The Evolution of Religion

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 5203
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: "It's not possible to identify the essence of a man"

Post by Nick_A »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 12:21 am
Nick_A wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 5:46 pm
henry quirk wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 3:23 pm But: "I know it when I see it." -Potter Stewart
You remind me of the old joke of a man going to bed with a woman wakes up to realize the woman he went to bed with is not the same as the one he woke up with.

"I know it when I see it"? She'll let you see what she wants you to see. :)
Well, a man is a simple coherent thing. Like a clunky coach gun, for example. Robust, low maintenance, few moving parts; direct and plain and inexpensive.

A woman, on the other hand, is like a H&K P7. Deceptively simple in action, but hellishly complex under the skin. Certainly a joy to handle, but temperamental... ;)
Your post inspired me to begin a thread on "Granddaddy's Gun" in the lounge. I think you could add some insights as to why it isn't for sale.
Belinda
Posts: 4010
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: The Evolution of Religion

Post by Belinda »

Nick_A wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 10:53 pm
“Give me beauty in the inward soul; may the outward and the inward man be at one.” ― Socrates
Secular interpretations of religion only consider the outward man with an emphasis on morals or what we DO. But if morals are purely subjective so therefor superficial morality is one thing in public and quite another in private

Experiencing objective conscience is far deeper but still, due to the fallen human condition, we do the opposite and sacrifice the calling to objective human meaning and purpose

What would it take for a person to become aware of what we ARE, that we are two, and have this awareness influence what we DO and invite humility? But what is humility and is it a good thing or just sign of weakness?
But some people do not "sacrifice the calling to objective human meaning and purpose ". Jesus of Nazareth, and Socrates himself paid the price of losing their lives so they could obey the calling to to objective human meaning and purpose. I could name plenty others in modern times too, who have sacrificed their lives to pay for " human meaning and purpose". Actually this is probably what separates the sheep form the goats.
Nick_A
Posts: 5203
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Evolution of Religion

Post by Nick_A »

Belinda
But some people do not "sacrifice the calling to objective human meaning and purpose ". Jesus of Nazareth, and Socrates himself paid the price of losing their lives so they could obey the calling to to objective human meaning and purpose. I could name plenty others in modern times too, who have sacrificed their lives to pay for " human meaning and purpose". Actually this is probably what separates the sheep form the goats.
The secular definition of life and death refers to the physical body: the outer man The religious definition refers to the inner man. IYO did Jesus sacrifice his life during the crucifixion or did he acquire it through the resurrection?

Mark 8
36 What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 37 Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?
Jesus said to let the dead bury their dead.

Can we really discuss objective meaning and purpose for humanity without first agreeing what we mean by life and death?
Nick_A
Posts: 5203
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Evolution of Religion

Post by Nick_A »

Plato – “Man – a being in search of meaning.

“Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.” Einstein

IN a recent work, Henri Nouwen emphasizes the essence of spirituality in a most succinct fashion: "To whom do we belong? This is the core question of the spiritual life. Do we belong to the world, its worries, its people and its endless chain of urgencies and emergencies, or do we belong to God and God's people."
Religion is the effort to allow a person to have the experience of meaning. Does it come from attachments to the world and its secular and political values or does it come from the inner awareness that the essence of Man is drawn to what transcends the world and freedom from attachments to the world for the experience of meaning?

If the evolution or religion began with fear of something greater than ourselves and evolved to a belief in a personal God and morality as suggested by Einstein, what is the next step in its evolution to experience “meaning” if there is one? Before offering my views, I’d like to see it there are any others here with an interest in the evolution of religion which doesn’t insult science yet appeals to the needs of the heart to feel meaning.
Nick_A
Posts: 5203
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Evolution of Religion

Post by Nick_A »

Acts 17:28

For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'


Jacob Needleman in the preface to "Lost Christianity" seems to require humanity becoming conscious of two realities: what is God and what is Man?
What is needed is a either a new understanding of God or a new understanding of Man: an understanding of God that does not insult the scientific
mind, while offering bread, not a stone, to the deepest hunger of the
heart; or an understanding of Man that squarely faces the criminal
weakness of our moral will while holding out to us the knowledge of how we can strive within ourselves to become the fully human being we are meant to be– both for ourselves and as instruments of a higher purpose.
Reasoning beyond a personal God, Paul explains that our being is within God. How does it relate to science?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -universe/

The author invites us to remember the ancient concept of the "conscious universe"
One of science’s most challenging problems is a question that can be stated easily: Where does consciousness come from? In his new book Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness, philosopher Philip Goff considers a radical perspective: What if consciousness is not something special that the brain does but is instead a quality inherent to all matter? It is a theory known as “panpsychism,” and Goff guides readers through the history of the idea, answers common objections (such as “That’s just crazy!”) and explains why he believes panpsychism represents the best path forward. He answered questions from Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook.

In our standard view of things, consciousness exists only in the brains of highly evolved organisms, and hence consciousness exists only in a tiny part of the universe and only in very recent history. According to panpsychism, in contrast, consciousness pervades the universe and is a fundamental feature of it. This doesn’t mean that literally everything is conscious. The basic commitment is that the fundamental constituents of reality—perhaps electrons and quarks—have incredibly simple forms of experience. And the very complex experience of the human or animal brain is somehow derived from the experience of the brain’s most basic parts.
If the universe is stuctured on levels of consciousness, what does it mean for the being of Man? But is Panpsychism or the conscious universe too radical a concept to begin explaining the meaning and purpose of our universe? It may be so for the majority but may also be the beginning for the natural evolution of religion to bring objective meaning and purpose for the being of Man.
Post Reply