Religion Versus Science

[nestingwave]

Intelligent Design is nothing but Creationism with a new face. Neither of them has anything to do with science.

Jonathan Lobl

Then, may I ask you this?

Do you consider life to be an accident, an artifact of coincidence, chemical reaction or energetic anomaly? Do you consider energy and electromagnetic fields to be mindless? In other words, do you see "mind" and "brain" as synonymous?

Namaste

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Then, may I ask you this?

Do you consider life to be an accident, an artifact of coincidence, chemical reaction or energetic anomaly? Do you consider energy and electromagnetic fields to be mindless? In other words, do you see "mind" and "brain" as synonymous?

Namaste

What a strange question. No, mind and brain are not synoymous. And Genesis is not a science text book.

Jonathan Lobl

[nestingwave]

What a strange question. No, mind and brain are not synoymous. And Genesis is not a science text book.

Jonathan Lobl

Thanks. Yes, I agree on all your points.

Of course science text books reject Genesis because they too think it is a text book as do many religionsists. Both are wrong. And science text books need constant revision to stay abreast of new discoveries. And, unfortunately, they have been a little behind in that and are still somewhere several decades back.

Namaste

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Thanks. Yes, I agree on all your points.

Of course science text books reject Genesis because they too think it is a text book as do many religionsists. Both are wrong. And science text books need constant revision to stay abreast of new discoveries. And, unfortunately, they have been a little behind in that and are still somewhere several decades back.

Namaste

Genesis is useful for contemplation. For instance, in the King James Version, we read -- "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." In an alternate translation, we read -- "In the beginning, God began creating the heavens and the earth."

Such a minor difference in translation; and such a major change in meaning. I find it illuminating. It just isn't science.

Jonathan Lobl

[nestingwave]

Genesis is useful for contemplation. For instance, in the King James Version, we read -- "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." In an alternate translation, we read -- "In the beginning, God began creating the heavens and the earth."

Such a minor difference in translation; and such a major change in meaning. I find it illuminating. It just isn't science.

Jonathan Lobl

No doubt Creation is ongoing not a one time event, as many religionists dogmatically believe. Creation is a continuum, so to speak. I don't think Genesis was ever meant to be "science" as we know it today but rather to talk about some basic principles (then partially recognized) by using various metaphors, allegories and analogies. A lot of ancient writing was like that. And .... some of those basic principles were only in their most infant state of "knowing" back then. Evolution, like creation, is ongoing and us human beings progressed to a point where unbalnce became growingly manifested -- too much emphasis on materiality and very little on thought forms and their incredible power. Now a big adjustment is called for in order for evoution to proceed to its next big step. The end of a large cvycle and the beginning of an entirely new one. Some have put it this way: too much technology and too little understanding of who and what we are and our interconnetivity with the rest of Creation, including each other. An imbalance which nature herself will correct becuase it is counterproductive to Creation. Much of the increasing stress happening in the world all around us is due to that imbalance. A more "HOLISTIC" point of view is required to replace the selfish and ruthless competition which is kind of "tunnel vision." Expansion of consciousness is now called for.

But I, and many others, believe that the imbalance has reached a nexus point and expect a big "correction" and see it as already being well underway. And it will not be without turmoil, however, the amont of that we experience depends upon how well stabalized we, as individuals, are in our own knowing of who and what we are.

It is possible, even in the midst of the worst turmoil, to be calm and at peace when one holds a more realistic understanding and that is the genuine "science" although it doesn't coincide with the present materialist/realist paradigm of todays status quo "science." Todays "science" is very lopsided and, exactly like religion, has become highly doctrinal. This is easiest to see in the status quo "science" that clings to old petrified dogmas exactly like the religionsists whom they so gleefully polarize with. Both sides of this absurd debate are so busy squabbling that neither can see the forest for the trees, much less find the balancing point within themselves.

Offering comfort and reconciliation, to me, is what "ministry" in the ULC is all about.

I have great hope for homo spiens sapiens on this planet but our present civilization is completely unsustainable as "business as usual." Too much "busy" and not enough "ness." Too much frantic activity based around a false perception of "accomplishing" and not enough contemplation of BEING and flowing with Mother Nature -- who we are. In other words, too much involvement in sheer illusion and a denial of reality -- allowing the dream to become a nightmare rather than using the dream for the sake of discovery. The dreamer simply needs to awaken within the dream and flow according to the intention already present at the sub quantum level.

This brings true appreciation for the entire web of life and all that is. An entirely different "approach" you might say.

Self knowledge is the basis for ANY knowledge whatsoever. Why? Because if the foundation of self knowledge is missing, then all else is entirely distorted according to ones own supposition, opinion, vantage point and developed point of view.

In that case, we see whatever we want to see -- but -- according to whatever is contained inside our mental processing grids instead of at the level of BEING. True "science" is far more than an intellectual activity. The intellectual activity is only a portion of it not the whole thing because the "intelect" is only ONE portion of mind.

Herein lies the present imbalance.

So, the dysfunction has now been identified but the cure requires a considerable amout of UNlearning of the petrified portions of intellect which are no longer viable for the ongoing evolution of our species and because this dysfunction effects and destroys other species as well. So, we have steadily moved toward a state of DEvolution and Mother Nature will not tolerate that. Thus, to use a Biblical expression, our planet earth has birthpangs and is in travail to deliver a fresh new paradigm. And this is a drive built into all Creation, even from the sub quantum level. And, yes, this is the very latest discovery of "empiracle" science and experimentally proven. However, not yet "accepted" by the dogmatic status quo. However, that does not matter because a mega volcano cannot be stopped up by a cork.

Namaste

Edited June 24, 2009 by nestingwave

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

No doubt Creation is ongoing not a one time event, as many religionists dogmatically believe. Creation is a continuum, so to speak. I don't think Genesis was ever meant to be "science" as we know it today but rather to talk about some basic principles (then partially recognized) by using various metaphors, allegories and analogies. A lot of ancient writing was like that. And .... some of those basic principles were only in their most infant state of "knowing" back then. Evolution, like creation, is ongoing and us human beings progressed to a point where unbalnce became growingly manifested -- too much emphasis on materiality and very little on thought forms and their incredible power. Now a big adjustment is called for in order for evoution to proceed to its next big step. The end of a large cvycle and the beginning of an entirely new one. Some have put it this way: too much technology and too little understanding of who and what we are and our interconnetivity with the rest of Creation, including each other. An imbalance which nature herself will correct becuase it is counterproductive to Creation. Much of the increasing stress happening in the world all around us is due to that imbalance. A more "HOLISTIC" point of view is required to replace the selfish and ruthless competition which is kind of "tunnel vision." Expansion of consciousness is now called for.

But I, and many others, believe that the imbalance has reached a nexus point and expect a big "correction" and see it as already being well underway. And it will not be without turmoil, however, the amont of that we experience depends upon how well stabalized we, as individuals, are in our own knowing of who and what we are.

It is possible, even in the midst of the worst turmoil, to be calm and at peace when one holds a more realistic understanding and that is the genuine "science" although it doesn't coincide with the present materialist/realist paradigm of todays status quo "science." Todays "science" is very lopsided and, exactly like religion, has become highly doctrinal. This is easiest to see in the status quo "science" that clings to old petrified dogmas exactly like the religionsists whom they so gleefully polarize with. Both sides of this absurd debate are so busy squabbling that neither can see the forest for the trees, much less find the balancing point within themselves.

Offering comfort and reconciliation, to me, is what "ministry" in the ULC is all about.

I have great hope for homo spiens sapiens on this planet but our present civilization is completely unsustainable as "business as usual." Too much "busy" and not enough "ness." Too much frantic activity based around a false perception of "accomplishing" and not enough contemplation of BEING and flowing with Mother Nature -- who we are. In other words, too much involvement in sheer illusion and a denial of reality -- allowing the dream to become a nightmare rather than using the dream for the sake of discovery. The dreamer simply needs to awaken within the dream and flow according to the intention already present at the sub quantum level.

This brings true appreciation for the entire web of life and all that is. An entirely different "approach" you might say.

Self knowledge is the basis for ANY knowledge whatsoever. Why? Because if the foundation of self knowledge is missing, then all else is entirely distorted according to ones own supposition, opinion, vantage point and developed point of view.

In that case, we see whatever we want to see -- but -- according to whatever is contained inside our mental processing grids instead of at the level of BEING. True "science" is far more than an intellectual activity. The intellectual activity is only a portion of it not the whole thing because the "intelect" is only ONE portion of mind.

Herein lies the present imbalance.

So, the dysfunction has now been identified but the cure requires a considerable amout of UNlearning of the petrified portions of intellect which are no longer viable for the ongoing evolution of our species and because this dysfunction effects and destroys other species as well. So, we have steadily moved toward a state of DEvolution and Mother Nature will not tolerate that. Thus, to use a Biblical expression, our planet earth has birthpangs and is in travail to deliver a fresh new paradigm. And this is a drive built into all Creation, even from the sub quantum level. And, yes, this is the very latest discovery of "empiracle" science and experimentally proven. However, not yet "accepted" by the dogmatic status quo. However, that does not matter because a mega volcano cannot be stopped up by a cork.

Namaste

Between modern Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics, science is getting plenty mystical. The extent to which science is uncovering the secrets of existence is just stagering to me.

Perhaps God does have a sense of humor. Look at how we are finding out the secrets of the ages.

Jonathan Lobl

[Democritus AChE]

Creationism and evolution are two completely different theories, explaining two completely different concepts.

Anyone with common sense understands that.

Uh... No, Evolution is a theory, closer to a law, Creationism is a belief system; no theory or study on the matter; so they are not the same thing...

[nestingwave]

Uh... No, Evolution is a theory, closer to a law, Creationism is a belief system; no theory or study on the matter; so they are not the same thing...

In the Great Debate between (in the left corner) The Evolutionists and (in the right corner) The Creationists, actually, in one sense, indeed they are the same thing -- BIAS -- based on very limited and partial knowledge.

Well... two things we are all pretty sure of: 1) change happens and is most usually desired to be constructive change and 2) nearly everyone is exited by creativity, especially artists. Those who create usually feel very good about it. Those who do not are ... uncreative.

Actually, I think "evolution" is too often identified as a theory that often becomes a petrified dogma and "creationism" is a religious belief system that often becomes a petrified dogma also --- so from that point of view they both have striking similarities -- and yet are often outwardly expressed as two absolutist "religions" squabbling like two year olds over tiny handfuls of minutia. And ... both "sides" perfectly willing to ignore whatever blatant facts they choose in order to support their particular political position that keeps them well polarized with the other POV.

Like the staunch Crusaders and the Jihadist martyrs, their basic hateful attitudes are so similar that indeed they deserve one another and one can only hope that while seeing themselves in a mirror they finally begin to see the similarities in their masks.

Of course, I'm not one who takes this "serious" debate seriously at all and think the whole prime time wrestling match is completely phoney and absurd, being highly counterproductive to adventuresome discovery of the Great Mystery on all counts. IMHO this is the situation simply because both "sides" (like all politics) are frozen yogurts being fully encompassed by specific immovable doctrines which they cling onto as if their very lives (or more likely, careers) depended upon it.

It makes for good theatrical drama though and many find it highly entertaining and it offers yet another lazy excuse for not thinking things out for themselves. As always, let the paid "experts," with their various vested interests, do their thinking for them. And, as always, that choice is entirely up to each of us.

So, all I can say is, "SO WHAT?" to the entire dramatic production. I prefer 'Days of our Lives" and "As The World Turns" which are far more edifying and exciting. And to all the "Gunsmoke" fans out there I have to ask, "after all those ignorant evil guys, gals and infants are finally liquidated and righteousness has gloriously triumphed ... what then?"

maybe ... druming? Or better yet ... percussionist ... quite a bit more creative.

So, why not just skip all the counterproductive emotional drama in the first place and simply start paying attention to the reality right in front of our very noses? That has been the productive course of many gifted souls -- true scientists and genuinely spiritual people as well. Of course, they are not highly advertised and do not sell very well in a consumption based environment.

Namaste

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

In the Great Debate between (in the left corner) The Evolutionists and (in the right corner) The Creationists, actually, in one sense, indeed they are the same thing -- BIAS -- based on very limited and partial knowledge.

Namaste

No. They are not the same. Evolution is based on science. The evidence continues to accumulate. Creationism, by it's various names, is religion pretending to be science.

Jonathan Lobl

[Democritus AChE]

No. They are not the same. Evolution is based on science. The evidence continues to accumulate. Creationism, by it's various names, is religion pretending to be science.

Jonathan Lobl

I have tried in many of posts, since the 10 years I've been on this site (I believe I was ordained June of 99 originally?) and no matter how much this point is argued, religious folks refuse to grasp the concept of fact, theory, etc..

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I have tried in many of posts, since the 10 years I've been on this site (I believe I was ordained June of 99 originally?) and no matter how much this point is argued, religious folks refuse to grasp the concept of fact, theory, etc..

Yes. It is a strange science that says, that the Sun was created on the 4th day. And an even stranger mind that thinks that this is history.

Jonathan Lobl

[Fawzo]

Yes. It is a strange science that says, that the Sun was created on the 4th day. And an even stranger mind that thinks that this is history.

Jonathan Lobl

I think the one extremist belief where the earth is only 7000 years old wins first prize? I have two guys at work who are attending college who sincerely believe this.

A strange side note I notice about these two is that they are also the two most likely to get angry and break something out of frustration. I've been wondering if there is some kind of corollary between their faith and this behavior or whether it is just a matter of centeredness and maturity.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I think the one extremist belief where the earth is only 7000 years old wins first prize? I have two guys at work who are attending college who sincerely believe this.

A strange side note I notice about these two is that they are also the two most likely to get angry and break something out of frustration. I've been wondering if there is some kind of corollary between their faith and this behavior or whether it is just a matter of centeredness and maturity.

When faith trumps external reality, I would expect a few emotional disorders. How does such a person cope, when things are not as they "Should" be?

Jonathan Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I think it is time to look at the difference between religion and science -- yet again.

Science is evidence based. When the evidence is clear that an idea is mistaken, a scientist will go with the evidence, and abandon the idea which is clearly mistaken. The scientist may do so with bad grace -- it can be painfiul to abandon error that he is attatched to -- but he will do so.

Religion does not care about external evidence, or objective reality. I can't imagine any proof or external reality that would cause a Creationist to snap out of it. The Flat Earthers are still at it also.

The religious mind is often like a dog with a bone. There is no taking their "belief" from them; no matter how foolish or grotesque or unsustainable. Yes, this is a broad sweeping generalization.

Jonathan Lobl

[Fawzo]

I think it is time to look at the difference between religion and science -- yet again.

Science is evidence based. When the evidence is clear that an idea is mistaken, a scientist will go with the evidence, and abandon the idea which is clearly mistaken. The scientist may do so with bad grace -- it can be painfiul to abandon error that he is attatched to -- but he will do so.

Religion does not care about external evidence, or objective reality. I can't imagine any proof or external reality that would cause a Creationist to snap out of it. The Flat Earthers are still at it also.

The religious mind is often like a dog with a bone. There is no taking their "belief" from them; no matter how foolish or grotesque or unsustainable. Yes, this is a broad sweeping generalization.

Jonathan Lobl

I wouldn't put all my eggs in either basket though.

[nestingwave]

I think it is time to look at the difference between religion and science -- yet again.

Science is evidence based. When the evidence is clear that an idea is mistaken, a scientist will go with the evidence, and abandon the idea which is clearly mistaken. The scientist may do so with bad grace -- it can be painfiul to abandon error that he is attatched to -- but he will do so.

Religion does not care about external evidence, or objective reality. I can't imagine any proof or external reality that would cause a Creationist to snap out of it. The Flat Earthers are still at it also.

The religious mind is often like a dog with a bone. There is no taking their "belief" from them; no matter how foolish or grotesque or unsustainable. Yes, this is a broad sweeping generalization.

Jonathan Lobl

"Science" that wastes time squabbling with "religion" is totally vain. Likewise "religion" which feels threatened by "science" cannot grasp spirituality.

To some, who call themselves "scientists," the present "scientific" paradigm of matrialist/realism is equally a dogmatic religion. So, the great "debate" is exactly like the fighting of religious sects. They are the ones throughout history which have authoritatively proclaimed "that is IMPOSSIBLE." The only difference is their choice of "gods." In that case, not only is the "religious mind" like a dog with a bone but the "scientific" mind likewise. Of course, neither of these is either "scientific" nor "spiritual." Both are fundamentalist "seven day religions." The popular "science" of today too often exist in the very same dogma as "religion." And ... that is why they choose to squabble rather than discover.

That is why this silly "debate" still exists when both science and spirituality have left it behind.

There has been a complete revolution in science, not yet accepted by the entrenched status quo. That's why we still have an "energy crisis." And, likewise, the difference between organized dogmatic sectarian "religion" and genuine spirituality has been fully distinguished. However, the religionists have not yet realized this either but remain entrenched in dogma.

However, those who become open to the initial understanding of quantum energetics beyond the present accepted scientific model of materialist/realism and ALSO those who have the courage to look beyond a literalist view of the Bible, produce the creative atmosphere in which human understanding and consciousness can truly evolve and advance.

This requires a view beyond present day status quo "science" but also beyond present day status quo "religion." At the point of transcendent insight both realize that what they pursue is exactly the same thing. And ... when the religionists AND scientists finally move beyond their frozen dogmas, this is what they discover as evidenced by many advanced scientists, such as David Bohm, Bruce Lipton, Tom Bearden, Harold Puthoff, A.R. Bordon, Nikola Tesla etc etc etc. And, likewise, by the spiritual insights of those such as the Dali Lama, Depak Chopra and many others who know the difference between religion and spirituality and see no conflict between science and spirituality. The fact is, there is no conflict between true science and genuine spirituality.

It is the emerging scientific understanding of energetics and dimensions that breaks science away from their long held materialist/realism tradition and it is the same that expands the view of spirituality beyond the limitations of dogmatic seven day fundamentalist religion. So, each approach finds that they are seeking a unified field -- a One Source -- and therein lies the merging of the two seekings, which at present, because of frozen dogma, seem to be at odds.

In reality, both are humbled when enough "facts" are known and recognized.

It is the clothing of awe and humility that expands consciousness beyond its present limitations. This is the basis of genuine evolution and true spirituality as well.

The Universe is not only a chunk of matter as the present dogmatic science often declares as "fact." Real scientists well know this. The status quo still seeks for a "god particle." The Universe is Ideo/Material. BOTH. Matter does not even exist as Einstein so correctly pointed out. ALL is energy and that energy takes place in a multitude of dimensions to produce (create) the innumerable worlds of time and space. Because now, scientists know that this "energy" is not simply force but is INTELLIGENT and LOADED WITH INFORMATION. True scientists and genuine spiritual seekers both agree.

The "debate" is a complete illusion furthered by those who participate in it. They have yet to discover the limitation of their own five senses and the reality of many more (at least seventeen additional senses have been identified) which remain veiled and, as yet, unconscious to them simply because they ignore facts which are inconvienient to their systematic errors. They fear any change and are terrified of having found out that they were in error. They consider that to be bad for their image and the societal roles they have assumed as know-it-alls.

The proven fact is -- Einstein was factually correct when he said, "matter does not exist." This was a very advanced statement that since his day has been proven over and over again as fact but still not accepted either by dogmatic science nor by dogmatic religion. Popular science still dwells in materialistic/realism and religion still reads the Bible as a linear textbook -- neither of them understand the nature of the Universe and reality because they are at odds with both. The problem is that neither have an inkling as to who and what THEY are. Self knowledge is the prerequisite for ANY knowledge whatsoever.

So, both cling to their illusions. War and childish squabbling is the expected result of this foolishness.

So, in my view, let them continue to "debate" and squabble until they finally tire of such petrified activity and decide that they are not know-it-alls after all and that the string of initials after their names mean nothing but societal prestige and public image.

So, the Great Debate between "evolution" and "religion" is entirely a moot point -- two highly partisan and incomplete points of view. The humble easily admit this. The prideful and dogmatic do not but, on each "side," consider themselves to be know-it-alls. Such political "correctness" is not conducive to human creativity and therefore a constipation of evolution has been in effect. Of course, those who do not admit the reality of consciousness and consider it to be only an artifact of physical matter cannot understand that evolution involves consciousness. Those steeped in material/realism try to ignore consciousness all together. However, consciousness CANNOT be ignored because we ALL directly and continually participate IN IT.

Of course, there are many who cannot see the difference between religion and spirituality and categorize those two as the same. But, they are not the same and never have been. Religion is constrictive -- spirituality is exapansive.

The same is true of science.

Those who cling to the dead materialist/realist paradigm are constrictive and those who have gone beyond it are expansive. Unfortunately, on both counts the status quo is highly constrictive. And that's why our present civilization is entirely unsustainable as business as usual.

In fact, these two (science and spirituality) find themselves being of one mind when the blockage of dogma is removed.

When Einstein said, "matter does not exist," a huge leap forward was initiated. Likewise, when religionists finally realize that spirituality cannot be encompassed by systematic "religion," the same is true.

Namaste

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I wouldn't put all my eggs in either basket though.

I never do.

Jonathan Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Nestingwave:

It is good to be open minded. It is not good to be so open minded that the brain falls out.

Allowing Genesis into the schools as a science text is lousy science. This, science must resist.

When religion decides that Earth is the center of everything; science will insist on looking through the telescope.

These are not minor squables. Long view, religion and science are indeed on the same course. Short term, no. The Devil, as they say, hides in the details.

Jonathan Lobl

[nestingwave]

Nestingwave:

It is good to be open minded. It is not good to be so open minded that the brain falls out.

You are right. But what is good is to be so open minded that one begins to use parts of the brain that have been dormant, such as the ability to synthesize information from more than one place.

Allowing Genesis into the schools as a science text is lousy science. This, science must resist.

Yes, I certainly agree. This is no fault of Genesis but of the people who linearly and literally interpret it as a textbook which it is not and never was.

When religion decides that Earth is the center of everything; science will insist on looking through the telescope.

Yep. Finding the CENTER is certainly important and the earth is not it. At least not exclusively it. Perhaps that CENTER is IN US? Perhaps the CENTER is non local and everywhere and everytime all AT ONCE. Perhaps the CENTER is ... OMNIPRESENT? Galileo knew that the earth was not the CENTER eh? There is a huge cosmos out there.

But not ONLY did the church "decide" but insisted that everyone else accept THEIR point of view -- end of discussion -- or -- be burned as a heretic. Religiousity. That's what Roman Totalitarianism is. The exact opposite of science but also the direct opposite of genuine spirituality. It is the status quo seeking conformity by using threats to maintain control over the minds, bodies and souls of men. (hmmmm .... sounds somewhat like Washington D.C.) This dis-ease apparently still exists in the ignorant.

"These are not minor squabbles."

To me -- from my own point of view -- they are minor. Why? Because both "sides" fail to see what you mention next. -->

Long view, religion and science are indeed on the same course. Short term, no. The Devil, as they say, hides in the details.

The "Devil" of it is that both sides have incomplete details and neither will admit it for the sake of maintaining their position of squabbling. So, why give place to "The Devil?" To engage him only increases his power of deception. Some are learning that trying to "stamp out evil" only increases it because in the "stamping" you FEED IT POWER. And that POWER is over ... YOU and I. "Evil" and "Good" are two sides of the very same coin and you cannot have one without the other but if truly one wants peace, healing and service to other beings, the best thing to do is to acknowledge evil as a legitimate choice but simply not choose it as ones own choice. Just say, thank you "Devil" -- you are necessary -- but I choose peace, healing and service to other beings instead of control over other beings by fear and force.

And that's exactly why squabbling (major or minor) is counterproductive and neither "side" wins but both remain confused and unable to see the forest for all the trees in their way.

Jonathan Lobl

Yeah, I mostly agree with you. To some, the short term squabbles (or long term squabbles) are where they dwell. That's their choice, of course. But, as you say, "Long view, religion and science are indeed on the same course." Yep. Because they are two approaches to the One. An entirely Unified Field. At some point, the two illusory "sides" merge. On the cutting edge of science and likewise beyond religion to the cutting edge of spiritual understanding, they already merge in the now. Many folks simply haven't caught onto that yet.

The scientists I mentioned in my last post, and many others as well, already recognize this and simply do not engage in the popular prime time wrestling match, seeing that it has little to do with science, which is always evolving, and also little to do with genuine spirituality which has no argument with scientific discovery whatsoever. And that's the position I take.

Of course, to teach the Bible as a scientific textbook is utterly absurd. Many have noticed however how the progression of creation in Genesis coincides in many respects to what is known presently by scientists concerning evolution -- for example life beginning in the ocean or another example: "as a man thinks in his heart, so is he". Those scientist who seriously study human consciousness well know that to be a fact. So, with regards to the Bible, it is a mistake to "throw the baby out with the bath water." Sure, the "bath water" is there ... however ... it can be discerned and drained off.

The "authority" of the Bible does not depend upon it being taken in a linear and literal fashion but on some, but not all, of its underlying principles when understood holonomically. To attempt to read it like a Popular Mechanics (as many do unfortunately) is to result in complete confusion and even religious fanatisicm according to ones own particular interpretations. Some folks try to read poetry like a Popular Mechanics and therefore poetry bores them. Not too surprising.

Anyone who has actually found out where the Bible came from, the many hands that produced it and the many alterations and interpretations over the centuries it has undergone, knows perfectly well that the "authority" does not dwell in it's declarations but how well the principles actually match with our human experience. MYTH can be very useful in unraveling those principles.

Indeed, some of the linear myths of the Bible certainly do not match with even the most basic human integrity but are 100% opposite to it -- for one example the so-called "commands" of God to destroy, murder and pillage. Some misguided people are still trying to carry out that program today and feel a certain "divine" self sanctification about it, since they take it authoritatively (literally and linearly) as a "do this" and "do that." And the generals say, "OH GOODY, we get to use our latest weaponry! AND -- OUR ACTIONS ARE HAOOOWLY!" This is how they quieten down that still small voice of conscience within.

Until the thrust of many scientists (since the late 1980s) to undertake a very serious study of human consciousness, science had tended traditionally to ignore the observer in the quest for knowledge and understanding and consider everything in what they consider to be 'reality" to be objective and thus the same for all -- an external truth that does not take the subjective viewing into account, including their own subjective viewing.

Both genuine science AND true spirituality are communal endeavors -- very broad communal endeavors where many points of view are taken into account) and whatever the present status quo in either of these fields may be, is only a very partial story. "Status quo" tends to be a non creative box to maintain the present prestige of those who think of themselves as authoritative controllers over a given situation. So, usually they are simply not too keen on creativity at all and the inventions of the status quo are very sparse indeed. And yet, it is through creativity that the most fruitful insights have occurred throughout history. It takes courage too, like in the case of Galileo. The status quo always says, "that doesn't fit with our authoritative theories and should be rejected because WE are the experts."

Any writing, whether it be scientific or spiritual, is filtered through an observer and thus contains individual suppositions, interpretations and opinions And so, this is a "reality" made up of one's highly limited individual set of experiences. So, to undertake the responsibility of discernment is important and necessary to understand the difference between the fruitful wheat and the unfruitful chaff which is always mingled in side by side. Discernment does not mean to take someone else's word for something but to test it for oneself. This responsibility is often abdicated by following those who call themselves "experts." Or --- are simply obeying authoritative orders without question as many religionists (and scientists also) do automatically -- parroting robotically what someone else declared as "authoritive" with no further examination or attempt to apply the knowledge to one's own experience which includes broadly examining the experiences of others.

Namaste

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Yeah, I mostly agree with you. To some, the short term squabbles (or long term squabbles) are where they dwell. That's their choice, of course. But, as you say, "Long view, religion and science are indeed on the same course." Yep. Because they are two approaches to the One. An entirely Unified Field. At some point, the two illusory "sides" merge. On the cutting edge of science and likewise beyond religion to the cutting edge of spiritual understanding, they already merge in the now. Many folks simply haven't caught onto that yet.

Namaste

Interesting..... I think we have different vocabularies with similar messages.

I'm a Pantheist. God -- the Unity behind existence -- is beyond Duality. All dualities, including Good and Evil. Consequently, the One is neither Good nor Evil.

I think your use of "Unified Field" is a similar thought. I suspect the trick is to live in Duality with a focus on Unity.

Jonathan Lobl