The Evangelical "War" on Science

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Just trying to look at it from a logical perspective based on the science we know. And yes Skybird, how would one explain the Big Bang without god? This stuff just magically appear for no reason? Not sure how that could happen. Just some things in this Universe don't make sense without the existence of a creator. The Big Bang being one of them.

I've looked at both sides. Went away from god (yes, you might have considered me an atheist at the time) when I was in my teens and early 20's, but the more I understand science, the more I can't see any other way this could happen, our being could happen, our Universe existing without a creator. I can't explain it any other way.

-S

Big Bang? Who says it has been like that? In past years, some people defending religions pointed finger at me and complained that I were saying that Darwin is the ultimate truth. I never indicated that belief, though. It's a theory - but in my eyes the currently best theory we have, making much more sense than any other. Big Bang also is a theory, born by a thinking that assumes that there must be a beginning and an end, and between the two time is "moving" from the first to the latter. But there are other models and thoughts, that simply do not include any beginning or ending, but saying that "it" simply is, never being born, never dying. I personally think that big Bang somehow is even a somewhat stupid, infantile theory, which says more about our disrupted way of thinking and making models of the world and our place in it, than saying something about reality. You see, I have seen some strange things and made some strange experiences that made me thinking that our concept of time if flawed, and that there is no beginning and no ending like big Bang and entropic heat-death of the universe. This theory only reaches as far as our current scientific knowledge allows us to go. I am also 100% sure that neither intellect nor ego alone can explain the universe, as you put it. That is like something limited trying to embrace the unlimited, so to speak. If you want to understand the universe, turn to your inner self. All the space up there - is your true inner space, just that. In the end, all life as well as astronomical reasearch is just the mind's dance with itself.

So, that is the essence of my conclusions, there is only your mind experiencing yourself, and all things you consider to be there - time, matter, God, sense and meaning - are only misled interpretations. But things are like they are, and what they are, your interpretation orginally is not needed., nor is your emotional reaction. While what is will set you free, and lead you beyond all boundaries of your intellectual or religious imagining. If you want to see the truth, loose your self and come to your unconditional awareness. Self-realization is only possible at the cost of self-transcendence: the more you want to see the true reality there is, the more you need to be unaware of yourself. that is the meaning behind the story of Jesus chasing the traders out of the temple. the more "yourself" there is, the less awareness of reality there is. total awareness of reality means: total absence of your "self".

When googling for the english translation of a Zen one-liner I wanted to give you, to my surprise I stumbled over a name I know - my second teacher and mentor, Wolfgang Kopp. He got quoted from a collection of transcripted speeches some students of him have collected and published in book form. Please note that the text is not to missionise concerning any ideology, nor is it arguing in favour or against any religion, it also does not tell anyone just to believe this or that, but leaves it up to you wether to analysize it by self-experience, or not. So take it for itself, not more, not less. From the following link, the first two texts, "Mysterious peaceful joy", and "The cheerfulness of the soul":
http://peterspearls.com.au/joy.htm
(bold printing and markings by the website's creator, not by Zensho).

You will note that by context, content and direction, it is right the same what I am occassionaly trying to point at, too. Also note that Zensho is a fully "ordinated" Zen Master and dharma-follower of Soji Enku Roshi, but nevertheless - like me - is not shy to refer to the Christian gospels and christian mystics, and Jesus. I already was like that when I first met him. He deepened my understanding of christian mystic, though.

Zensho and me always differed on the role of Paul, though.

One of my most favourite sayings:
Mind is of shining clarity, so throw away the darkness of all your terms. Free yourself from everything! - Huang Po. (my translation from German.)

That includes Darwin, Big Bang and evangelical confusion as well. Move beyond these dualistic arguments!

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Big Bang? Who says it has been like that? In past years, some people defending religons pointed finger at me and complained i were saying that Darwin is the ultimate truth. I never indicated that belief, though. It's a theory - but in my eyes the currently best theory we have, making much more sense than any other. Big Bang also is a theory, born by a thinking that ssumes that there must be a beginning and an end, and between the two time is "moving" from the first to the latter. But there are other models and thoughts, that simply do not inlcude any beginning or ending, but saying that "it" simply is, never being born, never dying. I personally thino that big Bang somehow is even a somewhat stupid theory, which says more about our disrupted way of thinking and malking models of the world and our place in it, than saying something about reality. You see, I have seen some strnage things and made some strange experiences that made me assume that our concept of time if flawed, and that there is no beginning and no ending like big Bang and entropic heat-death of the universe. This theory only reaches as far as our current scientific knowledge allows us to go. I also am 100% sure that neither intellect nor ego alone cannot explain the universe, as you put it. That is like something limited trying to embrace the unlimited, so to speak.

In the end, there is only your mind experiencing yourself, and all things you consider to be there, time, matter, God, sense and meaning, are only interpretations. While what is will set you free, and lead you beyond all boundaries of your intellectual or religious imagining. If you want to see the truth, loose your self and come to your unconditional awareness. self-realization is only possible at the cost of self-transcendence: the more you want to see the true reality there is, the more you need to be unaware of yourself.

When googling for the english translation of a Zen one-liner I wanted to give you, to my surprise I stumbled over a name I know - my second teacher and mentor, Wolfgang Kopp. He got quoted from a collection of transcripted speeches some students of him have collected and pusblished in book form. Please note that the text is not to missionise concerning any ideology, nor is it arguing in favour or against any religion, it also does not tell anyone just to believe this or that, but leaves it up to you wether to analysize it by self-experience, or not. So take it for itself, not more, not less. From the following link, the first two texts, "Mysterious peaceful joy", and "The cheerfulness of the soul":
http://peterspearls.com.au/joy.htm
(bold printing and markings by the website's creator, not by Zensho).

You will note that by context, content and direction, it is right the same what I am occassionaly try to point at, too. Also note that Zensho is a fully "ordinated" Zen Master and dharma-follower of Soji Enku Roshi, but nevertheless -like me - is not shy to refer to the Christian gospels and christian mystics. I already was like that when I first met him.

Zensho and me always differed on the role of Paul, though.

One of my most favourite sayings:
Mind is of shining clarity, so throw away the darkness of all your terms. Free yourself from everything! - Huang Po. (my translation from German.)

That includes Darwin, Big Bang and evangelical confusion as well. Move beyond these dualistic arguments.

SHould I throw away the idea that up is up and down is down? Just messing with you on that one. I hear you though. Life is about trying ot explain ones world and existence. Like you, I believe in Darwin, but unlike you, I pretty much believe in Darwin absolute. There is no other explanation. Darwin is right. But, as you can see (I assume you are the same), I don't take what it is I beleive without question. Someone tells me something is this, well, for me I like to know how it is 'this'. I always need to understand, not simply accept.

-S

[Skybird]

But Darwins theory already has seen corrections, and changes in some formerly popular content. It is a theory, thta means: it is meaning and interpretation added to observation. and being a theory that it is, it is object to chnages and alternations when our knowledge has widened a bit to make that step necessary. It is not different to the thoery of einstein. Quantum physics. Medical paradigms. None of that is neither an observed total reality, nor the ultimate interpretation. in the end, science compares to the chess player in Hesse's "Der Steppenwolf". Like that player philosophizes about being able to built infinite chess realities (positions) by just combining the same pieces in different ways, science takes subjective moments of obsrvation and perception, and set them into artifical relations and orders, like a collector is putting miniatures into a case, according to the order he has decided on all by himself. This does not mean it is a useless effort, in fact it makes sense to him - his sense. So the way we arrange science is useful for us: it enables us to fly in the air and close space, it enables us to dive deep into the ocean and find medication for deseases - but it also makes us thinking in certain ways, infleuncing our lives in a given way, and putting our golobal existence at risk in a certain manner. It is just one amongst myriads of chess positions, and it is us deciding where we set the pieces to create an interesting position. that is what in Hesse's book is called "Aufbau-kunst". All science is Aufbaukunst - and thus, highly arbitraily, non-objective. It cannot be objective, never, as long as there is soemthing making use of it, and being the subject in the event of obsrving an object. Only the fall of the difference between subject and object allows for "total percpetion". And that means: becoming the process of what is happening yourself. And that means: truth, ultimate reality, God's face - you name it.

When Christian mystics say "Die before you have to die, then live your life - all is good", they are pretty damn serious about it! It means "kill your self, kill your beliefs, kill your illusions of an ego, kill all your terms and conceptions, kill God, kill buddha if you meet him - and finally see that there never was anything you needed to kill and that got killed, for it never was real and never was there anyway. at that point, you will gain ultimate freedom, no matter what your life is, and you will not been born and you cannot die. That is what "free mind" really is. It is not the gaining of something, it is the absence of something: illusions, the veil of maya covering the reality from your eyes, the ego, the dualistic polarisation creating your understanding of what world is, or better: get's constructed by.

It is - not more, not less, for nothing is needed, and nothing is left uncomplete.

[SUBMAN1]

Your Christian mythics thing makes no sense. I've never heard a Christian, not even fanatical ones state what you just stated.

On Theories - they are never perfect, but the base idea is what is important. How it actually happneed may always be left up to some of this happened a little more than that. The underlying base of the theory remains the same.

And by the way, I am not going to discount the greatest minds on Earth just to support your theory that this didn't happen. We know the Big Bang happened. We just don't know all the details, and some Martial Artist idea to remove the idea of everything we know doesn't cut it )maybe for simple minds this helps)! Let's put it this way - the people that created these theories are a hell of a lot smarter than you or I, and on top of it, I can study how they came to their conclusions and figure out why the theories are sound.

The idea to throw all these theories out the door on your whim and quest to discount god is far more mystic and radical idea than any radical christian idea I have ever heard! :rotfl:

-S

PS. I'm bored with this topic now.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Your Christian mythics thing makes no sense. I've never heard a Christian, not even fanatical ones state what you just stated.

That may have something to do with that Christian fundamentalists and "churchists", or fanatical Christians like you mentioned, do not have anything to do with the lectures of Christ at all. BTW, "fanatical christians" are a contradiction in themselves, and are not any christian at all. Jesus never has taughed something that would justify to be a "fanatical christian".

On Theories - they are never perfect, but the base idea is what is important. How it actually happneed may always be left up to some of this happened a little more than that. The underlying base of the theory remains the same.

How do you know that? A theory never is more than just expression of the knowledge that at a given time is a.) available and b.) by dogmatic establishement has been accepted to be the valid paradigm for the time being. It never is more. Paradigms chnage. ALL paradigms chnage, some sooner, others later. If you think there is always and necessarily a grain of truth remaining in every theory, then I wonder why you do not fall off the edge of the earth if you are sailing too far out on that ocean.

And by the way, I am not going to discount the greatest minds on Earth just to support your theory that this didn't happen.

And what theory you claim I have, what exactly is it? I cannot reme,ber to have mentioned a theory of mine. I just said that the big Bang is one theory. I could also say that it is relatively new and unproven. If you consider that theory to be fact, then you are already just believing again. Ken wilber in "Eros, Kosmos, Logos" for example offers another, very reasonably convicning to arrange latest insights from science to explain why world is there, and does not need big Bang for it. It is not so much a theory of him, but a model. A model that 20 years earlier was much easier in complexity, and meanwhile has been slightly changed by him again. And if I ask you if there was a Big Bang, then what was before Big Bang, and why was Big Bang instead of "nothingness", and you would answer that is the reason why you do believe there is a god (that you use as a joker for your lacking knowledge), then you are only believing again. You try something impossible here: to bring the effort of being reasonable, which ideally is the essence and motivation of empirical science (the only concept of science the West is accepting: empirical science) and immediate experience, in partnership with religously motivated "just believing". and that does not work.

And in how far is it discounting the mind of a scientist if he is shown that his methodology maybe if flawed, or that there is alternative explanation, or other options, or falsifying of his theories? You should not coclcude from you on others. Falsifying, prooving better, trial and error - this is elemental key components of scietific processes, and it is happening all the time. Where you insist on turning theories into valid dogmas, you freeze science, and turn it into a religion itself. Which is great for believers, maybe, and dogmatists and career-freaks who hate changes - but not for scientists.

We know the Big Bang happened.

Now you sound like somebody saying that Dinosaurs lived just six thousand years ago, and that we know it, and that it was somebody's intention to let them appear to have lived longer time ago, which not only makes no sense and let's that somebody appear like a mad man, but also is not proven in any way, but only believed. No we don't know that the big Bang has been a reality, and there also is no solid evidence for it - just observations, background radiations for example, that seem to be a clue - the problem is that our knoweldge about these clues again is only very limited, and we are far from fully understanding the full nature of these phenomenons, and others as well. the more we learn, the more we see how little we know. Big Bang is a conception that currently is the best way in which some scientific observations we make, as well as other theories (sorry, more of them), seem to work more smoothly together than in any other way of arranging them. Proof and evidence there is none. we take it serious, because a.) it supports theistic claims that there have to be a creator and this idea has influenced and formed the Western thinking since centuries, and b.) we have no promising scientific alternative theory. This can change anytime, or in a hundred years, like the theory of earth being a flat disc, or all stars and the sun revolving around our planet, were taken very seriously and argued in favour for by famous men of their times - until other observations were made, and more knowledge was available, and smarter minds produced more educated ideas.

We just don't know all the details, and some Martial Artist idea to remove the idea of everything we know doesn't cut it ) maybe for simple minds this helps)!

Simple-mindedness is with those who are satisfied with just believing something, including believing to know where they believe only indeed. And neither Zen nor Christian mysticism has ever been some "martial artist idea" to remove the idea of everything. You just do not know about it, and that is why you play it down instead of wondering if maybe some people from these traditions maybe know more than you believe you know. I do not expect to interest you for Zen, but maybe you will read a bit of Meister Eckehard, then? It is a bit difficult to disrespect him as just one random figure, you know. He has been one of the most influental persons of his time, and the most important name of this tradition. Needless to say - no, he does not represent traditional church dogma, nor traditional superstitious belief in magic, miracle and wonder.

Let's put it this way - the people that created these theories are a hell of a lot smarter than you or I, and on top of it, I can study how they came to their conclusions and figure out why the theories are sound.

And none of them probably ever disputed that a theory is only a theory, and never is written for standing until the end of time. Also, you seem to forget Heisenberg' uncertainty principle, which sets limits to our chances to ever witness reality that is not already object to our alteration of it by the mere act of observing it. We cannot witness "objective reality" as long as we subject and what we see is object. Or see the idea or radical constructivism that I have repeatedly mentioned over time - counter it, if you can. and finally, proove me that the things you see as reality, are really there and appear in the way your senses tell you they look and feel like. I say it all is just ideas and images in your brain, electric potentials running down the neurons of your nervous system, neurotransmitters passing through synaptic slots, dynamic, self-supporting biochemical dysbalances. The matter you consists of, is irreal. An atom consists of empty space. It'S sub particles are probability clouds of tendencies to exist or not to exist for ridiculously short ammounts of time, and sometimes even bckwards in time. Now make sense of that, if you can, and tell me the world is solid matter and is like it looks like. For a bat, it alreads is something totally different, or a whale diving in total darkness, but still having precise concepts of the world surrounding him. A snail lives in a different time dimension, than you do. Other species uncover aspects and faces of "reality", that we even cannot imagine to exist with our senses.

that your ears and eyes, your nose and tongue and skin send signals to the brain which get arranged in a developed neural manner and order, does not give any evidence at all that the world "outside" is what you think it is. You are dealing with your own totally subjective interpretations only. they only give evidence that they are functioning like they are designed to do. Not more.

The idea to throw all these theories out the door on your whim and quest to discount god is far more mystic and radical idea than any radical christian idea I have ever heard! :rotfl:

Whom do you mean? You are no careful reader, aren't you. nowehere I said to kick all theories out of the window in a rush. I said that a theory is not more than just a theory, and that over time almost all theories see correction, replacement, alteration, and ideally they represent the best order in whcih we can make the best sense of the world as far as we have uncovered it's inner nature and phenomenological structure. You mismatch theory with ultimate reality, and you must exaggerate what I said to give the impression to others you had any substantial or valid idea or argument to play it all down. You even do not know how to differantiate "radical christianity" and mystic, judging by the wording in this paragraph of yours.

Like in that last thread where you played the spiritual leader and I nailed you down to what is really was: lacking knowledge and experience, here you again have no solid knowledge or evidence for your claims you offer, only your own confusion.

I'm bored with this topic now.

That is not true, a bored mind does not invest so much time to write your answer. You simply do not have something substantial to say to discredit what I say by argument, without distorting me, and without exaggerate interpretations of what I say.

If you want to gain knowledge and experience, beliefs and dogmas and hear-say and theories are not helpful, and they will always hinder you to become a spiritual helpful person that you advertised yourself to be some days ago. Nothing of these fantasies frees you from the need to make one single, essential, most elemental admitting statement to yourself at the very beginning, and that is:

I.... D O N ' T.... K N O W.

Another recommendation for reading is this:
http://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Free...7762595&sr=8-5
I used it as an inspiration myself to work with people, maybe a little bit like Zen masters use Koans, and it ended often with people being left with just two or three sentences all week long. Do not be mistaken by the title "Knowledge of Freedom", the book does not give you answers, but is filled from the first to the last chapter with just obvious observations that are so basic that nobody can deny them, really, and lots of questions only. You do not learn knowledge, but you learn to ask the questions, which is far more efficient, and valuable a way to learn. As two reader comments reviewed the book: "I especially recommend this resource for persons interested in learning more about their internal mechanisms or patterns of conditioning. This book has helped me learn what Freedom is really about in contrast to our president and others who base their understanding of freedom on religious beliefs, insecurities and prejudices." And: "The author uses stimulating questions to guide one's inquiry into the way one participates in life and thereby contributes to the world. For example, "How much of our lives is patterned upon assumptions we never learned to question? How strong is our motivation to discover the knowledge we would need to give greater meaning to our lives?" As I read the book, I challenged my habitual patterning and came to new ways of knowing and being in the world. To activate the power of this book, one must read in a different kind of way. This book is for reflecting, challenging, and questioning; not for merely skimming and accepting. " - I read and was told that it was popular at colleges and universities throughout the US.

Originally Posted by Antoine de Saint-Exupery

If you want to build a ship,
don't drum up people together to collect wood
and don't assign them tasks and work,
but rather teach them to long
for the endless immensity of the sea.

[Stealth Hunter]

". . . how come's we can't find the word 'dinosaur' in the Bible?" -Guy talking about the behemoth and Job


Ummmm... because it was invented 1500 years after the Bible was written........ ?


EDIT:

The best part about that guy was how he never mentioned that the Bible says that the behemoth had a navel. Reptiles do not have navels, only mammals do.

[DeepIron]

"God uses the simple to confound the wise." Looks like it's working...