|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 12, 2008 1:21:59 GMT
I'm not aware of any official establishment of ID in the US or anywhere else. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 12, 2008 2:09:02 GMT
I'm not sure where the 'official establishment' idea came into this, (& in regards, to ID, there is no 'anywhere else' available, just the US) but if you would like to know more about ID in the US, google 'intelligent design, US' for a swag of references. Maybe take a look at the Kansas issue? Or Judge Jones' summation?
While the whole ID being taught as Science makes the US education system pretty much the butt of jokes in the rest of the world, I'd have thought even a casual gleaning of what's been going on would show the central thrust of the idea is a rewording, by Christian Fundamentalists, of Creationism to try to avoid the legal 'religion' tag & so get it accepted.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 12, 2008 17:15:27 GMT
I use official establishment because that's what "as proposed" would seem to imply a path towards.
Once again, though, I'd have to know what you mean when you talk about "Christian Fundamentalists" and the association of that with something in the US. What I understand it to be meaning is that this is a phenomenon unique to the US. I would have to again look at my experience in Korea and say that just doesn't fit. Granted, it has been a few years since I lived in Korea, but one of the things I remember one of my friends bemoaning was that in the US, evolution could be taught as fact, but in Korea it must be taught as theory.
We didn't discuss what other options were taught in schools there, but it would seem that he sat through something else if evolution could only be taught as theory. And I think Korea is part of the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 12, 2008 19:17:22 GMT
Hm... I guess you'd need to check with your friend. Ensuring Evolution is taught as theory is a long step away from trying to get ID taught as Science. It may just be the Korea has a better system of Education than the US - Evolution IS a theory - while there may be supporting evidence for it, it is not yet solid fact that it is the only mechanism operating. Requiring Truth to be taught is a whole different ball game to requiring subjects based on faith to be labelled as Science.
For example, there is also evidence for a 'punctuated equilibrium' style of change in Life - while similar to Darwin's version of survival of the fittest as the mechanism for diversity, it is different enough to require other explanations for what is happening.
Rupert Sheldrake & other researchers also have evidence for other something a little strange occurring with a range of species - there might just be an influence other than random mutation going on.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Oct 13, 2008 16:47:14 GMT
Hm... I guess you'd need to check with your friend. Ensuring Evolution is taught as theory is a long step away from trying to get ID taught as Science. It may just be the Korea has a better system of Education than the US - Evolution IS a theory - while there may be supporting evidence for it, it is not yet solid fact that it is the only mechanism operating. Requiring Truth to be taught is a whole different ball game to requiring subjects based on faith to be labelled as Science. For example, there is also evidence for a 'punctuated equilibrium' style of change in Life - while similar to Darwin's version of survival of the fittest as the mechanism for diversity, it is different enough to require other explanations for what is happening. Rupert Sheldrake & other researchers also have evidence for other something a little strange occurring with a range of species - there might just be an influence other than random mutation going on. Granted. But be very careful about what you think "fundamentalist Christians" may be doing in the US. Like elsewhere in history, most of what you hear is what their enemies print about them, and not what their actual position is. As an example, I sat through several iterations of the "disclaimer" controversy in the midwest. The disclaimers were (I thought) very well written, and reasonable. Much like our discussion, they pointed out that evolution was a theory, and actually encouraged the students to "study hard" and maybe some day they could contribute to the scientific discussion of the origins of life. But that was nothing like what was portrayed as happening by the news media. It was actually in response to teachers who took advantage of their "captive audience" to state that "science" such as evolution proved that their was no God. Unfortunately, the courts took the side of not allowing any other discussion if the teacher made such claims, and the disclaimers were disallowed. You have stated here that you think that atheism is a faith position (and so do I. It seems to me it takes a lot more faith to believe all these things could have happened without intelligence behind the design). So it seems to me that the courts, by disallowing the disclaimer, actually took a position of establishing a certain religious belief in the schools. I agree with teaching evolution as a theory, but it seems to me that its proponents are unable to discuss any possibilities other than an atheistic position, and I have a problem with that in public schools. Ironicaly, the part of the country where I saw that controversy still has thriving public schools. The public schools in California (where they have not even entertained the idea of a disclaimer) are struggling, and possibly dying. In California, people seem to have moved their kids to private schools, and the public schools exist mainly for the people who can't afford another option. My main caution is to understand that when you hear on the news (especially US news outlets) about "fundamentalist christians", you are not hearing from a group that wants to accurately represent what a "fundamentalist Christian" is. You are hearing from someone very hostile toward them. I can give other stories as examples of this, but back to the main point of the thread.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 13, 2008 19:41:34 GMT
One of the benefits of not living in the Ststes is we have a freer press & media. I will not go so far as to say our sources are unimpeachable, (far from it) but having been to a number of countries & having spoken often to US citizens about what they do & don't get shown in the media, it is quite apparent that the US is a long way further from a free press than are other places.
The main thrust of ID is to get it taught in Science as an alternative theory to Evolution. While Evolution is a theory, it is Theory in the Science sense - it has a central hypothesis supported with evidence. ID, as proposed in the US, almost by definition, cannot be so supported as all questions eventually resolve down to 'God did it that way.' This cannot be addressed using scientific method.
Talking about how Fundamentalists are portrayed gets policitcal rather quickly so I will stay away from that subject.
However, I wonder how ID'ers would reconcile the AGW case with their belief that God is still running things. Do they see it as Man violating God's system with a 'correction' of biblical proportions on its way or is it part of God's plan that the Earth warms & so not of Man's doing or cause? Does it matter that most of the time multicellular Life has been around, the Earth has been running at a temperature considerably warmer than currently?
I'm seriously interested to know - it seems to me the methods by which believers need to alter perspectives to arrive at a compromise position between science & God are interesting all by themselves.
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Oct 14, 2008 17:36:57 GMT
Acolyte,
I will take a stab at answering your question, since you have stated a sincere desire to hear how someone would reconcile the two positions of ID and AGW. Of course, anything that I am about to say here is subject to my biases and missing knowledge (I have been wrong before!!). As a disclaimer, I have a Masters in Chemistry and a lifelong passion for learning (still LOTS to learn!!). Also, I have had overwhelming evidence (for me) of the reality of God's influence on my life and the world (and Universe) around me. I view learning as a gift from God and a method of uncovering what he has done in the Universe and in my life and that of my family (I have 6 children by the way, ...God also has a sense of humor).
As for AGW, I not completely convinced either way that CO2 is (or is not) such a powerful greenhouse gas and whether or not it is relevant. I have personally measured the IR absorption spectrum of CO2 (in University) and it is a strong absorber, but water is a stronger one. Also, it is quite possible that the other influences on climate are stronger than the effect of the 385 ppm of CO2. (e.g. the ocean currents redistrubuting heat).
Also, CO2 is a necessary prerequisite for life. We are all made of CO2 (in a way, e.g. sugars). Many plants grow better (especially in dryer climates) in elevated CO2 concentrations (e.g. soybeans). To me this is quite consistent with a plan by God to keep us fed (among other things). If CO2 were a poison and toxic to life, it would be difficult for me to see this as an act of God. On the other hand, the life that is present on the Earth right now depends on CO2, so that seems consistent with a Loving Creator to me.
I also believe that the satellite temperature record does not show as significant a warming trend as the relatively more biased (by Urban Heat Island effects) and spotty surface temperature record, so I think that there is fair evidence that the temperature changes of the 70s to the 90s (and the lack of a significant temperature trend since 1998 despite the increase in CO2), that the effect of CO2 is less significant on temperature than many claim.
As to the theory of Intelligent Design. To me (although I admit the possibililty of error!!) it is self-evident that random mutation (which tends to destroy and not to create) is insufficient to the explain biological diversity present in the world today. Also, the "Tree of LIfe" as shown in Darwin's Theory is pretty much disproved by the fossil record (e.g. the Cambrian Explosion). Also, the most complete fossil record that we have is of marine invertebrates (seashells). There are literally mountain ranges FULL of them. There are whole families of molluscs that are essentially unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. Also, when changes DID occur in the fossil record, there were no intermediate forms (as proscribed by Darwin's theory) and one form just "vanished" and was replaced (seemingly overnight in geologic terms) by a new form. To me that is consistent with Intelligent Design.
Now I will be the first to admit that there is plenty of evidence of Darwinian selection mechanisms in operation in the world. E.g. antibiotic resistance, intra-species variation, etc. However, I would say that the only mechanism that we have ever experimentally verified (scientifically) that is capable of generating HUGE amounts of data in code (e.g. DNA code) is an intelligent agent. To me it is scientific to say that Intelligent Design is the most likely scientific explanation.
I have read the book "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. He is a biochemist with a fairly honorable academic career. He has written a book showing some fairly convincing arguments (to me) against Darwinian evolution as a mechanism to explain the sum of biological diversity on this planet. Of course, he has many detractors, but I am heartened by the rabid nature of their attacks (circular logic, name-calling) without really confronting (IMO) the essentials of his arguments.
So until a better explanation comes along, I am going to go with what I consider the most scientific (truthful) explanation. I.e. Intelligent Design. Note that this doesn't tell us too much about the Intelligent designer. (except that he, she or it, is an impressive biochemist!!).
I hope that I have answered your question. I have tried to be as clear as possible, but I covered a lot of ground and I suspect that I may have confused the issue as well. Hope not.
May your efforts to find Truth be successful,
Ian
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 14, 2008 19:42:09 GMT
Thanks Wylie, eloquent & not confusing at all I think. It's been difficult to find people with Creator beliefs who will talk rationally about how they view the world. The issue seems one that polarises rather dramatically & getting anything much more than a categoric statement of belief/emphatic denigration of the opposition from either side is difficult.
I see some of the same things you do I guess. I've noted how quickly the Evolution-only believers degenerate into non-rational argument or dirty debate tactics. I've noted it also on the part of the fundamentalists. I've backed away slowly from both, trying not to make eye contact. *grins*
I'm still in the middle somewhere, or maybe, at the other end of a line from those who have firm ideas about how things are. As mentioned in a post above, I see problems with the steady 'tick' of evolution & have for some time. The Extinction aftermaths are one issue, but thing like a butterfly with a perfect reptile eye on its wing is another.
I started in a fundamentalist family, & after rejecting it early spent a considerable time in the 'it better have hard evidence' camp. But Life has a tendency to chuck grenades into our path & a number of quite strange events (from a science PoV) forced me to realise there was something more going on than hard science could (or would) explain. those 'grenades' were (among others) things like those Sheldrake is investigating.
But I can't reasily (perhaps because of my early upbringing view) accept there is an active God running things. I think I can make a case for Initiation by a Lifeforce, & perhaps even a self-guiding process by which things are moved along, but to suppose an ongoing presence 'out there' who is maintaining the system above & beyond the self-guiding possibility seems an unneeded complication.
The Journey continues, and I thank you for your response.
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Oct 14, 2008 21:20:06 GMT
Acolyte,
You are welcome!!
On the faith front, I started out as an Atheist from a very lukewarm family and used Science as the excuse for the non-existence of God. I just wanted to add that I have tried the same learning tactics (as I used on AGW and ID) on the historical record of Christianity (and Judaism). Near the beginning of my search (now more like the MIddle), I had (have) a good agnostic (but very vocal) friend who said something like "Ian, you have such a nice faith, don't RUIN it by checking the facts!!" He was CERTAIN that the existence of the "Gospel of Q" (a historical amalgam of the common themes and sayings of Jesus from the first three "Synoptic" gospels) was proof that the Christian Gospels were falsified. So when he challenged me in my search for Christian truth to read the book about this Gospel of Q, I still felt that any faith worth believing in was worth questioning (and deeply). I read his book and was astonished by the conclusions. THere was SUBSTANTIAL evidence that many of the sayings of Jesus HAD BEEN written down (e.g. the Sermon on the Mount, the Beautitudes, the Lord's Prayer, etc.) BEFORE the synoptic Gospels (including the Gospel of Mark). There is also substantial circumstantial evidence that the Gospel of Mark predated the Siege and Destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD). That would mean that a Gospel of Q (sayings of Jesus) had been written sometime between the Crucifixion of Jesus (30-33AD) and 70 AD (and probably before the first letters of Paul, around 50 AD). That means that probably within 20 years of the actual events and Jesus saying what he said, there was actual evidence of a document recording what he said. Of course, that is not PROOF that he said those things, BUT it is substantial circumstantial evidence that at least there was very little opportunity for Legend creation.
In comparison, the Illiad and the Oddyssey were only written down in about 600 AD describing events that took place 500 years before in Troy. There is enough commonality with the archeological record (the "Horse" perhaps being a battering ram that broke through the Trojan defense), to suggest that there was a factual basis for at least SOME of Homer's writings. REmember, he was writing 500 years after the events. In the case of the Gospel of Q, that was written well within the lifetime of many of the opponents of Jesus (Pilate, Caiphas, etc.). They would have been all too happy to discount Jesus and produce his body, if it had been present in the tomb. Josephus (a Roman Jew), who was NOT a supporter of Jesus acknowledged his existence around 75 AD, his affect and even suggested something about the possibility of a resurrection (although he probably didn't believe it himself).
So again, I felt that the historical and literary evidence of the Gospels (all of them, including Q) gave me good basis for continuing to accept the Miracle of the Resurrection of Jesus. Of course, all of these beliefs rise or fall on the Reality (or not) of the Resurrection of Jesus. Who was Jesus? Did he say what people say he said? Was he crucified? WAS HE RESURRECTED??
Who do we say he is? I believe have answered that question to my satisfaction. He is our Savior and Lord. Of course, I haven't finished with my search for the truth, either historical or otherwise, in fact, I hope I am just beginning, but then again, I certainly don't know what is to come. However, answering the Question about Jesus didn't slow my search for Scientific truth (actually the opposite). I actually challenged my agnostic friend to re-read his book and asked him whether or not he believed that Jesus said: "Blessed are those who are persecuted for my Name's sake for theirs shall be the Kingdom of Heaven" (etc.). He didn't have an answer, but I think that it got him thinking. A good thing!
OF COURSE, that does not mean that everything out there MAKES SENSE!! (Quite the opposite!). There is still so much to figure out. ALso, there are plenty who would use Faith as a means of furthering political and greedy agendas. That is frightening, but again the answer to that challenge is more search for Truth. So I think I can understand your concern.
Keep up the Search!
Ian
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Oct 15, 2008 9:24:52 GMT
I find it difficult to work out how much of what we're told of the past is real & how much is propaganda. There seem to have been a number of 'messiahs' who have similar characteristics such as virgin birth, death & ressurrection after the summer solstice & so on.
Add to that the number of times Precession numbers come into myth & I start to wonder if ANY of the old 'religion' stories are based in reality or if they all encode astronomical information.
I'm pretty sure the Egypt history is not accurate as told by egyptologists. I'm fairly sure Ankhor Wat has more going for it than a fancy arrangement of rock, that Nan Madol was built for a reason, & that the variety of underwater relics & monuments are indicators of lost civilisations.
To me that makes the Christ story a late-to-the-scene example of older stories told for a purpose. The number of Torah, Bible & Koran stories that are related elsewhere & that predate the Judaic books tend to inform me that those judaic writings are collections of older knowledge. For example, the proliferation of Noah stories seems to be fairly convincing of a Flood epic, but the dates from science would eliminate the biblical version as being way too recent.
Glenn Milnes Inundation maps show correspondence a little to close to a variety of other evidence to be ignored. Based in hard fact, the maps offer evidence for catastrophe that might help explain where both Ooparts & anachronistic knowledge originates.
While none of this dispoves an ongoing God in our universe, it calls into question the modern view of who it might be. For me, these pieces fit into a puzzle that I have no where near completed, but what i see of the picture so far makes any putative on-going God seem a trifle insane.
I don't find an insane God to be a tenable position so I choose to think about the possibility that, Initiation of Cosmos or Cosmoi completed, the Origin entered the Game S/He had created to fulfill the purpose for which S/He had created it - to learn & gain self-knowledge & maybe self-realisation.
In this scenario, Climate, Ice Ages, catastrophic warming & regular cycles are all simply trials of the universe we live in - the workings of the rules laid down at the start.
It isn't a Game unless there are things to achieve, rules to follow & a final result.
|
|
|
Post by SIXPAC on Dec 28, 2008 4:19:21 GMT
After feeling a bit bored after all the Christmas madness I found myself surfing the net and next thing I've read 14 posts on this site in the "Open Forum" and thinking to myself, nothing much has changed since I was here last, that is until I read the 15th post by Acolyte. WELL DONE ! I instantly had the feeling of getting/being closest to some kind of truth/answer and then it all stopped. What happened ? I'm not sure where I fit in here "atheist/theist<-------------------------------->agnostic" nor do I care but I would like to suggest that maybe all of you/us so called intelligent humans just don't have a clue as to what or why it is. Let's be fair dink um here, we may have gone to the moon, big whoop, we may even get to Mars, big deal and who really cares? Sure it's exciting stuff, even for me It's a little exciting, but for what gain? It's nothing compared to lets say, never having another war or being totally safe from an ever changing planet that we smart humans are raping and polluting at an alarming and increasing rate. Why do we waste so much time on trying to prove/disprove Gods, creators or creation at all ? Is it that important ? What if we are all wrong or what if we are all right, will it matter ? Like I said earlier, "I instantly had the feeling of getting/being close to some kind of truth/answer and then it all stopped". Why ? Was it a bad case of cold feet syndrome ? or just a little too close to a maybe TRUTH !Let me suggest that we, the so called intelligent life form to this minuscule rock in what we call a Universe, plainly and simply don't have a damned clue ! Prove me wrong you may try but remember one thing, getting/being close to some kind of truth/answer is just a dream for now and possibly for ever, where we humans are concerned that is. It's all been fought over for far too many centuries now and still every individuals beliefs are right . Something wrong there wouldn't you say ? I say lets start again and forget the incidentals so many end up getting lost in following and try looking for a real leader for this beautiful but fragile world and please shall we not call him a God but call him Smart Man. Please Note; None of my ramblings are aimed nor are they intended to hurt or upset those that care to read. HAPPY NEW YEAR to all.
|
|
N9AAT
Level 3 Rank
DON'T PANIC
Posts: 153
|
Post by N9AAT on Dec 28, 2008 8:42:40 GMT
It's so cool that so many opinions can be voiced on this site without drawing the attention of the usual profanity personnel.
Here's MY take. I think someone else alluded to it already.
You can sit on the extremes and be a die-hard Creationist or Evolutionist rather than join the rest of us in the middle.
I like Intelligent Design but I don't know how we will ever find the line between what God may do and what nature does. My guess is that God LIKES nature. Ever watch a sunset? Ever consider how no two people will see the same sunset, and every second it is changing? Every moment to every person is unique. Try and capture the thing on canvass or photo paper and it's just not the same.
I think there are some questions I will hold until the time I get there. I don't HAVE to have all the answers, unlike many in today's western church pews (notice I didn't say Eastern). Ask the Coptics what they think about religion in the west. We're always swatting at each other with our Bibles and passing the J-Word on each other. By that I mean Judgement. Isn't that what got us pitched out of Eden to begin with? We passed judgement on God, then on each other, then on ourselves?
Hey, I might just go pass judgement on YOU because you know more (or less) than I do. Heh heh.
Life is a journey toward truth. Truth is the goal, the end, the destination, but what's more fun ... the goal or the journey. Try a two-week backpack trip in the Pecos Wilderness of New Mexico someday and see how you feel when it's over. BIG let-down.
Everything I learn is fun. Everything is exciting. I like thinking that God can call the shots when he wants, and sit back and watch when he chooses. Perhaps that why we are what we are ... made in His image.
And, oh yes, I've had too many experiences in my life to believe there is no God. I believe he wants us to STRIVE for answers, but not belittle our brothers and sisters who may have found out more (or less) than we have ... so far.
|
|
N9AAT
Level 3 Rank
DON'T PANIC
Posts: 153
|
Post by N9AAT on Dec 28, 2008 9:01:55 GMT
Part II. AGW.
Truly there are a lot of people here in the west who WANT mankind to be at fault for global warming. To leave climate up to change or chaos is too close to leaving it in God's hands. Perhaps many of those who DEMAND that man be in charge of global warming are the same who DEMAND that we have all of the answers to all of our religious questions. Many such people, of course, often see God as an ogre. They also often see the government as an ogre.
I think global warming and global cooling ARE a bit of chaos. I think God's fine with that. Perhaps if people would not make God up in their heads so much (the God who likes me and my friends, and is going to send all my enemies to Hell) they would see the sense in chaos itself.
Then again, is climate really chaos? Sit between two sections of an orchestra sometime and the music around you sounds pretty chaotic. Get some distance away, however, and chaos is transformed. Does it have to be one or the other? Maybe the "chaos" thing is all in our perspective.
Man does seem to sometimes have a bit of an authority problem with God. In God's orchestra, man too often wants to go off and play by himself. Problem is, the rest of the musicians just keep on playing. The symphony WILL go on. We can either play our parts, or keep on kicking.
I think we ought to be preparing for the future. The Holocene WILL end someday. Even before that though, I think it's about to get a lot colder on our pushy little planet.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Dec 29, 2008 12:42:53 GMT
I guess I could have gone further but it's a big subject & I didn't want to be posting one after another as it's too much like preaching. Here's some more of my thoughts... the ramblings of a mind that's lived too long alone & apart from people who like to think of things other than work, footy & money. First some background of from where they got stimulated: String theory, back in the days when there were 5 of them, about the time a brane got rolled up to be a string & so reduce the 11 dimensions into 10, seemed to offer a plenitude of cosmoi. Super-symmetry math seemed to say there were 26 possible dimensions and string theory that we inhabited a subset of 10. That's a large number of possible and different combinations of 10 - 26x25x24x23x22x21x19x18x17x16 if I recall my high school math. But there's another way to look at it than the straight physical - what if (let's call Her/Him THE ALL to stay away from predefined concepts) THE ALL came into Awareness. Now Awareness doesn't automatically bring knowledge - think about being in a dark room & becoming sensitised to the environment around you. You will hear noise, feel warm air, feel vibrations under you, smell smells - all Awarenesses but until you start down the experience pathway (move around & get more information) you cannot turn that Awareness into Knowledge. So we have THE ALL, a 26 dimensional Beingness (there's a subset of this in having THE ALL be a 10 or 11 Dimensional Beingness, which would allow for other 10 or 11 Dimensional Beingnesses out there - maybe each Brane is one such? Colliding branes are reproducing and Universes the result?)... But anyway, we have this large multi-dimensional Beingness, all Awareness and no Knowledge. Interesting that the first piece of knowledge that could possibly come that I can think of would be 'I AM' So how does one go about learning & increasing Knowledge. As above, so below... How do we do it? We break things down into smaller chunks, find out about them, then eventually step back out & bring them together to give us a picture of a wholeness. Wee see a thing, call it tree, then find bark & wood, then water and chemicals, then cells and DNA, then proteins and bases, then signals & triggers, then we put it all back together and say 'That's a Tree!' But now we know how it works & the Knowledge can be used in many ways other than just burning it for heat and get the animals moving towards the cliff. So THE ALL creates internal parts of Self & begins to investigate. Agents of lesser dimension enter the inner world to experience & learn, to apply the learning & turn it into Knowledge. To be effective of course, they need to report back & combine what each agent learns with what the others learn. How do we learn about ourselves? Two basic ways - we live our way through experiences & learn ourselves by how we react & behave, but also we imagine - we create scenarios & model ourselves within the scenarios to see how they 'feel' to us. If we create well & model well, we can actually respond better to real-life experiences when they come along. Sometimes others do this to us - the military is a classic example - they make us run scenarios until they have our reactions trained to respond as they want, when they want. So these lesser Beingnesses set out to explore their cosmoi - it is certainly feasible that THE ALL didn't break it's Awareness into the lowest level all at once - but the lesser Beingnesses could run exactly the same process - create smaller Selfs to investigate the inner parts so they can learn about themselves & so complete their purposes. Eventually we'd get to some sort of basic where the tiny pieces of Beingnesses were unable to 'split' further & we'd be at the level where lives need to be lived & the level of Knowledge needs to begin to grow towards Totality. Long way to get to it, but here we are, little pieces of Beingness who are attached to a 'Reality' which is really just the workings of THE ALL - truly a Matrix-like universe. We are here to learn, to grow & turn information into Knowledge by using our Awareness & our Experience. It means a Universe that is distinctly not random but also is perhaps best described as Unintelligent Design. It provides for a reality beyond the shadows on the cave wall, one where larger chunks of THE ALL are sending us in as Actors to play before the light to make the shadow movie that provides the Audience with the Knowledge to move beyond the Cave. And we are both Actor and Audience because we are all a part of the larger Beingness that divided into the smaller Beings to play the parts. And if we move up the chain a bit further, we would find that more & more of what we now think of as individuals are actually sub-agents of the same piece of THE ALL, & of course, eventually, we ARE all THE ALL! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The above may seem like rantings but if you think it through, it provides reason & mechanism for a lot of the puzzles we face in life. Those times when, wihtout rhyme or reason, we KNOW or when we out of nowhere feel suddenly alive as we connect out to all around us & breifly, ineffably we CONNECT & are One with our world. It gives meaning to the Fall of Man, provides for just who God might be (& why the current one seems a little fallible to be the One who made it all) & why the mystics & sages keep insisting our preoccu[pation with matter & the physical realm is so detrimental to our spirit or soul. We can find a way for the psychic & psionic to manifest, for prognostication & clairvoyance to work, & why, at its most basic, the universe isn't really there at all. Just imagine a thought trying to find solid existence in the imaginary scene within which you have placed it? Also, if you think about it, it offers a way towards understanding so many of the mysteries of the past & perhaps a reason why things may not currently be as they should - it is possible something is wrong at present that needs corrections - certainly if the game is learning & knowledge, it would appear we've derailed the train somewhere. So... what does all this have to do with Climate? Think of nightmare - external or internal sources can cause the dream to go sour, bring terror & pain into what had been a good or even just normal dream. If the game has gone astray, if we are not playing with the rules as we think they are, it is quite feasible things will tend towards non-optimum. The history of the planet as we are coming to know it, the real history not the one told us in school, suggests that previously the climate has brought disaster to us, altered our world to the point where the survivors lost almost everything & true Dark Ages came. Now as we climb out, with our overwhelming consumerism & lack of care for the reality around us, if the cosmos is really just a construct of Consciousness & the Consciousness is sickening, surely it is possible we could bring about a new cataclysm? Quantum Theory suggests Consciousness is necessary to collapse the probabilities into a set form - if so, we make our Reality - if we are sick, if we are off-purpose, what becomes of our Reality?
|
|
N9AAT
Level 3 Rank
DON'T PANIC
Posts: 153
|
Post by N9AAT on Dec 29, 2008 16:48:02 GMT
Acolyt, that was a really great post. How difficult it is sometimes for people to take such deep ideas and make them "thinkable". Some people can talk all day and you never get their point. Some speak too simply and you feel like you're being patronized. I think you hit the place where someone can sense your mind. Deep things are not for everyone. Society proves THAT out. Religion proves that out. How many times has a deep, critical thinker thought of things that got him/her into trouble. That's kinda what I mean about being on the path to truth. It's not the end result I relish so much as the journey getting there. I don't know what the end destination will be like, but if I feel I'm making progress I am happy. This kinda plays into the global climate change thing. People often WANT truth to be fixed and known. We MUST have something we can make decisions against. Real researchers realize that as more data comes in, out assumptions of truth may change. I believe for instance that our climate engines switched from warming to cooling circa 1996. So many seem desperate to prove that such did NOT happen. Why? They had fixed in place the truth they perceived, and will not be shaken.
|
|