Science as a worldview is just like every other dogma

[SkepticThinker]

Why would you assume the laws of physics are universal and never changing. If you make that assumption and the laws of physics DO change your dogma would close you mind to the possibility. Consider this video called "the Science Delusion":

Is it possible the laws of physics change over time? Ancient astronaut theorists say "yes, it's possible."

 

[Bear Wild]

Why limit it to life?

If your religion is "nature" as your moniker states, then wouldn't a river have equal rights?

I think it is more complicated then this. I think for example, that I have a greater responsiblility to my own children than to my neighbor's children, and a greater responsibility to my neighbor's children than to the children on the other side of the world. And I have a greater responsibility to the children of the world than to the children of chimpanzees. But certainly I have a responsibility to chimpanzees, and trees, and even rocks and rivers. And nature isn't even my religion. I'm just an old Jew.

Complicated or not it does to matter. You and I exist because of the non-human part of our world. Since we cannot live without the plants and animals we share this planet with they deserve great respect and should be treated with great respect. Calling nature sacred is a reminder of our relationship with it. Something that important is should not be misused or taken for granted. In Native American/First American beliefs there is a concept of seeing the non-humans life as relations thus endowing a respect to them. What every way we can create respect is what matters so we change the way we treat the non-human side of our world.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why would you assume the laws of physics are universal and never changing.

I don't.

If you make that assumption and the laws of physics DO change your dogma would close you mind to the possibility. Consider this video called "the Science Delusion":

Neither do I assume that they change.

Is it possible the laws of physics change over time?

I'm in no position to say whether they do or don't.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

The physical laws that were born into our Universe are invariant. These laws have existed long before we were even thought of. It is only our understanding and explanations of these laws that have changed over time. The very fact that we apply constants to our equations, imply that our understanding of the physical laws are incomplete. It is through our technology, the scientific method, mathematics, and inductive and deductive reasoning, that can improve our understanding as to how these pieces can all fit together. We may then extend this understanding of reality, and glimpse into the possibilities of alternate realities/Universes/dimensions. If we could bend or twist all of our spacetime reality, we could create a quantum fluctuation, and create another universe. In fact, our entire Universe could be the product of an interdimensional child's science experiment. Think of it this way. The laws that govern the small do not fit the laws that govern the large. We may need to go outside of our 3 spatial dimensional world to find out how these forces could fit together into one "super force". Since we are biological incapable of mentally conceiving dimensions outside of our own, mathematics is the tool we must use. The math demonstrates that at 10 dimensions strings can exist and vibrate. At 11 dimensions, membranes can exist. At 12 dimensions, two(2) dimensions of time can exist. However, the upper limits for a stable dimensional Universe seems to be 11. More than this, and the unity becomes unstable. Maybe with the discovery of Gravitons, our understanding may be extended. But this technology is beyond our limits. I think we will simply have to accept the idea, that we are all flies stuck to spacetime and the physical laws, and just can't escape.

Maybe by understanding why Gravity is 40 magnitudes weaker than the other three fundamental forces, might provide us with a glimpse into the existence of a parallel dimension. Or, even explain new properties of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. It may also be able to verify many other mathematical predictions. But, in either case, "God did it", will never meet the standards for Causality, of which there are no exceptions. Using a metaphor as a fact in a sentence, is simply oxymoronic.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Complicated or not it does to matter. You and I exist because of the non-human part of our world. Since we cannot live without the plants and animals we share this planet with they deserve great respect and should be treated with great respect. Calling nature sacred is a reminder of our relationship with it. Something that important is should not be misused or taken for granted. In Native American/First American beliefs there is a concept of seeing the non-humans life as relations thus endowing a respect to them. What every way we can create respect is what matters so we change the way we treat the non-human side of our world.

Let me begin by saying I can hardly begin to express the deep respect that I have for Native American spirituality, especially that of the Lakota, which is essentially monotheistic (panentheistic). I grew up not only being exposed to NDN stories and culture, but also spending a good deal of time out in nature, talking with Rangers, learning about John Muir, and developing a strong environmentalist ethic. There are also places in the Torah that deal with kindness towards animals. It all sort of comes together like pieces of a puzzle.

For me personally, although I believe in One God, as Jews do, I experience all of the universe has having somewhat of a gloss upon it, not that I can see with my eyes, but which I can sense with my spiritual eyes. Those times in my life when I have been seriously depressed and doubted the existence of God, the gloss goes away, and it is as if the universe takes on a flatness, toneless, colorless existence. IOW, while I wouldn't go so far as to say that everything is God, my sense of the true beauty of the universe is caught up in my understanding of there being a Creator. I wouldn't call the gloss "holiness," but I can understand why someone would choose that word.

That said, I think it is important to note that you are simply using the word sacred to mean something incredibly different than what most mean when they say sacred. From your post, I gather that by sacred you mean something which is essential to our existence.

The normative definition of sacred is something set apart for God or for religious purposes. It is set apart by treating it differently from normal objects, people, places, or times. For example, the Sabbath is a sacred time because unlike the other six days of the week when we work, we rest on the Sabbath. IOW, it's like yin and yang. You can only have the sacred if you have the profane. To say that all of the earth is sacred is a rather insignifant remark, because without there being non-sacred earth, sacred earth is meaningless.

But I don't think that Native Americans are as "all earth is sacred" as it is claimed. For example, the Black Hills are "especially" sacred to the Lakota. The Dinee have the Four Sacred Mountains. Etc.

Again, I'm comparing and contrasting two essentially good ways of thinking, both of which I admire. I could say plenty of good things about the animistic, mana orientation. But you already see the good in it. My goal here is to make you think about it a different way.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thank you for your response. Our founding fathers were Deists and Rationalist. They made it very clear that God and Christianity should play no role in government.

Again, this is revisionist history. It is not real.


Here is a video that actually will read to you from ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS. You can't get better sources than that. Yes, it's TBN. I know I looked at it at first and thought, "Can any worthwhile scholarship come out of TBN?" But this absolutely wowed me. They did their homework. America's Hidden History | Independence Day

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Except a slave is still a slave, regardless of what Paul said. Plus, in the real world, slaves were still subservient and oppressed, throughout Christian world, where slaves were still sold and owned.

Slavery didn’t end in the US until the American civil war. In Saudi Arabia, the slave trade didn’t end until the 1970s, only because of the international diplomatic pressures from the United Nations.

Religions had nothing to do with stopping slave trades.

What kind of slavery is it, if the slave is treated as an equal? In such a society, slavery will die out, if for no other reason than that it becomes economically unfeasible.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Again, this is revisionist history. It is not real.


Here is a video that actually will read to you from ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS. You can't get better sources than that. Yes, it's TBN. I know I looked at it at first and thought, "Can any worthwhile scholarship come out of TBN?" But this absolutely wowed me. They did their homework. America's Hidden History | Independence Day

David Barton, really? This pseudo-historian, Oral Roberts Uni grad, is the last person on the planet that I would listen to. His "Jefferson Lies" book was taken off the shelf after one month, by his Christian publisher Thomas Nelson. But he still wouldn't go away. It has been debunked many times. He is the master of telling half-truths, false conclusions, and truth by omission. And, like most charlatans, it's not about presenting the whole story, it's about presenting only the story you want to be heard. Especially when you are catering to a non-skeptical audience. Debunking David Barton's Jefferson Lies (Because They Still Need to Be Debunked) | HuffPost , Debunking David Barton's Jefferson (and other) Lies

His lies about congress contracting-out for Bibles to be printed for the little school children, to avoid depriving them of their spiritual indoctrination, was a total lie. He simply distorts the truth for his own personal gain, security, and ego. No, Mr. Beck, Congress Did Not Print a Bible for the Use of Schools | HuffPost . And the errors and deceptions from this pseudo-historian just keep coming;

I won't list anymore sites you might want to visit. I would suggest you start with the last site first. It quite clearly demonstrates the true David Barton persona. I don't think that the obvious truth would ever wow you. I think that if the truth is not dripping with self-serving confirmation biases, that any other truth would simply be ignored. I don't really want to play "truth by site consensus", since any conformational bias can be found over the internet. Maybe you can cite just one supreme court decision that ruled in favor of;

The posting of the Ten Commandments in our public schools
The teaching of "Creation Science" along with The Theory of Evolution.
Allowing public schools to provide clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation.
Requiring that applicants for public office must swear that they believed in the existence of God.
Any Anti-bigamy statutes that does violate the free exercise of religion
Forcing children in public schools to participate in Bible reading or prayer services, or reading the Bible over the intercom.
Nativity scene being displayed inside government buildings.

These are a tiny fraction of cases the courts have voted against, whenever they receive briefs regarding clashes between church and state. This trend has been consistent since the conception of the Court. So, David Barton is probably the worst person you could have used as your proponent; Our constitution gives us our freedom of religion, and our freedom from religion; And, if churches and other religious organizations want government to be like them, act like them, or think like them, then they should start paying taxes like the rest of us.

 

[Bear Wild]

Let me begin by saying I can hardly begin to express the deep respect that I have for Native American spirituality, especially that of the Lakota, which is essentially monotheistic (panentheistic). I grew up not only being exposed to NDN stories and culture, but also spending a good deal of time out in nature, talking with Rangers, learning about John Muir, and developing a strong environmentalist ethic. There are also places in the Torah that deal with kindness towards animals. It all sort of comes together like pieces of a puzzle.

For me personally, although I believe in One God, as Jews do, I experience all of the universe has having somewhat of a gloss upon it, not that I can see with my eyes, but which I can sense with my spiritual eyes. Those times in my life when I have been seriously depressed and doubted the existence of God, the gloss goes away, and it is as if the universe takes on a flatness, toneless, colorless existence. IOW, while I wouldn't go so far as to say that everything is God, my sense of the true beauty of the universe is caught up in my understanding of there being a Creator. I wouldn't call the gloss "holiness," but I can understand why someone would choose that word.

That said, I think it is important to note that you are simply using the word sacred to mean something incredibly different than what most mean when they say sacred. From your post, I gather that by sacred you mean something which is essential to our existence.

The normative definition of sacred is something set apart for God or for religious purposes. It is set apart by treating it differently from normal objects, people, places, or times. For example, the Sabbath is a sacred time because unlike the other six days of the week when we work, we rest on the Sabbath. IOW, it's like yin and yang. You can only have the sacred if you have the profane. To say that all of the earth is sacred is a rather insignifant remark, because without there being non-sacred earth, sacred earth is meaningless.

But I don't think that Native Americans are as "all earth is sacred" as it is claimed. For example, the Black Hills are "especially" sacred to the Lakota. The Dinee have the Four Sacred Mountains. Etc.

Again, I'm comparing and contrasting two essentially good ways of thinking, both of which I admire. I could say plenty of good things about the animistic, mana orientation. But you already see the good in it. My goal here is to make you think about it a different way.

I came from what you implied as a different way originally. I did not appreciate the world and how amazing it is until I removed what I call the God illusion and witnessed the world by itself for itself. When I did that I finally felt connected and much happier. I realized that I and all of mankind was created by the nature itself and not by a God outside of natural world.

Sacred earth is not meaningless since the word sacred means many different things to people and how I interpret the word is that it is something that deserves the deepest respect. I do not see one day more sacred than the other. Maybe it is not such a good term to use just as the word God seems to run into similar problems as sacred since it means so many different things to different people. As for native American's there is variation in beliefs as any group of people. I should have qualified it as those who I know and spent time with see nature as sacred - with deep respect as in the concept of "All our relations".

Science attempts to see our world with the least amount of dogma or preconceived beliefs. There have been scientists that have created dogma but the process attempts to be as free of it as it can possibly be. What science does show is how interdependent we are with other life. Science also has shown us how similar man is to the rest of the living world despite the attempts by many humans to see us as so different. Humans create dogma and humans create very different visions of God with the human centered god currently the most prevalent. Maybe if we see god as non-human centered then we might treat our would with a greater respect.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I came from what you implied as a different way originally. I did not appreciate the world and how amazing it is until I removed what I call the God illusion and witnessed the world by itself for itself. When I did that I finally felt connected and much happier. I realized that I and all of mankind was created by the nature itself and not by a God outside of natural world.

Sacred earth is not meaningless since the word sacred means many different things to people and how I interpret the word is that it is something that deserves the deepest respect. I do not see one day more sacred than the other. Maybe it is not such a good term to use just as the word God seems to run into similar problems as sacred since it means so many different things to different people. As for native American's there is variation in beliefs as any group of people. I should have qualified it as those who I know and spent time with see nature as sacred - with deep respect as in the concept of "All our relations".

Science attempts to see our world with the least amount of dogma or preconceived beliefs. There have been scientists that have created dogma but the process attempts to be as free of it as it can possibly be. What science does show is how interdependent we are with other life. Science also has shown us how similar man is to the rest of the living world despite the attempts by many humans to see us as so different. Humans create dogma and humans create very different visions of God with the human centered god currently the most prevalent. Maybe if we see god as non-human centered then we might treat our would with a greater respect.

It sounds like what you came from was the standard "God is outside the universe, non-living things are dead, and non-human life is there for humans to use." It's the sort of worldview that interprets "dominion over the earth" as authorization to exploit it. Please correct me if I have that wrong.

That is not the view I'm trumping. I thing that view is both incorrect and morally wrong.

Rather, I'm trying to present to you various forms of monotheism that do not have an exploitative world view. Let me try listing them separately.

1. CLASSIC MONOTHEISM AND BEING STEWARDS OF THE GARDEN
You will find wholescale environmental movements in both Judaism (especially Reform Judaism) and Catholicism.

• In Judaism, environmentalism is part of Tikkun Olam, or "repair of the world."

• When God created the world, he said, "it is good." It is INTRINSICALLY good. IOW it is not just good because it is of use to mankind. It was good before man was ever even created.
• Dominion implies responsibility. If I'm King of a country, if I don't take care of the people of my kingdom, I'm essentially an evil tyrant who deserves to be overthrown. IOW dominion means that we are stewards of the earth, caretakers of the garden.
• Animal of every species were saved on the Ark. This shows that God cares about the preservation of each and every species. The fact that Noah was in charge of building and maintaining the Ark shows that mankind is responsible to participate in this preservation of the species.
• There are verses in the Torah that teach kindness towards animals. For example one must chase the mother bird from her nest before taking the eggs so that she will not feel distress. One cannot yoke two different animals together, causing them to suffer.

• Catholicism actually has a long history of respect for nature, although it forgot about it during the age of enlightenment.
  • It taught that non-living things were possessed of angels, such as the planets. St. Francis was being quite literal when he spoke of Brother Sun and Sister Moon. This is called a Sacramental Worldview. It still survives today as “seeing the divine in the human, the invisible in the visible, and the grace of God working through ordinary people and objects” (chnetwork).
  • Today Catholicism is returning to a tradition of environmentalism. One has only to read Pope Francis' encyclical Laudato Si. It has the reputation of being the "Climate Change" encyclical, but honestly it is far more than that, being quite exhaustive in its treatment of environmental issues. As with Judaism, the natural world is not seen as simply a resource to be exploited. One of the key points is returning man to our place within the natural world: "[Man] is spirit and will, but also nature."

2. PANENTHEISM AS THE "ONE GOD" EXPRESSION OF ANIMISM.

• This is where you find many of your traditional NDN spiritualities, especially that of the Lakota. The idea is that everything is sacred/animated, even the rocks, the rivers, and the mountains, but the Great Spirit is all that AND BEYOND.
  • We cannot really lump all the NDN religions together, as each tribe had its own unique spirituality. Nevertheless there were certain elements they all had in common: animism and totemism. Animism is the idea that all of creation, including non-living things, are permeated by some sort of spirit or "mana." When I wrote to you in my last post of my perception that everything in the universe had a kind of "gloss" (for lack of a better word), that would classify me as a kind of animist, even though I don't think these things are divine. Totemism is the idea that animal spirits can guide us, and that each of us have one or more specific animal spirits that particularly guide us. Sometimes an entire tribe will have one totem.
  • In panentheism, not only do all things have a spirit, but they are all part of one great spirit, which goes beyond the sum total of all things. The Lakota call this Wakan Tanka, or "Great Mystery," the Creator.
  • One cannot divorce NDN spirituality from the Land. It's simply impossible. When we take their land away from them, we take away from them their ability to practice their religion. New arguments are being prepared for the Supreme Court that the violations of treaties also violate constitutional guarantees to freedom of religion.
• We also find certain forms of Hinduism in this camp. It is impossible to pin down Hinduism -- it has so many different forms. However, I will give you one form which is well known.
  • Hinduism has many virtues, but the core virtue is compassion and that means compassion for everything in nature, even for bugs. A person cultivating themselves will for example be a vegetarian.
  • Brahman is the Divine. Sometimes he is called God, but not a god in the classic western sense; he is more of an essence, that which underlies the universe. It is said that everything else, EVERYTHING ELSE, is but Brahman's dream, but this is a figurative remark, since Brahman doesn't literally dream.
  • Brahman is expressed in three main deities: Brahma (no n) the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer.
  • From these come an infinity of gods, tribal gods, family gods, favorite gods, obscure gods, gods of nature, gods of abstractions...
  • Furthermore, everything that is, is also part of Brahman, including you and I.

All this because Hinduism has preserved pieces of its past from every epoch it has gone through: its earliest animism, its polytheism, and the influence of Islamic monotheism. You can see how this religion is classified as a form of Pantheism or Panentheism.

Anyhow, these are example or religions with deities that are quite respectful of nature.

A word about science. I adore science. Science has given us modern medicine and tech that has made our lives so very much more comfortable. But let me tell you where science falls short: it is entirely materialistic. (There is no room in science for the existence of my "gloss.") Like the exploitative world views before it, it views non-living things as basically dead, and no room for living things to have souls of any nature. And it is amoral -- it takes no stand on whether one should exploit nature or care for it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

David Barton, really? This pseudo-historian, Oral Roberts Uni grad, is the last person on the planet that I would listen to. His "Jefferson Lies" book was taken off the shelf after one month, by his Christian publisher Thomas Nelson. But he still wouldn't go away. It has been debunked many times. He is the master of telling half-truths, false conclusions, and truth by omission. And, like most charlatans, it's not about presenting the whole story, it's about presenting only the story you want to be heard. Especially when you are catering to a non-skeptical audience. Debunking David Barton's Jefferson Lies (Because They Still Need to Be Debunked) | HuffPost , Debunking David Barton's Jefferson (and other) Lies

His lies about congress contracting-out for Bibles to be printed for the little school children, to avoid depriving them of their spiritual indoctrination, was a total lie. He simply distorts the truth for his own personal gain, security, and ego. No, Mr. Beck, Congress Did Not Print a Bible for the Use of Schools | HuffPost . And the errors and deceptions from this pseudo-historian just keep coming;

I won't list anymore sites you might want to visit. I would suggest you start with the last site first. It quite clearly demonstrates the true David Barton persona. I don't think that the obvious truth would ever wow you. I think that if the truth is not dripping with self-serving confirmation biases, that any other truth would simply be ignored. I don't really want to play "truth by site consensus", since any conformational bias can be found over the internet. Maybe you can cite just one supreme court decision that ruled in favor of;

The posting of the Ten Commandments in our public schools
The teaching of "Creation Science" along with The Theory of Evolution.
Allowing public schools to provide clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation.
Requiring that applicants for public office must swear that they believed in the existence of God.
Any Anti-bigamy statutes that does violate the free exercise of religion
Forcing children in public schools to participate in Bible reading or prayer services, or reading the Bible over the intercom.
Nativity scene being displayed inside government buildings.

These are a tiny fraction of cases the courts have voted against, whenever they receive briefs regarding clashes between church and state. This trend has been consistent since the conception of the Court. So, David Barton is probably the worst person you could have used as your proponent; Our constitution gives us our freedom of religion, and our freedom from religion; And, if churches and other religious organizations want government to be like them, act like them, or think like them, then they should start paying taxes like the rest of us.

My response can be summed up in three words: Original Source Documents.

Whatever you can say about David Barton, you have to admit he always goes to original source documents. If a sixth grader supports his opinions with original source documents, I'll say kudos for him.

My problem with your videos was mainly that they didn't back up their counterclaims with original source documents. For example, there was a big claim that David Barton took things out of context (particularly one quote about the Holy Spirit) but nothing from the document was quoted to give us the context. What? We're just supposed to take their word for it?

The one point which was good was that it was well documented that in some of his lectures David Barton misquoted a document. However, in another of your videos, he properly quoted the same document. It gives me the impression that he was simply making an honest mistake on occasion, especially since the misquote was of no importance.

Your second video was a bunch of Evangelical tripe, and honestly I quit watching it after 35 minutes because that was all I could stand. It was filled with anti-Catholic nonsense, ecumenical-phobia, and one world religion paranoid conspiracy baloney. He wants me to accept certain things on his say so, but he has negative credibility with me. Thank goodness that not all Evangelicals buy into this gobbledygook.

Now I'm not saying I buy into everything David Barton presents. His idea that all the founding Fathers were all Christian is simply not true. But it IS true that the Masons and Deists and precursors to Unitarians (the Unitarian church didn't come into existence until 1819) all believed in the same God of Abraham and read from the same scriptures and attended the same churches. IOW they shared a common Christian heritage even if they diverged from Christian orthodoxy. They weren't atheists or Hindus or Buddhists or African Animists. And as I said in my previous posts, they were deeply, deeply religious in a way that makes even the religious among us today seem secular.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

My response can be summed up in three words: Original Source Documents.

Whatever you can say about David Barton, you have to admit he always goes to original source documents. If a sixth grader supports his opinions with original source documents, I'll say kudos for him.

My problem with your videos was mainly that they didn't back up their counterclaims with original source documents. For example, there was a big claim that David Barton took things out of context (particularly one quote about the Holy Spirit) but nothing from the document was quoted to give us the context. What? We're just supposed to take their word for it?

The one point which was good was that it was well documented that in some of his lectures David Barton misquoted a document. However, in another of your videos, he properly quoted the same document. It gives me the impression that he was simply making an honest mistake on occasion, especially since the misquote was of no importance.

Your second video was a bunch of Evangelical tripe, and honestly I quit watching it after 35 minutes because that was all I could stand. It was filled with anti-Catholic nonsense, ecumenical-phobia, and one world religion paranoid conspiracy baloney. He wants me to accept certain things on his say so, but he has negative credibility with me. Thank goodness that not all Evangelicals buy into this gobbledygook.

Now I'm not saying I buy into everything David Barton presents. His idea that all the founding Fathers were all Christian is simply not true. But it IS true that the Masons and Deists and precursors to Unitarians (the Unitarian church didn't come into existence until 1819) all believed in the same God of Abraham and read from the same scriptures and attended the same churches. IOW they shared a common Christian heritage even if they diverged from Christian orthodoxy. They weren't atheists or Hindus or Buddhists or African Animists. And as I said in my previous posts, they were deeply, deeply religious in a way that makes even the religious among us today seem secular.

Thank you for taking the time to watch the videos, and read my posts. I try very hard to be precise, clear, and comprehensive. I try not to judge others for their beliefs, but I certainly judge others by their actions. Your statements were;

The Founding Fathers of the USA were incredibly, incredibly religious people, so religious that "religious" people of today would seem secular by comparison. For example, the "invocation" to the first continental congress was no mere prayer, but a two hour long Bible study that covered four chapters. While the Bill of Rights prevented the Federal Government from establishing a National Church, the individual States had state churches. There was a common core of religion that absolutely pervaded the colonies, where even the deists attended the same churches and studied the same scriptures. Thomas Jefferson, probably the least religious of the Founding Fathers, spent his time in the White House setting up churches in the Capital and other Federal institutions. He quite obviously had a different idea of the separation of church and state than what people mean today. In those days, it mean that the government should not embrace a particular denomination of Christianity, such as baptist or presbyterian. It did NOT mean that the government should be secular.

The 1st sentence(in bold) is incorrect and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of our founders were either Deists, or Deist Christians. Whether our founding fathers were religious or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is if their beliefs had any influence on their decisions/actions? The rest are just half-truths, lies by omission, straw man, false conclusion, and self-serving suppositions. Exactly the same intellectual dishonesty that David Barton uses.

I have nothing but great respect for our founding fathers. The pressures they must have endured, trying to appease old men that still believe in miracles and the existence of supernatural beings. Science was still in its infancy, but these men were certainly way ahead of their time, in their ability to think rationally. They knew that once you choose to go down this "slippery slopes" of accepting the impossible as possible, then ANYTHING would become possible. They knew that secular beliefs requires no "slippery slopes". They knew that the basic rights shared by all of its citizens, must come from the basic rights of just one citizen. So, please demonstrate from your "Original Source Books" where it is stated that our founding fathers wanted a non-secular government? Please demonstrate how most of our Founders were " were incredibly, incredibly religious people"?

Please tell me that you are not somehow suggesting that anything that is referenced from an "Original Source Book" will somehow becomes a statement of fact? NO, I don't care if he was quoting from the original Ferengi Rules of Acquisitions. What is relevant is the accuracy, the honesty, and the relevancy of what is being quoted. He purposely omits any statements that will disprove his comments, simply by leaving them out. Or, he simply creates his own straw man to support his own conclusions. If he is making honest mistakes, then he is making them consistently, even when he is confronted with the facts. Also, when you misquote something because quoting it correctly would disprove your point, then it is VERY IMPORTANT. It relates directly to your character and your credibility. Remember, he is not talking to an audience of critical and skeptical free-thinkers. He is catering to an audience of close-minded people, who are desperately looking for confirmation that their beliefs are justified. Trying to deflate, or lessen the importance of the religious decisions and continued decisions by our Government and courts, is foolish and knowingly blind. Keeping our government secular and free from any religious doctrines, is a Constitutional Mandate. No secular or humanistic actions would ever get done, because of the never-ending bickering between the different faiths, whom all believe that they are correct.

It is true that our Founders were not atheist(in the modern sense), or Hindus or Buddhists or African Animists. But, they were not deeply religious, especially since they DID NOT believed in any supernatural aspects of Religious doctrine.This is because there was very little science to explain natural phenomena back then. Fortunately, they used "common sense" to reason what they did understand, and "I don't know" to explain what they didn't understand. Today's science can explain clearly, these events that were once thought to be supernatural back then. Kudos to our founding fathers. Kudos to them all for raising above the depth of social beliefs and ignorance.

 

[Bear Wild]

It sounds like what you came from was the standard "God is outside the universe, non-living things are dead, and non-human life is there for humans to use." It's the sort of worldview that interprets "dominion over the earth" as authorization to exploit it. Please correct me if I have that wrong.

That is not the view I'm trumping. I thing that view is both incorrect and morally wrong.

Rather, I'm trying to present to you various forms of monotheism that do not have an exploitative world view. Let me try listing them separately.

1. CLASSIC MONOTHEISM AND BEING STEWARDS OF THE GARDEN
You will find wholescale environmental movements in both Judaism (especially Reform Judaism) and Catholicism.

• In Judaism, environmentalism is part of Tikkun Olam, or "repair of the world."

• When God created the world, he said, "it is good." It is INTRINSICALLY good. IOW it is not just good because it is of use to mankind. It was good before man was ever even created.
• Dominion implies responsibility. If I'm King of a country, if I don't take care of the people of my kingdom, I'm essentially an evil tyrant who deserves to be overthrown. IOW dominion means that we are stewards of the earth, caretakers of the garden.
• Animal of every species were saved on the Ark. This shows that God cares about the preservation of each and every species. The fact that Noah was in charge of building and maintaining the Ark shows that mankind is responsible to participate in this preservation of the species.
• There are verses in the Torah that teach kindness towards animals. For example one must chase the mother bird from her nest before taking the eggs so that she will not feel distress. One cannot yoke two different animals together, causing them to suffer.

• Catholicism actually has a long history of respect for nature, although it forgot about it during the age of enlightenment.
  • It taught that non-living things were possessed of angels, such as the planets. St. Francis was being quite literal when he spoke of Brother Sun and Sister Moon. This is called a Sacramental Worldview. It still survives today as “seeing the divine in the human, the invisible in the visible, and the grace of God working through ordinary people and objects” (chnetwork).
  • Today Catholicism is returning to a tradition of environmentalism. One has only to read Pope Francis' encyclical Laudato Si. It has the reputation of being the "Climate Change" encyclical, but honestly it is far more than that, being quite exhaustive in its treatment of environmental issues. As with Judaism, the natural world is not seen as simply a resource to be exploited. One of the key points is returning man to our place within the natural world: "[Man] is spirit and will, but also nature."

2. PANENTHEISM AS THE "ONE GOD" EXPRESSION OF ANIMISM.

• This is where you find many of your traditional NDN spiritualities, especially that of the Lakota. The idea is that everything is sacred/animated, even the rocks, the rivers, and the mountains, but the Great Spirit is all that AND BEYOND.
  • We cannot really lump all the NDN religions together, as each tribe had its own unique spirituality. Nevertheless there were certain elements they all had in common: animism and totemism. Animism is the idea that all of creation, including non-living things, are permeated by some sort of spirit or "mana." When I wrote to you in my last post of my perception that everything in the universe had a kind of "gloss" (for lack of a better word), that would classify me as a kind of animist, even though I don't think these things are divine. Totemism is the idea that animal spirits can guide us, and that each of us have one or more specific animal spirits that particularly guide us. Sometimes an entire tribe will have one totem.
  • In panentheism, not only do all things have a spirit, but they are all part of one great spirit, which goes beyond the sum total of all things. The Lakota call this Wakan Tanka, or "Great Mystery," the Creator.
  • One cannot divorce NDN spirituality from the Land. It's simply impossible. When we take their land away from them, we take away from them their ability to practice their religion. New arguments are being prepared for the Supreme Court that the violations of treaties also violate constitutional guarantees to freedom of religion.
• We also find certain forms of Hinduism in this camp. It is impossible to pin down Hinduism -- it has so many different forms. However, I will give you one form which is well known.
  • Hinduism has many virtues, but the core virtue is compassion and that means compassion for everything in nature, even for bugs. A person cultivating themselves will for example be a vegetarian.
  • Brahman is the Divine. Sometimes he is called God, but not a god in the classic western sense; he is more of an essence, that which underlies the universe. It is said that everything else, EVERYTHING ELSE, is but Brahman's dream, but this is a figurative remark, since Brahman doesn't literally dream.
  • Brahman is expressed in three main deities: Brahma (no n) the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer.
  • From these come an infinity of gods, tribal gods, family gods, favorite gods, obscure gods, gods of nature, gods of abstractions...
  • Furthermore, everything that is, is also part of Brahman, including you and I.

All this because Hinduism has preserved pieces of its past from every epoch it has gone through: its earliest animism, its polytheism, and the influence of Islamic monotheism. You can see how this religion is classified as a form of Pantheism or Panentheism.

Anyhow, these are example or religions with deities that are quite respectful of nature.

A word about science. I adore science. Science has given us modern medicine and tech that has made our lives so very much more comfortable. But let me tell you where science falls short: it is entirely materialistic. (There is no room in science for the existence of my "gloss.") Like the exploitative world views before it, it views non-living things as basically dead, and no room for living things to have souls of any nature. And it is amoral -- it takes no stand on whether one should exploit nature or care for it.

Science is materialistic in that it is a method to understand our natural world. There are many things it explains but there are aspects to the natural world that it does not answer at this time. Morality is a behavior which humans learn or create to guide their behavioral patterns. You may be thinking of religious naturalism which is a religious belief and does address morality. Even within religious naturalism there is a large variation of views. Science does help us to understand our relationship with the natural world so can provide us with what we need to make moral decisions.

Pantheism and animism are separate concepts. There are people with animistic views that are within the belief of pantheism but others that are not. Certainly there are aspects from the writings of the Upanishads that match beliefs in pantheism but the Hindu belief in many gods does not.

As for the monotheistic religions you mention first they are human only centered and the concept of dominion or "caretaker" does not recognize that the non-human world can take care of itself just fine without humans. Actually it does better so humans are not doing a good job of taking care of it yet I do not hear a great outcry form the monotheistic religions to have their members act immediately to save our environment before it is too late. Yes there are members of monotheistic religions that are doing everything they can but they are clearly in the minority. The Catholic church is not an ecological friendly religion. Of course there are those in the Christian religion that believe that the non-human world is not important at all.

We were created by Nature including our brains and behaviors including beliefs. Science has clearly shown we are not different from other forms of life on this planet. It seems arrogant to think we are the caretakers and clearly we are doing a horrible job if it if that were the case. So science in its way of understanding our natural world can help us to develop the right behaviors to live in harmony with our world. If you want to call them morals that can be learned that is fine too. Again science does not create dogma people do and in its true objective approach teaches us who we are.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

As for the monotheistic religions you mention first they are human only centered and the concept of dominion or "caretaker" does not recognize that the non-human world can take care of itself just fine without humans. Actually it does better so humans are not doing a good job of taking care of it yet I do not hear a great outcry form the monotheistic religions to have their members act immediately to save our environment before it is too late. Yes there are members of monotheistic religions that are doing everything they can but they are clearly in the minority. The Catholic church is not an ecological friendly religion. Of course there are those in the Christian religion that believe that the non-human world is not important at all.

Actually, right now, TODAY, Catholicism is an ecologically friendly religion. Read Laudato Si. Sigh* I'm sure you won't even though I really think that every environmentalist ought to have it on our shelves. It has only one questionable point (the Pope doesn't believe overpopulation is a problem), and hits all the major points, such as:

• These are global concerns/must be dealt with worldwide
• Sustainability
• Base goals and solutions on scientific research
• Unique responsibility of human beings for care
• Pollution
• Climate change
• Waste/Throwaway culture
• Plunder of Resources
• Loss of Biodiversity (species/ecosystems)/cities becoming too large
• Global inequality (hey people are part of the environment too)
• Weak responses
• Creation is NOT created "for men."
• The ecological crisis is manmade (technology, globalization, antrhopocentricm)
• Integral Ecology
• Dialogue between rcience and religion
• Environmental education and spirituality.

We were created by Nature including our brains and behaviors including beliefs.

And what is the source of Nature and Nature's laws? IOW, Nature is only the tool of the Divine. We are no more created by Nature than a artwork is painted by a paintbrush.

Science has clearly shown we are not different from other forms of life on this planet.

Have you ever heard of Dr Robert Sapolsky? He is a professor of at Stanford University, neuroendocrinologist, and author. He is perhaps best known for his series of lectures on Behavioral Biology that were videoed and put up on you tube. Personally, I'm in love with his brilliant brain.

This is a link to his lecture, "Are Humans Just Another Primate?" The answer is complicated. Science seems to say that we are a primate, but perhaps not JUST another primate. Anyhow, he is a witty, entertaining, and fascinating speaker, and well worth listening to.

I would argue that we have evolved ourselves right out of the natural world. Consciousness, moral sentience, advanced culture, and science.... All these things together have put us into a position where we decide for ourselves our own destiny, rather than being at the mercy of our environment. In our evolutionary past, weather, habitat, migration of species, etc., determined our evolution. Today we have air conditioning and heaters, we create our own habitats, and we go where we wish and ship our food in from all over the world. Our animal instincts still tell us to have sex with all sorts of forbidden people at forbidden times and in forbidden places, but our conscience overrides these instincts. You could have an entire library just with books about culture and how it substitutes for evolution. Chimpanzees don't paint the Sistine Chapel or write the New World Symphony or dance Salsa on Saturday night. There is just a chasm of difference between using sticks to dig out termites and building a rocket that puts men on the moon.

It seems arrogant to think we are the caretakers and clearly we are doing a horrible job if it if that were the case.

When I was younger and looked into this, what I learned was that when resources are plentiful a culture gets lazy and exploitative. When resources get scarce, a culture develops an environmental consciousness. For example, when buffalo were so plentiful that the plains oozed with them, the Native Americans would send whole herds running off of cliffs to their deaths, which meant that most of the meat rotted, since it was far, far more than they could ever use. But when the white man came and hunted buffalo as well, and they grew scarce (almost to extinction) this method of hunting became taboo.

So science in its way of understanding our natural world can help us to develop the right behaviors to live in harmony with our world.

Good heavens! God help us if we ever start getting our morality from nature. Virtue wants us to help the sick, the old, the injured and disabled. Nature wants them DEAD.

As always, it is a pleasure to chat with you, my friend.

 

[Polymath257]

Actually, right now, TODAY, Catholicism is an ecologically friendly religion. Read Laudato Si. Sigh* I'm sure you won't even though I really think that every environmentalist ought to have it on our shelves. It has only one questionable point (the Pope doesn't believe overpopulation is a problem), and hits all the major points, such as:

• These are global concerns/must be dealt with worldwide
• Sustainability
• Base goals and solutions on scientific research
• Unique responsibility of human beings for care
• Pollution
• Climate change
• Waste/Throwaway culture
• Plunder of Resources
• Loss of Biodiversity (species/ecosystems)/cities becoming too large
• Global inequality (hey people are part of the environment too)
• Weak responses
• Creation is NOT created "for men."
• The ecological crisis is manmade (technology, globalization, antrhopocentricm)
• Integral Ecology
• Dialogue between rcience and religion
• Environmental education and spirituality.

And what is the source of Nature and Nature's laws? IOW, Nature is only the tool of the Divine. We are no more created by Nature than a artwork is painted by a paintbrush.


Have you ever heard of Dr Robert Sapolsky? He is a professor of at Stanford University, neuroendocrinologist, and author. He is perhaps best known for his series of lectures on Behavioral Biology that were videoed and put up on you tube. Personally, I'm in love with his brilliant brain.

This is a link to his lecture, "Are Humans Just Another Primate?" The answer is complicated. Science seems to say that we are a primate, but perhaps not JUST another primate. Anyhow, he is a witty, entertaining, and fascinating speaker, and well worth listening to.

I would argue that we have evolved ourselves right out of the natural world. Consciousness, moral sentience, advanced culture, and science.... All these things together have put us into a position where we decide for ourselves our own destiny, rather than being at the mercy of our environment. In our evolutionary past, weather, habitat, migration of species, etc., determined our evolution. Today we have air conditioning and heaters, we create our own habitats, and we go where we wish and ship our food in from all over the world. Our animal instincts still tell us to have sex with all sorts of forbidden people at forbidden times and in forbidden places, but our conscience overrides these instincts. You could have an entire library just with books about culture and how it substitutes for evolution. Chimpanzees don't paint the Sistine Chapel or write the New World Symphony or dance Salsa on Saturday night. There is just a chasm of difference between using sticks to dig out termites and building a rocket that puts men on the moon.

When I was younger and looked into this, what I learned was that when resources are plentiful a culture gets lazy and exploitative. When resources get scarce, a culture develops an environmental consciousness. For example, when buffalo were so plentiful that the plains oozed with them, the Native Americans would send whole herds running off of cliffs to their deaths, which meant that most of the meat rotted, since it was far, far more than they could ever use. But when the white man came and hunted buffalo as well, and they grew scarce (almost to extinction) this method of hunting became taboo.

Good heavens! God help us if we ever start getting our morality from nature. Virtue wants us to help the sick, the old, the injured and disabled. Nature wants them DEAD.

As always, it is a pleasure to chat with you, my friend.

Sapolski also has a new book out: "Behave". The content is similar to the Stanford lectures and is quite nicely written.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thank you for taking the time to watch the videos, and read my posts. I try very hard to be precise, clear, and comprehensive. I try not to judge others for their beliefs, but I certainly judge others by their actions. Your statements were;



The 1st sentence(in bold) is incorrect and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority of our founders were either Deists, or Deist Christians. Whether our founding fathers were religious or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is if their beliefs had any influence on their decisions/actions? The rest are just half-truths, lies by omission, straw man, false conclusion, and self-serving suppositions. Exactly the same intellectual dishonesty that David Barton uses.

I have nothing but great respect for our founding fathers. The pressures they must have endured, trying to appease old men that still believe in miracles and the existence of supernatural beings. Science was still in its infancy, but these men were certainly way ahead of their time, in their ability to think rationally. They knew that once you choose to go down this "slippery slopes" of accepting the impossible as possible, then ANYTHING would become possible. They knew that secular beliefs requires no "slippery slopes". They knew that the basic rights shared by all of its citizens, must come from the basic rights of just one citizen. So, please demonstrate from your "Original Source Books" where it is stated that our founding fathers wanted a non-secular government? Please demonstrate how most of our Founders were " were incredibly, incredibly religious people"?

Please tell me that you are not somehow suggesting that anything that is referenced from an "Original Source Book" will somehow becomes a statement of fact? NO, I don't care if he was quoting from the original Ferengi Rules of Acquisitions. What is relevant is the accuracy, the honesty, and the relevancy of what is being quoted. He purposely omits any statements that will disprove his comments, simply by leaving them out. Or, he simply creates his own straw man to support his own conclusions. If he is making honest mistakes, then he is making them consistently, even when he is confronted with the facts. Also, when you misquote something because quoting it correctly would disprove your point, then it is VERY IMPORTANT. It relates directly to your character and your credibility. Remember, he is not talking to an audience of critical and skeptical free-thinkers. He is catering to an audience of close-minded people, who are desperately looking for confirmation that their beliefs are justified. Trying to deflate, or lessen the importance of the religious decisions and continued decisions by our Government and courts, is foolish and knowingly blind. Keeping our government secular and free from any religious doctrines, is a Constitutional Mandate. No secular or humanistic actions would ever get done, because of the never-ending bickering between the different faiths, whom all believe that they are correct.

It is true that our Founders were not atheist(in the modern sense), or Hindus or Buddhists or African Animists. But, they were not deeply religious, especially since they DID NOT believed in any supernatural aspects of Religious doctrine.This is because there was very little science to explain natural phenomena back then. Fortunately, they used "common sense" to reason what they did understand, and "I don't know" to explain what they didn't understand. Today's science can explain clearly, these events that were once thought to be supernatural back then. Kudos to our founding fathers. Kudos to them all for raising above the depth of social beliefs and ignorance.

I'm talking about Original Source Documents (they are not all books) such as John Adams (father of John Quincy Adams) letter to his wife about the Bible study (four chapters long) that preceded the First Continental Congress and how, per his words, the "great effect" it had upon them that day.

Here's one so good that I'll even quote the source for your. From the Library of Congress:
It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

 

[Bear Wild]

Actually, right now, TODAY, Catholicism is an ecologically friendly religion. Read Laudato Si. Sigh* I'm sure you won't even though I really think that every environmentalist ought to have it on our shelves. It has only one questionable point (the Pope doesn't believe overpopulation is a problem), and hits all the major points, such as:

• These are global concerns/must be dealt with worldwide
• Sustainability
• Base goals and solutions on scientific research
• Unique responsibility of human beings for care
• Pollution
• Climate change
• Waste/Throwaway culture
• Plunder of Resources
• Loss of Biodiversity (species/ecosystems)/cities becoming too large
• Global inequality (hey people are part of the environment too)
• Weak responses
• Creation is NOT created "for men."
• The ecological crisis is manmade (technology, globalization, antrhopocentricm)
• Integral Ecology
• Dialogue between rcience and religion
• Environmental education and spirituality.

And what is the source of Nature and Nature's laws? IOW, Nature is only the tool of the Divine. We are no more created by Nature than a artwork is painted by a paintbrush.

I noticed you did not mention anything about human population control. I know they have taken positive stands on the environment but I don't think they have made it the central theme it should be for all of us to not suffer and population control is a difficult issue for them. That is just my opinion.



I appreciate the video and he makes the argument well that humans are unique in the complexity of behavior we exhibit. He also describes all of the basic similarities starting with flies then to behaviors thought only attributed to humans. Same neurons same neurotransmitters same brain structures with respect to mammals but much more complex networks. This lead to our unique behaviors but it does not separate us as distinct from all nature. What is shows is that with the right set of selective factors evolution could cause other mammals to develop complex behavior if they had the chance. I am more familiar with bird behavior in which convergent evolution has created similar behavior patterns from different structures showing how the correct selective pressures create similar results. Other organism are also unique in their attributes but still seen as a part of the natural world.



We are a part of the natural world so we cannot evolve out of our world. We would not survive without the rest of the natural world. Yes you pointed out some of our advanced capabilities, but you are getting caught up with what we can do and not look at what is potentially happening. How superior are these attributes if it means a world in which is no longer inhabitable by humans not to mention other life forms. Two different ways of looking at what we can do.



Good Earth! Thank you Nature for all you give us so that we can live and evolve enough to write messages on forums. Yes it is good to have different views to changes us.

 

[Bear Wild]

Sorry had some problems working with the quotes

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I'm talking about Original Source Documents (they are not all books) such as John Adams (father of John Quincy Adams) letter to his wife about the Bible study (four chapters long) that preceded the First Continental Congress and how, per his words, the "great effect" it had upon them that day.

Here's one so good that I'll even quote the source for your. From the Library of Congress:
It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Is it cognitive dissonance that prevents you from interpreting the obvious meaning of obvious facts? Are you like most faith-based believers, if you just keep your eyes closed and your ears covered, you can shield yourself from the inconvenient truth? First, and most importantly, it is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT what our founding father's personal beliefs were. It is their historical actions that defines them, not their customs, beliefs, or their social practices. Remember, in the absence of science, belief, superstition, and ignorance will always reign supreme. In the science lab, your personal beliefs are irrelevant, it is your science that is relevant. These are the main facts that you seem to want to avoid;

Every Supreme Court decision supports the separation of church and state
Most of the founding fathers were Deists, Rationalist, and Deist Christians. They did not believe in miracles, or any supernatural aspects of religion.
They believed that the rights of the many were based on the basic rights of the one(personal freedoms, and choice).
Since government could not endorse any one religion, it effectively separated itself from all religions(brilliant).
Other than by tradition, most "original source documents" are devoid of any religious referencing.

Our founding father's believed in freedom of thinking, skepticism, and uncertainty. They thought that they were just using the very tools given to them by a God. The definition of God became a more natural spiritual force, than a supernatural entity. If there is a universal truth to the founding fathers of America, it would be that the principals of freedom of personal choice and intellectual curiosity were essential to the formation of a democratic nation. Why would any rational person want a Theocratic form of Government. Unless they had some unconscious need to be subjugated. It would also be the end of science, and critical thinking as we know it. Just look at other civilizations that used to be the hub of scientific freedom. They are now enslaved by a mystical doctrine of beliefs. Interpreted by a committee of old men(not women), given imaginary power from an imaginary master to maintain a very real power over others. I just hope our government's rational and humanitarian thinkers can survive Trump's assaults on our civil liberties, with his insane executive orders(this avoids congressional approval). All religions promote separatism, elitism, intolerance, hating yourself, virtue from faith, tribalism, helplessness, guilt, ignorance, and fear. This is NOT the Dogmatic and cruel belief system that I wish to be governed by. Our founding fathers were also aware of these negative features of religion, and made sure they would always be separated from our government. Going to church services on Sunday, or any other cultural practices of the time, has absolutely nothing to with governance.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Sapolski also has a new book out: "Behave". The content is similar to the Stanford lectures and is quite nicely written.

Well worth reading - fortunately I had the time - being in hospital.