<div> </div>
<div>Joe et. al,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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:
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.wilderdom.com/evolution/BiophiliaHypothesis.html">http://www.wilderdom.com/evolution/BiophiliaHypothesis.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>From website above:</div>
<div>
<p style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px"> </p>
<p style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px">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.
</p>
<p style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px"><i></i> </p>
<p style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px"><i>Humanity is exalted not because we are so far above other living creatures, but because knowing them well elevates the very concept of life.</i><br> Edward O. Wilson, <i>
Biophilia</i>, 1984, p. 22</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center"><i>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.
</i><br> Edward O. Wilson, <i>Biophilia</i>, 1984, p. 139</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center"><i>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.
</i><br> Edward O. Wilson, <i>Biophilia</i>, 1984, p, 121<br></p></div>
<div>--------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/29/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Joe Campbell</b> <<a href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net">joekc@adelphia.net</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">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.
<br><br>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!
<br><br>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.
<br><br>Best, Joe<br><br>---- Ted Moffett <<a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>=============<br>Paul et. al.<br><br>The role of faith and fact in human life (or how to define either), the
<br>varying probabilities of the truth of beliefs that are based on either<br>faith, fact or a combination of both, is a very difficult subject, the<br>complexities of which are sometimes used to muddy the waters regarding
<br>the difference by those who wish to believe whatever they want.<br><br>Extremism in religious or secular belief (like Communism, Stalin or Pol Pot,<br>or even the belief that the capitalist marketplace follows laws of economics
<br>that insure the best outcome for the human race) appears to involve a state<br>of mind so dogmatic the motto "Don't confuse me with the facts, my minds<br>made up!" is adopted.<br><br>What might (maybe) lessen the negative consequences (religious war, worship
<br>of the ideology of the State, as in Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, or China,<br>suicide bombers, justifying torture, denial of important scientific<br>evidence, oppression of women or homosexuals, etc.) of extreme dogmatism
<br>of belief is the widespread promotion of skepticism in the absolute truth of<br>belief, any belief. Then belief would be based on a special definition of<br>"faith," hopefully (I have faith!) of the kind inducing humility and less
<br>arrogance in behavior, less absolutism, rather than an attempt to prove one<br>religion is true above others based on indisputable documentation and<br>reason. Certainly skepticism is in order for the circular reasoning of
<br>those who insist their "faith" is sufficient "fact" to justify belief<br>in God, or some supernatural entity, when they offer anecdotal evidence they<br>are guided directly from "above," and lead others based on their claims.
<br>This is how some religions start. But even the most humble scientific<br>theory is based on assumptions about how the universe operates that must be<br>taken on "faith" of a special kind:<br><br>Here are the five postulates required to support the scientific method from
<br>page 487 of Bertrand Russell's "Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits:"<br><br>a. The postulate of quasi-permanence<br><br>b. The postulate of separable causal lines.<br><br>c. The postulate of spatial-temporal continuity in causal lines.
<br><br>d. The postulate of the common causal origin of similar structures ranged<br>about a center,<br>or, more simply, the structural postulate.<br><br>e. The postulate of analogy.<br>------------------------------------------
<br><br>However, there is obviously a great need to "prove" that one religion or<br>ideology is above all others. This makes sense. Many do not want to admit<br>that there is insufficient evidence that their belief system, which they use
<br>to guide and give meaning to their lives, is more true than all others, but<br>rather that they believe absolutely based on mostly "faith." Anyone can<br>justify their adherence to a variety of belief systems on "faith." This
<br>basis tends to weaken the insistence that a given religion is true above all<br>others. The need for certainty about how to live, the overwhelming sadness<br>and grief of the losses of death, the need to passionately believe that
<br>human life plays an ultimate and essential role in the universe, is<br>fulfilled by absolute belief in one religious ideology above others. These<br>needs are obviously overwhelming...<br><br>I have discussed the divine revelation of the Koran and the Bible, with both
<br>Muslims and Christians, and both present their arguments and evidence that<br>one or the other is the true revealed word of God. In both sets of<br>discussions no one simply said they have "faith" that the Koran or the Bible
<br>is the true revealed word of God, without making an appeal to facts and<br>reason.<br><br>With Christians and Muslims, their religious loyalty hinges centrally on<br>this belief. If the Bible or the Koran (how could it be both in differing
<br>ways for someone who absolutely believes in one religion or the other?) is<br>the true revealed divine word of the One Creator of the Universe, and<br>following the words of one or the other book is mandated for an eternal life
<br>in heaven, or else...<br><br>Incredible actions can be justified for those who fervently believe in these<br>ideas, as well they should, assuming they are the absolute truth.<br><br>Ted Moffett<br><br>On 7/28/07, Paul Rumelhart <
<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>> How do either of you reconcile your fact-based religion with faith? If<br>> there turns out to be no non-biblical historical record that Jesus was
<br>> resurrected, does that mean that you would stop believing it? If faith is<br>> required, then how can it be fact-based? If faith is required, then why<br>> criticize others for a religion based on emotion and hope? How is faith
<br>> different than emotion or hope? If faith has to be "rooted in fact", then<br>> doesn't it cease to be faith?<br>><br>> The reason I suggest "non-biblical" historical records is that trying to
<br>> use the books of the Bible to prove the existence of Jesus is a little like<br>> using the books of Harry Potter to prove the existence of Albus Dumbledore.<br>> An objective source that talks about the resurrection of Jesus would be
<br>> helpful. I'm not a historian - for all I know there may be tens of<br>> thousands of such accounts, but what if they were shown to be forgeries or<br>> something? Would that affect the level of your belief?
<br>><br>> Does Doug Farris really know that much about "all other religions",<br>> anyway? Is there no historical basis for the prophets of Islam (peace be<br>> upon them), for example?<br>><br>
> Paul<br>><br>> keely emerinemix wrote:<br>><br>><br>><br>> I believe that Christianity is based on evidence of the existence,<br>> deity, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but I also believe that a
<br>> defense of Christianity from Doug Farris is a little like a defense of<br>> sharpened math skills from former Enron CEO Ken Lay.<br>><br>> keely<br>> (who is so techno-inept that it's taken her an hour to figure out how to
<br>> log onto her computer while in Canada)<br>><br>> "And these women that you spit on as they try to change their worlds/<br>> Are immune to your consultations . . . they're quite aware of what they're
<br>> going through"<br>> (With apologies to David Bowie)<br>><br>><br>> > From: <a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</a><br>> > To: <a href="mailto:heirdoug@netscape.net">heirdoug@netscape.net
</a>; <a href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net">joekc@adelphia.net</a>; <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>> > Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:51:53 -0700<br>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Mere Christianity!
<br>> ><br>> > "As more and more heathens 'choose' to not have children the number of<br>> Godly<br>> > souls will increase. If the number of Christian births out number the<br>> number
<br>> > of Islamic births the battle will be over in 3 or 4 generations."<br>> ><br>> > - Doug "No-Clue" Farris (March 10, 2007)<br>> ><br>> > Kinda gives you that old-time Christian, warm, fuzzy feeling, doesn't
<br>> it,<br>> > Joe?<br>> ><br>> > Please continue, No-Clue. We're listening.<br>> ><br>> > Tom "Born Again Pagan" Hansen<br>> > Moscow, Idaho<br>> ><br>> > -----Original Message-----
<br>> ><br>> > From: <a href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</a> [<br>> mailto:<a href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</a> <<a href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">
vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</a>>]<br>> > On Behalf Of <a href="mailto:heirdoug@netscape.net">heirdoug@netscape.net</a><br>> > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:39 PM<br>> > To: <a href="mailto:joekc@adelphia.net">
joekc@adelphia.net</a>; <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>> > Subject: [Vision2020] Mere Christianity!<br>> ><br>> > Joe,<br>> ><br>> > Is this the sum total of your understanding. ..."something more than
<br>> > mere religious beliefs; maybe they are based on facts rather than<br>> > emotion. "<br>> ><br>> > Do you think and/or believe that one who has mere religious beliefs is<br>> > fuctioning on emotion and not facts? Then you truly are mislead because
<br>> > the Christian faith is based upon nothing but facts, ie Jesus died and<br>> > was buried and was raised from the dead on the third day. These are not<br>> > based upon feelings and emotion. These three things are based upon
<br>> > facts. eye witness accounts of seeing Christ before during and after<br>> > his death. All of the other religions of the world are based upon<br>> > feelings and emotion but not Christianity.<br>
> ><br>> > Doug!<br>> > ____________________________________________________________<br>><br>><br><br></blockquote></div><br>