rainbow walking

mike: You are welcome as well. And in particular I appreciate your civility.

rw: As I do yours, along with your rather refreshing view of theism.

mike: THAT we exist is a given. The question of whether we will continue to exist is not.

rw: Ah... I misunderstood.

mike: I think there is some truth in this. But it is not fear of death that drives some religionists, but fear of what may happen after death. Religionists are constantly going to their graves in hope of a better existence after this. This doesn't indicate a fear of death if death is defined as ceasing to exist. It is the hope of greater life (and hence greater choice) that drives these folks to accept death.

rw: I realize you make the distinction between true religion and I imagine you have little choice in light of all the recent harm that has arisen out of fundamentalists of Islam against others and Hindu’s in Pakistan and India fighting over Cashmere, Protestants and Muslims in Kosovo, Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, Jews and Muslims in Israel…it just makes it difficult for a reasonable man to argue for a reasonable faith. Many of these theists demonstrate they prefer a martyrdom to life in this world and some prefer to use that preference to bring pain and death to others on their way out. So you can appreciate a growing uneasiness in the world towards anything religious.

mike: For non-believers you are the better expert, but I suspect that the thought of ceasing to exist brings no rational fear of death since it seems inevitable, and since after death there will be no consciousness to be fearful. So I can see that you would want to make the best of this life as well. But that would entail being able to choose the kind of life you have. Not being able to think what you want, and not being able to think at all (as in death) don't seem to be that different to me.

rw: I agree, there would be little difference.

Mike: But true scientists and true religionists both want to make the best of life. The one (if a non-believer) to make the best of what s/he has, and the other to make the best beginning for the rest of eternity. Non-believers may see life as an end or a product in itself. Believers may be more likely to see it as a means, or as a process. But both do the best (according to the knowledge they have) to make the best of it. If all I can choose is whether to have rice or oats for breakfast then I will relish that choice and resent its loss. If I can choose to drive or fly, I will relish that choice and resent its loss. The desire for choice is an absolute value pertaining to life.

rw: If we stood on equal historical footing I would agree, but there have been far too many wars fought over theistic interpretations and beliefs to make that a viable claim anymore. I realize, and fully appreciate, that there are many good people of faith, but faith has long since ceased to be an issue in religion and I see no way to build a valid distinction between the sincere and the manipulative, other than to judge each person as I have opportunity to know them. I would prefer not to make judgments at all but recent events have changed my perspective drastically until I now have a deep mistrust for anything religious or spiritual. It is difficult not to hate, not that I mean that personally towards you.

mike: Heaven and hell take place after this life and should be irrelevant for a non-believer's discussion of absolute morality.

rw: Perhaps if I were discussing theism with another non-believer, but I think it is relevant to consider all the ramifications of our respective worldviews honestly, which would include upon what we base our worldviews, the epistemology and presuppositions that engage our minds and emotions. There is still much disagreement among atheists on the subject of absolute morality. I happen to think there are some basic absolute moral qualities unique to man that follow him where ever he attempts to establish a community. Axioms that surface in his rules and laws whether his community is religious or not. I call this ‘natural moral law’ similar to gravity and a result of man’s genetic inclinations to congregate as an enhancement to his survival.

Mike: However, though these may be the ultimate goals for some, their seem to be a multitude of paths to either one for various religionists. Hindu heaven has a subset of choices that will bring happiness. Christian heaven has another. I can choose among these belief systems, AND I can choose between subsets of these systems. The same is true in other disciplines. For some scientists the way to happiness is through environmentalism--and environmentalism requires a certain subset of behaviors. For other scientists the way to happiness is through technological advance--and technological advance may require a different subset of behaviors. These two are not necessarily incompatible as apparently opposing religious views are not necessarily incompatible. But we tend to try to make them incompatible in order to validate our positions.

rw: And theism tends to invest so heavily in its interpretations that it leads to war. Science has a built in pressure relief valve among its constituents in that its interpretations of nature are put to the community for validation or rejection based on specific verifiable methods, so it never has a chance to coalesce into a warring faction…accept maybe over grants and federal dollars for research:^D. Another reason why I believe science is superior to religion is just this methodology which religion does not allow. Religion automatically endows itself with an evangelical thrust to gain constituents and from this comes the propensity to wrestle away control of the machinery of state. Once this occurs one notices how quickly all its alleged superior moral teachings seem to vanish beneath the noise of war drums and the teachings of Christ to “turn the other cheek” are all but lost in the din.

mike: Ah. Herein lies the real difference between us. You have told one story about existence, and I have told another. Your argument is sound if you are talking about creation ex nihilo. Which is one reason why I don't believe in it. Such a love for choice and freedom as demonstrably exists in the world cannot be explained by either the religious or the scientific view that we popped into existence unwilling.

rw: I don’t accept creation at all, but rather think of existence as an eternal attribute of matter that only changes form.

Mike: And yet any popping into existence would imply no choice in the matter, and hence negates the meaningfulness of future choices.

rw: No, I also don’t see a negation of future limited choice. What I articulated was a set parameter which limits freedom of choice to a much narrower margin than is implied in freewill.

Mike: You are quite right about that. However, neither you nor I know that we popped into existence within the past few decades. Not remembering something (as Reagan and Clinton both demonstrated) does not mean that it didn't happen.

rw: :^D Indeed, so not remembering my gestation period or the first few years of my life is basically irrelevant unless I decide to ignore the reality of how children are conceived and born into this world.

Mike: Without memory of anything prior to age three I must take my parents word that I existed previous to that--or else believe that I just came to be at age three. And without my parent's memory of any existence of mine prior to that, I must either believe that was the beginning or believe that my memory (and theirs) has lapsed again. Of course I am talking here about conscious, autonomous mental existence. I was conscious at age two, and making choices, but I don't remember being conscious at age two now that I am 34. The possibility exists that I had a conscious, autonomous existence long before age two.

rw: Sure, if you consider about 2 and ½ years a long time prior. You were likely just becoming conscious of your existence roughly 4 to 5 months into the trimester but had no frame of reference with which to assign any value to that awareness so it was basically meaningless to you and probably accounts for your lack of memory. Not knowing that you were a YOU and that the thing around you was a womb would seriously prohibit you having anything to remember. All memory is based on symbols or experiences symbolically retained which require a comprehension of the associative language to facilitate comprehension and thus memory. It is at about the age of 18 to 24 months that we begin to develop an “I” from which we formulate all succeeding experiences into value based memories to be retained or buried. Child psychology is an interesting field of study.

Mike: That would explain my resentment at losing my autonomy, and the drive that psychology has so well demonstrated to (re)gain it. I have never missed yet anything that I haven't experienced. A person never having had a choice between rice and oats eats his oats without complaint. Yet, with only two years prior experience--and that as a completely dependent creature with almost no choice--a two year old's fierce striving for increased autonomy seems rather inexplicable.

rw: Ah, but a two year olds natural inquisitiveness and fierce striving is all about learning who he is. This is vastly different from the frustration arising out of ones sense of his mortality, which doesn’t begin to surface until much later. The two year olds exuberant innocence is all about learning, not striving for autonomy. When he’s reaching for a vase on the coffee table it’s because something about it has caught his eye and his natural curiosity compels him to investigate. When he begins to associate his parent’s stern voice with his actions, he is learning his limitations. His frustration arises from being denied satisfaction of his curiosity. What is also worth mentioning here is that he is without any “belief” so that you could say, if you were straining at a gnat, that he is atheistic, and his nature drives him to pursue his curiosity. This is much different than a person who is convinced of an after-life and committed to that view, who turns the majority of his attention to pursuing the teachings from which he was converted. His priorities are no longer focused on this world.

Mike: Assuming that they have had experience prior to birth resolves the dilemma.

rw: Well, that’s quite an assumption and would need quite a supporting cast to open.

Mike: Of course you have your story as well, and it is an interesting one. You may say that we developed this striving because it was somehow adaptive. I would say being able to do things by yourself is adaptive, but not necessarily being able to do other than what our environment (parents) demand. This rebellion could be adaptive and has about an equal chance of getting the child killed. But toddlers routinely engage in such rebellions. But having no memory either one of us of anytime before about two, my guess is as good as yours as to where these strivings came from.

rw: Well, consider that what the adult calls rebellion is not the way the child sees it. How could he understand the concept at such an early age? Often children do things just to get their parents attention because, at that age, it’s all about the almighty “I”.

mike: I wasn't suggesting that the belief in eternal life expands man's field of choices, but that an otherwise inexplicable desire to expand our field of choices causes some to wonder about the possibility of an absolute morality.

rw: Since I tend to agree with you on the “absolute morality” aspect, but from a different position, I would think a person who accepts the postulate of eternal life on this basis would have to explain why he believes morality must be derived from a source other than man. And were I a believer on this basis and had to confront my beliefs with the utter lack of progress shown by a religion that preaches this constantly while taking up a different position in reality, I would have a difficult time sustaining my faith.

Mike: Which in turn causes them to wonder about God. Which in turn causes them to wonder about immortality. I employed the existence of eternal life (and life isn't eternal in the true sense unless it extends eternally both backward and forward in--or rather outside of--time) as an explanation for this striving for choice. The belief in such a life doesn't cause the striving, the striving causes the belief.

rw: I can see that. I would certainly have to strive to believe it;^D

mike: But why be frustrated if you have never had the choice to begin with. What is there to miss about oats if I have never tasted oats? I don't resent the fact that I can't buy East Indian delicassies ready made at the supermarket. But my East Indian friend found it rather frustrating that she had a hard time finding adequate vegetarian options at our resaurants or at our supermarkets. Specific frustrations come from loss of specific choices.

rw: One doesn’t have to incur the loss before they experience frustration. Once a person comes face to face with their mortality the frustration ensues, not because they’ve never experienced immortality, but because they have to either accept the fact that they won’t or find some way to get beyond the realization and hence, assuage their frustration. I get frustrated sometimes when I have to release a large portion of my paycheck to the bill collectors…even before I mail the checks off. We tend to get more frustrated over future uncertain possibilities than over things we’ve already lost. I think your earlier postulate on the ignorance of future events plays a role in this as well.

Mike: So, I say, the general frustration of a toddler must come from a general LOSS of mobility/choice rather than a general LACK of mobility/choice. I don't think this can be explained purely by observation either. Perhaps toddlers want to do things their parents do after observing them. But why do they so often want to do OTHER than what their parents do? And simply watching my friend eating Indian dishes never instilled an unquenchable desire to eat them myself--and certainly not to have those options readily available to myself.

rw: I would say his frustration is an immediate frustration from the immediate restriction and passes very quickly. If his frustration were stemming from an earlier immortal pre-existence driving him towards greater autonomy you would have to explain how this translates into his immediate frustration over something as simple as being told “don’t touch”. And you would have to explain why it doesn’t effect his mental health to such a degree as to dwarf his early development. We all tend to establish an equilibrium of sorts regardless of our conditions and religion provides a handy set of blinders to keep us from perusing our mortality long enough to gain our balance. But in choosing this direction it over-writes most of our previous aspirations with new ones in accordance with its doctrines.

mike: Still the frustration remains unexplained, but the prospect of escape is certainly alluring. Whether or not those epistemologies are imaginary remains to be seen. Indeed, any epistemology in order to be an epistemology must have some efficacy. And in a pragmatic, scientific world, efficacy is reality.

rw: Yes but the efficacy of science is independently verifiable and objective. Its explanatory power expands man’s view of the future in a way that’s realistic to his present situations. Religious epistemologies efficacy is entirely imaginary with the only present effect being a subjective submission to one’s imagined future having little relevance to ones present circumstances, but having the power, nonetheless, to change one’s future. I’m sure many young Muslims, in their childhood days, never dreamed they’d one day be sneaking onto a crowded bus with a bomb strapped to their waist. Neither did their parents.

mike: Now you're talking about imagination again. But here it's a good thing?

rw: We’ve always been talking about man’s imagination. Our differences revolve around what it should be channeled towards and the relative effects of each.

mike: Perhaps we first imaging our science and then create it. Perhaps it did not exist before.

rw: Before what?

Mike: So in science we first imagine our future, then we create it. In religion perhaps we do the same thing. Yes, I agree, both science and religion are based on imagination. In fact the one constant in everything is imagination. In fact imagination is as certainly operable as all the rest of the physical laws of the universe. So my belief that imagination (consciousness) has been and always will be is not so unscientific. Indeed, if imagination created science, then why not the universe?

rw: Well, I suppose anything’s possible. I would certainly entertain any arguments you’d like to make in that direction. I do believe that both science and religion are products of man’s imagination but I don’t agree they have equal value. However, the imagination does appear to require a brain from which to derive its vitality, so you’re going to have to explain how our state of affairs came to exist from the imagination prior to physical neural networks and chemical reactions.

mike: Perhaps. But again, the imagination of and the desire for more freedom/choice lie at the root of this endeavor. Incidentally, the bible suggests that with all of our manipulation and control we have generally managed to shorten our life-spans (with some exceptions). According to that record men use to live as long as trees. Round about the time that men tried to build a tower to overthrow God and free themselves of their dependance on Him (to manipulate and control) the life-spans mysteriously began to be reported as shorter.

rw: Then you are a biblical literalist? I don’t think you’ll find much biblical support for pre-existence without wrestling with the scriptures. Being imprisoned on this planet is also a cause of stress and competition for limited resources. The bible depicts the Christian god as having first wiped out all of humanity with the exception of a few and then having frustrated humanities efforts to get off this planet at the tower of Babel. This doesn’t bode well for anyone declaring this god to be a Father figure. I’m not familiar with that kind of fatherhood, are you? There is ample resources in the universe for man to live under any moral system he chooses. Plenty of planets to populate so that Christians can have their own world. Even Jesus testified to this when he declared that in his Father’s house were many mansions. I could wrestle this text to be an invitation to space exploration. But if I ascribed to the OT, I might expect to have to fight this god to get there.

Mike: Indeed, modern science has discovered that stress is a major factor in short life-spans, and that stress is directly related to an overly controlling sort of temperament.

rw: I’m not familiar with the facts of that second assertion. There are many stress causing factors involved in competition. But science, unless its being done under pressure, is not a cause of stress.

Mike: Feeling entirely responsible for your own continued existence, survival, happiness and success tends toward a great deal of stress and hence towards death.

rw: That’s why men are social creatures, so that they needn’t feel this way. But theism isn’t the only or best way to deal with these sorts of pressures. I’ve seen statistics that say the divorce rate among Christians is inordinately high. If this is true, I would have to wonder if theism offers man any better way of coping with his mortality psychologically. As I said earlier, the gains are offset by many un-resolvable issues.

Mike: This is an interesting paradox. Strangely both domination(control) and acquiescence(letting go of control) are attempts at having more freedom. The most salient kind of freedom, however, as has inadvertently been unearthed by my rice/oats metaphor, is not so dependent on material choices, but on choice over our own mental/emotional states.


rw: However, theism doesn’t provide any more control over this than any other avenue. It offers it, but then the attempt to comply with the moral structure, which you admit is impossible to do, only thrusts the mind into another state of crisis where it no longer has control and has abandoned the physical world. It’s called cognitive dissonance and many people can’t handle it. That, in my opinion, is what leads to all these violent reactions against any other interpretations that threaten the one such a person has settled upon as the truth. Most theistic folks seem to be very thin-skinned when it comes to honest critical examination of their beliefs. You appear to be the exception.

Mike: And again, both the domination that is required by a tyranny and the mutual acquiescence that is required by democracy (e.g. mutual agreement to submit to traffic laws that will give us the freedom to drive, and the more important freedom from the mental state of fear of accident) are manifestations of a desire for freedom.

rw: Science gave us the car, the red lights and the roads…what has theism contributed to this acquisition of greater freedom?

Mike: Here religion and science are both in agreement as to what we want, but we go about it in different ways. Science either promotes domination of our physical environment (as in the genome project) or acquiescence to it ("as in nature knows best," "or random selection has worked so far, it should continue to work without us trying to be non-random selectors"). Religion either promotes domination of our mental environment (as in attempts at mental discipline) or acquiescence to it (as in "don't worry, it is in God's hands"). Oh, wait, those aren't so different as general approaches....

rw: Is it your contention then that a religious frame of mind can extend man’s life span equivalent to a scientific genetic manipulation can? You mentioned the men of Genesis, if you do the genealogy math, Methuselah, (reputed to be the oldest living male in the bible, 969 years), perished in the year of the flood. Now consider Methuselah was a direct descendant of Adam and thus, a son of god, yet likely died in the flood. Surely he was one of those who called upon the name of the Lord, so why did it not fall out to his advantage and assure him a birth on the ark? He was Noah’s grandfather.

Mike: The real difference is whether we seek freedom though domination or through acquiescence. The one promotes stress and a narrowing of the mental/emotional field, but allows for focused activity, the other promotes emotional liberation and a widening of the mental/emotional field, and allows for awareness. Mental acquiescence (e.g. relinquishing the need to control, or focus on a specific paradigm) is what allowed Einstein to see time space from the perspective of a light particle rather from his own predicted and controlled laboratory.

rw: Then you are suggesting theism contributes to scientific understanding?

Mike: Mental domination was what narrowed atomic understanding to its specific applications. Stress isn't necessarily bad, a desire to overcome our environment sometimes causes focus. But constant stress is dangerous to the organism. Letting go of the need to dominate allows for awareness to increase, and mental stress to decrease. Both a striving to overcome and a need to "let go" are true ways of being, and must be in balance or the organism experiences limitation and loss of freedom. Both are present in true religion and true science.

rw: Then your “no true Scotsman” argument is that without religion, science will fail? On the other hand, when I think of some of the results of science, (nuclear bombs), in the hands of religious fanatics…you may be right. Religion, and its residual effects, may, (eventually and hopefully), drive us to divest ourselves of all such weaponry in the future.

mike: True. But giving up life does not necessarily imply death. I can give my life in the service of science, or religion, or my neighbor.

rw: Of the three, which is likely to be the most productive towards an actual extension of your life span beyond a few years you may buy with a certain stress-free peace of mind?

Mike: What Christ is getting at is that trying to discover the self, or focusing on the self tends toward the diffusion of self, or a confusion about who really we are. But when we focus on others or on a cause larger than self, not only do our options increase, but our self (who we truly are becoming) becomes apparent or "is found."

rw: This is called “networking”. Why does one have to sacrifice one’s personality to network? It is because of personality that people desire to network with one another. This is another negative side effect of religious teaching. It pushes everyone to become identical…Christ-like…which is impossible in the first place, and detrimental to diversity and uniqueness of individuality…and thus to human nature, in the final analysis. Cognitive dissonance. The “one mind-one accord” theme works wonders when you’ve got a realistic vision that everyone can partake in. But when it’s promised benefits are not expected in this life…well, you can see why it tends to denigrate ones life expectations here on earth.

Mike: The two masters are self and other. If we are self-centered in our approach to life we become diffuse.

rw: I would describe it as diverse. I see nothing wrong with being what we are. We develop a “self” from the womb and. Religious expectations to the contrary notwithstanding, we never ever completely divest ourselves of who we are without losing our minds. I think what you are talking about here is Identity. We spend our lives growing and building and shaping our identities. Why should this be a bad thing? We all pick and choose those virtues we have observed and admired in others and try to assimilate them into our own personalities, but we also ascribe value to less than virtuous behaviors that we mistakenly admire and, given enough time, we can discover our mistakes and willfully correct them.

Mike: Christ said the two great commandments were to love God and to love our neighbors (the parable of the good samaratan extended the definition of neighbor to anyone with whom we come in contact). If we follow these commandments we necessarily focus on someone other than ourself, and paradoxically, but truly we become someone worth becoming.

rw: What greater love hath any man than to extend the lives of all men?

mike: True. This demonstrates that true religion should acknowledge that not only did God exist before, but our individual consciousness did as well. Many religions deny this fact, and suggest that only God was without a beginning. That mortality was Adam's choice, and the rest of us are paying for it. But belief in a just God requires that we all had the choice, not just that our first father, Adam had a choice. And logic suggests that which has a beginning will have an end. So if one is to believe in eternal life in the future, one must acknowledge that life extends eternally in all directions (past, present and future). I believe this mortal experience was in fact a choice for all of us. And I believe that we engaged in it because we believed that the experiences we gained from it would give us greater choice in the future. I know that this is probably way out for you folks, but I mention it just so you know that some arguments that you typically employ against religionists do not apply to all religious veiws.

rw: Actually Mike, this might come as a shock, but I once held that same belief. I reasoned that man once existed with god as a separate creature, less than the angels, and that god sent him here as an opportunity to progress, advance, promote himself into a familial relationship with god, above the angels. That god was replacing the angels with godly men. It was the most logical conclusion to be drawn but still remains only a speculative interpretation of a collection of books, written over a span of 1500 years by many different human authors and compiled, by man into one book. I see no relevant value in holding such beliefs and after having divested myself of them have actually found my life to be considerably less stressful.

mike: My view of the bible suggests that mortality is not a result of moral deficiencies, but that it resulted for a quest for knowledge. What we experience as punishments are simply natural consequences of this quest, just like muscle soreness can be a natural consequence of exercise (particularly if you exercise in ways that are not ecological for your system). We are all after happiness, but some of our attempts tend toward misery instead.

rw: Yes, I knew when I read your first post that you were not the average bible thumper. I also know your frame of reference better than you might imagine. I’ve been there and done that. I dedicated years of my life to finding a salient interpretation of those same texts that resonated with what I knew about reality. I’ve tried many times to bring the two worlds together. They just don’t fit, Mike. But you may likely discover this for yourself one day…shrug…to each his own.

mike: Not in my view. The bible is full of health codes and information. Some of the prescriptions of the bible for good health have only recently been rediscovered by science. Much of the law of Moses tended toward good hygiene. And Jesus and the apostles not infrequently brought someone back to life or good health.

rw: This is true, which also begs the question of why? Surely an omnipotent god can do better than this? What’s with all the suffering, disease and evil anyway? If such a god existed as a Father, why would he bring his children up in such an un-safe environment?

mike: True. Which points our mind to Christ through whom "all things are possible." Paul makes it clear that the law was specifically designed to teach us that we needed help. Refusal to accept help when we are at an impass is not only stupid, it's sinful. Our existence is full of impossibilities toward which we feel compelled to strive (either by our science or by our religion). This paradox is designed to get us to look outside ourselves (either for help from others, or to help others) and thus we find ourselves.

rw: Again, I don’t necessarily disagree, but it still begs the question of why? Is it the case man needs to learn something that an omnipotent god can’t just implant? Why not by-pass all this and bring his children up in a better environment? I have a difficult time with that “Father” business Mike, I’m sorry. Not trying to be insulting to you and your beliefs, believe me, but I just don’t see any sign of this “all things are possible thru Christ” business. I’m more inclined to think “all things are possible thru science”, if you know what I mean. Thus man is his own savior.

mike: This is a simple result of statistics. Some people choose lawlessness and immorality. The majority of people believe in some sort of religion or theism. Thus, more people who claim to be religious are also lawless and immoral. I believe if you looked at lawlessness and immorality as a proportion of the population of believers and a proportion of the population of non-believers it would be about the same. True religion and true science are only redemptive for the proportion of individuals who choose to practice them truly.

rw: I don’t believe “statistics” were responsible for these things Mike. Is it your contention then that theistic morals are just as susceptible to statistical analysis as humanly derived moral foundations? Why then declare them to be superior? (I realize you haven’t specifically made that declaration but you have implied it).

mike: Depends on what you mean by levels. Without which to compare we know only that we are. We seem to progress level by level only in that we seem to know today what we did not know yesterday. However, sometimes in our aquisition of new knowledge we begin to forget what we once knew. Who is on a higher level of existence? Me, behind my desk with my books and graduate level education? Or my child who, never having gone to school, still rejoices each time he catches sight of a butterfly? If only we can both learn and remember. That is progress.

rw: True, but misses the point. Eternal life propositions are declaring there to be another level of “life” awaiting man beyond the grave. Your example above is analogous only to this life on earth.

rw: There is only non-existence.

mike: There is only existence.

rw: Of course, if you believe in eternal life, there is no non-existence…even for the wicked. They get tortured for eternity in another form of existence.

mike: What is offered by all pacifiers. Peace.

rw: Unfortunately Mike, there doesn’t seem to be enough pacifiers to go around…else there’d be more peace…yes? But then I keep running into all these different expressions of theism making this same claim and fighting to destroy all infidels and heathens who don’t believe it.

mike: I'm glad that you mentioned Paul who claimed not simply to be a witness of an empty tomb, but to be a witness of the living, glorified Christ. Paul is a good example for you to use. He was a logical man. Paul found God quite in spite of himself. It's a bit more painful that way, but no less inevitable. He at first rejected Christianity violently for much the same reason the Jews rejected it (as well as their own ancient faith): It claimed to make gods of men. Unfortunately much of the watered down Christianity of today is more palatable to those who have a lesser view of mankind.

rw: I knew you were a Pauline admirer when I read your first post. Paul was a Pharisee to be sure…as well as a Roman citizen. Perhaps even the very author of Christianity.

rw: I cannot, in good conscience, accept such a pacifier.

mike: Cannot? or will not?

rw: There is no qualitative difference. If I cannot, I will not. If I will not, I cannot. It is a matter of the will and I prefer to direct mine more consciously by intellect, than emotionally.

mike: I agree.

mike: It is one great expression of his virtue among many.

rw: Perhaps I should say…most valuable.

mike: It is a choice of his own, and thus a testament to his wisdom: To ascend to the next peak he must first descend to the valley between.

rw: ?

mike: Sometimes the best medicine is the hardest to swallow. But pursue your science. Pursue it in honesty and humility and you will find truth. Only those who think they know everything (whether in religion or science) will reject greater knowledge. And only a foolish person insists that once fallen into a pit he must dig himself out on his own strength and intellect, while all the time a ladder stands waiting placed there by the kindness of a friend.

rw: And how did we devise ladders? By faith?

mike: Not once have I appealed to the supernatural. I'm sure that an airplane would seem supernatural to a caveman, but is it in fact? My argument was based on the proposition that the biblical God is not only in metaphor, but in fact our Father. This makes our relationship to him quite natural. And our finding of him quite certain.

rw: Yet God, any god, is a claim of supernature…yes? Why must this god remain in hiding? What has he got to be ashamed of? If he exists, make it known to all men and be away with all this finding him nonsense.

Tell me something, Mike, do you think God plays favorites?

Mike

rw: ...along with your rather refreshing view of theism.

mike: thanks

rw: …Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, Jews and Muslims in Israel…it just makes it difficult for a reasonable man to argue for a reasonable faith.

mike: Yes, it does. But unreasonable faith has little to do with reasonable faith. A multitude of poor practitioners does not negate the possibility of at least one good one.

rw: Many of these theists demonstrate they prefer a martyrdom to life in this world and some prefer to use that preference to bring pain and death to others on their way out.

mike: I would call it pretext rather then preference, at the ecclesiastical level-- until and unless the likes of bin Laden strap a bomb to their own butts. But were the WWII kamakasi's of the same category?

rw: So you can appreciate a growing uneasiness in the world towards anything religious.

mike: I would, but I don't think that's generally the case. The majority cling tighter to their own religion at times like these, even if they distance themselves from others. Interestingly sales of the Qur'an are at an all time high, I think. I have two copies myself. One acquired before 911 and one after.

rw: If we stood on equal historical footing I would agree,

mike: there's the rub...

rw: but there have been far too many wars fought over theistic interpretations and beliefs to make that a viable claim anymore.

mike: Perhaps some, but I believe that most of them were power hungry politicians using religion as a convenient excuse. But without the WMD’s given them by science religious zealots would still be punching each other on the noses

rw: …judge each person as I have opportunity to know them.

mike: Good idea.

rw: It is difficult not to hate, not that I mean that personally towards you.

mike: Well that's a relief.

rw: …I happen to think there are some basic absolute moral qualities…I call this ‘natural moral law’ similar to gravity and a result of man’s genetic inclinations to congregate as an enhancement to his survival.

rw: Freud attempted to describe a non-theistic conflict-based absolute morality where fear of punishment from society (or more specifically from your rival, dad) was internalized--becoming a moral code. Piaget described a heirarchical morality based on respect for the authority that we naturally desire to emulate, and also a cooperative morality that develops among equals who wish to engage in similar activities and must therefore come up with consensual rules. John Rawls described the morality of which I was speaking, which is based on a hypothetical ignorance of the future and a subsequent desire for freedom. They are all interesting stories. I think Rawls' is the most general of the three because it can explain both the conflict free morality of Piaget and the conflict based morality of Freud. We want to get along with others because ultimately that will give us greater choice--if someone else grows my food, perhaps I'll have more time to paint pictures--or do something else that I don't know yet, but that I may want to do later. Otherwise, we could live our lives just as well in solitude, and forget about morality. This brings up another possibility: Sociality as an absolute morality.

rw: Science has a built in pressure relief valve among its constituents in that its interpretations of nature are put to the community for validation or rejection based on specific verifiable methods, so it never has a chance to coalesce into a warring faction…accept maybe over grants and federal dollars for research:^D.

mike: The current rules of western science have not always, nor do they universally apply to all practice of what has been called science historically. However, the almighty dollar HAS become an impetus for what I view as some destructive trends in science. For example: pharmaceutical companies have used the authority of science to hawk their wares to an unsuspecting public. An epidemic of prescription drug dependency has resulted. "Legitimate" science has given us heroin, cocaine, pcp, lsd, etc. Now we've moved on to even more powerful and subtle addictives. Western society is becoming more and more enslaved by money grubbers who use science as their authority. This slavery is even more devious than physical bondage, because it encroaches on the freedom of our very minds. Psychiatry has completely abandoned "unscientific" talk therapy in favor of mind altering chemicals. Is it because talk therapy doesn't work? No, studies have shown talk therapy among other things (including faith--religious and otherwise--in fact one factor common to most successful therapies is a belief that the therapy will be effective. This belief, it is argued, can possibly create the positive mental outcome) to be a sometimes effective enhancer of mental and physical health. However, psychiatrists and M.D.'s, get paid much more by creating a dependency in their clients, who become lifetime sources of revenue. Never mind the clients’ lives may be shortened. There are more clients where they came from--particularly the children who are now disfunctional because they have been raised by zombie parents who never had to face their issues because their were chemically pacified.

rw: Another reason why I believe science is superior to religion is just this methodology which religion does not allow.

mike: You mean THIS methodology?: "Some of the greatest scientific papers have been rejected not just by one journal, but even by several journals before being published. For example, John Garcia, a distinguished biopsychologist, was immediately denounced when he first proposed that a form of learning called classical conditioning could be produced in a single trial of learning." --Robert Sternberg, current president of the American Psychological Association.

Garcia proposed something that ran contrary to the near religious zeal that characterized conventional behavioristic wisdom. He was denounced as a heretic. When Freud presented his findings on the existence of child sexual abuse, he was met with silence. And ultimately either had to renounce his findings or be completely rejected by the scientific community. He renounced his findings and created the convoluted oedipal theory--thus creating a smoke screen which still allows for the continuation of the abuse of women and children. This likely contributed to setting back child and women welfare efforts for perhaps a half century at the least.

Or what about this: "On no less than seven occasions in the 'Origin of Species' [Darwin] implored his readers to ignore the evidence of the fossil record as a refutation of his concept of evolution or 'use imagination to fill in the gaps.'" --Gerald L. Schroeder in his book "The Science of God."

Many evolutionists continued to abide by Darwin's dogmatic doctrine of "filling in the gaps with imagination."

Charles D. Walcott, then director of the Smithsonian Institution discovered (in 1909) between sixty and eighty thousand fossils that suggested that at the level of the phylum, such things as eyes, gills, jointed limbs, intestines, sponges and worms, insects and fish had all appeared pretty much simultaneously. These fossils, however, remained buried in Walcott's lab for over eighty years. Such a potential challenge to gradual Darwinian evolution may have proved dangerous to his pet paradigms or perhaps to his career. (see, "The Science of God").

In addition, Darwinians continue to ignore the oxymoranic paradox of the phrase "natural selection." Critics at the time pointed out that while "natural" implied random processes, "selection" implied agentic processes. Darwin suggested that with familiarity the difficulty would be forgotten. Some forgot, but others have argued that such ambiguity about the role of the "selector" became an excuse for the eugenics movement. People can be destructive. Religion is but one of many excuses.

rw: I don’t accept creation at all, but rather think of existence as an eternal attribute of matter that only changes form.

mike: I completely agree. And one way that matter most demonstrably changes form is through the vehicle of birth. I believe we are the offspring of God.

quote:Mike: And yet any popping into existence would imply no choice in the matter, and hence negates the meaningfulness of future choices.

rw: No, I also don’t see a negation of future limited choice. What I articulated was a set parameter which limits freedom of choice to a much narrower margin than is implied in freewill.

mike: I didn't suggest that future choices would themselves be negated, but that the MEANING of those choices may be negated—or fairly narrow.

rw: Child psychology is an interesting field of study.

mike: Developmental psychology is my area of study. Your comment is very validating. Perhaps I do have a reason to live! But your arguments about what may be going on during the first two years of life are good ones. I think, however, that we must remember that all theories are but interesting stories, rather akin to faith, until they are experienced first hand.

quote: Mike: Assuming that they have had experience prior to birth resolves the dilemma.

rw: Well, that’s quite an assumption and would need quite a supporting cast to open.

mike: Yes, the assumptions both of science and religion remain vast and unsupported. But I believe that both science and religion have their facts and their assumptions. Once you get past mere observation (indeed past a hypothetical language-free observation) and begin to make interpretations of the world, you are in the realm of assumptions. The observable fact that a car is running is much less interesting than the implications and interpretations that exist about how useful cars are, or what it means that we have such contraptions.

rw: Well, consider that what the adult calls rebellion is not the way the child sees it. How could he understand the concept at such an early age? Often children do things just to get their parents attention because, at that age, it’s all about the almighty “I”.

mike: I agree about the probability of different perceptions in a child, but the idea that the almighty "I" is everything to a child is as much an unverifiable assumption as the idea that they are purposefully rebellious.

rw: Since I tend to agree with you on the “absolute morality” aspect, but from a different position, I would think a person who accepts the postulate of eternal life on this basis would have to explain why he believes morality must be derived from a source other than man.

mike: I didn't suggest that morality was derived from a source other than man. I suggested that it could be derived from the "fact" that we are very much like our Father.

rw: And were I a believer on this basis and had to confront my beliefs with the utter lack of progress shown by a religion that preaches this constantly while taking up a different position in reality, I would have a difficult time sustaining my faith.

mike: Religion is usually more relevant to personal progress (yes, even given--actually because of--the necessity of focusing outside of the self) than necessarily to what you may view as societal progress. But what is societal progress? A continual production of labor saving devices and entertainment devices that distract our minds, but ultimately result in boredom and depression? Or a continuous struggle for "survival" that may ultimately make a man turn from his self-focused face-stuffing and ask the question: What is it all for? This question, so carefully avoided by so many atheists, is where I believe true progress begins. In addition, many of the great scientists in history were also believers. They did not feel rejected by God for their ideas, only by false religion.

rw: Yes but the efficacy of science is independently verifiable and objective.

mike: Once language becomes involved, once we move beyond simple perception and observation into the realm of categorization and interpretation, objectivity in science is purely illusory.

rw: Its explanatory power expands man’s view of the future in a way that’s realistic to his present situations.

mike: …and I could certainly use science to adequately and realistically explain (by observing its parts and relationships between parts) the function and movement of an automobile. I wouldn't need to consider the driver to make adequate predictions of what might happen to its trajectory given certain conditions. But the car is meaningless without the driver (the machine is dead without the "ghost")--and here prediction and control get much more complicated. Nothing that man creates or observes is meaningful to man without considering its relationships to and implications for mankind (the constructors of meaning). And yet, psychology (as well as its cousins) has yet to adequately find an "objectivity" in this "science" of mankind that could potentially make all other science more meaningful. Indeed "qualitative" methodologies continue to break out rebelliously against our attempted quantification of mental experience. And qualitative researchers often describe phenomena that quantitative researchers may never have considered otherwise.

rw: We’ve always been talking about man’s imagination. Our differences revolve around what it should be channeled towards and the relative effects of each.

mike: Yes, and by considering both religion and science, my approach is more adaptive to the environment in which I have found myself. If freedom is the goal, I have as much freedom as you, if not more (I can freely explore the possibilities of science as well as the possibilities of religion). If sociality is the goal then I can relate and be in rapport with a greater percentage of the population.

rw: …the imagination does appear to require a brain from which to derive its vitality, so you’re going to have to explain how our state of affairs came to exist from the imagination prior to physical neural networks and chemical reactions.

mike: Examining neural networks and chemical reactions has given us nothing more about what it is to be human than examining the engine of a car would give us about what it means to have transportation.

rw: ...you are a biblical literalist?

mike: I try to avoid labeling myself, but on life-spans in the Bible: You yourself suggested that there doesn't seem to be any reason why we can't greatly extend the life span. I have no reason to doubt that a man could theoretically live as long as a tree. Especially given pristine conditions, no pollution, a diet of unprocessed foods, plenty of exercise (no science yet to invent cars that serve to thicken our arteries and our atmosphere), and little stress about having to be at a 7:00 meeting or my source of food and shelter may be cut off.

rw: I don’t think you’ll find much biblical support for pre-existence without wrestling with the scriptures.

mike: I don't know what else to make of God telling Jeremiah that before He formed him in the womb, He knew him. I would have to wrest this verse to believe it meant anything else. And who were the armies who fought the war in heaven, casting Lucifer out (which incidentally, I believe was primarily a war of ideas—freedom being the central issue)? Michael and his angels. But what are angels? Most biblical references depict them as humanoid--and if humanoid, why not pre-mortal or post-mortal human? The only thing that may explicitly be used to argue that they are anything other, would be the saying that God made man a little lower than the angels. "Lower" doesn't necessarily imply "lesser." It could be a spatial difference, or a reference to a place on a developmental continuum--among other things.

rw: The bible depicts the Christian god as having first wiped out all of humanity with the exception of a few


mike: Actually, if you allow for ancient extra-biblical sources (which I do) you would read that God was depicted as holding back the floods while Noah warn the people. The floods have also been depicted as the earth's way of cleansing itself when the need arose. Not necessarily God's overt action, but a natural law in force--such as gravity. No one would blame God for warning someone to wear a parachute before he stepped out of an airplane, and then allowing him to fall when he ignored the warning. Enoch's apocrypha depicts God as weeping at the suffering of humanity, and Enoch quite disconcerted and wondering how God could weep. God replies that if Enoch doesn't like it, He will go where Enoch can't see him and continue to weep. In addition, the angels are depicted as urging God to let go the floods, and wondering why He hesitates so long.

rw: and then having frustrated humanities efforts to get off this planet at the tower of Babel.

mike: And what would they have done if they had been successful? Mercifully, God helped them avoid wasting a whole lot of time at best, and killing themselves at worst.

rw: This doesn’t bode well for anyone declaring this god to be a Father figure. I’m not familiar with that kind of fatherhood, are you?

mike: The deeper I read, the more Father he seems.

rw: I’ve seen statistics that say the divorce rate among Christians is inordinately high. If this is true, I would have to wonder if theism offers man any better way of coping with his mortality psychologically. As I said earlier, the gains are offset by many un-resolvable issues.

mike: Yes, you certainly have to look at as much of the picture as possible. But if marriage rate is higher among Christians, then a higher divorce rate would not be earth shattering...neither should the failings of some christians be generalized to all of theism.

rw: …theism doesn’t provide any more control over this than any other avenue.

mike: Generally not, because true theism is about letting go of the need to control everything.

rw: It offers it, but then the attempt to comply with the moral structure, which you admit is impossible to do, only thrusts the mind into another state of crisis where it no longer has control and has abandoned the physical world. It’s called cognitive dissonance and many people can’t handle it.

mike: Except that all the time the prophets and holy men through the ages are saying "trust God, rather than yourself, and your worries are over." "Relax, and you have nothing to worry about." "Resist the 'way' to happiness and you can have nothing but unhappiness." The Bible, Baghavad Gita, Tao te Ching, and Qua'ran are pretty much in agreement on this point.

rw: Most theistic folks seem to be very thin-skinned when it comes to honest critical examination of their beliefs. You appear to be the exception.

mike: My religion has an article of faith that I memorized as a part of my childhood religious education: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

rw: Science gave us the car, the red lights and the roads…what has theism contributed to this acquisition of greater freedom?

mike: Well, the meaning of quicker transportation for increased freedom is debatable--freedom of movement is not much without freedom of mind. And again, many scientists and inventors ARE believers. But true religion is simply this: to visit the fatherless and widows, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. The Bible tells us that of faith, hope, and charity, the latter is the greatest and most enduring. And what has this to do with our relationship with God? It teaches us to be like him. To use our existence to help other beings to have what we have: greater freedom. And is it strange to you that the freest country in the world—and most progressive scientifically--was founded by theists?

rw: Is it your contention then that a religious frame of mind can extend man’s life span equivalent to a scientific genetic manipulation can?

mike: Perhaps--or longer. Anything's possible.

rw: You mentioned the men of Genesis, if you do the genealogy math, Methuselah, (reputed to be the oldest living male in the bible, 969 years), perished in the year of the flood. Now consider Methuselah was a direct descendant of Adam and thus, a son of god, yet likely died in the flood. Surely he was one of those who called upon the name of the Lord, so why did it not fall out to his advantage and assure him a birth on the ark? He was Noah’s grandfather.

mike: Dying in the year of the flood does not mean dying in the flood. According to extra-Biblical sources, Enoch and his whole city (Zion) were removed from the planet before the flood took place. Perhaps Methuselah hitched a ride. But someone has to stay back and repopulate the planet. At any rate, to a believer, death is but a rebirth into a new life.

rw: Then you are suggesting theism contributes to scientific understanding?

mike: Of course. If it is true theism. And I would go even farther. The best discoveries were inspired by God. It is interesting to me that many discoveries were made simultaneously in separate parts of the world. Do you explain this with the mystical idea of convergent evolution, or the mystical idea that there is extra-(five)sensory information pervading the planet? Or just dumb luck that it happened near simultaneously? Or perhaps they were simply sharing information (the invention of the telephone--Italy and U.S.A--and the development of calculus are examples of this phenomenon).

rw: Then your “no true Scotsman” argument is that without religion, science will fail? On the other hand, when I think of some of the results of science, (nuclear bombs), in the hands of religious fanatics…you may be right. Religion, and its residual effects, may, (eventually and hopefully), drive us to divest ourselves of all such weaponry in the future.

Mike: There’s a thought! And religion has little to do with pollution, chemical addiction, automobile accidents, accidents with weapons. In addition, many scientists worry about dramatically increasing population--while at the same time science claims to have been responsible for making this increase possible (by reducing mortality rates). But there are true “Scotsmen” in both religion and science. They are simply in the minority.

quote:mike: True. But giving up life does not necessarily imply death. I can give my life in the service of science, or religion, or my neighbor.

rw: Of the three, which is likely to be the most productive towards an actual extension of your life span beyond a few years you may buy with a certain stress-free peace of mind?

Mike: Truly I believe that eating simply, ecological exercise, and physical and mental hygiene probably will do the best job for now. Unless science can figure a way to eliminate all the toxic waste it has caused. But seriously, in my view, all three in cooperation—rather than any one alone--would serve me and you and God the best

rw: Why does one have to sacrifice one’s personality to network?

mike: It is through this process that personality becomes concrete. Who am I but a brother, a son, a father, a student, a teacher, etc, etc—all in relation to others. And what is there to distinguish me from you, as well as to unite me with you, but these social roles?

rw: This is another negative side effect of religious teaching. It pushes everyone to become identical…Christ-like…which is impossible in the first place, and detrimental to diversity and uniqueness of individuality…and thus to human nature, in the final analysis.

mike: Being “other oriented” is both the essence of diversity and the essence of being Christ-like. And only through him can we fully be so. And we could all be alike in that we are all other oriented and still be diverse. Again, who are we but in relation to others? A set of rather uninteresting body parts.

quote:Mike: The two masters are self and other. If we are self-centered in our approach to life we become diffuse.

rw: I would describe it as diverse. I see nothing wrong with being what we are.

mike: …and how do we ever internalize these diverse aspects of our identities? To the extent that we turn our attention inward, we have nothing to model but our own barely differentiated and highly underdeveloped selves. Growth comes from turning our attention outward and incorporating into ourselves the diversity we experience through interaction with others.

rw: What greater love hath any man than to extend the lives of all men?

Mike: I believe God does do that as well--unless we are better served by moving on to the next phase. And there is nothing wrong with science working at it too. But what are a few years to eternity? And yet, Christ allowed Peter to come to him when his mission was finished (as Peter desired) while of John it was said he would never die (although Christ emphasized that he only told Peter that if John should remain until Christ came again, what was that to Peter?).

rw: Actually Mike, this might come as a shock, but I once held that same belief. I reasoned that man once existed with god as a separate creature, less than the angels, and that god sent him here as an opportunity to progress, advance, promote himself into a familial relationship with god, above the angels. That god was replacing the angels with godly men. It was the most logical conclusion to be drawn but still remains only a speculative interpretation of a collection of books, written over a span of 1500 years by many different human authors and compiled, by man into one book. I see no relevant value in holding such beliefs and after having divested myself of them have actually found my life to be considerably less stressful.

Mike: That you came to those conclusions either means you belonged to my religion or you really were a thoughtful student of scripture

rw: Yes, I knew when I read your first post that you were not the average bible thumper. I also know your frame of reference better than you might imagine. I’ve been there and done that. I dedicated years of my life to finding a salient interpretation of those same texts that resonated with what I knew about reality. I’ve tried many times to bring the two worlds together. They just don’t fit, Mike. But you may likely discover this for yourself one day…shrug…to each his own.

Mike: Well, obviously religion and science don’t fit as you understand them. As a student of both religion and science I feel no cognitive dissonance, unless I take myself and/or the pop theories of either discipline too seriously. But C. S. Lewis was an atheist once, perhaps someday you will come back around as well

rw: Surely an omnipotent god can do better than this? What’s with all the suffering, disease and evil anyway? If such a god existed as a Father, why would he bring his children up in such an un-safe environment?

Mike: The womb is a safe environment, but only so much growth can take place there.

rw: Is it the case man needs to learn something that an omnipotent god can’t just implant? Why not by-pass all this and bring his children up in a better environment? I have a difficult time with that “Father” business Mike, I’m sorry. Not trying to be insulting to you and your beliefs, believe me, but I just don’t see any sign of this “all things are possible thru Christ” business. I’m more inclined to think “all things are possible thru science”, if you know what I mean. Thus man is his own savior.

Mike: As Christ said “ye are gods.” Many things we can and must use our brains for. But some important things we obviously haven’t been able to figure out. We can climb so high, but we cannot lift ourselves by our bootstraps (e.g. out of the grave). And if God implanted everything I was to learn—would I have any choice in the matter? And what meaning would it have whether I held to science or religion if they were implanted in my brain? No I must start ignorant, be presented with options, and choose my preferences in order to determine myself what I will become.

rw: Is it your contention then that theistic morals are just as susceptible to statistical analysis as humanly derived moral foundations? Why then declare them to be superior? (I realize you haven’t specifically made that declaration but you have implied it).

Mike: Statistics created the illusion that some behaviors are more common among religionists than among others—this is largely what statistics has given us in both science and religion: illusions.

rw: Your example…is analogous only to this life on earth.

Mike: “Truth is knowledge of things as they are and as they were and as they are to come.” It’s all one when its truth.

rw: Of course, if you believe in eternal life, there is no non-existence…even for the wicked. They get tortured for eternity in another form of existence.

Mike: If we are tortured for eternity it will be self torture. As you know, cognitive dissonance can be painful. How about the dissonance of living a lie for eternity? God offers not to put us in hell, but to bring us out of it. It is up to us to take him up on it.

rw: Unfortunately Mike, there doesn’t seem to be enough pacifiers to go around…else there’d be more peace…yes?

Mike: Like children we often spit out and/or bite the very source of our peace. Perhaps with us, however, it is because of arrogance.

rw: I knew you were a Pauline admirer when I read your first post. Paul was a Pharisee to be sure…as well as a Roman citizen. Perhaps even the very author of Christianity.

Mike: How did you know? But then, I admire all of those folks.

rw: If I cannot, I will not. If I will not, I cannot. It is a matter of the will and I prefer to direct mine more consciously by intellect, than emotionally.

Mike: Then you will not. If you cannot there is no will about it.

quote:mike: It is a choice of his own, and thus a testament to his wisdom: To ascend to the next peak he must first descend to the valley between.

rw: ?

mike: Peak number one: pre-mortality, peak number two: post mortality, valley: mortality.

rw: And how did we devise ladders? By faith?

Mike: Well, the one to which I referred was given us by Christ. The others, yes, we imagined them first (faith) and then we built them.

rw: Yet God, any god, is a claim of supernature…yes? Why must this god remain in hiding? What has he got to be ashamed of? If he exists, make it known to all men and be away with all this finding him nonsense.

Mike: God is no more supernatural (outside of nature) than a parent is supernatural to an embryo, and the parent is no more or less invisible to the embryo than God is to us. Is a mother ashamed that she doesn’t "appear" to the child within her womb? The child is in her, and she is in the child. What is more for the child to see? But OK, so perhaps God should appear to us as a man. Wouldn’t you simply say he was a man, or perhaps a clever magician? And what if he appeared in his glory? Wouldn’t you then be likely to go see a psychiatrist and get yourself on some mind numbing prescription drugs (thus enslaving yourself to science)? No, the act of seeking makes us ready for finding. And when we find him that way we have no question but that we are in our right minds.

rw: Tell me something, Mike, do you think God plays favorites?

mike: No, but he can only lift those who take his proffered hand.

Jobar

Mike, rw... while I have enjoyed your interchanges, I politely suggest that some of the topics you are addressing are not appropriate for this forum. Please, if you wish to address creation, or the Flood, go to E/C; our experts on those topics are there. If you wish to address Biblical literalism, BC&A, or perhaps GRD, is the best.

The method you are both using- quoting the entire post you wish to reply to, and then answering practically sentence by sentence- has the disadvantage of rapidly producing extremely long posts, as we see here. Although we have no policy for limiting post length, I personally think that posts of this length detract from the readability of your ideas and arguments. Please, try to focus on what you see as the central point(s) of a post you wish to reply to, and limit your reply to that (those) point(s); it helps keep the conversation from spreading out to cover a multiplicity of topics, again as we see here.

Mike, I agree with rw; you are *not* a run-of-the-mill Bible thumper. We appreciate your good manners and your literate and respectful posting style; in fact, I would have to say that you are easier to talk to than rw was when he first came here, trying to support his faith and belief in rather similar ways.

Mike

Jobar,

Well that would certainly simplify things. And reduce the dull ache in my fingers. I apologize for my part in getting off topic, and making long posts. I was hoping to tire rw with sheer eye strain, but he's a tough one

Chuckle.

NonContradiction

If what is moral is to maximize survival advantages, then how do you justify homosexuality?

NonContradiction

I think that we need to distinguish between absolute and unchanging morality. I can't think of any rules, off hand, which are absolute since there always appears to be exceptions to the rule. For example, as a rule, it's wrong to kill people, but there are exceptions to the rule.

On the other hand, unchanging morality seems to be quite different. One can have a society where the rules and the exceptions are clearly defined - the rules cannot be changed nor can the exceptions to the rules. Therefore, it's quite possible for morality to be unchanging and non-absolute.

Mike

The specifics are not universal by society or by situational context, but overarching principles apply. I can't think of a society that doesn't have some kind of restrictions on at least killing, violence, and sex. In some societies a man may have multiple wives, but he is expected to be loyal to those he has--or engage some type of formal ceremony if he is to add to them--and is responsible for them in some way as a result of his sexual involvement. In some societies you can beat your children, but you had better have a socially valid reason for doing it. Or you can kill, but only when some threat is apparent. Unprovoked offenses and unrestricted sexual activity are pretty much universally taboo. Even though our society has eased up on marriage, committed sex is prefered, and if not you must at least have protected sex. And not informing a partner about an STD is particularly taboo here. Even in societies where sexual activity, violence and killing may be relatively unrestricted for men, it is almost certainly restricted for women. And even if it is legal to kill a spouse or a child, you had better not kill someone else's!

Elliot Turiel, a moral development researcher at Berkley is even more general--but still suggests universality. He suggests that all societies and people categorize their experiences in at least three domains: the moral domain, the social/conventional domain, and the personal domain. The specifics of what is included in each domain changes by person and society, but that the domains exist is universal. He gets slightly more specific when he indicates that the moral domain is pretty much universally about principles of Justice and Welfare, but whether a specific behavior is defined as just or helpful differs by society.

rainbow walking

mike: Yes, it does. But unreasonable faith has little to do with reasonable faith. A multitude of poor practitioners does not negate the possibility of at least one good one.

rw: Then we would do well to understand what transforms reasonable into unreasonable and devise a means to address the transformation.

mike: I would call it pretext rather then preference, at the ecclesiastical level-- until and unless the likes of bin Laden strap a bomb to their own butts. But were the WWII kamakasi's of the same category?

rw: Yes, their god was the Emperor and his whip was “honor”. Funny you should mention the ecclesiastical level…perhaps these are the causative agents of the transformation process, the facilitators, and strapping a bomb to their butts may just facilitate room for the next generation of facilitators. So the causative agent must exist at a level that makes it accessible to anyone with a “desire” to use it. Again we are led back to the imagination and the respective avenues of expression it takes. We find that all such transformations are processes that originate as ideas. Ideas that coalesce into disciplines with their own unique language, and those who become proficient in that language become their progenitors. Ideas becoming ideals that drive us to strive for, perhaps, the unattainable and thus our unceasing search for freedom as the quest for freedom from our own self-generated prisons of unattainable ideals. But what drives the formation of ideas? What causes the imagination to activate and replicate itself in the minds of others? What facilitates this replication: language. What facilitates the ideas: need, that becomes desire that, once partially fulfilled, and thus a verifiable desire, becomes another prison to be administered. What generates need? Mortality. So religion is an imagined means of prison escape that leads us into another prison.
You and I were born into a world of such ideals from which we have been programmed to accept as the given and all we can do is strive to make them better or bring ourselves closer to the attainment of the ideal…the unattainable. Yet we too have imaginations and needs and desires and perhaps some one of us will rise to ask…why? Why must we accept this paradigm at all? Is there no resolution to this jumping from prison to prison? Must these prisons be sustained by blood and misery, pitted against one another as mortal enemies? So we use our imaginations and change our perspective…why, these are not prisons at all, they’re just glorified campgrounds and soon it will all be over and we can go home.

mike: I would, but I don't think that's generally the case. The majority cling tighter to their own religion at times like these, even if they distance themselves from others. Interestingly sales of the Qur'an are at an all time high, I think. I have two copies myself. One acquired before 911 and one after.

rw: I have not been motivated by 911 to purchase any such literature. I know the language intimately that leads to death, though the phrases may differ and the form restructured, it all equates to death in the final analysis. Those who become familiar with it and derive solace from it are no less bound and embrace the violence as evidence that their acceptance of the bondage is justified.


mike: Perhaps some, but I believe that most of them were power hungry politicians using religion as a convenient excuse. But without the WMD’s given them by science religious zealots would still be punching each other on the noses

rw: Indeed, and what makes you think politics and religion are separate creatures? Man is a political creature first as the necessity of being a social parasite demands a means of cohesion. But politics always eventually follows the will of its constituents. It may resist, struggle, compete with that will, but the majority are what comprise the social…thus politics represents the social conscious. Politics, like religion, is a figment of man’s imagination. Both are reactions…after-the-fact…of man’s deeper struggle with his own mortality. So man cannot look to either as a final resolution to his deeper drive to exist. These tools, derived from his imagination, are only facilitators of such existence as he currently has…and offer only a temporary stay of execution…and hope. But what is it that man has to hope for and how does he find any meaningful absolution from that which drives him to hope? By the same means he arrived at the stay of execution? Or perhaps there is another way…a way he has only begun to perceive and dares not allow himself to see, lest it spoil his perspective of his campground and render it untenable as a place to hang his hat.


mike: Freud attempted to describe a non-theistic conflict-based absolute morality where fear of punishment from society (or more specifically from your rival, dad) was internalized--becoming a moral code. Piaget described a heirarchical morality based on respect for the authority that we naturally desire to emulate, and also a cooperative morality that develops among equals who wish to engage in similar activities and must therefore come up with consensual rules. John Rawls described the morality of which I was speaking, which is based on a hypothetical ignorance of the future and a subsequent desire for freedom. They are all interesting stories. I think Rawls' is the most general of the three because it can explain both the conflict free morality of Piaget and the conflict based morality of Freud. We want to get along with others because ultimately that will give us greater choice--if someone else grows my food, perhaps I'll have more time to paint pictures--or do something else that I don't know yet, but that I may want to do later. Otherwise, we could live our lives just as well in solitude, and forget about morality. This brings up another possibility: Sociality as an absolute morality.

rw: Indeed, every campground has its rules. In the kaleidoscope of man’s imagination he will constantly shift from one roost to another whenever his drive to exist dictates. Identifying the limbs, while a noble endeavor to be sure, will not resolve man’s need of such artifices and their propensity to clip his wings. But it may help man to understand why he appeals to a social environment for his stay of execution. Just one more step in a long succession of such steps leading man to another level of comprehension within this life.

mike: The current rules of western science have not always, nor do they universally apply to all practice of what has been called science historically. However, the almighty dollar HAS become an impetus for what I view as some destructive trends in science. For example: pharmaceutical companies have used the authority of science to hawk their wares to an unsuspecting public. An epidemic of prescription drug dependency has resulted. "Legitimate" science has given us heroin, cocaine, pcp, lsd, etc. Now we've moved on to even more powerful and subtle addictives. Western society is becoming more and more enslaved by money grubbers who use science as their authority. This slavery is even more devious than physical bondage, because it encroaches on the freedom of our very minds. Psychiatry has completely abandoned "unscientific" talk therapy in favor of mind altering chemicals. Is it because talk therapy doesn't work? No, studies have shown talk therapy among other things (including faith--religious and otherwise--in fact one factor common to most successful therapies is a belief that the therapy will be effective. This belief, it is argued, can possibly create the positive mental outcome) to be a sometimes effective enhancer of mental and physical health. However, psychiatrists and M.D.'s, get paid much more by creating a dependency in their clients, who become lifetime sources of revenue. Never mind the clients’ lives may be shortened. There are more clients where they came from--particularly the children who are now disfunctional because they have been raised by zombie parents who never had to face their issues because their were chemically pacified.

rw: And we should take care to distinguish between science and technology. The two are not equally driven but the one is derived from the other. Science is not exempt, nor does it stand alone, among man’s many imagined campgrounds. It is as subject to man’s un-perceived mortality driven desperation as politics and religion…but it is worthy of being rescued. Man has a moral obligation, if he desires to exist, to separate science from among its created brethren, (politics and religion) and give it the freedom it needs to work a resolution. Of all the artifacts of man’s imagination, science has demonstrated the potential for genuine hope. Science aught not have to compete with man’s prisons for the devotion of man. It alone has made it possible for man to flourish behind the walls of his imaginary prisons, so it should stand alone and be provided the opportunity to break down the walls of these prisons. Man is morally obligated to assure this if he is genetically obligated to survive. He should make the effort to see that the majority of his resources are funneled into this, the only productive resource of his imagination, effort and is amply supported and not subject to any of the constraints inherent in his less fulfilling prisons. That has not yet become immediately obvious to the general populace and thus not a matter of popular will, so his politics and religion continue to gobble up an inordinate amount of these resources and science is forced to compete where it aught not be.

mike: You mean THIS methodology?: "Some of the greatest scientific papers have been rejected not just by one journal, but even by several journals before being published. For example, John Garcia, a distinguished biopsychologist, was immediately denounced when he first proposed that a form of learning called classical conditioning could be produced in a single trial of learning." --Robert Sternberg, current president of the American Psychological Association.

Garcia proposed something that ran contrary to the near religious zeal that characterized conventional behavioristic wisdom. He was denounced as a heretic. When Freud presented his findings on the existence of child sexual abuse, he was met with silence. And ultimately either had to renounce his findings or be completely rejected by the scientific community. He renounced his findings and created the convoluted oedipal theory--thus creating a smoke screen which still allows for the continuation of the abuse of women and children. This likely contributed to setting back child and women welfare efforts for perhaps a half century at the least.

Or what about this: "On no less than seven occasions in the 'Origin of Species' [Darwin] implored his readers to ignore the evidence of the fossil record as a refutation of his concept of evolution or 'use imagination to fill in the gaps.'" --Gerald L. Schroeder in his book "The Science of God."

Many evolutionists continued to abide by Darwin's dogmatic doctrine of "filling in the gaps with imagination."

Charles D. Walcott, then director of the Smithsonian Institution discovered (in 1909) between sixty and eighty thousand fossils that suggested that at the level of the phylum, such things as eyes, gills, jointed limbs, intestines, sponges and worms, insects and fish had all appeared pretty much simultaneously. These fossils, however, remained buried in Walcott's lab for over eighty years. Such a potential challenge to gradual Darwinian evolution may have proved dangerous to his pet paradigms or perhaps to his career. (see, "The Science of God").

In addition, Darwinians continue to ignore the oxymoranic paradox of the phrase "natural selection." Critics at the time pointed out that while "natural" implied random processes, "selection" implied agentic processes. Darwin suggested that with familiarity the difficulty would be forgotten. Some forgot, but others have argued that such ambiguity about the role of the "selector" became an excuse for the eugenics movement. People can be destructive. Religion is but one of many excuses.

rw: Sounds like someone has issues ;^D. These are all factors of science having to compete. Exempt science from the competition and such destructive forces, that whittle away at its vitality, will vanish. The vitality of science is not derived from its competition with politics and religion but from its competition with man’s most innate drive to extend his existence. If man inadvertently creates enemies of science in the name of misapplied moral restrictions or unintentional offenses to the sensibilities of the gate-keepers of these imaginary prisons, science…and ultimately, man…will pay the price.


mike: Developmental psychology is my area of study. Your comment is very validating. Perhaps I do have a reason to live! But your arguments about what may be going on during the first two years of life are good ones. I think, however, that we must remember that all theories are but interesting stories, rather akin to faith, until they are experienced first hand.

rw: Man has no choice but to believe in something, but he has ample choice in what to believe in. I believe the extension of life will resolve a great number of man’s problems. I further believe the ability to escape the constraints of this planet will further resolve many of the life threatening forces man faces here, both from nature and from himself. Competition is created by limited resources. The universe has an ample supply of resources. If a god exists and created such a vast supply of resources, then they must exist for a reason…and perhaps they exist for man to assign a reason.

mike: Yes, the assumptions both of science and religion remain vast and unsupported. But I believe that both science and religion have their facts and their assumptions. Once you get past mere observation (indeed past a hypothetical language-free observation) and begin to make interpretations of the world, you are in the realm of assumptions. The observable fact that a car is running is much less interesting than the implications and interpretations that exist about how useful cars are, or what it means that we have such contraptions.

rw: Indeed, yet there are justifications…a priori justifications, that turn assumptions into probabilities and probabilities into realities…and this quite independent of interpretation. Were I a paraplegic I might find the edicts of religion alluring, I might prefer to believe that one day, in another life, I will be as mobile as any other human. Then I may consider science, and look at all the advances that have been made in the wedding of science with technology, and I might be tempted to hope, hope that somewhere, some man will make a connection that enables me to walk again. Then I might hope that I live long enough to see such a day. But I would also wonder why my fellow human’s appear to have abandoned my only source of such hope, constrained it to a level of competition for resources and thus forced upon it restrictive and distractive obstacles that only serve to delay the inevitable. From this view, I might abandon my hope and return to religion…or worse.


mike: I didn't suggest that morality was derived from a source other than man. I suggested that it could be derived from the "fact" that we are very much like our Father.

rw: Yet how could this be? God is not mortal. Of what value would morality be to such a one? So how could our resemblance to a god be equated with our necessity of assigning value?

mike: Religion is usually more relevant to personal progress (yes, even given--actually because of--the necessity of focusing outside of the self) than necessarily to what you may view as societal progress. But what is societal progress? A continual production of labor saving devices and entertainment devices that distract our minds, but ultimately result in boredom and depression?

rw: Oh…it’s much worse than you could imagine…The only moral equivalent found in these prisons of politics and religion is “might makes right”. Whether that might is conferred upon the machinery of state, kings, or gods. But why does might make right?

Mike: Or a continuous struggle for "survival" that may ultimately make a man turn from his self-focused face-stuffing and ask the question: What is it all for? This question, so carefully avoided by so many atheists, is where I believe true progress begins. In addition, many of the great scientists in history were also believers. They did not feel rejected by God for their ideas, only by false religion.

rw: And the answer religion offers is correct?

mike: Once language becomes involved, once we move beyond simple perception and observation into the realm of categorization and interpretation, objectivity in science is purely illusory.

rw: I don’t think my car is purely an illusion…or my heat pump that provides me such glorious comfort in the heat of the summer…or any other practical application of science. Yet, to anticipate your response, you will declare that true religion provides me with a true reason for desiring these comforts, while declaring that such comforts are the cause of man’s shattered identity. And why is it again that I am stuffing my face? To preserve my existence? And this preservation, you say, is derived from my being a descendent of the Father…who has no need of such decadent appetites? Can you untangle this web and set me free, ere the spider stuff his face decadent on me?


mike: …and I could certainly use science to adequately and realistically explain (by observing its parts and relationships between parts) the function and movement of an automobile. I wouldn't need to consider the driver to make adequate predictions of what might happen to its trajectory given certain conditions. But the car is meaningless without the driver (the machine is dead without the "ghost")--and here prediction and control get much more complicated. Nothing that man creates or observes is meaningful to man without considering its relationships to and implications for mankind (the constructors of meaning). And yet, psychology (as well as its cousins) has yet to adequately find an "objectivity" in this "science" of mankind that could potentially make all other science more meaningful. Indeed "qualitative" methodologies continue to break out rebelliously against our attempted quantification of mental experience. And qualitative researchers often describe phenomena that quantitative researchers may never have considered otherwise.

rw: And have you considered the quality of life under the shadow of death? Thus religion…and those who focus on “qualitative” explanations, converge. And where, pray tell, do the twain meet? On yon side of the grave where all research has been concluded and nothing remains for objective observation but the final eulogy. Stick with your quantifying methodologies Mike…and do not waver.

mike: Yes, and by considering both religion and science, my approach is more adaptive to the environment in which I have found myself. If freedom is the goal, I have as much freedom as you, if not more (I can freely explore the possibilities of science as well as the possibilities of religion). If sociality is the goal then I can relate and be in rapport with a greater percentage of the population.

rw: And you are to be commended for this synthesis…pity all religious men could not follow your example.

mike: Examining neural networks and chemical reactions has given us nothing more about what it is to be human than examining the engine of a car would give us about what it means to have transportation.

rw: Au contrare…only because you have imagined that what it means to be human somehow transcends what it is to be alive. And where did you derive this imagined dichotomy but from your religion.


mike: I try to avoid labeling myself, but on life-spans in the Bible: You yourself suggested that there doesn't seem to be any reason why we can't greatly extend the life span. I have no reason to doubt that a man could theoretically live as long as a tree. Especially given pristine conditions, no pollution, a diet of unprocessed foods, plenty of exercise (no science yet to invent cars that serve to thicken our arteries and our atmosphere), and little stress about having to be at a 7:00 meeting or my source of food and shelter may be cut off.

rw: Ah…you mean those vehicles that allow us to travel greater distances with far less investment of time, preserving our energies for more productive labors than walking? But then there’s Cain and Abel, poor souls…no way to lengthen the distance between their rivalry, to ease the tensions…to trade their efforts with one another without competing for a god’s approval. I’m sorry Mike, but I see no relevant value in creating false dichotomies between progress and morality. Adam walked, and John Wayne road a horse and the 911 terrorists flew jet planes. Adam is eternally tied to a mythological depiction of a god, John Wayne to the Hollywood that created him in the image of the then popular “tough individualist” depiction of law and order, and the 911 terrorists take us right back to the devoted fundamentalism of a god. If I had to choose between them I would refrain and take another route because none of them has resolved man’s mortal dilemma. They are inventions that rose up out of man’s prisons of religion and politics…and nothing more. From walking to horseback to space modules and who knows what tomorrow will bring…but if we reject science I can tell you what it won’t bring…extended life spans.

mike: I don't know what else to make of God telling Jeremiah that before He formed him in the womb, He knew him. I would have to wrest this verse to believe it meant anything else. And who were the armies who fought the war in heaven, casting Lucifer out (which incidentally, I believe was primarily a war of ideas—freedom being the central issue)? Michael and his angels. But what are angels? Most biblical references depict them as humanoid--and if humanoid, why not pre-mortal or post-mortal human? The only thing that may explicitly be used to argue that they are anything other, would be the saying that God made man a little lower than the angels. "Lower" doesn't necessarily imply "lesser." It could be a spatial difference, or a reference to a place on a developmental continuum--among other things.

rw: And let’s not forget David’s reference to God recording his parts ere they were assembled, and Cain finding a wife after his exile and Paul’s reference to commanding angels…yet what would the resolution of these mysteries accomplish? Would they bring us any closer to a resolution of our scientific and moral dilemmas? Does one not have the potential to address the other? Does man with access to billions of worlds not have a means to establish any world under any moral system he so desires? Does this not establish a greater distance between conflicting morals? Can a Jew not have a Jewish planet, and a Christian a Christian world, and a Muslim his own land from pole to pole? Yet imagine all these competing moral systems confined to the same world. Now between religion, politics and science…which of the three has the power to bring us into this dimension?


mike: Actually, if you allow for ancient extra-biblical sources (which I do) you would read that God was depicted as holding back the floods while Noah warn the people. The floods have also been depicted as the earth's way of cleansing itself when the need arose. Not necessarily God's overt action, but a natural law in force--such as gravity. No one would blame God for warning someone to wear a parachute before he stepped out of an airplane, and then allowing him to fall when he ignored the warning. Enoch's apocrypha depicts God as weeping at the suffering of humanity, and Enoch quite disconcerted and wondering how God could weep. God replies that if Enoch doesn't like it, He will go where Enoch can't see him and continue to weep. In addition, the angels are depicted as urging God to let go the floods, and wondering why He hesitates so long.

rw: And again, if we allow your interpretation, what emerges is a world distraught with danger and unpredictable life threatening patterns. And if man is no longer imprisoned on such a world? Or if a God were truly benevolent, rather than holding back the floods, making a way for man to find worlds where floods are not a natural phenomenon.

mike: And what would they have done if they had been successful? Mercifully, God helped them avoid wasting a whole lot of time at best, and killing themselves at worst.

rw: The process of trial and error is never a waste of time. The prospect of a god as a prison warden is, even if you dress it up as doing man a favor.



mike: Generally not, because true theism is about letting go of the need to control everything.

rw: And if followed to its logical conclusion…extinction of man. Yet also a disregard for your god’s mandate for man to exorcise dominion.


mike: Well, the meaning of quicker transportation for increased freedom is debatable--freedom of movement is not much without freedom of mind. And again, many scientists and inventors ARE believers. But true religion is simply this: to visit the fatherless and widows, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. The Bible tells us that of faith, hope, and charity, the latter is the greatest and most enduring. And what has this to do with our relationship with God? It teaches us to be like him. To use our existence to help other beings to have what we have: greater freedom. And is it strange to you that the freest country in the world—and most progressive scientifically--was founded by theists?

rw: Nothing is strange to me…anymore.

mike: Perhaps--or longer. Anything's possible.

rw: And I should like to hear more of this possibility, if you care to expand on it.


mike: Of course. If it is true theism. And I would go even farther. The best discoveries were inspired by God. It is interesting to me that many discoveries were made simultaneously in separate parts of the world. Do you explain this with the mystical idea of convergent evolution, or the mystical idea that there is extra-(five)sensory information pervading the planet? Or just dumb luck that it happened near simultaneously? Or perhaps they were simply sharing information (the invention of the telephone--Italy and U.S.A--and the development of calculus are examples of this phenomenon).

rw: This might be worth considering if not for the fact that such discoveries were built upon previous findings that were known, and being energetically pursued, by people in different locales. That they happen upon the same conclusions at about the same time is due to the fact that energetic pursuit could only lead to one conclusion and dissemination of the previous findings in relation to the discoveries would naturally bring men to the same conclusion independently at roughly the same time period.

Mike: There’s a thought! And religion has little to do with pollution, chemical addiction, automobile accidents, accidents with weapons. In addition, many scientists worry about dramatically increasing population--while at the same time science claims to have been responsible for making this increase possible (by reducing mortality rates). But there are true “Scotsmen” in both religion and science. They are simply in the minority.

rw: I knew you’d appreciate the reprieve from my focus entirely on religions faults :^D. Many of the ills associated with technology are also addressable with technology…not with religion or abandonment. The relative usefulness of fossil fuels has outlived its applications. New, and cleaner, energy sources are on the horizon. But they didn’t get their by prayer or faith.

Mike: Truly I believe that eating simply, ecological exercise, and physical and mental hygiene probably will do the best job for now. Unless science can figure a way to eliminate all the toxic waste it has caused. But seriously, in my view, all three in cooperation—rather than any one alone--would serve me and you and God the best

rw: And how did you come upon these solutions? By revelation?

mike: It is through this process that personality becomes concrete. Who am I but a brother, a son, a father, a student, a teacher, etc, etc—all in relation to others. And what is there to distinguish me from you, as well as to unite me with you, but these social roles?

rw: The way you express them.

mike: Being “other oriented” is both the essence of diversity and the essence of being Christ-like. And only through him can we fully be so. And we could all be alike in that we are all other oriented and still be diverse. Again, who are we but in relation to others? A set of rather uninteresting body parts.

rw: Then your “self” contemplations are made through the eyes of the “other”?

mike: …and how do we ever internalize these diverse aspects of our identities? To the extent that we turn our attention inward, we have nothing to model but our own barely differentiated and highly underdeveloped selves. Growth comes from turning our attention outward and incorporating into ourselves the diversity we experience through interaction with others.

rw: Indeed, which forces us into the untenable position of deriving and sustaining our “selves” on the basis of acceptance or rejection by “others”. I am not overly fond of this methodology or description of man’s path to self-value. But it seems to permeate both religion and psychology at all levels. It derives from the traditional perspective that man begins in a position of “wrongness” and must somehow derive his “rightness” from the approval of his peers, or of a religious depiction of something outside of himself as the ideal “rightness” he is to forever strive for. I’m sure you’re going to object that the “wrongness” is only an “incompleteness”, as you seem to suggest with “under development”. But it connotes the same underlying presupposition. May I respectfully suggest you consider other options? Diversity is a product of adversity and no greater adversary exists than man’s own mortality.


Mike: That you came to those conclusions either means you belonged to my religion or you really were a thoughtful student of scripture

rw: Well, since I don’t know your specific persuasion I can’t say if I was a member or no.

Mike: Well, obviously religion and science don’t fit as you understand them. As a student of both religion and science I feel no cognitive dissonance, unless I take myself and/or the pop theories of either discipline too seriously. But C. S. Lewis was an atheist once, perhaps someday you will come back around as well

rw: I suggest, and not in any derogatory way, that you are perhaps unaware of just how much your religion has invaded your science. Are you as able to sustain objectivity under such influence? Judging from some of your replies…I would say not.


Mike: As Christ said “ye are gods.” Many things we can and must use our brains for. But some important things we obviously haven’t been able to figure out. We can climb so high, but we cannot lift ourselves by our bootstraps (e.g. out of the grave).

rw: Yet man has pulled himself out of an early grave and successfully extended his life span. So your assumption here is unwarranted.

mike: And if God implanted everything I was to learn—would I have any choice in the matter? And what meaning would it have whether I held to science or religion if they were implanted in my brain? No I must start ignorant, be presented with options, and choose my preferences in order to determine myself what I will become.

rw: I concur. So this is something God cannot logically do?

Mike: Statistics created the illusion that some behaviors are more common among religionists than among others—this is largely what statistics has given us in both science and religion: illusions.

rw: Not to split hairs but facts are facts. Statistics that correlate the facts may arrive at illusory probabilities, to be sure…but a moral compendium that is allegedly superior aught not make such facts available to the statistical analyst for analysis in the first place…yes?



Mike: If we are tortured for eternity it will be self torture. As you know, cognitive dissonance can be painful. How about the dissonance of living a lie for eternity? God offers not to put us in hell, but to bring us out of it. It is up to us to take him up on it.

rw: Then I should be most interested in hearing your take on what exactly “hell” represents?



Mike: Then you will not. If you cannot there is no will about it.

rw: I cannot walk on water, but I would if I could.

mike: Peak number one: pre-mortality, peak number two: post mortality, valley: mortality.

rw: Ah…thank you for that clarification. Then, from my perspective it’s: non-existence existence death.


Mike: God is no more supernatural (outside of nature) than a parent is supernatural to an embryo, and the parent is no more or less invisible to the embryo than God is to us. Is a mother ashamed that she doesn’t "appear" to the child within her womb? The child is in her, and she is in the child. What is more for the child to see?

rw: Interesting analogy…then, if god is not outside nature, he must be part of or maybe even one with nature. Are you advocating a sort of Pantheism?

Mike: But OK, so perhaps God should appear to us as a man. Wouldn’t you simply say he was a man, or perhaps a clever magician? And what if he appeared in his glory? Wouldn’t you then be likely to go see a psychiatrist and get yourself on some mind numbing prescription drugs (thus enslaving yourself to science)? No, the act of seeking makes us ready for finding. And when we find him that way we have no question but that we are in our right minds.

rw: Indeed…yet he is not outside of nature? Your description renders natural perception invalid. Thus you are describing “invisibility”.

mike: No, but he can only lift those who take his proffered hand.

rw: You mean the proffered “invisible” hand?

Llyricist

For one thing, you are paraphrasing to get your premise, and creating a strawman by doing so.
That said;
From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality cannot be seen as a survival advantage UNLESS of course there is a danger of overpopulation with regards to resources, then it actually DOES become a survival advantage for at least some of the populatioln to have that behavior. On the other hand, from the basic idea that it is not advantagious for the species, it is self correcting (if the behavior is heritable genetically) by the very fact that they cannot pass it on. So that would make it morally neutral going by the above definition (taking out the "advantage" bit and allowing for things to be neutral to survival, as evolution definitely does). Plus, in the current situation where we in fact DO seem to be pressing the resource limit, I would think that it indeed becomes an advantage to allow that behavior.

That may be a logical possibility, but I defy you to provide any real life examples

Llyricist

Further to that unchanging morality, I think the homosexuality example above tends to show that it may not even be logically possible.

Just as any particular instance of behavior depends on the circumstances surrounding it to decide the "morality". So too does any particular behavior from a meta standpoint (your unchanging standards as it were), depend on the underlying conditions and circumstances.

Back when the Israelites were a relatively small group, and had expansion room, it was to their advantage to reproduce as much as possible (and kill off their competition). So it was definitely an advantage for THEM to prohibit homosexuality, or ANY perceived "wasting of their seed" as it were. That circumstance no longer exists, so it does become advantagious to allow a certain amount of "seed waste".

This applies to many other things as well, that was just one example.