tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778054119855048845.post2336084641455774018..comments2023-05-04T06:17:35.747-07:00Comments on Toward a New Christian Ethic: The Physics of ImmortalityAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11432140240361743129noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778054119855048845.post-59865708489355757152009-07-06T17:42:10.478-07:002009-07-06T17:42:10.478-07:00"It's easy for me to believe that our rea..."It's easy for me to believe that our reality is simply a projection inside a wider reality."<br /><br />I think so too. For example, an acid (LSD) trip can produce that astral-projection-like experience of being in two places at once, mind and body. I thoroughly enjoy some of the new research on brain activity, roots and impacts. There's a lot to learn there, and enough evidence, I think, to doubt classic religious explanations for those kind of experiences.<br /><br />Alan, the header on this blog alludes to "Christs higher laws," and "God's personal callings." When I read language like that, I think, "according to whom?" and "with what assumptions?" In the answer to these questions, many self-identified Christians begin to lose credibility with me.<br /><br />I've often thought that those first two centuries-plus of self-organizing Christianity -- characterized (as much as we vaguely know/infer) by small communities, basic technologies, fellowship, dialogue, mutual care (particularly significant during recurring plagues when non-Christians notably would flee the infected), and lack of unified dogma and hierarchy -- is Christianity's redeeming period. <br /><br />Of course, with the evolution of a priestly (ownership/leadership) class we also can track an historical explosion of dogma, violence, and destruction. There's no end to it that I've seen.*<br /><br />Have you written "The Book of New Christians," yet? ...For people eager to practice "real" Christianity, I mean? [grins]<br /><br />No, what we see among self-identified Christians represents Christianity theory-in-use. I think it's a logical fallacy to say "few people actually practice Christianity anymore."<br /><br />What we see is Christianity now. It's not monolithic, but it exhibits widely shared characteristics. Among them, I would say, a vulnerability to "faith-based" nonsense -- beliefs and behaviors that too often are destructive. Aside: to observe this is not to belie or deny good things that emerge from Christian communities, too.<br /><br />Looking forward, I think let's minimize a value like "faith," which helps make whole communities vulnerable to sociopathic behaviors partly because it (faith) discourages self-doubt and self-correction, and let's maximize values like "learning," which embrace self-corrective improvements.<br /><br />Maybe you'd agree, Alan, that doing so would be a kind-of analogue to our vision of evolving a financial system with better incentives? <br /><br />Grins,<br /><br />--<br />DC<br />* I loved visiting Christian churches in Europe this year, imagining how priests and communities obviously competed with one-another to build increasingly grandiose monuments to their faiths -- and their positions in society. Palaces and churches. Palaces and churches. And the gold...oh, the gold. <br /><br />Those were the days when major parts of the economy fluctuated with the rise and fall of the priestly class. There's an awesome gold-gilded church in Spain (remember the Inquisition when torture was nothing to be ashamed of? lol) that displays in the nave a wonderful icon of a conquistador standing proudly with his foot on the back of a native from another land, a native with devil's horns and a devil's tail. How convenient faith-based thinking is. How real.<br /><br />I've shared the thought with some that today's economists and business masters-of-the-universe share much in common with priests and kings in earlier times.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778054119855048845.post-4380548899550198422009-07-06T13:09:37.330-07:002009-07-06T13:09:37.330-07:00AmenAmenAlan Bahrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16659372977186485951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778054119855048845.post-16839332672378051812009-07-06T05:17:26.911-07:002009-07-06T05:17:26.911-07:00Well, as scientists I hope we can all agree that a...Well, as scientists I hope we can all agree that a 2000 year-old document put together by a committee is not proof of anything. However, I don't think this belief is only based on wishful thinking. There are lots of cases of people coming back to life after being brain dead who have described events that occurred while hovering nearby. This is not scientific proof, of course, because it's hearsay, but I suspect it's the best we're going to get. Besides, who are we to say what's real? Quantum mechanics puts what we perceive as reality on shaky grounds. It's easy for me to believe that our reality is simply a projection inside a wider reality. In fact, physicists talk about this all the time, but not in the context of religion of course.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778054119855048845.post-78111626893164308312009-07-05T22:20:11.329-07:002009-07-05T22:20:11.329-07:00Thanks, Dan, for your comments. I completely agre...Thanks, Dan, for your comments. I completely agree with your critique of some religious leaps of faith. I'm disappointed and incensed by the the same three issues you raised. If you read some of my past blogs--one in particular regarding William James--you'll notice that we are in complete agreement as far as that goes. <br /><br />I also believe, however, that there have been incredibly noble advancements made in the name of religion WHEN religion practiced what it preaches. The history of second and third century Christianity, for example, overwhelms me. The people were remarkable. Most appeared to have lived communally and owned/shared all things in common. They worked for the common good, just as Jesus instructed, healing the sick, clothing the naked and feeding the hungry. Today, I'm sad to say, few people actually practice Christianity anymore, but that doesn't mean it's an inappropriate or incorrect worldview. The fault is in people, who fall short of Christ's aspirations for humanity. <br /><br />Furthermore, as I've said elsewhere here, people who have hijacked narrowly defined scripture or other religious pronouncements to manipulate people are assholes (and worse) but if they hadn't had religion as a tool, I'm certain they would have found other philosophies or psuedo sciences to achieve their selfish aims. (Think of all the atrocities the world has experienced, for example, due to petty disagreements over economic or political systems). Some people on the religious right ignore Christ's directives to love and forgive in order to control others and enrich themselves. I'm not happy about that, but the point is, they do it by ignoring, rather than following, what Jesus taught. <br /><br />In the end, you and I are not so different. I, too, would like people of faith to be intellectually honest and actively engaged in promoting the common good. But they/I can do that and still take a leap of faith in the direction of Christ's higher law. The fact that there is so much about our lives that is uncertain means we must muddle through life without a perfect knowledge that we're doing the right thing at all times. That to me is faith, no matter its basis. <br /><br />One final point: If I feed the hungry because Jesus said I should, this is no better--and arguably a worse reason--than feeding the hungry because I believe it's the right thing to do. It occurs to me that you may think I believe otherwise. But I'm not here to convert people to Christianity. I don't care why people choose to practice compassion, I just hope we all do. To Christians, I'm trying to point out the fact that Christ's instructions have been largely ignored or misunderstood and we should be better than what is commonly practiced. <br /><br />If there's a God, I'm sure He would agree.<br /><br />AlanAlan Bahrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16659372977186485951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3778054119855048845.post-17071379441689775212009-07-05T20:45:12.975-07:002009-07-05T20:45:12.975-07:00Chaos studies observe non-linear systems in which ...Chaos studies observe non-linear systems in which small changes to initial conditions result in significant, unpredictable outcomes. Often, however, what is unpredictable about a dynamic system is orthogonal to what is predictable. <br /><br />You conclude:<br />"These are perhaps more examples of questions that can only be answered on an individual level through a leap of faith."<br /><br />Here are three things that bother me about religious "leaps of faith":<br /><br /><b>o</b> Religious leaders and communities mis-use "faith" -- often starting with a "leap of faith" -- as a manipulation to habituate dogma for any number of tacit, often destructive personal, social, religious, and political agendas;<br /><br /><b>o</b> The premise of "faith" that follows by rejection of objective and scientific evidence -- which happens possibly more often than not in religions I've seen -- strikes me as intellectually dishonest; <br /><br /><b>o</b> The premise of faith that follows by outright fabrication to justify itself and to keep others hewing to similar "faith" strikes me as worse than intellectually dishonest.<br /><br />There is no end of uncertainty in this universe. That's no argument for a leap of faith as far as I can see.<br /><br />We can live and die with uncertainty -- and otherwise find all kinds of happiness and constructive creativity. No problem. It's better than faith that reveals itself to be intellectually dishonest, which commonly seems to me lazy, self-serving, and/or immoral.<br /><br />--<br />DC<br />"With all thy getting, get understanding." - Alan BahrAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com