Mark Vernon, Christianity and the Evolution of Consciousness |415|

#21
Many evidential mediums don't have problems routinely obtaining verifiable information.
Do you find that their evidence conflicts with the description that (say) Jurgen Ziewes gives?

The reason I mentioned dreams, is that these naturally extend into lucid dreams, which in turn some people think extend into OBE's.

My dreams seem mostly rather weird when I can remember them enough to record them!

David
 
#22
Has there been an evolution of consciousness?

On the spiritual level, consciousness has been evolving since before the big bang and will continue to evolve after the heat death of the universe.

With regard to sentient life on earth, consciousness has been evolving for hundreds of millions of years.

With regard to Christianity, it has changed human culture for those who have been influenced by it. Although great benefits have been experienced globally not all of the cultural aspects have been adopted globally. So Christianity has changed consciousness in the West but not globally.

What we get from Christianity (linked references below). are the concepts of equal rights, human rights, children's rights, and ethics and empirical science.

The great economic and technological successes of Western civilization which have raised the standard of living and raised so many people out of poverty across the globe stem from Christianity. Egalitarianism resulted in economic freedom and rule of law. Science developed from the theological justification for empirical investigation of the natural science. No other philosophy, religion, or culture was capable of providing these necessary ingredients for the civilized nature and high standard of living of the way of life we have today in the West.

  • Alexis de Tocqueville: "The most profound geniuses of Rome and Greece" never came up with the idea of equal rights, he wrote. "Jesus Christ had to come to earth to make it understood that all members of the human species are naturally alike and equal."

  • Friedrich Nietzsche: "Another Christian concept ... has passed even more deeply into the tissue of modernity: the concept of the 'equality of souls before God.' This concept furnishes the prototype of all theories of equal rights."

  • Richard Feynman: The other great heritage is Christian ethics — the basis of action on love, the brotherhood of all men, the value of the individual — the humility of the spirit.

  • James Hannam: Christianity made science a theologically justified and even righteous path to pursue. Since God created the world, exploring how it works honors its Creator. ... the "scientific revolution" was a continuation of developments that started deep in the Middle Ages among people whose scientific work expressed their religious belief. The conflict thesis, in other words, is a myth. ... The Church also made natural philosophy a compulsory part of the courses it required trainee theologians to follow. So, science held a central place in Christian centers of learning...Christians realized it was impossible to work out the laws of nature through rational analysis alone. The only way to discover his plan was to go out and look. ... Given the advantages Christianity provided, it is hardly surprising that modern science developed only in the West, within a Christian civilization.

  • Jürgen Habermas, "Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love."

  • John Lennox: Behind the European Declaration of Human Rights lies Christianity, behind universities, hospices, hospitals, lies Christianity, behind the abolition of slavery lies Christianity.

  • Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry: But really, Christianity's invention of children — that is, its invention of the cultural idea of children as treasured human beings — was really an outgrowth of its most stupendous and revolutionary idea: the radical equality, and the infinite value, of every single human being as a beloved child of God. If the God who made heaven and Earth chose to reveal himself, not as an emperor, but as a slave punished on the cross, then no one could claim higher dignity than anyone else on the basis of earthly status.

  • Nancy Pearcey: Luc Ferry says the same thing. We tend to take the concept of equality for granted; yet it was Christianity that overthrew ancient social hierarchies between rich and poor, masters and slaves. "According to Christianity, we were all 'brothers,' on the same level as creatures of God," Ferry writes. "Christianity is the first universalist ethos." ... Atheists often denounce the Bible as harsh and negative. But in reality it offers a much more positive view of the human person than any competing religion or worldview.

  • Dennis Prager: The pre-Christian Germanic tribes of Europe regarded the Church's teaching that murder was wrong as preposterous. They reasoned that killing innocent people was acceptable and normal because the strong should do whatever they wanted.... I asked Samuel Oliner, "Knowing all you now know about who rescued Jews during the Holocaust, if you had to return as a Jew to Poland and you could knock on the door of only one person in the hope that they would rescue you, would you knock on the door of a Polish lawyer, a Polish doctor, a Polish artist or a Polish priest?" ... Without hesitation, he said, "a Polish priest."

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/video-lecture-by-john-lennox-explains.html#lennox_civilization
The positive contribution to civilization by Christianity has been enormous.​
Jürgen Habermas​
For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle postmodern talk.[37][38][39][40]​
...​
[John Lennox]​
Behind the European Declaration of Human Rights lies Christianity, behind universities, hospices, hospitals, lies Christianity, behind the abolition of slavery lies Christianity. It is a delusion that Christianity has done no good what so ever.​
Richard Feynman​
Western civilization, it seems to me, stands by two great heritages. One is the scientific spirit of adventure — the adventure into the unknown, an unknown which must be recognized as being unknown in order to be explored; the demand that the unanswerable mysteries of the universe remain unanswered; the attitude that all is uncertain; to summarize it — the humility of the intellect. The other great heritage is Christian ethics — the basis of action on love, the brotherhood of all men, the value of the individual — the humility of the spirit.​
- Remarks (2 May 1956) at a Caltech YMCA lunch forum​
Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry​
We have forgotten just how deep a cultural revolution Christianity wrought. In fact, we forget about it precisely because of how deep it was: There are many ideas that we simply take for granted as natural and obvious, when in fact they didn't exist until the arrival of Christianity changed things completely. Take, for instance, the idea of children.​
...​
Various pagan authors describe children as being more like plants than human beings. And this had concrete consequences.​
...​
Children were rudely brought up, and very strong beatings were a normal part of education. In Rome, a child's father had the right to kill him for whatever reason until he came of age.​
...​
One of the most notorious ancient practices that Christianity rebelled against was the frequent practice of expositio, basically the abandonment of unwanted infants.​
...​
Another notorious practice in the ancient world was the sexual exploitation of children.​
...​
But really, Christianity's invention of children — that is, its invention of the cultural idea of children as treasured human beings — was really an outgrowth of its most stupendous and revolutionary idea: the radical equality, and the infinite value, of every single human being as a beloved child of God. If the God who made heaven and Earth chose to reveal himself, not as an emperor, but as a slave punished on the cross, then no one could claim higher dignity than anyone else on the basis of earthly status.​
Nancy Pearcey​
Westerners pride themselves on holding noble ideals such as equality and universal human rights. Yet the dominant worldview of our day -- evolutionary materialism -- denies the reality of human freedom and gives no basis for moral ideals such as human rights.​
So where did the idea of equal rights come from?​
The 19th-century political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville said it came from Christianity. "The most profound geniuses of Rome and Greece" never came up with the idea of equal rights, he wrote. "Jesus Christ had to come to earth to make it understood that all members of the human species are naturally alike and equal."​
The 19th-century atheist Friedrich Nietzsche agreed: "Another Christian concept ... has passed even more deeply into the tissue of modernity: the concept of the 'equality of souls before God.' This concept furnishes the prototype of all theories of equal rights."​
Contemporary atheist Luc Ferry says the same thing. We tend to take the concept of equality for granted; yet it was Christianity that overthrew ancient social hierarchies between rich and poor, masters and slaves. "According to Christianity, we were all 'brothers,' on the same level as creatures of God," Ferry writes. "Christianity is the first universalist ethos."​
...​
A few intrepid atheists admit outright that they have to borrow the ideal of human rights from Christianity. Philosopher Richard Rorty was a committed Darwinist, and in the Darwinian struggle for existence, the strong prevail while the weak are left behind. So evolution cannot be the source of universal human rights. Instead, Rorty says, the concept came from "religious claims that human beings are made in the image of God." He cheerfully admits that he reaches over and borrows the concept of universal rights from Christianity. He even called himself a "freeloading" atheist: "This Jewish and Christian element in our tradition is gratefully invoked by freeloading atheists like myself."​
...​
Atheists often denounce the Bible as harsh and negative. But in reality it offers a much more positive view of the human person than any competing religion or worldview. It is so appealing that adherents of other worldviews keep freeloading the parts they like best.​
James Hannam in firstthings.com​
"... the "scientific revolution" was a continuation of developments that started deep in the Middle Ages among people whose scientific work expressed their religious belief. ... Given the advantages Christianity provided, it is hardly surprising that modern science developed only in the West, within a Christian civilization."​
Exploding the persistant myth that Christianity impeded the growth of science.​
...​
Back in 1978, Carl Sagan included a time line of scientific progress in his book Cosmos, showing that nothing at all happened between a.d. 415 and a.d. 1543. This barren period, he implied, was caused by the thousand-year dominance of Christianity. The “conflict thesis” of science and religion was born in the salons of ancien régime France, where philosophes like Voltaire and d’Alembert used it as a weapon against the Catholic Church. It was further developed in Victorian England by T. H. Huxley in his battle to diminish the influence of the clergy in London’s Royal Society. And it was perfected in American universities by the likes of Andrew Dickson White, the first president of Cornell University, who provided the theory with intellectual ballast in his heavily annotated A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology at the end of the nineteenth century. It has been promoted in countless articles in popular magazines and elementary-school textbooks.​
...​
... the "scientific revolution" was a continuation of developments that started deep in the Middle Ages among people whose scientific work expressed their religious belief. The conflict thesis, in other words, is a myth.​
...​
As it happens, much of the evidence marshaled in favor of the conflict thesis turns out to be bogus.​
...​
It is remarkable that authors who consider themselves skeptics can swallow some of these stories whole.​
...​
Historians have been debunking these legends for over a century now, but each new generation of popular writers continues to recycle them.​
...​
Modern science stands as one of the great achievements of Western civilization—not of Islam, China, or even ancient Greece. Many historians of science are still reluctant to admit this. They praise ancient Greek and Arabic sciences as successful on their own terms but have lost sight of the fact that the theories advanced by early science were largely false.​
...​
Aristotle started from the passive observation of nature and then built up a system based on rational argument. This had two enormous disadvantages: Compared to controlled experiments, passive observation is usually misleading, and not even Aristotle’s powers of reason could prevent blunders in his arguments.​
...​
Aristotle’s faulty method was struck down by the Catholic Church, allowing previously forbidden ideas to flourish. The Church also made natural philosophy a compulsory part of the courses it required trainee theologians to follow. So, science held a central place in Christian centers of learning that it did not hold in Islamic madrassas. And Christianity itself provided a worldview especially compatible with experimental science.​
...​
Christianity made science a theologically justified and even righteous path to pursue. Since God created the world, exploring how it works honors its Creator.​
...​
Christians realized it was impossible to work out the laws of nature through rational analysis alone. The only way to discover his plan was to go out and look.​
...​
Given the advantages Christianity provided, it is hardly surprising that modern science developed only in the West, within a Christian civilization. Although other religious traditions could have provided a similarly fertile metaphysical ground for the study of nature, none actually did so. Christianity was a crucial cause of the unique development of Western science, the only science that has consistently produced true theories of nature.?​

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/04/video-john-lennox-on-problem-of-evil_7.html
Dennis Prager​
To put this as clearly as possible: If there is no God who says, "Do not murder," murder is not wrong. Many people or societies may agree that it is wrong. But so what? Morality does not derive from the opinion of the masses. If it did, then apartheid was right; murdering Jews in Nazi Germany was right; the history of slavery throughout the world was right; and clitoridectomies and honor killings are right in various Muslims societies.​
So, then, without God, why is murder wrong?​
Is it, as Dawkins argues, because reason says so?​
My reason says murder is wrong, just as Dawkins's reason does. But, again, so what? The pre-Christian Germanic tribes of Europe regarded the Church's teaching that murder was wrong as preposterous. They reasoned that killing innocent people was acceptable and normal because the strong should do whatever they wanted.​
In addition, reason alone without God is pretty weak in leading to moral behavior. When self-interest and reason collide, reason usually loses. That's why we have the word "rationalize" -- to use reason to argue for what is wrong. ...​
In that regard, let's go to the empirical argument.?​
Years ago, I interviewed Pearl and Sam Oliner, two professors of sociology at California State University at Humboldt and the authors of one of the most highly-regarded works on altruism, The Altruistic Personality. The book was the product of the Oliners' lifetime of study of non-Jewish rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust.​
The Oliners, it should be noted, are secular, not religious, Jews; they had no religious agenda.​
I asked Samuel Oliner, "Knowing all you now know about who rescued Jews during the Holocaust, if you had to return as a Jew to Poland and you could knock on the door of only one person in the hope that they would rescue you, would you knock on the door of a Polish lawyer, a Polish doctor, a Polish artist or a Polish priest?"​
Without hesitation, he said, "a Polish priest."​
Jim,
Fantastic post!

That's what I'm talking about (even though I'm not a religious Christian).

A couple of caveats though:
1. Ok. So there have been some side effects you don't like; e.g. judgmental, anti-gay. That's nit picking, IMO. It is the trend that counts and Christianity has trended toward a vastly more positive life experience for those living in its cultures than any other system. Thats a fact and too bad if lefty globalists can't process that and if it threatens their childish Rousseau fantasies.

2. IMO we should be careful about making statements about what the purpose of life is, what the universe or what God wants as if there is some objective directive force out there - even if some NDEs, ADCs etc say there is. IMO, we are co-creating these primary directives and they are limited to the human sphere of awareness. Once you chose a path/buy into a paradigm - whether consciously or subconsciously - then you must follow that basic premise to its logical conclusion. That is how consciousness works. Thus, it is natural and expected that those steeped in a culture based on Christianity (again, suck it up lefties/atheists, it's true) will experience an inner/outer world that is also based on Christian values (e.g. the purpose of life is to learn to love). IMO, learning to love is a good path to take, but it is not objectively the purpose of life. It is merely a potential path that is available to us. When we buy into it we are creating worlds (this and the next) that become very real as more awarenesses join in that paradigm.

We are creating our Christian heaven, The Light, etc. That doesn't make it any more or less real than anything else because that's all there is to reality. A consensus as to what potentials in the sea of infinity will be attended to.
 
#23
Excellent question highlights Alex! Looking forward to future interviews myself!

It's so, so easy to connect NDE after affects with ET contact after affects. Sure its a leap, but the effects are both extraordinary. Unless you believe its the same technology from different sources? Otherwise I don't see why the leap isn't plausible.

As for evolution, christianity, and consciousness...well that is a huge leap. Hypocritical? Maybe. Except the huge diffference in data. Ancient history is very sparse, present knowledge of NDE experiencers / contactees is much greater and growing.

Christ consciousness might be a part of something more general. But, hey why not cut that up into little pieces and make a new religion out of it? How could we tell that ISN'T true? We cannot. And I can see, if I was a commited christian, the desire to claim the extraordinary changes as unique to history since that religion is everything to them.
 
Last edited:
B

Baccarat

#25
Jim,
Fantastic post!

That's what I'm talking about (even though I'm not a religious Christian).

A couple of caveats though:
1. Ok. So there have been some side effects you don't like; e.g. judgmental, anti-gay. That's nit picking, IMO. It is the trend that counts and Christianity has trended toward a vastly more positive life experience for those living in its cultures than any other system. Thats a fact and too bad if lefty globalists can't process that and if it threatens their childish Rousseau fantasies.

2. IMO we should be careful about making statements about what the purpose of life is, what the universe or what God wants as if there is some objective directive force out there - even if some NDEs, ADCs etc say there is. IMO, we are co-creating these primary directives and they are limited to the human sphere of awareness. Once you chose a path/buy into a paradigm - whether consciously or subconsciously - then you must follow that basic premise to its logical conclusion. That is how consciousness works. Thus, it is natural and expected that those steeped in a culture based on Christianity (again, suck it up lefties/atheists, it's true) will experience an inner/outer world that is also based on Christian values (e.g. the purpose of life is to learn to love). IMO, learning to love is a good path to take, but it is not objectively the purpose of life. It is merely a potential path that is available to us. When we buy into it we are creating worlds (this and the next) that become very real as more awarenesses join in that paradigm.

We are creating our Christian heaven, The Light, etc. That doesn't make it any more or less real than anything else because that's all there is to reality. A consensus as to what potentials in the sea of infinity will be attended to.
Christianity has also trended toward bigotry and pedophilia, if you're OK with that, that would be very strange. Let's not nitpick" and forgot Christianity killing millions of people and its role in nazi Germany
 
#26
Christianity has also trended toward bigotry and pedophilia, if you're OK with that, that would be very strange. Let's not nitpick" and forgot Christianity killing millions of people and its role in nazi Germany
Don't be a such a negative person. Always looking at the negatives isn't good for your mind or health.

Of course I'm not "ok" with any of that.

Also try to not be such an angry dumb ass. The world is not an all or nothing/black versus white proposition. Only children think it is and only terrible children use the failure to conform to all or nothing standards as political weapon.

The problem with negative complainers, like you, is that they never have a better viable alternative. What do you prefer? Islam? African Voodoo? The oppression of Tibetan Buddhism (read about how the Lamas ruled over their people)? Or do you think that societies should aimlessly wander about in post modern nihilist angst? What?

You probably never heard the old adage to not let a rotten apple spoil the whole basket. Michael Jackson even had a song about it when he was a kid. Now, don't take it literally. It's not actually talking about apples. It's a metaphor for situations and people you encounter in life.
 
B

Baccarat

#27
Don't be a such a negative person. Always looking at the negatives isn't good for your mind or health.

Of course I'm not "ok" with any of that.

Also try to not be such an angry dumb ass. The world is not an all or nothing/black versus white proposition. Only children think it is and only terrible children use the failure to conform to all or nothing standards as political weapon.

The problem with negative complainers, like you, is that they never have a better viable alternative. What do you prefer? Islam? African Voodoo? The oppression of Tibetan Buddhism (read about how the Lamas ruled over their people)? Or do you think that societies should aimlessly wander about in post modern nihilist angst? What?

You probably never heard the old adage to not let a rotten apple spoil the whole basket. Michael Jackson even had a song about it when he was a kid. Now, don't take it literally. It's not actually talking about apples. It's a metaphor for situations and people you encounter in life.
I'm not negative I'm raw and realistic, I prefer self realization instead of sugar coating dark truths you remain to gloss over. There's my alternative self realization.
 
B

Baccarat

#28
You talk about not seeing anything in black and white, but talked about all the "good stuff" about Christianity and not the "bad stuff"
 
B

Baccarat

#29
I don't get it, maybe I do are people so lost that they actually think they can find the truth outside of them? Shaky foundations you don't even know who you are or what you're looking for go check the "data"
 
#30
Jim,
Fantastic post!

That's what I'm talking about (even though I'm not a religious Christian).

A couple of caveats though:
1. Ok. So there have been some side effects you don't like; e.g. judgmental, anti-gay. That's nit picking, IMO. It is the trend that counts and Christianity has trended toward a vastly more positive life experience for those living in its cultures than any other system. Thats a fact and too bad if lefty globalists can't process that and if it threatens their childish Rousseau fantasies.

2. IMO we should be careful about making statements about what the purpose of life is, what the universe or what God wants as if there is some objective directive force out there - even if some NDEs, ADCs etc say there is. IMO, we are co-creating these primary directives and they are limited to the human sphere of awareness. Once you chose a path/buy into a paradigm - whether consciously or subconsciously - then you must follow that basic premise to its logical conclusion. That is how consciousness works. Thus, it is natural and expected that those steeped in a culture based on Christianity (again, suck it up lefties/atheists, it's true) will experience an inner/outer world that is also based on Christian values (e.g. the purpose of life is to learn to love). IMO, learning to love is a good path to take, but it is not objectively the purpose of life. It is merely a potential path that is available to us. When we buy into it we are creating worlds (this and the next) that become very real as more awarenesses join in that paradigm.

We are creating our Christian heaven, The Light, etc. That doesn't make it any more or less real than anything else because that's all there is to reality. A consensus as to what potentials in the sea of infinity will be attended to.
I dare say that if you had lived a few hundred years back you might have felt differently about Christianity. Just about everyone - you included - participating here would have been eligible for execution, probably by being burned at the stake!

Even administrator privileges here don't extend that far :)

Even within the 20'th century children have had to suffer sexual abuse at the hands of priests, who were protected from justice by the Church (mainly Catholic, but there was some Protestant involvement too). I would argue that the only thing that has made the Church more bearable, is that fact that it has lost so much power that it had to put on a friendly face.

I'd also argue that we don't really know enough about how societies further back in time (before Christ) behaved - but history was never my strong point, so I may be wrong.

The whole point of this forum is that we don't know how consciousness works, or what its rules are. Furthermore, we obviously share the gift/curse of consciousness with many animals, I don't think you can leave them out of the equation. Just asserting that you know the rules does not make them necessarily true, though do please feel free to expand this concept at greater length somewhere in the forum.

I'd argue that just as science wants to argue that biology bootstrapped itself out of inert matter - even though the evidence for that seems really tenuous - there is a certain appeal to the idea that consciousness bootstrapped its own purpose for existence out of nothing - which I hope does not distort your position - and that this may be equally false.

David
 
B

Baccarat

#31
You're projecting an illusion of the world on to yourself, it's time for you to step back from this forum maybe and introspect, you're better then this Eric newhill.... If that is your real name?
 
#32
I dare say that if you had lived a few hundred years back you might have felt differently about Christianity. Just about everyone - you included - participating here would have been eligible for execution, probably by being burned at the stake!

Even administrator privileges here don't extend that far :)

Even within the 20'th century children have had to suffer sexual abuse at the hands of priests, who were protected from justice by the Church (mainly Catholic, but there was some Protestant involvement too). I would argue that the only thing that has made the Church more bearable, is that fact that it has lost so much power that it had to put on a friendly face.

I'd also argue that we don't really know enough about how societies further back in time (before Christ) behaved - but history was never my strong point, so I may be wrong.

The whole point of this forum is that we don't know how consciousness works, or what its rules are. Furthermore, we obviously share the gift/curse of consciousness with many animals, I don't think you can leave them out of the equation. Just asserting that you know the rules does not make them necessarily true, though do please feel free to expand this concept at greater length somewhere in the forum.

I'd argue that just as science wants to argue that biology bootstrapped itself out of inert matter - even though the evidence for that seems really tenuous - there is a certain appeal to the idea that consciousness bootstrapped its own purpose for existence out of nothing - which I hope does not distort your position - and that this may be equally false.

David
Well I totally disagree with you're saying (as well as Baccarat's interpretation).

You are, quite obtusely, confusing an a spiritual message and its meaning with the actions of a few evil men who adopted the name of the system only as a cover to do their evil. The message of Christ is the same as it was when the inquisition was operating. To conflate the two is political and, quite frankly, immature. It is the approach of the rebellious nihilist.

Go ahead, name any concept, system or ideal and I can tell you it is a crock by pointing to evil men that have caused pain in its name. That most certainly includes the "science" that you say you want to adhere to. Didn't science bring us the atom bomb and other terrible means of war that have been unleashed on millions? There you have it. Science is a blight on humanity and should be dispensed with post haste for the good of humanity.

Sheesh, life itself is a travesty because being a live is abused by evil men to cause pain. We all should just drink the cyanide Kool-Aid and die.
 
#33
Well I totally disagree with you're saying (as well as Baccarat's interpretation).

You are, quite obtusely, confusing an a spiritual message and its meaning with the actions of a few evil men who adopted the name of the system only as a cover to do their evil. The message of Christ is the same as it was when the inquisition was operating. To conflate the two is political and, quite frankly, immature. It is the approach of the rebellious nihilist.

Go ahead, name any concept, system or ideal and I can tell you it is a crock by pointing to evil men that have caused pain in its name. That most certainly includes the "science" that you say you want to adhere to. Didn't science bring us the atom bomb and other terrible means of war that have been unleashed on millions? There you have it. Science is a blight on humanity and should be dispensed with post haste for the good of humanity.

Sheesh, life itself is a travesty because being a live is abused by evil men to cause pain. We all should just drink the cyanide Kool-Aid and die.
Well both science and religion have gone through phases of extreme corruption - I obviously argue regularly that science is now almost terminally corrupt. I didn't say I wanted to adhere to science - my only reference to science was the following:
I'd argue that just as science wants to argue that biology bootstrapped itself out of inert matter - even though the evidence for that seems really tenuous - there is a certain appeal to the idea that consciousness bootstrapped its own purpose for existence out of nothing - which I hope does not distort your position - and that this may be equally false.
Surely you know me well enough by now to realise that I don't accept the idea of evolution by natural selection - still less the genesis of life by natural processes - but that I was comparing that mistaken idea with yours (which may or may not be mistaken) that there was no purpose to life but that one developed organically (so to speak) and happened to be love.

David
 
#34
Christianity has also trended toward bigotry and pedophilia, if you're OK with that, that would be very strange. Let's not nitpick" and forgot Christianity killing millions of people and its role in nazi Germany
You're personifying a religion: likening it to a person who makes deliberate choices. If one is going to personify Christianity, I think it makes more sense to describe it as a number of people. Some people calling themselves Christians are hypocritical; some possess genuine sincerity and tailor their actions according to the beliefs of their religion. One can't be genuinely a Christian and an active paedophile or sympathiser with toxic ideologies such as Nazism. Anyone can call themselves a Christian, but not everyone practises Christianity's central tenets, which focus on love and egalitarianism.

In fact, probably most don't, but there is a wide spectrum and you've characterised those at one extreme as representative of the whole by your use of the word "trended". It's as if you're characterising a millipede by a few legs that are broken and twisted and haven't noticed that on the whole the movement of the beast is reasonably fluid. This is a lopsided, axe-grinding position. There are other millipedes out there, including those representing various other religions and political ideologies: observe how they move and ask whether they're better or worse.
 
#36
Science is a blight on humanity and should be dispensed with post haste for the good of humanity.
Another millipede. At its core is genuine science, which is alive and well and a sense one result of Christianity. The millipede has had a few of its legs tied and is going all over the place, but its central core remains intact and awaits the untying of the knots that are preventing it doing what it should. Don't blame "science" in and of itself, but the environment in which it is currently working.

And incidentally, it's absurd to say that we should dispense with science, which has brought us many benefits and helped create the civilisation we live in, which, amongst other things, enables you to come here and speak your piece. I say don't dispense with it, but instead set about correcting its environment. Then it would be able to do the work it should. People in general are the problem, not science per se.
 
#37
Well both science and religion have gone through phases of extreme corruption - I obviously argue regularly that science is now almost terminally corrupt. I didn't say I wanted to adhere to science - my only reference to science was the following:

Surely you know me well enough by now to realise that I don't accept the idea of evolution by natural selection - still less the genesis of life by natural processes - but that I was comparing that mistaken idea with yours (which may or may not be mistaken) that there was no purpose to life but that one developed organically (so to speak) and happened to be love.

David
David,
I know you're not a materialist and neither am I. I still think the scientific process, used properly, is really good at improving the human condition in the material sphere.

My only point is that anyone can denigrate anything by calling out some bad examples; as Baccarat did. Michael Larkin has now also addressed this appropriately.

There is nothing in the human realm that isn't abused by psychopaths and hypocrites and people just blindly stumbling along their way and not self-reflecting.

Social justice heroes and other anti-social types are always throwing the baby out with the bath water, except when it's their baby of course. It's a low grade form of debate club argumentation.
 
#38
Another millipede. At its core is genuine science, which is alive and well and a sense one result of Christianity. The millipede has had a few of its legs tied and is going all over the place, but its central core remains intact and awaits the untying of the knots that are preventing it doing what it should. Don't blame "science" in and of itself, but the environment in which it is currently working.

And incidentally, it's absurd to say that we should dispense with science, which has brought us many benefits and helped create the civilisation we live in, which, amongst other things, enables you to come here and speak your piece. I say don't dispense with it, but instead set about correcting its environment. Then it would be able to do the work it should. People in general are the problem, not science per se.
Michael,
Yes I know. I was being facetious in making the same point you did with the example of the millipede.
 
#40
David,
I know you're not a materialist and neither am I. I still think the scientific process, used properly, is really good at improving the human condition in the material sphere.

My only point is that anyone can denigrate anything by calling out some bad examples; as Baccarat did. Michael Larkin has now also addressed this appropriately.

There is nothing in the human realm that isn't abused by psychopaths and hypocrites and people just blindly stumbling along their way and not self-reflecting.

Social justice heroes and other anti-social types are always throwing the baby out with the bath water, except when it's their baby of course. It's a low grade form of debate club argumentation.
We probably disagree with very little, and indeed you aren't a practising Christian yourself. However, that must mean that you don't accept at least one of their key doctrines - that without being forgiven by Jesus, you will go to Hell!

We may also disagree on whether there is any decent evidence that:
we are co-creating these primary directives and they are limited to the human sphere of awareness. Once you chose a path/buy into a paradigm - whether consciously or subconsciously - then you must follow that basic premise to its logical conclusion. That is how consciousness works
I just don't think we can say that.

David
 
Top