goodthief, I think you made a point very relevant to our discussion about Islam. Is it not the “Jesus business” or rather “Jesus factor” that is missing in Islam, so that the jealous Abrahamic God takes the upper hand? On the other hand, one could perhaps argue that Buddhism had too much of this “Jesus (yin) factor”, which directed their intellectual development away from what in the West was known as Enlightenment, science and technology. Nevertheless, as also the Dalai Lama seems to believe, the a posteriori encounter of Buddhism with western achievements of Enlightenment, science and technology can be made beneficial to it. Hopefully the same with Islam. There are no problems with Islam’s encounter with western technology, its encounter with scientific thinking is on the way, although still at the “intelligent design” stage. Only its encounter with Enlightenment - still mostly in the heads of some of their thinkers living in the West - is unfortunately the big problem, not only for them but also for the rest of the world. However, there does not seem to be any other safe way for them to go, and we, Christians, may just hope that also the “Jesus factor” will somehow get in through the back door.

sam, since the only sef-aware unit known to science is the human being, I could imagine myself only as being that sef-aware “cell” that is part of a higher level self-aware unit that science does not understand. Hence my hint at pantheistic Oriental religions. Otherwise I could not understand the point of your “mind exercise”. Neither do I understand what you mean by “spiritual awareness”: it either implies the existence of a “spiritual world” outside the realm researched by science, or not, in which case spiritual awareness is fully covered by what neuroscince and psychology can say about it; or perhaps some as yet unknown branch of science. However I do not see much difference between a belief in something science has not discovered YET, and belief in a God that science CANNOT discover through means and tools available to it.

pericles, thank you for correcting my description of the empiricist’s position, which I do not find esentially different from mine: you cannot claim “nobody knows” only that you do not know, and that the arguments of those who claim to know do not convince you. But I agree, there is no point in going with you into any deeper analysis of the meaning of the words used.

Also, nobody is “detouring into Eastern mysticism”. What you quoted is a part of my apology to ‘sam said’ for keeping my alternatives within the western mindset.

You can poke fun on “the number of angels on the head of a pin” (meaning whether the spiritual world is or is not outside the physical space) if you can show me somebody, hopefully an empiricist, who lived in the Middle Ages and knew of e.g. Einstein’s theory of space-time.

“Why is it therefore so difficult … to see the sheer beauty and simplicity of the empiricist’s position?” Because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so a Christain will not ask why you cannot see the beauty and simplicity of his/her position, because he/she knows you cannot without faith. Why can I see the beauty of a poem written in Hungarian, but in Turkish? Because I can understand Hungarian but not Turkish, it is that simple.

There are many atheists or agnostics, professional or amateur philosophers, who “filled space with a lot of words” trying to clarify and explain their world view. Their point of view I think I can understand, certainly respect, even if unable to share. You are obviously not one of them. So at the end I must apologise for also filling the space with a lot of words, apparently in vain.

george wrote 'Neither do I understand what you mean by “spiritual awareness”

Its been discussed before...how does it go...god is energy(no material form)...so to learn/know about god one must also be 'aware' of energies and explore it with rational logical intelligence and belief/faith in the right doses for each as they choose to keep moving forward...and all life form on earth has these energies that flows in, and in between us(us as in all life forms...hence eating a plant/animal/fish is getting that energy)...bit like the movie matrix when keanu was blinded but could see energies around him as a extreme example...this is where 'spiritual eye' ie eye that sees energies was talked about that we all have...so if you try you teach your self to see the world in energies as well as the usual senses we use it will be very a powerful help both in day to day life and spirituality...

essentially increasing the way you sense the world around you...and since god is essentially intelligent energy...learning about the world of energies around us we should eventually get closer and even know and find god...so it goes...the journey is called spiritual awareness...

Hope this helps...

Sam

Yvonne asked about Islam, “If it was going to destroy and enslave all, why did it not do that at the height of its power?”

The Islamists did try to enslave all but were thwarted in their attempts

Mohammed and his followers robbed, murdered, raped and destroyed innocent people to further their lust for power and domination. Many were forced to convert to Islam at knife-point. (These are facts proclaimed by many ex-Muslims who know Islam intimately, they don’t come from Boaz_David. http://islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/IncessantTerrorism.htm http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles.htm#terrorism ).

After the death of Mohammed, the Islamists conquered Syria, Egypt, and North Africa. They began to invade Western Europe under the leadership of Abd-er Rahman, governor of Spain. However, the Islamists were defeated in the Battle of Tours-Poitiers in 732 AD. This was a decisive defeat for the Islamists and halted their advancement into Europe. http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/Europe/05/culp/

Islam has not changed. It is still the same politico-religious system that advocates violence to achieve its objectives. In South-East Asia today, the Muslims in South Thailand and Indonesia where they form a majority are persecuting non-Muslims. In South Thailand they are killing innocent Buddhists civilians and cutting off their heads whereas in Indonesia the Christians are hunted down mercilessly.
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070411/3/305uj.html http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/JAK293786.htm

The only successful European country to put down Muslim uprising appears to be Russia where Putin dealt with the Muslims firmly. (http://www.blonnet.com/2002/12/19/stories/2002121900580800.htm )
Unless Western Europe adopts Putin’s firm hand in dealing with the Muslims, the whole continent will be Islamised within two generations. It appears that the victory secured by Charles Mattel in the Battle of Tours would indeed be in vain.

Whoa, that's a bit of a stretch, George.

>>the empiricist’s position, which I do not find esentially different from mine<<

Compare and contrast:

Q: ”Who created the universe, and why does it exist at all?”

A: (George, the pretend empiricist) "nobody, and that the question “why” does not make sense"

A: (Pericles, the empiricist's empiricist) ""no-one yet knows who, if anybody, created the universe. Nor is there any detectable motive behind its creation"

There is first of all a clear difference between saying "nobody did" and "nobody knows who did"

If I were investigating a bank robbery, and someone asked me "who robbed the bank" and I answered "nobody", the bank would not suddenly become un-robbed, would it?

The answer "the question “why” does not make sense." is a nonsense in itself, and quite insulting to the empiricist. The empiricist is by definition infinitely more curious about the topic than the religionist, who believes he already knows the answer.

It is also miles away from a frank admission that, while eventually an answer to the question "why?" might be found, there is presently no evidence whatsoever that helps us determine it.

I suggest that, rather than being "not essentially different", these answers are at opposite ends of the earth to each other.

In the same way that goodthief invented a definition for the empiricist that suited his book, you produced a hypothetical answer to your question that is totally self-serving.

sam, thank you for the info. This is the standard definition of (transcendental) meditation and other mysticism practices that today can be “measured” by neuroscience (c.f. Andrew Newberg). It corresponds to traditional Christian prayer, contemplation and meditation, however with a much more advanced technique of how to achieve this higher stage of awareness called spiritual. The Christian contemplator assumes, before starting to contemplate, that there is a God OUTSIDE of the material world (not detectable by electrodes attached to the contemplator’s brain, we would say today).

I was just wondering, what was your opinion on this. Is meditation towards spiritual awareness just a skill and NOTHING ELSE, something you can learn like riding a bike or understanding higher maths, or does it INCLUDE a contact with Something – albeit not a personal God like in the Abrahamic faiths – that is out there?

What do you mean by saying “god is essentially intelligent energy”? The word “god” would point to such Something outside the realm of science, on the other hand the term “intelligent energy” where “all life form on earth has these energies” sounds like a pseudo-scientific term similar to phlogiston, i.e. a substance introduced for lack of better explanations. As I understand it, life, (though not yet human self-awareness) is coming close to being fully explained within standard science.

Can you have a spiritual awareness without believing that there is that Something, a Transcendent world, undetectable by science? Both Hinduism and Buddhism, as I understand them, admit the existence of such a world (of gods, or what).