Why does science always have to "debunk" the idea that we are special? Why can't they accept the possibility that God (gods) chose to uplift an ape who could learn to stand erect to use its hands? We may soon be able to engineer our own genes to remove illness causing defects, and maybe even some day to improve ourselves. So why not imagine that a fantastically superior species might wish for company in a lonely universe?
Every few hundred thousand years or so, our Benefactor could tweak our ancestors' genes to make us a bit more like what they were trying to evolve us into ... and let the new form adapt again to its environment. Making us to evolve into the "divine" image: upright, handy & smart ... just like them. They might even have been working on several lineages at the same time, to see what worked best. Not every change of form seems to have been something likely to change by itself.
Until finally they achieved enough that we began to evolve ourselves by developing technology. Technology promoted brains, by demanding adaptability and improving the availability of food. And then further, we began to domesticate ourselves, by gathering into larger groups, and to choose smarter people to have more descendants.
It doesn't have to have been merely luck and random mutations, "proving" that we are just like any other beast. Indeed, it seems that, unlike other species, several very different varieties of humans could interbreed (Cromagnon, Neanderthal, and Denisovan) and have fertile offspring. It probably produced a better hybrid that could adapt to their environment, and it might have improved the way our minds work. We really could have been the subjects chosen to arise to become ever more "godlike" via directed evolution, and then later inspired to imagine how God(s?) must have made us special.
This doesn't have to be a "science fiction" reference to aliens from outer space. It could be a recognition that our religions are not merely myths. Maybe our "divine" Benefactors have learned to transcend physical existence and become wholly spiritual, so it's the same thing, either way.
Here is a rough sketch of how we may have "evolved" from the forest apes of seven or eight million years ago:
1. Orrorin Tugenensis
- ~6 million years ago
- femur adapts to habitual walking
- lives in checkered forest habitat
- forages on the ground, sleeps above
2. Ardipithecus Ramidus
- ~4.5 million years ago
- pelvis & hips adapted to upright gait
- feet still capable of skillful climbing
- forests competing with grasslands
3. Australopithecus Afarensis
- ~3.2 million years ago
- feet adapted to continual walking
- spine has moved under the skull
- savanna has replaced forests
- makes crude temporary stone tools
4. Homo Habilis
- ~2.3 million years ago
- hands become more articulate
- makes more shaped stone tools
- carries a few permanent tools
- begins to modify environment
5. Homo Erectus
- ~1.9 million years ago
- shorter arms & longer legs
- makes typical stone hand axe
- discovers the use of fire
- migrates out of Africa
6. Homo Heidelbergensis
- ~660 thousand years ago
- can make functional clothing
- creates a variety of tool types
- moves into Europe
7. Homo Neanderthalensis & Denisova
- ~250 to 200 thousand years ago
- can build temporary shelters
- making use-specific tool kits
- develops concepts of spirit & afterlife
- adapted to cold northern climates (N)
- migrating eastward with climate (D)
8. Homo Sapiens
- ~150 thousand years ago
- gathering into larger tribal groups
- develops flexibility of articulate speech
- begins to domesticate himself
9. Homo Sapiens sapiens
- ~100 thousand years ago
- thoroughly modern human beings
- domesticates local plants & animals
- guides lifestyle by spiritual principles
- learns to build permanent settlements
- reshapes the world with technology
Next:
10. Homo Sapiens Celestius
* genetically engineered
- removed illness-causing traits
- enhanced desirable traits
- recoded genes for longevity
- selected for minimal aggression
* adapting to adverse conditions
- totally dependent on technology
- micro-gravity in space
- non-optimal planets/moons
- blended with non-human traits (?)
* enabled with technology
- cybernetic neurological networks
` programmed for morality
- prosthetic enhancements
* artificially manipulated procreation
- in vitro selective construction
- duplication by cloning
` alternative gender twins
` identical banked for stem cells
- implantation in chosen host(s)
- raised by the community
Now, I have to insert a disclaimer. This is not a declaration of what I actually believe. I stand firmly on the grounds of agnostic uncertainty, choosing to believe in God and at the same time in the scientific attempt to investigate reality by examining the facts on the ground. Generally, I think that the two must accept a harmony, and avoid the close-minded refusal to listen to any different points of view.
Remember that "directed evolution" is still evolution, which actually isn't random anyway, but is really "stochastic" as being aimed by the local environment to adapt for survival there. No specific mechanism for "direction" is to be implied, except that it must remain non-obvious, so as not to reveal too soon that there might have been some interference. Apparently, the power of faith is a desirable attribute that we need to cultivate, whether God exists or not.
Monday, December 30, 2019
Friday, December 27, 2019
Dunbar's Number: 132 to 165 People
Dunbar's number was first suggested by an English anthropologist, Robin Dunbar, in the 1990's, in a study correlating brain size with the size of social groups in primates. It is a supposed likely cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relations. These are relationships in which the individual knows who each person is, and what their role is in society, and is somewhat familiar with their behavior in the group. It refers to how easily each person relates to every other person, and how well they are known by their associates. Dunbar tries to count the number of people whom one would include as being familiar enough to approach in a public space, as known "from back home" perhaps, or at least more comfortably than those whom one simply remembers having met on a few occasions.
Indeed, the human mind may be wired for several concentric circles of familiarity and inclusion:
A. You may have 5 or 6 close friends, with whom you prefer to share regular time and activities.
B. You probably have up to 15 to 18 friends from whom you would readily accept an invitation to a party.
C. You may have about 3 times that many with whom you regularly interact on a daily to weekly basis, some 44 to 55 habituated and friendly acquaintances.
D. There may be about 3 times that many whom you recognize as being "one of us" and consider as part of "your village circle" and essentially not strangers. This circle is approximately 132 to 165 people. That is Dunbar's number.
E. And likely, there are about 3 times that many whom you would recognize and have some idea of where and when you last saw them, roughly 400 to 500 people. This is the equivalent of meeting some members of another village while on a trading trip, perhaps identified as peaceful by a sign of shared affiliation or trust.
F. The greater tribe may share a similar style and culture, but be recognized only in a political sense as "allies" and "not our enemies."
Lacking any shared marks of culture, or purposely displaying some contrary signs, persons who don't conform will be viewed as "outsiders" and regarded with antipathy and suspicion. These people are not given any benefits of cooperation, and are not expected to share "our values," because they are not trying to assimilate. Indeed, it would not surprise us to learn that they are enemies. They may even be segregated into their own smaller enclaves, or feel exclusive in other ways, often by their own choice. And they may not be welcomed by the larger society because of their desire to be different.
This is a result of our having evolved in a tribal setting. For hundreds of thousands of years, we lived in semi-nomadic groups, following the seasons as hunter-gatherers. The natural abundance of the ecosystems we lived in, and their carrying capacity, thus dictated the size of the groups of which we were a part. Even when we began to live in settled towns, our villages didn't soon grow much bigger. Only the cities that grew up around markets or governments had much reason for populations of many hundreds, depending on the regions they served.
It is only in recent centuries, since the end of the "Dark Ages," that we began regularly living in towns with populations in the thousands. And the local villages still kept their original proportions, with a few big market towns for economic interchange. A city of more than 10,000 was really thought of as a big place, probably the largest within 50 miles.
Later, some national capitals might even have exceeded 100,000 people. But it wasn't until the colonial period that London had a million people. These developments are too recent to have had much effect on the evolution of the human brain, and our modern educational methods are still struggling to adapt.
Indeed, the human mind may be wired for several concentric circles of familiarity and inclusion:
A. You may have 5 or 6 close friends, with whom you prefer to share regular time and activities.
B. You probably have up to 15 to 18 friends from whom you would readily accept an invitation to a party.
C. You may have about 3 times that many with whom you regularly interact on a daily to weekly basis, some 44 to 55 habituated and friendly acquaintances.
D. There may be about 3 times that many whom you recognize as being "one of us" and consider as part of "your village circle" and essentially not strangers. This circle is approximately 132 to 165 people. That is Dunbar's number.
E. And likely, there are about 3 times that many whom you would recognize and have some idea of where and when you last saw them, roughly 400 to 500 people. This is the equivalent of meeting some members of another village while on a trading trip, perhaps identified as peaceful by a sign of shared affiliation or trust.
F. The greater tribe may share a similar style and culture, but be recognized only in a political sense as "allies" and "not our enemies."
Lacking any shared marks of culture, or purposely displaying some contrary signs, persons who don't conform will be viewed as "outsiders" and regarded with antipathy and suspicion. These people are not given any benefits of cooperation, and are not expected to share "our values," because they are not trying to assimilate. Indeed, it would not surprise us to learn that they are enemies. They may even be segregated into their own smaller enclaves, or feel exclusive in other ways, often by their own choice. And they may not be welcomed by the larger society because of their desire to be different.
This is a result of our having evolved in a tribal setting. For hundreds of thousands of years, we lived in semi-nomadic groups, following the seasons as hunter-gatherers. The natural abundance of the ecosystems we lived in, and their carrying capacity, thus dictated the size of the groups of which we were a part. Even when we began to live in settled towns, our villages didn't soon grow much bigger. Only the cities that grew up around markets or governments had much reason for populations of many hundreds, depending on the regions they served.
It is only in recent centuries, since the end of the "Dark Ages," that we began regularly living in towns with populations in the thousands. And the local villages still kept their original proportions, with a few big market towns for economic interchange. A city of more than 10,000 was really thought of as a big place, probably the largest within 50 miles.
Later, some national capitals might even have exceeded 100,000 people. But it wasn't until the colonial period that London had a million people. These developments are too recent to have had much effect on the evolution of the human brain, and our modern educational methods are still struggling to adapt.
Thursday, December 5, 2019
Fermi Paradox: Great Filters Galore
If the universe is so old and so huge, and if we are an average representative of what happens when a planet gets life, then where are all of the aliens? We should at least know that there are others out there, or so the "Paradox" insists. But maybe it's not quite so simple.
There are a few very good reasons for why we don't see a night sky filled with alien civilizations, old and new. There just might be a couple of them out there, but for their own reasons they choose to leave us alone. And if we may ever succeed in climbing out into the heavens, we should do the very same.
Contact with other sapient species necessarily carries a considerable danger for both parties, and is preferably avoided when possible. Like two male grizzly bears, just waking up in the spring, we have little pleasant to say to each other, except "You go that way, and I'll go this way." And in all likelihood, this occurrence should be rare enough. The hope of encountering a galaxy-wide democratic confederacy of coexisting empires is mythological thinking at its worst. Don't bet on it. We would already see that by now.
The Fermi Paradox isn't really much of a paradox, when you see how hard it is to get to be an interstellar civilization. A Great Filter is a condition which is so difficult to meet that only a small fraction of a percent is likely to succeed. Perhaps only one in a million will get through all of the trials. And there are quite a few hurdles that must first be overcome, each group posing another lottery challenge before a civilization can even get into space, and still more once it has. An actual interstellar civilization is certainly quite an achievement.
1. Shared Time & Space (to be seen)
- they must be within our own galaxy
- who's up first? anyone else?
- are they "currently" active?
- do they have an expansive outlook?
2. Rare Earth
- start with an hospitable star, K5 - G2
- right size planet with water, metals & air
- life needs magnetosphere protection
- spherical moon to prevent catastrophe
3. Rare Intelligence
- requires amenable anatomy with hands
- discover skills for tool making & fire
- learn language & share culture memory
- start producing your own foods
4. Rare Technology
- growing towns into a civilized society
- a wide variety of specialized vocations
- develop science & expect progress
- achieve rockets, computers & radio
5. Rare Wisdom
- saving the planet from deterioration
- inhibiting warfare and self-destruction
- cooperate on a political consensus
- build colonies on multiple planets
6. Surviving Discovery
- should we respect superior wisdom?
- how do we repel a haunting madness?
- what if its it's just a meaningless void?
- it's a Do-It-Yourself paradise!
7. Eternal Vigilance
- peace & justice is the solid foundation
- walk softly to avoid stirring up trouble
- carry a big stick to deter opportunists
- non-interference is the best policy
8. Inevitable Decadence
- tired of waiting for millions of years
- boredom taints even eternal bliss
- we are gods, we might think
- entropy always wins
As you can see, we are still only half-way through the cycle, finishing number four, with some big challenges yet before us. And just imagine, if the previous civilization was 100 million years ago, we might not even find their ashes. Unless visible, detectable interstellar civilizations arise more often than a million years apart, the chances of meeting one will be small, and we might regret it if we ever do. It would be highly unlikely that any aliens we might encounter would have a similar level of technological sophistication. And we had better hope and pray that they are good guys, wise and sympathetic. Only if we too have been out there for 100,000 years would we be able to meet them as equals. There is no way to guess how far or how quickly technology may progress. But it might just be a low-tech metaphor, or an archaic choice of words, to say that the Heavens may be home to a variety of Angels and Demons.
And patience is more than a critical virtue for an established interstellar people. We are apparently anxious to find someone else to talk to about problems, solutions, and the meaning of life in general. But failing that, we should hope to never become so certain of our perfection that we choose to create another sapient species. They may not be ready to recognize us as friends when they come out, if we interfere with their lives. And dropping hints to "help" them develop a guiding mythology, is definitely a kind of interference, and likely to cause conflicts among their factions.
There are a few very good reasons for why we don't see a night sky filled with alien civilizations, old and new. There just might be a couple of them out there, but for their own reasons they choose to leave us alone. And if we may ever succeed in climbing out into the heavens, we should do the very same.
Contact with other sapient species necessarily carries a considerable danger for both parties, and is preferably avoided when possible. Like two male grizzly bears, just waking up in the spring, we have little pleasant to say to each other, except "You go that way, and I'll go this way." And in all likelihood, this occurrence should be rare enough. The hope of encountering a galaxy-wide democratic confederacy of coexisting empires is mythological thinking at its worst. Don't bet on it. We would already see that by now.
The Fermi Paradox isn't really much of a paradox, when you see how hard it is to get to be an interstellar civilization. A Great Filter is a condition which is so difficult to meet that only a small fraction of a percent is likely to succeed. Perhaps only one in a million will get through all of the trials. And there are quite a few hurdles that must first be overcome, each group posing another lottery challenge before a civilization can even get into space, and still more once it has. An actual interstellar civilization is certainly quite an achievement.
1. Shared Time & Space (to be seen)
- they must be within our own galaxy
- who's up first? anyone else?
- are they "currently" active?
- do they have an expansive outlook?
2. Rare Earth
- start with an hospitable star, K5 - G2
- right size planet with water, metals & air
- life needs magnetosphere protection
- spherical moon to prevent catastrophe
3. Rare Intelligence
- requires amenable anatomy with hands
- discover skills for tool making & fire
- learn language & share culture memory
- start producing your own foods
4. Rare Technology
- growing towns into a civilized society
- a wide variety of specialized vocations
- develop science & expect progress
- achieve rockets, computers & radio
5. Rare Wisdom
- saving the planet from deterioration
- inhibiting warfare and self-destruction
- cooperate on a political consensus
- build colonies on multiple planets
6. Surviving Discovery
- should we respect superior wisdom?
- how do we repel a haunting madness?
- what if its it's just a meaningless void?
- it's a Do-It-Yourself paradise!
7. Eternal Vigilance
- peace & justice is the solid foundation
- walk softly to avoid stirring up trouble
- carry a big stick to deter opportunists
- non-interference is the best policy
8. Inevitable Decadence
- tired of waiting for millions of years
- boredom taints even eternal bliss
- we are gods, we might think
- entropy always wins
As you can see, we are still only half-way through the cycle, finishing number four, with some big challenges yet before us. And just imagine, if the previous civilization was 100 million years ago, we might not even find their ashes. Unless visible, detectable interstellar civilizations arise more often than a million years apart, the chances of meeting one will be small, and we might regret it if we ever do. It would be highly unlikely that any aliens we might encounter would have a similar level of technological sophistication. And we had better hope and pray that they are good guys, wise and sympathetic. Only if we too have been out there for 100,000 years would we be able to meet them as equals. There is no way to guess how far or how quickly technology may progress. But it might just be a low-tech metaphor, or an archaic choice of words, to say that the Heavens may be home to a variety of Angels and Demons.
And patience is more than a critical virtue for an established interstellar people. We are apparently anxious to find someone else to talk to about problems, solutions, and the meaning of life in general. But failing that, we should hope to never become so certain of our perfection that we choose to create another sapient species. They may not be ready to recognize us as friends when they come out, if we interfere with their lives. And dropping hints to "help" them develop a guiding mythology, is definitely a kind of interference, and likely to cause conflicts among their factions.
Tuesday, December 3, 2019
Economic Bases of a Lunar Colony
Start with the most basic and necessary needs, scouring the elements from the land. Build up a basic infrastructure, then add items of popular interest, increase the comforts of home, and finally allow a few somewhat riskier endeavors that can't be done on Earth. While the earlier steps are more micromanaged, later ones are given less and less detail, as they are left for future generations to design and build for themselves.
Phase One "Landing on the Beach"
1. Research & Development:
- establish power sources & storage:
nuclear fission and solar (photovoltaic or concentrated reflection) plus banks of lithium or vitreous batteries to maintain power through the long nights.
- resource gathering and refining:
making the oxygen, aluminum, glass and other materials needed to build the basic habitats and living spaces
- life support infrastructure:
water supplies, ventilation systems, heating and cooling, lighting, disposal & recycling of wastes, radiation shielding, gravity wheels?
- developing industrial production:
standardized modular construction items, replacement parts for machines & vehicles, tool & die facilities, assembly lines, wiring & electronics, plumbing, air lock fittings
- food production facilities:
insulated greenhouses, hydroponic and aeroponic media racks, solar replacement lighting, fishery pools, fruits & nuts, edible insects to consume excess vegetative production
- mundane crafts production:
personal space suits, clothing & shoes, tablet-size computers, oxygen tanks, regolith filters, furniture, art, souvenirs
Phase Two "Expanding the Frontier"
2. Tourism and Entertainment:
- history tours of Apollo sites, Earth watching, trekking & mountain climbing, space suit survival certification, spiritual retreats, celebrity tours & gambling
3. Astronomy:
- far side radio telescopes, mega-array optical mirrors, dark sky surveys, Moon-in-depth studies, resource mapping, lava tube exploring
4. Magnetic levitation railways:
- launch to orbit facilities, transportation to other settlements, military applications, asteroid collision defense?
5. Meteorite prospecting:
- asteroid study, bombardment effects, resource claims & recovery, mining for metals
6. Medical solutions:
- zero gee recovery, cardiac stress reduction, experimental techniques, nanotech microsurgery, pharmaceutical research, mineral dust infiltration reduction & tissue repair
7. Isolated research projects:
NERVA spacecraft design, testing & construction, ultrahigh energy lasers, near lightspeed physics, gravity wave mapping, dark matter experiments
8. Resupply for outbound missions:
fuel & oxygen, recycling wastes, minor repairs & spares, food & water, launch pads & gantry
Phase Three "Manifest Destiny"
- Domes for new towns
- Tunnels and caves
- Web network of train lines
- Immigration influx
- Build your own spaceships
- Trade relations between destinations
- Illuminating our 8th continent
- Building orbital infrastructure
- Developing practical Space Law
- Taming the near frontier
But there is a big problem standing in the way of our colonizing the Moon. There is very little carbon available to be utilized by the processes of life. Any carbon we will need for food production will have to be imported, probably from Earth, and the cost of launching it is going to be a major factor. Imagine launching a hundred tons of dried anchovies to the Moon to be used for fertilizer.
We may be importing our food directly from Earth for quite a while, at least until our own waste products amount to enough to recycle for use. And still, any expansion of food production will require even more carbon imports. Recycling is going to be BIG on the moon. In fact, we may also be very careful to recycle our nitrogen and phosphorus as well, as the other primary ingredients of fertilizer. And there may also be a few other elements in short supply.
Food production is going to be our major bottleneck for our efforts to make the Moon our "eighth continent" as it has so often been called. Antarctica is quite homey by comparison. That is why there are so many advocates for going directly to Mars, and build up the Moon later. But it really is so much closer, that we should use it to learn all we can before going away from home for years at a time.
Phase One "Landing on the Beach"
1. Research & Development:
- establish power sources & storage:
nuclear fission and solar (photovoltaic or concentrated reflection) plus banks of lithium or vitreous batteries to maintain power through the long nights.
- resource gathering and refining:
making the oxygen, aluminum, glass and other materials needed to build the basic habitats and living spaces
- life support infrastructure:
water supplies, ventilation systems, heating and cooling, lighting, disposal & recycling of wastes, radiation shielding, gravity wheels?
- developing industrial production:
standardized modular construction items, replacement parts for machines & vehicles, tool & die facilities, assembly lines, wiring & electronics, plumbing, air lock fittings
- food production facilities:
insulated greenhouses, hydroponic and aeroponic media racks, solar replacement lighting, fishery pools, fruits & nuts, edible insects to consume excess vegetative production
- mundane crafts production:
personal space suits, clothing & shoes, tablet-size computers, oxygen tanks, regolith filters, furniture, art, souvenirs
Phase Two "Expanding the Frontier"
2. Tourism and Entertainment:
- history tours of Apollo sites, Earth watching, trekking & mountain climbing, space suit survival certification, spiritual retreats, celebrity tours & gambling
3. Astronomy:
- far side radio telescopes, mega-array optical mirrors, dark sky surveys, Moon-in-depth studies, resource mapping, lava tube exploring
4. Magnetic levitation railways:
- launch to orbit facilities, transportation to other settlements, military applications, asteroid collision defense?
5. Meteorite prospecting:
- asteroid study, bombardment effects, resource claims & recovery, mining for metals
6. Medical solutions:
- zero gee recovery, cardiac stress reduction, experimental techniques, nanotech microsurgery, pharmaceutical research, mineral dust infiltration reduction & tissue repair
7. Isolated research projects:
NERVA spacecraft design, testing & construction, ultrahigh energy lasers, near lightspeed physics, gravity wave mapping, dark matter experiments
8. Resupply for outbound missions:
fuel & oxygen, recycling wastes, minor repairs & spares, food & water, launch pads & gantry
Phase Three "Manifest Destiny"
- Domes for new towns
- Tunnels and caves
- Web network of train lines
- Immigration influx
- Build your own spaceships
- Trade relations between destinations
- Illuminating our 8th continent
- Building orbital infrastructure
- Developing practical Space Law
- Taming the near frontier
But there is a big problem standing in the way of our colonizing the Moon. There is very little carbon available to be utilized by the processes of life. Any carbon we will need for food production will have to be imported, probably from Earth, and the cost of launching it is going to be a major factor. Imagine launching a hundred tons of dried anchovies to the Moon to be used for fertilizer.
We may be importing our food directly from Earth for quite a while, at least until our own waste products amount to enough to recycle for use. And still, any expansion of food production will require even more carbon imports. Recycling is going to be BIG on the moon. In fact, we may also be very careful to recycle our nitrogen and phosphorus as well, as the other primary ingredients of fertilizer. And there may also be a few other elements in short supply.
Food production is going to be our major bottleneck for our efforts to make the Moon our "eighth continent" as it has so often been called. Antarctica is quite homey by comparison. That is why there are so many advocates for going directly to Mars, and build up the Moon later. But it really is so much closer, that we should use it to learn all we can before going away from home for years at a time.
Friday, November 29, 2019
Christianity: Good and Bad
It may seem curmudgeonly of me to be raising this issue at the beginning of the Advent season. But let me speak for the sake of full honesty, and from the unbiased perspective of a philosopher of religion. I felt it was time to give a balanced evaluation of my own faith, as well as the usual critique of those I find disagreeable. Perhaps, by doing so, I may help someone to understand what some of the issues are, and why they may want to choose one over another. At least, the example of constructing a list of pros and cons may encourage a reasonable discussion, and a similar treatment of other faiths. Honesty can't really hurt a heartfelt faith, but it might deepen our own core spirituality. And that can only be a good thing.
What's wrong with Christianity?
1. Pre-scientific world view
- pits creation vs evolution
- blames/credits God for natural events
- misunderstands the heavens
- disregards investigation & discovery
2. Denigrates living in this world
- otherworldly spirituality
- critiques economic success
- neglects self-defense
- promotes personal asceticism
3. Apocalyptic expectations
- war in Heaven between Good & Evil
- Earth as a battleground
- exclusive claims to salvation
- morality as contrast, white vs black
4. Lacks a compelling motivation
- fear is only a partial motivation
- unrealistic promises
- unverifiable afterlife expectations
- no clear path to a happy life
5. Short-circuits initiative
- expects otherworldly paradise
- fragmentary, ineffective sociology
- blames demonic influences
- suppresses challenges to authorities
What's right with Christianity?
1. Compassion for the oppressed
- helps to lift the burden of misfortune
- seeks ways to relieve afflictions
- refuses to impose prejudice
- adopts the outcast and neglected
2. Mercy for moral lapses
- refuses to judge harshly
- always gives another chance
- offers an education in ethics
- points out root causes
3. Survives imperial domination
- defuses evil by responding with good
- promotes service to others
- encourages cooperation
- builds trustworthy character
4. Sustains hope for a lifetime
- expect rewards in an afterlife
- is not afraid to suffer
- affirms a relationship with divinity
- encourages steadfast faith
5. Develops spiritual growth
- creates a moral perspective
- looks deeper than "the Law"
- seeks the betterment of others
- raises the expectations for humanity
Are there other, neglected questions?
1. Ultimate concerns
- how do we build value in this life?
- finding one's own niche in society
- respect for human rights
- encourage noble achievements
2. Visions of a sustainable future
- can we work in harmony with nature?
- clean up your own mess
- value nature as created beauty
- observe the world's optimum capacity
3. Intentional community & society
- build a married religious community
- a corporate, collective co-op village
- shared responsibilities & rewards
- joint efforts toward advancement
4. Progress in knowledge & technology
- beyond spiritual oversimplification
- science, engineering & mathematics
- astronomy, medicine & ecology
- mechanics, electronics & space
5. How do we encounter other faiths?
- seeking points of agreement
- comparison with similarity
- defusing issues of conflict
- recognizing spiritual aspirations
6. A variety of valid Ideals, not just one
- Truth, Freedom, Love & Wisdom
- competing situational claims
- different balances between cultures
- each demands full respect together
Of course, a similar list of pros and cons could be drawn up for any religion, simply because they are static constructions. Most might even have a few shared good points and problems. This happens as a rule, because Humanity's cultures are continually changing, and yet we still face many of the same challenges.
"The poor you will have with you always." And yet, Daedalus has finally learned to fly. And in the future, we may find solutions, and problems, that are as yet unanticipated.
What's wrong with Christianity?
1. Pre-scientific world view
- pits creation vs evolution
- blames/credits God for natural events
- misunderstands the heavens
- disregards investigation & discovery
2. Denigrates living in this world
- otherworldly spirituality
- critiques economic success
- neglects self-defense
- promotes personal asceticism
3. Apocalyptic expectations
- war in Heaven between Good & Evil
- Earth as a battleground
- exclusive claims to salvation
- morality as contrast, white vs black
4. Lacks a compelling motivation
- fear is only a partial motivation
- unrealistic promises
- unverifiable afterlife expectations
- no clear path to a happy life
5. Short-circuits initiative
- expects otherworldly paradise
- fragmentary, ineffective sociology
- blames demonic influences
- suppresses challenges to authorities
What's right with Christianity?
1. Compassion for the oppressed
- helps to lift the burden of misfortune
- seeks ways to relieve afflictions
- refuses to impose prejudice
- adopts the outcast and neglected
2. Mercy for moral lapses
- refuses to judge harshly
- always gives another chance
- offers an education in ethics
- points out root causes
3. Survives imperial domination
- defuses evil by responding with good
- promotes service to others
- encourages cooperation
- builds trustworthy character
4. Sustains hope for a lifetime
- expect rewards in an afterlife
- is not afraid to suffer
- affirms a relationship with divinity
- encourages steadfast faith
5. Develops spiritual growth
- creates a moral perspective
- looks deeper than "the Law"
- seeks the betterment of others
- raises the expectations for humanity
Are there other, neglected questions?
1. Ultimate concerns
- how do we build value in this life?
- finding one's own niche in society
- respect for human rights
- encourage noble achievements
2. Visions of a sustainable future
- can we work in harmony with nature?
- clean up your own mess
- value nature as created beauty
- observe the world's optimum capacity
3. Intentional community & society
- build a married religious community
- a corporate, collective co-op village
- shared responsibilities & rewards
- joint efforts toward advancement
4. Progress in knowledge & technology
- beyond spiritual oversimplification
- science, engineering & mathematics
- astronomy, medicine & ecology
- mechanics, electronics & space
5. How do we encounter other faiths?
- seeking points of agreement
- comparison with similarity
- defusing issues of conflict
- recognizing spiritual aspirations
6. A variety of valid Ideals, not just one
- Truth, Freedom, Love & Wisdom
- competing situational claims
- different balances between cultures
- each demands full respect together
Of course, a similar list of pros and cons could be drawn up for any religion, simply because they are static constructions. Most might even have a few shared good points and problems. This happens as a rule, because Humanity's cultures are continually changing, and yet we still face many of the same challenges.
"The poor you will have with you always." And yet, Daedalus has finally learned to fly. And in the future, we may find solutions, and problems, that are as yet unanticipated.
Wednesday, November 27, 2019
An Archangel's Name
It isn't so easy to find the names of all the archangels. You have to go back into the folk traditions to find them, and not every source will agree with all of the others. Only the first three are actually named in the Bible, as far as I could tell, but there is still a general consensus that there are seven, and some agreement on a loose sense of each one's name. Getting the interpretations came close to guesswork, as I had to use my own understanding to make full sense of what I did find. But these are my best ideas and approximations, except where the traditional stories are clear enough.
Michael - Who is like God?
Gabriel - The Strength of God
Raphael - The Healing of God
Uriel - My Light is of God
Selaphiel - He Prays to God
Jeremiel - The Mercy of God
Zerachiel - The Command of God
also:
Phanuel - He Brings God's Presence
This last one is not a commander, but has an important role as a messenger. He may be next in line if ever called upon, since he is the prototype of the prophet/apostle.
Tradition says that the rebel's name was
Lucifer - A Fiery Zeal for God,
and places him to the left of the Throne, a position of trust and authority, where he stands to accuse us of being unworthy of Heaven. We might wonder why he is still allowed to be there, representing his rebellion and betrayal. But there are really supposed to be eight archangels, as the number seven stands for perfection, but eight is completion.
Zeal (He was the first)
Likeness
Strength
Healing
Light
Prayer
Mercy
Command (Obedience)
These names still represent the ways in which we should relate to God, to show our respect and reverence.
However, we don't call the rebel by his heavenly name these days. Rather, we refer to him as the Accuser, Shaitan, and expect him to be an enemy. Perhaps Lucifer has chosen to call himself Allah, and claims all those who could not discern good from evil. If one can be deceived by temptation, and be willing to practice violence and cruelty in Allah's name, and dare to call that good, then perhaps being an outcast is justice. For in this way, it is revealed who is not worthy, and who knowingly follows the Liar, just because it suits him, and he doesn't have to be so "spiritual."
Then there are those who turn away from what they know is good, and despise their own consciences, refusing to turn back from selfishness and ask God for mercy. They too see the way of the world as cruel and open to those who would take any advantage, and they don't care about the unfortunate and oppressed. They will be surprised to find out that there is more than this one life, and that our choices do have consequences.
But what happens to people who would want to be good, but can't find the strength to follow what their conscience says is right? Perhaps for them the only hope is faith in the Lord, to confess contritely and beg for mercy. Jesus has promised to save all who believe and follow Him. Hopefully, our Lord will be merciful to all who would try to keep a good conscience, who admit their failures, and come in faith to ask for mercy. This might turn out to be the great majority of humanity, especially if God has had a hand in the world's other religions.
And what shall be Lucifer's just due, if he proves his point? What if humans can't be made worthy of Heaven? Is this all merely a test, passing judgment on each age and generation, to see how far we have yet to progress? Will this world continue until Lucifer is satisfied, that finally we have learned, and now we are worthy to be welcomed into the Heavens? Perhaps, it is our capacity to let faith shape our own conscience and character, and to know when we fall short, that is being tested. So our hope in Jesus is all that saves us, and all that we need. When the rebel kneels, and vows obedience, will he not also be forgiven?
Is there some way to fix our minds, or to redirect our wills without taking away our freedom? Would doing that diminish us, or perfect us? Is some brain-machine interface that we can wear possible, to retrain the way we think, and give us access to the powers of faith when we are ready to be truly the children of God?
I might really be willing to wear a cap, or a headband, until I can learn how to live as I should. It would be better than the Devil's alternative, that we should be cast out and destroyed. Especially if we will receive an extension of our lives, instead of harsh judgement. That would be its own kind of justice, but with mercy - a kind of probation.
And maybe I could even forgive Lucifer for playing his part in the winnowing out of those of us who were not willing to admit their faults and receive God's grace. Maybe he was assigned the job, because he doubted that raising humans to become angels would ever work. After all, doubt is not the same as rebellion, is it? It's a tough job, and he does it well. I just wish that what he despises was not so deep in our nature, and so hard for us to overcome.
Michael - Who is like God?
Gabriel - The Strength of God
Raphael - The Healing of God
Uriel - My Light is of God
Selaphiel - He Prays to God
Jeremiel - The Mercy of God
Zerachiel - The Command of God
also:
Phanuel - He Brings God's Presence
This last one is not a commander, but has an important role as a messenger. He may be next in line if ever called upon, since he is the prototype of the prophet/apostle.
Tradition says that the rebel's name was
Lucifer - A Fiery Zeal for God,
and places him to the left of the Throne, a position of trust and authority, where he stands to accuse us of being unworthy of Heaven. We might wonder why he is still allowed to be there, representing his rebellion and betrayal. But there are really supposed to be eight archangels, as the number seven stands for perfection, but eight is completion.
Zeal (He was the first)
Likeness
Strength
Healing
Light
Prayer
Mercy
Command (Obedience)
These names still represent the ways in which we should relate to God, to show our respect and reverence.
However, we don't call the rebel by his heavenly name these days. Rather, we refer to him as the Accuser, Shaitan, and expect him to be an enemy. Perhaps Lucifer has chosen to call himself Allah, and claims all those who could not discern good from evil. If one can be deceived by temptation, and be willing to practice violence and cruelty in Allah's name, and dare to call that good, then perhaps being an outcast is justice. For in this way, it is revealed who is not worthy, and who knowingly follows the Liar, just because it suits him, and he doesn't have to be so "spiritual."
Then there are those who turn away from what they know is good, and despise their own consciences, refusing to turn back from selfishness and ask God for mercy. They too see the way of the world as cruel and open to those who would take any advantage, and they don't care about the unfortunate and oppressed. They will be surprised to find out that there is more than this one life, and that our choices do have consequences.
But what happens to people who would want to be good, but can't find the strength to follow what their conscience says is right? Perhaps for them the only hope is faith in the Lord, to confess contritely and beg for mercy. Jesus has promised to save all who believe and follow Him. Hopefully, our Lord will be merciful to all who would try to keep a good conscience, who admit their failures, and come in faith to ask for mercy. This might turn out to be the great majority of humanity, especially if God has had a hand in the world's other religions.
And what shall be Lucifer's just due, if he proves his point? What if humans can't be made worthy of Heaven? Is this all merely a test, passing judgment on each age and generation, to see how far we have yet to progress? Will this world continue until Lucifer is satisfied, that finally we have learned, and now we are worthy to be welcomed into the Heavens? Perhaps, it is our capacity to let faith shape our own conscience and character, and to know when we fall short, that is being tested. So our hope in Jesus is all that saves us, and all that we need. When the rebel kneels, and vows obedience, will he not also be forgiven?
Is there some way to fix our minds, or to redirect our wills without taking away our freedom? Would doing that diminish us, or perfect us? Is some brain-machine interface that we can wear possible, to retrain the way we think, and give us access to the powers of faith when we are ready to be truly the children of God?
I might really be willing to wear a cap, or a headband, until I can learn how to live as I should. It would be better than the Devil's alternative, that we should be cast out and destroyed. Especially if we will receive an extension of our lives, instead of harsh judgement. That would be its own kind of justice, but with mercy - a kind of probation.
And maybe I could even forgive Lucifer for playing his part in the winnowing out of those of us who were not willing to admit their faults and receive God's grace. Maybe he was assigned the job, because he doubted that raising humans to become angels would ever work. After all, doubt is not the same as rebellion, is it? It's a tough job, and he does it well. I just wish that what he despises was not so deep in our nature, and so hard for us to overcome.
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
"Freely Given" - Food with a Conscience
God promises us an abundance of blessings, bestowed upon us by his loving grace, and one of the greatest blessings that we receive is the food we eat on a daily basis. Yes, we do work for it, but is there really a necessity that we should kill for it? Even when we raise animals for food, there is often an intermediate step to harvest before the creatures have to be killed. We raise chickens for eggs, and cows for milk, don't we? Many of the animals we raise offer us some benefits, freely without complaint, before being led to the slaughter.
Yet we should think and consider, if we keep them healthy enough, could we not let them live out the better portion of their lives, before we give them a clean death without suffering? They should not suffer as slaves, in a cage fearing their doom. But neither would anyone want to live with a crippling chronic disease until some catastrophic organ failure. We know when it is a mercy to put down a valuable race horse, or a beloved pet. An animal values its life for its own sake as much as we do. But it probably also knows that there is a reason for it to be raised in captivity. It deserves a proper quality of life, before we claim its final purpose. Economics should not be our primary interest, but gratitude and compassion.
There are also various "products" which are inevitable without regard for when the creature dies. A cow will give its hide, hooves and bones, whether we kill it or not. And a goose will give its feathers. There is no need to rush the issue. These are merely representative examples, from what could become a really long list.
But mostly, "freely given" food is a reference to eating lightly from the land, and low on the food chain. Vegetables and fruits, nuts and beans, herbs and honey, even flowers or fungi that we may grow or recognize along the wayside ... these are all examples of food "freely given" and available for our use and sustenance. And many plants can be harvested without killing them, by taking the fruit, leaves or seeds.
The Earth is a garden, and we were put here to tend and till it. We are its stewards and we must keep and replenish the land, so that we may take our support and sustenance from it. It is a shame that we had forgotten the wisdom of ecology for so many millennia, since we began building cities, but we have recalled it now. And so we remember that the care and mercy with which we guard the landscape and the creatures it harbors, even as we reap the resources we need, renews the bounty that we receive and in which we share.
So, what is "freely given" food? We can begin with the principles of vegetarian simplicity, and go from there. If it is an edible plant growing in a garden, it is fair to eat. What we cultivate is encouraged to proliferate, probably beyond its natural range. If you find it growing in the wild, maybe you don't want to gather too much, as it might stress the community trying to grow there. But if you truly have a "green thumb," you might feel free to collect a few living plants to transplant into a garden or some spot where you think they will flourish.
Be concerned for the survival and spread of any species that you want to use. If it will help you, then you can help it in turn, like planting an acorn or seedlings each time you cut an oak tree. There is a great variety of foods to be gathered from the vegetable kingdom, and a few more among the fungi, that are good to eat. And yes, strict vegetarians can get all the nutrients they need from those sources alone. A well balanced vegetarian diet can be sufficient and healthy for anyone to live with.
But the animals can and do contribute their share to support us as we watch over the lands in our care. We domesticated sheep for wool, and goats for milk, chickens for eggs, and geese for downy feathers. And skins can be removed for leather when the beasts die, if we need it. We need not be ashamed to use them for ourselves, as they have benefited from our husbandry and care, and become far more numerous and widespread than their wild ancestors could have been.
But we are not licensed to abuse them, or treat them like mindless products in an assembly line. They deserve a dignified life, each according to its kind. And if we have good and reasonable alternatives to use, instead of callously stripping their bodies for resources, let us be merciful to respect their dignity in death as well. Soybeans and seaweed are not the only complete proteins we can use to substitute for meat.
For example, we can use hemp, flax and cotton for fabrics, and to make belts and straps instead of leather, unless real leather is more useful for a particular application. It is unlikely that the quality of leather needed would be any better served by killing an immature animal, than by taking a skin after an older animal has died. It serves its purpose in its own time, and has its own right to live, even though we have raised it.
If we want to stand on religious grounds to justify what we should choose to eat, the prescriptions for kosher foods would be perfectly acceptable. And the laws of kashruth allow an even wider leeway of choice, including a few insects for times of famine, if necessary. Kosher foods also include certain fishes and seafood, which we can "farm," husbanding and harvesting from the sea, the same as we do from the land. But again, we must consider mercy and dignity. Remember that there are laws concerning the merciful and painless slaughter of animals for meat, and that consuming the blood is forbidden. Of course, there are health reasons for being circumspect about that as well.
If you are going to use kashruth as your standard, then use the whole thing, as far as you are able to understand. You may object, the prohibitions about mixing meat and milk are fine for orthodox Jews, but the Torah's wording of the law is peculiar and essentially incomprehensible. It probably refers to some act of idolatrous sacrifice and feast. In that context, it is clearly forbidden, but irrelevant today. But the caveat to "avoid taking both the hen and her eggs" is clear enough, as we should have a care for a species' survival.
So, we basically have two standards for choosing what to eat, according to our conscience and according to religious beliefs, and both recognize the need to be good stewards of the earth and merciful to the creatures living upon it. If you don't want to try too hard to think about it, and both standards are in place, it shouldn't be a strain to flip back and forth, and still be sure that mercy and dignity have been served. And yet, by neither standard can we justify raising swine or mollusks for food, especially considering their health risks.
Ecological concerns are incumbent upon all of us today, because we are quite close to the carrying capacity of our planet. And we do well to remember kind, humane practices in dealing with our livestock, because keeping a clear conscience is relevant to our own spiritual health and well-being, whichever faith we may subscribe to. Let us not abuse our place as the dominant species on Earth, and pay the shameful price of ultimately impoverishing the planet we depend on.
Yet we should think and consider, if we keep them healthy enough, could we not let them live out the better portion of their lives, before we give them a clean death without suffering? They should not suffer as slaves, in a cage fearing their doom. But neither would anyone want to live with a crippling chronic disease until some catastrophic organ failure. We know when it is a mercy to put down a valuable race horse, or a beloved pet. An animal values its life for its own sake as much as we do. But it probably also knows that there is a reason for it to be raised in captivity. It deserves a proper quality of life, before we claim its final purpose. Economics should not be our primary interest, but gratitude and compassion.
There are also various "products" which are inevitable without regard for when the creature dies. A cow will give its hide, hooves and bones, whether we kill it or not. And a goose will give its feathers. There is no need to rush the issue. These are merely representative examples, from what could become a really long list.
But mostly, "freely given" food is a reference to eating lightly from the land, and low on the food chain. Vegetables and fruits, nuts and beans, herbs and honey, even flowers or fungi that we may grow or recognize along the wayside ... these are all examples of food "freely given" and available for our use and sustenance. And many plants can be harvested without killing them, by taking the fruit, leaves or seeds.
The Earth is a garden, and we were put here to tend and till it. We are its stewards and we must keep and replenish the land, so that we may take our support and sustenance from it. It is a shame that we had forgotten the wisdom of ecology for so many millennia, since we began building cities, but we have recalled it now. And so we remember that the care and mercy with which we guard the landscape and the creatures it harbors, even as we reap the resources we need, renews the bounty that we receive and in which we share.
So, what is "freely given" food? We can begin with the principles of vegetarian simplicity, and go from there. If it is an edible plant growing in a garden, it is fair to eat. What we cultivate is encouraged to proliferate, probably beyond its natural range. If you find it growing in the wild, maybe you don't want to gather too much, as it might stress the community trying to grow there. But if you truly have a "green thumb," you might feel free to collect a few living plants to transplant into a garden or some spot where you think they will flourish.
Be concerned for the survival and spread of any species that you want to use. If it will help you, then you can help it in turn, like planting an acorn or seedlings each time you cut an oak tree. There is a great variety of foods to be gathered from the vegetable kingdom, and a few more among the fungi, that are good to eat. And yes, strict vegetarians can get all the nutrients they need from those sources alone. A well balanced vegetarian diet can be sufficient and healthy for anyone to live with.
But the animals can and do contribute their share to support us as we watch over the lands in our care. We domesticated sheep for wool, and goats for milk, chickens for eggs, and geese for downy feathers. And skins can be removed for leather when the beasts die, if we need it. We need not be ashamed to use them for ourselves, as they have benefited from our husbandry and care, and become far more numerous and widespread than their wild ancestors could have been.
But we are not licensed to abuse them, or treat them like mindless products in an assembly line. They deserve a dignified life, each according to its kind. And if we have good and reasonable alternatives to use, instead of callously stripping their bodies for resources, let us be merciful to respect their dignity in death as well. Soybeans and seaweed are not the only complete proteins we can use to substitute for meat.
For example, we can use hemp, flax and cotton for fabrics, and to make belts and straps instead of leather, unless real leather is more useful for a particular application. It is unlikely that the quality of leather needed would be any better served by killing an immature animal, than by taking a skin after an older animal has died. It serves its purpose in its own time, and has its own right to live, even though we have raised it.
If we want to stand on religious grounds to justify what we should choose to eat, the prescriptions for kosher foods would be perfectly acceptable. And the laws of kashruth allow an even wider leeway of choice, including a few insects for times of famine, if necessary. Kosher foods also include certain fishes and seafood, which we can "farm," husbanding and harvesting from the sea, the same as we do from the land. But again, we must consider mercy and dignity. Remember that there are laws concerning the merciful and painless slaughter of animals for meat, and that consuming the blood is forbidden. Of course, there are health reasons for being circumspect about that as well.
If you are going to use kashruth as your standard, then use the whole thing, as far as you are able to understand. You may object, the prohibitions about mixing meat and milk are fine for orthodox Jews, but the Torah's wording of the law is peculiar and essentially incomprehensible. It probably refers to some act of idolatrous sacrifice and feast. In that context, it is clearly forbidden, but irrelevant today. But the caveat to "avoid taking both the hen and her eggs" is clear enough, as we should have a care for a species' survival.
So, we basically have two standards for choosing what to eat, according to our conscience and according to religious beliefs, and both recognize the need to be good stewards of the earth and merciful to the creatures living upon it. If you don't want to try too hard to think about it, and both standards are in place, it shouldn't be a strain to flip back and forth, and still be sure that mercy and dignity have been served. And yet, by neither standard can we justify raising swine or mollusks for food, especially considering their health risks.
Ecological concerns are incumbent upon all of us today, because we are quite close to the carrying capacity of our planet. And we do well to remember kind, humane practices in dealing with our livestock, because keeping a clear conscience is relevant to our own spiritual health and well-being, whichever faith we may subscribe to. Let us not abuse our place as the dominant species on Earth, and pay the shameful price of ultimately impoverishing the planet we depend on.
Thursday, November 7, 2019
Teleological Theory of the Origin of Life
The Scientific Argument for the necessary existence of God: Life requires intentional intervention in order to begin.
1. simple life can't happen by accident.
- it's too complex to fall together.
- organic chemistry only goes so far.
2. amino acids never assemble proteins.
- no experiments observe spontaneity.
- scientists have to make them connect.
3. DNA is not just random information.
- it is a code with an aim to follow.
- it is capable to reproduce itself.
4. several things have to happen together.
- cell walls, RNA/DNA, energy, food, etc.
- separately they would crumble.
5. you also need ideal conditions.
- these structures are fragile.
- weather, Ph balance, waves, heat, etc.
6. the odds are too long for this to happen.
- not in a finite time in a finite universe.
- like winning the lottery a dozen times.
7. It requires an intentional intervention.
- designing it into potential.
- activating that potential into action.
So once again, we have the teleological argument, but this time in depth. We can already see how everything works, just like a clock, following universal mathematical laws. The whole universe had to be created just so that life could emerge, with all of the necessary physical constants. And still, it must be tweaked to make life happen. So then, what are the chances for intelligence to evolve into a being capable of self-consciousness and faith ... and science?! You need an intelligent designer just to try to explain how we can exist to ask the question of how we got here.
It's not an entirely circular argument, but the end is set up in the original definition -- "it can't happen by accident." Long odds, and we can't do it. Plus, Chemistry doesn't assemble itself. High orders of information and simultaneous assembly. Etc., etc. It's a pretty good argument.
But, it's not compelling if I stubbornly insist on disbelief. Still, God doesn't want to force us to believe. He gave us free will, probably for a reason. What do you think?
It's a sufficient answer to the problem of Fermi's Paradox at the very least:
1. Rare Earth
2. Rare Life
3. Rare Intelligence
4. Rare Technology
5. Rare Wisdom
How many times have we already won the lottery? And we are still not "out there" yet! Anyone else who may have won all five of these is incredibly lucky, or chosen, and they may not even be existing at the same time, or where we could ever see them. So, sorry to say, we are probably alone.
1. simple life can't happen by accident.
- it's too complex to fall together.
- organic chemistry only goes so far.
2. amino acids never assemble proteins.
- no experiments observe spontaneity.
- scientists have to make them connect.
3. DNA is not just random information.
- it is a code with an aim to follow.
- it is capable to reproduce itself.
4. several things have to happen together.
- cell walls, RNA/DNA, energy, food, etc.
- separately they would crumble.
5. you also need ideal conditions.
- these structures are fragile.
- weather, Ph balance, waves, heat, etc.
6. the odds are too long for this to happen.
- not in a finite time in a finite universe.
- like winning the lottery a dozen times.
7. It requires an intentional intervention.
- designing it into potential.
- activating that potential into action.
So once again, we have the teleological argument, but this time in depth. We can already see how everything works, just like a clock, following universal mathematical laws. The whole universe had to be created just so that life could emerge, with all of the necessary physical constants. And still, it must be tweaked to make life happen. So then, what are the chances for intelligence to evolve into a being capable of self-consciousness and faith ... and science?! You need an intelligent designer just to try to explain how we can exist to ask the question of how we got here.
It's not an entirely circular argument, but the end is set up in the original definition -- "it can't happen by accident." Long odds, and we can't do it. Plus, Chemistry doesn't assemble itself. High orders of information and simultaneous assembly. Etc., etc. It's a pretty good argument.
But, it's not compelling if I stubbornly insist on disbelief. Still, God doesn't want to force us to believe. He gave us free will, probably for a reason. What do you think?
It's a sufficient answer to the problem of Fermi's Paradox at the very least:
1. Rare Earth
2. Rare Life
3. Rare Intelligence
4. Rare Technology
5. Rare Wisdom
How many times have we already won the lottery? And we are still not "out there" yet! Anyone else who may have won all five of these is incredibly lucky, or chosen, and they may not even be existing at the same time, or where we could ever see them. So, sorry to say, we are probably alone.
Thursday, October 31, 2019
An Epitome of Evil: Crimes against Humanity
We are involved in a civil war that started in the heights of Heaven. And we are both, the participants and the prize. The forces of Good and Evil are arrayed on either side, each trying to prove that their perspective of humanity is the correct one. Our response may determine who is right.
Ever since the ancient prophet Zarathustra recognized the inherent duality in the human psyche, we have been obliged to make a choice of Whom we shall follow. Do we trust the directives of the God of Light, who created and sustains us, or listen to the temptations of the Dark Enemy, who seeks our downfall and destruction?
Hate vs. Love
diabolical, the one who scatters
Slavery vs. Freedom
captor, the one who ensnares
Lies vs. Truth
satanic, the one who accuses
Foolishness vs. Wisdom
misleader, the one who betrays
Death vs. Life
murderer, the one who violates
Part 1.
What is Evil: (the Opposition)
These are the tactics of the Devil.
1. Cruelty - intending to inflict pain or harm on another, simply to cause suffering, without regard for benefit.
2. Spite - malicious ill will, vindictive, seeking to repeatedly torment one's victim.
3. Unreason - illogical, irrational, excessively demanding, disregarding risk.
4. Apathy - indifferent, unfeeling, lacking care or concern for others.
5. Selfishness - concern only to fill one's own wants and desires, without regard for the needs or concerns of others.
6. Destruction - acting rashly, without regard for the preservation of value, damaging.
7. Violence - performing acts to cause pain, bodily harm or damage to personal property, especially for coercion.
8. Frightening - threatening violence, exposure to danger, or extreme stress leading to panic, confusion or submission.
9. Deceit - an intent to persuade or influence another by presenting false promises, bad advice, wrong information or confusing situations, so as to mislead, or cause unwise and mistaken responses.
10. Vengeful - seeking to respond to personal loss by causing reciprocal harm to another.
11. Pandering - offering to serve the basic bodily or psychological desires of someone, in a fashion likely to cause vice or addiction.
12. Alluring - seeking to attract another for purposes of taking immoral advantage.
13. Temptation - presenting a suggestion or situation likely to draw a response from one's victim that follows his/her fleshly, animal nature; encouraging one to indulge in a sinful act.
Seven Deadly Sins: Lust, Greed, Gluttony,
Pride, Sloth, Wrath, Envy
Part 2.
Who is the Devil?
A Rebel Against God, and the Enemy of Humanity. The angelic being who protests that humanity is not, and never shall be worthy of Heaven. Also known as Shaitan, Thuggee and Ahriman.
The Devil was once an archangel known as Lucifer, meaning, the Light of Fiery Zeal for God. He was a trusted servant of God before the "Great Rebellion and Fall" from Heaven. As a close adviser, he shared in discussions and plans, even acting as Viceroy, delegated in some cases with the power to decide the fates of nations on other worlds. But he eventually gained so much in influence that he began to think himself the equal of the One True King. Thus he was deeply offended when his advice was disregarded, and God decided to uplift the apes on Earth to create humans. That was six million years ago.
In an attempt to thwart the gradual process of raising our chimp-like ancestors through the several intermediate steps toward full humanity, Lucifer determined to interfere. At each step in transforming the genome, he arranged that bits of our former animal nature would be left in, especially those which strengthened the propensity for violence or sexual excess. We still see those today in the two species of chimpanzees. And in the process of raising our meager intelligence, and then domesticating the few breeds that improved, he insinuated an even stronger impulse for selfishness. But his cleverness was eventually revealed, and he was denounced as an Enemy. Still, the damage was done, and our emergence from the state of natural bliss was marred by a consciousness of sin.
As the latest breeds of our now human ancestors spread across the world, we tried to retain a semblance of living with nature as we always had. Our stone and bone and wooden tools, and our knowledge of how to transform our environment to suit our needs, were generally adequate ... until the catastrophe struck. And then the whole world changed. Many of our people, around the world, died of cold or starvation, and whole communities were cut off from each other. In our efforts to survive, we had to turn to actually cultivating the earth to produce our food. Then we had to gather and defend it from beasts and bandits, so we built cities. The rest is known.
In time, humans began to realize how powers greater than nature were subtly influencing them. They began to tell stories about gods, placing humane or monstrous personalities in a parallel spirit world. Eventually, by the practice of meditation and the occasional use of psychedelic drugs, they discovered that they might learn to open their minds to speak with those powerful beings. Thus emerged the role of prophet.
Zarathustra was one of the first prophets to learn of the War in Heaven, of the two forces contesting whether humanity will ever be allowed to enter into Heaven. The good says that we can overcome sin, while the bad says that we will never be good enough. Our part in this is to show which side is right.
The prophets through the ages have tried to clarify this situation by bringing us the message entrusted to them by God. After Zarathustra, then Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Then Moses and the prophets of the Bible. Then Jesus brought us the word directly, in Himself, to tell us about the plan of God's salvation and forgiveness, and begin the transformation of the world through us.
Part 3. Our Victory
Christ, by his sacrifice and resurrection, has conquered the powers of evil. Up until His self-sacrifice, we were under the power of Satan's lies. We were captive to the idea that there is no way for us to be free of sin, and that we are already condemned for it. The argument stood on the grounds that we are merely smart animals, flawed from birth - too selfish, violent and lustful to be able to be transformed into good citizens of Heaven, and that our nature cannot be overcome. But the God of Light sent his Son, miraculously born to a human mother, to take on a human nature and human flesh and prove that we are redeemable. By His power and example, we know that we are no longer subjected to the chains of sin and Satan's claim upon our souls.
We now can claim victory over them, but first, we have to believe the good news, and give our allegiance to Jesus Christ as the Son of God. We must read the Gospels, to hear and understand his teachings, and be stirred to faith. We must decide to believe in Him.
I'm going to sound "preachy" here for a moment (as if I don't already). You need to repent of the "worldly ways" that we all pursue when we don't understand, when we think it's the way to "get ahead." Then find a church and be baptized, pray and receive the sacraments. In this way we treat the wounds inflicted by the evil in this world.
Then it becomes our task to become transformed by the renewal of our minds, avoiding darkness and temptation, and contemplating things of the light. By continual prayer and occasional fasting, we can discipline ourselves and train our characters to follow God's grace and strive for virtue and holiness. We must make it a habit to try to be continually aware of His Presence, dwelling with us, speaking silently to our hearts, prompting us to acts of mercy, kindness and service.
Thus we defy the Enemy who seeks our ruin. We stand armed with the battle gear of Faith, the sword of scripture in hand, girded with our helmet, breastplate, shield and boots, ready to withstand his attacks, and call for the aid of heavenly hosts whenever needed. (Galatians)
When we know his tactics, the Enemy can not surprise us. He tries to trip us into making the mistake of falling short of our Lord's expectations, distracting us from His direction and prompting. The Enemy puts roadblocks, and ferociously attacks us when we are most vulnerable, trying to force us from the path of faith. But if we can stand firm, and disengage from these troublesome temptations, we can find refuge in prayer and meditation.
For our own part, we should work to be of service to those people whom the Lord has put in our lives. The more we can be helpful, and show the way, how God has influenced our character, then they too will become open to that influence in their own lives.
This is the battle of Good against Evil, retaking the ground lost, claiming again and again the victory and changing the world, one person at a time. We start with ourselves.
Ever since the ancient prophet Zarathustra recognized the inherent duality in the human psyche, we have been obliged to make a choice of Whom we shall follow. Do we trust the directives of the God of Light, who created and sustains us, or listen to the temptations of the Dark Enemy, who seeks our downfall and destruction?
Hate vs. Love
diabolical, the one who scatters
Slavery vs. Freedom
captor, the one who ensnares
Lies vs. Truth
satanic, the one who accuses
Foolishness vs. Wisdom
misleader, the one who betrays
Death vs. Life
murderer, the one who violates
Part 1.
What is Evil: (the Opposition)
These are the tactics of the Devil.
1. Cruelty - intending to inflict pain or harm on another, simply to cause suffering, without regard for benefit.
2. Spite - malicious ill will, vindictive, seeking to repeatedly torment one's victim.
3. Unreason - illogical, irrational, excessively demanding, disregarding risk.
4. Apathy - indifferent, unfeeling, lacking care or concern for others.
5. Selfishness - concern only to fill one's own wants and desires, without regard for the needs or concerns of others.
6. Destruction - acting rashly, without regard for the preservation of value, damaging.
7. Violence - performing acts to cause pain, bodily harm or damage to personal property, especially for coercion.
8. Frightening - threatening violence, exposure to danger, or extreme stress leading to panic, confusion or submission.
9. Deceit - an intent to persuade or influence another by presenting false promises, bad advice, wrong information or confusing situations, so as to mislead, or cause unwise and mistaken responses.
10. Vengeful - seeking to respond to personal loss by causing reciprocal harm to another.
11. Pandering - offering to serve the basic bodily or psychological desires of someone, in a fashion likely to cause vice or addiction.
12. Alluring - seeking to attract another for purposes of taking immoral advantage.
13. Temptation - presenting a suggestion or situation likely to draw a response from one's victim that follows his/her fleshly, animal nature; encouraging one to indulge in a sinful act.
Seven Deadly Sins: Lust, Greed, Gluttony,
Pride, Sloth, Wrath, Envy
Part 2.
Who is the Devil?
A Rebel Against God, and the Enemy of Humanity. The angelic being who protests that humanity is not, and never shall be worthy of Heaven. Also known as Shaitan, Thuggee and Ahriman.
The Devil was once an archangel known as Lucifer, meaning, the Light of Fiery Zeal for God. He was a trusted servant of God before the "Great Rebellion and Fall" from Heaven. As a close adviser, he shared in discussions and plans, even acting as Viceroy, delegated in some cases with the power to decide the fates of nations on other worlds. But he eventually gained so much in influence that he began to think himself the equal of the One True King. Thus he was deeply offended when his advice was disregarded, and God decided to uplift the apes on Earth to create humans. That was six million years ago.
In an attempt to thwart the gradual process of raising our chimp-like ancestors through the several intermediate steps toward full humanity, Lucifer determined to interfere. At each step in transforming the genome, he arranged that bits of our former animal nature would be left in, especially those which strengthened the propensity for violence or sexual excess. We still see those today in the two species of chimpanzees. And in the process of raising our meager intelligence, and then domesticating the few breeds that improved, he insinuated an even stronger impulse for selfishness. But his cleverness was eventually revealed, and he was denounced as an Enemy. Still, the damage was done, and our emergence from the state of natural bliss was marred by a consciousness of sin.
As the latest breeds of our now human ancestors spread across the world, we tried to retain a semblance of living with nature as we always had. Our stone and bone and wooden tools, and our knowledge of how to transform our environment to suit our needs, were generally adequate ... until the catastrophe struck. And then the whole world changed. Many of our people, around the world, died of cold or starvation, and whole communities were cut off from each other. In our efforts to survive, we had to turn to actually cultivating the earth to produce our food. Then we had to gather and defend it from beasts and bandits, so we built cities. The rest is known.
In time, humans began to realize how powers greater than nature were subtly influencing them. They began to tell stories about gods, placing humane or monstrous personalities in a parallel spirit world. Eventually, by the practice of meditation and the occasional use of psychedelic drugs, they discovered that they might learn to open their minds to speak with those powerful beings. Thus emerged the role of prophet.
Zarathustra was one of the first prophets to learn of the War in Heaven, of the two forces contesting whether humanity will ever be allowed to enter into Heaven. The good says that we can overcome sin, while the bad says that we will never be good enough. Our part in this is to show which side is right.
The prophets through the ages have tried to clarify this situation by bringing us the message entrusted to them by God. After Zarathustra, then Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Then Moses and the prophets of the Bible. Then Jesus brought us the word directly, in Himself, to tell us about the plan of God's salvation and forgiveness, and begin the transformation of the world through us.
Part 3. Our Victory
Christ, by his sacrifice and resurrection, has conquered the powers of evil. Up until His self-sacrifice, we were under the power of Satan's lies. We were captive to the idea that there is no way for us to be free of sin, and that we are already condemned for it. The argument stood on the grounds that we are merely smart animals, flawed from birth - too selfish, violent and lustful to be able to be transformed into good citizens of Heaven, and that our nature cannot be overcome. But the God of Light sent his Son, miraculously born to a human mother, to take on a human nature and human flesh and prove that we are redeemable. By His power and example, we know that we are no longer subjected to the chains of sin and Satan's claim upon our souls.
We now can claim victory over them, but first, we have to believe the good news, and give our allegiance to Jesus Christ as the Son of God. We must read the Gospels, to hear and understand his teachings, and be stirred to faith. We must decide to believe in Him.
I'm going to sound "preachy" here for a moment (as if I don't already). You need to repent of the "worldly ways" that we all pursue when we don't understand, when we think it's the way to "get ahead." Then find a church and be baptized, pray and receive the sacraments. In this way we treat the wounds inflicted by the evil in this world.
Then it becomes our task to become transformed by the renewal of our minds, avoiding darkness and temptation, and contemplating things of the light. By continual prayer and occasional fasting, we can discipline ourselves and train our characters to follow God's grace and strive for virtue and holiness. We must make it a habit to try to be continually aware of His Presence, dwelling with us, speaking silently to our hearts, prompting us to acts of mercy, kindness and service.
Thus we defy the Enemy who seeks our ruin. We stand armed with the battle gear of Faith, the sword of scripture in hand, girded with our helmet, breastplate, shield and boots, ready to withstand his attacks, and call for the aid of heavenly hosts whenever needed. (Galatians)
When we know his tactics, the Enemy can not surprise us. He tries to trip us into making the mistake of falling short of our Lord's expectations, distracting us from His direction and prompting. The Enemy puts roadblocks, and ferociously attacks us when we are most vulnerable, trying to force us from the path of faith. But if we can stand firm, and disengage from these troublesome temptations, we can find refuge in prayer and meditation.
For our own part, we should work to be of service to those people whom the Lord has put in our lives. The more we can be helpful, and show the way, how God has influenced our character, then they too will become open to that influence in their own lives.
This is the battle of Good against Evil, retaking the ground lost, claiming again and again the victory and changing the world, one person at a time. We start with ourselves.
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
The Landing Protocol
When we humans finally get free of our confinement to Earth and its nearby orbital space, of course we will be setting our sights on other obvious destinations. We naturally think that a place must be designated by some object, and the larger the better, since bigger objects are more easily seen. So, we have paid the most attention to traveling to our Moon, or to Mars. Yes, we also send probes to Venus and Jupiter, and the rest -- but notice that we have a bias: planets, big ones! Moons are nice, but we go there because of the planets. Indeed, even the "minor planets" got delayed interest, despite the fact that they were easy enough to reach. True, it took years to get to Pluto, but anywhere in the solar system is likely to take years to reach. The Dawn mission to Ceres and Vesta needed the added interest of a special ion propulsion engine, and a double rendezvous to make it a prioritized project.
But really, the moons and asteroids, along with the minor planets, are where the actual expansion of humanity into space is going to happen. Those are where we will learn how to gather resources and live in space. Humanity needs "earthlike" conditions in order to thrive -- gravity, day length, soils for growing plants, protection from radiation, etc. Even Mars is not going to fit the bill well enough. So, we will have to undertake massive construction projects to create benign habitats for our future colonization goals anywhere we want to go. Thus the question arises: why would we want to go back down into a gravity well after we have spent so much effort to get out of one? Yes, Mars may have all of the resources that we need to build a technological civilization in space, but so do the smaller bodies out there.
We still have a lot to learn about living in space. We have barely scratched the surface. And we know almost nothing about gathering and refining resources in situ beyond the Earth. While it is true that even the Moon's gravity is probably too low for people to live there permanently and raise families, we don't know if Mars is adequate either. Maybe Venus, ... okay, probably Venus, but trying to fix everything else that's wrong with it will delay our efforts there perhaps indefinitely. Mars may be worth a try, at least until we learn how resource extraction can work there. But raising those resources up to orbit will still require a major effort.
We can prove out the same technology working on the Moon. We can also build rotating habitats in Lunar orbit from lunar materials. And we can do this by remote teleoperation, with rotating maintenance schedules on the surface to supervise the mining operations. We can do all of this without having to go millions of miles and many months away from any assistance from Earth. And what we learn closer to home can still be applied on Mars, and out in the Asteroids and beyond.
In particular, learning to mine the Moon for metals, oxygen and fuel, so that we can build a livable outpost on the surface will allow prospectors to explore the craters and lava tubes for a wider variety of resources. Extended habitability will allow us to refine materials and build factories there. Then we can prefabricate a few types of basic materials and modules and launch them by magnetic railway, for use in constructing a rotating space station. This too, would become a permanent workplace with a rotating crew of hundreds. A second one could be used as a large shuttle to go to Mars, back and forth, to begin work there too. Eventually, we could take on the really huge projects of building O'Neill Cylinder colonies. At each step, we will learn something crucial to our future plans to move out into the solar system.
As soon as we reach the point where we build space stations, and have jobs that need skilled workers, either on the Moon or in orbit, the economics will become self-sustaining, as lots of people will want to go. But our space programs until then will have to be aggressively funded and supported by governments and large corporations. The cost may rival the military budget of a nascent superpower, but with the verbal and moral support of the citizens here on the ground. We will do what we can to help with funding, but we don't expect profit-minded investors to build this from scratch. The return on investment might be too slow. But lots of people would buy a home in space, if jobs were available too. At that point, migrating to Mars, or the asteroid belt, will be just another assignment. The frontier will be open to the new wagon trains.
So then, where will we go? To Mars, of course! But also to the Asteroids, big and small, and to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, to Venus to live in the cloud-tops, and anywhere else we may choose.
Eventually, we will learn enough about living in closed ecosystems aboard our rotating habitats that we may decide to try an interstellar voyage. Hopefully, we may have the capability to fly at more than a few percent of the speed of light. A hundred years would be a really long trip, but we would already be accustomed to living in habitats our whole lives. And when we get there, we probably won't have the planetary bias that we are starting out with. We'll know that resources are better found in bite-sized chunks, and minor planets are big enough.
Plus, if we have already found life that doesn't originate on Earth, we may know to be wary of earth-like planets in their own habitable zones. Any truly alien life forms probably won't be compatible with our own biology. The chances of accidental cross-contamination are just too great, and the consequences likely fatal, including the risk of contagion. So any interstellar colonists would be wise to avoid medium-sized, warm and wet planets, and stick to the moons, minor planets, asteroids and comets. Staking a claim on a Mercury size planet, and a few moons is easy enough, and if you use them up building lots of habitat ships, you can move on. Nomadic lifestyles have been common in our early history, and there is nothing wrong with repeating that.
Which brings me at last to the Title given for this post. The Landing Protocol. If future colonists really want to try to build a new world on an "earth-like" planet, they had better hope that there is no previous life inhabiting it. First, if there is anything more advanced than microbes extant, it would be unethical and immoral to usurp their planet and prevent them from ever evolving intelligence and technology. Secondly, even the microbes would likely be inimical to terran life, which would be at a definite disadvantage from not having evolved there. Only a truly sterile planet would be a safe bet for colonizing. And it's hard to prove a negative. How do you know "there are no bugs" for certain?
So they are faced with a hard choice. To make landfall, or not. If you want to go down, are you willing to accept the equivalent of a life-long prison sentence? Your choice will be permanent. No one who goes down will ever come back. They will either succeed and live down there, or they will die there. Of course, they won't be isolated without any help. Supplies can be dropped, but it likely won't be trade in any real sense. Anything from the planet must be assumed to be contaminated, at least until the new world is fully certified to be completely SAFE. And who knows how long that might take?
It's a fool's gamble. You might get lucky, or you might die. Are you really so dissatisfied with life in your ship? No one is forcing you to go, unless of course, it's going to be a prison colony. And then ... NO. You are not coming back.
So we are not looking for earth-like planets. We want smaller worlds that are not likely to be suitable for the origin of life. The only planets that are good for anything are gas giants, where we can refill our fuel tanks, and which usually have a retinue of small moons and irregular rocks. There we can park our ships in orbit, swap people between ships for the sake of genetic diversity, and replenish our feedstocks with all the elements we may need to repair and upgrade the ships. Then, we can ask, "do we stay awhile, or go forward to the next star down the line?" Nor do we all have to agree on the same choice. We will be free.
But really, the moons and asteroids, along with the minor planets, are where the actual expansion of humanity into space is going to happen. Those are where we will learn how to gather resources and live in space. Humanity needs "earthlike" conditions in order to thrive -- gravity, day length, soils for growing plants, protection from radiation, etc. Even Mars is not going to fit the bill well enough. So, we will have to undertake massive construction projects to create benign habitats for our future colonization goals anywhere we want to go. Thus the question arises: why would we want to go back down into a gravity well after we have spent so much effort to get out of one? Yes, Mars may have all of the resources that we need to build a technological civilization in space, but so do the smaller bodies out there.
We still have a lot to learn about living in space. We have barely scratched the surface. And we know almost nothing about gathering and refining resources in situ beyond the Earth. While it is true that even the Moon's gravity is probably too low for people to live there permanently and raise families, we don't know if Mars is adequate either. Maybe Venus, ... okay, probably Venus, but trying to fix everything else that's wrong with it will delay our efforts there perhaps indefinitely. Mars may be worth a try, at least until we learn how resource extraction can work there. But raising those resources up to orbit will still require a major effort.
We can prove out the same technology working on the Moon. We can also build rotating habitats in Lunar orbit from lunar materials. And we can do this by remote teleoperation, with rotating maintenance schedules on the surface to supervise the mining operations. We can do all of this without having to go millions of miles and many months away from any assistance from Earth. And what we learn closer to home can still be applied on Mars, and out in the Asteroids and beyond.
In particular, learning to mine the Moon for metals, oxygen and fuel, so that we can build a livable outpost on the surface will allow prospectors to explore the craters and lava tubes for a wider variety of resources. Extended habitability will allow us to refine materials and build factories there. Then we can prefabricate a few types of basic materials and modules and launch them by magnetic railway, for use in constructing a rotating space station. This too, would become a permanent workplace with a rotating crew of hundreds. A second one could be used as a large shuttle to go to Mars, back and forth, to begin work there too. Eventually, we could take on the really huge projects of building O'Neill Cylinder colonies. At each step, we will learn something crucial to our future plans to move out into the solar system.
As soon as we reach the point where we build space stations, and have jobs that need skilled workers, either on the Moon or in orbit, the economics will become self-sustaining, as lots of people will want to go. But our space programs until then will have to be aggressively funded and supported by governments and large corporations. The cost may rival the military budget of a nascent superpower, but with the verbal and moral support of the citizens here on the ground. We will do what we can to help with funding, but we don't expect profit-minded investors to build this from scratch. The return on investment might be too slow. But lots of people would buy a home in space, if jobs were available too. At that point, migrating to Mars, or the asteroid belt, will be just another assignment. The frontier will be open to the new wagon trains.
So then, where will we go? To Mars, of course! But also to the Asteroids, big and small, and to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, to Venus to live in the cloud-tops, and anywhere else we may choose.
Eventually, we will learn enough about living in closed ecosystems aboard our rotating habitats that we may decide to try an interstellar voyage. Hopefully, we may have the capability to fly at more than a few percent of the speed of light. A hundred years would be a really long trip, but we would already be accustomed to living in habitats our whole lives. And when we get there, we probably won't have the planetary bias that we are starting out with. We'll know that resources are better found in bite-sized chunks, and minor planets are big enough.
Plus, if we have already found life that doesn't originate on Earth, we may know to be wary of earth-like planets in their own habitable zones. Any truly alien life forms probably won't be compatible with our own biology. The chances of accidental cross-contamination are just too great, and the consequences likely fatal, including the risk of contagion. So any interstellar colonists would be wise to avoid medium-sized, warm and wet planets, and stick to the moons, minor planets, asteroids and comets. Staking a claim on a Mercury size planet, and a few moons is easy enough, and if you use them up building lots of habitat ships, you can move on. Nomadic lifestyles have been common in our early history, and there is nothing wrong with repeating that.
Which brings me at last to the Title given for this post. The Landing Protocol. If future colonists really want to try to build a new world on an "earth-like" planet, they had better hope that there is no previous life inhabiting it. First, if there is anything more advanced than microbes extant, it would be unethical and immoral to usurp their planet and prevent them from ever evolving intelligence and technology. Secondly, even the microbes would likely be inimical to terran life, which would be at a definite disadvantage from not having evolved there. Only a truly sterile planet would be a safe bet for colonizing. And it's hard to prove a negative. How do you know "there are no bugs" for certain?
So they are faced with a hard choice. To make landfall, or not. If you want to go down, are you willing to accept the equivalent of a life-long prison sentence? Your choice will be permanent. No one who goes down will ever come back. They will either succeed and live down there, or they will die there. Of course, they won't be isolated without any help. Supplies can be dropped, but it likely won't be trade in any real sense. Anything from the planet must be assumed to be contaminated, at least until the new world is fully certified to be completely SAFE. And who knows how long that might take?
It's a fool's gamble. You might get lucky, or you might die. Are you really so dissatisfied with life in your ship? No one is forcing you to go, unless of course, it's going to be a prison colony. And then ... NO. You are not coming back.
So we are not looking for earth-like planets. We want smaller worlds that are not likely to be suitable for the origin of life. The only planets that are good for anything are gas giants, where we can refill our fuel tanks, and which usually have a retinue of small moons and irregular rocks. There we can park our ships in orbit, swap people between ships for the sake of genetic diversity, and replenish our feedstocks with all the elements we may need to repair and upgrade the ships. Then, we can ask, "do we stay awhile, or go forward to the next star down the line?" Nor do we all have to agree on the same choice. We will be free.
Monday, October 28, 2019
What is a Cult? 20 Discerning Criteria
Most of the world's great faiths share in a set of good characteristics by which we know to group them together and respect them as "Religion." However, they also share some characteristics that can allow unscrupulous leaders to mislead their followers and take advantage of them. All faiths involve teaching their members how to think, but when that function becomes an intentional limitation of freedom it can cross the line.
There are ways to discern a healthy religion from one that goes beyond the pale. Just because a group has a large number of members doesn't mean that it's not a cult. Rather, it's mostly a question of being allowed to think for yourself, to question authority and come to your own reasonable conclusions. If that is not allowed, or the authorities would take offense if they knew, then it's probably a cult. You are in an unhealthy situation which you should find a way to escape, as soon as you can.
A cult will have at least a few, if not many or most of these characteristics below. They can be used as the criteria to discern an unhealthy group or organization, which you should avoid.
1. A charismatic leader or prophet, who cannot be held accountable
2. Invalidates critical thinking or rational examination of facts and ideas
3. Claiming special revelations of Truth given only to the leader
4. Creates a new community, separate from unbelievers
5. Demands unwavering loyalty and unquestioning obedience to the prophet
6. Creates unique laws or rules concerning morality and/or holiness
7. Special privileges for the prophet, not allowed to followers
8. Penalties mandated for leaving the faith, often severe
9. Makes unrealistic, usually unverifiable promises
10. Calls competing faiths "corrupt" and ineffective
11. Promulgates unique doctrines which may be inconsistent or changeable
12. Economic, sexual or other exploitation practiced by the leader and cronies
13. Advocates violence to achieve the leader's aims
14. Pretends to be an offshoot or reform of traditional beliefs
15. Declares independence from traditional authority
16. Leader claims to know unverifiable or incorrect "facts"
17. Requires extravagant acts of sacrifice and/or offerings
18. Uses coercion to persuade conversion or obedience
19. Unreasonable fear of an impending catastrophe, like "the end of the world"
20. Followers left feeling that they can never be good enough
The more of these criteria the group matches, the more likely it is that they are a cult, and possibly dangerous to the society around them. Be careful whenever you may encounter them, but try to help any who want to get out.
There are ways to discern a healthy religion from one that goes beyond the pale. Just because a group has a large number of members doesn't mean that it's not a cult. Rather, it's mostly a question of being allowed to think for yourself, to question authority and come to your own reasonable conclusions. If that is not allowed, or the authorities would take offense if they knew, then it's probably a cult. You are in an unhealthy situation which you should find a way to escape, as soon as you can.
A cult will have at least a few, if not many or most of these characteristics below. They can be used as the criteria to discern an unhealthy group or organization, which you should avoid.
1. A charismatic leader or prophet, who cannot be held accountable
2. Invalidates critical thinking or rational examination of facts and ideas
3. Claiming special revelations of Truth given only to the leader
4. Creates a new community, separate from unbelievers
5. Demands unwavering loyalty and unquestioning obedience to the prophet
6. Creates unique laws or rules concerning morality and/or holiness
7. Special privileges for the prophet, not allowed to followers
8. Penalties mandated for leaving the faith, often severe
9. Makes unrealistic, usually unverifiable promises
10. Calls competing faiths "corrupt" and ineffective
11. Promulgates unique doctrines which may be inconsistent or changeable
12. Economic, sexual or other exploitation practiced by the leader and cronies
13. Advocates violence to achieve the leader's aims
14. Pretends to be an offshoot or reform of traditional beliefs
15. Declares independence from traditional authority
16. Leader claims to know unverifiable or incorrect "facts"
17. Requires extravagant acts of sacrifice and/or offerings
18. Uses coercion to persuade conversion or obedience
19. Unreasonable fear of an impending catastrophe, like "the end of the world"
20. Followers left feeling that they can never be good enough
The more of these criteria the group matches, the more likely it is that they are a cult, and possibly dangerous to the society around them. Be careful whenever you may encounter them, but try to help any who want to get out.
Sunday, October 6, 2019
Did God have a wife?
The belief in many gods was deeply ingrained in the psychology of the people of the Fertile Crescent. At the start, YHWH did not insist on being the only God who exists, but rather to be the only God whom the Israelites could worship. He was the leader and protector, and the comforter of his chosen, supposedly loyal, people. In fact, the Bible clearly says He hated Baal, and the infant sacrifice that his people practiced, and totally disapproved of the temple prostitution used by the goddess worshippers. So, to associate YHWH with a divine consort would have been distasteful, to say the least.
YHWH and his Asherah?
That's why the Samaritans had a bad reputation for being unorthodox. They always had to do things their own way. They kept their standing stones & sacred groves on the hilltops long after the Jews banned those. And the offerings left there were in remembrance of El Shaddai, the God of the Mountains, and Asherah, the fertility goddess, old names for beloved gods. Yes, YHWH assumed "El Shaddai" as his own name, thus the association.
But then, some time later, Asherah's job to promote fertility and the family became absorbed into the One God's roles, as a feminine characteristic of a whole divine personality and power. In the Bible, this female aspect of God is imagined by analogy to a mother bird sheltering her chicks under her wings. And this safety, protecting her people, becomes the job of God's presence, the Shekinah, the feeling of holy imanence during worship. Thus, Shekinah is also another name for the Holy Spirit, whose coming and going is such a mystery, like a bird on the wind.
It can seem a bit strange saying that God's own presence is another person of a triune God, but think about how distant a creator God must be, so far off that He uses the entire planet for a footstool. So, you see how He needs to give us another aspect of Himself to get up close and personal, like the wind upon your face. And this female persona always was thought of as a loving mother, hovering nearby to offer support and wise advice. Advice, too, is another job of the Holy Spirit, who speaks to the prophets, and has been called Wisdom.
But by now, this feminine Shekinah is becoming more of a paragon of how women are meant to behave. She seems willing to stay in the background, though always present, and her voice is essential, speaking peace and wisdom, advising us on what is right. When you combine this with the ideal of the woman of valor, from Proverbs 31, who works hard to support her husband, you see how important a women's role is, even in ancient Judaea. Society would collapse without her. She leads by example and influence.
But the ancient Asherah is meant to be forgotten. Asherah was divorced because she consorted with Baal, and devalued the grace of marriage. That's why adultery and abortion are still forbidden, and are the only immediate grounds for divorce. Yet even so, the prophet Amos spoke of how he, and by reflection God, always loved his wife, despite her gad-about ways, and longed for the day she would return to be his loving partner. He would quickly forgive anything to have her back, contrite and behaving properly again. If only she would look into her conscience to see how she was shaming herself.
The evolution of a deity doesn't really have to make sense. It is no longer the goddess who is YHWH's beloved, but the people of Israel, whom He rescued from bondage and gave the Law, to set them free. He wants his people to love Him, and to care about keeping a clear conscience in moral righteousness. We shouldn't wander off, "whoring" after other gods or foreign ways and ideas.
By the way, Jesus rarely talks about the Holy Spirit, until he promises to send the Helper and Comforter. He said that She is never supposed to speak for Herself, but only about Jesus and the Father. She is the source of holy wisdom, teaching quietly in the background. Earlier passing mentions of the Spirit of the Lord are just referring to the influence and teachings of the Father prompting Jesus to speak. All of this mysterious doctrine of the Trinity is just Christian theologians trying to figure out how to maintain unity in the church, and hold on to their own authority to teach. Weeding out separatists, claiming to be inspired to make up their own doctrines, can get to be a messy business.
You can believe it if you want, as it most certainly helps to imagine God as a great mystery, away up in Heaven. He sends his Son to teach us how to please Him, to be an example of righteousness, and to be the bridge to help us get there. And the Holy Spirit dwells in our hearts to guide us and help us to reform our own character. She helps us to understand, interpret and apply the Law and the ideals of morality (truth, freedom, love and wisdom) in our daily lives, now so far removed from antiquity.
And if it helps to put a personal face on the divine, Catholics have agreed that Mother Mary also ascended into Heaven, and is now the Queen of Heaven, just like the old title given to YHWH's Asherah. Full circle, except this time she is not a goddess. She was a simple, acceptably stainless human woman, suitable to be a paragon for other women to emulate.
YHWH and his Asherah?
That's why the Samaritans had a bad reputation for being unorthodox. They always had to do things their own way. They kept their standing stones & sacred groves on the hilltops long after the Jews banned those. And the offerings left there were in remembrance of El Shaddai, the God of the Mountains, and Asherah, the fertility goddess, old names for beloved gods. Yes, YHWH assumed "El Shaddai" as his own name, thus the association.
But then, some time later, Asherah's job to promote fertility and the family became absorbed into the One God's roles, as a feminine characteristic of a whole divine personality and power. In the Bible, this female aspect of God is imagined by analogy to a mother bird sheltering her chicks under her wings. And this safety, protecting her people, becomes the job of God's presence, the Shekinah, the feeling of holy imanence during worship. Thus, Shekinah is also another name for the Holy Spirit, whose coming and going is such a mystery, like a bird on the wind.
It can seem a bit strange saying that God's own presence is another person of a triune God, but think about how distant a creator God must be, so far off that He uses the entire planet for a footstool. So, you see how He needs to give us another aspect of Himself to get up close and personal, like the wind upon your face. And this female persona always was thought of as a loving mother, hovering nearby to offer support and wise advice. Advice, too, is another job of the Holy Spirit, who speaks to the prophets, and has been called Wisdom.
But by now, this feminine Shekinah is becoming more of a paragon of how women are meant to behave. She seems willing to stay in the background, though always present, and her voice is essential, speaking peace and wisdom, advising us on what is right. When you combine this with the ideal of the woman of valor, from Proverbs 31, who works hard to support her husband, you see how important a women's role is, even in ancient Judaea. Society would collapse without her. She leads by example and influence.
But the ancient Asherah is meant to be forgotten. Asherah was divorced because she consorted with Baal, and devalued the grace of marriage. That's why adultery and abortion are still forbidden, and are the only immediate grounds for divorce. Yet even so, the prophet Amos spoke of how he, and by reflection God, always loved his wife, despite her gad-about ways, and longed for the day she would return to be his loving partner. He would quickly forgive anything to have her back, contrite and behaving properly again. If only she would look into her conscience to see how she was shaming herself.
The evolution of a deity doesn't really have to make sense. It is no longer the goddess who is YHWH's beloved, but the people of Israel, whom He rescued from bondage and gave the Law, to set them free. He wants his people to love Him, and to care about keeping a clear conscience in moral righteousness. We shouldn't wander off, "whoring" after other gods or foreign ways and ideas.
By the way, Jesus rarely talks about the Holy Spirit, until he promises to send the Helper and Comforter. He said that She is never supposed to speak for Herself, but only about Jesus and the Father. She is the source of holy wisdom, teaching quietly in the background. Earlier passing mentions of the Spirit of the Lord are just referring to the influence and teachings of the Father prompting Jesus to speak. All of this mysterious doctrine of the Trinity is just Christian theologians trying to figure out how to maintain unity in the church, and hold on to their own authority to teach. Weeding out separatists, claiming to be inspired to make up their own doctrines, can get to be a messy business.
You can believe it if you want, as it most certainly helps to imagine God as a great mystery, away up in Heaven. He sends his Son to teach us how to please Him, to be an example of righteousness, and to be the bridge to help us get there. And the Holy Spirit dwells in our hearts to guide us and help us to reform our own character. She helps us to understand, interpret and apply the Law and the ideals of morality (truth, freedom, love and wisdom) in our daily lives, now so far removed from antiquity.
And if it helps to put a personal face on the divine, Catholics have agreed that Mother Mary also ascended into Heaven, and is now the Queen of Heaven, just like the old title given to YHWH's Asherah. Full circle, except this time she is not a goddess. She was a simple, acceptably stainless human woman, suitable to be a paragon for other women to emulate.
Sunday, September 29, 2019
Fermi's Alternative Paradox
Fermi's Paradox:
Why does the Cosmos look so empty?
If we are so "average" there should be lots
of people out there, but we don't see any.
"Where are they?"
Possible Solutions:
1. Hi-tech civilizations are rare, or none.
2. They remain small, or stay in hiding.
3. They suffer extinction.
4. They transcend this reality.
The first three can't explain the total silence
we observe. Only the fourth speaks for
everyone else ... if it's unavoidable.
I. If they have transcended:
a. did they all leave?
b. did they leave a gate/instructions?
c. can they come back?
d. what does it require to follow?
e. what is it like there?
f. what are the alternatives?
h. can they help/influence us?
II. If they can influence us:
a. is everyone good, or are some evil?
- is there a conflict between factions?
- do they want/need our help?
- is there an essential dispute?
b. do they want the best for us, or for them?
- good people (angels):
. you can do this & join us
. obey, serve & learn from us
- bad people (demons):
. conform, or suffer the consequences
. be exterminated as vermin
c. how involved can they be?
- they (should) have a plan
. but let us do all that we can
. moral choices are a key issue
- they have rules on interference
. stay hidden & leave no proof
. inspiration, voices & visions only
. give as few clues as possible
. keep descriptions vague
- they know something we don't
. let us figure it out for ourselves
- they know us better than we do
. we have an unused power
. faith can move mountains
- not following the rules = "open season"
. let us decide our own fate
d. how powerful are they?
- is one side stronger than the other?
- whose methods are more effective?
- does morality limit tactics?
- is there any ultimate advantage?
III. Should we be interested in them?
- do we have a choice?
. is everyone recruited/drafted?
- can we avoid transcendence?
. is the transition part of nature?
- would "going up" be worth it?
. does eternity equal immortality?
- what are the costs of involvement?
. civil war between factions here
. disdain for our planet
. dismissing reason
. adopting a "least evil" option
IV. Does "Transcendence" make sense?
- there is no way to verify it.
. it defies cause & effect
- it's an unnecessary distraction.
. we have enough issues to solve
- we need to transcend religion.
. it's a source of disagreement
- utopia is our job to create.
. paradise is variably described
- faith must be more than belief.
. it must match observed reality
V. Can't we just survive on self-interest?
- practical moral idealism
. relativist legal neutrality
. cultural spheres of influence
. minimize interference
. scientific knowledge
. philosophical enlightenment
. ecological conservatism
. territorial security
. agree to play fair
- God is what makes us better people.
. morality is based on principles
. deontology is a cultural choice
. paragons must be worthy to follow
. civilization must be harmonious
. violence is intolerable
- our lives need meaning & purpose.
. our mode of service is a choice
. we need a future vision
VI. A good & just God would understand.
- we choose universal ideals
. our principles reflect them
- we accept longevity, not eternity
. the ideal of Truth
- we build our own heavens
. the ideal of Freedom
- we strive to emulate divinity
. the ideal of Love
- we acknowledge our shortcomings
. the ideal of Wisdom
- we choose Life above all.
VII. We will do & be the best that we can.
- we must trust our own understanding
. we do still listen with faith in God
- take an optimistic view of humanity
. let us rise to our expectations
- follow principles that we all share
. choose life
. first do no harm
. help where we can
. allow for differences
. lead by example & suggestion
. trust, but verify
. strength for peace, not conquest
. let others choose their own way
- compete for honor, not advantage
. we must live with dignity
. we do not condone abuse
VIII. Reach for the Stars !!!
- Be the exception: We are here!
One final observation / inquiry:
Do the parallels with the Middle Eastern
religious paradigms seem so obvious to
everyone else? It feels like it can be read
from an atheist point of view, or from a
religious perspective, with only very few
concessions to the other side, either way.
Why does the Cosmos look so empty?
If we are so "average" there should be lots
of people out there, but we don't see any.
"Where are they?"
Possible Solutions:
1. Hi-tech civilizations are rare, or none.
2. They remain small, or stay in hiding.
3. They suffer extinction.
4. They transcend this reality.
The first three can't explain the total silence
we observe. Only the fourth speaks for
everyone else ... if it's unavoidable.
I. If they have transcended:
a. did they all leave?
b. did they leave a gate/instructions?
c. can they come back?
d. what does it require to follow?
e. what is it like there?
f. what are the alternatives?
h. can they help/influence us?
II. If they can influence us:
a. is everyone good, or are some evil?
- is there a conflict between factions?
- do they want/need our help?
- is there an essential dispute?
b. do they want the best for us, or for them?
- good people (angels):
. you can do this & join us
. obey, serve & learn from us
- bad people (demons):
. conform, or suffer the consequences
. be exterminated as vermin
c. how involved can they be?
- they (should) have a plan
. but let us do all that we can
. moral choices are a key issue
- they have rules on interference
. stay hidden & leave no proof
. inspiration, voices & visions only
. give as few clues as possible
. keep descriptions vague
- they know something we don't
. let us figure it out for ourselves
- they know us better than we do
. we have an unused power
. faith can move mountains
- not following the rules = "open season"
. let us decide our own fate
d. how powerful are they?
- is one side stronger than the other?
- whose methods are more effective?
- does morality limit tactics?
- is there any ultimate advantage?
III. Should we be interested in them?
- do we have a choice?
. is everyone recruited/drafted?
- can we avoid transcendence?
. is the transition part of nature?
- would "going up" be worth it?
. does eternity equal immortality?
- what are the costs of involvement?
. civil war between factions here
. disdain for our planet
. dismissing reason
. adopting a "least evil" option
IV. Does "Transcendence" make sense?
- there is no way to verify it.
. it defies cause & effect
- it's an unnecessary distraction.
. we have enough issues to solve
- we need to transcend religion.
. it's a source of disagreement
- utopia is our job to create.
. paradise is variably described
- faith must be more than belief.
. it must match observed reality
V. Can't we just survive on self-interest?
- practical moral idealism
. relativist legal neutrality
. cultural spheres of influence
. minimize interference
. scientific knowledge
. philosophical enlightenment
. ecological conservatism
. territorial security
. agree to play fair
- God is what makes us better people.
. morality is based on principles
. deontology is a cultural choice
. paragons must be worthy to follow
. civilization must be harmonious
. violence is intolerable
- our lives need meaning & purpose.
. our mode of service is a choice
. we need a future vision
VI. A good & just God would understand.
- we choose universal ideals
. our principles reflect them
- we accept longevity, not eternity
. the ideal of Truth
- we build our own heavens
. the ideal of Freedom
- we strive to emulate divinity
. the ideal of Love
- we acknowledge our shortcomings
. the ideal of Wisdom
- we choose Life above all.
VII. We will do & be the best that we can.
- we must trust our own understanding
. we do still listen with faith in God
- take an optimistic view of humanity
. let us rise to our expectations
- follow principles that we all share
. choose life
. first do no harm
. help where we can
. allow for differences
. lead by example & suggestion
. trust, but verify
. strength for peace, not conquest
. let others choose their own way
- compete for honor, not advantage
. we must live with dignity
. we do not condone abuse
VIII. Reach for the Stars !!!
- Be the exception: We are here!
One final observation / inquiry:
Do the parallels with the Middle Eastern
religious paradigms seem so obvious to
everyone else? It feels like it can be read
from an atheist point of view, or from a
religious perspective, with only very few
concessions to the other side, either way.
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
Sparks of Divinity in the Heavens
When I sit by my campfire and watch the sparks rise, each time the logs settle into place, I can't help but look up and wonder. If the stars above us are showing us places where God has created worlds, and today science is discovering that most stars have planets, then does it seem right that these should be barren?
God tells us that He created the Heavens and the Earth, and on the Earth He created life and placed Humanity to watch over it as stewards. But if we dig just a tiny bit deeper, we hear that the whole point of creating the Cosmos was to achieve the creation of Adam and Eve. He created them in the image and likeness of his own Divinity. And once He had done that, then on the seventh day He rested.
Right. Now someone is objecting that I have presumed to set up the Greater Anthropic Principle. You are correct. I am stating it plainly, as a matter of faith. God designed the Cosmos to facilitate the emergence of life and intelligence. Why? The Bible doesn't answer that specifically, humbly admitting that we cannot delve into God's motives. But we can look at His subsequent behavior. What happens next? He walks around in the Garden of Eden, and talks to us! Apparently, there isn't much better that God wants to do than to spend time in conversation with people!
Whoa!! Hold up, right there! I'm not saying that we are the only, or by any measure the best, people in the Cosmos. The universe is far too unimaginably vast for it to be empty. And Humanity clearly started out on the wrong foot on its journey to civilization. But God isn't limited like we are. He can spend time talking to lots of people, without short-shrifting anyone on personal attention or one-on-one time.
Maybe He likes us best because we are so difficult. We are slow learners, after all, always doing what we know that we shouldn't. We continually get ourselves into trouble, and somehow get Him involved in it along with us. Of course, He would prefer it if we could just get it right, for a change. Our stupidity and lack of faith costs Him a lot ... more than most of us would be willing to pay, for someone else's problems. But yeah, He gave his only Son to shock us out of our sinful attitudes, and to tell us that we can have all of the help we need to change our lives. (This is not theology. I'm speaking in broader terms.)
God is trying to put the essential laws of morality into our hearts. But from the beginning, we have been a bunch of deviants, refusing to listen and obey. We can't observe even the simplest rules without looking for an edge, a way to promote our own personal interests, even when we know it will cost someone else. But He has made it plain enough already. He makes the rules for our benefit. It is only by living together in harmony that we can ever get to where we are meant to go. He has planned out a magnificent destiny for us, if we are willing to trust Him and cooperate.
Even better than a city on a hill, a beacon of hope for the downtrodden and the despairing souls, crying for someone, anyone to care about them ... which is what we should be doing now. That is what God has asked of us, for the past 2,000 years. Show everyone how we are supposed to be living when we have faith, and choose to obey Him. But the time for learning how to do that is getting shorter. It's time to look up, not to the mountains from where our hope has so often come, but to the stars. We are close to being ready for Heaven.
We have been building and improving our technology for the last 6,000 years or so. We began with learning how to plant crops and build cities. And for all that time, we have been struggling to learn how to live together harmoniously in close quarters. But over and over, we keep getting hung up on our fear and distrust of strangers. Of course it's often justified, but just as often it's merely paranoia.
Only recently have we arrived at the concept of "trust, but verify," so that we can get past the self-interested inclination to cheat whenever we can. Good diplomats have always had spies, and they also had the discipline to refuse to steal secrets. Their spies watch to see if anyone else is cheating. The game of competition and one-upmanship has always led eventually to conflict, but playing fair leads to lasting friendship.
The world seems so much smaller in our times, because of electronic devices for communication and satellites observing the whole globe every 90 minutes. So we know each other better than we have ever been able to before. We can see who wants to compete, and who is willing to cheat, and we know who our friends are.
And we also know how absolutely devastating an all-out war would be, and want to avoid it. The fools who would precipitate a nuclear war would set us all back by centuries, to the point of having to piece ourselves together from scraps and fading knowledge. And the survivors would have a decade of frozen famine, when the dust clouds block out the sun so that crops won't grow. It wouldn't be the best of us who make it out of that alive, but only the most fierce and the lucky. That world would be Hell, and deservedly so.
So we have a choice. We can decide that we should change the rules of the game, and agree that people have the right to choose what kind of government they want. No one should have any ideology imposed on them without consent. We know what our ideals are: Truth, Freedom, Love and Wisdom. And we know that religion should be about helping people to become the best that they can be. No form of conquest is ever acceptable. And no form of deception is ever acceptable either. As for economics, why should we let greed run our systems? We are close, technologically, to being able to build the kind of abundance that can support everyone with enough of what we need. But we need to regulate the markets to facilitate more equality between citizens, and we have to choose to invest in the machines and robotic tools to do it.
So those are the sources of conflict we can avoid. We can choose to create a better world for everyone, if we agree on these instead:
1. government by consent
- political tolerance, caring for people
2. choice of religious beliefs
- free choice, better morals, high ideals
3. economics of abundance
- more equality & robotic technology
4. fair use of resources
- renewables, recycling, treaties & space
5. limits on pollution
- reclamation, restoration & regulation
6. justice without violence
- universal human rights, fight corruption
"Yeah, right," I can hear the sarcastic remarks. "Dream on," they say. But then the whole concept of Heaven is a dream. Just like the open frontier that led Americans to the idea of "manifest destiny," it doesn't have to always work out exactly as we have seen it in our dreams. But if we work at it honestly, with our ideals in mind and the best of intentions, the world gets better for our having tried. Nor do we have to have a plan for how it should be done. Let the diplomats and negotiators do their jobs. Just give them the mandate for what needs to be done, and the flexibility to let each party do it their own way. Then trust, but verify.
And then what? What come after we establish the "Pax Tolerans"? The answer is, quite simply, the Heavens are full of unlimited opportunities. Which is not to say that we have to wait until we solve our problems, before we can reach out for the next steps. Space is a part of the solution. But once we learn how to live there and use the resources at hand ...
We can go out into the rest of the solar system, and develop our capabilities for really living in Heaven. When we can look up at the Moon, and see city lights on the dark side, we will know that our chances of achieving Heaven are improving by leaps and bounds. The freedom to innovate and build unique societies in space will be a dream come true, and the more we learn, the closer we will get to success.
So, let's go back to the original vision of sparks in the night sky. Yes, humanity is about as crooked as the branches we toss on a campfire, and the majority of us are consumed with our private concerns here on Earth, but the best wood gets chosen for building and we can be shaped and trimmed of our irregularities. But just watch the sparks rise into the darkness, floating away in search of a spot to rest and start a new fire. If we can learn to work together, and build new habitats in space, and equip them with whatever propulsion may get them to the stars, we too can go out in search of a place to rest, and start a new branch of civilization, aflame with the zeal and enthusiasm of the knowledge that we will have at last arrived in the Heavens. And maybe we will find the other angels, whom we expect to meet in Heaven. Then we will be doing our part to make sure that all those stars, with all those worlds, don't remain barren.
A magnificent destiny, indeed.
God tells us that He created the Heavens and the Earth, and on the Earth He created life and placed Humanity to watch over it as stewards. But if we dig just a tiny bit deeper, we hear that the whole point of creating the Cosmos was to achieve the creation of Adam and Eve. He created them in the image and likeness of his own Divinity. And once He had done that, then on the seventh day He rested.
Right. Now someone is objecting that I have presumed to set up the Greater Anthropic Principle. You are correct. I am stating it plainly, as a matter of faith. God designed the Cosmos to facilitate the emergence of life and intelligence. Why? The Bible doesn't answer that specifically, humbly admitting that we cannot delve into God's motives. But we can look at His subsequent behavior. What happens next? He walks around in the Garden of Eden, and talks to us! Apparently, there isn't much better that God wants to do than to spend time in conversation with people!
Whoa!! Hold up, right there! I'm not saying that we are the only, or by any measure the best, people in the Cosmos. The universe is far too unimaginably vast for it to be empty. And Humanity clearly started out on the wrong foot on its journey to civilization. But God isn't limited like we are. He can spend time talking to lots of people, without short-shrifting anyone on personal attention or one-on-one time.
Maybe He likes us best because we are so difficult. We are slow learners, after all, always doing what we know that we shouldn't. We continually get ourselves into trouble, and somehow get Him involved in it along with us. Of course, He would prefer it if we could just get it right, for a change. Our stupidity and lack of faith costs Him a lot ... more than most of us would be willing to pay, for someone else's problems. But yeah, He gave his only Son to shock us out of our sinful attitudes, and to tell us that we can have all of the help we need to change our lives. (This is not theology. I'm speaking in broader terms.)
God is trying to put the essential laws of morality into our hearts. But from the beginning, we have been a bunch of deviants, refusing to listen and obey. We can't observe even the simplest rules without looking for an edge, a way to promote our own personal interests, even when we know it will cost someone else. But He has made it plain enough already. He makes the rules for our benefit. It is only by living together in harmony that we can ever get to where we are meant to go. He has planned out a magnificent destiny for us, if we are willing to trust Him and cooperate.
Even better than a city on a hill, a beacon of hope for the downtrodden and the despairing souls, crying for someone, anyone to care about them ... which is what we should be doing now. That is what God has asked of us, for the past 2,000 years. Show everyone how we are supposed to be living when we have faith, and choose to obey Him. But the time for learning how to do that is getting shorter. It's time to look up, not to the mountains from where our hope has so often come, but to the stars. We are close to being ready for Heaven.
We have been building and improving our technology for the last 6,000 years or so. We began with learning how to plant crops and build cities. And for all that time, we have been struggling to learn how to live together harmoniously in close quarters. But over and over, we keep getting hung up on our fear and distrust of strangers. Of course it's often justified, but just as often it's merely paranoia.
Only recently have we arrived at the concept of "trust, but verify," so that we can get past the self-interested inclination to cheat whenever we can. Good diplomats have always had spies, and they also had the discipline to refuse to steal secrets. Their spies watch to see if anyone else is cheating. The game of competition and one-upmanship has always led eventually to conflict, but playing fair leads to lasting friendship.
The world seems so much smaller in our times, because of electronic devices for communication and satellites observing the whole globe every 90 minutes. So we know each other better than we have ever been able to before. We can see who wants to compete, and who is willing to cheat, and we know who our friends are.
And we also know how absolutely devastating an all-out war would be, and want to avoid it. The fools who would precipitate a nuclear war would set us all back by centuries, to the point of having to piece ourselves together from scraps and fading knowledge. And the survivors would have a decade of frozen famine, when the dust clouds block out the sun so that crops won't grow. It wouldn't be the best of us who make it out of that alive, but only the most fierce and the lucky. That world would be Hell, and deservedly so.
So we have a choice. We can decide that we should change the rules of the game, and agree that people have the right to choose what kind of government they want. No one should have any ideology imposed on them without consent. We know what our ideals are: Truth, Freedom, Love and Wisdom. And we know that religion should be about helping people to become the best that they can be. No form of conquest is ever acceptable. And no form of deception is ever acceptable either. As for economics, why should we let greed run our systems? We are close, technologically, to being able to build the kind of abundance that can support everyone with enough of what we need. But we need to regulate the markets to facilitate more equality between citizens, and we have to choose to invest in the machines and robotic tools to do it.
So those are the sources of conflict we can avoid. We can choose to create a better world for everyone, if we agree on these instead:
1. government by consent
- political tolerance, caring for people
2. choice of religious beliefs
- free choice, better morals, high ideals
3. economics of abundance
- more equality & robotic technology
4. fair use of resources
- renewables, recycling, treaties & space
5. limits on pollution
- reclamation, restoration & regulation
6. justice without violence
- universal human rights, fight corruption
"Yeah, right," I can hear the sarcastic remarks. "Dream on," they say. But then the whole concept of Heaven is a dream. Just like the open frontier that led Americans to the idea of "manifest destiny," it doesn't have to always work out exactly as we have seen it in our dreams. But if we work at it honestly, with our ideals in mind and the best of intentions, the world gets better for our having tried. Nor do we have to have a plan for how it should be done. Let the diplomats and negotiators do their jobs. Just give them the mandate for what needs to be done, and the flexibility to let each party do it their own way. Then trust, but verify.
And then what? What come after we establish the "Pax Tolerans"? The answer is, quite simply, the Heavens are full of unlimited opportunities. Which is not to say that we have to wait until we solve our problems, before we can reach out for the next steps. Space is a part of the solution. But once we learn how to live there and use the resources at hand ...
We can go out into the rest of the solar system, and develop our capabilities for really living in Heaven. When we can look up at the Moon, and see city lights on the dark side, we will know that our chances of achieving Heaven are improving by leaps and bounds. The freedom to innovate and build unique societies in space will be a dream come true, and the more we learn, the closer we will get to success.
So, let's go back to the original vision of sparks in the night sky. Yes, humanity is about as crooked as the branches we toss on a campfire, and the majority of us are consumed with our private concerns here on Earth, but the best wood gets chosen for building and we can be shaped and trimmed of our irregularities. But just watch the sparks rise into the darkness, floating away in search of a spot to rest and start a new fire. If we can learn to work together, and build new habitats in space, and equip them with whatever propulsion may get them to the stars, we too can go out in search of a place to rest, and start a new branch of civilization, aflame with the zeal and enthusiasm of the knowledge that we will have at last arrived in the Heavens. And maybe we will find the other angels, whom we expect to meet in Heaven. Then we will be doing our part to make sure that all those stars, with all those worlds, don't remain barren.
A magnificent destiny, indeed.
Monday, September 9, 2019
Answering Atheists #2
It never ceases to amaze me how smug a person can be when he thinks he has all of the answers. I, myself, am not immune to that, but I will at least listen to opposing points of view and try to see if there is anything of value in them. If you are really so smart, you can try to see how the big framework can let smaller things fit in it together. It's like a jigsaw puzzle; until you get the big picture, you are fumbling with putting small bits in wherever they go.
I am not a "flat earther" and I don't try to interpret scriptures literally. Such nonsense is an insult to critical intelligence. Rather, if you allow metaphor, analogy, reason and common sense, it gives you a lot of freedom.
This is a response to a YouTube chat between Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss.
Part One:
If you argue that the Big Bang happened spontaneously because of the action of quantum physics, then you have to explain where the laws of quantum physics came from. At last report, you guys haven't even figured that out how to work on that yet.
You can NEVER get the Universe to "happen" from no existence at all, since the Universe is not entirely self-subsistent. Even Stephen Hawking admitted that "black holes" can eventually evaporate. If the universe can die, clearly it can't birth itself. God, however, IS self-sustaining -- being the very nature of Being-in-itself, and so is capable to sustain the Universe, as well as to create it.
Note: every event needs a cause. If there is nothing, there can be no immediate cause, but only a "first cause" or a "prime mover", i.e., God. Your tiny "quantum event" is only a flick of his Will.
There can't be any "something from nothing." It's impossible, unless God was playing at "being nothing" when He did it. This is actually something He does frequently. The Kaballah has a series of discussions on how God created the Cosmos. You should try reading another book, or two.
Evolution is not an argument for Atheism. It is an argument for Divine intervention and stochastic direction. The odds against random mutations selected by survival of the fittest for adaptation to any given environment ever having the luck to evolve into an Intelligent being make the word "Astronomical" pale by comparison. We are talking ENORMOUS Fermi Paradox "Great Filters" here, and LOTS OF THEM. Each with only a small percentage chance, like lottery odds.
1. Big Bang
(why & how did it happen? )
2. Suitable Star, Planet & Moon
(very specific conditions)
3. Abiogenesis
(another why & how)
4. Multicellular Complexity
(not necessary for survival)
5. Intelligence
(is it even an efficient aid?)
6. Progressive Technology
(actually a hazard)
7. Wisdom for Self-preservation
(yet to be seen)
If you want to gamble an infinite number of times, forever ... We will all win the lottery before this would replicate itself by itself, without Divine intervention and direction.
Science forces us to realize that Nothing can happen without God. Now, THAT is a great gift.
Part Two:
The Multiverse Hypothesis is not even good science. It is untestable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable and violates the principle of Occam's razor. Just like God Himself, who actually is the simplest explanation. So it is not an answer to anything. It only dodges the question.
The anthropic principle is not a reason to doubt. To say that we are here because the universe is conducive to the appearance of life says nothing profound. We would not be here to ask why we are here, if God did not design the universe to be able to support life. Of course, I am here to ask the question, and I'm not going to let you weasel out of it. Not that easy.
Part Three:
You say that strict scientific trials of the effectiveness of prayer in hospitals have failed to show any benefit? And yet, there are many doctors who will vouch for it.
Perhaps you are overlooking the central essential condition of prayer: It requires Faith. Further, God forbids us to put Him to a test. So your scientific double-blind test carries it's own failure within. It begins with doubt, and wants God to cooperate with its parameters.
You want Magic, not Miracles.
Part Four:
You mock Heaven, saying we should not take our morality from any religion. But Heaven forbid that we should take our morality from Atheists !!! Then we would follow Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, and genocide would be a good thing.
We have been given brains for a reason. To use for the Good of humanity and the world, and to Discern what is the right way to live. Buddhism is a fine religion, even without God. And many theologians will agree that God both exists and does not exist, all at the same time. He is both, Being and Nothingness.
Which, by the way, eliminates Islam from the status of a religion, simply because it encourages violence, slavery, honor killing, terrorism, oppression of an underclass, deception and has no consistent moral code. It is the only ideology that does that and gets away with calling itself a religion, because it talks about Allah, and an Apocalypse. But Allah is not the God of the Bible.
Part Five: A final argument ...
An atheist claims that he has the answer,
that he knows why we exist. Oh, really?
Are you sure you understand why we exist?
Unless you want to tell us what it is ...
(Oh? Nothing to say?)
I doubt that you even have a clue.
That is the prerogative of Faith.
And then he goes on to say, "Nothing is sacred."
Hmm, what kind of thinking is that?
Nothing deserves to be protected from desecration...
because the concerns of Spirit don't figure in.
Oh, right! That's Empiricism!
A self-limiting tool used only by hardcore materialists and scientists.
Scientists start off with a bias saying, there is no God. Only what can be experienced through our five senses can be real. So of course, they can't find what they refuse to look for honestly. They are searching with one hand tied behind their backs.
If you insist that "hammers" don't exist, but then you trip over one, you would have to say that it's a funny looking piece of metal on a stick, and obviously not a "hammer."
A simple syllogism:
Atheists say that it is absurd to believe in a God who can't be proven to exist, because he would be outside of the bounds of science.
But they then say that they believe that the universe somehow magically created itself out of nothing ... which equally baffles any scientific explanation.
On the other hand, ...
Theists say that God claims to be the self-sustaining source of all time and being, (i.e., He is not contingent). There is a long tradition of prophets who are believed to have spoken with God. Their experiences confirm that God is an eternal Being.
We know that the universe has a beginning and most probably will have an end. So its existence is contingent upon time and the lawful strength of physical forces, at the very least.
Further, it is illogical to say that any contingent object created itself, because, it would have to have effective volition and agency before it actually exists in any form or capacity.
Theists say that their self-subsistent, non-contingent God actually can do what He claims to have done, because He stands outside of time and CAN will something before it happens.
God conceived and implemented the physical laws, and all of the ways that things in this universe work together, so that He could create worlds with people in them. That's what He told us. (He didn't say whether we are the only ones, but wow! Such superfluous engineering it would be if we are alone!)
So, if the only problem preventing a logical conclusion, asserting that God created the universe, hinges upon God being outside of the reach of science and puny human understanding, then which is the more logical position?
A. We can't touch it, so that explanation is forbidden ... but we still can't figure out how science can explain it ... or,
B. We have known for millennia that God says He made the universe for us.
Who says that we can and must have a scientific explanation for everything? Scientists? Who made them the exclusive authority?
God gave us a revealed explanation for everything, in language appropriate to the level of understanding of the person who was asking the question. He gives better answers today, when we better understand the questions we are asking. And what He doesn't answer, He asks us to wait to find out when we can grasp the knowledge.
That does not mean that we should stop trying to figure stuff out for ourselves, using reason and science, or whatever we can get to work for our knowledge of the universe. But it does mean that we should not be so smug as to assert that we know what we clearly don't know.
By the way, GOD is the final authority, but He trusts us to be honest with ourselves, and to admit when we get something wrong.
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely [Cosmos]."
-- Carl Sagan
So why do so many scientists try so hard to suppress the truth?
God exists.
I am not a "flat earther" and I don't try to interpret scriptures literally. Such nonsense is an insult to critical intelligence. Rather, if you allow metaphor, analogy, reason and common sense, it gives you a lot of freedom.
This is a response to a YouTube chat between Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss.
Part One:
If you argue that the Big Bang happened spontaneously because of the action of quantum physics, then you have to explain where the laws of quantum physics came from. At last report, you guys haven't even figured that out how to work on that yet.
You can NEVER get the Universe to "happen" from no existence at all, since the Universe is not entirely self-subsistent. Even Stephen Hawking admitted that "black holes" can eventually evaporate. If the universe can die, clearly it can't birth itself. God, however, IS self-sustaining -- being the very nature of Being-in-itself, and so is capable to sustain the Universe, as well as to create it.
Note: every event needs a cause. If there is nothing, there can be no immediate cause, but only a "first cause" or a "prime mover", i.e., God. Your tiny "quantum event" is only a flick of his Will.
There can't be any "something from nothing." It's impossible, unless God was playing at "being nothing" when He did it. This is actually something He does frequently. The Kaballah has a series of discussions on how God created the Cosmos. You should try reading another book, or two.
Evolution is not an argument for Atheism. It is an argument for Divine intervention and stochastic direction. The odds against random mutations selected by survival of the fittest for adaptation to any given environment ever having the luck to evolve into an Intelligent being make the word "Astronomical" pale by comparison. We are talking ENORMOUS Fermi Paradox "Great Filters" here, and LOTS OF THEM. Each with only a small percentage chance, like lottery odds.
1. Big Bang
(why & how did it happen? )
2. Suitable Star, Planet & Moon
(very specific conditions)
3. Abiogenesis
(another why & how)
4. Multicellular Complexity
(not necessary for survival)
5. Intelligence
(is it even an efficient aid?)
6. Progressive Technology
(actually a hazard)
7. Wisdom for Self-preservation
(yet to be seen)
If you want to gamble an infinite number of times, forever ... We will all win the lottery before this would replicate itself by itself, without Divine intervention and direction.
Science forces us to realize that Nothing can happen without God. Now, THAT is a great gift.
Part Two:
The Multiverse Hypothesis is not even good science. It is untestable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable and violates the principle of Occam's razor. Just like God Himself, who actually is the simplest explanation. So it is not an answer to anything. It only dodges the question.
The anthropic principle is not a reason to doubt. To say that we are here because the universe is conducive to the appearance of life says nothing profound. We would not be here to ask why we are here, if God did not design the universe to be able to support life. Of course, I am here to ask the question, and I'm not going to let you weasel out of it. Not that easy.
Part Three:
You say that strict scientific trials of the effectiveness of prayer in hospitals have failed to show any benefit? And yet, there are many doctors who will vouch for it.
Perhaps you are overlooking the central essential condition of prayer: It requires Faith. Further, God forbids us to put Him to a test. So your scientific double-blind test carries it's own failure within. It begins with doubt, and wants God to cooperate with its parameters.
You want Magic, not Miracles.
Part Four:
You mock Heaven, saying we should not take our morality from any religion. But Heaven forbid that we should take our morality from Atheists !!! Then we would follow Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, and genocide would be a good thing.
We have been given brains for a reason. To use for the Good of humanity and the world, and to Discern what is the right way to live. Buddhism is a fine religion, even without God. And many theologians will agree that God both exists and does not exist, all at the same time. He is both, Being and Nothingness.
Which, by the way, eliminates Islam from the status of a religion, simply because it encourages violence, slavery, honor killing, terrorism, oppression of an underclass, deception and has no consistent moral code. It is the only ideology that does that and gets away with calling itself a religion, because it talks about Allah, and an Apocalypse. But Allah is not the God of the Bible.
Part Five: A final argument ...
An atheist claims that he has the answer,
that he knows why we exist. Oh, really?
Are you sure you understand why we exist?
Unless you want to tell us what it is ...
(Oh? Nothing to say?)
I doubt that you even have a clue.
That is the prerogative of Faith.
And then he goes on to say, "Nothing is sacred."
Hmm, what kind of thinking is that?
Nothing deserves to be protected from desecration...
because the concerns of Spirit don't figure in.
Oh, right! That's Empiricism!
A self-limiting tool used only by hardcore materialists and scientists.
Scientists start off with a bias saying, there is no God. Only what can be experienced through our five senses can be real. So of course, they can't find what they refuse to look for honestly. They are searching with one hand tied behind their backs.
If you insist that "hammers" don't exist, but then you trip over one, you would have to say that it's a funny looking piece of metal on a stick, and obviously not a "hammer."
A simple syllogism:
Atheists say that it is absurd to believe in a God who can't be proven to exist, because he would be outside of the bounds of science.
But they then say that they believe that the universe somehow magically created itself out of nothing ... which equally baffles any scientific explanation.
On the other hand, ...
Theists say that God claims to be the self-sustaining source of all time and being, (i.e., He is not contingent). There is a long tradition of prophets who are believed to have spoken with God. Their experiences confirm that God is an eternal Being.
We know that the universe has a beginning and most probably will have an end. So its existence is contingent upon time and the lawful strength of physical forces, at the very least.
Further, it is illogical to say that any contingent object created itself, because, it would have to have effective volition and agency before it actually exists in any form or capacity.
Theists say that their self-subsistent, non-contingent God actually can do what He claims to have done, because He stands outside of time and CAN will something before it happens.
God conceived and implemented the physical laws, and all of the ways that things in this universe work together, so that He could create worlds with people in them. That's what He told us. (He didn't say whether we are the only ones, but wow! Such superfluous engineering it would be if we are alone!)
So, if the only problem preventing a logical conclusion, asserting that God created the universe, hinges upon God being outside of the reach of science and puny human understanding, then which is the more logical position?
A. We can't touch it, so that explanation is forbidden ... but we still can't figure out how science can explain it ... or,
B. We have known for millennia that God says He made the universe for us.
Who says that we can and must have a scientific explanation for everything? Scientists? Who made them the exclusive authority?
God gave us a revealed explanation for everything, in language appropriate to the level of understanding of the person who was asking the question. He gives better answers today, when we better understand the questions we are asking. And what He doesn't answer, He asks us to wait to find out when we can grasp the knowledge.
That does not mean that we should stop trying to figure stuff out for ourselves, using reason and science, or whatever we can get to work for our knowledge of the universe. But it does mean that we should not be so smug as to assert that we know what we clearly don't know.
By the way, GOD is the final authority, but He trusts us to be honest with ourselves, and to admit when we get something wrong.
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely [Cosmos]."
-- Carl Sagan
So why do so many scientists try so hard to suppress the truth?
God exists.
Tuesday, September 3, 2019
Modern Gnosis in Christianity
What part can Gnosis play in modern Christianity?
Gnosis answers the essential questions, "How can I know God, and be sure that I am saved?" Aside from the concern to appease the wrath of the earlier gods, this has been the ultimate issue of our religious traditions all the way back to ancient Egypt. Esoteric texts purporting to share the secret divine knowledge needed to pass into the world of the gods date to the age of the pyramids. There was a series of rituals and passwords needed to get past the gatekeepers. It wasn't until later that a clear conscience became a requirement, when the god Ma'at decided to weigh men's souls against a feather.
But there is also another way to be attuned to God, to discern what we need to have a right relationship with the Divinity that sustains our existence. A personal mystic experience grants ineffable (unspeakable) knowledge directly from God. It is not an exclusive prerogative, so as to be reserved only for an elite class of the faithful, but actually may be a democratizing factor. This is because it's not something in us, or in our actions, that causes God to speak to our hearts. It is all God's will, to decide if He wants to touch us in this way.
It may indeed help if we are strongly focused on our desire to know God, practicing prayer, meditation and study as our ultimate concern, but we don't make it happen. Saints through all the ages have retreated from the world, to escape its distractions and concentrate on their efforts to live for God. And many have had these deeply spiritual experiences, and felt thus enlightened and empowered, encouraged in their pursuit of God. Their examples and teachings, as a result, have been a special boon to the rest of us. It is this kind of experience, and the knowledge beyond expression in words, that I am referring to as gnosis.
What can the mystic experience of gnosis do for the believer?
A. Reassure the seeker.
- this is usually imparted only to the elect
- the experience deepens one's faith
- it may reveal a sense of a deeper truth
- it can clarify a holy mystery
B. "My kingdom is not of this world" becomes self-evident.
- knowledge strengthens faith in afterlife
- we may feel less attachment to flesh
- we see this world is not the most "real"
- we may even have a vision of Heaven
C. Offer direction and purpose.
- God's touch can reveal a way to serve
- it may offer a religious vocation
- it often delivers a call to salvation
- it may grant a spiritual gift or aptitude
D. A direct experience of God's love.
- it can be like a face to face meeting
- it speaks intimately to one's heart
- it can give reassurance of forgiveness
- it makes a claim for God's family
Gnosis is not given as a judge of doctrinal issues. The Church is the designated arbiter of doctrine. Rather, gnosis is a deeply personal experience, to be kept in one's heart and meditated on as a gift from Heaven. It can be regarded as imparting personal knowledge of God, or other spiritual matters, maybe revealing a new, higher point of view. It might even offer a broader perspective on religion in general. Many faiths share some aspect or relation in God's plan of salvation. But it will not give contradictory evidence, invalidating any of the means of consolation, salvation or empowerment offered to the faithful.
Gnosis can clarify the nature and depth of the dichotomy between good and evil, specifying the true nature of each. It carries within it the sense of a hallmark of Truth that is hard to ignore, but it begs to be "fact checked" by logical reasoning and critical investigation. Its nonverbal communication needs to be "translated" into more familiar forms. In essence, gnosis stands as the evidence we need to assert confidently that, truly, God does exist, and He cares about us, as amazing as that may be.
Sometimes, a tradition of mystical experiences can offer a path of spiritual evolution, slowly leading the faithful to the improvement of a poorly imagined religion, shedding light on internal contradictions. It can encourage the neglect of certain bad teachings, like threats of violence, or even dissembling lurking in the hidden corners of the faith, or a disdain for and harsh marginalization of the adherents of other traditions. In this way, gnosis, through the integration of mystic experience, can be a means for human spirituality to evolve subtly toward a nearer approximation of true knowledge by encounters with God. Sufis have been working on Islam for centuries, but they are afraid of being accused of apostasy. So, neither can they convert.
But gnosis is not the same as the ancient sects of Gnosticism. We do not claim any secret mystery, to be revealed only to an initiate. There are no essential passwords to be revealed in writing to a chosen few. There is no revelation of a twisted creation ruined by a lesser god, or a multiverse of hierarchies and levels of worlds. No evil Archons, no Barbelo. Those are merely deceptions, distractions to keep you from focusing on the truth.
The Truth has always been in plain sight, evident to any who have ears to hear and eyes to see with. The architecture of creation is already known, at least in mythological language. The God of creation is the same God of compassion, liberation and salvation. The troubles of this world are due to our own lack of faith and obedience, at least until we learn to internalize His morality and grow up to spiritual adulthood. Indeed, the message of Truth is the Good News that the Messiah has come, teaching about the Kingdom of God, and that the Law has been simplified so that Love is its fulfillment.
Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by Me." He did promise to send the Holy Spirit for a guide, but She does not speak for her own glory, but only for the Father and the Son. Thus, gnosis and mystical experience is not a path away from Christianity, nor even an elitist community within it. Rather, gnosis may offer an answer to the doubt of the honest agnostic, who prays, "Lord, I believe. Help Thou my unbelief."
Gnosis answers the essential questions, "How can I know God, and be sure that I am saved?" Aside from the concern to appease the wrath of the earlier gods, this has been the ultimate issue of our religious traditions all the way back to ancient Egypt. Esoteric texts purporting to share the secret divine knowledge needed to pass into the world of the gods date to the age of the pyramids. There was a series of rituals and passwords needed to get past the gatekeepers. It wasn't until later that a clear conscience became a requirement, when the god Ma'at decided to weigh men's souls against a feather.
But there is also another way to be attuned to God, to discern what we need to have a right relationship with the Divinity that sustains our existence. A personal mystic experience grants ineffable (unspeakable) knowledge directly from God. It is not an exclusive prerogative, so as to be reserved only for an elite class of the faithful, but actually may be a democratizing factor. This is because it's not something in us, or in our actions, that causes God to speak to our hearts. It is all God's will, to decide if He wants to touch us in this way.
It may indeed help if we are strongly focused on our desire to know God, practicing prayer, meditation and study as our ultimate concern, but we don't make it happen. Saints through all the ages have retreated from the world, to escape its distractions and concentrate on their efforts to live for God. And many have had these deeply spiritual experiences, and felt thus enlightened and empowered, encouraged in their pursuit of God. Their examples and teachings, as a result, have been a special boon to the rest of us. It is this kind of experience, and the knowledge beyond expression in words, that I am referring to as gnosis.
What can the mystic experience of gnosis do for the believer?
A. Reassure the seeker.
- this is usually imparted only to the elect
- the experience deepens one's faith
- it may reveal a sense of a deeper truth
- it can clarify a holy mystery
B. "My kingdom is not of this world" becomes self-evident.
- knowledge strengthens faith in afterlife
- we may feel less attachment to flesh
- we see this world is not the most "real"
- we may even have a vision of Heaven
C. Offer direction and purpose.
- God's touch can reveal a way to serve
- it may offer a religious vocation
- it often delivers a call to salvation
- it may grant a spiritual gift or aptitude
D. A direct experience of God's love.
- it can be like a face to face meeting
- it speaks intimately to one's heart
- it can give reassurance of forgiveness
- it makes a claim for God's family
Gnosis is not given as a judge of doctrinal issues. The Church is the designated arbiter of doctrine. Rather, gnosis is a deeply personal experience, to be kept in one's heart and meditated on as a gift from Heaven. It can be regarded as imparting personal knowledge of God, or other spiritual matters, maybe revealing a new, higher point of view. It might even offer a broader perspective on religion in general. Many faiths share some aspect or relation in God's plan of salvation. But it will not give contradictory evidence, invalidating any of the means of consolation, salvation or empowerment offered to the faithful.
Gnosis can clarify the nature and depth of the dichotomy between good and evil, specifying the true nature of each. It carries within it the sense of a hallmark of Truth that is hard to ignore, but it begs to be "fact checked" by logical reasoning and critical investigation. Its nonverbal communication needs to be "translated" into more familiar forms. In essence, gnosis stands as the evidence we need to assert confidently that, truly, God does exist, and He cares about us, as amazing as that may be.
Sometimes, a tradition of mystical experiences can offer a path of spiritual evolution, slowly leading the faithful to the improvement of a poorly imagined religion, shedding light on internal contradictions. It can encourage the neglect of certain bad teachings, like threats of violence, or even dissembling lurking in the hidden corners of the faith, or a disdain for and harsh marginalization of the adherents of other traditions. In this way, gnosis, through the integration of mystic experience, can be a means for human spirituality to evolve subtly toward a nearer approximation of true knowledge by encounters with God. Sufis have been working on Islam for centuries, but they are afraid of being accused of apostasy. So, neither can they convert.
But gnosis is not the same as the ancient sects of Gnosticism. We do not claim any secret mystery, to be revealed only to an initiate. There are no essential passwords to be revealed in writing to a chosen few. There is no revelation of a twisted creation ruined by a lesser god, or a multiverse of hierarchies and levels of worlds. No evil Archons, no Barbelo. Those are merely deceptions, distractions to keep you from focusing on the truth.
The Truth has always been in plain sight, evident to any who have ears to hear and eyes to see with. The architecture of creation is already known, at least in mythological language. The God of creation is the same God of compassion, liberation and salvation. The troubles of this world are due to our own lack of faith and obedience, at least until we learn to internalize His morality and grow up to spiritual adulthood. Indeed, the message of Truth is the Good News that the Messiah has come, teaching about the Kingdom of God, and that the Law has been simplified so that Love is its fulfillment.
Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by Me." He did promise to send the Holy Spirit for a guide, but She does not speak for her own glory, but only for the Father and the Son. Thus, gnosis and mystical experience is not a path away from Christianity, nor even an elitist community within it. Rather, gnosis may offer an answer to the doubt of the honest agnostic, who prays, "Lord, I believe. Help Thou my unbelief."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
