Spiritualism - Lesson #6
The points raised in the current discussion bring us face to face with the imponderables of life. Nothing can really be known for what it is – the best we can receive are "impressions." For example when I watch the news on TV what I am actually seeing is what those transmitting the news want me to see leaving me with no real knowledge of what's going on in the world. This reasoning can be applied to almost anything. For example politicians take the same set of statistics and then use them against each other to make opposing arguments. Neither is right or wrong; honest or deceitful – they are, however, meaningless. Again, I might say a flower is pretty while someone else might say it's horrible – but who is right? What, indeed, is right, wrong, just, beautiful, worthy and good? Socrates made the following point concerning tallness. Person A might be taller than person B and in turn shorter than person C. But A isn't made tall simply standing next to B. In other words A is not made tall because of "B's" shortness; standing beside the Eiffel Tower all three would be minute according to that argument; it follows, said Socrates, you would be afraid to say that ten is more than eight "by two," or that two is the reason for its excess over eight, instead of saying that it is more than eight by, or because of, being a larger number. (Plato, The Last Days of Socrates, Penguin, p, 177)
When it comes to suffering people make subjective judgments according to how it affects them. For example a city built above a fault line in the earth is destroyed by an earthquake. People ask "how could God allow this to happen?" rather than acknowledging that earthquakes are a natural phenomenon particularly in the vicinity of a fault line. Besides, earthquakes, like volcanoes, are benign – quite beautiful when viewed rationally from a distance. I have no right to demand the world conform to my standards of right and wrong not least as morality is culturally bound. Long established laws are overturned according to human whims so that conduct, formerly considered criminal, becomes acceptable and then legalised. Nevertheless, people continue to make these judgements.
Socrates held that seeking wisdom through philosophy was the route to happiness. As such the seeker after wisdom abstains from pleasures, desires, pain and grief which (being "visible" as opposed to the soul which is "intelligible") deceive and therefore imprison us. The first task of life, therefore, is to examine and then question one's cherished beliefs – all the things we accept without thinking about them. To do this is to rise above the daily complexities of life and in doing so be untroubled by them. This was the way to the "good" life and also a peaceful life. For Socrates the only life worth living is a "good" life but one can only attain the good life if one really knows what good and evil are. Good and evil are not relative (as we might think) but absolutes which can only be found by a process of questioning and reasoning. In this way morality and knowledge are bound together. At one point people hailed Socrates the wisest man in Athens. At first he rejected this accolade but upon reflection accepted saying that he knew nothing!
The problem is that the only way we can experience the world is through our senses. But sense-experience is not absolute (we're all different) and this can lead to conflict. What one considers just another considers unjust and so on. For example the rich man sees the poor man as undeserving while the poor man sees the rich man as an oppressor. As a result many people feel powerless because those who rule over them make the laws and dictate the terms under which they live. The struggle to break free from oppression may seem futile. The Buddha sought a middle way between self-indulgence and self-mortification as the way to "happiness" and "enlightenment." The Buddha (like Jesus) was acutely aware of the sufferings (and inequalities) in the world which, he thought, was the result of striving, sickness, old age and death. It was only by freeing oneself from what the Buddha called "attachments" (e.g. sensual desires and ambitions) that peace of mind may be attained.
However, there can be no simple easy answers to life's mysteries because human-beings have no direct knowledge of either a first-cause or a final destination. Nevertheless, it's as if human-beings do possess an elusive kind of "intuition" concerning spiritual matters (knowing there's more than we see) but lacking total insight to solve the riddle. That was the conclusion of the Teacher, in the Hebrew book of Ecclesiastes, – who, having tried many things in life to find happiness, declared life to be "meaningless." That's an honest assessment of his "sensual-experience" yet not even the Teacher fully subscribed to that negative view. Concerning life after death Jesus said let not your hearts be troubled….believe in God and believe in me. Faith is the answer even the faith of the unbeliever!
Rog
29th Jan. 2016
Friday, January 29, 2016
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Master of Spirituality - Lesson #5
Master of Spirituality - Lesson #5
The thinking process is as impossible to comprehend as it is to describe. What is agreed is that a constant stream of thoughts continuously enter consciousness but where they come from remains a mystery; however these thoughts are very powerful for determining actions, decisions, prejudices and values. It is thought that human-beings have multi-layers of consciousness most of which are out of sight and unconscious. However, from these hidden depths come many influences which drive us as people put there during childhood by parents, teachers and other influential people. The trusting child accepts these things as "truth" without questioning them but in doing so absorbs the prejudices, habits and phobias etc. of these who put them there. And it was against this kind of blind "acceptance" that Socrates became infamous and finally condemned to death by the Athenian authorities. Socrates was disillusioned with the physical enquiries of the natural philosophers which he held to be speculative rather than knowledge. These philosophers spoke as if they were there at the beginning of things yet they couldn't even agree amongst themselves besides which their theories were subject to constant revision. Socrates held that such knowledge was beyond the human ability to fully attain. And this makes good sense. Why? Because humanity is part of what it seeks to explain. Human-beings are not on the outside looking in, as it were, but on the inside looking out. Socrates dismissed such speculations as dogmatic and useless because no-one knew if they were true or not. (Before and After Socrates, by F.M. Cornford, p, 30). This is a sobering thought especially when we consider that much of what is learnt is set-down during childhood, imparted by people whose views are just as dogmatic and flawed. Socrates turned his attention in the opposite direction to "man" and the ends for which man lives which he concluded was happiness i.e. the "perfection of the soul." To this end Socrates debated with anyone who would listen questioning what they believed, why they believed it and how they knew what they believed to be true knowledge –the "good" being the ultimate perfection of the soul. Indeed Socrates is credited as having been the one who discovered the soul. Socrates wanted people to think for themselves rather than accept what other people told them no matter how noble it was. This is similar to Descartes who, in the pursuit of knowledge, resolved to reject everything he had ever been taught plus everything that came to him via his senses. It was having obtained this that he made his famous declaration: "I think therefore I am." For Socrates knowledge was insight into the value of what people desire. i.e. "virtue is knowledge" (particularly self-knowledge). According to him every individual should judge for him/herself what is good and then allow one's "inner-judge" to clarity it. We might call this inner-judge conscience, spirit or soul; the soul possessing perfect knowledge of what is good, true and trustworthy. What Socrates appears to be saying is that somethings in life can never be known while others things should be tested before being accepted as "knowledge." And each person must reach that point in their own time and in their own way. No-one should force their views on anyone else as they will inevitable be partial, culture-bound and/or incorrect. Yet we see exactly this every-day in many walks of life from newspaper headlines to TV and religious dogma – yet often what is stated is little more than opinion (and opinion is subjective rather than fact). Sure, there are some things I can know. I know when I'm hungry because my stomach tells me and I know when the kettle boils because I hear it switch off. But sometimes my eye tricks me into seeing what's not there and my ears fail to hear my name being called or the phone ringing. So, other than in a few areas of life I can know very little for certain and that goes for everyone else too. And I become acutely aware of this whenever I complete a course of study realising at the end just how little I really know and how impossible would be to learn anymore no matter how long a life-time lasted. Even an atheist cannot be sure that the belief he/she holds in there being no god is anything other than speculative. It's having an open mind and always being open to correction and new-learning that will lead to the kind of wisdom Socrates spoke about. The problem is people are resistant to change (especially changing their minds), while those holding the reins of power are just as reluctant to release them. We see this in the authorities' attitude towards Jesus; we see it also on the world stage every day of the week. Yet religious allegiance is often an accident of birth rather than to a choice made; as such one has little control over it. Yet despite this people often insist that "we're right and you're wrong" instead of taking an overview of the whole. For when viewed from another, more objective perspective, some beliefs may appear incredible or contradictory. And as Carl Jung once said: "Prejudice cripples and injures the full phenomenon of psychic life….people identify themselves almost exclusively with their consciousness, and imagine that they are only what they know about themselves. Yet anyone with even a smattering of psychology can see how limited this knowledge is. Rationalism and doctrinarism are the diseases of our time" (Memories, Dreams, Reflections by C. G. Jung, p, 330). The fact is humankind knows, really knows, very little and in my view will always be so. For example despite increased knowledge of the human brain science is still unable to define consciousness or decide if humans are conscious all the time, some of the time or not at all. The best it can do at the moment is tell us that the human brain weighs around one and a half kilograms and consists of over a billion neurons. These neurons together make many billions of interconnections (circuits) to enable perception, memory, consciousness, and language etc. When a person thinks, speaks, acts and moves etc. a host of chemical neurotransmitters act on synapses causing them to "fire" –which can be seen on an MRI scan. Nevertheless, the process of thinking is as much a mystery as God is a mystery who (in the Hebrew Scriptures) says: my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways. Directing those elusive thoughts towards God, and being open to correction, will direct the conscience towards true "knowledge" – and in matters of faith; trust and submission to God are essential for clarity if one is to attain the "perfection of the soul." Hopefully both the scientist and the theologian would be able to agree on that as a starting point and then move forward together.
Rog
24th January 2016
The thinking process is as impossible to comprehend as it is to describe. What is agreed is that a constant stream of thoughts continuously enter consciousness but where they come from remains a mystery; however these thoughts are very powerful for determining actions, decisions, prejudices and values. It is thought that human-beings have multi-layers of consciousness most of which are out of sight and unconscious. However, from these hidden depths come many influences which drive us as people put there during childhood by parents, teachers and other influential people. The trusting child accepts these things as "truth" without questioning them but in doing so absorbs the prejudices, habits and phobias etc. of these who put them there. And it was against this kind of blind "acceptance" that Socrates became infamous and finally condemned to death by the Athenian authorities. Socrates was disillusioned with the physical enquiries of the natural philosophers which he held to be speculative rather than knowledge. These philosophers spoke as if they were there at the beginning of things yet they couldn't even agree amongst themselves besides which their theories were subject to constant revision. Socrates held that such knowledge was beyond the human ability to fully attain. And this makes good sense. Why? Because humanity is part of what it seeks to explain. Human-beings are not on the outside looking in, as it were, but on the inside looking out. Socrates dismissed such speculations as dogmatic and useless because no-one knew if they were true or not. (Before and After Socrates, by F.M. Cornford, p, 30). This is a sobering thought especially when we consider that much of what is learnt is set-down during childhood, imparted by people whose views are just as dogmatic and flawed. Socrates turned his attention in the opposite direction to "man" and the ends for which man lives which he concluded was happiness i.e. the "perfection of the soul." To this end Socrates debated with anyone who would listen questioning what they believed, why they believed it and how they knew what they believed to be true knowledge –the "good" being the ultimate perfection of the soul. Indeed Socrates is credited as having been the one who discovered the soul. Socrates wanted people to think for themselves rather than accept what other people told them no matter how noble it was. This is similar to Descartes who, in the pursuit of knowledge, resolved to reject everything he had ever been taught plus everything that came to him via his senses. It was having obtained this that he made his famous declaration: "I think therefore I am." For Socrates knowledge was insight into the value of what people desire. i.e. "virtue is knowledge" (particularly self-knowledge). According to him every individual should judge for him/herself what is good and then allow one's "inner-judge" to clarity it. We might call this inner-judge conscience, spirit or soul; the soul possessing perfect knowledge of what is good, true and trustworthy. What Socrates appears to be saying is that somethings in life can never be known while others things should be tested before being accepted as "knowledge." And each person must reach that point in their own time and in their own way. No-one should force their views on anyone else as they will inevitable be partial, culture-bound and/or incorrect. Yet we see exactly this every-day in many walks of life from newspaper headlines to TV and religious dogma – yet often what is stated is little more than opinion (and opinion is subjective rather than fact). Sure, there are some things I can know. I know when I'm hungry because my stomach tells me and I know when the kettle boils because I hear it switch off. But sometimes my eye tricks me into seeing what's not there and my ears fail to hear my name being called or the phone ringing. So, other than in a few areas of life I can know very little for certain and that goes for everyone else too. And I become acutely aware of this whenever I complete a course of study realising at the end just how little I really know and how impossible would be to learn anymore no matter how long a life-time lasted. Even an atheist cannot be sure that the belief he/she holds in there being no god is anything other than speculative. It's having an open mind and always being open to correction and new-learning that will lead to the kind of wisdom Socrates spoke about. The problem is people are resistant to change (especially changing their minds), while those holding the reins of power are just as reluctant to release them. We see this in the authorities' attitude towards Jesus; we see it also on the world stage every day of the week. Yet religious allegiance is often an accident of birth rather than to a choice made; as such one has little control over it. Yet despite this people often insist that "we're right and you're wrong" instead of taking an overview of the whole. For when viewed from another, more objective perspective, some beliefs may appear incredible or contradictory. And as Carl Jung once said: "Prejudice cripples and injures the full phenomenon of psychic life….people identify themselves almost exclusively with their consciousness, and imagine that they are only what they know about themselves. Yet anyone with even a smattering of psychology can see how limited this knowledge is. Rationalism and doctrinarism are the diseases of our time" (Memories, Dreams, Reflections by C. G. Jung, p, 330). The fact is humankind knows, really knows, very little and in my view will always be so. For example despite increased knowledge of the human brain science is still unable to define consciousness or decide if humans are conscious all the time, some of the time or not at all. The best it can do at the moment is tell us that the human brain weighs around one and a half kilograms and consists of over a billion neurons. These neurons together make many billions of interconnections (circuits) to enable perception, memory, consciousness, and language etc. When a person thinks, speaks, acts and moves etc. a host of chemical neurotransmitters act on synapses causing them to "fire" –which can be seen on an MRI scan. Nevertheless, the process of thinking is as much a mystery as God is a mystery who (in the Hebrew Scriptures) says: my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways. Directing those elusive thoughts towards God, and being open to correction, will direct the conscience towards true "knowledge" – and in matters of faith; trust and submission to God are essential for clarity if one is to attain the "perfection of the soul." Hopefully both the scientist and the theologian would be able to agree on that as a starting point and then move forward together.
Rog
24th January 2016
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Spirituality History of Western Thought pt. 3 (from D Marsh)
Spirituality
History of Western Thought pt. 3
This has been a fascinating study one to get the thinking person reflecting on life; the meaning of life and the nature of reality. From this study we see that science is approaching the same destination as theists but by a longer route – although some scientists reject the uncertainty principle as evidence of God's existence. The ancient, Greek philosopher Anaximander (610-540 BC) thought the ultimate structure of matter was what he called the "infinite" i.e. a timeless, unchanging substance (later defined as energy) which encompasses everything e.g. plants, animals, earth, sky, humans etc. Everything emerges from the confrontation of opposites e.g. hot, cold etc. It is the "infinite" (let's call it "God") which transforms into reality the everyday things we see around us. But being itself neutral, without opposites, the "infinite" is not changed (but remains constant) thereby preserving nature. Energy causes change by continually transforming itself from one form to another but itself remains constant and is never diminished.
According to Heraclitus (540-480 BC) everything is in a continual state of change so that nothing is ever the same – but always in a state of becoming. In other words nothing is permeant other than the "infinite" which being constant never changes. The world is a constant struggle between competing opposites which is necessary if change is to occur. This is interesting for it follows that "strife" is necessary to hold nature together. However, what we humans see is not a true reflection of what actually is which brings us back to Heisenberg and the uncertainty principle which was a remarkable discovery. What it means is that at the micro level (but not the Macro level) Newton's theory breaks down making exact calculations impossible only probabilities. Furthermore, it is the act of observing that disturbs a wave and transforms it into a particle. This is an odd fact the result of photons shining light onto electrons under a microscope. What it tells us is that it is mind that creates matter and not the other way round as science has long held. There follows another consequence which is that human-beings do not "see" what they think they see only an illusion. For example an arrow flying through the air appears to the observed as one continuous picture - but that is a mistaken understanding. What is actually observed is a sequence of disjointed pictures (a bit like blinking rapidly) or sitting in a cinema watching a movie. And this applies to everything in nature whether it is a chair, a tree or a mountain.
But change isn't only constant it is unidirectional which is where it gets really interesting meaning that nothing, not even humans, are ever the same e.g. it is not possible to step into the same river twice etc. All that has been said so far places doubt on so much that human-beings take for granted. But it also tells us that God is that original mind which brought everything into being and now upholds creation. Mass is energy and energy is mass. God is mind (i.e. energy) and is therefore the unchanging source and creator of everything but is not changed (in his being and nature) by it. However, human-beings are not equal to God (God created humankind a little lower than the angels) but do share God's nature and characteristics. In that sense human-beings are incorporated into God's essence as they become one with him. Some apparently achieve union with God mystically while others achieve it through faith, service, commitment, suffering and other forms of spirituality.
Science often challenge the existence of God pointing to the evil and suffering in the world. Theists often counter this with arguments from the cross, free-will and morality etc. Other belief systems understand suffering as, for example, the consequences of striving. Elsewhere I have written extensively about suffering and the Christian response to it. All I would say here is that while few people relish suffering often regarding it as pointless (even though some of the greatest prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures suffered greatly in body and mind) there is a more positive interpretation. For in my view suffering can be considered (for some) as a gift by God to be used as other gifts of God are used to bless others. I cannot go into reasons why here. And the Apostle Paul affirms this by embracing suffering as character-building encouraging his hearers not to turn away from it. I agree with that approach. Suffering brings patience, insight, encouragement and faith – all important spiritual qualities. Suffering, therefore, is a positive experience. This brings us back to Heraclitus and his theory of opposites i.e. in "strife" bringing about change. The opposites in this case being good health versus bad health producing a change of perspective for the sufferer (by deepening of faith and insight) and a reality check for the observer who then looks for meaning in life. Without "strife" which, according to Heraclitus, is "justice" everything would collapse in destruction. It is not too difficult to see that suffering, like everything else, serves a positive purpose. People might not like to suffer but God gives the grace to cope with it. And today's suffering is not yesterday's suffering nor even the suffering of tomorrow because, change being everywhere, we too are being transformed as we interact with and trust God. Modern spiritually teaches being content with not knowing. And that's good to remember as in life we see through a glass darkly; but we reset assured that the process of nature is constantly in the mind and will of God as indeed we all are.
DRM
19th January 2015
History of Western Thought pt. 3
This has been a fascinating study one to get the thinking person reflecting on life; the meaning of life and the nature of reality. From this study we see that science is approaching the same destination as theists but by a longer route – although some scientists reject the uncertainty principle as evidence of God's existence. The ancient, Greek philosopher Anaximander (610-540 BC) thought the ultimate structure of matter was what he called the "infinite" i.e. a timeless, unchanging substance (later defined as energy) which encompasses everything e.g. plants, animals, earth, sky, humans etc. Everything emerges from the confrontation of opposites e.g. hot, cold etc. It is the "infinite" (let's call it "God") which transforms into reality the everyday things we see around us. But being itself neutral, without opposites, the "infinite" is not changed (but remains constant) thereby preserving nature. Energy causes change by continually transforming itself from one form to another but itself remains constant and is never diminished.
According to Heraclitus (540-480 BC) everything is in a continual state of change so that nothing is ever the same – but always in a state of becoming. In other words nothing is permeant other than the "infinite" which being constant never changes. The world is a constant struggle between competing opposites which is necessary if change is to occur. This is interesting for it follows that "strife" is necessary to hold nature together. However, what we humans see is not a true reflection of what actually is which brings us back to Heisenberg and the uncertainty principle which was a remarkable discovery. What it means is that at the micro level (but not the Macro level) Newton's theory breaks down making exact calculations impossible only probabilities. Furthermore, it is the act of observing that disturbs a wave and transforms it into a particle. This is an odd fact the result of photons shining light onto electrons under a microscope. What it tells us is that it is mind that creates matter and not the other way round as science has long held. There follows another consequence which is that human-beings do not "see" what they think they see only an illusion. For example an arrow flying through the air appears to the observed as one continuous picture - but that is a mistaken understanding. What is actually observed is a sequence of disjointed pictures (a bit like blinking rapidly) or sitting in a cinema watching a movie. And this applies to everything in nature whether it is a chair, a tree or a mountain.
But change isn't only constant it is unidirectional which is where it gets really interesting meaning that nothing, not even humans, are ever the same e.g. it is not possible to step into the same river twice etc. All that has been said so far places doubt on so much that human-beings take for granted. But it also tells us that God is that original mind which brought everything into being and now upholds creation. Mass is energy and energy is mass. God is mind (i.e. energy) and is therefore the unchanging source and creator of everything but is not changed (in his being and nature) by it. However, human-beings are not equal to God (God created humankind a little lower than the angels) but do share God's nature and characteristics. In that sense human-beings are incorporated into God's essence as they become one with him. Some apparently achieve union with God mystically while others achieve it through faith, service, commitment, suffering and other forms of spirituality.
Science often challenge the existence of God pointing to the evil and suffering in the world. Theists often counter this with arguments from the cross, free-will and morality etc. Other belief systems understand suffering as, for example, the consequences of striving. Elsewhere I have written extensively about suffering and the Christian response to it. All I would say here is that while few people relish suffering often regarding it as pointless (even though some of the greatest prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures suffered greatly in body and mind) there is a more positive interpretation. For in my view suffering can be considered (for some) as a gift by God to be used as other gifts of God are used to bless others. I cannot go into reasons why here. And the Apostle Paul affirms this by embracing suffering as character-building encouraging his hearers not to turn away from it. I agree with that approach. Suffering brings patience, insight, encouragement and faith – all important spiritual qualities. Suffering, therefore, is a positive experience. This brings us back to Heraclitus and his theory of opposites i.e. in "strife" bringing about change. The opposites in this case being good health versus bad health producing a change of perspective for the sufferer (by deepening of faith and insight) and a reality check for the observer who then looks for meaning in life. Without "strife" which, according to Heraclitus, is "justice" everything would collapse in destruction. It is not too difficult to see that suffering, like everything else, serves a positive purpose. People might not like to suffer but God gives the grace to cope with it. And today's suffering is not yesterday's suffering nor even the suffering of tomorrow because, change being everywhere, we too are being transformed as we interact with and trust God. Modern spiritually teaches being content with not knowing. And that's good to remember as in life we see through a glass darkly; but we reset assured that the process of nature is constantly in the mind and will of God as indeed we all are.
DRM
19th January 2015
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Saturday, January 9, 2016
Spiritualism – Lesson #3 History of Western Thought pt 2
Spiritualism – Lesson #3
History of Western Thought pt 2
My experience of the scientifically-minded is of thinking people who hold-to "reason" (i.e. objective reality) over religion. It is a rationalistic world-view that believes "facts" to be proof and spirituality to be speculative and therefore distrustful. What these people fail to realise is that science proceeds by experiment, which in turn produces an hypothesis, which is then subject to further experiment and thereafter continuous revision. The history of science is the continuous discarding of what was once held to be "certain." Yet there is little in science which can be certain and it takes great faith to believe there is! The materialism of today has not made people happy on the contrary it has robbed humankind of its spirit, soul, personality and purpose. Reduced to a mere machine morality and ethics have no part to play in the continuing human story. Therefore it has become a pass-time of some militant atheists to blame religion for every human atrocity that has ever occurred while overlooking the hideous deeds of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Moa, and Pol Pot who will never be counted among the faithful (The Devil's Delusion, by David Berlinski, Basic, 2009, p 19). Neither has materialism made the world a safer more contented place to be. On the contrary it has produced a world increasingly devoid of moral standards and a dangerous place to be in right now. To think of human beings as mere machines to be studied, manipulated and disposed of like dross is not only a grave injustice but a gross error. On the other hand if the hope Christians hold in Christ is for this life only we are, as the Apostle Paul commented, most to be pitied (1 Cor. 15:19). We should not see spirituality as an escape. Spirituality is not an escape- it is the blossoming of our humanity towards God and the completion, by him, of the people he ordained us to be i.e. a unity of mind, body and soul grafted to him. Spirituality is wholeness. Spirituality affects how we think, act, relate, live, watch TV and wash dishes. The world around us is "good." The world around us is the dynamic expression of God's word in action created by his power and energy i.e. his "Spirit" (a word which comes from the Hebrew word ruach encompassing a wide range of meanings including: "Spirit," "breath" and "wind"). It is God's Spirit that brought people to life and animates them. So, for example, in the Book of Genesis where God says: "Let there be……." He is speaking into existence everything we see around us. But before God spoke he thought (as we all do). Before we utter a word we form sentences in our minds of what we're about to say. It follows that "mind" (i.e. God's mind) came before "matter" and not the other way round. Psychology, therefore, is incorrect in its assertions as the world came after God's thoughts (i.e. God's energy) which is the product of His thoughts. God's energy fills the entire universe which of course includes human beings. Spirituality, then, means living a life in communion with God taking in: prayer, contemplation, worship etc. It is through these disciplines we unite ourselves to God and keep in tune with his purposes for the world and its peoples. Christian spirituality is therefore (a) a set of beliefs, (b) a set of values and (c) a way of life - i.e. wholeness. Spirituality is about knowing God and experiencing God to the fullest possible extent. It's not about shutting oneself away from the world in silent contemplation, which achieves very little of use, but engaging fully with the world - its problems and its peoples. And the good news is that more and more people are discovering the truth of this for themselves. However, whether the collective imagination of the faithful is able to bring King Arthur to life I have my doubts but I understand the thinking behind that idea. Miracles today may therefore have to be considered under a different heading. We need to be imaginative in our preaching and teaching. Imagination is the next best thing to the real thing and is very powerful. Story-telling for example is a very useful tool in therapy. It is our task to help the scientifically switched-on to switch-on to God, and the spiritually switched-off to be empowered by God's "Spirit" (i.e. his breath) and open up to Him. And I think we do this as ministers by living authentic, sincere, faithful lives in tune with God – which is the essence of witness.
Descartes famous words: "I think therefore I am" may be able to help in this. For those words are able to switch on the spiritual light within people whether scientifically inclined or not. It simply means recognising there is more to life than meets the eye. We are Spirit as well as body and we neglect the Spiritual at our peril i.e. the cost of happiness, contentment, fulfilment and satisfaction. Human beings have thoughts, hopes, dreams, emotions, ambitions and intuition. These things come from beyond us; from God's "pull" (i.e. energy) upon our hearts and those needs must be met. We were made to be in communion with God and with one another. We may not have the mind of God but we have the knowledge of God written upon our hearts and we rest uneasy when God is absent from our lives. Einstein knew this well. Science should not be in conflict with religion but should compliment it. So, maybe Einstein's famous equation E=MC2 tells us more about the journey to the "light" (who is God) than about the relativity of space-time! Now there's a thought!
Rev D R Marsh BA (hons) DHT
9th January 2016
History of Western Thought pt 2
My experience of the scientifically-minded is of thinking people who hold-to "reason" (i.e. objective reality) over religion. It is a rationalistic world-view that believes "facts" to be proof and spirituality to be speculative and therefore distrustful. What these people fail to realise is that science proceeds by experiment, which in turn produces an hypothesis, which is then subject to further experiment and thereafter continuous revision. The history of science is the continuous discarding of what was once held to be "certain." Yet there is little in science which can be certain and it takes great faith to believe there is! The materialism of today has not made people happy on the contrary it has robbed humankind of its spirit, soul, personality and purpose. Reduced to a mere machine morality and ethics have no part to play in the continuing human story. Therefore it has become a pass-time of some militant atheists to blame religion for every human atrocity that has ever occurred while overlooking the hideous deeds of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Moa, and Pol Pot who will never be counted among the faithful (The Devil's Delusion, by David Berlinski, Basic, 2009, p 19). Neither has materialism made the world a safer more contented place to be. On the contrary it has produced a world increasingly devoid of moral standards and a dangerous place to be in right now. To think of human beings as mere machines to be studied, manipulated and disposed of like dross is not only a grave injustice but a gross error. On the other hand if the hope Christians hold in Christ is for this life only we are, as the Apostle Paul commented, most to be pitied (1 Cor. 15:19). We should not see spirituality as an escape. Spirituality is not an escape- it is the blossoming of our humanity towards God and the completion, by him, of the people he ordained us to be i.e. a unity of mind, body and soul grafted to him. Spirituality is wholeness. Spirituality affects how we think, act, relate, live, watch TV and wash dishes. The world around us is "good." The world around us is the dynamic expression of God's word in action created by his power and energy i.e. his "Spirit" (a word which comes from the Hebrew word ruach encompassing a wide range of meanings including: "Spirit," "breath" and "wind"). It is God's Spirit that brought people to life and animates them. So, for example, in the Book of Genesis where God says: "Let there be……." He is speaking into existence everything we see around us. But before God spoke he thought (as we all do). Before we utter a word we form sentences in our minds of what we're about to say. It follows that "mind" (i.e. God's mind) came before "matter" and not the other way round. Psychology, therefore, is incorrect in its assertions as the world came after God's thoughts (i.e. God's energy) which is the product of His thoughts. God's energy fills the entire universe which of course includes human beings. Spirituality, then, means living a life in communion with God taking in: prayer, contemplation, worship etc. It is through these disciplines we unite ourselves to God and keep in tune with his purposes for the world and its peoples. Christian spirituality is therefore (a) a set of beliefs, (b) a set of values and (c) a way of life - i.e. wholeness. Spirituality is about knowing God and experiencing God to the fullest possible extent. It's not about shutting oneself away from the world in silent contemplation, which achieves very little of use, but engaging fully with the world - its problems and its peoples. And the good news is that more and more people are discovering the truth of this for themselves. However, whether the collective imagination of the faithful is able to bring King Arthur to life I have my doubts but I understand the thinking behind that idea. Miracles today may therefore have to be considered under a different heading. We need to be imaginative in our preaching and teaching. Imagination is the next best thing to the real thing and is very powerful. Story-telling for example is a very useful tool in therapy. It is our task to help the scientifically switched-on to switch-on to God, and the spiritually switched-off to be empowered by God's "Spirit" (i.e. his breath) and open up to Him. And I think we do this as ministers by living authentic, sincere, faithful lives in tune with God – which is the essence of witness.
Descartes famous words: "I think therefore I am" may be able to help in this. For those words are able to switch on the spiritual light within people whether scientifically inclined or not. It simply means recognising there is more to life than meets the eye. We are Spirit as well as body and we neglect the Spiritual at our peril i.e. the cost of happiness, contentment, fulfilment and satisfaction. Human beings have thoughts, hopes, dreams, emotions, ambitions and intuition. These things come from beyond us; from God's "pull" (i.e. energy) upon our hearts and those needs must be met. We were made to be in communion with God and with one another. We may not have the mind of God but we have the knowledge of God written upon our hearts and we rest uneasy when God is absent from our lives. Einstein knew this well. Science should not be in conflict with religion but should compliment it. So, maybe Einstein's famous equation E=MC2 tells us more about the journey to the "light" (who is God) than about the relativity of space-time! Now there's a thought!
Rev D R Marsh BA (hons) DHT
9th January 2016
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Spiritualism - Lesson #2
Spiritualism - Lesson #2
History of Western Thought pt. 1
A useful question to ask might be: "what is science?" and "did science have a beginning?" There is no agreed answer to both but Clagett for example offered a definition of science as: "the orderly and systematic comprehension, description and/or explanation of natural phenomena" (The Social Relations of Science, London, 1967) - without any reference to gods. But even that definition omits so much that others might want to include under that heading. In the ancient world description led to speculation which Hippocrates and his medical colleagues rejected in their work. These pioneering medical practitioners conducted detailed observations (and post mortems) to enable them to map symptoms and so offer patients a fairly reliable prognosis – again minus any reference to the supernatural.
But did science have a beginning? Aristotle maintained that science began with Thales of Miletus who almost certainly built on the work of others before him e.g. the Babylonians etc. However, what was new with Thales was making a break with the past in his discovery of nature. In other words instead of attributing natural phenomena to the whims of the gods Thales understood natural phenomena to have a cause and effect. That is how he began to interpret such things as lightning and earthquakes all very crudely but marking a clear departure from the past. Thales, and others of his era, were making a distinction between the natural and the supernatural. This did not mean these early philosophers were atheists far from it. Indeed, Thales is reported to have said that: "all things are full of gods." Nevertheless people were beginning to question their long held beliefs. And it's interesting that the Atomists held a similar view that everything is composed of tiny atoms colliding together in the void to form shapes; shapes which may exist for a while before disintegrating again to form new shapes – all from tiny, indivisible atoms. Even the soul, it was believed, was made up of tiny rounded atoms which somehow got squeezed in between other atoms as they banged together in the void. All by accident? That's not clear. And even today there are some who look back to the Atomists as people who made a giant leap forward in understanding reality. However, one thing the ancients were sure of was the untrustworthiness of the senses. For example take a sheet of paper which is white with black writing on it. But when I turn away (or maybe switch off the light) do these qualities of whiteness and blackness still exist? The answer was a resounding "no." All that exists is the form of the paper and nothing more. We might disagree with that explanation but these ideas are still being debated in philosophical circles.
But did this method of observation settle for all time the question of "facts" and their reliability over faith? Not at all. Socrates, who was a towering figure in ancient philosophy, rejected the Ionian speculations of nature as useless. Why? Because they could only observe events not explain them. Yet despite this, said Socrates, they state their conclusions with confidence, expressing as truth what they could not possibly know themselves. Socrates was not interested in what could not be proved. In later centuries Voltaire (1694-1778) said something similar. Voltaire, rebelling against accepted traditions, maintained that certainty was absurd. That apart from a few certainties in mathematics and logic just about every theory in history has been revisited at some point – and that "fact" is little more than a working hypothesis. Even the great David Hume echoed this in his observations on the natural world. Hume's point is that, just because the sun rose in the sky today does not mean it will do so again tomorrow i.e. there is no rational basis for informing cause and effect. These idea are important to bear in mind when modern scientists set forward complicated arguments to support a particular point whether it be global warming or the genetic modification of food etc. As Descartes so astutely commented many years ago – keep your arguments simple, building them up slowly, otherwise you will end up talking nonsense! Socrates, therefore, turned his enquiries inward to the make-up of man and the ends for which humankind lives i.e. what is valuable as opposed to a mere means to an end. Socrates concluded that happiness was a desirable aim and a common end to all. But what exactly is happiness – pleasure, success, honour, fame or wisdom etc? Socrates found the answer in what he called the "perfection of the soul" i.e. personal morality rather than natural speculations which add nothing to life. This is very close to the Christian approach to life. And because it is Socrates has been acclaimed as a pre-Christ Christian. Socrates may have been among the first to realise that the spiritual and material are not in conflict but that both find their true meaning in the contemplation of God.
Rev Derek Marsh BA (hons) DHT
History of Western Thought pt. 1
A useful question to ask might be: "what is science?" and "did science have a beginning?" There is no agreed answer to both but Clagett for example offered a definition of science as: "the orderly and systematic comprehension, description and/or explanation of natural phenomena" (The Social Relations of Science, London, 1967) - without any reference to gods. But even that definition omits so much that others might want to include under that heading. In the ancient world description led to speculation which Hippocrates and his medical colleagues rejected in their work. These pioneering medical practitioners conducted detailed observations (and post mortems) to enable them to map symptoms and so offer patients a fairly reliable prognosis – again minus any reference to the supernatural.
But did science have a beginning? Aristotle maintained that science began with Thales of Miletus who almost certainly built on the work of others before him e.g. the Babylonians etc. However, what was new with Thales was making a break with the past in his discovery of nature. In other words instead of attributing natural phenomena to the whims of the gods Thales understood natural phenomena to have a cause and effect. That is how he began to interpret such things as lightning and earthquakes all very crudely but marking a clear departure from the past. Thales, and others of his era, were making a distinction between the natural and the supernatural. This did not mean these early philosophers were atheists far from it. Indeed, Thales is reported to have said that: "all things are full of gods." Nevertheless people were beginning to question their long held beliefs. And it's interesting that the Atomists held a similar view that everything is composed of tiny atoms colliding together in the void to form shapes; shapes which may exist for a while before disintegrating again to form new shapes – all from tiny, indivisible atoms. Even the soul, it was believed, was made up of tiny rounded atoms which somehow got squeezed in between other atoms as they banged together in the void. All by accident? That's not clear. And even today there are some who look back to the Atomists as people who made a giant leap forward in understanding reality. However, one thing the ancients were sure of was the untrustworthiness of the senses. For example take a sheet of paper which is white with black writing on it. But when I turn away (or maybe switch off the light) do these qualities of whiteness and blackness still exist? The answer was a resounding "no." All that exists is the form of the paper and nothing more. We might disagree with that explanation but these ideas are still being debated in philosophical circles.
But did this method of observation settle for all time the question of "facts" and their reliability over faith? Not at all. Socrates, who was a towering figure in ancient philosophy, rejected the Ionian speculations of nature as useless. Why? Because they could only observe events not explain them. Yet despite this, said Socrates, they state their conclusions with confidence, expressing as truth what they could not possibly know themselves. Socrates was not interested in what could not be proved. In later centuries Voltaire (1694-1778) said something similar. Voltaire, rebelling against accepted traditions, maintained that certainty was absurd. That apart from a few certainties in mathematics and logic just about every theory in history has been revisited at some point – and that "fact" is little more than a working hypothesis. Even the great David Hume echoed this in his observations on the natural world. Hume's point is that, just because the sun rose in the sky today does not mean it will do so again tomorrow i.e. there is no rational basis for informing cause and effect. These idea are important to bear in mind when modern scientists set forward complicated arguments to support a particular point whether it be global warming or the genetic modification of food etc. As Descartes so astutely commented many years ago – keep your arguments simple, building them up slowly, otherwise you will end up talking nonsense! Socrates, therefore, turned his enquiries inward to the make-up of man and the ends for which humankind lives i.e. what is valuable as opposed to a mere means to an end. Socrates concluded that happiness was a desirable aim and a common end to all. But what exactly is happiness – pleasure, success, honour, fame or wisdom etc? Socrates found the answer in what he called the "perfection of the soul" i.e. personal morality rather than natural speculations which add nothing to life. This is very close to the Christian approach to life. And because it is Socrates has been acclaimed as a pre-Christ Christian. Socrates may have been among the first to realise that the spiritual and material are not in conflict but that both find their true meaning in the contemplation of God.
Rev Derek Marsh BA (hons) DHT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)