Idea become Flesh

[mentored1]

Hail and Well Met folks...

I was pondering the various aspects of human thought, ideas, conscious experience, et al - you know, the meaning of life jazz. :wink: Several items came to my attention and I thought I'd drop some warm meat into the shark tank and see what strikes...

I think of human technological advancement and how it inevitable began as an idea - whether built atop a previous idea, spun from imagination, or observed and rearranged from nature. Technological creations bring ideas to life, in a sense. Humanity seems capable of transferring something from the ethereal thought-world into the physical object-world...

A crude example and thought: a couple desires to have a child, they pick names, picture what it looks like, imagine what their lives will be like, etc... Obviously there is a physical process involved but how much of that physical product, the offspring, is influenced or governed by the ideas that preceded it? :demure:

On to theistics... If man is capable of clothing his ideas, from whatever source, in physical garments is it possible that our theistic beliefs originated from these ideas as well? Translating the conceptions of divinity into scriptures, statues, and rituals? Is it radically different from envisioning and crafting a tool for a specific purpose?

And if the concepts of theism could have arisen in this fashion, bearing the stamp of our mental faculties, how hard would it be to believe or disbelieve something that we ourselves "made flesh"? Could logic, reason, science, et al be brought to bear successfully to prove or disprove something that is grounded in human experience? Are we trying to understand ourselves?

Take care, look forward to your comments!

[technomage]

On to theistics... If man is capable of clothing his ideas, from whatever source, in physical garments is it possible that our theistic beliefs originated from these ideas as well? Translating the conceptions of divinity into scriptures, statues, and rituals? Is it radically different from envisioning and crafting a tool for a specific purpose?

And if the concepts of theism could have arisen in this fashion, bearing the stamp of our mental faculties, how hard would it be to believe or disbelieve something that we ourselves "made flesh"? Could logic, reason, science, et al be brought to bear successfully to prove or disprove something that is grounded in human experience? Are we trying to understand ourselves?

Interesting questions! :thumb:

I think we would basically end up with a "chicken and egg" situation--since the concept of God is not objectively verifiable, then we can never conclusively test if God made man in His image, or if Man made God in man's image. Any philosophical argument would be founded in the assumptions of the arguer--so atheists and theists would still be arguing with no chance for an authoritative resolution.

Even as a Christian, I have to acknowledge that a good deal of Judeo-Christian doctrine and texts are "man making God." When Judah got kicked in the teeth, they wrote about how God would revenge them ... but when things were successful, they wrote about how God had blessed them. And there are elements in the NT where Tanakh passages are ripped from their context and the serial numbers filed away to make the prophecy "match" the NT doctrine. But while that may give the skeptic reason to pause about the specific claims of Christianity, it doesn't do anything much for arguments for atheism in general.

It's fascinating to ruminate on ... but I'm honestly not sure if it's a chain of thought that's going to add to knowledge as a whole, or just introduce a new layer of complexity on the atheistic side of the equation.

[mentored1]

Well met ACOM! Thanks for the reply...


I think we would basically end up with a "chicken and egg" situation--since the concept of God is not objectively verifiable, then we can never conclusively test if God made man in His image, or if Man made God in man's image. Any philosophical argument would be founded in the assumptions of the arguer--so atheists and theists would still be arguing with no chance for an authoritative resolution.

I am in agreement... Hence, agnostic. :wink: Nonetheless in either case we can't reach a conclusion can we? The more I pondered this question the more I realized that both sides of the argument have so much to prove and nothing to prove at the same time. According to Scripture Faith proves the existence of things unseen; and according to science things unseen cannot be proven. Either way we have a lack of verifiable evidence. I wonder how long it will remain a philosophical debate? Eons and eons...

Even as a Christian, I have to acknowledge that a good deal of Judeo-Christian doctrine and texts are "man making God." When Judah got kicked in the teeth, they wrote about how God would revenge them ... but when things were successful, they wrote about how God had blessed them. And there are elements in the NT where Tanakh passages are ripped from their context and the serial numbers filed away to make the prophecy "match" the NT doctrine. But while that may give the skeptic reason to pause about the specific claims of Christianity, it doesn't do anything much for arguments for atheism in general.

Once more I agree... Science fascinates me and explains a great deal about the universe to me - but it lacks the qualitative power to explain the "why" of it all. Even if the passages were twisted and contorted for specific ends there is still that tantalizing tale of "why" we are here and what may be in store for us. That power of why in religion, myth, and stories is sadly lacking in its authority today... :sigh:

It's fascinating to ruminate on ... but I'm honestly not sure if it's a chain of thought that's going to add to knowledge as a whole, or just introduce a new layer of complexity on the atheistic side of the equation.

True... But may I pose this question: does highlighting human ignorance add or subtract from knowledge as a whole?

Take care

[technomage]

According to Scripture Faith proves the existence of things unseen; and according to science things unseen cannot be proven. Either way we have a lack of verifiable evidence.

Or as Dr. Jane Robinson puts it....

Science has credence, defines our reality,
And states its decrees with definitive air.
Claims to be fair and without partiality
But won't even glance at the things that aren't there.
Where? Where? Better beware!
Science takes notes as the world wanders by.
Points factual fingers at blind faith and innocence,
Missing the mote in its own sterile eye.

(Dr. Jane is a paleontologist, but for fun she and her partner write music, a lot of which pokes fun at academia.)

I wonder how long it will remain a philosophical debate? Eons and eons...

"Billions and Billions of years ago...." :lol:

Once more I agree... Science fascinates me and explains a great deal about the universe to me - but it lacks the qualitative power to explain the "why" of it all. Even if the passages were twisted and contorted for specific ends there is still that tantalizing tale of "why" we are here and what may be in store for us. That power of why in religion, myth, and stories is sadly lacking in its authority today...

I think a large part of that is because some people have treated religion, myth, and stories as "how," rather than "why." I'm a Christian, but I know without a doubt that the Genesis account is not literal, and I'm fairly sure it was never intended to be taken literally. Now, I base that conclusion on my study of ANE literature (I'm only an armchair scholar, but I do fairly well), as well as the study of the Genesis account itself ... but I can reach that conclusion without ever going out and looking at a fossil, measure the distance to a star, or even hear about DNA and common descent.

Then these folks come along and say "Six literal days is not just a doctrine, it's a scientific fact!" From where I sit, they're not only ignoring the science, they're ignoring what their book is actually about, and trying to insist that they can "interpret" the Bible even better than the original authors.

But if we stop asking the Bible to answer "how," it's still every bit as rich, powerful, and compelling as it has ever been--indeed, maybe even more, because as a culture we've either gotten fairly unimpressed with the idea of the supernatural, or we've gone overboard on it. Does it mean we have a nice, cozy box that's only 6000 years old? Heck no. But as you note, the myths and legends and stories and religions remind us that there's more to the heavens and the earth than any scientist can measure in his lab.

True... But may I pose this question: does highlighting human ignorance add or subtract from knowledge as a whole?

Hmm ... good point! I think it's important to know where our limits lie ... but I also understand that it's not necessarily a bad thing that "A creature's reach should exceed its grasp." Maybe there's a balance between the two.

[mentored1]

Well met ACOM, thanks for the chat... Not a lot of takers. :wink:

Or as Dr. Jane Robinson puts it....

Science has credence, defines our reality,
And states its decrees with definitive air.
Claims to be fair and without partiality
But won't even glance at the things that aren't there.
Where? Where? Better beware!
Science takes notes as the world wanders by.
Points factual fingers at blind faith and innocence,
Missing the mote in its own sterile eye.

(Dr. Jane is a paleontologist, but for fun she and her partner write music, a lot of which pokes fun at academia.)


I'll have to look her up... Any literary works that come to mind or is it mostly music that you enjoy from her?

I think a large part of that is because some people have treated religion, myth, and stories as "how," rather than "why."

Well put... and in a strange sense, satisfying. I've not heard that said in a direct sense very often (less than I can count on one hand) - so it's good to hear it.

I'm a Christian, but I know without a doubt that the Genesis account is not literal, and I'm fairly sure it was never intended to be taken literally. Now, I base that conclusion on my study of ANE literature (I'm only an armchair scholar, but I do fairly well), as well as the study of the Genesis account itself ... but I can reach that conclusion without ever going out and looking at a fossil, measure the distance to a star, or even hear about DNA and common descent.

Once more it's pleasing to hear it stated openly like that. Not to solidify my own views but I'm glad the issue is noticed. When I could honestly call myself Christian I always had a problem with accepting the literalism of the Bible for the same reason you stated - "I'm fairly sure it was never intended to be taken literally"...

I've always wondered if the wisdom of ancient men, the authors of the Scripture, saw that the best way to preserve the truth was not in the letter - as it could be easily manipulated and changed - but in the spirit of the story. Let the themes, archetypes, and passion grip the heart and fire the imagination - no matter how distorted the literal account was the message could retain its power much longer.

Then these folks come along and say "Six literal days is not just a doctrine, it's a scientific fact!" From where I sit, they're not only ignoring the science, they're ignoring what their book is actually about, and trying to insist that they can "interpret" the Bible even better than the original authors.

Wow... I'm a bit surprised that I haven't picked your brain on this issue before; but then again there are quite a few people on TWEB. :sigh:

I do have a question that has been brought to my attention before and seems to have some merit to it. If the Genesis / Creation account is not literal, and perhaps not intended to be so, then how can one take the rest of the Bible - any of the Bible - as literal? Does the Bible fluctuate between literalism and figuratism and how does one distinguish?

Aside of course from the obvious historical records there are numerous "supernatural" events told in its pages. I don't think the message of the Bible is about the history and the miracles, but do you take the "supernatural" events as literal or figurative?

But if we stop asking the Bible to answer "how," it's still every bit as rich, powerful, and compelling as it has ever been--indeed, maybe even more, because as a culture we've either gotten fairly unimpressed with the idea of the supernatural, or we've gone overboard on it.

Well put. When I read the opening comment I thought "probably even more" regarding the richness and power of Scripture... :teeth: The search for how, IMHO, has been a serious handicap to the understanding the message of the Bible - and for many in today's "vision" has undermined the wonder of asking "why"...

As previously mentioned I don't know if the Bible was ever intended to answer the how of it all - especially if God knew and designed our mind to be curious and inquisitive. God wouldn't tell us the how if He knew our explorations would show otherwise. That would imply God was an imbecile or our attempts at scientific inquiry are a joke. Neither one of those seems plausible.

Does it mean we have a nice, cozy box that's only 6000 years old? Heck no. But as you note, the myths and legends and stories and religions remind us that there's more to the heavens and the earth than any scientist can measure in his lab.

Nicely stated... Twebbers take note. :thumb:

take care

[technomage]

I'll have to look her up... Any literary works that come to mind or is it mostly music that you enjoy from her?

All music--however, her partner, Cynthia McQuillin, died yesterday, so it may be hard to find anything for a while. If you like, you can try listening to Filk Radio (available at http://www.filk.com)--they're going to have a memorial for Cynthia next week, so you'll get a chance to hear some of the music they've done together.

I've always wondered if the wisdom of ancient men, the authors of the Scripture, saw that the best way to preserve the truth was not in the letter - as it could be easily manipulated and changed - but in the spirit of the story. Let the themes, archetypes, and passion grip the heart and fire the imagination - no matter how distorted the literal account was the message could retain its power much longer.

Eh ... well, the way I look at the story, it's not about telling people how the world started: it's about connecting the Israelites to the world that already exists.

Look at the story of Ai, for instance (Joshua 7 and 8). Now, the very word "Ai" in Hebrew means "Heap of Ruins." When the Israelite culture got "up and running," Ai had already been abandoned for a long time--several centuries at least. They had no idea where it came from. But they had legends of a mighty hero named Joshua, and they had a fierce dread of taking things that belonged to YHVH, their tribal God. So the ruins of Ai and the warning of transgressing the boundaries of "holiness" (literally, "Kadush", or "set apart") worked their way in as elements of one of the Joshua stories.

That's not a "fable" or a "myth," in the sense meant by some skeptics: that's a caregfully considered use of visible elements (the ruins of Ai) into a legendary story (Joshua's Conquest) to teach a moral truth (do not touch what is sacred).

I do have a question that has been brought to my attention before and seems to have some merit to it. If the Genesis / Creation account is not literal, and perhaps not intended to be so, then how can one take the rest of the Bible - any of the Bible - as literal? Does the Bible fluctuate between literalism and figuratism and how does one distinguish?

Aside of course from the obvious historical records there are numerous "supernatural" events told in its pages. I don't think the message of the Bible is about the history and the miracles, but do you take the "supernatural" events as literal or figurative?

Those events that are not supported by history (such as the lack of an economic and social collapse that the Tenth Plague would have caused), I take as metaphoric. But even those events that are historical (such as the reigns of some of the kings in the Divided Monarchy)--the purpose is not to record the reign, but to give a theological commentary of that particular king.

More later--my bones are grieving me, and I need to lay down for a bit.

[shunyadragon]

Interesting questions! :thumb:

I think we would basically end up with a "chicken and egg" situation--since the concept of God is not objectively verifiable, then we can never conclusively test if God made man in His image, or if Man made God in man's image. Any philosophical argument would be founded in the assumptions of the arguer--so atheists and theists would still be arguing with no chance for an authoritative resolution.

True.

Even as a Christian, I have to acknowledge that a good deal of Judeo-Christian doctrine and texts are "man making God." When Judah got kicked in the teeth, they wrote about how God would revenge them ... but when things were successful, they wrote about how God had blessed them. And there are elements in the NT where Tanakh passages are ripped from their context and the serial numbers filed away to make the prophecy "match" the NT doctrine.

It is interesting that you acknowledge this, but selectively.

But while that may give the skeptic reason to pause about the specific claims of Christianity, it doesn't do anything much for arguments for atheism in general.

It helps that atheism does not need to rely on these contorted arguments of justification. They chose the simple route to cut the Gordian knot.

It's fascinating to ruminate on ... but I'm honestly not sure if it's a chain of thought that's going to add to knowledge as a whole, or just introduce a new layer of complexity on the atheistic side of the equation.

The layers of added complexity are most often charactoristic of the history of theism and not atheism. Even though I am not an atheist, I admire their efforts to dump that acumulated dust ladden layers of traditional theistic beliefs.

[shunyadragon]

Hail and Well Met folks...

I was pondering the various aspects of human thought, ideas, conscious experience, et al - you know, the meaning of life jazz. :wink: Several items came to my attention and I thought I'd drop some warm meat into the shark tank and see what strikes...

Not many sharks will bite on the bait leading to a God or Gods created by human vested interests that take the spirit and "make flesh" in our own image like our technological world.

I think of human technological advancement and how it inevitable began as an idea - whether built atop a previous idea, spun from imagination, or observed and rearranged from nature. Technological creations bring ideas to life, in a sense. Humanity seems capable of transferring something from the ethereal thought-world into the physical object-world...

I consider the building of knowledge through the sciences, technology and the arts to be different than adding layers burdening religious beliefs. Advancements in science, technology and the arts make the light brighter, while the layers of dust accumulated by traditions dim the lamp.

On to theistics... If man is capable of clothing his ideas, from whatever source, in physical garments is it possible that our theistic beliefs originated from these ideas as well? Translating the conceptions of divinity into scriptures, statues, and rituals? Is it radically different from envisioning and crafting a tool for a specific purpose?

Yes, the clothing of the lamp of faith, dims the light.

And if the concepts of theism could have arisen in this fashion, bearing the stamp of our mental faculties, how hard would it be to believe or disbelieve something that we ourselves "made flesh"? Could logic, reason, science, et al be brought to bear successfully to prove or disprove something that is grounded in human experience? Are we trying to understand ourselves?

Take care, look forward to your comments!

From my perspective we did not make it, we dimmed the light be covering it with layers of tradition and human imposed made images with a control agenda.


Logic, reason, and science may come to bear to remove the dust laden layers that attempted to make the spirit flesh in human control agendas and vain interests, and bring back into focus a reality more real an tangible, without all the theological duck tape and Monday morning quarterbacking to try and make the pieces fit ancient paradyms.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Or as Dr. Jane Robinson puts it....

Science has credence, defines our reality,
And states its decrees with definitive air.< -- snip -- >Points factual fingers at blind faith and innocence,
Missing the mote in its own sterile eye.
Pity the sterile vision of science :ahem:

[shunyadragon]

Pity the sterile vision of science :ahem:

From the point of view of a scientist, our view of existence is dynamic and exciting and far from sterile. It is the ancient outdated worldviews of ancient religions that are impotent as far as coming up with anything new and dynamic to offer the world. It's like a cracked record playing the same line over and over again.

[zorathruster]

On to theistics... If man is capable of clothing his ideas, from whatever source, in physical garments is it possible that our theistic beliefs originated from these ideas as well? Translating the conceptions of divinity into scriptures, statues, and rituals? Is it radically different from envisioning and crafting a tool for a specific purpose?



Excellent train of thought here! The study of how the brain works is an avenue worth of such inquiry.

Now ponder this direction, How can the brain transition from a reactive component (which most animals have) to a future contemplating component (which humans have)? In that process the brain must fill in a tremendous amount of information which it has insufficient data for. In order to "fill in the blanks", until science arrives and studies the topic enough to actually answer the questions, the human brain must either ignore the question or fill in the blanks with a place holder. That place holder - spirits. So until we figure it out, it is necessary to attribute cause (which is only necessary on a future predicting system) to some entity.

Thusly humans arrive at the solution of a spiritual realm to answer the basic question of why things happen the way they do. Past events being irrelevant to reactive organisms, only important to predictive contemplating organisms. They need to not only determine the next possibility but also the "why" of the situation they can expect to happen. The arrow goes through the air because "Hermes, god of movement" causes the arrow to follow the expected flight. Then when Newton arrived, because of momentum.

Filling in the place holders gave rise to "spirits". Once we figure it all out, that place holder is no longer required.

[shunyadragon]

Hail and Well Met folks...

I was pondering the various aspects of human thought, ideas, conscious experience, et al - you know, the meaning of life jazz. :wink: Several items came to my attention and I thought I'd drop some warm meat into the shark tank and see what strikes...

I think of human technological advancement and how it inevitable began as an idea - whether built atop a previous idea, spun from imagination, or observed and rearranged from nature. Technological creations bring ideas to life, in a sense. Humanity seems capable of transferring something from the ethereal thought-world into the physical object-world...

A crude example and thought: a couple desires to have a child, they pick names, picture what it looks like, imagine what their lives will be like, etc... Obviously there is a physical process involved but how much of that physical product, the offspring, is influenced or governed by the ideas that preceded it? :demure:

On to theistics... If man is capable of clothing his ideas, from whatever source, in physical garments is it possible that our theistic beliefs originated from these ideas as well? Translating the conceptions of divinity into scriptures, statues, and rituals? Is it radically different from envisioning and crafting a tool for a specific purpose?

And if the concepts of theism could have arisen in this fashion, bearing the stamp of our mental faculties, how hard would it be to believe or disbelieve something that we ourselves "made flesh"? Could logic, reason, science, et al be brought to bear successfully to prove or disprove something that is grounded in human experience? Are we trying to understand ourselves?

Take care, look forward to your comments!

I believe this is very true of religion. What we have in religion is revelation clothed in human experience and perception. The question is whether there is a 'Source' we call God that is behind it or the human immagination.

[mentored1]

Hail and Well Met s.d.

I believe this is very true of religion. What we have in religion is revelation clothed in human experience and perception. The question is whether there is a 'Source' we call God that is behind it or the human immagination.

As I let this sink in - along with the other responses in this thread - a few question bubbled up; and since the only stupid question is the one not asked here I go:

If religion can be described as "revelation clothed in human experience and perception" what is the revelation we speak of? A revelation of what and from what? What is being revealed that, for our purposes, MUST pass through human experience and perception?

If this revelation comes from a source that seems to require the channel of human experience and revelation to manifest itself then are we simply interchanging two identical variables when we speak of "God" and "human imagination"? Or is there something more concrete that this Source's revelation can be tied to?

The questions are pertinent to me because, methinks, the ancient forms of spirituality seemed tied to something more concrete than the spiritual practices of today. I think a lot of the ancient mythology and spiritual forms can be correlated to the stars and to earthly processes.

Even if they are imaginative fictions to understand ("placeholders" as Z aptly coined them) the world ancient minds could at least tie these concepts to something directly experienced or observed. What does mankind in his forms of spiritual worship / religion today tie these concepts to?

Take care

[shunyadragon]

Hail and Well Met s.d.

As I let this sink in - along with the other responses in this thread - a few question bubbled up; and since the only stupid question is the one not asked here I go:

If religion can be described as "revelation clothed in human experience and perception" what is the revelation we speak of? A revelation of what and from what? What is being revealed that, for our purposes, MUST pass through human experience and perception?

From the unbiased perspective the witness of today's world does not change whether your a believer or not. It is our persception of our experiences in the world that are different. Since I am a believer it is obvious that 'God clothes revelation in human experience and perception', because that is one of the only principle ways that we can recieve it, and even the witness of nature must be filtered through 'human experiences and persceptions'.

Of what? Revelation in the form human experience is the ever evolving spiritual nature of humanity and existence. From what? From the 'Source' of existence some call God.

If this revelation comes from a source that seems to require the channel of human experience and revelation to manifest itself then are we simply interchanging two identical variables when we speak of "God" and "human imagination"? Or is there something more concrete that this Source's revelation can be tied to?

I believe Revelation actually does come in more ways than just the channel of human experience, and the messiah or enlightened on is only one channel clothed in human experience. There is also Revelation through human awareness of the cyclic progressive nature of humanity that is almost universal. The other witness is nature itself, which is in some ways a more reliable witness to the nature of Revelation and God than that clothed in human experience.

From the unbiased observers perspective much of revelation cannot be distinguished as being from God or 'human imagination'. Actually this is one truth that I feel is obvious, but is the most misunderstood, and essentially falsifies many ancient religious worldviews. From the unbiased perspective there should be no difference. If God exists as a creator and revealer, than the nature of God must be reflected in the nature of existence 'as it is'. Our knowledge of the nature of existence in the past 200 years has far surpassed the potential explanitory power of the ancient religions to achieve this. The Baha'i Faith now stands alone as having the explanitory power to 'Reveal' to humanity a spiritual Revelation that reflects the nature of existence 'as it is'.

I do believe that there is sufficient witness of Divine origins of revelation to believe, but that takes more space than can be addressed here.

The questions are pertinent to me because, methinks, the ancient forms of spirituality seemed tied to something more concrete than the spiritual practices of today. I think a lot of the ancient mythology and spiritual forms can be correlated to the stars and to earthly processes.

That more concrete thing is nature, which I do not believe has changed. It is just neglected as a witness of Revelation. Ancient religions shy away from nature as a witness, because through the eyes of science today nature becomes an alien image that is not compatable with their ancient worldview, and at best can only be conditionally qualified even to be marginally accepted.

Even if they are imaginative fictions to understand ("placeholders" as Z aptly coined them) the world ancient minds could at least tie these concepts to something directly experienced or observed. What does mankind in his forms of spiritual worship / religion today tie these concepts to?

Take care


It is true that primal societies were more intimately related to the witness of the changes in the natural world itself, but I believe this still holds true. I do believe that the Revelation transforming the nature of humanity from 1800 to the 1870 centering on 1844 has sufficient witness to tie these concepts to something directly experienced and observed.

[mentored1]

Hail shunya

From the unbiased perspective the witness of today's world does not change whether your a believer or not. It is our persception of our experiences in the world that are different.

Is there a difference between the witness of today's world and the perception of experiences in today's world? I would be under the impression that my perception of experience is my witness of today's world. Is there a way to reach an "unbiased" perspective?

Since I am a believer it is obvious that 'God clothes revelation in human experience and perception', because that is one of the only principle ways that we can recieve it, and even the witness of nature must be filtered through 'human experiences and persceptions'.

Is this revelation of God through human experience & perception one of the only principle ways or is it THE only principle way? What other way is there? I agree it must be filtered through human experience and perception, but I would be curious if there was any other way through which it could be received?

Of what? Revelation in the form human experience is the ever evolving spiritual nature of humanity and existence. From what? From the 'Source' of existence some call God.

This seems a circular notion: the evolving spiritual nature is in the form of human perception and experience and the 'Source' of existence is understandable in human perception and experience. Isn't this the same as saying that revelation and God are human perception and experience?

That more concrete thing is nature, which I do not believe has changed. It is just neglected as a witness of Revelation. Ancient religions shy away from nature as a witness, because through the eyes of science today nature becomes an alien image that is not compatable with their ancient worldview, and at best can only be conditionally qualified even to be marginally accepted.

I may disagree a bit with the assessment that ancient religions shied away from nature as a witness... Much of ancient religion and mythology seems tied to astronomy and the processes of nature itself. Various deities can be related to natural phenomena and celestial events. I agree it may not be compatible for us today but that is because we have allowed science to "de-mystify" the cosmos and nature itself. Stories about the gods and goddesses playing out a celestial drama are not longer relevant: is that a deficiency on the part of ancient man or modern man?

take care

[shunyadragon]

Is there a difference between the witness of today's world and the perception of experiences in today's world? I would be under the impression that my perception of experience is my witness of today's world. Is there a way to reach an "unbiased" perspective?

Yes their is a difference, as witnesses we all see the same world with the same information available. Our selective perception and belief filter will bias what we are willing to see when we construct the epistemology of our worldview.

The reaching an unbiased perspective would be relative and subject to our fallible nature. The first step would be our perception of nature 'as it is'. We have to detach ourselves from our belief presupositions, and realize nature is indifferent to our perception of it and cannot be used to justify, prove or demonstrate one worldview as superior to another. Popper's philosophy of science comes very close to this conclusion.

The next step is even more difficult, because the selective filter is stronger and has more subjective egocentric presuppositions. Her putting our beliefs, traditions, and strong emotional presuppositions aside is most difficult, but than again most critical to developing an unbiased perspective of reality. This is wher my Buddhist self is most helpful to. Not only the nature of existence is indifferent, but the nature of the history of the human journey is one and the same and equally indifferent to our perception of reality.

Alvin Plantinga is wrong in concluding that our belief in God, or our worldview may be justified by our apparent 'sanity of mind.' It is our fallible human nature, apparent bias and artificial presuppositions used to justify one worldview over another that falsifies any individual worldview. God cannot by proved or justified by our witness of of existence, which is indifferent, or our logical reasoning.

Is this revelation of God through human experience & perception one of the only principle ways or is it THE only principle way? What other way is there? I agree it must be filtered through human experience and perception, but I would be curious if there was any other way through which it could be received?

Yes, as I said it can be percieved through the progressive evolving cycles of existence, life and the human journey. The best example I can give is the Baha'i Revelation itself. The world was radically transformed in many ways between 1800 and 1863 centering on 1844. The resulting world we live in today has not paralell in the nature of the human journey prior to 1800. This radical transformation is revelation through the medium of the human mind. The Baha'i Revelation reveals the spirtual context of this transformation to the New Age, and puts it in the context of the spiritual nature of the journey of all existence. Individual religions are limited to the perception of their own part of this vaste journey.



This seems a circular notion: the evolving spiritual nature is in the form of human perception and experience and the 'Source' of existence is understandable in human perception and experience. Isn't this the same as saying that revelation and God are human perception and experience?

No, but the atheist/agnostic view interprets it that way. Again, the nature of existence will be indifferent to our perception of cause and effect.



I may disagree a bit with the assessment that ancient religions shied away from nature as a witness... Much of ancient religion and mythology seems tied to astronomy and the processes of nature itself. Various deities can be related to natural phenomena and celestial events. I agree it may not be compatible for us today but that is because we have allowed science to "de-mystify" the cosmos and nature itself. Stories about the gods and goddesses playing out a celestial drama are not longer relevant: is that a deficiency on the part of ancient man or modern man?

take care


Reread what I said, because you changed my statement to the past tense. I was referring to the ancient religions today, shy away from science, because of the limited worldview they cling to.

The more primative neolithic religions lived directly with nature and in somways had a better grasp of science than the later ancient urban religions.

[mentored1]

Reread what I said, because you changed my statement to the past tense. I was referring to the ancient religions today, shy away from science, because of the limited worldview they cling to.

The more primative neolithic religions lived directly with nature and in somways had a better grasp of science than the later ancient urban religions.

Thanks for the information shunya - I didn't comment on the rest because I'd like to read it a bit more and consider it more carefully.

Perhaps I did misinterpret your statement - if so, my apologies. More of the human fallibility again. :wink: I agree with the your latter statement above.

You do mention 'ancient religions today' - I'm not sure I follow. That statement seems paradoxical. How can an ancient religion be said to exist today? If the form remains in tradition only but we've lost the proper context of practice then isn't the religion, in essence, different than it was then?

Take care

[shunyadragon]

Thanks for the information shunya - I didn't comment on the rest because I'd like to read it a bit more and consider it more carefully.

Perhaps I did misinterpret your statement - if so, my apologies. More of the human fallibility again. :wink: I agree with the your latter statement above.

You do mention 'ancient religions today' - I'm not sure I follow. That statement seems paradoxical. How can an ancient religion be said to exist today? If the form remains in tradition only but we've lost the proper context of practice then isn't the religion, in essence, different than it was then?

Take care

Simply 'ancient religions today' are those religions that rely primarily or only on ancient scripture for their belief, guidance, understanding, and interpretations of their relationships with existence. These ancient religions either reject, or in some way conditionally accept modern science in understanding the nature of existence. Some of the ancient religions are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Vedic traditions, and Buddhism. All these and many other ancient world views base there beliefs on some sort of 'absolute' revelation and knowledge of ancient revealed scripture that is unchangable or immutable in the face of a changing evolving world of human knowledge and awareness that we witness today.

Yes, these religions are different today then they were in the age of reference when the scripture was written, but for the most part they still consider the ancient scripture written than to be the standard of truth for today.

The Baha'i view is that science is accepted unconditionally as capable of understanding the physical nature of existence. Realizing that the understanding of the physical nature of existence through Baha'i scripture as well as all scripture in their place and time comes through the filter of translation of different languages, human and cultural understanding. It is recognized that human knowledge is fallible, relative and temperal.