All the more awing, in my opinion, is that nebula, which isn't anyone's accomplishment. The human body and mind, too, aren't the accomplishment of humans, but of the evolutionary flow of nature.

Sorry, Eudaimonia, but an atheist temple (you know what I'm referring to) is not for me I'm much more a reverent of nature than of man-made artifacts. Not to the point of fanaticism, of course: I like tinkering with computers, and my professional life is of system administration (optimizing TCP/IP networks, which are a fantastic human accomplishment! Amazing what you can do with the DNA of 1s and 0s alone...)

The difference is very much contained in my article. The monistic doctrine of the Upanishads says all the differences between beings are an illusion - you and I think we are different beings, but in reality we are not. The materialistic doctrine of scientific pantheism says the differences between beings are real, very real, not an illusion at all, but we are the same in that we are all made of matter. The substance is the same, and our differences spring from our being variations on the theme of matter (evolution - the variator of matter).

I reject any doctrine which makes the individual disappear like a drop in the ocean. No - differences are real, although the basics are the same. Polymorphic unity means same substance in different forms.

To paraphrase Brian in Monty Python's "Life Of Brian": we're all different except for me; I'm the same

The monistic doctrine of the Upanishads says all the differences between beings are an illusion - you and I think we are different beings, but in reality we are not.

But it says you are part of the brahman which is nothing but a reality which is beyond comprehension and is the source of all life. The differences are illusionary coz, they stem out of the choices individuals make (karma) and to attain nirvana is look beyond the mundane (material) distinctions.

The materialistic doctrine of scientific pantheism says the differences between beings are real, very real, not an illusion at all, but we are the same in that we are all made of matter. The substance is the same, and our differences spring from our being variations on the theme of matter (evolution - the variator of matter).

Substance is the same sounds very similar to the above definition (Brahman could be the substance ) and the variator (sic!)you call "evolution" and the Upanishads call it karma.

I reject any doctrine which makes the individual disappear like a drop in the ocean. No - differences are real, although the basics are the same. Polymorphic unity means same substance in different forms

Again just the words look different not the thought For the sake of the discussion -the pursuit of "individuality" when you look from the finality of existence does result in the individual being nothing but a grain of sand in a desert/ocean whose existence itself is beyond comprehension..........


JP

PS : tatvamasi means "thou art that" btw

devnet wrote: The human body and mind, too, aren't the accomplishment of humans, but of the evolutionary flow of nature.

That's true, to an extent... our lives should arrive with a tag attached that says...

The potentials implicit in our nature may very well be the product of evolution, but they require courageous human effort to actualize. Evolution does not guarantee that we will develop our bodies or our minds, or that we will make the most out of our lives. It is the possibility that we can flourish and find happiness through our own heroic efforts that impresses me. This is a very personal meaning that impersonal "Nature" can never give me.

Sorry, Eudaimonia, but an atheist temple (you know what I'm referring to) is not for me.

Did I say it was? I personally think there is good sense to my form of spirituality, but I was merely relating to the audience an alternative spirituality to pantheism. You may select whatever spirituality you feel suits you best.

As I said over in that topic, it's not like I'm going to burn you at the stake.


[This message has been edited by Eudaimonia (edited May 04, 2001).]

I believe the "mundane distinctions" are the only reality, and a total, indistinctive unity of all beings is in fact the illusion. We're all different etc. The question why our individuality lasts so short is a real mystery, I have no answer. Neither have I answer as to how chemical reactions in the brain make one's personality and free will. How do I command my hands to type this? I don't know. Mysterious is Universe, so little comprehended. That is the beauty of naturalism, that instead of saying (like the theists) that you've got all the answers, you admit you don't know.

Really, I think evolution is more akin to Tao (Way, Flow) than karma. Karma is a system of reaping and sowing works of past lives (karman in Sanskrit means "deed"), whereas evolution is just blind selective flow, a river (out of eden?), as it were.

I'm reluctant to be lumped up with the New Agers, it makes me feel very irrational. I'm partial to the spirituality of the New Agers, but I reject all supernatural concepts. Scientific Pantheism is about being a spiritual atheist. As Paul Harrison says, Sci-Pan is religious atheism (religious in the positive sense, of course).

Theism = lunacy, insanity
Atheism = removing lunacy and insanity
Pantheism = substituting sane spirituality

That is, IMHO, the three-staged view of my coming to Pantheism. I can't live on atheism alone; one removes the poison, but one cannot live on anti-poison, so one must attain real water. My thoughts.

My personal experience with New Agers is that they (the ones I knew in college) tended to be highly credulous. I got the sense that they didn't want to engage in careful self-examination to weed out false or unsupported beliefs. A New Ager I once knew changed religions about once a month. This was so exasperating that I once commented to others (perhaps unkindly, yet honestly) that he came across like a slut for religious ideas.

What I do respect about New Agers is that many of them appear to have a high regard for human potential. Unfortunately, developing human potentials was all too often focused on practicing the techniques in the latest "Developing Your Hidden ESP Powers" book, rather than measurably improving the way one lived one's life.

That's indeed my complaint about the New Agers, that like the theists (and sometimes even more so) they're out of touch with reality. But reality can be so depressing, so they have my sympathy. The most depressing thing about atheism is to conceive there is no life after death. But imagining a next world after death doesn't make it true, however much it may be appealing.

It's tough making a religion out of reality. Some people say it's quite futile (they tell me a "religion of reality" is a contradiction in terms), but I disagree. Scientific Pantheism does very well, I think. See this site too:

http://www.naturalism.org

This is a good point. Another problem I have with New Agers is that their beliefs do not seem to compel them to do anything for the world around them. They don't do charity work, build communities, engage in political activism and so forth. That's my impression, anyway. Comments?

Michael

Ps418:

Ahh, but that is only the illusion of nothing happening!

Everybody knows they do their charitable work via astral projection!

But seriously. I don't think NewAgers are less charitable than the rest of us. I could be wrong though, so I better consult the I Ching on this one.

Patrick

turtonm wrote: Another problem I have with New Agers is that their beliefs do not seem to compel them to do anything for the world around them. They don't do charity work, build communities, engage in political activism and so forth. That's my impression, anyway. Comments?

Ah, but they Visualize World Peace! That's hard work! lol

You have a point, though some of them are politically active to the extent that they have voted Natural Law party. I guess they liked John Hagelin and his positive views about transcendental meditation.

[This message has been edited by Eudaimonia (edited May 05, 2001).]