Spiritualism - Lesson #9
The individualisation, and therefore fragmentation, of western society is the direct consequence of secularism. Descartes conceived the universe as a huge machine to be studied while Locke took this a stage further when he said: "I am because I think" i.e. man is the judge of what is true (as the basis of logic). Consequently, with the universe as nothing more than a machine all gods, ghosts, and spirits were eliminated with man becoming master of his own destiny through the subjugation of the earth. Secularism denies (as "truth") the existence of God. Yet truth is a slippery term that may be perceived as subjective, objective or pragmatic. So, for example when an atheist states: "there is no God" this is a contradictory statement for it claims as "truth" what the atheist has denied to be true! These kind of logical arguments can be taken in many directions. Secularism denies the objectivity of anything – all things are "relative" and therefore subject to human decision making – which has been disastrous for western cultures.
Secularism elevates man, and man alone, to the position of master of his own destiny. How? Through "reason." It is reason alone that is able to solve every problem befalling humanity. And to be fair it is a worldview that has brought many benefits e.g. limitless food production, technological advance, medicine, genetics, and so on. However, much has also been lost e.g. pollution, over population, discontent and futility (life has no meaning or purpose for when we dies that's it). In the context of this study the breakdown of the family and the fragmentation of society (and erosion of culture) are also major features of secularism as is the loss of spirituality. Individual development, at the expense of others, is advocated as the noblest end of life i.e. to stand on your own feet and be yourself and to fill your life with "activity" so as not to linger too long over one's fears. The downside is that children are impatient of parents who are then side-lined or shunted off to an old-people's home much to the horror of, for example, people from African cultures. There was an interesting programme on the BBC recently where a group of celebrities went to India to see if it would be a suitable place to retire. The conclusions were startling. The celebrities from England discovered just how much British culture has lost in terms of togetherness, family and society – also spirituality. And they liked what they saw even though Indian society is caste based and, for the most part, poor. It was a real eye opener for them.
Within western culture the family is breaking down with children closeting themselves away in their bedrooms taking their meals there apart from others members of the family. And in neighbourhoods, where houses are closely packed together (as in England for example) people often do not know their neighbours with the result that the elderly, who live alone, die and lie undiscovered in their homes for days on end.
Consciousness is also a slippery term. No-one knows what consciousness is or even if human-beings are conscious all the time or just some of the time. For example if a person walks into a room to collect a book etc after leaving the room they are conscious that there was much in the room that they were unaware of (out of consciousness). It's the same when driving a car. A person my drive from A to B without being conscious at all of working the pedals, changing gears, looking in the mirror, negotiating intersections, rotaries, traffic lights and so on. And at journey's end they may have no recollection at all of the journey. Yet something within their consciousness carried out all those functions while their thinking was elsewhere.
The "fight or flight" syndrome is another example of consciousness acting on its own without any help from us. Even before the perceived danger has registered in the brain the autonomic nervous system (involuntary) has taken over. Blood will be surging through the veins, (with the face growing pale), food in the stomach regurgitated (there's no need of food if I die), adrenalin will be realised into the blood-stream to heighten alertness, the palms of the hand may become sweaty and hair may quite literally stand on end. All this is beyond the power of the individual to control. The body is preparing to defend itself against a life-threatening danger. Psychologists tell us this syndrome originates from a primitive part of the brain from when humans were hunter gathers in constant danger from predators. In fact psychologists tell us that during the evolutionary process the brain has added new bits on to itself (some of which are now redundant) which we're now stuck with! As a qualified hypnotherapist I have witnessed personally the power of the subconscious mind helping people to overcome difficulties in their lives – secularism would deny this.
In the many funerals I conduct I always emphasise the importance of family, (of being part of each-others lives) to make life meaningful, fulfilling and worth living. We need each other (no man is an island) for the sharing of gifts, talents, passing on wisdom and sharing love (which binds us all together for all time). It is this that western culture has lost- the concept of the whole people of God in community together. Secularism cannot give us this – soul, spirit, mysticism etc are beyond its remit. Only love (which is the ground and essence of God) can fan the soul into a relationship with him. People are at last waking up to this. Relationships are intuitive, emotional and spiritual all of which negate secularism.
Rog
Feb. 19th 2016
Friday, February 19, 2016
Monday, February 15, 2016
spiritualsim lesson 8
spiritualsim lesson 8
When discussing the subject of persecution it might be helpful to start at the beginning. From its earliest foundation Christianity was a faith that "appealed." Why was that? It wasn't just that the Romans established peace across the empire and laid down good communications for this new faith to spread far and wide. Christianity arose in a society steeped in mystery religions, magic, Greek philosophy, Epicureans, Cynics, Gnostics and so on – none of which offered people any hope at all. But Christianity appealed to all classes of people with a message of love, forgiveness, acceptance and hope of eternal-life particularly to the marginalised and dispossessed in society. And they flocked to it in droves. However, unlike Judaism which was tolerated by the Romans, Christianity was outside its protection and therefore ripe for persecution. And for the first three centuries of the Christian era Christians were brutally persecuted by the state suffering many martyrs. However, after Constantine became Emperor it was the Church that became the persecutor of those outside its teaching – which is deeply regretful.
In is parting words Jesus told his followers to love one another as a witness to their belonging to him. He also told them that the first (and greatest commandment) was to love God and neighbour as self. There is no confusion here; the golden rule is to do unto others as we would have them do to us. Christianity is a religion of peace, forgiveness, mercy, inclusion and kindness. Of course there are Christian fundamentalists just as there are fundamentalist in every religion i.e. people who cherry-pick their scriptures to justify beliefs and actions. However, the correct way is to look across the whole of scripture to determine what the overriding principles are – this is the way to do ethics. Christians have been involved in wars just as others faiths have also. There is a magazine called "Barnabas Fund" which supports the persecuted Church (i.e. Christians) throughout the world. Today in 2016 there are many countries in Africa, the Far East and so on where Christians are brutally persecuted for their faith. It's also true that aetheistic, secular powers (e.g. Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc) murdered more people than every religion put together.
What should we make of "predestination" a doctrine advocated by Calvin and others? The first thing we should do is discuss God's knowledge – something usually covered in philosophy of religion. If God is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal then it follows that his knowledge is perfect too. This means that God eternally knows what "Fred" will do before he does it -he would have to if he is God – for God is not limited in any way. However, "Fred" can change his mind because Fred also has free-will. This doesn't limit God's knowledge – because God is patient and not coerrsive (see the parable of the Prodical Son).
But it should be stressed that while the Bible emphasises love, compassion, forgiveness and tolerance it also speaks (in many places) of judgement. For example the Old Testament book of Judges. "Judges" does not refer to a law court but to "saviours," (heroes) raised up by God to deliver his people from a desperate situation. But the people never learned the lesson for once the emergency was over they reverted to their old ways and suffered further "judgement." Jesus too spoke of judgement. There are also many reference in the Bible to the "elect" (e.g. Matthew 24:22; 24:24; 24:31 etc. AV). There are also numerous references to heaven as a place exterior to the human heart. For example Jesus saw heaven being torn apart and the Spirit descending (Mark 1:10); and a voice coming from heaven (Mark 1:11). Jesus also took loaves and fish and looked up to heaven (Mark 6:41). And when people came to Jesus to test him they asked him for a sign from heaven (Luke 24:51). There are many more references besides these. Finally, Jesus said that whoever believes, and is baptised, will be saved but whoever does not believe will be condemned (Mark 16:15) – it's a question of faith leading to the transformation of lives, morals and life-style. Predestination has long been a hotly contested issue but it need not be. The gospel is clear where salvation lies – believe in the person of Jesus.
Rog
15th Feb. 2016
When discussing the subject of persecution it might be helpful to start at the beginning. From its earliest foundation Christianity was a faith that "appealed." Why was that? It wasn't just that the Romans established peace across the empire and laid down good communications for this new faith to spread far and wide. Christianity arose in a society steeped in mystery religions, magic, Greek philosophy, Epicureans, Cynics, Gnostics and so on – none of which offered people any hope at all. But Christianity appealed to all classes of people with a message of love, forgiveness, acceptance and hope of eternal-life particularly to the marginalised and dispossessed in society. And they flocked to it in droves. However, unlike Judaism which was tolerated by the Romans, Christianity was outside its protection and therefore ripe for persecution. And for the first three centuries of the Christian era Christians were brutally persecuted by the state suffering many martyrs. However, after Constantine became Emperor it was the Church that became the persecutor of those outside its teaching – which is deeply regretful.
In is parting words Jesus told his followers to love one another as a witness to their belonging to him. He also told them that the first (and greatest commandment) was to love God and neighbour as self. There is no confusion here; the golden rule is to do unto others as we would have them do to us. Christianity is a religion of peace, forgiveness, mercy, inclusion and kindness. Of course there are Christian fundamentalists just as there are fundamentalist in every religion i.e. people who cherry-pick their scriptures to justify beliefs and actions. However, the correct way is to look across the whole of scripture to determine what the overriding principles are – this is the way to do ethics. Christians have been involved in wars just as others faiths have also. There is a magazine called "Barnabas Fund" which supports the persecuted Church (i.e. Christians) throughout the world. Today in 2016 there are many countries in Africa, the Far East and so on where Christians are brutally persecuted for their faith. It's also true that aetheistic, secular powers (e.g. Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc) murdered more people than every religion put together.
What should we make of "predestination" a doctrine advocated by Calvin and others? The first thing we should do is discuss God's knowledge – something usually covered in philosophy of religion. If God is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal then it follows that his knowledge is perfect too. This means that God eternally knows what "Fred" will do before he does it -he would have to if he is God – for God is not limited in any way. However, "Fred" can change his mind because Fred also has free-will. This doesn't limit God's knowledge – because God is patient and not coerrsive (see the parable of the Prodical Son).
But it should be stressed that while the Bible emphasises love, compassion, forgiveness and tolerance it also speaks (in many places) of judgement. For example the Old Testament book of Judges. "Judges" does not refer to a law court but to "saviours," (heroes) raised up by God to deliver his people from a desperate situation. But the people never learned the lesson for once the emergency was over they reverted to their old ways and suffered further "judgement." Jesus too spoke of judgement. There are also many reference in the Bible to the "elect" (e.g. Matthew 24:22; 24:24; 24:31 etc. AV). There are also numerous references to heaven as a place exterior to the human heart. For example Jesus saw heaven being torn apart and the Spirit descending (Mark 1:10); and a voice coming from heaven (Mark 1:11). Jesus also took loaves and fish and looked up to heaven (Mark 6:41). And when people came to Jesus to test him they asked him for a sign from heaven (Luke 24:51). There are many more references besides these. Finally, Jesus said that whoever believes, and is baptised, will be saved but whoever does not believe will be condemned (Mark 16:15) – it's a question of faith leading to the transformation of lives, morals and life-style. Predestination has long been a hotly contested issue but it need not be. The gospel is clear where salvation lies – believe in the person of Jesus.
Rog
15th Feb. 2016
Spiritualism - Lesson #7
Spiritualism - Lesson #7
The writings of Plato, Aristotle and, in more recent times, Carl Jung are fascinating. Jung besides being a great psychologist was also something of a psychic who possessed second-sight and extraordinary powers of imagery. He sometimes saw the future before it happened and was proved to be correct. Yet he was never triumphant about this but sought answers in the immediate. It was this, in my view, which led him to the concept of the collective consciousness. Jung had been Freud's pupil whom Freud hoped would take on his mantel – but this didn't happen because they fell out and Jung went his own way.
Plato's teaching on Forms is, in my view, too simplistic as Aristotle came to see also. The reason I can recognise a horse is because I've seen one with my eyes! If I had not seen a horse with my eyes there is no way I could possibly imagine one! And if I can't imagine a horse (or anything else for that matter) there could be no "perfect form" of it either! Scientists tell us there are many thousands of yet to be discovered species of plants, sea-life and so on. But until those species are discovered (and seen with human eyes) there is no-one anyone can imagine them. It would seem, therefore, that according to Plato's philosophy humans, themselves, create those perfect forms and therefore the perfect world in which they reside. This doesn't make any sense and is therefore fit only for the bin. This is not to say that human-beings do not muse within themselves that there is more to life than meets the eye. Of course they do. For example the writer of Ecclesiastes, who was himself a teacher of philosophy, came to this very same conclusion. According to him it was as if God has planted within the human-heart knowledge that there is more to life than meets the eye but not the intelligence to work out exactly what it is! So frustrating.
The book of Genesis tells us that God created everything according to its kind. Aristotle seems to follow this with his teaching on form and potential. For example an acorn has the inbuilt potential to become a fully developed tree and nothing other than a tree. As that tree grows up from the earth it aspires to the heavens where God is. However, Aristotle's God is not a personal or knowable God. On the contrary his is an "unmoved mover" who sits on the edge of the universe attracting every living thing to him while he sits there completely oblivious to them. That's not the God Jesus speaks of in the New Testament i.e. God is a loving Father (in relationship with creation) through his son Jesus. The problem with philosophy is that, while it is a fascinating subject helping people to think logically it often ends up talking itself into a corner.
Rog
15th Feb 2016
The writings of Plato, Aristotle and, in more recent times, Carl Jung are fascinating. Jung besides being a great psychologist was also something of a psychic who possessed second-sight and extraordinary powers of imagery. He sometimes saw the future before it happened and was proved to be correct. Yet he was never triumphant about this but sought answers in the immediate. It was this, in my view, which led him to the concept of the collective consciousness. Jung had been Freud's pupil whom Freud hoped would take on his mantel – but this didn't happen because they fell out and Jung went his own way.
Plato's teaching on Forms is, in my view, too simplistic as Aristotle came to see also. The reason I can recognise a horse is because I've seen one with my eyes! If I had not seen a horse with my eyes there is no way I could possibly imagine one! And if I can't imagine a horse (or anything else for that matter) there could be no "perfect form" of it either! Scientists tell us there are many thousands of yet to be discovered species of plants, sea-life and so on. But until those species are discovered (and seen with human eyes) there is no-one anyone can imagine them. It would seem, therefore, that according to Plato's philosophy humans, themselves, create those perfect forms and therefore the perfect world in which they reside. This doesn't make any sense and is therefore fit only for the bin. This is not to say that human-beings do not muse within themselves that there is more to life than meets the eye. Of course they do. For example the writer of Ecclesiastes, who was himself a teacher of philosophy, came to this very same conclusion. According to him it was as if God has planted within the human-heart knowledge that there is more to life than meets the eye but not the intelligence to work out exactly what it is! So frustrating.
The book of Genesis tells us that God created everything according to its kind. Aristotle seems to follow this with his teaching on form and potential. For example an acorn has the inbuilt potential to become a fully developed tree and nothing other than a tree. As that tree grows up from the earth it aspires to the heavens where God is. However, Aristotle's God is not a personal or knowable God. On the contrary his is an "unmoved mover" who sits on the edge of the universe attracting every living thing to him while he sits there completely oblivious to them. That's not the God Jesus speaks of in the New Testament i.e. God is a loving Father (in relationship with creation) through his son Jesus. The problem with philosophy is that, while it is a fascinating subject helping people to think logically it often ends up talking itself into a corner.
Rog
15th Feb 2016
Friday, January 29, 2016
Spiritualism - Lesson #6
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)