Geek squad(?) Forum Friday Forum

I suppose I am, HL-- there is something very unique about human nature that no other specie shares: our capacity for good and evil. Every day we learn of evil being done in the world someplace or other, but we seldom see all the good that is done. And as Hitler showed, evil eventually destroys itself-- I suspect that is a Karmic law. So there has to be more good than evil in the world or the world would have destroyed itself.

Of course, it still may-- the world is incredibly more dangerous now than even during the Cuban missile crisis [I was 15 then and bothered by the idea that I might die as a virgin!] It would only take about a 100 warheads going off at once to release enough radiation to kill all life above ground.

In truth, the world ends thousands of times a day for some people, while the world begins for even more souls 'crossing over'. If you see this life as just a blip in eternity, you may find far more meaning that you ever thought possible. We always exist in some world--some form? -- somewhere. Where we go--again I can only suspect-- may be due to our personal karma or God's grace or some combination of the 2-- but in any case it is vital to seek the 'Light'-- and your metaphor of climbing the mountain is a good one as the light gets brighter the higher you climb.

Well, HL, I think he does come down but rarely in a direct form like a prophet--and I believe He manifested in Jesus. But God is subtle usually-- sometimes perhaps in that small little voice we hear as our conscience.

Of course, being omnipresent by definition, God would be everywhere, permeating the Universe. Do you feel the need to define Divinity, Rose( if I may call you that, it seems more personal than a pair of letters ) ?

Hello all, sorry for the delayed response. Its been a while since my post, and so, I begin with a little recap to set my mind straight.

Nolo's original question asks whether or not our existence continues beyond death. In order to meaningfully think about this question, I argued we require some kind of universality, some standard of truth that is accessible to all of us. I wondered if such a thing is even possible given our limited access to the 'beyond', and given how hard it is to find universality and truth in this world! I wanted to urge an extreme care when we go about discussing this.

As I see it, this conversation splits into two paths. We abandon this notion of universality, citing the smallness of our reach, perspective, and general abilities-alas, we can never know the Mind of God! But if we do this, we must establish the meaningfulness of a singular subjective view. If meaning isn't derived from truth(universal truth), then what do we use to give things meaning? Do we use the experience of truth? The feeling that something is true? This after all seems to be the truth of religion, and much of the aim seems to be acquiring the feeling that something is true. For example, our meaning is that we come from the almighty, our being is thus intrinsically meaningful, and we can experience this truth by faithfully developing a relationship to the almighty.

This view builds on our own subjective experience of truth, but since we have necessarily given up on universality, it seems nonsensical to ask which experiential truth is the "correct" one. Maybe there are some that give a more potent experience, and perhaps, this is the correct one? Maybe the details are unimportant, but its the experiences that reign supreme? Is there any kind of universality to these experiences? Can we somehow find our way back to the universal? Maybe love somehow?

I have been unsuccessful with the subjective approach, though to be fair, I haven't been able to convince myself its worth much energy. I have forced myself to the barren world of universal truths. A world further limited by my own inabilities to know it, and seems most characterized by a tremendous void utterly incapable of holding my existence. The hope(my hope) is that if I am diligent and with enough time, maybe I can learn to see a little bit better, and maybe I can show someone else to see a little more of it. Maybe a tiny thing seen by many is more powerful than a mighty thing seen by one. Maybe recognizing that our significance is inextricably tied to those of others gives us the basis for love. After all i f I need the eyes and words of others in order to arm myself against my own insignificance, and if likewise you need mine, then this thing we all experience, love, is maybe nothing more than the slow drift we all share towards one another as we attempt to arm ourselves against our own insignificance?

The Hindus have a saying: 'The mind is a monkey'. You have a good, articulate mind. Ronaldo, backed with some real brainpower; but in reading 'you' I see a mind so restless, so-- what is the word?--insecure ?-- it seems to jump all over the place. I found 2 recurrent key words: 'truth' and 'insignificance'. Let's address the latter first: if we are only clever animals, the only sentient life form in a vast, cold, uncaring universe, you would be right. Life, our lives, would be without meaning--that is the essence of atheistic materialism, as truly honest atheists admit.

Now I used to think that way, until I tried to kill myself. The reality is-- and here we talk of truth, but truth that cannot be proven, because it is not a formula found in our limited 4 dimensional existence as mortal beings-- the reality is as I found out the hard way, a terrible way, is that we are incredibly significant beings as we each have a soul,an endless (i.e., eternal) consciousness. As such beings we are capable of good and evil. You all know that-- you see it as the basis of every movie you are thrilled by, from Star Wars to the Avengers. You read about it--hopefully- in history class, and you see it nightly on the news. So the truth is, R. that EVERYTHING MATTERS,that Karma--or God if you prefer [as I do]-- knows all, records all, weighs all. Good finds good, evil is met with evil-- if not in this world, then the next world, the next lifetime, because death is actually a door, not a wall. And where it leads to seems to depend on the karma we've made, or where we stand with God-- again, pretty much the same thing. Or do you really think Hitler and all the other murderers who aren't punished in this world 'escape' into oblivion?

Nolo, my point is that if you strip universality from truth, then you strip away everything. Truth is one of the very few things that seems to be imbued with intrinsic meaning, and it is its universality that imbues it with meaning. The entire function of truth is that it allows me to share something with you, and even though you have your own unique perspective and your own entire calculus for understanding things, we can both agree and see the same thing. The truth you wish to define is entirely derived from your own experience. Maybe you might call it your own truth, but if you wish to generalize it beyond yourself, it must adhere to this principle of universality in some way. The calculus you used to derive it should also work in the universe as I can experience it. 

Now granted, the scope of things we can call true is small subset of all things one might experience, but the payoff of finding something true is that it can be shared! But perhaps more important than the truth itself, is that you will necessarily have to share the requisite calculus used to derive said truth, which upon my own mastery, I can use to find more truths that can then be shared with you. This is the truth we've come to know in the physical sciences and it has proven itself to be the most powerful and successful construct of truth humanity has ever come up with. I would not easily toss its usefulness aside merely because it seems impossible. The whole of scientific progress can be seen as the struggle to meet this standard of truth. 

I am also not suggesting that we need to cast everything in the language of physics. Surely, a very different kind of language is necessary, but I still maintain that we cannot sacrifice universality. It seems to me that our insignificance or the feeling of insignificance is a kind of universality. The reason why religion is so universal, is that it is a means of addressing this insignificance. All the religions have their own answer to the question. What they all seem to have in common is that they are derived from individual experience with their own set of rules that in many ways contradict with one another, many even lack internal self consistency. To me, religion illustrates the best and the worst of individual truth. I hope for something better.   

Excuse me for perhaps coming to understand these points slowly, but it seems we are landing on 2 question. 

Can we drop universality and allow multiple religions that contradict each other to be true?(relying on our own experiences) 

and

Is truth and the nature of our significance too far above our heads to grasp?(but in this second question we are not suggesting that we don't still search for truth) 

Before I move onto my own view, am I correctly understanding the topics at hand?

Ah, Ronaldo, you are quite right about the need for universal 'truth' when it comes to science [which I love! It has kept me healthy and walking!] But you're trying to compare apples to oranges when you view scientific 'truths' -or theories, actually, with religious 'truths', which are in fact beliefs, as the truly religious know [ as opposed to 'holy rollers' or 'dogmatics' who confuse belief with knowledge.] I never waste time talking to religious nutters but I do occasionally try to reason with atheist/agnostic friends of mine, trying to point out that reason/logic does not exclude faith.

You want to find an universal truth that God and the human soul are real--it ain't gonna happen Ronaldo. I probably would have believed as you do if I had not had an NDE and later an out-of-body experience [and atheism is a belief as much as any religion, for logic dictates that God can never be proven nor dis-proven to exist, for again, how can a limited intelligence conceive a far greater one by unimaginable multitudes?] Such experiences are subjective [as are all experiences really] but millions have encountered the 'paranormal' throughout the world, going back at least to Plato. [There is a website listing scores of such by very ordinary folks: IANDS.com]

These used to be called 'revelations' which is apt, as 'Something' seems to be revealing itself in ways we limited humans can understand, at least to some extent.

Now like every secular materialist I've ever read or spoken with, you appear to think that people long ago 'invented' divinity and the immortal soul to make themselves feel good about the depressing fact that we're born to die, but unlike all other species, we know it. Well, frankly R. that's rather naive. I mean, how do you know you're not putting the cart before the horse? Oxford did a study showing that 71% of the population had at least one paranormal experience--something that cannot be explained by science. When I found myself conscious but not in my body, I could see, think, feel, but I have no idea how. But you really have only 3 choices when someone relates such an event: [1] he's lying; [2] he's insane;or [3], as Sherlock Holmes, the greatest mind who never lived, put it, when you've eliminated all that is possible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be true. Like believing Moses performed miracles to force a cruel dictator to let his people go free, or Jesus arose from the dead in living flesh, or the Prophet heard an angel dictate the Koran to him, you are free to accept the extraordinary or not. I can only tell you I've come to realize the world really is in a 'twilight zone', something like the old TV series still in re-run on cable

You're honest in your atheism when you write of 'insignificance' as being a sort of an universal truth we can all share. But that worldview is like a huge lifeboat full of desperate people adrift on an endless ocean without sail or oars or compass, who start dying one by one as the food and water give out until finally there is only an empty boat floating on a vast and uncaring sea. In my worldview of faith, those people as they die would experience their souls, their being, taken up,some to heaven, a few to hell, and perhaps some will find themselves born again sailing on another boat in another world. The only thing I know for sure is that no one becomes extinct: we are endless beings traveling through each lifetime in a mortal vessel--and each of us is here for a reason. There are no accidents in the Universe.

I started to write my reply to Ronaldo earlier today but had to finish it later. And yes, Rose, you ask 2 good questions. If I may address the later 1st: you're right that it doesn't seem any of us will get the 'BIG PICTURE' in this world-- we humans live in a mystery we call 'life'. We're the only animal that hungers for meaning. And we seem to get it in bits and pieces, and that may be because our minds could not handle the 'understanding', the cosmic awareness that an omniscient God by definition would have. It is only our human vanity and arrogance that tries to put God in a box-- or denies the possibility of a supreme being.

Which leads to your 1st question: maybe we should stop trying to figure out which 'religion' is right. Logically, if God exists, He predates us and all religions. As I've written elsewhere, it may help to think of religions as languages, as a means of communicating with an intelligence incomprehensible to us humans with our limited minds that can think only one thought at a time. What is important is to see that all faiths center on the 'golden rule': to treat the other as we would want to be treated. So simple, yet so hard it seems for human beings to follow.

Nolo, my problem with this way of thinking is that is excludes the possibility that God reveals Himself to us. 

On what basis do we say all beliefs are valid? What tells us God is not revealing His true self in one?

You bring all religions back to following the golden rule, but I say there is a religion that is all about how we can't follow the golden rule. Literally there is a gigantic book all about generation after generation that could not do it. 

(or the superior rule that this religion puts above the golden rule, but we don't even need to go there cause we couldn't even follow the golden rule). 

I'm sorry Rose, perhaps I'm not explaining well: as I've written elsewhere, I believe very much in revelation-- and not just the 'big ones'. I think God is revealing himself to us ALL THE TIME! It's called your conscience-- that persistent little voice that tells us when were going off track. Again,, we're the only species that has one: no lion ever said, 'Sorry I ate you.'

And if the 'gigantic book' is the Bible, you absolutely right, Rose-- it is history of human failings. And yes, I think the greatest commandment is the 1st one Jesus gave:to love God with all your heart. And by doing that, the 2nd one should become easier: loving others as yourself. [I myself have found it easier to love God than some people, but I'm trying.]

I don't think we're as far apart as you might think Rose-- but I will say this. More important than dogma or doctrine or yes, even religion, is opening your heart and mind to God, the source of all love.... Walking the walk and talking the talk, none of that really matters-- only the love you make has weight.

But how can one say they know those things you have just said? Because God has offered them a personal revelation that they feel IS in fact from God? Hitler thought he was right in his thinking. Why do we have a right to state what truth is based on our own thoughts? 

“Walking the walk and talking the talk, none of that really matters-- only the love you make has weight.”

My biggest problem with this statement goes back to the argument I've been making. This statement claims “the love[we(humans in our state of depravity)] make has weight.” No it doesn't because we DON'T love. Again there is a big book all about that. There is no “weight” in what we do. That's the scandal in Christianity. The difference between saying we can or can't climb the mountain. Jesus's actions are the only human actions that have weight. The only reason we “[walk] the walk” or “[talk] the talk” is because of the holy spirit in us, sanctifying us. It is not ourselves that make ourselves better.

Rose, yes, I think if we are to have a meaningful discussion on this, we must first agree on what we are calling true. I argue that truth cannot be derived from individual experience, i.e. this is true because I've experienced it as such. I argue that we must use a definition where truth is grounded in some sort of universality.

We must state clearly how we are defining what is true.

     I haven't replied to either Rose or Ronaldo the past week because I thought I was 'hogging' too much space in the Forum and hoped some of the other 133  geeks would add their ideas. I think it's important that as many as possible get to 'think aloud' in the Forum. I'm assuming most of you guys are young (well, probably not Bad bunny) and from what my millennial nephews tell me, their entire generation seems depressed-- and alienated [my generation in the 60's was angry and alienated--not sure which is worse].

      Just like the body, the mind needs a good workout every so often, and in contemporary parlance, the Forum is a 'safe place' to do so. And it really is not a question of agreeing with each other so much as EXPERIENCING other ways of looking at things, at life. And if a worldview-- whether your own or the other guy's-- is not up to the challenge, if it can't stand on its own legs as it were, then maybe you need to do a little re-thinking-- because that is how a mind develops. And just as your muscles will ache when you begin lifting heavy weights, so too may your brain hurt when you start to really, really think-- but like your muscles, in time your brain-- your mind-- will strengthen and see through all the bullshit it encounters in our brave new world.

      For the sad, sad truth is that BOTH OUR EDUCATIONAL AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS are designed to keep you from thinking things through-- the powers that be want you to react, not probe, to accept, not question-- for how can they control you all if you start thinking for yourselves?