A Brief History of Evolutionary Spirituality

reply to post by Astyanax


I certainly see your point on "confusion" and "euphemisms" . . . I guess, I was trying to add something to this discussion without railroading it to the typical "there is no such thing as a soul"/"God vs. Science" debate that this forum inevitably ends in.

Was I being polite? . . . Sure. I don't mind what people believe, as long as, it is not forced on me or my children. If someone wants to believe in the traditional meaning of "spirit", I'd like to think there is some way to debate without calling them a delusional idiot. Maybe . . . ?

I thought this thread was about Quote:-

"A Brief History of Evolutionary Spirituality" !

If It Must Be Said

I beg pardon for these occasional portmanteau posts. I've just moved house and my domestic internet connection isn't up yet. It'll be a while, this being the Third World and all. Please bear with me.

@ Spiramirabilis: you didn't like the idea that thoughts are just a brain's response to stimuli.

way to suck all the romance and magic out of my existence - not to mention my nonexistent soul

It doesn't have to be that way.

When Newton showed how the differential refraction of light created the visible spectrum, Keats berated him for 'unweaving the rainbow' - taking all the romance and magic (and mystery) out of that great scintillating arch in the sky. Keats was a great poet, but was he right in this? Do our hearts, today, lift any the less at the sight of a rainbow because we know how it is formed? Or does the knowledge actually heighten our feelings of admiration and awe in the face of this manifestation of nature? What do you think?

Speaking for myself, I find reality intensely - at times, almost unbearably - exciting, magical and, yes, romantic. This endlessly complex, intricately interrelated, promiscuously emergent universe of ours fills me with worshipful awe. Its nested worlds without number, its manifold improbabilities collapsing to certainty, its regal indifference to itself and its ultimate inscrutability are - to me, at least - so utterly fascinating that all human substitutes - soul, spirit, magic, faith, God and all the rest - seem flaccid, colourless and ill-made-up by comparison. I cannot bow down before these half-baked abominations, these tarnished golden calves. In Nature's temple I worship the true and holy mysteries.

@ Solomon's Path: perhaps your approach has helped keep discussion at a slightly less fundamantal level than that to which it commonly descends here. I was concerned about that too; my strategy was not to state my own position, but simply ask what I thought were relevant questions.

Apparently even this was too much for another thread participant, who takes me to task for attitudes and intentions he (or she) has read into my posts and takes to be real. Ah well, you can't please everybody...

@ The Matrix Traveller: yes, and we're on topic, too.

[edit on 20-10-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax

...Keats was a great poet, but was he right in this? Do our hearts, today, lift any the less at the sight of a rainbow because we know how it is formed? Or does the knowledge actually heighten our feelings of admiration and awe in the face of this manifestation of nature? What do you think?

no worries Astyanax - the mystery, magic and romance of my existence is intact - regardless

I couldn't shake it if I wanted to

let me explain what I think by asking this:

with all the conflict that exists between the creationists and the atheists - and all the many shades in between those two extremes - what I've always wondered is - why is evolution not seen as the magic it really is?

if you consider (as much as we can handle) all that had to happen - all the possible combinations of events that took place for life to begin - and continue - it seems magical, powerful and awe inspiring enough for me

I always wonder - would it really seem more impressive if god had done it with a magic wand?

and from the other perspective - is it so hard to understand why just looking at the world as it is - and contemplating the why of it all - could only lead one to believe in magic - and creation?

I absolutely am not trying to start that discussion up again - I only mean to say - we find mystery, magic and romance - and meaning - in our lives and in our world where we will - it is individual

so, the long way round towards saying - I agree with you - it doesn't take anything away - we'll always see it the way we want to - or the way that makes the most sense to each of us

Speaking for myself, I find reality intensely - at times, almost unbearably - exciting, magical and, yes, romantic. This endlessly complex, intricately interrelated, promiscuously emergent universe of ours fills me with worshipful awe. Its nested worlds without number, its manifold improbabilities collapsing to certainty, its regal indifference to itself and its ultimate inscrutability are - to me, at least - so utterly fascinating that all human substitutes - soul, spirit, magic, faith, God and all the rest - seem flaccid, colourless and ill-made-up by comparison. I cannot bow down before these half-baked abominations, these tarnished golden calves. In Nature's temple I worship the true and holy mysteries.

and that was just beautiful

the only thing I can think to say after that is - concepts and words - I'm not sure that the difference between what you feel and I feel amounts to anything more than semantics - you will be opposed to this undoubtedly - but - our individual spiritual semantics

the way each of us - any of us - describes our existence to each other - or even our selves

which brings us back to square one

I genuinely believe that the heart of this thread (which looks like it may never get off the ground unless we find a way for us to all agree about what we're talking about) is about mankind - what we have in common - not our differences as much as the fact that we have a shared history, present - and future

why can't we just ask - how have we changed? why have we changed? how will we change?

I don't suppose the word intellect will work?

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller

It is hard to understand how so much wealth, has come into such great poverty???

Someone's been reading the Gospel of Thomas it looks like

I have influences from a certain teaching so I'll mention some things. I'm just going to spit them out, I really don't want to debate. Science and spirituality are not separate. Science explains things through the will to receive and spirituality explains things through the will to bestow. Also, evolution is not against creationism. Evolution is the advancement of the ego or will to receive. There's the still, vegetative, animate, and speaking (human) levels of creation. With each step, the will to receive grows. Even matter has a will to receive, but its infinitesimally small. A single plant has more will to receive that the entire still level combined. A single animal has more will to receive than all the plants and still combined, ect. So the purpose for evolution is so a greater and greater "reward" can be felt. That's part of the explanation, it'd take awhile to fully answer and there are better sources for explaining it so I'll leave it at that.

I have to say I do agree with the poster that that was sort of a cop out. There are ways to explain the means to come to an answer without giving the answer, which has to be felt for each person.

It's sort of strange reading these posts and everyone has their own way of describing things, different beliefs ect. I think it tends to get overcomplicated in a way, which doesn't help religious/spiritual people's credibility when viewed from people who don't hold any particular beliefs.

[edit on 20-10-2008 by ghaleon12]

reply to post by ghaleon12

It's sort of strange reading these posts and everyone has their own way of describing things, different beliefs ect. I think it tends to get overcomplicated in a way, which doesn't help religious/spiritual people's credibility when viewed from people who don't hold any particular beliefs.

it's a mess

:-)

do you see a way out?

I'm beginning to think it's a subject that can only be discussed with people who already see things the same way

The way out would be truth. That is what everyone is after, whether spiritual or secular, but what influences (or dictates really) what someone determines as truth? What's the difference between something that is true, and something that is false for an individual. Is there a condition that first must be met for something to be regarded as truth? If so, this condition that needs to be met is above truth for the person perceiving it. Just some fun little questions

reply to post by ghaleon12


Yes I would agree with you 100%.

The Genetics of the human primate is based on a double logic system.

All philosophy is subjective because of his, in fact all human reasoning is based on double logic. So this is why the many different ways of understanding anything.

There is "Double Logic" and there is Also "Single Logic".

Reasoning is based on "Double Logic"...

But the Universal Language of Geometry is "Single Logic".

In other words what you see is what you've got No matter what your reasoning is or what your your Philosophy may be regarding what you see.

You can Not change anything at all by reason, in other words what is remains what it is and can only be modified but the result is still what you or exists regardless of reason.

I must apologise as I would Love to display, a couple of what I call Geometric Algorithms, but I am having major problems uploading Images so if you desire to see these U2U me and I can organise it for you.

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

And God blessed them: and God said unto them,
be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth..........etc etc...

The word according to the Oxford dictionary means..

Quote:-

replen'ish, v.t. Fill up again.

Wow. I have read that verse many times throughout my life and that one word never really registered until now.

I am definitely going to look into that.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
OK, first let me say that I am agnostic, thus I have no particular position when it comes to the ongoing debate between atheists and creationists as to issues of origins and deity.
[edit on 10/7/2008 by schrodingers dog]

Theism and Atheism deal with belief. Gnosticism and Agnosticism deal with knowledge.

You can't just be Agnostic, that only deals with knowledge. You are either an Agnostic Theist or an Agnostic Atheist. Either you believe in deities or you don't. If you can't decide, then you are an Atheist, since you don't necessarily believe.