The ramblings of an Eternal Student of Life     
. . . still studying and learning how to be grateful and make the best of it
 
 
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Current Affairs ... Spirituality ...

The news buzz recently turned away from the BP Gulf oil disaster for a few moments to note the fiery demise of “Touchdown Jesus”, a 62 foot high statue of Jesus formerly residing along the baptismal pond at the Rock of Rock Church near Cincinnati.

The statue, a partial bust from the waist up, portends to show Jesus triumphant from the cross, raising his hands up towards the heavens (not unlike the way that a football referee signals a touchdown). Unfortunately, this Jesus was not built for the ages. The statue was built up with plastic foam and fiberglass surrounding a steel frame. It was hit by lightening a few nights ago and caught fire, leaving nothing but charred metal remaining.

The “blue state” liberal/agnostic types who don’t have much regard for “red state” spiritual expressions such as Touchdown Jesus  »  continue reading …

◊   posted by Jim G @ 9:08 pm       Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Spirituality ...

I’m engaging in some theology tonight. Simplistic theology, however, since over dinner I had a chocolate imperial stout that weighs in at 11% ABV (Southern Tier Choklat).

OK, so the question is God. And there is no answer; it’s pretty clear that there will never be one in this life. So why isn’t there an answer, why can’t there be one? Maybe because, if there was an answer, we would take God for granted. And for God to be God, we could NOT take God for granted. But if we were sure that God existed, surely we would; that’s just the way we are. So, if we could know for sure that there was a God, there couldn’t be a God. Simple as that! (At least after a bottle of imperial stout! But then again, Ben Franklin said that beer is proof that God wants us to be happy . . . ).

There are two, maybe three problems that we commonly have about God.  »  continue reading …

◊   posted by Jim G @ 11:28 pm       Read Comments (3) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Friday, January 15, 2010
Philosophy ... Spirituality ...

During the spare moments at work, I sometimes surf the net for something interesting to read (not unusual in today’s workplace). Today I was skimming thru a free PDF of the book “Norman Einstein”, a criticism of integral philosopher Ken Wilber.

I’ve never been a huge fan of Wilber, although no one interested in modern philosophic speculation can discount him. Nonetheless, author Geoffrey Falk has attempted to de-bunk him, or at least expose Wilber’s significant flaws. Wilber certainly does have a large and loyal following; if you are not one of them, then you probably won’t care about 60 or 70% of what Falk writes about. He goes into great detail. Since I never took the bait from Wilber (given that it was clear to me right away that the guy had significant anger issues, and had not found inner peace), I didn’t need to be let off the hook.

However, there is an interesting article in the appendix on how Wilber misunderstands and misinterprets the ontological paradigms regarding the reality behind quantum physics as postulated by the late, great physicist Dr. David Bohm. I won’t try here to explain what Dr. Bohm is getting at, except by contrast to the prevailing Copenhagen interpretation of quantum phenomenon. According to the Copenhagen disciples, “weird things happen” on the micro level. Get over it. There is no explanation. This is where physics ends. There’s nothing more to be explained through research, as we can never dig any deeper due to inherent uncertainties and fuzziness in our ability to observe tiny energy interactions.

Well, if that’s true, then metaphysical speculation fans like Ken Wilber (and myself) would be quite disappointed. That’s why David Bohm is so attractive to most of us. He comes up with some mathematically supportable if not yet empirically testable ideas on what might lie deeper than what we can detect. I’ve read a bit about his paradigms, but to be honest I didn’t really grasp them too well. But today, while reading about Wilber’s problems with Bohm’s ideas, I started “getting it”. Well, up to a point, anyway. Mr. Falk did a pretty good job summarizing what Bohm was getting at, and why it is such a huge paradigm shift.

And I really enjoyed it! This is what makes me happy – having an intellectual breakthru in my own old, misfiring grey matter. And I actually had a bit of this happiness today. I had the “AH HA!” moment, when I could see bigger things, have expanded visions of reality. The holography and implicate order paradigms regarding the reality in which quantum mechanics manifests itself are making a bit more sense. OK, these are not proven facts, just theories (as yet unprovable theories). But they are fun to explore with your mind. At least for me.

For various reasons that I don’t fully understand, Wilber doesn’t think that Bohm was on the right track regarding “meta reality”. But as I indicated, I don’t really understand Wilber either. And to be honest, from what I know of Wilber, I don’t want to.

Another recent bit of intellectual searching during my break time involved Zarathustra, the Persian prophet who more or less founded (or grounded) Zoroastrianism. Yes, he’s the guy that Nietzsche was referring to the book “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”. Well, actually Nietzsche was going off on a “God is dead” tangent, and didn’t really care that much about the real Zarathustra. But I do. Why? Because I’m a big fan of the intellectual interpretation of Jesus as a Jewish apocalypticist. This to me is the most powerful way of understanding Jesus, the real Jesus. This makes a lot of puzzle pieces fall into place.

So why is Zarathustra important to understanding Jesus? Well, Zarathustra seems to be the first historical instance of a prophet calling for belief in a single god; he may be the earliest historically verifiable voice favoring monotheism. Before him, religion was animistic, polytheistic, nature-based, and mediated by shamans who used magical procedures to make the “forces of the universe” cooperate with one’s desire for good crops, more children, better fortune, etc. You didn’t have an individual relationship with these forces; they didn’t care much about you, and they didn’t call you to moral and ethical responsibility.

But Zarathustra, who lived around 1000 BCE or even earlier, may have planted the seed for the big change in the way people thought about both themselves and the “great forces” beyond their control. And that big change eventually manifested itself into the Jewish faith (via the influence of Zoroastrianism on the Jews during their exile in Persia), and later Christianity and Islam. But even better regarding Jesus – Zarathustra was also an apocalypticist!

It’s like he gave Jesus the blueprint for his own movement. Zarathustra called for an “end of time” to come in the future, whereby a human-like “savior” would mediate the purification of the world. Those who were good would be raised from the dead, while the evil ones would be swept aside. The Zoroastrian God (Ahura Mazda) would now be in control, and humans (the good humans, anyway) would live according to the ways of good — i.e., the Kingdom of God.

Yes, there is pretty good evidence that Zarathustra was saying all of this more than 1000 years before Jesus adopted it as his own mission in life. That’s another example of the kind of “big idea” that I enjoy having.

So yea, I do live a lot in my head. But I did do one thing today to re-connect with reality. I signed up for a donation to the Red Cross thru payroll deduction to help fund their relief efforts in Haiti. My donation was small; but I recall hearing Bill Clinton (a big fan of Ken Wilber, incidentally) say on the radio that whatever amount you can give will help. Perhaps I can wrap my mind around implicate orders and apocalyptic inspirations in the ancient Middle East. But as to how and why a God who has a relationship with us, as Jesus and Zarathustra seemed to believe, or an integral kosmic karma, as Ken Wilber might prefer, allows such terrible tragedy and suffering in this world . . . not much that I can say. Nor anyone else who cares. Thus DIDN’T speak Zarathustra, Jesus, Ken Wilber . . . or me.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 11:14 pm       Read Comment (1) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Spirituality ...

HOPE AND DESPAIR IN POPULAR CULTURE: Yesterday I encountered two different approaches to the question of God and justice. In the morning, I heard a song on the radio from my favorite band, 3 Doors Down; so I got on Google and looked up the lyrics and the video. The song is called “Not My Time”, and here’s the video site.

According to a Christian discussion group, 3 Doors does NOT qualify as a Christian band. (Well, all the better in my reckoning.) But the video in question clearly has a religious theme to it, reinforced by various shots of churches with crucifixes and Madonna-like statues along the path of the young running savior with dreadlocks (who is versed in an extreme sport called “parkour”). And one of the refrains to the song goes “there might be more than you believe, there might be more than you can see”. Another nice line (I think it’s nice, anyway) goes like this: “my friend, this life we live, it’s not what we have, it’s what we believe in”. Sorry if that’s not enough for the “Christian warriors” out there.

Later in the day, I decided to go see the Coen brothers’ latest movie,  »  continue reading …

◊   posted by Jim G @ 8:20 pm       Read Comment (1) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Spirituality ...

The Conference of the Birds, and other journeys through Hell: I’m still plowing my way thru Reza Aslan’s “No God But God”, and I just finished the chapter on the Sufis. Ah yes, the Sufis, that interesting little offshoot of Islam that we “enlightened yet spiritual” westerners can sympathize and be comfortable with (unlike the rest of the Quranic tradition). There are plenty of books on the Sufis to be found in the “spiritual” aisles of Barnes and Noble, Borders and Waldenbooks; liberal Catholics love to quote Sufi wisdom when needing to prove their goodwill for the sons of Mohammed.

And yet, I’ve heard that the Sufi image amidst Euro-American spiritual seekers has been sanitized a bit; despite their many divergences from mainstream Islam, much of Sufi reality in the Moslem world is in fact politically oriented. Also, some of their actual devotional practices and artifacts would not be edifying to an open-minded liberal Protestant or Unitarian, e.g. drawings of bloody men with knives in their throats and eyes. And yet, many of their prayers and sayings have found an audience amidst the Birkenstock crowd.

One of those Sufi popular works is “The Conference of the Birds”. Being a former (albeit not entirely ‘former’) spiritual seeker, I have read a few books and articles about the Sufis. However, I only became aware of “Conference” recently while reading Aslan; oh well, perhaps it’s to be expected that a Moslem author (although not a Sufi himself) would best point out the significant works of an Islamic tradition, however peripatetic.

For those not already familiar with “Conference”, it’s basically the story of a journey, sort of a spiritualized version of “The Wizard of Oz”. In sum, a bunch of birds get together and are led by a leader bird (the “hoopoe”) in search of the great “Simurgh”, the fabled lord of the bird universe. The journey is a long and arduous one; many birds turn back after getting their tailfeathers singed, literally and figuratively. In the end, only 30 birds from the flock that started the trip make it to the land of the Simurgh.

Finally comes the moment for the great Simurgh to appear before the tired, beaten-up group of avian travelers. And to their surprise, the thirty birds see only themselves. The Simurgh turns out to be a mirror (or a reflective lake). The pilgrim birds were disappointed at first, but soon the lightbulb goes on in their little heads; because of all the pain and struggle that they’ve experienced and steadfastly endured in their search, they have been converted into something more. Their desire to find the Simurgh was obviously strong enough to get them through the terrible tests, like what we face in this world; they have found that their desire in itself was the equivalent of what they sought. It’s kind of like in the Oz story, where the lion, scarecrow, tin man and Dorothy finally got what they wanted not because of anything the Wiz himself could do for them, but because of their own steadfast seeking.

There’s an interesting theological metaphor here, i.e. God as a mirror — a mirror of wisdom that we find and behold only as a result of a long, arduous journey of seeking. I’m sure that the mainstream Christian, Jewish and Islamic leaders and teachers would condemn this idea as heresy. It hints that in the end, the steadfast seeker actually becomes God, losing the boundaries of him or herself, and finding all in unification with God. It’s quite a bit different from what we were promised in Sunday School as the reward for a good Christian life. We were told that we would go to Heaven pretty much as we now are, so long as we followed the rules while here on earth. In that Heaven, we would be given the same sort of stuff that makes us happy here in this life, such as soft-serve chocolate ice cream; and we’d be spared from the stuff that makes us miserable. That was the deal. Now and then we might have some sort of interchange with “the boss” (obviously our case would be reviewed in full soon after our souls departed our body), but for the most part we’d plan our days as if we were the guests at an exclusive resort.

The Sufis and their bird friends see something different. Interestingly, they are rejecting the similarly puerile notion of popular Islam, that the good man is rewarded with a bevy of black-eyed virgins on entering Paradise. The Sufis just leave you with you. But also with a “you” that is now so much more, so vastly expanded as to be one with everything. Thus, you still have access to soft-serve ice cream and black-eyed virgins, but the relationship between you and them is now so much different that it would be on earth. They will not matter to you, not in the way they now would.

I myself would like to take the ‘birds’ paradigm one step further. The base-level Christian and Moslem concepts describe a Paradise that is an eternal vacation, with no more work responsibilities. I think it’s exactly the opposite. Once you become part of God, there’s plenty of work to do. There will still be a world in process, a world “not-fully-one-with-God”, the world that we presently know. And I myself think that God is active in it, in ways that we don’t often see, in ways that we can’t usually fathom. (Obviously many of us suspect that God is a slacker or an illusion, because if God were truly active in the universe, there wouldn’t be so much pain and suffering and ugliness and meaninglessness. E.g. astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson and his atheist arguments based on the seeming craziness of conscious life occupying only tiny crevices of a vast, hostile Universe.)

So if we are part of God, we will also be active in this realm somehow. I’ve written before on how impressed I was with George Bernard Shaw’s “Don Juan In Hell” sequence (within “Man and Superman”). In a nutshell, Don Juan goes to Hell, and discovers that Hell is really what most Christians were taught about Heaven; i.e., a big, never-ending vacation resort. No fires, no pitchforks, no worms, no unpleasantness whatsoever; the devil is indeed a gentleman and a gracious host. Everything and everyone is bright and beautiful there. Just what the Don was seeking during his days on earth.

But something happens to Don Juan while in Hell. Even though everyone else is having a great time, with not a trace of misery or doubt in the joint, the Don starts wondering if this is really it. He takes more and more walks to the netherworld beyond Hell, and finally decides that he wants to leave all the sophisticated beauty and intelligent pleasantries behind, as to get to work in a Heavenly cause. Shaw doesn’t exactly spell out the details of what this Heavenly cause would entail, but he hints that it does involve spreading ultimate good (the “life force”) in the universe.

I’d like to think that Don Juan somehow found the same mirror that the Sufi birds found, despite all the lovely, non-stop distractions of Hell. Once a seeker finds it, they go off to an active involvement in the cause of ultimate goodness — whatever that is (we ‘see it darkly through a glass’ in our present lives, although we know somehow that it exists). Shaw’s “Life Force”: ultimate goodness, ultimate wisdom, ultimate Godness. I think that’s the ultimate goal of the great journey that the Sufis, in their deep spiritual contemplations, would envision as our best option in life. As to those birds who fall aside from the journey, well — as Shaw implies with Don Juan, perhaps it’s never too late, no matter what may happen to us in the awaiting realms beyond the horizons of our current being. The mirror is everywhere, even in the depths of Hell!

◊   posted by Jim G @ 7:37 pm       Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Outer Space ... Spirituality ...

Two interesting quotes: I just came across two interesting quotes regarding personal spirituality. The first one was in a NY Times article about physicist / astronaut John Grunsfeld, who is going up on the Space Shuttle next month on the last repair mission for the Hubble Space Telescope. Grunsfeld has been on four previous Shuttle flights to the Hubble Telescope, and he played a key role in reversing NASA’s previous decision not to go back to the Hubble. (That thing is what they call “high maintenance”, even though it has returned a lot of good scientific data.) This last mission will give it a few more good years, although it involves some danger given that two satellites crashed into each other a few months ago and the resulting space junk is whirling around in the vicinity of the Hubble.

Obviously, Mr. Grunsfeld’s spirituality is centered heavily around science (and so is mine, to a certain degree). As with many other science people, the God-centered religions such as Christianity, Judiasm and Islam didn’t interest Grunsfeld; but Buddhism held some attraction. Earlier in his life, before pursuing his PhD, Grunsfeld got a job in Japan working with an X-ray researcher at the University of Tokyo. At the same time he lived in a Zen monastery, participating in the meditation life of the community. Wow, sounds great! But according to the article, Grunsfeld came home early one day and found the monks playing baseball. For him, the “spell was broken”; he left the Zen life and went back to the USA to earn his doctorate in physics and to fully immerse himself in science.

Zen monks playing baseball — what was so wrong with that? For Grunsfeld, it was obviously like coming home early to find your husband or wife in bed with someone else. This guy obviously has high standards. Hopefully, the baseball monks prepared him for what he would later experience with NASA, which people used to see as a paradigm of science and technology. In reality, NASA is now just another swamp of federal politics and big business contracts. He obviously stuck with the Shuttle program, despite the two fatal failures it experienced when its managers were swayed from pure scientific thinking by political and financial concerns. He’s still willing to put his life on the line for NASA, despite the imperfections. He’s obviously older and wiser now.

Zen masters are known to teach their young followers with brutal slaps in the face. The baseball game was the reality slap that they gave to Grunsfeld. He seems to have learned the lesson well, as he’s still doing good things with NASA in spite of all the corruption involved. I hope that Dr. Grunsfeld has a good mission and manages to keep the Hubble up there observing the heavens for a few more years.

The second quote was in the April 2009 edition of “Friends of Silence”, a very nice letter that comes out every month or so, filled with thoughts and quotes centered around a spiritual theme. The April theme focused on Spring and Nature, not surprisingly. In the introduction paragraphs, publisher Nan Merrill sings the praises of Nature’s beauty, but also ponders the fact that Nature isn’t always very kind with us. Quote: “She [Nature] weeps with those who bear the brunt of Her inevitable storms and droughts that are but terrible wake-up calls to every one of us”.

I found that apologetic interpretation of nature’s brutality to be just a bit over-the-top. The next time I’m stuck out in the freezing cold and dark of winter, I don’t think it would help much to know that Mother Nature regrets my discomforts and inconvenience. And as to the real suffering, e.g. hurricanes that reek havoc as in New Orleans, tidal waves that kill thousands, cruel diseases that waste millions of lives — does it help the victims to imagine that Nature weeps because of this? And that it is somehow a “wake up call”, implying that disasters are all somehow the fault of humankind?

Let’s keep it real here. I think Lord Tennyson had Nature’s number when he said, in his famous poem “In Memorium”:

Man, her last work, who seemed so fair
Who trusted God was love indeed
Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw
With raving, shriek’d against his creed

The natural world is a lovely thing, and humankind needs to deeply consider its ways and its wisdoms. We all depend upon it for survival, and so a cooperative attitude is much better than the exploitive approaches that are used so often here in the industrialized western world (and increasingly in the eastern world too). But at some point, we humans need to depart from the “natural world”. At some point we need to question it, to challenge it, to seperate ourselves from it, to do better than it. As people such as John Grunsfeld have done. That’s the human legacy.

Nonetheless, I still highly recommend “Friends of Silence”. A reasonable donation, say $10 or $15, will get you on their mailing list: FRIENDS OF SILENCE, 11 Cardiff Lane, Hannibal MO 63401.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 7:53 pm       Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Philosophy ... Spirituality ...

Now that my mother is feeling a bit better, I can get back down to some abstract thinking (on a recreational basis; hey, whatever floats your boat, right?). My topic for today is one I’ve pondered in various ways over the past few years; and that is whether we humans are purely physical phenomenon; or is there an additional ontological dimension to the universe, which somehow weaves its way into us and thus makes us something more? The whole question seems to revolve around “being” and our awareness and love of being (and our usual fear of the opposite). “Being” seems so simple at first; it merely means “in a state of existence”. But then what is “existence”? Ultimately it means . . . . to be. It all gets a bit circular. The only thing that breaks the short circuit is our own awareness of being, and our desire and struggle to maintain and preserve our own being.

The evolutionists (and I generally consider myself an evolutionist; I’m not a fan of so-called “creation science”) say that our “desire to be” (aka “will to live”) isn’t hard to explain. They explain that it couldn’t have been otherwise; by some trial-and-error process over the multi-billion year history of life on earth, living systems with the most propensity to struggle for survival became the ones to propagate the genetic accidents that gave them their zest for life. Creatures born without the drive to fight and survive didn’t contribute much to the genetic pool.

But a problem arises when we humans act in ways that run counter to the “stay alive at all costs” heritage of the simple Darwinian rationale for our “being fetish”. Perhaps it’s just a quirk, but over the centuries, those having perhaps the greatest appreciation and love for “being” (not just self-being, but the being of the community, of society, and of the world) have at times offered up their own being as to protect the “higher” principals of “being”. You wouldn’t think that a purely Darwinian machine would even have the capacity to ponder such a “higher principal”, as it wouldn’t be expected to enhance survival and reproduction. (Unless you argue, as some evolutionists do, that the capacity to think and act socially was “selected” by the process in highly developed species like humans because such cooperation enhances the survival of the species as a whole; much lower life forms, like ants and termites, had also developed extremely social forms. However, such behavioral programming did not carry forward into the mammals and higher primates, for whatever reason).

In my opinion, humans are able to comprehend “being” beyond what a Darwinian machine would be expected to do, even granting that evolution sometimes creates superfluous abilities and interesting side-effects in its products. We are able to appreciate the nature of “being” far more than any other combination of matter, energy and information could. And it is that appreciation that drives us crazy. It makes us depressed, it makes us kill others and kill ourselves, it makes us into artists and musicians. And on rare occasion, it makes us into saints. It makes it equally foreseeable that humankind will eventually wipe itself out, and that humankind will eventually find the key to peace, harmony and balance for everyone.

The game that our species is playing seems well beyond anything that Darwin and his successors described. Evolution certainly did get us this far, but something else kicked-in somewhere along the road. The scientists have no way right now of getting a handle on this with their present means of measurement and analysis, so they deny that it exists. Religious people believe that it does exist, but are too tied up in ancient myths to do any fresh thinking about it. And the philosophers, who traditionally tried to walk the fine line between these two groups, now seem extremely fearful of criticism by the empiricists. So it’s hard to find a good, honest discussion on the subject (and admittedly, it’s harder still to get a grasp on it!).

But hey — ya can’t give up. “The Principal of Being”, in the broad sense of a universal force or fundamental dimension, is a “know it when you see it” proposition. And I recently saw my mother struggle back from a near-deadly medical condition; I have no doubt that I was viewing the power and reality of whatever this “BEING PRINCIPAL” is.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 8:44 pm       Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Art & Entertainment ... Personal Reflections ... Spirituality ...

Every now and then it’s good for me to go back to the question as to whether to believe in God or not. I recently revisited the question, and I still come down on the side of belief (if not by a landslide). Around the same time, I noticed an interesting article in the current Atlantic Magazine about comedian Bill Maher and his atheist beliefs (or anti-beliefs, as atheism is belief in non-belief). Mr. Maher has made a film documentary about religion (called “Religulous”), and the believers he talks with provide enough comic material as to render Mr. Maher’s jokes unnecessary. Since much of the faithful has not rethought their belief since childhood, they often don’t do very well with Maher’s signature question, i.e. “what is the difference between believing in God and Santa Claus”.

I won’t claim that my beliefs are ready for a Maher interview, but I just had some interesting thoughts regarding the more troubling challenges to belief; i.e., the problem of pain, the prevalence of randomness in the quantum world and in the process of evolution, the “trial-and-error” aspect of evolution and possibly of the reality behind the Big Bang, and the incredible hugeness of the Universe compared with the tiny specs in it where sentient life might exist. In sum, it hardly looks like there is an intelligent designer behind all this, despite Aquinas and his various rationales. It looks like something mostly accidental.

But then again – perhaps it depends on how you look at it. Pain, death, randomness, inefficiency and wastefulness; what would be the point of all that? Well – these things certainly would set a benchmark as to what God and the ultimate principal of being, goodness and awareness are NOT. What if we are somehow in a process of becoming more and more like God? If so, the stakes would be huge, the lessons involved enormous. And they could not be learned without pain, huge and mindless pain, terribly dark and crushing pain. Perhaps we have to be pushed to not-being, in order to fully appreciate being. We certainly do take our existence for granted too often. Perhaps God-ness is the ultimate awareness and appreciation of being. Most of us are hardly ready for that.

If we assume that we will always be human, even if there is life after death – which is what most religions teach – then the atheists will have a good argument. I.e., consider those ideas of heaven as a huge country club where we will be continually pampered and never bored, with God up in the head office running the place. Maher could certainly take that apart on SNL or the Comedy Channel. But if we, in our messy lives, are somehow in training to become part of God – if that’s what the stakes are – and if there is an after-life process whereby we consolidate and contextualize all of the pains and defeats and disappointments from our earthly life; then perhaps the God argument makes more sense. Perhaps one could then answer Maher’s “Santa Claus” question by saying that old St. Nick leaves temporary delights that soon break or are eventually stored in the attic and forgotten; but God is the Santa Claus of eternal being, a being that can be attained only by giving up all of the imperfect ways of being that we know, an ultimate being that is something like sex without end. Only so much more. Amen.

◊   posted by Jim G @ 9:58 pm       Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Philosophy ... Spirituality ...

I found an interesting website about God recently. Specifically, it provides a philosophical critique of various theological notions such as God’s all-knowing and all-powerful nature, or God’s ability to relate to mere mortals. It’s called Battleground God. It asks you a series of questions regarding your concept of God, then it sends back a series of questions and challenges, questions that start with “if what you say is true, then how can it be that…” I.e., the usual philosopher’s hyper-logical crap.

The “Battleground” questions are interesting and thought provoking, but they ultimately are bound up within their own assumptions (just as they criticize believers in God to be bound up in theirs). They seem to forget that their logic is ultimately a system of symbols and rules which are subject to the limitations of Godel’s Theorem. So, just as the human mind has the ability to perceive something more than the propositions put forth by our systems of symbolic logic (consider: the only reason we know of Godel’s limitation is because of this inherent ability), then why can’t there be a metaphysical entity that exists beyond the boundaries that our logic systems set?

In other words, don’t take Battleground God too seriously. And another thing: when you click  »  continue reading …

◊   posted by Jim G @ 8:46 pm       Read Comments (2) / Leave a Comment
 
 
Monday, January 21, 2008
Brain / Mind ... Science ... Spirituality ...

Last week’s Science Times section of the NY Times made me aware of the “Boltzmann Brain” concept. My goodness, how could I have lived so long and never have heard of it? It’s a huge idea, a bold idea, way out there on the bleeding edge of cosmology and mathematics, wandering off into the field of epistemological philosophy and speculative metaphysics. It’s a Starship Enterprise kind of idea!

It’s actually too big an idea for me to properly explain here (and I probably don’t fully understand it anyway). Nonetheless, just for fun, I’ll try to describe it and make some observations regarding its theological implications. Whether I’m right or wrong, the concept certainly does have much to do with life and consciousness and their relationship to the Universe and to all creation — whatever that is or isn’t.

We know that there is conscious self-awareness in the Universe; as Descartes said, if we know nothing else for sure, we do surely know of our own individual consciousness. We’re also pretty sure from our scientific observations that conscious life occupies an incredibly tiny part of the Universe; it seems like nothing more than a small side show in a big carnival. The Universe is mostly made of thermonuclear-fueled galaxies and gravity-powered black holes and dark matter and vacuum space — incredible volumes of unoccupied space. Oh, and throw in dark energy; lots and lots of dark energy, causing those vast gobs of unoccupied space to expand at an accelerating pace. Relative to the vast Universe, intelligent, self-conscious life (i.e., the human race, and any other intelligent life out there) is like a little barnacle along the side of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

That does strike some people, including myself, as kind of odd. Wasn’t there a more efficient arrangement  »  continue reading …

◊   posted by Jim G @ 12:56 pm       Read Comments (4) / Leave a Comment
 
 
TOP PAGE - LATEST BLOG POSTS
« PREVIOUS PAGE -- NEXT PAGE (OLDER POSTS) »
FOR MORE OF MY THOUGHTS, CHECK OUT THE SIDEBAR / ARCHIVES
To blog is human, to read someone's blog, divine
NEED TO WRITE ME? eternalstudent404 (thing above the 2) gmail (thing under the >) com

www.jimgworld.com - THE SIDEBAR - ABOUT ME - PHOTOS
 
OTHER THOUGHTFUL BLOGS:
 
Church of the Churchless
Clear Mountain Zendo, Montclair
Fr. James S. Behrens, Monastery Photoblog
Of Particular Significance, Dr. Strassler's Physics Blog
Weather Willy, NY Metro Area Weather Analysis
Spunkykitty's new Bunny Hopscotch; an indefatigable Aspie artist and now scholar!

Powered by WordPress