Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > What's Next?
Posted by: Lokmer Feb 21 2004, 11:38 AM
I spent the evening last night with Jason, a.k.a. JayS8NT (very neat guy, BTW. Despite how he drives us all crazy he's a good man with honest questions and a willingness to explore - kudos to him), and it has given me the opportunity to sort through and crystalize a few thoughts.
There is a book out, called "Beyond Atheism," (which I haven't read, but have read essays extracted from it) which attempt to build something new on the ashes of theism. In the preface, it asks the provocative question "After the death of God, what's next?"
After spending months peeling the onion of Christianity and finding nothing left in the middle, I believe I am finally coming to an answer to that question, at least for myself. In the final chapter of "A History of God" (the chapter title is "Does God have a future?"), Karen Armstrong observes that the trend of all monotheism has been to begin with the personal and move inexorably - if very falteringly - toward the transcendent and the radically immanent, moving from the heavily anthropomorphic pagan god Yahweh toward the social consciousness of the diety of the prophet Amos, until God ultimately withdraws beyond the veil. This happened with Judaism, it happened with Islam (although the process is in serios reversal at the moment in that religion), and it happened with Christianity. It is clear to me that the God of the Torah that people wish to return to (in fundamentalist Islam, Neo-Conservative Evangelical Christianity, and conservative Judaism) is made up largely of the projections of the hopes, fears, lusts, rages, and needs of people from centuries and millenia past. The mere resurgence of fundamentalism in all its forms over the three major monotheistic religions seems to me a desperate attempt to salvage and hold on to that which has given meaning and purpose to so many for so long. A man on a ledge will hold on tighter if his safety rope breaks - the same goes true for spirituality.
God is part of the nervous system, neurology tells us. The mind and soul are the emergent properties of the brain. We believe and worship and are pious because we are engineered to be that way - we all have what Tillich called an "ultimate concern" (his definition of religion). The God who worked miracles is not only absent from the modern world, retreating every which way in the light of science, but many of his "miracles" (such as exorcisms and healings) are now attributable to natural processes harnessed by people who did not understand the mechanics of what they were doing.
God as a person, who has a will and desires, is ultimately a creation of people. Each god is different - few of them are better than the people who create them. There is no way around the conclusion that the theistic God is dead.
Truly dead.
But does that mean that God is dead? Or is it simply that as culture and humanity develop we go through the painful process of destroying the idols that we set up to stand in for whatever real God there may be? Is it perhaps possible that God is not a person, but something else entirely? The organizing principle of the universe? The Ground of Being?
Throughout religious history, there is an ebb and flow - a tension between the transcendent God and the personal God. Between Brahman and Siva. Between the Universal Consciousness and The Buddah and its avatars. Between Yahweh and El. Between Christ and the Logos. I am beginning to wonder, is what we see in religion truly a pure illusion? A tissue of political lies and self-indulgent idolatry? Certainly it IS a tissue of lies, illusions, and idolatry, but could perhaps that be the result of a true grasping at some ultimate reality?
I am beginning to think that Campbell was right - God is the mystery which transcends all categories of thought, the ground of being in which we grow. To seek God ultimately is to seek truth and compassion, to be willing to smash the idols as soon as they become useless, to be willing to tear past the barriers of illusion, lies, self-indulgence, fear, and theology until we are left one with another, individuals striving for communion with other selves.
I have tried every way I know how to get rid of God. There is no reason to believe in a personal God, there is no reason that such a being can exist at all - no argument for God has ever proven tenable. But evolution has brought humanity to a curious place - we are just advanced enough to conceive of perfection, and small enough to never reach it, which is the only thing that original sin can possibly describe: our awareness of our own shortcomings. We know enough to realize that God is only a metaphor, and we know just enough to conceive of the possibility of a reality that imbues and animates the whole of existence - that makes existence real.
I could be described as a materialist, if by such you mean simply that any God which exists must ultimatlely be bound up in this universe somehow. I hold no belief in a spirit independant of the body. And yet...
And yet...
There is something there. A progenetor - or a property of the universe - or a consciousness - or Being itself. There is a light in this universe that religion attempts to quantify, that is the basis for our quest to understand. The quest to grok is only there, throughout human history, because we are hardwired for that very quest. All religions are prisms held up to this light, breaking it apart and reducing it to a managable level, often with disasterous and contemptible results.
Christianity has always (at least since the mid 2nd century and probably before) rested on the idea that it is historical. It's doctrines depend on it. Did Christ ever walk the earth? I do not know. I also, after much searching, no longer think it matters. I am not a Christian - that word has too much baggage. The Christian church has no more a handle on God than does anyone else, but I begin to think that it also has no less of one.
To posit doctrine, to attempt to distill whatever God is there into easy-to-swallow soundbites and beliefs, is to miss the point entirely, methinks. Doctrine and theology are exercises in creative masturbation - it can feel nice, but at the end you are still alone and worshipping something you have created. So I avow no doctrine, and I speak no creed, and I don't think I ever will again. I respect God too much.
But the story - such a beautiful story. It speaks to me, in a way that few others have. It is a metaphor that means something to me, that points the way to a deeper truth about what it means to be human. This is not "Mere Christianity." This is "mere humanity."
If humans (and whatever other sentient life exists in this universe) are truly the children of God, then children must grow up and leave behind their illusions of who their parents are. I am who I was made, by chance or design. And who I am feels something I can only call God pouring through the space between every particle and atom in this world. I am at the end of this journey of doubt and at the point of new beginnings. The phoenix must rise, the sun must return, and I lift my gaze to meet it. And I love my story. I know it is a metaphor, and for that, I love it all the more.
I am an a-theist.
And I believe in God.
-Lokmer
Posted by: Baby Eater Feb 21 2004, 12:16 PM
Cool
Posted by: chefranden Feb 21 2004, 01:34 PM
Dang it, Lokmer,
Just when I think I've got my brain all repacked nice and neat, you have to come along an pull the rip cord again.
chef
Posted by: KJPee Feb 21 2004, 03:24 PM
QUOTE
I am an a-theist.And I believe in God.
I don't know you Lokmer, but has your position regarding God changed at all? Are you saying that......What are you saying?
In one sentence please, so that a thicko like me can understand.
Kevin.
Posted by: moorezw Feb 21 2004, 04:38 PM
Lokmer-
QUOTE
I am an a-theist.
And I believe in God.
And God is Us.
Posted by: UV2003 Feb 21 2004, 10:23 PM
QUOTE (Lokmer @ Feb 21 2004, 11:38 AM)
There is something there. A progenetor - or a property of the universe - or a consciousness - or Being itself. There is a light in this universe that religion attempts to quantify, that is the basis for our quest to understand. The quest to grok is only there, throughout human history, because we are hardwired for that very quest. All religions are prisms held up to this light, breaking it apart and reducing it to a managable level, often with disasterous and contemptible results.
Christianity has always (at least since the mid 2nd century and probably before) rested on the idea that it is historical. It's doctrines depend on it. Did Christ ever walk the earth? I do not know. I also, after much searching, no longer think it matters. I am not a Christian - that word has too much baggage. The Christian church has no more a handle on God than does anyone else, but I begin to think that it also has no less of one.
To posit doctrine, to attempt to distill whatever God is there into easy-to-swallow soundbites and beliefs, is to miss the point entirely, methinks. Doctrine and theology are exercises in creative masturbation - it can feel nice, but at the end you are still alone and worshipping something you have created. So I avow no doctrine, and I speak no creed, and I don't think I ever will again. I respect God too much.
Lokmer, interesting post to say the least.
A year or so ago when I was attempting to build my rationale for believing in Christianity as the "true way", I would avoid books like that, but now I am more open.
I wrote up a brief summary of why I do not take the Bible literally and put it on my site: http://www.bydesignwebsights.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=9042 It's similar to your post.
You might be interested in a bit of a wildly diverse book by Richard Grossinger I picked up in a Berkeley Nepalese Buddhist store:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1556434197/qid=1077428805//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i4_xgl14/002-8368068-5478413?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Embryos, Galaxies, and Sentient Beings: How the Universe Makes Life
I admit it is just a lot of theories and ideas, but I am ejoying it so far. (I no longer require steadfast doctrinal answers to every question, but allow my imagination to be broadened) It brought to light for me the true death trap that religious fundamentalism is. He highlights parallels between Christian fundamentalists and Muslim fundamentalists that simply cannot have it any other way than their way. At the same time he shows the soul-destroying trap of typical western materialism, highlighting the silly mental gymnastics that the reductionists try to do by making scientific totems out of such things like the human genome project.
I've given my partial review of it on my blog: http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=UV2003&tab=weblogs&uid=58634264
The quoted part below reminds of a brief conversation I had with a guy last night who said he is studying philosophy at the school I graduated from. He is specializing in existentialism. I said, "We exist. You and I." He said, "But do we? Maybe it's an illusion." I said, "No, I don't think so. We're sitting here talking, it's safe to assume we're here." Common. He said we all experience subjective realities, but I said without an underlying ground there would be no room for subjectivity.
It would be like trying to argue that no opinion is more correct than another. You presuppose that the opinion that no opinion is more correct than another is more correct than the opinion that opinions can be more correct than another. Self-stultification.
Where fundamentalists go wrong, I believe, is when they demand that their own particular interpretation of the underlying ground is the correct one, rather than realizing they are attempting to box that unboxable ground within their own subjective perception.
"I will be what I will be"
Or, as my Muslim friend who I just watched Matrix Reloaded with told me, God cannot be defined because God cannot have any of the attributes of any of God's created entities. (God cannot have back parts, or walk around, stuff like that)
Like you, I doubt I will ever profess a religious creed.
Posted by: CodeWarren Feb 22 2004, 12:28 AM
Lokmer -
That was absolutely beautiful. Wow! You brought me close to tears with that.
You raise a point that I sort of hinted at over in a thread I started in the Rants section.
You said that God is "hardwired", and I see what you mean. There are simply certain propensities that the genetic make-up has selected for, and the existence of God helps people get on in this world.
I really cannot add anything to what you've said . As a critique, I think what you fail to point out is that the idea of God, while appealing and maybe "good" in the way you describe, still has been used to justify atrocities for millenia.
I think the beliefs that humanity holds, aftershocks of a brain evolving, should eventually be forgotten. They are a stepping stone, really.
But we do need ideas and ideals to live up to. And God certainly is something like this, and you make a brilliant point about our position in this world. How we in many ways embody the "original sin" that the Bible speaks of.
I will never respect "religion", but the ways in which people have used it to do good on this earth. Likewise, I will never respect a belief in God, but I respect those would use it, like any muse such as literature or music or other beliefs, to do good on this planet.
There is an objective reality somehow, and if using God helps people grow closer to it, then so be it.
Again, that was beautiful. Thank you for sharing those thoughts .
Posted by: UV2003 Feb 22 2004, 07:48 AM
QUOTE (Lokmer @ Feb 21 2004, 11:38 AM)
Lokmer, the message system isn't working. I am in Atlanta. I was in Oakland for a cousin's wedding last month. I want to go back and see a Giants game this summer!
-UV
Posted by: formerfundie Feb 22 2004, 10:58 AM
[QUOTE]I think the beliefs that humanity holds, aftershocks of a brain evolving, should eventually be forgotten. They are a stepping stone, really.
Good way to think, CW - I'm with you on this one and the part about using the whole god thing as a kind of "muse" and precursor to do good and help humanity - it's idealistic - definitely doesn't always work that way though - aw shucks.
FF
Posted by: undertow Feb 22 2004, 12:37 PM
QUOTE (Lokmer @ Feb 21 2004, 11:38 AM)
There is no way around the conclusion that the theistic God is dead.
Truly dead.
I don't think so.
Why is it that people almost always entirely misunderstand the theistic concept of God?
Yes, there is anthropomorphization found in theistic Scripture.
THIS IS NOT THE THEISTIC CONCEPT OF GOD !!!!!!!!!!!
Read theist philosophers. Read Christian or Muslim mystics.
Have you ever heard of the Via Negativa?
Posted by: undertow Feb 22 2004, 12:41 PM
QUOTE (Lokmer @ Feb 21 2004, 11:38 AM)
After spending months peeling the onion of Christianity and finding nothing left in the middle.
So which of the Christian mystics have you read? What did you think of their works?
Posted by: chefranden Feb 22 2004, 12:54 PM
QUOTE (undertow @ Feb 22 2004, 02:37 PM)
QUOTE (Lokmer @ Feb 21 2004, 11:38 AM)
There is no way around the conclusion that the theistic God is dead.
Truly dead.
I don't think so.
Why is it that people almost always entirely misunderstand the theistic concept of God?
Yes, there is anthropomorphization found in theistic Scripture.
THIS IS NOT THE THEISTIC CONCEPT OF GOD !!!!!!!!!!!
Read theist philosophers. Read Christian or Muslim mystics.
Have you ever heard of the Via Negativa?
I don't know. Why do you missunderstand it?
Posted by: bob Feb 22 2004, 04:40 PM
Ya know, next to a complete idiot, I may look smart. Next to lokmer, chef, pitchu, moorezw, etc, etc, etc, I look like an idiot. But that's ok. Somewhere along the way, I lost some brain cells. For what it's worth, I will interject my opinion here.
I just read lokmers post, and I honestly see it only as romanticizing the idea of the existance of a god. Please lokmer, do not take offence. I respect you more than you can know. Perhaps it is just my lack of understanding due to the fact that we are two different people who have traveled two different paths along the way. I am very teachable. I am not proud, so if anyone feels the need to set me straight, I welcome it.
I see humanities fascination with gods as a bad habit. I chew my fingernails. Have done it for close to 40 years. I get depressed and discouraged fairly easily. It is very easy for me to look on the negative side of things. Does that mean I am hardwired to those character flaws. Yes. I am now. And I may have been born with a particular gene flaw that helped nudge me in that direction. But it just seems to me that once the neuropathways are formed, certain thought process become harder to overcome. Sexual obsession may be an example. I think we become hardwired to certain tendencies due to our environment, to a large extent, and to our cerebral make up, to a lesser extent...but I may have those reversed...the idiot that I am.
From a very early age, for thousands of years, humans have been taught about the great spirit. As they experience these teachings, and it develops into personal beliefs, it would seem to me, that is when the hardwiring takes place. Notice how, for many of us, it is very easy to become a christian, but very hard to leave christianity.
Most of us that were or are christians became one in an instant, the moment we admitted to god and our selves that we believed. But for me, it took years of suffering doubt and guilt before I left the faith. I was hardwired from years of exposure, not by simply being born.
I hate the idea of a god that makes men feel superior to other men. I hate the idea of a god that makes us feel guilty for all the natural desires we have everyday. I hate the idea of a god that will only speak to us from the torn and dusty pages of very old books. I hate the idea of a god because of how the followers of these gods treat their fellow human beings.
As I said at the end of my journal, There is so much to observe, absorb, ingest. I feel like a child. Like a vacuum, sucking up everything I see and hear. My god’s are: life, love, knowledge, truth, and pleasure.
I love life and the people I share it with. I don't share any of it with any gods, any more.
Posted by: Guest Feb 22 2004, 04:42 PM
QUOTE
Good way to think, CW - I'm with you on this one and the part about using the whole god thing as a kind of "muse" and precursor to do good and help humanity - it's idealistic - definitely doesn't always work that way though - aw shucks.
Yeah, unfortunately it'll be a long while before this happens. Ideally it should be a muse, a temporary catalyst [as all art and philosophy (yes, philosophy, IMO) and music should be]...but humanity has a long history of overusing something useful, or using things that work in one arena in another where it does not work (I think postmodernism and literary-esque thinking applied to hard science are great examples of this....but so is the so-called "creation science" ). This seems to be why the idea of these "ideas" being muses to do good do not work.
Posted by: CodeWarren Feb 22 2004, 04:43 PM
QUOTE
Good way to think, CW - I'm with you on this one and the part about using the whole god thing as a kind of "muse" and precursor to do good and help humanity - it's idealistic - definitely doesn't always work that way though - aw shucks.
Yeah, unfortunately it'll be a long while before this happens. Ideally it should be a muse, a temporary catalyst [as all art and philosophy (yes, philosophy, IMO) and music should be]...but humanity has a long history of overusing something useful, or using things that work in one arena in another where it does not work (I think postmodernism and literary-esque thinking applied to hard science are great examples of this....but so is the so-called "creation science" ). This seems to be why the idea of these "ideas" being muses to do good do not work.
Posted by: CodeWarren Feb 22 2004, 04:51 PM
bob,
It's hard to deny aspects of our humanity that we've been selected for. I'm the last person to suggest that ideas such as "third eyes", "collective unconsciousnesses", are NOT hogwash, but as a temporary tool, of which our evolved brains are able to do, they are useful in helping us all propose a reason for being, if only to lead us in the direction to find a "true" meaning.
I think that's the message that Lokmer was suggesting.
You see it's power everyone, in many peoples' thinking. Whenever science cannot (usually temporarily ) explain something, people love to interject "God" as the missing element. Sometimes our existence has a distinct lack of something, and God fills that in, as does literature in some people I've met, as does the ideas such as the "third eye" (and I'm a huge Tool fan ) and "collective unconsciousness" proposed by Jung. These are all hugely ambiguous and faulty concepts, and as a proximate and temporary tool, they can help fill that gap that a human sometimes feels.
Posted by: michelle Feb 22 2004, 04:56 PM
All I know is I had figured out by the age of 15 that I didnt beleive in God, somehow that got changed by the time I was 25. Who changed it, me? I dont think so. I think like what Bob said, environment.
Ive always been a nail biter too Bob. Ive had boyfreinds in the past say the stupidist things: "Stop biting your nails, a womans hands shouldnt look like that". Fuck you. The guy Im with now has never bothered me or himself with such trivial nonsense. My sister sucked her thumb right into her 20's whats the big deal? Oh I know we have some sort of complex, give me a fucking break. Somebodys got a complex alright and it sure as shit aint us.
Posted by: bob Feb 22 2004, 05:07 PM
I love you Michelle. You strike me as the kind of woman who could claw a mans eyes out for telling you that you smell good.
Posted by: Outsider Feb 22 2004, 05:32 PM
QUOTE
Certainly it IS a tissue of lies, illusions, and idolatry, but could perhaps that be the result of a true grasping at some ultimate reality?
Lokmer,
I am glad there is someone else who thinks this way. Sometimes my non-religious friends will listen to me talk about christianity and they will say, "Aha! I knew it was a bunch of lies!" I always find it difficult to explain that there were honest attempts at grasping the divine. I don't take the church conspiracy position and feel most christians really are honest in their attempts to reach out to God. It is just difficult to have a personal relationship with something beyond our comprehension and in all honesty a very one sided relationship. I think people honestly try to grasp God and when we get the "you were not a true christian" argument, I feel insulted. Not really because they are questioning my sincerity for reaching out to God, but they discredit the rest of humanity that is reaching for God in ways contrary to their own.
Posted by: Lokmer Feb 22 2004, 07:16 PM
QUOTE (bob @ Feb 22 2004, 04:40 PM)
QUOTE
Bob said:
I just read lokmers post, and I honestly see it only as romanticizing the idea of the existance of a god. Please lokmer, do not take offence. I respect you more than you can know. Perhaps it is just my lack of understanding due to the fact that we are two different people who have traveled two different paths along the way. I am very teachable. I am not proud, so if anyone feels the need to set me straight, I welcome it.
To a certain extent, it is a romanticization of the idea. I'm an artist, what can I say? But it's a bit more than that. As an artist, there is a sense of transcendence imbuing the world. As an academic and a rational person, I understand that what is happening is a peculiarity in my brain chemistry enabled by an excessive amount of neuron networking and an unusually gifted set of perceptive and analytical abilities that work on an intuitive as well as a conscious level. I am not claiming that this apperatus is a conduit to some other, spiritual realm. But defining transcendence in the way I have above, while accurate, is like explianing the color red to a blind person, or explaining snow to a Nuer or Massai. Explaining the thing is possible, but no matter how correct, accurate, and effective that explaination is, it cannot embody the experience of red or of snow. It is in that bridge between objective reality and existential reality where the feeling of transcendence shines through. The experience of life is raw, but it is (on an existential level) irreducably real. It is the nature of experience quality of experience, the creative and intuitive leaps, the sense of the universe opening up as the barriers of selfhood go down while I write a poem or take a photo - this is the more that I was talking about.
So, in a sense, it is a sort of transcendental materialism. My awe at this reality is such that I find that the idea of God is the only one that is up to the task of describing it.
At the same time, I understand that doctrine, theology, etc. are essentially self-indulgent and self-idolizing, by nature. If there IS a personal God (I highly doubt that there is, in any meaningful sense of the word "personal"), I would not wish to insult it by praying to something I had made instead of to whatever it is. If there is NO personal God (whether that means no god at all, or an impersonal God of some sort), I am still grateful for the transcendent light in the universe. In either case, it behooves me to live in gratitude - doing so can do me no harm, and do those around me no harm, as I view every moment that comes as gift and a thing to be shared.
And, understanding that about doctrine and theology, I also cannot morally hold a difinitive belief about a God. I cannot say "God is" something or other - to do so would be to elevate myself to the point of speaking for God. Again, self-idolatry. If there is no God, such a thing is ludicrous. If there is a God, such a thing is blasphemous. Either way, it is unprofitable and silly.
But there is mystery - not the mystery of origins or processes, but that thing about the universe that causes something to be more than the sum of its parts. Hydrogen and Oxygen make water? Matter has gravity? Biochemistry is life? These are amazing things! The emergent properties of things such as these - the difference between raw data and sense experience - this is where the mystery is. If there is a ghost in the universe, that must be a piece of where it lives. If there isn't, the metaphor is at least useful as a descriptive, and for poetry - like someone else here said, a muse.
Does that help?
As far as God being hardwired, I was referring to recent psychoneurology that has located the apperatus for the transcendent experience and the belief mechanism, detailed in books like "The God Part of the Brain" and "Why God Won't Go Away".
QUOTE
I see humanities fascination with gods as a bad habit.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
-Lokmer
P.S. Outsider - such consice eloquence - that's just what I was going for!
Posted by: bob Feb 22 2004, 07:30 PM
Damn artists anyway. Can't understand anything they say. I think I need some brain food. Next time you guys reply to my posts, dumb it down a little, please.
You know what I think Lokmer. I think the reason I can't identify with what you are thinking is it's a right / left brain problem. I am very left brain dominant. You, as an artist, are most likely right brain dominant. (that's what I have read) You are probably capable of seeing the big picture, little parts of the big picture, and beyond. Me? I see the square in front of me. I admire you.
Posted by: Guest Feb 22 2004, 10:54 PM
QUOTE (CodeWarren @ Feb 22 2004, 04:51 PM)
bob,
It's hard to deny aspects of our humanity that we've been selected for. I'm the last person to suggest that ideas such as "third eyes", "collective unconsciousnesses", are NOT hogwash, but as a temporary tool, of which our evolved brains are able to do, they are useful in helping us all propose a reason for being, if only to lead us in the direction to find a "true" meaning.
I think that's the message that Lokmer was suggesting.
You see it's power everyone, in many peoples' thinking. Whenever science cannot (usually temporarily ) explain something, people love to interject "God" as the missing element. Sometimes our existence has a distinct lack of something, and God fills that in, as does literature in some people I've met, as does the ideas such as the "third eye" (and I'm a huge Tool fan ) and "collective unconsciousness" proposed by Jung. These are all hugely ambiguous and faulty concepts, and as a proximate and temporary tool, they can help fill that gap that a human sometimes feels.
third eye is really just your "minds eye" the way you see images in your mind, like when you dream, (because your eyes are closed but you still see things), when you daydream, and especially when you read. your eyes see the words on the page but somehow you also "see" what's happening in the book. I think books are just magical. I love them. I love the way they smell and look and feel and of course i love the stories in them. but i'm rambling. I think the concept of the "third eye" has been literalized and mysticized too much. it is what it is...but its more a poetic way of seeing things than anything else.
Posted by: Guest Feb 22 2004, 10:56 PM
QUOTE (bob @ Feb 22 2004, 05:07 PM)
I love you Michelle. You strike me as the kind of woman who could claw a mans eyes out for telling you that you smell good.
my husband has never told me i smelled good. he's never told me i smelled bad either. If he ever did either one, i would know he was lying, as he has no sense of smell.
I know i'm not michelle lol but i just wanted to talk i guess lol.
Posted by: Zoe Grace Feb 22 2004, 10:58 PM
Christ on a cracker! the last two "guest" posts were me...i forgot to log in.
Posted by: Lokmer Feb 23 2004, 01:13 AM
Christ on a cracker? LOL!
Actually, Bob, I'm also Left Brain Dominant, but not by much. My right brain gives my left a good run for its money - I wouldn't lay long odds on my left in a boxing match between the two
BTW, thanks for the compliment
-Lokmer
Posted by: bob Feb 23 2004, 05:18 AM
QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 22 2004, 10:54 PM)
your eyes see the words on the page but somehow you also "see" what's happening in the book. I think books are just magical. I love them. I love the way they smell and look and feel and of course i love the stories in them.
Zoe,
I love to read also. I noticed something very funny a few years ago when I was reading one of Andy Rooney's books, (you know, of the news show "60 Minutes"). As I was reading, I was hearing the words in my head in Andy's voice. It was so entertaining to sit there and feal as though Andy was speaking to me.
Posted by: Skankboy Feb 23 2004, 06:23 AM
QUOTE
Actually, Bob, I'm also Left Brain Dominant, but not by much. My right brain gives my left a good run for its money - I wouldn't lay long odds on my left in a boxing match between the two
I like to think of myself as "ambi-lobular", though I definitely have a right brain bias...
Nope. Still favoring the right...
There, that's got it. Now what where we talking about?
Posted by: bob Feb 23 2004, 07:08 AM
I'll be there in a minute skank
Posted by: I Broke Free Feb 23 2004, 07:10 AM
QUOTE (bob @ Feb 22 2004, 10:30 PM)
You, as an artist, are most likely right brain dominant. (that's what I have read) You are probably capable of seeing the big picture, little parts of the big picture, and beyond. Me? I see the square in front of me. I admire you.
I feel like I fall somewhere in between. I can see the 'big picture' (sometimes) but I am dumbfounded when I try to use language to explain it to anyone.
There a so many excellent writers on this forum I admire (and jealous of) because of the way they can express themselves with such clarity and conviction. I sometimes ponder life's big questions just before falling asleep. Sometimes I even come up with some interesting observations and conclusions. But when I attempt to write it down I end up with drivel.
Does anyone understand what I'm getting at?
I just want to carry a sign around my neck that says "I'M MUCH SMARTER THAN I SOUND"
Posted by: michelle Feb 23 2004, 08:31 AM
I hear that.
Posted by: michelle Feb 23 2004, 08:45 AM
IBF,
You strike me as the kind of person who doesnt feel he has anything missing in his life, as in being content, would you say thats true? I see this alot in people who dont use a God to direct their lives. Not to say that we dont have goals but all the really important stuff is in place. Well I guess thats depends on the individual and what they think is important and what they want. Anyway, you sound like youve gotten to a place in life where you really want to be and thats living.
Posted by: I Broke Free Feb 23 2004, 09:24 AM
QUOTE (michelle @ Feb 23 2004, 11:45 AM)
IBF,
You strike me as the kind of person who doesnt feel he has anything missing in his life, as in being content, would you say thats true? I see this alot in people who dont use a God to direct their lives. Not to say that we dont have goals but all the really important stuff is in place. Well I guess thats depends on the individual and what they think is important and what they want. Anyway, you sound like youve gotten to a place in life where you really want to be and thats living.
Thank you Michelle:
Yes, you are correct. I am very happy with the way my life is now. I had a very rocky start, but those trials and tribulations (much of which I have shared here) helped shape who I am today.
Posted by: =Veritas= Feb 23 2004, 10:15 AM
Hey Lokmer,
Thanks for the kudos! It was truly my pleasure meeting you. But I did learn something of great importance during our time together....
I'm TOO OLD to stay up until 7:00a.m.!
See you again soon,
Jason
Posted by: Lokmer Feb 23 2004, 10:22 AM
Hell, I'm older than you are, and I do that all the time.
Granted, I sleep during the day...
-Lokmer
Posted by: Reach Feb 23 2004, 10:55 AM
Some dumbed-down idealism...
"When things are investigated, then true knowledge is achieved; when true knowledge is achieved, then the will becomes sincere; when the will is sincere, then the heart is set right (or then the mind sees right); when the heart is set right, then the personal life is cultivated; when the personal life is cultivated, then the family life is regulated; when the family life is regulated, then the national life is orderly; and when the national life is orderly, then there is peace in this world." --Confucius
QUOTE (Outsider @ Feb 22 2004, 05:32 PM)
I always find it difficult to explain that there were honest attempts at grasping the divine. I don't take the church conspiracy position and feel most christians really are honest in their attempts to reach out to God. It is just difficult to have a personal relationship with something beyond our comprehension and in all honesty a very one sided relationship. I think people honestly try to grasp God and when we get the "you were not a true christian" argument, I feel insulted. Not really because they are questioning my sincerity for reaching out to God, but they discredit the rest of humanity that is reaching for God in ways contrary to their own.
You sure got into my mail. Thanks for a fair assessment of some Christians. This really spoke to me and reminded me of what Paul said at Athens in Acts 17. I also appreciate your tone here. Thanks for not speaking condemning words in my direction. A fresh breeze from Asia... *sweet* I'm grateful.
Lokmer, the search for truth continues, eh?
reach
Posted by: undertow Feb 23 2004, 10:59 AM
QUOTE (chefranden @ Feb 22 2004, 12:54 PM)
I don't know. Why do you missunderstand it?
An example of the Via Negativa:
-----------------------------------------
"we remove from God everything physical, and all that has to do with bodily matters like shape, form, quality, size, weight, position, visibility, action, and suffering; the disorderly, fleshly greed; the complications of material passions; all breeding and corrupting and dividing and suffering; and all the passing moments of time. For he is none of these things, nor has he any of these things, nor any other thing that we may know by our senses.
God is neither soul nor angel; he has no imagination or opinion or reason or understanding; nor is he reason or understanding; nor can he be described or understood. He has no number, order, greatness, smallness, equality, likeness, unlikeness; he neither stands still nor moves, keeps silence nor speaks. He has no virtue, nor is he virtue or light; he is not life or substance or age or time; we can understand nothing about him, nor is he knowledge or truth or kingdom or wisdom or singularity or unity or goodness. Nor in the sense that we understand "spirit" is he spirit; there is no sonship or fatherhood, nor anything else that is known by us or by anyone else. He is none of the things that have no being, none of the things that have being. Nor is there any way by which we can reach him by reason or understanding: he has no name; we cannot know him; he is neither darkness or light, error nor truth.
Speaking generally there is no affirmation we can make of him, nothing we can deny of him. When we attribute something to him, or deny any of the things which he is not, we do not describe him or abolish him, nor in any way that we can understand do we affirm him or deny him. For the perfect and unique cause of all is of necessity beyond compare with the highest of all imaginable heights, whether by affirmation or denial. And this surpassing non-understandability is "un-understandably" above every affirmation and denial." [St. Dionysius]
"In treating of the divine essence the principal method to be followed is that of remotion. For the divine essence by its immensity surpasses every form to which our intellect reaches; and thus we cannot apprehend it by knowing what it is" [St. Thomas Aquinas]
"To understand that God is not only above all that exists but even above all that we can comprehend comes to us from the divine wisdom." [St. Thomas Aquinas]
"There is in the mind no knowledge of God except the knowledge that it does not know him" [St. Augustine]
"One of the greatest favours bestowed on the soul transiently in this life is to enable it to see so distinctly and to feel so profoundly that it cannot comprehend God at all... they who know Him most perfectly perceive most clearly that He is infinitely incomprehensible" [St. John of the Cross]
"The divine nature must be said to be at the same time exclusive and, in some sense, open to participation. We attain to participation in the divine nature and at the same time it remains totally inaccessible. We need to affirm both at the same time and to preserve the antinomy as a criterion of right devotion." [St. Gregory of Thessalonica]
The orthodox position of Christianity is that God is completely incomprehensible to the intellect. All anthropomorphization is false. God as he absolutely is in himself cannot be known. What can be known, according to Christian mystics anyway, is the differentation of the "persons" of the Godhead. (the Trinity)
It should be pointed out that when any theist says that God is unknowable, they only mean unknowable to the intellect, to rational understanding.
To answer the objection to a "personal God"
-------------------------------------------------------
"Either the living God is, or he is not. Either the ultimate reality is alive, conscious and intelligent, or it is not. If it is then it is what we call God. If it is not, it must be some form of blind process, law, energy or substance entirely devoid of any meaning save that which man himself gives to it. Nobody has ever been able to suggest a reasonable alternative. To say that reality is quite beyond thought, and therefore cannot be designated by such small, human terms as "conscious" and "intelligent" is only to say that God is immeasurably greater than man. And the theist will agree that he is infinitely greater.
To argue that Reality is not a blind energy but a "living principle," an "impersonal super-consciousness," or an "impersonal mind" is merely to play with words and indulge in terminological contradictions. A "living principle" means about as much as a black whiteness, and to speak of an "impersonal mind" is like talking about a circular square.
It is the result, of course, of misunderstanding the word "personal" as used of God-as if it meant that God is an organism, form, or composite structure like man, something resembling Haeckel's "gaseous vertebrate." But the word is not used at all in that sense. From many points of view the term "personal" is badly chosen, but it means simply that God is alive in the fullest possible way." [watts]
"If God is the source and height of liveliness and creative power, he cannot be anything less than a person, since a law or principle is simply an automatic, mechanical and dead mode of behaviour. On the other hand, if God is the ultimate reality, the one source of all things, then he must be free from the limitations of personality as we know it, and must not be subject to the mutability and the limitations of the forms in which his creative activity is expressed." [watts]
As for the Via Positiva:
-----------------------------
"though the negation may be truer than the affirmation, it is possible and legitimate to make affirmations about the nature of the Divine Being. One must, however, be conscious of their limitations and realize that they can never be more than symbols, images, approximations, always inadequate, always, in a sense, untrue. When we speak of God as Goodness, Beauty, Truth, or Love, we are not guilty of a "laughable presumption", provided we realize that what we are actually doing is translating into inadequate concepts something which springs from inner experince of Him. There is something in man which compels them instinctively to rebel against an irrational universe and which will not allow them to conceive of a Divine being except as One who is the sum total, and much more, of everything they, in their highest moments, feel to be most beautiful and good and true." [Happold]
"We cannot speak of God at all except in the language we use of creatures, and so whatever is said both of God and creatures is said in virtue of the order that creatures have to God as to their source and cause in which all the perfections of things pre-exist transcendently... Perfections which are diverse and opposed in themselves, pre-exist as one in God, without detriment to his simpleness." [St. Thomas Aquinas]
Posted by: undertow Feb 23 2004, 11:04 AM
"If we approach God with the preconceived idea that He is exclusively the personal, transcendental, all-powerful ruler of the world, we run the risk of becoming entangled in a religion of rites, propitiatory sacrifices and legalistic observances. Inevitably so; for if God is an unapproachable potentate out there, giving mysterious orders, this kind of religion is entirely appropriate to the cosmic situation. The best that can be said for ritualistic legalism is that it improves conduct. It does little, however, to alter character and nothing of itself to modify consciousness. Things are a great deal better when the transcendent omnipotent personal God is regarded as also a loving Father. The sincere worship of such a God changes character as well as conduct, and does something to modify consciousness. But the complete transformation of consciousness, which is "enlightenment," "deliverance," "salvation," comes only when God is thought of as the Perennial Philosophy affirms Him to be - immanent as well as transcendent, supra-personal as well as personal - and when religious practices are adapted to this conception.
It would be a mistake, of course, to suppose that people who worship one aspect of God to the exclusion of all the rest must inevitably run into the different kinds of trouble described above. If they are not too stubborn in their ready-made beliefs the God who is both immanent and transcendent, personal and more than personal, may reveal Himself to them in his fullness. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it is easier for us to reach our goal if we are not handicapped by a set of erroneous or inadequate beliefs about the right way to get there and the nature of what we are looking for."
[Huxley]
Posted by: undertow Feb 23 2004, 11:40 AM
QUOTE (Lokmer @ Feb 21 2004, 11:38 AM)
After spending months peeling the onion of Christianity and finding nothing left in the middle,
I am very skeptical about anyone who claims that there is no depth to Christianity, which I believe is what you are saying.
If you can't find any depth to it, then I think it likely that you didn't look very hard. I don't know that for sure of course... but that's what I am guessing.
(As I believe more or less in Hindu Vedanta I am fairly unprejudiced on the matter)
The "monarchal" and "anthropomorphized" imagery used of the Deity in theist scripture is obviously bullshit. Everyone knows this! Christians have known this since Christianity basically began! Only an idiot, or maybe bonkers conservative Protestants would actually believe that kind of thing.
Posted by: undertow Feb 23 2004, 11:45 AM
QUOTE (chefranden @ Feb 22 2004, 12:54 PM)
I don't know. Why do you missunderstand it?
I don't misunderstand it. Suck on it for me...
Posted by: Guest Feb 23 2004, 12:27 PM
QUOTE (Lokmer @ Feb 21 2004, 11:38 AM)
I am an a-theist.
And I believe in God.
Lokmer:
To paraphrase what Margaret Thatcher said to George Bush (41), "Now Lokmer, its no time to go wobbly on us."
But seriously, if there is no Dogma, what difference does it make in a person's life to believe in God vs. not believing?
Posted by: Lokmer Feb 23 2004, 12:59 PM
QUOTE
QUOTE (Lokmer @ Feb 21 2004, 11:38 AM)
After spending months peeling the onion of Christianity and finding nothing left in the middle,
I am very skeptical about anyone who claims that there is no depth to Christianity, which I believe is what you are saying.
If you can't find any depth to it, then I think it likely that you didn't look very hard. I don't know that for sure of course... but that's what I am guessing.
No depth? You obviously haven't been reading my posts. There is tremendous depth. But there is no truth in orthodoxy. Christianity has always rested (with the exception of the mystics, who though I enjoy them ultimately sacrifice reason for transitory experience) on the presumption of the provable, historical intersection of the divine with the temporal in the form of incarnation, sacrifice, and resurrection. Doctrines beyond that (atonement, virgin birth, etc.) are considered secondary but vital.
The concept of eternity intersecting with time in such a powerful way is an amazing metaphor - a symbol with depths of meaning that I value highly. But tying it to a moment in history that is at least partially fabricated and putting that moment at the core of the faith means that the religion is ultimately empty. Christianity is unlike other religions because it absolutely depends on those doctrines and that history - doctrines which are nonsense by the standards of its own book, and history that is dubious at best, as its only witness is a book that is awash in nonsense and a morass of contradictions over both a) What happend, and
what it means. There is no way to formulate a theology, doctrine, or creed out of the Bible without discarding one part to save another.So, as I said, you peel the onion to find that it's core is vapor.
But, perhaps that is the point. Historicized, literalized, doctrinal Christianity is bullshit and fails on all points by its own standards. That does not mean that the story is without value, or the metaphor without depth. I dearly love both the story and the metaphor.
QUOTE
The "monarchal" and "anthropomorphized" imagery used of the Deity in theist scripture is obviously bullshit. Everyone knows this! Christians have known this since Christianity basically began! Only an idiot, or maybe bonkers conservative Protestants would actually believe that kind of thing.
And yet Christians who have known this, or at least pointed it out, have seldom let it get in the way of a good time. Aquinas and Augustine, after thoroughly destroying the notion of the theistic God (Augustine with Platonism, Aquinas with Aristotelianism), then refuse to let it get in the way of a good time. They carry on in their theology to exactly the same conclusions that they would have had they never trod that road. Barth destroys the veracity of scripture, and then stakes everything on the truth of its witness.
Every major theologian (from ALL traditions) has done the same thing. The few standouts - Ellul and Bonhoeffer (who acknowledged the facility of living by a book or believing oneself to be in contact with God) settled for devotion to a phantom, in the hopes that it was real. Tillich had the courage to go beyond even that and root the purpose of life in the now by placing God at the ground of being. There are others who killed God with reason before resurrecting him with need (Kierkegaard and Lessig, for example).
There are great men and women devoting their lives to quantifying God as a means for finding a way to live. Brilliant people with sharp minds (McGrath, for example). I think that doing this misses the point.
At the end of it all, any God that exists is beyond categories - personal/impersonal, existence/non-existence, etc. To define it is to set up an idol - I'm not big on idolatry, and I refuse to do this. If the law of God is written on the hearts of men, then I follow his law. If it is not, I simply am what I am. In either case, I differ from the materialist in the sense that the light of God is part of my daily experience. And I differ from the theist in my refusal to impose my pecadillos and definitions on it. I know my metaphors are only metaphors. I hope that they point to something real. If they do not (and this is always possible), I'm okay with that as well, because NOW is enough for me. Tomorrow is a promise that may never be fulfilled, if it is, this is a wonder beyond price. If God does not exist, I have lost nothing. If he does, I hope I get to say "Thank you." This is not Pascal's wager, for I avow no creed. Most atheists and agnostics acknowledge the possibility that there is a god, but are content that any such being has either removed himself from the scene or does not care for the petty prayers of people. Theists believe in a Person that is somehow aware of us and loves us in an emotional sense. I do neither.
I live in the possibility that there is a God, rather than merely acknowledging it intellectually. Perhaps it is simply part of the artistic dicipline, but the possibility is wonderful enough on its own, whether there is reality behind it or not.
No dogma, no doctrine, no certainty. Just life.
-Lokmer
Posted by: Lokmer Feb 23 2004, 01:02 PM
QUOTE
To paraphrase what Margaret Thatcher said to George Bush (41), "Now Lokmer, its no time to go wobbly on us."
But seriously, if there is no Dogma, what difference does it make in a person's life to believe in God vs. not believing?
It might make no difference. But I, at least, find it to be a useful metaphor for some of the reasons listed above.
HTH
-Lokmer
Posted by: chefranden Feb 23 2004, 07:52 PM
QUOTE (undertow @ Feb 23 2004, 01:45 PM)
QUOTE (chefranden @ Feb 22 2004, 12:54 PM)
I don't know. Why do you missunderstand it?
I don't misunderstand it. Suck on it for me...
Having read your posts, I see you are terribly confused.
You cannot, you say, understand god intellectually, therefore your only position is confusion.
By the by, you sure write a lot for someone with no intellectual understanding.
Do like the Buddha; just hold up a flower when you go to preaching.
Posted by: Fweethawt Feb 24 2004, 01:20 AM
QUOTE (I BROKE FREE @ Feb 23 2004, 10:10 AM)
I feel like I fall somewhere in between. I can see the 'big picture' (sometimes) but I am dumbfounded when I try to use language to explain it to anyone.
There a so many excellent writers on this forum I admire (and jealous of) because of the way they can express themselves with such clarity and conviction. I sometimes ponder life's big questions just before falling asleep. Sometimes I even come up with some interesting observations and conclusions. But when I attempt to write it down I end up with drivel.
Does anyone understand what I'm getting at?
I just want to carry a sign around my neck that says "I'M MUCH SMARTER THAN I SOUND"
I'm right here with you IBF. I'm right here with you.
Especially on the "I'm much smarter than I sound" comment.
I've wrote poetry that put almost an entire room full of people into tears. I've wrote letters of encouragement to people that I hardly know, that put them into tears.
But when it comes down to trying to explain why I do this stuff, I just can't explain it in a way that makes it understandable to anyone.
It drives me nuts!
Posted by: Skankboy Feb 24 2004, 12:25 PM
QUOTE
Do like the Buddha; just hold up a flower when you go to preaching.
Posted by: undertow Feb 24 2004, 01:02 PM
QUOTE (chefranden @ Feb 23 2004, 07:52 PM)
You cannot, you say, understand god intellectually, therefore your only position is confusion.
The position of Christian theology is that you cannot have intellectual knowledge of the "essence" of God. You can however make certain statements in a topic-neutral way. (and yes, the reliability of these statements is obviously open to question)
The position is not confusion however.
Buddhists (I think,) believe that reality is un-graspable. In the end, the thing being looked for, is the thing doing the looking. Zen has a particularly healthy spirit of iconoclasm. Theology can only ever be provisional. Philosophy can only ever be provisional. You can't "dissect" reality.
But theology is still useful!
Posted by: chefranden Feb 24 2004, 01:54 PM
QUOTE (undertow @ Feb 24 2004, 03:02 PM)
But theology is still useful!
You bet! The books are usually heavy and make great door stops.
Posted by: undertow Feb 24 2004, 01:56 PM
QUOTE (Lokmer @ Feb 23 2004, 12:59 PM)
And yet Christians who have known this, or at least pointed it out, have seldom let it get in the way of a good time. Aquinas and Augustine, after thoroughly destroying the notion of the theistic God (Augustine with Platonism, Aquinas with Aristotelianism), then refuse to let it get in the way of a good time. They carry on in their theology to exactly the same conclusions that they would have had they never trod that road.
destroy the notion of the the theistic God?
Neo-Platonism is theism. Aristotelianism is theism. how can they destroy the theistic God?
philosophical concepts (or non-concepts...) of the Deity are inevitably going to come across as "abstract".
abstractions are abstractions.
Neither Plato or Aristotle believed in an utterly "impersonal" God.
I don't believe that there is any contradiction in believing in an unknowable "absolute", a simple, fully actualized, necessary existent, as Aquinas did, and also to believe that the "absolute" in question is not entirely indifferent to us!
It's worth pointing out that the Christian concept of the Deity is not strictly speaking the "absolute".
"Before creatures were, God was not God... God is gotten of the soul, his Godhead of himself"
"The Godhead gave all things up to God, the Godhead is as empty and naked as tho it were not" - Meister Eckhart
(the word "Godhead" being used in the sense of the absolute)
i.e. God is no longer the absolute, but the manifestation thereof... God is not the Godhead but instead the trinity, and the trinity is believed in Christianity to be agape itself. The veracity of mysticism is an unanswerable problem at this moment in time, but who knows?
Posted by: undertow Feb 24 2004, 02:10 PM
QUOTE (chefranden @ Feb 24 2004, 01:54 PM)
QUOTE (undertow @ Feb 24 2004, 03:02 PM)
But theology is still useful!
You bet! The books are usually heavy and make great door stops.
One thing that may be worth pointing out with regard to Buddhism: a number of Buddhist schools believe that the "object" is "personal!"
Posted by: undertow Feb 24 2004, 02:17 PM
Vivekananda believed that the absolute of Hinduism, "Brahman", is also personal.
Posted by: =Veritas= Feb 24 2004, 02:17 PM
QUOTE
So I avow no doctrine, and I speak no creed, and I don't think I ever will again. I respect God too much.
Your post is perhaps the most eloquently written creed I have ever read.
Jason
Posted by: Lokmer Feb 24 2004, 02:29 PM
Cute...
-Lokmer
Posted by: chefranden Feb 24 2004, 06:06 PM
QUOTE (undertow @ Feb 24 2004, 04:17 PM)
Vivekananda believed that the absolute of Hinduism, "Brahman", is also personal.
And so?
Posted by: Erik the Awful Feb 24 2004, 09:33 PM
Oi Lokmer...
I'm not with you on this part of your journey. I do find the transendent beauty and truth in this life and in the universe that you find, but I don't (currently) assign it to some sort of being.
Rather, I hypothisize that all reality, even those parts that we don't understand or define, is definable. I think the transendent beauty that we find in life and this universe is mathmatical. Consider a fractal. Some are beautiful, no? Consider music. Even lame ass MIDI files played through the most simple of 4 bit synthisyzers can be beautiful. This is nearly pure math. Consider a great work of music or art. Are these things outside the grasp or definition of math? No. Water, indeed, is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. Is there no mathmatical or scientific reason for why this is? Matter has mass and gravity. This is a property of being. We can find beauty in this. Is it impossible to accuratly describe the EXPERIENCE of life mathmatically? Perhaps now. But not for long. According to some, we will shortly (20 years or so) have calculators with more raw computational power than an individual human brain.
I suppose we will then test some of these ideas.
Perhaps this viewpoint is a function of my technical nature. Please excuse the pun.
I'm not nieve enough to think that I'm the first one to think this way. Nor am I well read enough to know what the problems are with this idea. As always, I appreciate and respect your viewpoint. I'm curious to see what you've got to say about my idea...
Perhaps math is the technician's metaphore.
Posted by: CodeWarren Feb 24 2004, 10:47 PM
Erik the Awful, I second your thoughts on that. I posted earlier that because of what Lokmer wrote, I have a much better grasp of why someone would be religious, or take to very flighty ideas, but I still don't understand the big deal, myself. I think you hit the nail on the head saying that math is a technician's metaphor.
I just don't see the point of wallowing in terms and linguistics and -isms when there is a such a wealth of beauty in the world that can be found through math and science and etc. It just seems much more fulfilling.
Posted by: UV2003 Feb 25 2004, 07:28 AM
QUOTE (Erik the Awful @ Feb 24 2004, 09:33 PM)
I suppose we will then test some of these ideas.
Perhaps this viewpoint is a function of my technical nature. Please excuse the pun.
I'm not nieve enough to think that I'm the first one to think this way. Nor am I well read enough to know what the problems are with this idea. As always, I appreciate and respect your viewpoint. I'm curious to see what you've got to say about my idea...
Perhaps math is the technician's metaphore.
Erik, you might be interested in reading these sites to bolster your thoughts in these areas:
http://www.goldenmuseum.com
http://www.beautyanalysis.com
And any other number of sites that discuss this "beauty of nature" and the properties of logarithmic growth and the golden ratio. It is extremely interesting to me as someone interested in graphics and programming in particular and math in general.
I posted a link in the Science and Religion forum about a UCTV discussion between a scientist, Christian, and a Buddhist. They all say some interesting things, but the Buddhist in particular in criticizing dogmatic materialism and scientific inquiry makes some interesting observations about the study of consciousness.
One thing about measurement though, according to Mario Livio&#