The end of spiritualism

[Vlad]

hey vlad, you said
"You know when I had this dry inner body heat, it felt like my body would explode from the inside. Something like that. I know I wasn't happy with what I was experiencing but it was pretty unusual if you ask me."

I constantly feel like I am exploding from the inside. I am always working on suppressing it's intensity. What did you do to overcome this?

That is common and documented after the heat and burn comes the light bla bla bla.............. the bardos ,limbo ,bla bla bla

There is no reason what so ever to consider this common event to any mystical thing. Its deserves no discussion in todays world.
Yeah its me straight from hell to spread the kind word:lol:

PEACE/TRUTH
MV

Where did you hear or read about this connected to bardos etc? I'd like to know. Never heard of this connection. I'd like to look it up and read more about what they say about it.

 

[Vlad]

I think science is now ready to prove that these experiences are nothing more then the circuits in your brain misfiring. In fact in many cases it already has just look as psychosis and schizophrenia. We know its brain mistakes.

I don't fully agree with this and with the statement that the universe is not conscious. I'm not saying it is, but I'm saying it could be, and might be, intelligent.

See I've experienced constant hallucinations, of electric entities, annoying me with stuff.
Some of the things they did showed super intelligence.

Brain misfiring is a simple explanation to account for this extreme display of intelligence that the hallucinations show.

And also one time during these events, I got a sensation like I had a feeling/urge to drink an electric
drink. Now when I say electric drink, I don't mean a drink that tastes like battery or holding your tongue to a battery or touching electric wires (has no taste that anyway). Literally I *knew* by the reminiscence of the sensation experienced, that it was an electric drink, just like you know it when you feel like drinking a coke, that it's a coke. It was real strange. I don't think that drink exists as I know it. I never heard seen tasted it, anything like that, that I recall.
Where did that sensation come from? Pretty strange if you ask me.
I don't think it was a random misfiring of my brain causing me to feel a sensation to drink this.
It was last summer during a period in which I saw entities doing things like telling me 'our coke' when I drank from a coke, and then taking another sip ignoring these entities, feeling NO FIZZ at all.
I can keep on giving examples like this. This can hardly be called misfiring of the brain. There is intelligence displayed that can understand humans emotions and behaviour. From all I experienced, it seems like it is a battle between the experiencing consciousness or individual, and maybe, the brain as AI, over control/domination.

 

[ohayoco]

Big up to Burnt for starting this thread, it's a juicy one!

She described stories of shape shifting and plant/human communication that made my hair stand on end.

I'll believe it when I see it! Or when the people who tell these stories offer some scientific proof. Until then I'll remain sceptical and keep in mind that faith healers/shaman profit from continuing superstitious beliefs.

She was in the tropical biome, and heard a voice, calling out to her, which she thought was her friend. It wasn't. She followed the voice, and discovered a large ayahuasca vine (which I have seen) growing in the biome, she she stayed with a while, meditated and communed with it.

Hmm or she just made the story up to make herself appear important. Or already knew where the vine was if it was staged. Or maybe it really happened. Giving my experience of human nature, I'd have to guess the former unless presented with conflicting evidence.

Belief without proof is the scourge of mankind, it creates much war and suffering.

People will always strive to see beyond though, to see the truth. Even science strives to accomplish this goal

Haha the 'even' in there made me chuckle!

Yeah, I'm only interested in what makes me feel good, and am not really bothered with technical matters.

It's great to hear someone admit that. A lot of religious belief is delusion... hence why priests have those periods where they 'struggle with their faith'.

My next point: Nihilism.

We all know that the big religions are nonsense, so if your crusade to deconstruct spirituality itself is successful, where are we left?

Science can try to explain reality, but if consciousness has nothing to do with that explaination, and indeed we are nothing but neurons, we are left with a nihilistic worldview.

You don't matter. Nothing matters. why care about anything?

I am an atheist, and actually I now think the opposite and strongly disagree. One can fall into nihilism because as a child you're told the Tooth Fairy exists, and Father Christmas, and God... as you get older, you realise one then the next is just a story.

But if you can get past the disappointment, the fact that there is no designed 'meaning' to life is immensely liberating... because it is YOU that gets to decide your meaning. If nothing matters, then you decide what matters... and with us all deciding what matters, suddenly things matter! And the meaning of life becomes enjoyment, and the best way to achieve that is for us all to respect each other's right to enjoy our fair share of life. Hence we all 'do as we will when it harms no other'. Charitable deeds are done, because it makes society better so makes us happier indirectly, but also the very altruistic act makes us feel good directly too. No need to have an agry bearded guy demanding we behave if people are schooled in psychology instead of religion. ENJOY!

Ayawaska, DMT, Sally D and mescalito did not sway SWIM from atheism, but completely swayed him from nihilism. Why is the universe any less amazing and beautiful without the imaginary bearded guy lording it over us?! The universe IS amazing, and scientific explanations are more wondrous than naive religious stories! Want to call something god? Call existence god then! You, me, the huge soup of chaotic energy that we are a part of, that amazingly forms ordered complexity from chaos in anarchic beauty! THAT's awesome to me in the true sense of the word. I see psychedelic hallucinations as a metaphor for existence itself- beautiful complexity out of nothing. Haha maybe in the same way existence could be seen as just one big 'mind', one big programme forming complexity just like the computer we call the mind forms these beautiful psychedelic visions.

And science does not say there is no life after death... it just says "we don't know". Perhaps consciousness is a separate dimension, perhaps it's a product of matter, perhaps our essence lives on in some way when no longer confined by our primitive brains, perhaps infinite recurrence occurs and echoes the concept of reincarnation. Who knows? The scientists don't yet.

You have proven no facts, nor provided adequate proof that these ideas are myth.

Yes I'm generally on your side of the spectrum Burnt, but I do think this is a comment you would do well to heed. Fiashly made a similar comment later. I have noticed with our political debates (which in contrast to quantum physics is something I can debate on) that you yourself fall prey to belief without proof, which although you are more scientific about what you choose to believe in, nevertheless you are still deciding to believe in at least some things that the jury should still be out on if you want to be truly scientific. If you want to preach science, you need to ensure that you act accordingly to retain your scientific integrity.

Science has become God, people look to Science for their answers to everything as if Science HAS the answers. Sure science will have the answers for those how choose to follow Science. But isn't it the same with all religions?

Yes Neitszche was the first to warn that science is the new religion. But still the scientific method makes it a big step up from the old religions... if only all scientist were taught philosophy too during their training to get them out of their own continuing beliefs, then I think our knowledge could advance a lot faster.

if you study indigenous cultures you will find that they aren't as stupid as you seem to make them out to be.

Exactly. Their beliefs are no more stupid to the one that some guy was crucified and now lives on answering our prayers! Or even that only everything science has already discovered is all there is to existence. People are stupid animals, we all are, anything short of a complete understanding of the universe is still at least partial ignorance. I really hope our species survives to understand it all, that would astounding to have all that knowledge.

Well, language IS subjective

Correct, there's been a lot on linguistics in philosophy in the last century. Language constrains our understanding, contains significant biases, and meanings are constantly changing.

In fact I would guess that if you consider only the basis of survival or advantages to self, you would find that the scientific evidence would suggest that honesty and compassion are liabilities, especially when dealing with others who are neither honest nor compassionate.

Actually, evolutionary psychology says that honesty and compassion are generally (GENERALLY) more beneficial to survival for humans, us being pack animals and all. What benefits the group generally benefits the individual. Soldiers have to trust their comrades for the unit to succeed, for example. Of course there are times when lying etc is necessary for survival, probably why we have the capability. Sometimes lying is morally justified, especially when dealing with unreasonable people, like if you're in a situation surrounded by neanderthals where you might get beaten up for expressing the wrong opinion etc. Or white lies to save feelings. But serious deceipt will only benefit someone in the long term if they are VERY clever and also lucky enough to not get found out, so it's not really a gamble worth taking. Introducing Evolutionary Psychology by Icon/Totem Books is a fun primer.

I am saying there is no evidence for a role of consciousness for because the reasons people use to say that consciousness plays a role are wrong and incorrect (which I've stated already).

Actually I feel like you've skirted over Fiashy's claims about the observer's role actually determining the outcome. Just stating that he's 'wrong' doesn't prove it to me or anyone else that he's wrong, especially with such a mystifying subject. How do we know you're right to just declare him simply wrong, you both sound well informed? Which bits exactly are false, and can you prove them to be false to us with quotes etc pleeease? Battle of the quantum titans, Burnt vs Fiashly, who's right?! I can't tell... but Fiashly is currently sounding more convincing to me when talking about quantum... continue to battle please!

Also how do you explain the universe before there was human being with consciousness's walking around? How could anything exist? It must have though because we are here.

This seems oversimplistic, there are all manner of other possibilities here. For example... consciousness as a property of matter, or consciousness as a force with influence over matter, etc (the first things to pop into my head).

There is no science of values, morals, ethics.

Well there kind of is- psychology and philosophy cover these areas. They've been separated from what we now term 'science' because they currently require different methods, but the spirit of scientific scepticism SHOULD still be followed within these disciplines too, and is to varying degrees... sometimes in philosophy the scepticism even exceeds that of a scientist, while sometimes with people like Freud things become pseudoscientific unfortunately. These disciplines could do with a clean-up, but still they're academically ahead of conventional religion and the collage of superstition that we term 'new-age'.

Where is your scientific evidence in support of your assertion that scientific knowledge is the only valid knowledge?

Yeah Burnt answer the question please!

What is the position of science on whether or not it is appropriate to cheat on a test if no-one can catch you. After all it would be advantageous to the test taker.

I'll try to answer this. But in doing so I'll show how the question is not detailed enough to be able to give a black and white answer. Ethics always depends on the situation.
-If no-one catches you, which has been stated as the outcome already, then if you go on to benefit from your cheating in the long term then to cheat could have been the right decision. You successfully cheated, and that shows a level of skill above your competition, albeit skill in a different area!
-If you cheated and got caught then it was the wrong decision! You are now in shit.
-If you cheated, didn't get caught, but were unhappy or useless in the job the test got you, then it was the wrong choice too.
-If your cheating meant that the next Einstein didn't get on the course, and failed to go on to make an amazing discovery that benefited you much more than your personal benefit from cheating (like curing cancer?), then you made the wrong decision. Unlikely, but possible!
As you can see, dishonesty is a gamble that rarely pays off, but can pay off. Generally, it probably just isn't worth cheating in the test if you look at it like this, weighing the probabilities and weighting outcomes in terms of risks and rewards. The more serious the dishonesty, the larger the odds are generally stacked against you. For example, a rapist risks years of prison and a lifetime of social exclusion just for 5 minutes of selfish pleasure. Therefore rape is a very bad decision, without even getting into the ethics of the act (ethics being the rules we need to stick to for a society to function at all- people generally stick to the rules because most of the rules provide us with stability).

Whereas religion tells us stuff like don't have sex with men! Is it bad for gay men to bum each other? No, it makes them happy! So 'scientific ethics' as a science would say that gay sex is ok, as long as you use a condom to protect yourself from disease, and the odds are against a lynchmob murdering you for your activities! Seems to me that while 'scientific ethics' as I'm dubbing it exposes some uncomfortable truths about our nature, it actually ends up advising us better than any religion.

There could be a rule to sacrifice yourself in cases of an emergency and it would seem irrational to sign-up for a package that would contain this rule, but if signing-up for the package as a whole, brings benefits that outweigh this risk, you will sign it.

Only stupid people get brainwashed into fulfilling such ends in the imposed 'social contract'! Know when to refuse society's orders, because you never got a say in signing this imaginary contract anyway- live by your own contract, or 'treat others as you would have them treat you'. The pacifists will stay at home and survive when everyone else marches off to wage war and die for their wealthy masters.

Hmmm... this scientific way of looking at ethics seems like a better informed version of how many people already make decisions in life- through reason.

But this reductionist argument that mind or consciousness is just brain chemistry literally robs you of all subjective meaning. This means your very life experience is meaningless, its just a bunch of chemical reactions so it has no value and no meaning.

Why would the nature of the machinery rob consciousness of meaning? It makes no difference to me whether it works by chemistry or 'magic'... what was once considered magic (potions) is now considered chemistry anyway. Science is meant to lift the veil to sort the truth from the superstition.

If we each make up our own right or wrong then in effect right and wrong do not exist.

No, the rights and wrongs become personal and situation-specific. Every situation has a right and wrong choice scientifically, but some of the variables are dependent on the person making the choice. And the right choice is not the one that a person THINKS is right, that's just their guess at what really was the right choice... hence why generalised concrete laws are necessary for whenever an individual isn't able to easily compute the right choice themselves. They're the default, to be broken only in exceptional circumstances.

(P.s. I do actually believe in one 'right' specific ethical framework, despite all this talk that approaches cultural relativism, it being the 'do as you will when it harms no other' that I'm always banging on about, but I only believe in it because I think it balances fairness and personal freedom best, and is therefore best for both society and the individual in general.)

If it really all has no meaning what keeps you from throwing yourself off of a cliff? I have jumped out of a plane and I can tell you that jumping off of a cliff, if it is high enough, could be one hell of a rush.

Killing yourself just for 5 minutes of fun means you miss out on a lifetime of other fun things... obviously.

If consciousness has any interaction with matter or is a result of matter (as I am claiming) then it MUST be measurable.

Of course it's measurable- we can all do it in most situations! I'd guess that there is some indicator of consciousness that could be discovered one day, some kind of analysis of the type of brain activity/ exactly what programmes are running in there etc.

This is what people refer to as conscience.

No it's regret, or guilt, and we know it is learnt from the wealth of studies of neglected children etc. After reading Nietsche I slowly deprogrammed myself and no longer feel much of either. Of course I still get bummed out if I make a wrong choice and suffer because of it! But I wouldn't wallow or worry. And I don't do anything wrong enough to truly weigh on my 'conscience', which helps. However, I would kill someone who had already set out to try to kill me though (even then feast on their carcass if I had to to survive!) and I'd feel no regret for doing so, because I believe that in that situation I was justified and I don't believe that a guy with the beard in the sky would be angered by my actions.

I hope you can see why I then do not consider myself a nihilist. By the way I can't stand philosophers like Nietze and all those other nihilist materialists. I think they were fools.

Nietsche was not a nihilist, that's a cliched misconception! And he'd probably think you're a fool too so you're quits

[qoute=Burnt]Is everything within the realm of science?[/quote]
Yes, it just depends on your definition of science.

Is consciousness strictly a result of brain activity?

If you mean consciousness as we know it, as in personality, then yes probably, based on what we know now about the effects of brain damage and drugs etc affecting the brain and hence personality. But we can't say for sure that all consciousness is a result of brain activity. And what if the brain was just a conduit rather than the creator of consciousness, such that when it was damaged or the chemistry altered we were unable to tap into consciousness so well... or something! The jury is still out on the nature of consciousness.

I have evidence that consciousness is fundamental to the make up of the universe. I have personally experienced it many times.

Please give us this evidence, don't just tell us you have it! Honestly, I'd like to hear about it, because if it's true then it's groundbreaking.

Burnt- haha you can sound like a bit of a nihilist reductionist sometimes though, smoke a little bit more DMT or eat a little bit more mescalito!

Thanks all for the brain food, and sorry for the huge post My final thought, agreeing with DMTripper: when you are awake, you may think reality is real, and when you are dreaming and tripping you may think the same. It doesn't matter if it's real or not, it matters that it's FUN!

 

[ohayoco]

Oh also kids, don't eat gold. It might not be good for you! :lol:

It's a heavy metal after all and I hear too much of them is bad (at least, definitely some of them, like lead, but people do seem to be pointing fingers at 'heavy metals' often). I also heard that the gold flakes in Goldschlager cut up your insides, but that could be an urban myth. Do lots of research before eating anything that does not have a long history of being eaten, and even then only eat it if it is necessary! I don't personally see the potential benefits of eating gold as outweighing the potential negatives whatsoever.

 

[polytrip]

This discussion is like a flooding river going in a thousand directions. One of them seems to be about subjectivity versus objectivity.

There are numerous ways out of this famous philosophical dilemma. One of them could be to extract a simple set of rules from a biological theory on the human mind. This could be possible for as well religious as non-religious people. Just a to have a neuropsychological model on the mind, and to simplify it. The simple rules you can extract from this could function as rules to determinate the validity of statements about many subjects that are said to be subjective.
This is not a way out of the cartesian dilemma ofcourse, but that's another dilemma then the problem that arises when you already acknowledge that there is a world around us, with us, human beings in it, etc.

The point is, that if you establish what the limitations of the mind are, based not upon statements of the mind itself (wich would be personal views, religion, metaphysics, etc.) but on something of wich we already agree that it's real and objective, we can from there on place all the theories of the mind itself in an objective perspective.

This perspective allows for greater subtlety then simply making yes/no statements about subjects of for instance free-will.
In the case of free-will, the inevitable conclusion would be that the mechanism of believing in a free-will is nessecery for a healthy functioning of the mind and for all that follows from it, like we humans functioning in our society; free-will exists and yet it doesn't. From our own personal view we have no choice to believe we are free and from an objective point of view we must acknowledge that we operate within limitations in wich we have no say, and both are true and nessecarfily true within the framework that determines the truth-value of their perspective, wich you can objectively verify.

I look at it like mathematics: consider mathematics to be purely a world of the mind, a fictional world that in itself is unbounded by physics. Mathematics states for instance that there is an infinite amount of numbers possible; you could start counting from one to...
Mathematics say you could count on forever, the amount of possible numbers is innummerable.
The real world, outside mathematics however, determines that there is a physical limit to what computations could be made and what not.
Mathematics itself is unaware of this limit, because it is the limit of what's physically possible; You could theoretically make statements that are mathematically correct, yet mathematically incorrect. Simply because the theory of mathematics would theoretically say they're true, yet the theory of mathematics cannot say they're true.

 

[Saidin]

I don't believe in the spirit realm. I do not think it exists. I think it is a construct of the human mind which is a result of brain activity. So no nothing you have said has changed my mind. That doesn't mean I don't feel compassion or love for people. That doesn't mean I don't care about my life. It just means I don't believe in things that aren't real. I don't believe in faries for the same reason.

Burnt, science has become a religion for you. It is the dogma by which you double check all your experiences and in the grand scheme of things, not much different than the beliefs you are trying to discredit.

Just because you cannot hold something and disect it does not mean it does not exist. The universe is more mysterious and wonderous than anything you can come up with in your wildest imagination. That is the magic of free will, it is not required of you to believe in something in order for you to be a participant of that system.

What isn't real to you, is tangibly real to others. There is beauty and simplicity in that. What is real and what is not? It is all subjective, with objectivity that guides the way but cannot show you the beginning or destination of the journey. You have your own subjective experience of reality that is equally valid to everyone else's. If you can find love and compassion for people, empathize with others, then you are making progress spiritually even if you don't believe it exists. You have the right to believe what you want, as does everyone else. If those beliefs bring you closer to others, open your mind and heart to something greater than that collection of memories we call "I", then that is tangibly real, that has substance both in this world, and in that which you cannot see.

 

[DMTripper]

Consciousness came before the universe.
How old is modern science?
For me everything is conscious. Just on very different levels. Brain activity and consciousness are two different things. You don't need a brain for consciousness but you need consciousness for brain activity.
Mind over matter.

 

[bufoman]

I think that "mind: is a form of consciousness. For "mind" to exist we do require a brain. Know the question is; is a brain necessary for consciousness? It is hard to say, it really depends on how we define consciousness. However I feel that consciousness is a universal force, or the universal force (The Tao) and that the brain utilizes this force and manipulates it to create the "mind". We do know that the state of the brain determines the state of the mind. Furthermore states of mind can influence the underlying state of the brain (this is how we control behavior).

But consciousness (if defined as something different and independent from mind) is not dependent on the brain for existence in fact the brain may be dependent on consciousness for existence (although this is all speculation). All existence may stem from consciousness, then the system can manipulate itself to create novel states of complexity building on its self... to create greater and greater states of complexity.

 

[Saidin]

Want to call something god? Call existence god then! You, me, the huge soup of chaotic energy that we are a part of, that amazingly forms ordered complexity from chaos in anarchic beauty! THAT's awesome to me in the true sense of the word.

This is exactly my experience of/what I call God. It is the energy of the universe. Everywhere. Everywhen. Neither being created nor destroyed, just infinately chaninging forms.

It is quite simple really.

And science does not say there is no life after death... it just says "we don't know". Perhaps consciousness is a separate dimension, perhaps it's a product of matter, perhaps our essence lives on in some way when no longer confined by our primitive brains, perhaps infinite recurrence occurs and echoes the concept of reincarnation. Who knows? The scientists don't yet.

I would say that matter is a property of consciousness, not the other way around. Consciousness transcends dimensions, is able to exist in more than one at once. Science has offered proof that there are at least 8 dimensions, and upwards of 15. What exists in those other dimensions, is there life there, and if so, what form of consciousness would those beings have with the ability to see and understand all that exists in lower dimensions? We can experience and think in three dimensions, or only two if we so choose. What is consciousness like that can experience and think in 6-7-8 dimensions? Are you born into higher dimensional existences? Or does one have to evolove from lower to higher forms? If one evolves then that means there is a process beyond physical evolution, that there is a spiritual component that allows us to learn and grow over many lifetimes to learn the lessons needed to be learned in order to progress to higher states of being.

Evolution is the mechanism for change in the universe, and it is not only limited to evolution of the physical form.

 

[polytrip]

This discussion is grid-locked.
There are those who want to use the personal (and possibly spiritual)perspective as a framework to fit and judge arguments about reality and those who want an objective perspective for that purpose, and they don't communicate well.

There are phenomena where the personal and objective perspective are interwoven in such a manner that especially at those points the confusion controls all of the discussion.

We have to acknowledge that both views cannot completely disqualify eachother and that both views have SOME value. Now the difficulty seems to be how those two different ways in wich something can have value relate....since we also have to see that they do relate somehow.

To solve the grid-lock we simply need to see how the subjective can be objectivied or vice versa, depending on where you start. How relativity can be absolute and absoluteness relative, how determinism can be indeterminate and the indeterminate, determinable.

Consider that all contributors to this discussion are smart enough to take the discussion to a level where we no longer discuss simple matters of fact, but the reality that contains matters of fact.

So to begin with: on what ground do we all agree, something can be said to be true?
(and i know everybody here is smart, so it probably needs no explanation that no completely finished worldview such as "science tells me" or "god tells me" can be the answer to that question, since if that would be so unquestionable, we would not have this discussion in the first place)

 

[ohayoco]

So to begin with: on what ground do we all agree, something can be said to be true?

This type of question sounds easy but didn't some philosophers ask things like this and end up deciding that we can't know ANYTHING to be true?

Ignoring that, I would propose that both camps would say something to be true if it is observable.

(Things like hallucinations are still 'true', they still 'exist', but it is their nature which is contested, ie are they tricks of the mind or the ancestors etc, not to open that can of worms because its all over this site already! Whereas 'god' etc is not considered scientifically observable at present.)

But one side wants the true thing to be scientifically observable, and the other side is happy that it's existentially observable (I'm presuming that not many people here don't give any value whatsoever to the 'trueness' of scientific observation). Hmm am I just paraphrasing you Polytrip?

 

[○]

However I feel that consciousness is a universal force, or the universal force (The Tao) and that the brain utilizes this force and manipulates it to create the "mind".

But consciousness (if defined as something different and independent from mind) is not dependent on the brain for existence in fact the brain may be dependent on consciousness for existence (although this is all speculation). All existence may stem from consciousness, then the system can manipulate itself to create novel states of complexity building on its self... to create greater and greater states of complexity.

Regardless of evidence vs no evidence, i agree 100% with these few things you just said bufoman! Nice

 

[cellux]

I don’t believe in God, but what I do believe in I call God. But this leads to the rather non-productive situation that if I ever use the term you will 99.99% likely totally misunderstand what I mean, unless I go through the laborious process of defining the term.

Yeah. In such situations it's better to say that God does not exist. (Because the "god" they are talking about really does not. In fact, even the real God does not. As the creator is not part of creation, the verb "exists" can not be used in relation with Him/Her/It.)

 

[cellux]

Be careful there ohayoco, I am pretty sure I detect some decidedly non-scientific theories. Frankly I would go so far as to say some of your statements are more than theory although non can be proven scientifically. But my point all along is that science is not the right tool to prove or disprove these kinds of theories (or if you have direct experience of them you could call them facts). But I would go further than to say science doesn’t know yet, and would instead say that science is incapable of answering some of these types of questions.

Could science integrate an experimental result which seemed to suggest that the "moral quality" of the researchers is correlated to the success of the experiments? Would it be scientific to say something like: "To successfully repeat this experiment, you must believe in God, otherwise the results won't appear." If science can integrate such things, then scientific study of the spiritual realms may be possible.

 

[cellux]

You do what’s Right because it’s Right, not because of some analysis of the possible outcomes, at least if you are following moralistic behavior.

I had serious troubles with this question for a long time. I came to the conclusion that absolute Right/Wrong is an idea which we created as a weapon against our fear of losing control. I believe that we have a kind of sense - we may call it intuition - that shows us what is right and wrong in the current situation (buddhists call this "prajna"). If this intuitive ability is working with 100% efficiency, then we don't need the idea of "right" or "wrong". But if it fades away (which may happen together with the formation of the ego), then we need a substitute, and thereby we create the ideas of "right" and "wrong" as absolutes, and then stick to them (perhaps also updating them as we learn that the world is not black and white). But this is altogether wrong, because right and wrong are not absolutes. Or we may say that they are absolutes, but only with relation to the present moment. The present moment is absolute, while the past and the future exist only in our imagination.

 

[cellux]

So to begin with: on what ground do we all agree, something can be said to be true?

I think in debates like this the best way is for everyone to present their views as subjectively as possible.

In one form or another, the ancient paradoxes of existence are involved here. Trying to reconcile them into one Unified Theory (TM) will not succeed, at least not here on Earth. What we can do is express the fragments we had been given (what we are, actually) as clearly and honestly as possible, and then trust our ability to see the wholeness as it emerges when these different viewpoints are manifesting beside each other. To understand the whole, we need the capacity to hold the two antagonistic forces in our mind at the same time. But here on the Nexus this seems like a given.

Understanding reality is a form of art.

 

[cellux]

Well, guys, you made me trip with this thread. I got straight back to the core of my greatest psychedelic experience, so I feel a need to share what I'm seeing here.

First you are only the subjective, in your own world. Then you recognize there are others and the battle begins. Then you (after perhaps a looong time and a lot of suffering) get to the point where you overcome the dualities and you experience the One as constituted by the different fragments (at this point the love/hate relationship with the particular beliefs/sects/religions/political views disappear). Then you overcome the final duality of Ego/God. You learn to be yourself on Earth and God in Heaven, at once, without the one threatening the other (oh what a fear that is, a major stumbling block of enlightenment).

I remember that God explained this whole thing to me in a way which was (1) awesome (I just watched with my jaws dropped to the floor, with awe), (2) "logical". I remember that I laughed on that it was logical. God reconciled the mind/heart (science/religion) duality in the most generous manner. He knew what a mind-freak I am (lost in thoughts, analyzing everything in an anal-retentive way), and he loved me so much that he provided me with an explanation which was mind-boggling but as I followed it through with the mind it was flawless and this flawlessness was the cause of me being able to let go. I think I am at depth a scientific type, but in my case this comes not from wonder and curiosity but from fear: I do not want to believe anything until I am 100% convinced that it's true, so much I fear the possibility of accepting an invalid idea that then becomes a 99% ruler of my life (history seems like a constant reminder to the dangerous consequences of such a false persuasion). And alas, God delivered a sort of scientific proof, via direct experience, intuitive knowledge, the contents of which could be - in theory - extracted into the form of communicable words, but I couldn't care less then and the task seemed enormous anyway - direct knowledge is sooo much simpler.

Sorry for the ranting, it's just... I'm forced to do it.

 

[ohayoco]

Yeah juicy thread!

About the points on the definition of god confusing people because of its anthropomorphic connotations- this is exactly why I call myself an atheist, rather than an 'existence worshipper'. I sometimes referring to it as 'optimistic atheism' to differentiate myself from the sulking nihilists and smug humanists!

This thread started with an atheist scientist exposing the dogma of superstition, only then for science to be called out at its own game by existential and postmodern philosophy. That's the way it's gone for decades.

Once this happens, we reach a point where most of the members of both camps agree on one point: belief in existence (others may even doubt the material universe and only believe in their own experience, but I don't think there are any such people in this thread so let's ignore that view for now).

So the two opposing camps here both believe in existence.
You could call all of existence 'mere matter', or you could call all of existence 'god', but it's the same thing whatever you call it!

From hereon, the arguments are all outside the current knowledge boundaries of science (with conventional religion having only been discounted based on subjectively judged probabilities, subjectively judged naivity, and a loss of credibility when creation stories contradict established scientific theory). The only agreement on the subject of the unknown is that, like with the nature of consciousness, and all the stuff in the universe we don't yet know about like dark matter etc, there are things that science does not yet understand.

We are now in the realms of 'science-based spirituality'- spirituality based on science, not pseudoscience, nor religion. This kind of spirituality is fluid, more 'this could be possible' rather than 'this is the answer'. How can you argue that this form of spirituality is invalid, Burnt? You can't, you have to accept the possibility that your beliefs could be wrong in this case, because at this level even science is operating on beliefs, or theories if you prefer that term.

 

[Saidin]

Yeah. In such situations it's better to say that God does not exist. (Because the "god" they are talking about really does not. In fact, even the real God does not. As the creator is not part of creation, the verb "exists" can not be used in relation with Him/Her/It.)

I would disagree. The Creator IS the creation. It is most certainly not outside/separate of it.

 

[Saidin]

Yeah juicy thread!

We are now in the realms of 'science-based spirituality'- spirituality based on science, not pseudoscience, nor religion. This kind of spirituality is fluid, more 'this could be possible' rather than 'this is the answer'. How can you argue that this form of spirituality is invalid, Burnt? You can't, you have to accept the possibility that your beliefs could be wrong in this case, because at this level even science is operating on beliefs, or theories if you prefer that term.

I like this point, very well said. The idea of fluidity has a special resonance as my beliefs are constantly changing, growing, morphing...dare I say evolving? My spirituality is based on science, and the clues it tantalizes us with about our possible multi-dimensional makeup.