Peter, years ago I took issue with you on several occasions, without useful outcome. But I must agree that Descartes was misguided. He observed thinking, from which he concluded “I think, therefore I am,” rather than noting that he was observing a process, the process of thinking, of things arising and passing in the mind.

But I agree with little else you say, apart from on how we relate to others. Rather than draft afresh, I’ll first copy a couple of recent posts on the blog of Bill Hooke, a committed Christian and meteorologist whom I regard highly. Bill’s topic was “Climate Change in the American Christian Mind.” http://www.livingontherealworld.org/?p=1269

1.“Is caring for the natural environment a religious responsibility?” No, the responsibility of each of us is to develop wisdom and understanding, which naturally leads to a peaceful, harmonious life, good for ourselves and good for others. Inherent in that is a modest lifestyle and caring for all life. With wisdom, we will make harmonious decisions without needing the notion of responsibility for the environment. So religious leaders concerned for the environment should concentrate on what should be their core task, helping people with their spiritual development – although the latter is, of course, the responsibility of each individual, you have to do the work rather than leave it to external forces.

2. If we are looking at moral imperatives, I don’t think that costly measures which might slightly reduce warming if it resumes are a high priority. What will happen to the climate in 100 years’ time or so is speculation, and the future always surprises us. What is fact is that through fossil fuel energy, freeish markets, freeish trade and capitalist enterprise, billions of people have gone from lives which were “nasty, brutish and short” to lives of comparative plenty, where they have clean water, sanitation, health and education services and don’t have to focus entirely on getting enough food for themselves and their dependents. Another fact is that billions are yet to make this transition, and that fossil fuel use is critical to their future well-being. (more)

(cont) When peoples’ lives are no longer dominated by daily survival, they have the time and resources both for spiritual development and for caring for their environment. To ignore that is not being “morally responsible.”

As an economist, I think that the best way that we can prepare for whatever future emerges is by increasing our capacity to deal with an ever-changing world. This involves policies promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, flexibility, individual initiative and self-reliance. This is in stark contrast to the central direction and regulation favoured by those proposing GHG emissions reductions as an over-arching priority. (end quote)

So the question is how do we develop the wisdom and understanding to live peaceful, harmonious lives, good for ourselves and good for others. Whether or not there is a God or gods, we need to do the work ourselves. If God exists, He will bless our well-directed efforts. But he would surely support the effort, rather than worship of Himself, I can’t see that He’d value that at all. Nor do I see value in belief. Belief is not knowledge, it is not our own wisdom, it is too often a substitute for the search of wisdom which we all need to pursue. Jesus said that “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.” Saints and sages have for millennia have advised “Know thyself.” Some such as the Buddha have shown how we can do this, with great benefits. When we understand the reality of the Universe, through our own direct experience rather than intellectually from external sources or at then purely rational, say Descarteian, level, then we will live as you and any God would wish.

It's all that thinking that's the problem Peter!

If you would just learn to still the conscious mind/learn to meditate as part of your daily ritual; you'll find, like everyone else who's mastered it; [like most esoteric Christians,] you'll know who you are and what's real!?

Not for nothing is it writ large, seek ye first the kingdom of heaven within!

Meditation is not walking about reading from this or that gospel or even a quiet reverie; even though a pleasant enough way to waste your limited time; but rather, completely stilling the endless monkey chatter that is the common human condition.

Take the time to just stop and listen to your own conscious mind and some of the endless rubbish it produces, if only to discover what Descartes meant by duality!?

I could instruct you but I'm adverse to wasting my time or casting my pearls?

Besides there are plenty of books describing how to, minus all the usual dogma that all too often accompanies the lesson!

In any event, you yourself need to be the one who breaks out of that all too comfortable cocoon you've created for yourself; but only if you would know the truth that finally sets you free!?

Alternatively you could remain where you are; after all if ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise?
Rhrosty.

Congratulations, Peter - this is a deep and great article. I fully agree.

Hi Peter, Nice try, but you are digging into very soft sand that leads to wishful thinking. The organ in my head that lets me "think" is my brain. If it is damaged or dead I cannot think. When I do think I am living. How I choose to think is best determined by the patterns inculcated in my brain during its development (whether exogenous or endogenous) and by rational thought especially if supplemented by evidence. You may choose to enjoy religious experiences but I do not. Unlike for most of the past 5000 or so years acceptance of religion is now not required for a peaceful and progressive life in the modern era. Religion is still around but is now very much a personal matter and that is how it should be in my view. Every day I marvel at the wonder (and enjoyment) of my life and regret that some humans are still denied the opportunities I have. If the world is headed for catastrophe it will be rational thought by hard headed scholars and philosophers including real scientists that will confront the problem. If we and they collectively succeed humans will continue to survive on planet earth. If not humans will become extinct like the dinosaurs. Of course any one of several cosmic calamities such as a massive meteor might take away any choice we humans have at any time. Cheers.

‘morning Peter,

I have to agree with Rhrosty on this one. Too much thinking.

In corporate we used to have an expression “death by creeping excellence”, this was synonymous with a similar description in the research and development field, at some point one has to “freeze the design and get into production”.

It seems that in “thinking” you have blasted through the issues at close to the speed of light?

“Cartesian dualism”?

Am I right in thinking that you are alluding to the dichotomy between thinking you were, but finding you were not when you tried to translate what you thought you knew into what you believed to be some form of meaningful actions. Which turned out in the end, to be a manifestation of pseudo theological conjunctive analysis, that ended up translating into a failure to connect with reality?

When Peter, are you going to step down from your lofty theological mountain and put together some stone tablets that we can load onto a Ute to take home for the missus?

I admire your intellect enormously, but in the end, it’s value is directly proportional to what can be translated into meaningful action. Instead, you go for the “inverse square” formula which if I remember correctly, never arrives anywhere.

Give us a break Peter, we are just low life’s scrambling to understand Monty Python!