that originated with the evolution of hominids.

Evolutionary biology tells us that the essential axis of vertebrate organization, the axis of brain, spinal column and associated deployment of senses, reflects a body plan established something over five million centuries ago. This axis defines the absolute core functioning of the vertebrate life-machinery, a core responsible for governance of the internal living milieu, regulation of respiration and heart action, and the expression of drives and appetites.

Similarly, the integration of sense information and the coordination of volitional behavior follow neural pathways that are organized through a biology of awareness and behavior that is equally ancient, having originated with this 570 million year old body plan.

These ancient platforms of experience and behavior lay down in each of us a deep stratum of experiencing self that I call the "chordate self", a structure of awareness that originated with the evolution of the chordate body plan.

In short, underlying the psychological self is a deeper, more ancient chordate self in which we all silently partake, a self that is profoundly other-than-human, utterly non-verbal and shared with countless other vertebrate species. The Chordate Self.

Spiritual endeavors, those that invite widened awareness as a means to understanding, direct attention away from the inherently limiting particulars of individual history and away from the talkative narration of recent brain structures, to an essence of human awareness and human circumstance that is independent of personal history. The resulting profoundly transpersonal experiences, experiences that are fundamentally "neurohistorical" in nature, are in reality an experience of an ancient, transcendent non-verbal chordate self, refracted through the "enchanted loom" of more recent neocortical self-awareness and verbal narration that initiate and guide the spiritual effort.

It is interesting to consider some aspects of eastern discipline in this light, such as Yoga, with its interest in the deployment of energy and experience throughout the spinal column, essentially an exploration of one's phenomenological roots in chordate neural organization. Meditation of all varieties tends to place one's experience more in synchrony with transpersonal elements of self that are irrelevant to personal history, equating these neurohistorical transpersonal experiences with experience of divinity. In a sense this may not be mistaken, finding in these experiences a record of contingent evolution over very deep time, our true "creator".  

Similarly, LSD and similar substances become an occasion for a kind of neurohistorical sacrament. Whatever consciousness is, and whatever new ontological and phenomenological dimensions are drawn into existence through the addition of LSD to the human brain, nothing could more clearly demonstrate the neural basis of consciousness than its profound alteration through the insinuation of tiny amounts of such a simple substance. Thus altered, one possesses a brain of a new kind, capable of experiences associated with this new sort of brain. As a new individual, one is free to directly experience one's neurohistorical, chordate self apart from the vagaries of individual personal history, then re-enter that familiar psychological self able to refract everyday experience through the lenses of memory of this neurohistorical sacrament.

(and so forth)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,19:55   

I've appreciated Lenny's non-"canned" posts (and even a couple of the canned ones).  Thanks!

I think everybody on this thread, though, realizes that Scarey (and whichever of our other mild-mannered Christians show up) is NOT a fundy.  We realize he's not banging on our doors, condemning us to he11, trying to legislate our lifestyles or gender preferences, turn our land of the free into a "Christian Nation," claiming to know more about the mind of God than your pizza guy, etc., etc.

He's trying to use us as a sounding board.  (Maybe not the brightest idea anybody ever had, given our generally rowdy nature and insouciant outlook, but what the hey...!;)

He has some pretty specific things he wants to kick around.

So, while entertainingly and trenchantly phrased as always, I'm still not sure we need to keep hearing the hyper-atheist vs. fundy lectures.

We're not about to go all hyper-atheist upside Scary's head, all right?

Personally, I've got no "large," sociopolitical problem with anyone holding whatever "faith" beliefs they want or need, as long as they don't shove it down my throat (and, likewise, I don't shove on them) or try to subvert the institutions I'm forced to deal with in an effort to accomplish the same thing.

That doesn't mean I haven't thought about some of this stuff: in most cases, I'm not convinced by any evidence--or any internal revelations or "logic"--that there's a soul, an afterlife, a supreme being (other than, ya know, the amazingness of it all...), or any of that stuff.

But weird sh*t happens.  And I've certainly had my share of spooky and or spiritual moments.  And plenty of things in life aren't factual, evidentiary, rational, logical, or well-laid in any respect I've ever been able to figure out.  I'm well along in what may well be the only life I'll ever have, and I'm still working on all this kind of stuff and whatever the significance of it all is.

(In college, while sitting in a bamboo grove in an arboretum, looking up at the stars, heavily under the influence of a certain heavy-duty synthetic substance, we concluded that, "Nothing really matters.  But it doesn't really matter that it doesn't really matter."  This, of course, seemed like a far more momentous conclusion before the affect wore off, but I'm not sure I've gotten much further with it than that.)

So, I'm happy to kick all this around with Scary--so long as you larger-brained types do most of the heavy lifting--and I'm not about to go commando-atheist on him (which I wouldn't anyway, because that's not how I categorize myself [or Dawkins either, but we can disagree over that some other time and place]).

I particularly appreciate that Scary's personal version of Christianity is just that, not a commitment to a mega-church or some grandiose wealth/power entity in which too many become enmeshed.

I really think that's one of the bases of Dawkins' concerns about the "moderately" faithful.  That they, too much of the time, turn too much of their thought and decision-making over to others in a hierarchy, about the true motives of which they give too little thought.

Unlike Scary with his honest questions, too many U.S. "moderates" (for my money) give too little thought to why they believe, what they believe, and who that belief system is actually benefiting--and potentially harming--in the here and now.

But I'm open for debate on how accurately (or not) I'm characterizing the "moderates."  And, again, because that ain't Scary, that's a rant for another day.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,20:07   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 05 2007,19:52)
Let me share this essay, which I wrote perhaps 15 years ago:

Very Taoist of you.  (grin)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,20:08   

This universe/existence is weird. Everyone says so, from Einstein to Feynman. If it is one thing from one point...then it's all emergent and "connected"
I don't know what THAT means, but ..there appears to be a limit to what we CAN say WITHIN the system. So I ain't sweatin' it.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,20:33   

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Jan. 05 2007,19:55)
So, while entertainingly and trenchantly phrased as always, I'm still not sure we need to keep hearing the hyper-atheist vs. fundy lectures.

We're not about to go all hyper-atheist upside Scary's head, all right?

Well, it wasn't  *me* who complained about others treating Scary as if he were just another fundie trying to push his religion onto others.  Apparently *Scary* thought he had cause for that complaint  -- and I agree with him.  He *did* have cause for that complaint.

But you miss my point.  This is NOT about the "hyper-atheists vs fundies".  Scary's view is entirely different from both.  **And that is my point.**

Every time I've seen someone like Scary come into an evolution-creation forum (ANY forum), it always ends the same way.  Every time.  The fundies jump all over him because "people who don't believe the Bible are just atheist devil-worshippers".  And the hyper-atheists jump all over him because "supernaturalism is stupid and religion is for retards".  (I am using hyperbole to make a point here, so please don't get one's undies all in an uproar.)

My goal in laying out the whole hyper-atheist/fundie thingie is precisely to point out that NEITHER SIDE can understand Scary's viewpoint, because *both* sets of evangelicals, pro and con, group everything into the very same framework --- and it's  **not the same framework as people like Scary are using**.   So what invariably happens is that everyone talks right past each other, because no one, literally, understands what the others are saying.

I think, for hard practical political reasons as well as for human reasons, it's enormously important for everyone to actually understand Scary's viewpoint, since **it's the majority viewpoint of Christians worldwide**.  Not the fundies.

So rather than listening to lots and lots of the same old "religion is stupid" and/or "all Bible-rejecters are Devil-spawn", I'd prefer that everyone, from the fundie Christians right around to the uber-atheists, actually try to understand Scary's framework --- REALLY understand it.

We all could learn a lot.

Or, we could just toss as many bombs as we can until Scary either accepts someone else's religious opinions or runs away.  I don't see much point to that, but, as I said, that's what invariably happens.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,20:42   

Quote
Every time I've seen someone like Scary come into an evolution-creation forum (ANY forum), it always ends the same way.  Every time.  The fundies jump all over him because "people who don't believe the Bible are just atheist devil-worshippers".  

I won't and ya know what? I'll say suck my dick to anyone that does try that stupid crap. NO ONE knows what this shit means.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,20:47   

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Jan. 05 2007,19:55)
Unlike Scary with his honest questions, too many U.S. "moderates" (for my money) give too little thought to why they believe, what they believe, and who that belief system is actually benefiting--and potentially harming--in the here and now.

But I'm open for debate on how accurately (or not) I'm characterizing the "moderates."

With all due respect, from my experience, it's not very accurate.

Over the past two and a half decades, I've worked with an awful lot of those religious moderates, from many different religions, in many different areas.  I've worked with a group of Muslims to set up a food bank. I've worked with black Baptists in civil rights campaigns.  In the antiwar movements, I've worked with everyone from Quakers to Catholics to Unitarians to Buddhists to Jews to UCCers.  

I can assure you that, not only has every one of them thought very long and very hard about exactly what they believe, why they believe it, and why they think it benefits people, but that is precisely WHY they are out there setting up food banks, working for civil rights, and working to end wars.  They take things like "love thy neighbor" and "bear the burden of the helpless" and "right action", very seriously.  And for them, THAT is what "religion" is all about.  Not "the Bible says this" or "the Koran says that".

It's something you'll  *never*  see fundies doing.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,20:53   

Quote
Oddly, I asked that very question of a "liberation theologian(*)" that I met in Nicaragua during the Contra War.  This was, without a doubt, one of the most interesting people I ever talked with --- he was a Catholic lay worker from Chicago whom I met in the village of Bocana de Paiwas, Nicaragua, where he talked with me after saying mass with his AK-47 propped up next to his altar -- and continually quoted the Bible and Marx to me with equal ease.  


I've always thought that if Jesus were here today he would be locked up and the key thrown away for being a whacko communist/terrorist trouble maker, railing against obscenely rich church organisations and helping the poor (so workers are not screwed by capital)......oops....didn't that happen the first time?

The politically conservative religionists couldn't be happier that the Christian symbol of god on earth was powerless against money, military power and the oligarchy/plutocracy.
That alone explains why Christianity conquered Europe, the version the rulers promoted 'let g$d die', and the same would happen to anyone who disagreed with the church/state.

Under the guise of social order and 'the rule of g$d' according to g$d's laws, they would like nothing less than a total theocracy with them being the theocrats.

They know there is nothing 'on the other side' after death and they can do just as they as they please while they are here, because they can and everyone else can go to h€ll.

The fundies are performing a perfect social experiment to see how far they can take self interest before environmental limitations both physical and political kick in.

To achieve that they need to remove any test for the truth of their world view, fortunately that requires a level of stupidity that not everyone can match.

It's called social Darwinism and is exactly opposite to the world I think Jesus tried but failed to speak into existence.

On a brighter note, when you look at the best the world has to offer today in terms of medicine, food production, education , longevity and social democratic law and order ( in some countries). Ironically I think Jesus would have declared 'g$d's kingdom has come'. That only happened when religious power was reduced and scientists allowed to question the very nature of the universe without repercussion. There are plenty of places where that is yet to happen.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,21:27   

Quote (k.e @ Jan. 05 2007,20:53)
It's called social Darwinism and is exactly opposite to the world I think Jesus tried but failed to speak into existence.

Ironic, is it not, that the anti-evolution fundies are, without a doubt, the most ruthless and heartless of Social Darwinists, who would happily dismantle every social program of the "welfare state" and let the poor fend for themselves in their version of a "free market" system, where the strong climb to the top, and the weak  . . . well . . . get stepped on.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,21:32   

Quote (k.e @ Jan. 05 2007,20:53)
I've always thought that if Jesus were here today he would be locked up and the key thrown away for being a whacko communist/terrorist trouble maker, railing against obscenely rich church organisations and helping the poor (so workers are not screwed by capital)......oops....didn't that happen the first time?

Was it just a coincidence that the Holy Catholic Church explicitly and deliberately modelled its organization after that of the Roman Empire --- even before it BECAME the Roman Empire . . . . ?

;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,21:32   

Quote
[Rev. Dr.:] Or, we could just toss as many bombs as we can until Scary either accepts someone else's religious opinions or runs away.  I don't see much point to that, but, as I said, that's what invariably happens.
Frankly, I just don't see that happening here. But people see what they expect to see, I guess, and that can steer these discussions into, as I said, self-fulfilling prophesies.

Take a look at this exchange, for instance:
Quote
[Russell:] Not only would I echo Ichthyic about dianetics, etc., I would bring to your attention my family, and lots of others I know, who are raising wonderful kids, fighting the good fight, etc., etc. with no religion. (Unless, of course, we're going to nonsensically define absence of religion as a religion. Don't laugh; it's a common creationist trope.)

As for the supernatural, as you probably guessed, I'm skeptical.
Quote
[Scary:] I feel as if some of you are adding to something I'm not saying.

When I say "Christianity has worked for me and my family" that's all I said.  I DIDN'T say "Christianity has worked for me and my family therefore it is the one true religion™"


Now, how could a plain reading of my words lead someone to conclude that I was accusing anyone of promoting Christianity as "the one true religion"?

I don't know, but I suspect it's a case of seeing what you expect to see, regardless of what's there. I'm not picking on Mr. Facts here. Quite the contrary. I use this example partly because it's right at hand, and partly because I think Mr. Facts might well agree with me. I'm sure I do it from time to time, but I'm equally sure that I won't catch myself at it; someone will need to bring it to my attention.

But I think you're doing it here, Lenny. I don't see this discussion being dominated by über--atheists or über-fundies throwing bombs or insisting on conversions or recantations. I just don't see it. Perhaps because I don't particularly expect to see it.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,21:53   

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 05 2007,21:32)
Quote
[Rev. Dr.:] Or, we could just toss as many bombs as we can until Scary either accepts someone else's religious opinions or runs away.  I don't see much point to that, but, as I said, that's what invariably happens.
Frankly, I just don't see that happening here. But people see what they expect to see, I guess, and that can steer these discussions into, as I said, self-fulfilling prophesies.

Take a look at this exchange, for instance:  
Quote
[Russell:] Not only would I echo Ichthyic about dianetics, etc., I would bring to your attention my family, and lots of others I know, who are raising wonderful kids, fighting the good fight, etc., etc. with no religion. (Unless, of course, we're going to nonsensically define absence of religion as a religion. Don't laugh; it's a common creationist trope.)

As for the supernatural, as you probably guessed, I'm skeptical.
 
Quote
[Scary:] I feel as if some of you are adding to something I'm not saying.

When I say "Christianity has worked for me and my family" that's all I said.  I DIDN'T say "Christianity has worked for me and my family therefore it is the one true religion™"


Now, how could a plain reading of my words lead someone to conclude that I was accusing anyone of promoting Christianity as "the one true religion"?

I don't know, but I suspect it's a case of seeing what you expect to see, regardless of what's there. I'm not picking on Mr. Facts here. Quite the contrary. I use this example partly because it's right at hand, and partly because I think Mr. Facts might well agree with me. I'm sure I do it from time to time, but I'm equally sure that I won't catch myself at it; someone will need to bring it to my attention.

But I think you're doing it here, Lenny. I don't see this discussion being dominated by über--atheists or über-fundies throwing bombs or insisting on conversions or recantations. I just don't see it. Perhaps because I don't particularly expect to see it.

You missed my point entirely and utterly.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,21:59   

Apparently.
What do you suspect: faulty transmission or faulty reception?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
The Wayward Hammer



Posts: 64
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,22:03   

Much of this reminds me of Paul Tillich or even Bishop Spong.  I think Scary is more in the Marcus Borg camp - which I think is a good place to be!  If you ever get a chance read Borg's "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time."  It's subtitle is "Taking the Bible Seriously but not Literally."

Borg's basic thesis is that man over the years has experienced the reality of God and man's sacred writings are a response to that experience.  They are true without necessarily being factual.

I don't know if I can buy that thesis completely, but it seems to cover some people's experiences of sacred or supernatural without making the religous writings (The Book) out to be more than they are.  Lenny makes a point that I have as well in the past - fundies now worship a Book.  For those of you that suffered through the AFDave thread, he once mentioned that the "Word" was done - there was no need anymore for personal experience of God.  We had it in the book.  Talk about a dead-end religon.

I still struggle myself with what is "real" and how we know what real is.  But I do know that religon as we have it today is about power, not faith.

Maybe I will end up like Martin Gardner - believing because it comforts me to do so.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,22:15   

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 05 2007,21:59)
Apparently.
What do you suspect: faulty transmission or faulty reception?

Faulty reception, since others appear to have gotten it.

Perhaps you should just stick to arguing over religious authority with the fundies.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,22:36   

Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ Jan. 05 2007,22:03)
Borg's basic thesis is that man over the years has experienced the reality of God and man's sacred writings are a response to that experience.  They are true without necessarily being factual.

Well, the reality of SOMETHING, anyway . . .   Reality is a pretty awesome thing all by itself.   Alas, most people insist on pushing a philosophical/metaphorical window between it and themselves, and thus miss the whole view.

But as was noted before, once any of us have experienced something (anything) and wish to communicate that experience to others, all we have available to do that with is words --- and no description of an experience can accurately convey the experience.  Particularly to those without, well, that experience.   :)

Call that experience "god" if you like.  Call it "awe".  Call it " a sense of something bigger than oneself".  It doesn't matter what one calls it.  It's the experience that counts.

The Japanese refer to this as "kami", which is usually translated as "spirits", but is left untranslated by those who understand it.  It refers to the immense feeling of awe and wonder and joy that certain things bring.  Scattered across Japan, in any place where there is a view or panorama which brings that feeling of awe and wonder (a waterfall, a mountain view, a seascape), there will be a "tori", the familiar Japanese gateway which symbolizes the door to Heaven.  "Kami" is that experience.  Writings are a (poor) attempt to communicate that experience.

That's how I view the Bible, the Koran, the Tao te Ching, the Baghavad Gita, and any and all other "sacred texts".


(Inevitably, there will now be someone who will testily declare "This is all crap, because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HEAVEN /slash/ THAT ISN'T WHAT HEAVEN IS."

And they will have missed the point.  Utterly and totally.)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
The Wayward Hammer



Posts: 64
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,22:52   

Lenny, Borg is a Christian but discussed many other experiences and used God as a bit of a shorthand.  His point was that the Bible, etc. are very much human documents.

I can pretty much agree with your thoughts about the experience of awe or wonder and sometimes we screw up the view by running it through a lens of philosophy or metaphysics.  And I certainly agree that words are inadequate.  For example, have you seen the picture from Cassini with Saturn and its rings backlit by the Sun?  And there is a small bluish dot off to the left - Earth from a billion miles away.  I could write many words about that dicotomy - the massive planet with its stunning rings and little blue dot.  But the picture is a lot better.

Oh, and one other thing you have written elsewhere I  must agree with you on completely - this whole ID thing is about political power.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2007,22:56   

Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ Jan. 05 2007,22:03)
Maybe I will end up like Martin Gardner - believing because it comforts me to do so.

Nothing wrong with that.  (shrug)

In the immortal words of John Lennon, "Whatever gets you through your life, is alright, is alright . . . . "

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
  335 replies since Jan. 03 2007,21:39 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (12) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]