Rick DeLano’s Terrific Quantum Science Film Tainted by Catholic Nonsense |454|

I think we get entangled with other past consciousness sometime, like i was saying like in quantum entanglement, same thing
That just isn't a good way to reason.

1. The evidence from those reincarnation studies is remarkable, and the easiest way to interpret the data is to assume it is what it says - reincarnation.

2. Postulating in addition that there is some sort of consciousness mixing (I assume by entanglement that you aren't referring to quantum entanglement) seems superfluous because there sure isn't enough data to be able to tell if there is some sort of mixing - and anyway, what exactly does that mean in this context.

David
 
I think your ignorant on my response. I said its logically the same as entanglement. But Its very possible since the sub atomic particles that make up the universe are in fact all connected outside of space and time , and these same particles make up the microtubles - see link below- in our brain structure and chemistry which many scientists believe are in fact where conciseness comes from , since a protein in them vibrates at a quantum level . Now connect that to the releasing of these energies at death at a single focal point outside maybe of time and space with other humans -lets say- and you could have mix up with consciousnesses of different people merging or with a new born or young person that's alive, since quantum theory is a probability , not an exact thing. That can explain your so called reincarnation symptoms.Its kind of along the same lines of spirit possession I would say in theory; its the merging of consciousnesses to an extent not island hoping from one person to the next.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140116085105.htm
 
Last edited:
I've read that once scientists begin researching the sub atomic, the very tiny particle origin of matter, that things get kinda, "fuzzy." Fuzzy, as in illusionary, maybe? Our mere observance of things affects that which is being observed, not just at the sub atomic level. This is a key point to be kept in mind. A policeman is taught when tailing a car containing a suspect to not look at the suspect's head for this will cause the suspect to look and notice the policeman. When I'm in my garden busy killing Japanese beetles I've noticed that those beetles become aware of my presence only when I notice them on the plant and react by raising one of their insect legs or they prepare to take flight by opening their wings. If I'm lucky and quick I manage to squish the life out of them before that happens. The same thing with mosquitoes. They will attempt to pull out from your skin if you aren't quick to kill them after you notice them. If they manage to sink their needle into your skin and miss hitting a nerve and you don't notice them they will merrily fill themselves full of your blood and fly off without so much as a thank you. I find that infuriating.

however, we may conclude that even though matter enlarges from the sub atomic to the visible the affect of observation of it remains within it. Are we willing to take a leap and consider the possibility that the the Great Consciousness has the capacity, through It's power, to observe Creation into existence? Or to follow with the possibility that everything might be conscious? Of course, accepting such opens the door to the miraculous. As offspring of the Great Consciousness, and our relationship with It, by our will alone we may be granted favors with respect to our possessions. Our homes and devices could last and function unchanged for a lifetime if we want them to.
 
Last edited:
I think you are making the same mistake as Rick did - not recognising that that quote may be disrespectful, but it really is close to what the bible says, unless you take Genesis to be allegorical.
David
Read the whole thread but the above post continues to annoy me.

Delano was not able to support his accusation because Alex did not make a straw man; but rather presented a different but similar logical fallacy: reductio ad absurdum. In my assessment, Delano fumbled the ball (incorrectly calling out straw man) but only after Alex fouled him by employing the illegal debating move of reductio ad absurdum. It is not all that difficult to make an otherwise reasonable intellectual stance seem ridiculous by taking a narrative out of the tradition within which it functions and stripping it of all nuance. Buddhist koans sound incoherent if you igore the function they play within that tradition. Personally, I consider the reductio ad absurdum a debating "dick move" for a couple of reasons.

First, it intentionally distracts the opponent by invoking an emotional response. There is no getting around the fact Gen 2 was presented in a highly disrepectful way.

Second, the presenter of the fallacy asks his opponent agree with a childish over-simplification so that he can reject any nuance the opponent might use to counter the over-simplification. With respect to scripture, the fallacy presenter generally insistes that the the text has only one level and will not move on until he thinks he can get an admission that the lowest level of interpretation is "just" allegorical. But that is never followed by a sincere discussion about the important role allegory plays in understanding essential human truths.

Third, it makes the position of the fallacy presenter immune to criticism by making it "computationally infeasible" to disect the fallacy within the alloted time of the discussion because of the great intellectual effort it takes to explain theological role Genesis 2, or any other story, plays in the Christian traditions.

Lastly, I need to say this very carefully to not be misunderstood because I do not believe Alex is bigotted against Christianity. At the same time the contrast between his approach to Delano's Catholisim and that of Morely's Buddhism needs to be explained.
 
Last edited:
Ive heard so many apologetic explanations for the viciousness of the OT and none of them come close to making sense. My old pastor (a great guy) would tell the congregation, “it’s to show us how we can’t do things on our own and how we need Jesus.” As if that makes any sense at all.
Perhaps consider the OT violence from the point of view of Rene Girard. For every percieved social ill, people are naturally inclined to find some villian who can be blamed and who, if purged from society, will restore order. That is just how we think. So in biblical history, we see this constant blaming of others or self-recriminations for just for being human. But the problem is that, in our own minds, people feel justified in their selection of victims....they deserved it after all! So God reveals this violent impulse of scapegoating and our blindness to injustice by providing, in Himself, a truly innocent victim. As a result, we see that we ourselves are all basically Christ-killers bound by unversal guilt and thus the only path out is universal compassion and forgiveness.

Just look at the state of the world today. What is this current moral panic other than a national search for someone with enough "victim signs" to justify our rage and villification? The world sucks. Who can we blame? Well, we can keep blaming each other for our problems and/or cover ourselves in ashes and sack-cloth OR we can transcend our violence by extending to each other the forgiveness God extends to us, i.e. "we need Jesus."
 
Last edited:

Alex

Administrator
Lastly, I need to say this very carefully to not be misunderstood because I do not believe Alex is bigotted against Christianity. At the same time the contrast between his approach to Delano's Catholisim and that of Morely's Buddhism needs to be explained.
thx I tried to explain in this post:

dpdownsouth said:
That was an interesting listen, thanks. But I still don't get the 'fuck Christians' thing. I mean, if it's because they have a sort of set interpretive model for understanding the world, okay, but then you might as well also say fuck the occultists, those advaita assholes, Buddhists, panpsychists, spiritualists, Jungians, etc.
I think it's more like -- Christians pls give up yr "evil" cultish ways... and then pls build in safeguards to keep them out.

how about a new kind of Christianity starting with some ridiculously obvious reforms:
https://media.thegospelcoalition.or...files/2010/02/Christianity-and-McLarenism.pdf

1. The narrative question: What is the overarching story line of the Bible? For McLaren, the familiar story
line of creation, fall, redemption, consummation (with heaven and hell as a result) is a grotesque
Greco-Roman distortion of the biblical narrative. God the creator, liberator, reconciler is the real story
line.
2. The authority question: How should the Bible be understood? Not as a constitution, argues McLaren,
with laws and rules and arguments about who’s right and wrong. Rather, we go to the Bible as a
community library, where internal consistency is not presumed and we learn by conversation
.
3. The God question: Is God violent? Believers used to think so, but we ought to grow in maturity from
fearing a violent tribal God to partnering with a Christlike God.
5. The gospel question: What is the gospel? It is not a message about how to get saved. The gospel is the
announcement of a “new kingdom, a new way of life, and a new way of peace that carried good news to
all people of every religion” (139).
9. The pluralism question: How should followers of Jesus relate to people of other religions? “Christianity has
a nauseating, infuriating, depressing record when it comes to encountering people of other religions

(208). There is not us/them, insider/outsider. Jesus accepted everyone and so should we.
10. The what-do-we-do-now question: How can we translate our quest into action? The human quest for
God has known many stages. Those in the more mature stages of the quest should gently invite others
to grow into fuller maturity, but without being divisive.
 

Attachments

just to be clear, I presented a quote from a Christian religious scholar:

View attachment 1722

The Smoley quote is still a reductio ad absurdum.

IMHO if you are going to cite authority then perhaps you could consider chosing more representative Christian scholars such as Thomas of Aquinas who said:

"I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. ...Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses."

The above is from the Summa Theologica and has been a widely accepted position of Christian theologians, both Catholic and Protestant, for more than 500 years. IMHO if you are going to challenge someone on your show about his or her Christian faith then my suggestion is that you not expect them to defend or refute contemporary outliers, like Smoley, but rather dicusss the merits of the faith tradition's central thinkers like Thomas of Aquanis, Gregory of Nyssa, John Calvin, etc.

Criticising Christians believers for scientific innaccuracies is as old as Christianity itself but ultimately has no bearing on central Christian doctrines. Consider what Augustine, a highly educated man for his time, had to say about a preacher:

"Whenever I hear a brother Christian talk in such a way as to show that he is ignorant of these scientific matters and confuses one thing with another, I listen with patience to his theories and think it no harm to him that he does not know the true facts about material things, provided that he holds no beliefs unworthy of you, O Lord, who are the Creator of them all. The danger lies in thinking that such knowledge is part and parcel of what he must believe to save his soul and in presuming to make obstinate declarations about things of which he knows nothing."
 
Read the whole thread but the above post continues to annoy me.

Delano was not able to support his accusation because Alex did not make a straw man; but rather presented a different but similar logical fallacy: reductio ad absurdum. In my assessment, Delano fumbled the ball (incorrectly calling out straw man) but only after Alex fouled him by employing the illegal debating move of reductio ad absurdum. It is not all that difficult to make an otherwise reasonable intellectual stance seem ridiculous by taking a narrative out of the tradition within which it functions and stripping it of all nuance. Buddhist koans sound incoherent if you igore the function they play within that tradition. Personally, I consider the reductio ad absurdum a debating "dick move" for a couple of reasons.

First, it intentionally distracts the opponent by invoking an emotional response. There is no getting around the fact Gen 2 was presented in a highly disrepectful way.

Second, the presenter of the fallacy asks his opponent agree with a childish over-simplification so that he can reject any nuance the opponent might use to counter the over-simplification. With respect to scripture, the fallacy presenter generally insistes that the the text has only one level and will not move on until he thinks he can get an admission that the lowest level of interpretation is "just" allegorical. But that is never followed by a sincere discussion about the important role allegory plays in understanding essential human truths.

Third, it makes the position of the fallacy presenter immune to criticism by making it "computationally infeasible" to disect the fallacy within the alloted time of the discussion because of the great intellectual effort it takes to explain theological role Genesis 2, or any other story, plays in the Christian traditions.

Lastly, I need to say this very carefully to not be misunderstood because I do not believe Alex is bigotted against Christianity. At the same time the contrast between his approach to Delano's Catholisim and that of Morely's Buddhism needs to be explained.
First Welcome Back to Skeptiko Chad!

I'd like to focus on one aspect of this. The passage comes from the most revered book of Christianity, and its most literal interpretation is quite horrific. So we are supposed to take it that this passage was allegorical. So to me, an allegory can be a simplified description of something, but surely the moral has to remain the same. I used to be a Christian, 50 years back, but even so the directness of that quote (from a Christian scholar) too my breath away.

I would challenge you to provide the answer that Delano failed to give.

You can't tell a story of incredible cruelty and then say it was an allegory for a loving god creating the world! I mean texts can have different levels of meaning, but can a surface level of incredible cruelty overlay a deeper loving meaning! I left Christianity at university, and the crunch for me was a discussion with some pretty hard line Christians who wished to persuade me that God couldn't just forgive sinners, the punishment had to be transferred to someone - to Jesus dying on the cross! I know plenty of priests would fudge over these arguments, but at university I got used to trying to clarify arguments, not paint them over.

It took decades before I started to realise that there could be spirituality without religion, and that all the topics we discuss here could be legitimate.

Some people take verses like that literally, and are deeply scarred by them.

David
 
I'd like to focus on one aspect of this. The passage comes from the most revered book of Christianity, and its most literal interpretation is quite horrific. So we are supposed to take it that this passage was allegorical.
I do not truly believe that even a fundamentalist like Ken Ham actually believes that God talked to a small physical reptile. Just because one sense of a text is allegorical does not mean that it should not be revered, which seems to be the implication of skeptics before they lump the Genensis account in with Greek mythology. I have no problem considering it historical in the pre-modern understanding of history. An ancient historian relates events in order to reveal the character and significance of the historical subject rather than a Newtonian timeline of natural occurances.

I would challenge you to provide the answer that Delano failed to give.
Doubling down on the "dick move" are we? :) Smoley reduces the biblical narrative to less than 100 words and you expect me to tell you what he left out and got wrong? Maybe I could point out that God did not send "part of Himself" since that violates Divine Simplicity. Or that "God got mad" is an anthropomorhical representation for when humans violatate the Divine Order. Or "if you don't buy this story,..." is a mischaraterization of faith, which is properly understood as a lived conviction. Or that "...you're going to fry forever," is a gross mischaracterization of the torment of being seperated from Divinity. Or how Smoley excludes the restoration of Creation when God will be "All in all" and how He will "wipe the tears from every eye."

You can't tell a story of incredible cruelty and then say it was an allegory for a loving god creating the world! I mean texts can have different levels of meaning, but can a surface level of incredible cruelty overlay a deeper loving meaning!
That the bible doesn't gloss over that violent history is a point in its favor, not a reason to reject it.
 
Last edited:
For me, all religions (including Christianity) acted as colored filters between knowledge and myself. Once I removed these filters I began to experience and explore the nature and science of being. The result has been a.) the achievement of transformation, b.) achieved at an obviously increased rate from when I would strive to extract all the allegories while battling the sub conscious drags on my being the literal delivers, c.) finally met the "Chester" I could look in the mirror with love (not for myself) but with an understanding of love that we can be love with regards to family, friends, those I pass on the street and those I never meet.

And d.) I have come to know my soul and in fact, have come to remember I am not a human being with a soul but a soul having a human experience. And though I know this idea is most famously associated with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. - "...a French idealist philosopher and Jesuit Catholic priest who trained as a paleontologist and geologist and took part in the discovery of the Peking Man. He conceived the vitalist idea of the Omega Point, and he developed Vladimir Vernadsky's concept of noosphere." - source
...when I first heard the quote, I did not sense I had just learned something, I felt most certain that I was simply reminded of a metaphysical truth - one that needed no adherence to or following of (a religion) to be, to be true, to be truth.

I do not imagine most observant human beings living today would say the way this world has unfolded could not have unfolded in a better way for all of us and those who have yet to come. I, personally, cannot imagine the world as it has unfolded to be, today, has not been impacted by all these religions. And I cannot imagine the world would be worse without them. All, just my opinion.

If folks wish religion in their life, that's their decision. How religion impacts them such that the individual they become then impacts the rest of us, all life for that matter, the world... is each individual's personal responsibility.

I just don't understand how a filter between oneself and the truth assists one with clarity. Instead it seems only to clutter things up and deter direct apprehension.

All the above is only my opinion. I honor everyone's path, even if their path includes religion. The way beyond is all too often through.
 
Last edited:

Alex

Administrator
The Smoley quote is still a reductio ad absurdum.
I don't think so... it seems to me that in order to nail this down would have to understand people's beliefs. I mean there's probably around 10% of christians who take the adam and eve story literally... so it's not reductio ad absurdum to them.

Then you have, I'm just guessing here, maybe 50% of christians who understand it is allegory, but pretty much hold on to the cosmology being described. so to them it's not reductio ad absurdum.

So of the 40% of christians you have left I would suggest that there's a very small minority they truly have this mystical christian vision that you seem to be alluding to.

Criticising Christians believers for scientific innaccuracies is as old as Christianity itself
I don't know... it seems to me that smoley is advocating for the christian mysticism that you were pointing to above. he's saying come on christians you have to stop with this apologetics nonsense were you go toe-to-toe with science or you're going to get totally slammed by your ridiculous cosmology.

So I love smoley because he's an idealist truth-seeker... the problem is the cult of christianity could never go in this direction... not good for business
 
L

lonevoice

The Smoley quote is still a reductio ad absurdum.

IMHO if you are going to cite authority then perhaps you could consider chosing more representative Christian scholars such as Thomas of Aquinas who said:

"I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. ...Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses."

The above is from the Summa Theologica and has been a widely accepted position of Christian theologians, both Catholic and Protestant, for more than 500 years. IMHO if you are going to challenge someone on your show about his or her Christian faith then my suggestion is that you not expect them to defend or refute contemporary outliers, like Smoley, but rather dicusss the merits of the faith tradition's central thinkers like Thomas of Aquanis, Gregory of Nyssa, John Calvin, etc.

Criticising Christians believers for scientific innaccuracies is as old as Christianity itself but ultimately has no bearing on central Christian doctrines. Consider what Augustine, a highly educated man for his time, had to say about a preacher:

"Whenever I hear a brother Christian talk in such a way as to show that he is ignorant of these scientific matters and confuses one thing with another, I listen with patience to his theories and think it no harm to him that he does not know the true facts about material things, provided that he holds no beliefs unworthy of you, O Lord, who are the Creator of them all. The danger lies in thinking that such knowledge is part and parcel of what he must believe to save his soul and in presuming to make obstinate declarations about things of which he knows nothing."[/QUOT
----

I am not a credentialed Christian scholar bur a lay researcher. Augustine IMO (and his biographer's) was a tormented man. He came to believe that even IF one believed in all of the Old Testament, and New, it was predestined whether he/she would go to hell. When he died the walls of his room were plastered with papers pleading that he be saved. Calvin was even worse. God save us from this self-hating theology.





I am not a credentialed Christian scholar bur a lay researcher. Augustine IMO (and his biographer's) was a tormented man. He came to believe that even IF one believed in all of the Old Testament, and New, it was predestined whether he/she would go to hell. When he died the walls of his room were plastered with papers pleading that he be saved. Calvin was even worse. God save us from this self-hating theology.
 
When I read that, something niggled in the back of my mind, and now I know what it is.

The whole point of an allegory is to pass on some moral ideas using simple language and ideas that can be readily grasped.
The story might not be factual, but the moral should be the same. So what moral was the Genesis story meant to convey?

David
That disobeying God is bad.
 
Top