[Mb-civic] A Planet Of Life

[Ian]

Cheeseburger:

Thank you for your response.  I always find them enjoyable and stimulating.
A few comments.

You are correct that true faith cannot be accompanied by doubt.  I apologize
if it seemed that I was suggesting otherwise.  For myself, I have absolutely
no "doubt in faith."  I was merely making a comment based on "logic" and
"common sense" that ANYTHING any of us believe could be wrong.

Re your gambling metaphor, it is similar to "Pascal's Wager." A paraphrase
of that dilemma would be: "If God exists and one "believes," one gains all.
If God exists and one does NOT believe, one loses all.  If God does NOT
exist and one believes, nothing is lost.  If God does NOT exist and one does
NOT believe, nothing is lost.  Therefore, it is best to believe, since there
is no risk and great reward."  Of course, if God exists, He "knows" whether
your faith is genuine or simply the product of "hedging your bets," so this
wager is ultimately false.

Re the "spiritual" world, I was not suggesting that it did not include
"ghosts," but rather that it is far MORE than just "ghosts"; i.e., it is a
great deal "deeper" and "scarier" than movies like Poltergeist.

Nor was I suggesting that it is ONLY the Judeo-Christian construct that
includes this concept, or even that it originated with the Judeo-Christian
construct.

Re science, while it has certainly been used to generate "death and
suffering," it would be disingenuous to posit that it has not had many
benign and positive uses as well.  I believe the way of looking at this is:
any "neutral" thing (science, religion, art, etc.) can be used for either
"good" or "evil."  That does not change the fact that the central "idea" is
neutral.

As for "faith" and "religion," I totally agree with you.  Indeed, I think
you know that I have stated this ad nauseum.  "Religion is about laws and
behavior.  Faith is about a relationship with God (and, if you are
Christian, with Christ)."  There is a place for "religion" within "faith,"
but it is "faith" that is the more important of the two.  Indeed, the
emphasis on the former over the latter is the primary "apostasy" of the
mainstream churches.

Finally, re "science" and "faith," I do not entirely agree with your
analysis.  Indeed, as I noted in an earlier e-mail, almost all of the
greatest "scientists" - including Newton, Copernicus, Keppler, Leouwenhouk,
and, yes, even Darwin and Lyell - were men of faith.  Indeed, in the case of
Darwin and Lyell, it was their attempt to reconcile their faith with what
they saw in the "natural" world that led them to their research and
theories.  Even Einstein was not a hard-core atheist; he was more of an
agnostic.  And although he danced around it, many of his statements lead to
the conclusion that he believed in what we now call "intelligent design."

Even today - indeed, especially today - some of the most respected
scientists in the world in a wide variety of fields, some of whom are
atheists and some of whom are not, have made similar comments on the order
of: "The more we learn through science, the closer we come to the the heart
of the atom and the edge of the universe, the closer we come to proving the
existence of God."  In other words, science seems to be leading us to the
conclusion that, when it all comes down to it, the "perfection" of the
universe - from the quark, muon and neutrino to the black hole, pulsar and
quasar - could not have happened "by accident."

The Bible says the universe and everything in it was created in six days.
Science says a "big bang" occurred about 13 billion years ago.  The Bible
says man was created by God in a single act of creation.  Science says that
humankind evolved through "natural selection."  These concepts certainly
seem mutually exclusive.  And yet I reiterate that it is my belief that
these seemingly hopelessly divergent theories actually "overlap" - but that
we simply do not have the knowledge or understanding to see how and where.

Thus, I continue to believe that, despite their acrimonious relationship,
science and faith (via religion) serve each other more than they are willing
to accept.  Indeed, perhaps the very reason we lack the knowledge and
understanding of where these divergent theories overlap is BECAUSE of our
stubborn refusal to end the confrontational and combative relationship
between science and "God."

Anyway, that's my two cents worth.

Peace.

Thus, science and faith are NOT mutually exclusive.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Cheeseburger" <maxfury at granderiver.net>
To: <mb-civic at islandlists.com>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 4:00 AM
Subject: [Mb-civic] A Planet Of Life


> Re:  A Planet Of Life
>
> Ian wrote:
>
> ======
> It would be disingenuous to disagree that I (and all Christians, or anyone
> who believes in a particular spirituo-religious construct) may be wrong in
> our beliefs.  That is always a possibility.  I can only reiterate that, at
> least in Christianity, we "walk by faith, not by sight."
> ======
>
>
> True "faith" cannot be accompanied by doubt.
>
> If it is, it becomes more of a hobby, so to speak, rather than a belief.
>
> Rather like putting all your chips on one square, yet acknowledging to
> oneself at the same time that you are sitting at a roulette wheel, where
> the ball could stop anywhere.
>
> One is either truly swimming, or laying in the bathtub dreaming about it.
>
>
> ======
> That said, keep in mind that the Judeo-Christian construct (especially the
> Christian part) speaks of the "temporal" world - i.e., that which
humankind
> sees and experiences - and the "spiritual" world - that which is outside
the
> realm of human "sight."  However, some of us have had "spirit" experiences
> in which we have had "peeks" - whether visual, aural or other - into the
> "spiritual" world.  And I'm not talking "ghosts" etc. here.  I'm talking
> about the "other" world that exists not simply "parallel" to ours, but
> simultaneous with it: the one in which the various "spirits" - angels,
> demons, etc. - exist.  This does not necessarily prove the "correctness"
of
> our construct of "evil," but it certainly gives us pause.
> ======
>
>
> Ok, let's clarify this and avoid contradictions.  If you speak of "peeks"
> into the "spiritual" (or "whatever" it is) world, and you make the claim
> cum assumption that "spirits" "angels" "demons" "etc" exist in it, you
> cannot therefore exclude "ghosts", which all in all are nothing more than
a
> term similar, if not exactly, to the preceding "beings" you have given
> "names" to, even if their designations of existence might vary.
>
> Let us also note that it is not solely the Judeo-Christian "construct"
> which has found itself referring to the "other world", but that it is
> rather a global "exclamation" throughout history.
>
> I'm not challenging that "it" exists, as I already know it exists from
> personal experience sans book larnin', but am rather just pointing out
that
> "the other world" is a rather universal concept.
>
> p.s.:  Anyone who has ever done acid has had a "peek" into the "other
> world", or at least one of them if more than one exists.
>
> On another note, we all know "evil" exists.  We see it every day even in
> the "temporal" world, the one we "live" in, or at least think that we live
> in to the extent we believe we experience it on various levels.
>
> If "the other world" exists, which it (maybe even multiple ones) does,
> trust me, "evil" certainly exists there as well.
>
> So, conclusion, we most likely have "good" and "evil" existing in both
> "this" world and the "other" world, or maybe even "multiple" worlds.
>
> Again, however, such a concept is found in almost every culture cum
> religion in all the nations throughout all of history, and therefore is
not
> necessarily either the product nor the "fulfillment" of any particular
> individual one.
>
> To me it often all looks like "The Same Story", one single story, and it
> was spread across the entire earth to all the races and their
> "interpretations" of it survived the original story, in one form or
another.
>
> And then their egos stepped in and they, each, began to claim supremacy of
> Infinite Knowledge, Supreme Connection, etc etc etc yada yada yada.
>
> And that's when the trouble all started.
>
>
> ========
> As for Einstein and multiple universes, ironically enough (given that I am
a
> minister), I am probably among the best-read and educated lay people re
> theoretical physics, hyperspace, the superstring theory and multiple
> universes.  In addition to reading dozens of books on the subject, Michio
> Kaku - one of the most respected theoretical and nuclear physicists in the
> world, and a major force in the superstring theory - was my professor.  In
> this regard, I was fascinated by the concept of multiple universes
> (according to hyperspace theory, there are ten) for a very "Christian"
> reason: i.e., could one of those universes be what Christians call
"Heaven?"
> (And, of course, the question could also be asked: could one of them be
> "Hell?").
> =======
>
>
> In all probability, yes, the actual "possibility" exists within such an
> equation.
>
>
> =======
> How do we know where the living spirit - the soul - goes after
> death?
> =======
>
> It goes somewhere other than this "temporal" world.  Where that "is"
> remains debatable among the masses and the scholars.
>
>
> =======
> Sure, atheists and other non-believers believe that "when you die,
> you die"; end of story, no future for the soul.
> =======
>
> Excluding any religious connotations, the "being", call it what one will,
> definitely "travels on" after "this life".  Trust me, there are millions
of
> very surprised "athiests", who although not perhaps believing in a "God",
> have found after they have "passed on" that there is *definitely*
> "something" "over there".
>
>
> ======
> Yet for those of us who DO
> believe, it is beyond our understanding to know "where" Heaven is.
> ======
>
> Before I became a rock god, guitarist, songwriter, actor,
> multi-millionaire, etc, I was a simple unharried poet, a very phenomenal
> one, that's how I began it all, as a child.  Not that any of that is
> exclusively relevant to anything, but I once wrote a poem, long long ago
(I
> used to write long and extremely short poems, lol) that went something
like
> "Heaven is in the minds of men...".  For all I know, that's where it may
> lay, if it truly exists.
>
> The "mind" is such a phenomenal thing to begin with, who knows what's
> hiding in there, lol......    :)
>
> However, if a "heaven" exists, it may truly lay just outside our "current
> perception" as "creatures of earth".  Swirling all about us, completely,
> normally, unnoticed.
>
> As well as "anything else".
>
>
> ======
> And
> since it almost certainly is not within the "timespace" that humankind
knows
> (the universe we live in), if it exists, it must exist in some alternate
> timespace.  The hyperspace theory opens up that possibility.
> =======
>
>
> I'll have to stick with the "space" part of that "theory" and exclude the
> "time" part, as there are probably about 2 people, at least, looking over
> my shoulder right about now, and if you were here, you would swear there
> was nothing there whatsoever.
>
> That being said, if "correct", which, unfortunately, I no longer have to
> guess about such things, then they are existing in the same "time" frame,
> albeit a different "space".
>
> As an aside, I believe that was the original premise of that movie "The
> Exorcist", some "being" desired to both habitate the same space of a
> "temporal" being at the same time as well.
>
> "It", whatever it was, came from "the other side", whatever and wherever
> that is.
>
>
> =======
> Thus, despite those who see science and faith (or religion) as mutually
> exclusive, I firmly believe that each serves the other, but that we simply
> don't have the knowledge or understanding to see the overlaps and
parallels.
> =======
>
>
> First, faith is not religion.
>
> People used to ask me so many times whether I was "religious" or not, that
> I got sick of it and simply stopped talking for a year (The World
According
> To Garp, lol), and then I began replying "I'm not religious, I'm
spiritual".
>
> One doesn't need religion to practice faith, even though we have all been
> taught that from day one.  If an actual "true real bonafide unsullied by
> human touch 'religion' " exists, I have no doubts that any "faith" will
> find a way to catch up to it.
>
> Especially in the face of the twisted vehicle (religion) for practicing
> one's faith this "temporal world" has turned it into.
>
> Who knows what's on "the other side" or which "God" is "right" or if there
> is a "God" or if there is a "heaven" or a "hell" or whatever...
>
> Some people might know.  Normally they don't talk a lot about it, or are
> already in loony bins getting their thorazine shots because they are
> considered "madmen" from their vocalizations of their "peeks".
>
> I do know that "something" is "over there" and that even though there
might
> be some "good" over there, there definitely is also "something" over there
> that is not happy at all watching earth, mankind, etc blossom and grow and
> be happy.  Their "reasons" might tend to be even more varied than one can
> imagine.  Who knows.
>
> "Religion" is one thing, kid, "Science" is completely another.
>
> Science, although possibly streamlined to hypothesize, extrapolate, and
> derive answers as to "what is all this about, how is it made, and how does
> it all fit together", would seem to me, although it's "quest" might be
> "pure", no more than an attempt to explain it, label it, and blackmail the
> FDA into bottling it so someone here in this "temporal world" can make a
> fortune off of it.  Normally the "men of power" who wield the "works" of
> "men of science" on a regular basis so disasterously.
>
> Although a rather shorter more involved treatise would normally accompany
> such an "explanation", I tend to consider that the "Science" that is
> capable of contributing to the very Death and Suffering of this planet and
> its Inhabitants in this "temporal world" in such myriad displays from
> nuclear weapons, to pesticides, to chemicals, mercury, lethal weapons, you
> name it ad infinitum, definitely does not have any "faith's" or
> "religion's" best interests at heart.
>
> No matter how cute it is when it flashes its tits at you.
>
> Although "Science" might be a road which leads to some form of
> "enlightenment" as to "what it is all about", perhaps even on just a basic
> "Physics" level of cognizance, this "temporal world", and the ruthless men
> and women who have wielded it, has found it more profitable to create
Death
> and Destruction with the tools of "Science", rather than nurturing what
> they found around them.
>
> There may indeed be "overlaps" and "parallels" between "the two".
>
> The only problem is that nobody has yet written a definitive work on "The
> Laws Of The Universe" by which one might be able to truly make an
> unquestionable rational comparison of any mutual "exclusivity" or
> "non-exclusivity".
>
> Science ain't Faith.  Faith ain't Religion.
>
> True, "our" ability to perceive, conceive, and concretely "prove" all
> "aspects" of all those "things", among so many others, *is* rather stunted
> by our limited knowledge and understanding of all of them.
>
> But at least out of all of it there is one shining rainbow among all the
> gray areas, I finally understand the origins of that old game
"Peek"-a-boo....
>
> :|
>
> They *might* truly all "walk down the same path" together.
>
> But it's rather obvious now at this late date, that as they are all going
> down that "path" "hand in hand" that one of them is hopping, one is
> skipping, and one is jumping.
>
> As for me, I'm still just staring at it all.....
>
>
>
> Cheeseburger
>
> - Where has the sparrow gone now that I need its song.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mb-civic mailing list
> Mb-civic at islandlists.com
> http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-civic