Religion & Spirituality

Some years ago I read that Nobel Laurette and physicist Niels Bohr reportedly remarked that "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it".

In more recent times Prof. David Albert of Columbia University similarly explained that

There's something really indescribably strange about the picture that we're presented with of ourselves by -- especially by fundamental physics. And it's a picture that we just don't know how to fully take in. And I think it's very, very, very disturbing.

In response to the question "Does God exist?" on a forum in LinkedIn, I drafted the following, which seems to be sufficiently well-formed to be posted here, prior to posting there as well:

----------------------

There is no "God" in a purely objective, independent sense for that would require weird, nonsensical disconnects (within any holodynamic systems, or indeed any reasonable rational context).

The idea of an independent creator was an idea developed during the childhood of humanity:

Bishop John Shelby Spong:

"Religion ... was for most of human history, always childlike and by definition authoritarian. It was, to be specific, a primary activity of the childhood of our humanity as a species."1

I was dialoguing with members of a "systems thinking" group who it seems are all left-brained, mechanical-universe thinkers who believe that there's no metaphysical dimension to life. It's all just physical stuff.

So I wondered, how do you offer a bit of a 'chink' in their thinking, beyond the Proofs of the Impossibility of Physical Movement1 as I've previously explained to them?

So I wrote the following. Maybe it'll help some, maybe not.

I often hear of, or run across people who espouse all sorts of .. frankly, incoherent ideas and beliefs.

For example, in response to one forum, I received the comment that "there is no right answer or absolute."

Well, let's consider that ... no absolute? Absolutely no commonality, at all?

That begs the question .. if there's no underlying commonality, no absolute common ground to existence, what then enables it and us to all interact? What's the 'connective tissue' that enables that interactivity? What's the ground upon which, and by which, separate things move and connect?

So, here's a response I crafted that kiboshes a few misunderstandings.

Enjoy.

----------------------------

Consider some "stuff" of which the entirety of existence is composed. Not physical, not even necessarily spiritual. Let's just call it "stuff".

Now, this 'stuff' is, by definition, literally everywhere, in everything, everyone one, every thought, God, Evil ... it's literally everywhere. In fact there is no place it is not. Given its ubiquity, we can say it is 'one-stuff'.

If we want to believe that some spiritual beings or others are not composed of this one-stuff, we need ask of what they are made. Whatever that is, it will ultimately need to be made of said 'one-stuff' in that said one-stuff is the ground stuff of all existence. no exceptions.

Now it gets interesting.

While at a social function recently I got chatting with some religious people who started to talk about how we're all 'fallen', sinners in need of saving, and how we're all needing His forgiveness, and so on.

Now, from a systems perspective this all makes no sense.1

So I asked, "if God is infinite, isn't all necessarily WITHIN God? After all," I added, "if we and all else, including evil is not of God, then we're outside and beyond the infinite -- and that would make us and evil bigger than God. That would make God small relative to us, and relative to evil."

"Best not do that," I said.

Think of it this way, God is infinite ... literally that means "He" has no limits -- he's everwhere, and in everything, everyone, every spirit, including Evil. In other words, everything and everyone is of God.  It's His energy that's behind all the muck-ups, and the beautiful wonderful things, and ...

If it's not His energy, then it's someone elses, but that again means, He has limits to where His energy goes.2

Pretty straight-forward, I would think, to understand all this.

I've just had a vigorous discussion with some friends, and what was most interesting to observe is the extent to which people (including myself) engage either-or thinking.

My friend (let's call him 'George') quoted Anthony De Mello, along the lines of "what you have to realise is that you're asleep, and that you need to wake up". Which in effect meant that I? wasn't in the least "awake" -- aware, considerate, conscious, enlightened or good. No sir, not at all, not even a skerrick of enlightened awareness. None. Ziltch.

That's either-or thinking. None or all, right or wrong. One or the other, but certainly not ever BOTH at once.

I shared my view that people are variously "awake" and "asleep", aware and ignorant, considerate and selfish at the same time. I explained the inherent reality of the paradoxical nature of life and that all qualities and potentials are co-existent. It's just that some get accentuated more than others at various times and at various junctions in our evolution.

My friend countered, "but most people can't understand the complexity of paradoxes ..."

There has been an at-times vigorous debate on various Internet forums1 over an age-old problem that has persisted for over 2,400 years.

It's a problem that was, in a metaphorical sense, wonderfully illustrated by the "Somebody Else's Problem" scenario in the Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers to the Galaxy series.

Recently I was reading an interesting book, and it advised one to wake early one morning (in the dead of night, around the 3.30am mark) and quietly ask what is really important in one's life. As was explained in my Letting go post, I've drifted in recent years, not exactly sure how I can best be of benefit and service to people.

Yesterday had an interesting, somewhat intense discussion with someone who confessed to being a Christian.

It seems to me that there are some very simple, fundamental errors in thinking by Christians (as a general rule -- and don't get me started on rules, systems, probabilities, and individuality. "We're all individuals"  yeah, yeah, I'm not. Kudos to Monty Python. But i digress).

Over the years I've come to more fully appreciate the extent to which many people seek refuge in illusory ideals ... be it religious perfection, or scientific certainty.