[Vision2020] Mere Christianity!

Sun Jul 29 20:20:25 PDT 2007

Joe et. al,

I did not want you to think I was implying that you are one of the people
who are trying to prove any religion to be above any other, which is why I
posted a short "correction" that my previous long post in this thread was
not in response to anything you or keely posted in this thread.

However, it is clear that millions of the faithful who are Muslims or
Christians make attempts to prove that their religion is above all others,
and would not for a moment seriously state that maybe they are wrong and the
other religion might be the one true religion of God.

I thought also I would clarify that I consider myself profoundly religious
(or I should say "spiritual," given the associations the word "religious"
connotes with so called traditional organized institutionalized religion).
My spirituality is, to put it simply, my connection with and worship of life
on this planet.  While the emotive, cognitive, perceptual, kinesthetic and
visionary aspects of this spirituality in some respects resemble states of
experience sometimes involved in other religions (most religions offer
profound ideas, insights and experiences, and are thus rarely just
"nonsense"), I think this spirituality is based on science to a degree not
shared by some other religions.  We evolved on this planet, the biosphere
sustains us now and into the future, and the destruction of the biosphere
could mean the end of humanity.  This is an empirical fact that is certain,
well, as much as gravity or sunshine, in my opinion.  And we ignore this
empirical scientific fact at our own peril, as the human race is engaged in
mass extinctions of species and an experiment in climate change of massive
proportions.

This spirituality might in part involve what Harvard entomologist E. O.
Wilson was suggesting in his book "Biophilia," though I would not attempt to
defend his exact thesis.  I view this spirituality towards Nature as not
just a strategy to find a belief system for direction or meaning in life, or
a method of transcending my little mortal shell of a body and soul to merge
with a greater lasting reality outside, all needs that religion satisfies;
but as a necessary survival response to a world greatly oblivious to the
harm we will do to humanity if we do not begin to treat the preservation of
life on Earth as an "absolute" good, in balance with human needs for use of
the Earth's environment and resources.

I think "Biophilia," if I can borrow E. O Wilson's term, or a similar
approach to spirituality, is the new (maybe not new but not widespread)
religion the human race appears to need.  In saying this I am acknowledging
the profound needs that religion fulfills that it appears will not be
satisfied in other so called "secular" ways very easily.  The odds this
approach to spirituality will be widely adopted is, I well know, very low.
It does not offer a book of rules to follow offering the same ethical detail
that some religions offer, though I suppose someone could write one (maybe
someone has).  Nor does it offer "salvation" in the usual sense, or a
personal relationship with a superior personalized intelligence, unless the
Earth is mythologized as a living being or intelligence, i. e. a Goddess, or
Gaia.

Maybe "Biophilia" can be adopted as a priority by more traditional
religions, though the ideologies of some religions render this problematic
(Nature worshippers are evil Pagans).  But at least it does not promise what
some religions promise, as hundreds of millions expect to live forever in a
heaven (who really thinks they will go to the other place?) somewhere apart
from the Earth (evidence, please?), a rather dangerous belief, given that
it can result in less prioritization of or an outright disregard for life
on Earth as an ultimate good, along with other incredible behaviors:

http://www.wilderdom.com/evolution/BiophiliaHypothesis.html

>From website above:

A somewhat controversial hypothesis put forward by Edward Wilson is the idea
that humans evolved as creatures deeply enmeshed with the intricacies of
nature, and that we still have this affinity with nature ingrained in our
genotype.

**

*Humanity is exalted not because we are so far above other living creatures,
but because knowing them well elevates the very concept of life.*
  Edward O. Wilson, *Biophilia*, 1984, p. 22

*I have argued in this book that we are human in good part because of the
particular way we affiliate with other organisms.  They are the matrix in
which the human mind originated and is permanently rooted, and they offer
the challenge and freedom innately sought.  To the extent that each person
can feel like a naturalist, the old excitement of the untrammeled world will
be regained.  I offer this as a formula of reenchantment to invigorate
poetry and myth: mysterious and little known organisms live within walking
distance of where you sit.  Splendor awaits in minute proportions.*
  Edward O. Wilson, *Biophilia*, 1984, p. 139

*The one process now going on that will take millions of years to correct is
the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural
habitats.  This is the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us.
*
  Edward O. Wilson, *Biophilia*, 1984, p, 121
--------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 7/29/07, Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> Interesting thoughts, Ted, worthy of contemplation! Likewise with Ralph's
> comments. Sorry but I don't have time to discuss the details, not that I
> would have anything particularly interesting to offer.
>
> One thing that I want to say, though, is that I don't have "a great need
> to 'prove' that one religion or ideology is above all others," any more than
> I have a great need to prove that my wife is the most beautiful woman alive.
> In either case, for me at least, belief is enough!
>
> And as I noted at the end of my last post, I am a bit of a skeptic in all
> matters and think that religious tolerance and respect should be practiced
> by all -- including respect for those who think that all religions are
> non-sense. I am anti-extremism and dogmaticism of any form, religious or
> otherwise.
>
> Best, Joe
>
> ---- Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> =============
> Paul et. al.
>
> The role of faith and fact in human life (or how to define either), the
> varying probabilities of the truth of beliefs that are based on either
> faith, fact or a combination of both, is a very difficult subject, the
> complexities of which are sometimes used to muddy the waters regarding
> the difference by those who wish to believe whatever they want.
>
> Extremism in religious or secular belief (like Communism, Stalin or Pol
> Pot,
> or even the belief that the capitalist marketplace follows laws of
> economics
> that insure the best outcome for the human race) appears to involve a
> state
> of mind so dogmatic the motto "Don't confuse me with the facts, my minds
> made up!" is adopted.
>
> What might (maybe) lessen the negative consequences (religious war,
> worship
> of the ideology of the State, as in Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, or China,
> suicide bombers, justifying torture, denial of important scientific
> evidence, oppression of women or homosexuals, etc.) of extreme dogmatism
> of belief is the widespread promotion of skepticism in the absolute truth
> of
> belief, any belief.  Then belief would be based on a special definition of
> "faith," hopefully (I have faith!) of the kind inducing humility and less
> arrogance in behavior, less absolutism, rather than an attempt to prove
> one
> religion is true above others based on indisputable documentation and
> reason.  Certainly skepticism is in order for the circular reasoning of
> those who insist their "faith" is sufficient "fact" to justify belief
> in God, or some supernatural entity, when they offer anecdotal evidence
> they
> are guided directly from "above," and lead others based on their claims.
> This is how some religions start.  But even the most humble scientific
> theory is based on assumptions about how the universe operates that must
> be
> taken on "faith" of a special kind:
>
> Here are the five postulates required to support the scientific method
> from
> page 487 of Bertrand Russell's "Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits:"
>
> a.  The postulate of quasi-permanence
>
> b.  The postulate of separable causal lines.
>
> c.  The postulate of spatial-temporal continuity in causal lines.
>
> d.  The postulate of the common causal origin of similar structures ranged
> about a center,
> or, more simply, the structural postulate.
>
> e.  The postulate of analogy.
> ------------------------------------------
>
> However, there is obviously a great need to "prove" that one religion or
> ideology is above all others.  This makes sense.  Many do not want to
> admit
> that there is insufficient evidence that their belief system, which they
> use
> to guide and give meaning to their lives, is more true than all others,
> but
> rather that they believe absolutely based on mostly "faith."  Anyone can
> justify their adherence to a variety of belief systems on "faith."  This
> basis tends to weaken the insistence that a given religion is true above
> all
> others.  The need for certainty about how to live, the overwhelming
> sadness
> and grief of the losses of death, the need to passionately believe that
> human life plays an ultimate and essential role in the universe, is
> fulfilled by absolute belief in one religious ideology above
> others.  These
> needs are obviously overwhelming...
>
> I have discussed the divine revelation of the Koran and the Bible, with
> both
> Muslims and Christians, and both present their arguments and evidence that
> one or the other is the true revealed word of God.  In both sets of
> discussions no one simply said they have "faith" that the Koran or the
> Bible
> is the true revealed word of God, without making an appeal to facts and
> reason.
>
> With Christians and Muslims, their religious loyalty hinges centrally on
> this belief.  If the Bible or the Koran (how could it be both in differing
> ways for someone who absolutely believes in one religion or the other?) is
> the true revealed divine word of the One Creator of the Universe, and
> following the words of one or the other book is mandated for an eternal
> life
> in heaven, or else...
>
> Incredible actions can be justified for those who fervently believe in
> these
> ideas, as well they should, assuming they are the absolute truth.
>
> Ted Moffett
>
> On 7/28/07, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > How do either of you reconcile your fact-based religion with faith?  If
> > there turns out to be no non-biblical historical record that Jesus was
> > resurrected, does that mean that you would stop believing it?  If faith
> is
> > required, then how can it be fact-based?  If faith is required, then why
> > criticize others for a religion based on emotion and hope?  How is faith
> > different than emotion or hope?  If faith has to be "rooted in fact",
> then
> > doesn't it cease to be faith?
> >
> > The reason I suggest "non-biblical" historical records is that trying to
> > use the books of the Bible to prove the existence of Jesus is a little
> like
> > using the books of Harry Potter to prove the existence of Albus
> Dumbledore.
> > An objective source that talks about the resurrection of Jesus would be
> > helpful.  I'm not a historian - for all I know there may be tens of
> > thousands of such accounts, but what if they were shown to be forgeries
> or
> > something?  Would that affect the level of your belief?
> >
> > Does Doug Farris really know that much about "all other religions",
> > anyway?  Is there no historical basis for the prophets of Islam (peace
> be
> > upon them), for example?
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > keely emerinemix wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe that Christianity is based on evidence of the existence,
> > deity, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but I also believe that a
> > defense of Christianity from Doug Farris is a little like a defense of
> > sharpened math skills from former Enron CEO Ken Lay.
> >
> > keely
> > (who is so techno-inept that it's taken her an hour to figure out how to
> > log onto her computer while in Canada)
> >
> > "And these women that you spit on as they try to change their worlds/
> > Are immune to your consultations . . . they're quite aware of what
> they're
> > going through"
> > (With apologies to David Bowie)
> >
> >
> > > From: thansen at moscow.com
> > > To: heirdoug at netscape.net; joekc at adelphia.net; vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:51:53 -0700
> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Mere Christianity!
> > >
> > > "As more and more heathens 'choose' to not have children the number of
> > Godly
> > > souls will increase. If the number of Christian births out number the
> > number
> > > of Islamic births the battle will be over in 3 or 4 generations."
> > >
> > > - Doug "No-Clue" Farris (March 10, 2007)
> > >
> > > Kinda gives you that old-time Christian, warm, fuzzy feeling, doesn't
> > it,
> > > Joe?
> > >
> > > Please continue, No-Clue. We're listening.
> > >
> > > Tom "Born Again Pagan" Hansen
> > > Moscow, Idaho
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > > From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [
> > mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com <vision2020-bounces at moscow.com>]
> > > On Behalf Of heirdoug at netscape.net
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:39 PM
> > > To: joekc at adelphia.net; vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > Subject: [Vision2020] Mere Christianity!
> > >
> > > Joe,
> > >
> > > Is this the sum total of your understanding. ..."something more than
> > > mere religious beliefs; maybe they are based on facts rather than
> > > emotion. "
> > >
> > > Do you think and/or believe that one who has mere religious beliefs is
> > > fuctioning on emotion and not facts? Then you truly are mislead
> because
> > > the Christian faith is based upon nothing but facts, ie Jesus died and
> > > was buried and was raised from the dead on the third day. These are
> not
> > > based upon feelings and emotion. These three things are based upon
> > > facts. eye witness accounts of seeing Christ before during and after
> > > his death. All of the other religions of the world are based upon
> > > feelings and emotion but not Christianity.
> > >
> > > Doug!
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070729/e2d70477/attachment-0001.html 