Amit Goswami, quantum physicist & now a retired professor, is a pioneer of the new paradigm of science called “science within consciousness,”. He posited that consciousness is the ground of being. During 6th century BCE Anaxagoras affirmed that Mind is the origin of motion and change.
I just love it when things come full circle. When the past communicates with the future & shows us how perhaps certain things are so profoundly true that they are accessible to all, regardless of the period you’re living in.
Simone de Beauvoir et Jean-Paul Sartre. Paris, 1963. Photo: Gisèle Freund.
"Yes, I can see your struggle — thanks for the thoughtful reply. Unfortunately many times people in any argument deride the other side as being ‘stupid’ or something, and perhaps in religious arguments this happens the most. On behalf of nonbelievers, I apologize for their behavior. My feelings on these matters are infused with a strain of idealism and emotional delicacy that probably came from Sagan. Had I been treated as you have been, I never would have gone any further into thinking about these things, I think. I would have likely dug my heels in the sand. So I am indebted to him and things like ‘Star Trek’ for not being confrontational.
The truth is, we are all in this together. The aim of religion and, for example, science need not be opposed. If religion is revering God, then what better way to show reverence than by understanding? Certainly Newton, Bruno, Galileo, Jefferson, and countless others thought this way. That was my own feeling when I first went into it. Now, it may be that for some of us, there is not enough out there to make us believe. But I think people can still work together on it. As long as a sincere desire to know the truth exists, and a willingness to be wrong is there, it is hard to be thrown astray.
I think Buddha put it best when he said, “What we do today matters the most.” Though these are deep and central questions to human life, to always proceed with respect and morality is the best way, I think. :) “
- The lovely Xezene, an Agnostic, during a conversation we had about this post of mine.
We’re all in this together.. :)
❝ A kind of light spread out from her. And everything changed color. And the world opened out. And a day was good to awaken to. And there were no limits to anything. And the people of the world were good and handsome. And I was not afraid any more. ❞
—— John Steinbeck, “East of Eden”
❝ the earth swallows the sun earlier here.
the snow is cream, soft on everything.
the trees sprinkled with it like sugar frosting.
we draw hearts and cuss words on snow-covered
windows. fingers splitting a path in the soft white,
creating tracks that expose clean glass beneath.
a bird sits on a bicycle seat. an empty wine bottle
sits on a window ledge, a candle plugged
into its gaping mouth. half melted.
we watched the stars once as the wind bit our faces.
a night so dark that all we heard was the sea
slamming against rocks. we could have been anywhere,
but the stars were scattered differently.
the dipper reminded us that we weren’t home.
my teeth sinks into water that does not
taste the same. everything slows down
and i begin to cleanse myself too late,
too often. my lips crack. my hands burn
with the cold. what is the secret of moving?
do i turn to the waters at the time that i
am used to, or do i force the body to
adapt? you are not moses. you command
nothing. the waters do not part for you.
perhaps the secret of moving is to not
move at all. let the waters guide you. ❞
I agree with your post on atheism, the only probleme I have is that you use western synonymous with the us and the uk. Suprisinglu, those two are not only not the representatives of the world, but also not the representatives of (premarily white) western countries. Also I might add: a lot of early science in Europe finds it's origin in monestaries (Mendel for example was a monk.)
I understand, & I don’t mean to say that these two nations are the only representatives of the west, but most proponents of New Atheism are from the US & the UK.
It’s nice that you acknowledge that early science had its roots in religious surroundings. A lot of atheists don’t like to acknowledge that, I don’t know why (maybe it spoils the binary where ‘science’ sits with atheism & fantasy is with the believers) & if they do, they talk about how these people could have done their work better if they weren’t believers. Respectful atheists can acknowledge this though, cause they know it doesn’t ultimately take away anything from their arguments..
A big part of why I’m troubled by mainstream Atheism (actually, more of New Atheism) is that its proponents are largely white, rich, western men who assume that the religious atmosphere in their country is representative of the state & atmosphere of religion worldwide. There is so little cultural relativism in their advocacy that it’s not surprising when they end up saying very problematic & racist things.
A cursory reading on the history of the development of religion & understanding of “God” will tell us that fundamentalism, specifically Christian fundamentalism, really took root and bloomed in the US. The US government also aided the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism, since they gave lots of funding to fundamentalist organizations & political parties like Al-Qaeda in order to selfishly protect their own interests. Their disgusting foreign policy is also giving rise to extremist sentiments amongst the victims who see no other constructive way of having their misery heard. More than 40% of americans, today, are also believers of creationism. This atmosphere is also present in the UK. It doesn’t take a genius to observe that there seems to be a correlation between the high number of religion fundamentalism & the presence of fierce anti-religious atheism.
So this is what the religious atmosphere is like in western countries. They have debates about whether creationism — a religious myth written by a jewish priest that was never a scientific, empirical suggestion of the world’s origins — should be included in the science syllabus. Ridiculous! So then these western, white scientists go on to write books about how religious nuts, whom are somehow automatically all creationists, are all out to destroy scientific progress.
In reality, who are these religious nuts they are talking about? Mostly the loud fundamentalist believers that they have encountered only within their own country. What religious atmosphere are they talking about? The religious atmosphere in their own country. People in non-western countries then read these books, which describe a religious atmosphere that is not present in their own countries, but they assume it to be so.
I mean, shockingly, seriously, the US or the UK, is not representative of the whole world. Seriously. Is that hard to understand or…?
Thus begins, the very many, many, many bewildering times when believers encounter people who accuse them of being creationists & followers of tribalism. Never mind that support for creationism outside of the US is low (aside from Turkey, unfortunately). Never mind that religious practice is not as ritualistic or fundamentalist outside of the US. Never mind that a lot of believers are not even Christians or even Muslims or even monotheistic!
I have nothing against Atheism. Especially not if it provides useful, constructive & much needed critiques of the current state of religious institutions today. But I do have a problem with racist, misogynistic, and narrow-minded assumptions about the reality of the worldwide religious community.