On the interconnectedness of things

Posted by Etan on Monday, November 29, 2004 at 11:15 PM. Read 3934 times. Tags:
{name} pic

Throughout the past year interconnectedness has been a recurring concept in many pieces of film and literature which I have come across. In its simplest form interconnectedness breaks down into the idea that everything is connected together.

Why God Won’t Go Away states that every religion relies on a form of interconnectedness. Andrew Newberg, et al, claims that there are two forms of interconnectedness found in different religions. There is either a union of mankind with the rest of the world or a union of the individual with a greater individual.

The former is found in religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism. Hinduism explains the interconnectedness of self or Atman with others through Brahman. The latter form of interconnectedness is more complicated. This form is found in religions such as Christianity. Through intense prayer individuals feel a profound connection with Christ. Through this connection with Christ individuals realize a connection with all of humanity.

In I ♥ Huckabees we find a form of existential interconnectedness which is very similar to that of Buddhism. Bernard Jaffe presents us with a blanket which he says represents the universe.

Say this blanket represents all the matter and energy in the universe, okay? This is me, this is you, and over here, this is the Eiffel Tower, right, it’s Paris!

Bernard’s blanket is eerily familiar to the Buddhist analogy of Indra’s Net. Indra’s Net is an infinitely long net. Within each knot of the net is a multifaceted jewel which reflects each other jewel. This analogy is made in order to show that everything in the universe exists in a complex relationship with all other beings. Like Jaffe’s blanket, we are all connected to each other and while we may feel like individuals in reality we can’t tell where my nose stops and space begins.

Interconnectedness is not only found in religions. Atheists also believe in the interconnectedness of everything, this time it comes in the form of energy. One of the foundations of modern physics is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The first law of thermodynamics says that the total inflow of energy into a system must equal the total outflow of energy from the system, plus the change in the energy contained within the system.

When I cease to exist, whether I go to Heaven or Hell or back to Earth in the form of another being, my energy must go somewhere. Like the Buddhist concept of reincarnation, my actions as a living being will have an effect on the future. Whether my karma results in a reincarnation or I have a reincarnation through scientific means (i.e. my carcass turns to soil from which a tree sprouts), my energy will have an effect on future life.

The atheistic concept of interconnectedness is summed up well through a scene in Waking Life. A purely scientific outlook upon the world leaves us with a problem of free will. If we are all physical systems then we all rely on the rules which govern these systems. We are all part of a system of cause and effect. This system of cause and effect leaves us with the question of how we make decisions, how we can truly choose to do anything.

This is a problem which has faced humanity since we have been philosophizing. Freedom of will versus determinism first took shape in the form of God making decisions for us, but even without an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being deciding our fate, we have this casual relationship between all beings which can remove our true freedom.

This causal relationship is the basis for human interconnectedness. An atheist may not believe that there is a soul or Atman at the root of our essence. Even without this belief we run into the concept of energy which has always existed and cannot be destroyed, we also are presented with a form of Buddhist conditioned genesis through causal relationships between all beings.

Interconnectedness is a concept which seems to reoccur in all social sciences. Sociology, archeology, religions, (and anti-religions) all come back to this concept of cause and effect. This link between all of us may not be psychic but it definitely seems to exist, whether through energy or some greater being.

Comments:

Page 5 of 8 pages « First  <  3 4 5 6 7 >  Last »

Etan United States Posted on 12/07/2004 at 04:12 PM

Etan pic

So there’s no logical reason to let the farce play out other then perhaps entertainment value. God could just divide us up into naughty and nice and get on with the business of basking in the love from those who made the cut for the rest of eternity.

In a sense Theocrat’s version of God has done this. He is outside time and has already seperated us. We just don’t know this because we haven’t finished the play of life.

In the end we are all sorted, we just need to get to that point…

 Signature 

“An eye for an eye leaves us all blind.” - Gandhi

Les United States Posted on 12/07/2004 at 05:05 PM

Les pic

That still doesn’t negate the pointlessness of going through the motions.

 Signature 

Gods dont kill people. People with Gods kill people. - David Viaene

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 12/07/2004 at 06:19 PM

elwedriddsche pic

A good Catholic friend asked an interesting question in a similar discussion - does god have free will?

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

Etan United States Posted on 12/07/2004 at 06:21 PM

Etan pic

Les: I agree, was just pointing out a different perspective.

elwedriddsche: Very interesting question. I’d say yes an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god does have free will. By definition it has decided our causality.

 Signature 

“An eye for an eye leaves us all blind.” - Gandhi

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 12/07/2004 at 07:45 PM

elwedriddsche pic

(etan) I’d say yes an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god does have free will.

Can such a god do what it know it will not do? Either way, there are interesting ramifications.

By definition it has decided our causality.

Not relevant, but so much for our free will.

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

ellie United States Posted on 12/07/2004 at 08:04 PM

ellie pic

Les - This view makes a number of assumptions and actually ends up raising more questions than it answers.

Isn’t that the whole point?  Like Socrates?

& as I’ve said before, I don’t necessarily “choose,” but…

just shrug [my] shoulders and say “yep, that’s a stumper, but I believe it to be true anyway�

& like it!

Because I see this whole debate as based on the assumption that we have the power to define ourselves through our actions (whether the Christian God has omniscient foreknowledge or not) I’ve been leaning more toward Calvanism & “limited will” as of late.  For example, some may say I have the “free” will to become anything I want.  But in reality, for me, I couldn’t muster up the desire or ability to do many things out there.  & even if I could, the training & determination would sap me & detract from who I really am.  (Though lots of people do this...) As another example, in reality, given the biases & experience I have, I have a limited choice of reactions to certain stimuli. ie GM & OB’s statements regarding uterine parasites.  I can blow up or remain calm, but I’m going to disagree.  Therefore, the only choice I truly have is to be who I was created as & play my role, or repress & rebel.

Why I still love God rather than become frustrated at the inevitable follow through to being created for entertainment value?  Umm, I didn’t choose it...I just do.  fits along with all the other people I love in my life, from family to friends.  If I could choose, they likely would be different people.

God could just divide us up into naughty and nice and get on with the business of basking in the love from those who made the cut for the rest of eternity.

In essence, that’s what John & Daniel say S/He does in Daniel & Revelation.  & if God is outside time…

ellie United States Posted on 12/07/2004 at 08:05 PM

ellie pic

Then in essence, God is the ONLY being with complete free will.

Etan United States Posted on 12/07/2004 at 08:07 PM

Etan pic

As God is beyond the laws of physics, I’d agree with that statement.

 Signature 

“An eye for an eye leaves us all blind.” - Gandhi

DWangerin United States Posted on 12/07/2004 at 09:50 PM

DWangerin pic

An omniscient being, by definition, cannot have free will.  It will always know what choices it will make, otherwise it would not be omniscient.

An omnipotent being is a bit more complex: if it could truely do anything (as per definition of omnipotent) then it could change its choice even if the choice was predetermined.  This leads to a paradox since, if it was omnipotent and omniscient but could change predetermined choices then it would not really be omniscient, since it did not know about the change in choice.  But this implies that it is not really omnipotent, since an omnipotent being would have the ability to know everything (remember, it can do anything).

An easier way to think of this:  can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy that it cannot lift it?  Any answer fails the definition of omnipotence, hence the paradox.

Socialist Swine Canada Posted on 12/08/2004 at 01:27 AM

Socialist Swine pic

theo,

Predestination means already made, foreseen, inevitable by someone other than yourself.

Actually that’s not right, in its literal original usage “predestination” is a synonym for “salvation”.  To be predestined simply meant that God has okayed you for heaven.  “Predestination” is simply the antonym of “reprobate” (at least in Christian theological literature).  I know this post is a little nit-picky, but I just wanted to be clear about what I was saying when I talk about predestination (if I in fact ever talk about predestination, which I’m not sure now that I in fact have).

zilch Austria Posted on 12/08/2004 at 05:26 AM

zilch pic

DWangerin queried: can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy that it cannot lift it?

Yes, She can create a rock so heavy She cannot lift it, and She can lift the rock even so.  Being omnipotent means that trifles like logical consistency are no problem.  An omnipotent Being, Creator of all, including logic, is bound by no rules.  She can create evil and suffering, and yet be omnibenevolent.  She can create Time, and be Herself Timeless.  And the best trick of all- She can create Herself, and be the Uncaused First Cause.

Can’t argue with that, and that’s the problem, as Les points out.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Socialist Swine Canada Posted on 12/08/2004 at 12:22 PM

Socialist Swine pic

Well there are theologians who argue that even omnipotent entities are limited by logical possibility.  Moreover, such limits don’t take away from that omnipotence.  I think Augustine had that view, but it’s been a while since I read anything he wrote and the last thing that I read was the part in De Mendacio when he argues that homosexual rape is preferable to willful telling of untruth, so I may be wrong.

THEOCRAT United States Posted on 12/08/2004 at 07:52 PM

THEOCRAT pic

Originally posted by DWangerin:
An omniscient being, by definition, cannot have free will.  It will always know what choices it will make, otherwise it would not be omniscient.

This is illogical.  God can not know what choices He will make in the future because there is no future.  God does is not constrained by time.  In order to know a future or past choice there would have to be a timeline.

Originally posted by DWangerin:
can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy that it cannot lift it?  Any answer fails the definition of omnipotence, hence the paradox.

This question actually does have an answer.  No He can’t create a rock so heavy that He can’t lift it.  He can’t create a rock that heavy for two reasons.
1) Pirahnas can’t fly and hummingbirds can’t swim.  Very simply it would not be in His nature to do such a thing.
2) How do you create a rock larger than an infitely large being to begin with?

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 12/08/2004 at 10:14 PM

elwedriddsche pic

This is illogical.  God can not know what choices He will make in the future because there is no future.  God does is not constrained by time.  In order to know a future or past choice there would have to be a timeline.

That sounds like you’re saying that god doesn’t think, reflect, or cogitate, because such a thing takes time. How can such a god do anything, like creating worlds and the like?

This question actually does have an answer.  No He can’t create a rock so heavy that He can’t lift it.  He can’t create a rock that heavy for two reasons.
1) Pirahnas can’t fly and hummingbirds can’t swim.  Very simply it would not be in His nature to do such a thing.

So an omnipotent being is constrained by its nature?

2) How do you create a rock larger than an infitely large being to begin with?

Not my problem. I let the omnipotent worry about such trifles.

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

DWangerin United States Posted on 12/08/2004 at 10:24 PM

DWangerin pic

This is illogical.  God can not know what choices He will make in the future because there is no future.

This is ironic.  If an omniscient being cannot know the future then it does not know everything and therefore is not omniscient.  Your response is illogical unless you provide some more explanations on how:

God does is not constrained by time.  In order to know a future or past choice there would have to be a timeline.

I must admit that I’m baffled on how to address this- if time does not exist for a being then how could it do something related to time, such as make a choice?

Very simply it would not be in His nature to do such a thing.

I don’t understand “His nature”.  Are you implying a limitation or preference for an omnipotent being?  If so, then why are you applying it to a generic omnipotent being, such as the one from my example?

How do you create a rock larger than an infitely large being to begin with?

While I could argue that size is irrelevant to the question, or that you are making assumptions about the size of an omnipotent being, I don’t think that either of those issues matter.  I was pointing out how paradoxes would have to be possible in order for an onmipotent being to exist.  If paradoxes can exist, then all rational argument is over and we’re back to Les’ post on 12/07/04 at 02:51 PM.

zilch Austria Posted on 12/09/2004 at 06:42 AM

zilch pic

theo said:  God can not know what choices He will make in the future because there is no future.  God does is not constrained by time.

This has been well dealt with by elwed and dwangerin already, but I can’t resist adding that it reminds me of the grades of possibility, from historical (it happened, or didn’t happen), to physical (it could or could not happen, according to the laws of physics), to logical (it is logically self-consistent or not).  Example: Superman.  Never existed, so he’s historically impossible.  Supposing Superman exists: he can’t fly faster than the speed of light; it’s physically impossible. What about SuperDuperman, who can fly faster than light without moving?  Logically impossible.

An omnipotent omniscient God outside of time is a SuperDuperman.  If He is not limited by logic, then we can all go pick daisies, for all the good discussions of His existence, characteristics, etc. do.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 12/09/2004 at 07:35 AM

elwedriddsche pic

An omnipotent omniscient God outside of time is a SuperDuperman.  If He is not limited by logic, then we can all go pick daisies, for all the good discussions of His existence, characteristics, etc. do.

If god isn’t limited by logic, what about all those rules and regs we’re supposed to follow?

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

zilch Austria Posted on 12/09/2004 at 08:54 AM

zilch pic

If god isn’t limited by logic, what about all those rules and regs we’re supposed to follow?

What of them? They are not limited by logic either- for instance, the ban on linsey-woolsey in the Bible, Deuteronomy 22:11 (KJV):

Thou shalt not wear a garment of a divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together.

Now that makes a lot of sense.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Brock United States Posted on 12/09/2004 at 12:14 PM

Brock pic

Thou shalt not wear a garment of a divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together.

I think that’s just an example of queer God for the straight guy having to much to say on the subject of fashion.

 Signature 

“At six I was left an orphan.  What the hell is a six year old supposed to do with an orphan?”
Unknown

Brock United States Posted on 12/09/2004 at 12:22 PM

Brock pic

Actually, it’s more like queer eye for the straight God would be responsible for that missive.

And, yes, I’m talking to myself but that seems to be the fashion here lately.

 Signature 

“At six I was left an orphan.  What the hell is a six year old supposed to do with an orphan?”
Unknown

zilch Austria Posted on 12/09/2004 at 02:16 PM

zilch pic

Brock, you’re not the only one. Damn straight- I mean… uh…

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

THEOCRAT United States Posted on 12/10/2004 at 04:25 PM

THEOCRAT pic

God is not limited by logic, we are.  Do you really expect to fully understand an infinite being with a finite mind?

deadscot United States Posted on 12/10/2004 at 04:44 PM

deadscot pic

God is not limited by logic, we are.  Do you really expect to fully understand an infinite being with a finite mind?

While I wouldn’t expect to fully understand an omnimax god, I would expect said being to be capable of understanding and communicating clearly with all lesser beings that he has supposedly created.  That would be a good first step.

refractor India Posted on 06/20/2005 at 06:10 AM

refractor pic

If God exists and He created all of us then a question remains.
Why did He make us independent unit which can feed itself , defend itself without his intervention?

He must have made us independent unit because He meant us to be Free Willed.

Bodi United States Posted on 01/03/2006 at 11:49 PM

Bodi pic

Greetings. I think there are those who might find this interesting…

Religion vs. Science vs. Spirituality: A Dialogue

Science: You are simply mythology, nothing more and nothing less. Stories told in ancient times for ancient minds.

Religion: Well, by all means, let’s jump right into the discussion. I prefer to think that I am the bedrock of civilization. You, on the other hand, are just a means of knowing and manipulating the physical world. You can’t offer answers to the real questions that I address.

Science: I have explained away all the myths you created to understand the world. I have explained how the universe was created, how life came to be, how humans arose, and how they have evolved over time.

Religion: You have just discovered some of the mechanism for how things happened. You still haven’t explained why? You say the universe began with the Big Bang, but you can’t tell us why.

Science: In time I’m sure I will figure it out.

Religion: Even if you do, you don’t have anything to say about life as humans live it.

Science: I think I’ve had a great deal to say through psychology and sociology.

Religion: Again you’re just watching and making guesses. You can’t speak from authority.

Science: What possible authority can you speak from?

Religion: I speak with the authority of God.

Science: What God? Which one? You have so many religions, so many gods, and so many stories. They can’t all be right. The Christian God is not the same as the Hindu gods, or the same as the Zoroastrian gods. And Buddhism doesn’t even have a creator god.

Religion: Each religion speaks with its own authority.

Science: Then how can your religion be universal? You’re admitting limits to your knowledge.

Spirituality: May I interject?

Science: Not if you’re going to start in with that stuff about a perennial philosophy and a great chain of being.

Religion: What do you have against those?

Science: First, the great chain of being is based on faulty logic. Sure, you have matter giving rise to life and life giving rise to mind, but you can’t just extrapolate mind giving rise to soul and spirit. You can see matter and life, and you can see minds, but you can’t see spirit.

Spirituality: Exactly. Soul is an interior experience. And Spirit can only be experienced internally as well.

Science: Then how can you prove it?

Religion: You don’t need to prove it.

Spirituality: Well, I disagree with Religion there. You prove it by experiencing it. How do you prove that you are dreaming? Or that you have a mind?

Science: With an EEG of your brain wave patterns.

Spirituality: And you can get an EEG of your brain when in deep ecstatic meditation.

Science: Which just proves that it’s all in your head. Just like dreams.

Spirituality: No, it’s all in your head period. The reason I brought up dreams is because even if you can see that someone is dreaming, you can’t tell what they are dreaming. You have to rely on them to describe to you that interior experience. But you also have to rely on them to describe the way they perceive any experience. And a change in brain wave patterns only shows that all experience is interpreted through our minds.

Science: If I see a tree and you see a tree, we both see a tree.

Spirituality: Yes, but we both see the tree differently.

Science: But I can describe the tree in scientific terms with complete accuracy. In terms that are not dependent on internal experience.

Spirituality: But however you describe it, you have to interpret it internally. Why is it that two scientists can look at the same data and reach two totally different conclusions?

Science: You’re talking about human fallibility.

Religion: That’s the fallibility of science.

Spirituality: Fallibility is a good point. Karl Popper suggested that for a scientific principle to be held as accurate, that it must continue to be proven “not wrong.” It is never accepted as gospel, but held in a suspension of fallibility, constantly checking it against the facts.

Science: Which is something that religion can’t do. Your facts contradict themselves. Which proves them wrong.

Religion: You might make me concede that I’m wrong about how the universe began, or about evolution, but you can’t prove that there isn’t a God.

Science: And you can’t prove that there is. Fallibility means that your proof must be consistently positive, and yet you haven’t been able to muster a single positive proof for the existence of God.

Religion: I don’t have to prove God. That’s what faith is about.

Science: I can’t accept faith as a way of engaging the universe. Fallibility means that I can’t have faith in anything. It is all provisional. However accurate my theories may be, they might change. Newton thought he had the universe licked, then Einstein changed everything and now string theory may change it again. So, if I can’t have total faith in something I can see and measure, how can I have faith in something I can’t see?

Spirituality: But you can see it.

Science: Where? How?

Spirituality: Internally through meditation.

Science: Back to the internal.

Spirituality: And back to the perennial philosophy.

Science: How can you have a perennial philosophy when the religions don’t agree?

Spirituality: The religions don’t agree, the myths and rules and dogmas, but the mystics agree on the ultimate nature of reality.

Religion: I’m not sure. Christian mystics aren’t saying the same thing as Buddhists.

Spirituality: They are both revealing a different perception of reality obtained through contemplation and meditation. And a close study of the world’s mystic traditions shows that they unfold in deeper and deeper layers.

Science: It doesn’t matter. It’s all in their heads. The meditation changes the structure of their brains in ways that create the experiences.

Spirituality: The meditation does seem to change their brains; however, not in ways that create experience, but in ways that change their perception of experience. The same things happen as we grow from babies to adults. Our brain changes, and with it, our perception of the world. Mystics are doing the same thing.

Science: But it doesn’t prove that there is a God.

Spirituality: It doesn’t prove a creator, a single being or entity that is all knowing and all-powerful, no.

Science: So, no God, no religion.

Spirituality: No, you still have religion, you just don’t have the myths or dogma. Mystics throughout the ages have been reporting a similar deepening view of reality through meditation. Ultimately they reveal a non-dual perception of the universe, of the universe as One, as Spirit, the Ground of All Being, One without a second.

Religion: Which is God.

Spirituality: You can call Spirit as the Ground of all Being, God, but you can’t personify it, because it is beyond personality. That’s the whole point of transcending the ego-self. You have to get past your ego-self to see Spirit as the Ground of All Being. It wouldn’t make any sense to then find another ego-self written large over the universe.

Science: But it’s all in their heads.

Spirituality: Think of it as a giant long running experiment. Over a period of at least 2500 years people have been meditating and when adjusted for cultural differences, and for depth of experience, they all seem to be reporting similar changes in the perception of the nature of reality.

Science: But where’s the control?

Spirituality: It’s built in. The control is all the people who haven’t been meditating.

Science: So, I’m just supposed to accept what these meditators say?

Spirituality: No. You can try it yourself. Like a good scientist.

Science: What about Religion?

Spirituality: Religion needs to try it as well.

Religion: Mysticism is for special people. For saints and sages. It isn’t for everyone.

Spirituality: No, it is for everyone. That’s the whole point behind Buddhism. It’s a religion based on mysticism.

Science: Look, even if I try this meditation and it changes the way I see the universe, that still doesn’t change the fact that Religion can’t describe the universe the way science can.

Spirituality: Right. Well, you’re both going to have a problem with this, but here goes. Religion needs to let go of its myths and stories and dogma.

Religion: Assuming I did that, what do I have left besides morality?

Spirituality: You have me. Spirituality. Which is what you use to inform your teachings and your morality, instead of myths and dogma.

Science: So, you two need me, but I don’t need you.

Spirituality: No, you need me as well. Spiritual science….

Science: There’s no such thing.

Spirituality: And spiritual religion. Stop seeing us as three separate things. See us as interconnected. If you think of a spiritual worldview the same way you think of other worldviews, it will make sense. A group of scientists from 1850, 1900, 1950 and today would all have different worldviews that would inform their ideas of what science is. Each one is a little wider than the last. A scientist with a spiritual worldview will be wider still. Their science will encompass even more.

Religion: So, you’re saying that religions, like science, need to be based on direct experience. If that direct experience agrees with science but not with scripture, then we have to change the scripture. And if that direct experience reveals a sense of the numinous, we need to acknowledge that this experience is available to everyone.

Spirituality: Exactly.

Religion: Then what is my role outside of mysticism?

Spirituality: The same as before, only now your authority comes from the individual’s direct experience. You are the paths and practices that the individual can follow to this direct realization.

Religion: So the traditions that disagree on cosmology and mythology can agree on you, on spirituality?

Spirituality: They can, but they don’t have to be in total accord. The variety that you offer is one of your strengths.

Science: All of this is fine and dandy for Religion, but what about me? How am I supposed to accept a direct experience of the numinous, of Spirit as the Ground of all Being, of something I can’t measure if I can’t describe it in the terms of science, with math and equations?

Spirituality: Well, you can measure your own experience and compare it to people who are also engaged in the experiment. As for math, what you’re really talking about is faith and belief.

Science: Right. I can have faith in math, I can believe in the theories it proves, but how can I have faith in you or Religion?

Spirituality: Well, faith and belief are very intertwined. Basically there are four kinds of belief. The first is based on faith. We believe something because it is presented to us by someone we trust. Whether it’s God or Spirit or quantum theory, if we believe it on the basis of someone else’s authority, then it’s faith. And there’s nothing wrong with that. I don’t have the math to understand quantum mechanics, so I have to take your word for it. The second kind of belief is based on supposition or hypothesis derived from observation. You look at the world and see a pattern and from that you extrapolate a supposition about something and your belief rests on that chain of logic. Your belief in the effectiveness of meditation could be based on the fact that it seems to have produced similar results repeatedly throughout history. The third kind of belief is based on direct experience; upon knowledge gained through the senses or by logic. My belief in the realities revealed by prolonged meditation are based on engaging in a daily practice. Your belief in the realities of quantum physics are based on learning the math, performing the equations, and trying the experiments that prove it. The last kind of belief is similar to the third, but it is based on direct experience or knowledge unclouded by the senses or logic. This kind of belief is only available to those who have such experiences.

Religion: Since you’re explaining faith, what about prayer? What about faith and service in God?

Spirituality: Look, you can still pray to God, or the Goddess, or as many gods as you choose, but if you are immersed in a practice of transcending the ego-self, of stepping beyond separateness, beyond person, then you will eventually move on to worshipping Godhead, not God or Goddess, and you begin to see this in everyone, everything, not as some being outside you. Worship of a God or Goddess can be a very important stage on the path. You don’t need to throw it out, you just need to eventually transcend it.

Religion: None of this is going to be an easy sell to my friends.

Science: You’re friends will be more open than mine.

Spirituality: No, it won’t be an easy sell, and it will take quite a bit of time, but it is possible. When Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity, physicists didn’t immediately embrace what he was saying. Many of them continued to cling to a Newtonian view of the universe, and many clung even more tightly when Heisenberg came along and started making noises about his Uncertainty Principle. The same will happen again and it will be just as difficult for religion. But fortunately the nature of religion is to shift and change over time. What we really need are leaders who are willing to push for change.

Science: So, I guess there’s a lot of work cut out for us.

Religion: Decades, even centuries worth.

Spirituality: Yes, but the whole point is that none of us have to do it alone. We can, and should, all work together. Our futures depend on it.

The above is taken from the website:

thechrysalisage.com

May the Force be with you. Always. HeeHeeHee!

Page 5 of 8 pages « First  <  3 4 5 6 7 >  Last »

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main