http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29585222/?GT1=43001

Maybe there's hope. We're far behind the most enlightened nations, but far ahead of some others. Progress marches on!

They're just moving away from one kind of religion and towards another. Science is the new popular religion. People have replaced the old ghosts with new ones.

I think anyone would have a hard time justifying the view that science is a religion. No faith is required. Only verifiable and reproducible evidence suffices in science.

The scientist has faith that verifiable and reproductive evidence are a source of truth. Faith exists in scientific laws.

so.... what do the various sciences offer as a source of hope that the various religions are not capable of providing?

There's a difference between faith and knowledge, you know. Or do you know?

Doesn't science include faith? Doesn't a scientist endeavor to expand knowledge and have faith there is always more to understand and more to experience?

I have a beef with the way organized religion has hijacked spirituality, cluttered its true meaning, and denies a meaninful and constructive way of understanding it. Not with spirituality itself.
Science as a way of religion sounds contradictory. Faith as a practical means to achieve progress is a natural characteristic of man. How can this constitute a new religion?

It's easy to manipulate the semantics but the hole of unsubstantiated make-believe dug by religious faith is not so easy to get out of.

Of course scientists have faith but it merely means an eagerness to discover or understand, or a (possible temporary) satisfaction with present theories. But scientists know that much of what they 'know' and many theories will be modified and change, as more or better evidence is acquired through the accepted scientific method.

Scientists are realists and know that things could change. But they seek the truth and are not so easily fobbed off by fairy stories that debase and demean the human 'spirit' and abilities.

As soon as we are able to prevent the brain-washing of children by religions (some of which is clearly and visibly child abuse), eventually we will be able to show our true potential.

This is not to say that science and its methods or people are perfect. Far from it. But that doesn't empower the fairies, it just needs sorting as and when.

Well in how many ways is science like religion?

Both religion and science involve faith in something more, that this world as we know it is not the ideal world (as our understanding of it is incomplete).


To the Jews, the world was created by God, and mankind has fallen from grace, and must endure the effects of Original Sin on all mankind. The Jews feel that they must grasp for forgiveness in order to attain Heaven.

To the Buddhist, the world is inherently empty, created and sustained by karma, and full of suffering beings. The Buddhist feels that they must "grasp" (poor use of the term in the Buddhist concept, but that's beside the point) emptiness in order to attain Nirvana.

To the scientist, the world is matter and energy, created by a Big Bang, and sustained by natural laws, but our understanding of it is forever incomplete. We can add to knowledge, but will Ultimate Knowledge ever be grasped? Is it even possible, or are there literally endless patterns to be discovered and explained? The scientist grasps for more facts in order to attain Truth.


Jews are consistently adding and commenting on the Talmud.
Buddhists are constantly writing abhidharma, sutras, koans,etc.
Scientists are constantly writing new scientific and mathematical laws.


The similarities between science and other religions seem about as profound as the differences.

The best thing about science is that its changeable. Of course if you go against the grain of orthodox science, or call another scientists accepted theory into doubt, then you might as well be Copernicus against religion!

Copernicus had faith in what he was doing, when the world around him believed in whatever they were spoonfed. Many many people have been brave enough to go against the mainstream beliefs, often to their own demise. Without people like that the world would still be sacrificing animals to the rain gods.

But we all have faith and take things that science says as Truth. Whenever a new scientific breakthrough comes along, we all post on here about the repercussions on this new 'Truth'. Almost certainly none of us were there; none of us saw the experiment first hand; none of us have done all the experiments that were precursors to the newest hypothesis - Yet we all have faith in the results of our scientific 'sages'.

People can be very wrong, religious or scientific, its safeguarding and sanity checking ourselves which should be done above all else.

Spirituality is extremely valid in our lives. I believe true spirituality actually drives the inquisitive mind into science, because to truly understand something brings a lot of joy. We still don't know the answer to the big questions, and we probably never will. We still feel awe and wonder when we bring a new life into existence, and emptiness and sadness when we lose a friend. This cyclic nature of life and the nature of love are all genuine reasons for spirituality.

So I'm with Code on this one. Religion is 5% genuine spirituality, and 95% political padding.

Religion is not unlike like a child learning to walk, tho its taken thousands of years for it to digress and progress should we kick the child for stumbling or live in truth and wisdom to give it an example to live up to?
If you're too busy kicking the child and telling it what it's doing wrong, what example will it have to see any differently? Won't it just develop its own beliefs and a need to protect itself under attack?

Wouldn't it require a greater faith in humanity to see that what exists in the evolved Self lives within the child that is learning to walk?

So we just believe in fairies, although there is no evidence? Very profound!

I was thinking more along the lines of giving something more inspiring to humanity than sarcasm..

Me too!

All I'm saying is that science and religion have equal inherent value.



"We are all of us very arrogant and conceited about running down other people's ghosts but just as ignorant and barbaric and superstitious about our own"

"The problem, the contradiction the scientists are stuck with, is that of mind. Mind has no matter or energy but they can't escape its predominance over everything they do. Logic exists in the mind. Numbers exist only in the mind. I don't get upset when scientists say that ghosts exist in the mind. It's that only that get me. Science is only in your mind too, it's just that that doesn't make it bad. Or ghosts either.

Laws of nature are human inventions, like ghosts. Laws of logic, of mathematics are also human inventions, like ghosts. The whole blessed thing is a human invention, including the idea that it isn't a human invention. The world has no existence whatsoever outside the human imagination. It's all a ghost, and in antiquity was so recognized as a ghost, the whole blessed world we live in. It's run by ghosts. We see what we see because these ghosts show it to us, ghosts of Moses and Christ and the Buddha, and Plato, and Descartes, and Rousseau and Jefferson and Lincoln, on and on and on. Isaac Newton is a very good ghost. One of the best. Your common sense is nothing more than voices of thousands and thousands of these ghosts from the past. Ghosts and more ghosts. Ghosts trying to find their place among the living."

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

I think you'll find they are discoveries not inventions.

If you are being poetic here and implying that 'ghosts' are the residual theories, discoveries etc, indeed the wealth of human history, then I can go along with that. But if you are implying that actual ghosts are around, then that is an invention of the human mind, and there is no hard evidence, merely hypothesis. How would you test that hypothesis? In other words, I'm asking you to prove your case.

Like its stated in my signature, those ghosts are echoes of the zeitgeist from times gone by. There is only repetition of ideas and behaviours, recombined and spat out into the mass of the hive mind. I also believe the Holy Ghost is a recognition of this ever present environment that we all contribute to.

I don't think its something you can test; its merely a view from another angle on the external pressures on our capacitor like reflecting minds. Your first assumption is how I took Books statement.

Welcome to the wonderful world of postmodernism!!!

http://www.newsweek.com/id/192583

Rick, I agree. I also agree with the basic thesis of this thread--More Americans are veering away from organized religion.

BTW, I missed this thread, because last March we were in Florida. I will be there, again, this March. My wife and I have visited Treasure Island, St. Petersburg area, since 1966--over 40 years. Apropos to the theme of this thread, while there we have attended Pasadena Community Church--a Methodist Church
http://www.pasadenacommunitychurch.org/

Interestingly, the current series of sermons are on such themes as:
When Bad Religion Happens to Good People & When Tragedy Strikes--about what is happening to Haiti, and to the people, including Methodists, who live there.
=========================================================
About PCC
PCC is a large congregation. The church seats 3000 with a choir of 300 voices.
Recently we have noticed that the church is not as full as it used to be. The last time we were there the choir loft was less than half full.
===========================================
Rick, how do you feel about psychology? Do you feel that it is a pseudo-science, and nothing more? What about sociology?

As a long-time student of psychology I certainly do not think of it as a hard science, but it is not possible to approach it with a scientific attitude of mind? Or of spirit? If so, I say the same thing for pneumatology, which, as I have said grew out of psychology.

If psychology, pneumatology, sociology and the like are not sciences, what are they? Just philosophies? As such, have they no value? If so, what value do they have?

I like what Will R Durant said in his, History of Philosophy: All science starts as a philosophy and ends as an art.

Psychology is certainly a valid science. One only needs to read the peer-reviewed research papers of psychology to know that. Similarly with the social sciences. Are there peer reviewed research papers in pneumatology? Are there international conferences or peer reviewed journals?

Now this is a bit different than saying that science is a religion. It seems to me that your thesis is actually that people express their needs to pursue or construct their world models with similar dedication, and that, further, these ways of expression fall into two major categories, scientific (or rational) and religious (or irrational).

For instance, the scientist or science enthusiast is constantly acquiring new facts to integrate into scientific models and the theologian or religious practitioner is constantly practicing his devotion or creating devotional art.

So you're saying that pneumatology, the study of spiritual beings and phenomena (most commonly defined in a religious context and thus, if honest, referring to god[s] and their activities) can be bundled with behavioural and cognitive phenomena (of all animals), the latter taking a strictly scientific approach to observation, recording and interpretation of data (except in a few sidelined and archaic instances) then you are wrong. Your attempts to redefine pneumatology and steer away from its almost universal association with god are unsuccessful and you are fighting a losing battle in trying to win a new definition. There are plenty of better terms to use, if the godless meaning is what you are really after. I suspect that you don't really wish to redefine the term, but instead are attempting to draw the susceptible into acceptance in order that they are 'converted' and then you have them in the clutches of religion, but achieved covertly in these times of dwindling acceptance of unsubstantiated fairy stories.

So, let's talk psychology then with its BSc's and MSc's and scientific methods. Or sociology with it's phenomenological base of the human genome under the influence of environmental factors (including other humans) - actually just social biology simply put, the way many species live and survive together and amongst other species and the changing environment, but much more complex, and for humans at an early time of understanding. The scientific approach to these two disciplines is widely accepted, and though immature in certain areas will definitely continue to develop. A great deal of animal/human behaviour is readily predictable presently and is dependent upon the biological needs of organisms for survival. Even when behaviour is seen to go wrong, it actually doesn't go wrong, but merely deviates from the preferred path of artificially 'normalised' behaviour, and does so quite predictably. How that might be dealt with (for example, for reasons of individual or social health, or social engineering purposes) is far from understood but we are getting there and we have the future, of course, in which to develop the understanding and its application. After all, we have only been scientific for a few centuries, possibly millennia; i.e. we are a young species in a complex world.

This depends upon how one would wish to define the three terms, especially art, and I do not agree that their association, interaction or resultant derivation are necessarily as you (or indeed Durant) imply. The statement is, indeed, rather poetic, but as such could be considered one or more of simplistic, overcomplex, directly factual, purely aesthetic, metaphorical, or, better still, invoking of argument and discussion. Indeed the unidirectional nature of the statement is clearly simplistic as, for example, art can stimulate ideas or methods to solve problems in science or technology. Clearly there is a possible web of interaction of the terms, quite a complex web if subdisciplines of the three are considered. Yes, I definitely propose that your 'Durant' hypothesis is false.

Thanks Rick! When I majored in psychology it was under the department of philosophy. There were also courses in the philosophy, psychology of religion, and pastoral psychology. Check out
http://www.springer.com/psychology/psychol...l/journal/11089

There is an interesting story about Anton Boisen, the founder of Pastoral Psychology, and Milton Erickson. For Boisen, check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Boisen

Also, there is an interesting story, later, of how Wundt--the son of an evangelical Lutheran minister--who "wooed" psychology away from philosophy.

Wilhelm Wundt--In 1879 he set up a lab in Leipzig--preceded the behaviourists like Pavlov, Watson and B.F. Skinner, etc.,

I can see how it is true, if we look at the terms in their most general usages. It's generally accepted that topics evolve from philosophy to science. Observe how natural philosophy became physics.

When a philosopher speaks of "art" he not only means fine art, but also industrial arts, crafts, mechanics, etc. So when scientists have thoroughly exhausted a scientific topic (theory of heat, for example), they more or less wash their hands of it, saying, "let the engineers handle it now."

They're reasonable counterpoints, but are you saying that pure science always becomes applied? As an applied scientist (some say that description is an anathema) I have no particular problem with that, but how are Pollock's (or Trip's) abstract drippings (and I don't mean at all to be derisory as I think they're great) anything to do with science? Unless they are directed drippings intended to represent nature, though the definition of abstract could become foggy then. I have a splash of colour with no particular form or reason that I consider to be a painting. It was done by a chimpanzee. I believe it is art. If it is art to me it is art. No connection with science (or philosophy). Trip is needed here maybe for his views. Of course, Durant having described connections does not mean that the connections are exclusive by design or inclusive by the connected fractions, do they? Else all artists are philosophers and scientists, and so is the chimpanzee. Not impossible, of course.

I would be interested to explore this in terms of reductionism. According to and extending Durant then, art might reduce through science (including subdisciplines, e.g. biology, chemistry, physics), mathematics, philosophy, even Samadhi. Eh? And, there might be more, extending beyond each end. Perhaps that is where reality might lie, described by something beyond art or Samadhi? For me this doesn't work and reductionism is a big problem in describing something like mind or consciousness as there could be multiple elements or levels that contribute to create it. Likewise with matter and universes. Personally, outside of restricted/restricting examples, I think the hypothesis is limiting and constraining, though as I eluded, the definitions might be widened so much as to make the argument redundant.

Well, there's definitely a hierarchy. Just ask any philosopher about the relationship of philosophy to science and ask any scientist about the relationship of science to engineering:

Philosophy

Science

Engineering

The real question, perhaps, is where does art fit into this hierarchy?

We also know that artists have their own hierarchy:

Architecture

Sculpture

Painting

Ceramics

Crafts

Maybe we should just declare them all a bunch of snobs and smash down all the hierarchies into universal egalitarianism!

I always admired the polymaths. I like the multidisciplinary approach. It's still not preferred in academia though. Ah well, bed time to sleep some art. 'Night all.

"GEE!!! I wonder?" said the philosopher. "Creation is great, but look what happened when GOD took a day off--All that Good, Order and Design... Now nothing but CHAOS. I wonder if we can make something that is good and useful out of it?"

"Order? You want Order? OK! We will work on it" said the scientists. "Patiently we will study and experiment to see what it is made of and how it works. Perhaps, eventually, with the help of the engineers and the technologists something useful and good will evolve. What about the artists? Any artists in the house?"

"At your service" said the artists. "But if there is to be no more chaos, we will all need to work at it, consciously, cooperatively and artistically. With the materials and tools needed, and with the help of the artisans, we will do all we can to guide all of us to a Design that is Desirable for all of us, and a joy forever."

Up spoke the spirit-filled pneumatologists--philosophers and prophets: "G0d--the spark of spirituality in each of us--and GOD--the spark in all creation. This spirit inspires us to realize what created all this chaos: It happened when we abused our free will. For selfish and evil reasons, we became greedy for wealth and power. Instead of serving one another, a few of us chose the way of dictatorship and have others serve us.

Most of us became slothful, blind and apathetic. We allowed corrupt politicians, put in power by the equally corrupt business leaders, especially the corrupt bankers--to control us. I warn you: Be aware! Wake up and repent: They did it before and, unless we stay awake, they will do it, again!" Do we not all agree that, "The price of freedom is constant vigiliance?"

BTW, do not confuse wise philosophers and prophets--Socrates, Aristotle, the Hebrew prophets of the Old and New Testaments, the many sages from the east, and the great reformers from the Middle Ages onwards--with the priest-controlled non-democratic cults known as organized religion. Strongly desiring to maintain their own position of privilege and power, the latter usually remain silent, or operate in complete cooperation with the powers that be.

It's strange how god was designed to resemble a politician - all talk and no action.

Pat Robertson: Haiti 'Cursed' By 'Pact To The Devil' (VIDEO)
Here's a good example of religion's benefits to society for you:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/13/p...e_n_422099.html

Excellent point, HH.
===================
Most of you are aware by now, that I lived out my childhood during the Great Depression--1930-1939. I also saw WW 2, close-up--1939-1945. For me it was a time of poverty and danger. I experienced seeing the death of four members of my family, including a brother, a sister, her entire family, and my parents. War, also, brought death and destruction to my home town (69 young merchant-seamen died in action). I lived under no illusion that there was a god up there answering yes to all our prayers, looking after all our needs and filling all his creation with sweetness and light, all the time.

At 15/16 I was a strong skeptic and almost became and atheist. Instead, as a university student I decided, with the help of the arts and sciences to search for a definition of 'god' that made sense to me.

Looking back I now realize what theists and atheists have in common: They both think of 'god' as a supernatural being. On page 31 of, The GOD Delusion, Richard Dawkins defines what he calls the God Hypothesis. He writes : there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.

With the same definition in mind his book advocates an alternative view: Any creative intelligence of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.

Having given this definition, he goes on to say: "Creative intelligences [I presume he means us] being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. God, in the sense defined, is an illusion; and as later chapters will show, a pernicious [destructive, false, deadly] delusion."

If I understand what he writes, Richard Dawkins is saying that, theists and atheists both have the same definition of 'god' as a "superhuman and supernatural being". However, here is how they differ: Theists, without any concrete evidence whatsoever, simply believe in and live out their lives based on what they think of as a great truth: God will reward all good and faithful believers and give them eternal and glorious lives in the hereafter. Some theists teach that non believers will simply die. More conservative theists threaten--again with no evidence--that non believers, who refuse to repent, will go to a pain-filled hell. If the theists are right: Believers will be rewarded with eternal life in a beautiful heaven. Not a bad deal. And it has lots of incentive.

On the other hand, according to RD, atheism offers very little, or no, reward. Like theists--again without any evidence--atheists are expected to be content to spend the rest of their short lives trying to convince anyone willing to listen to them that they are right and that theists are wrong. The only prize atheism offers is: If you are lucky, you will have a good life and die peacefully. For the many millions who will live miserably and die the same way, the rewards is simply death. Compared with theism, not much of a reward, or incentive here.

Are these the only two choices we have, the choice between theism and atheism? IMO, of course not. There is another choice: We can choose to evolve physically, mentally and spiritually to be at one with all that is--at one with GOD--forever. Again no evidence, but it certainly sounds good and rewarding.

With this in mind, here is a revision of my last post:

SIN HAPPENS WHEN WE CONSCIOUSLY CHOOSE TO DO EVIL TO SELF AND OTHERS. BUT WE ARE FREE TO CHOOSE THE GOOD LIFE

Up spoke the spirit-filled--i.e., morally self-aware pneumatologists, philosophers and prophets:

"We are not talking about a god as a dimensional being, one who can be designed. Such a god is an idol. We speak of G0d as the spark of moral spirituality, which dwells in each of us and inspires us to take action. We speak of GOD--an acronym, not a noun--as that spark in all creation which draws us take action as we eternally evolve, or unfold into life. This spirit will help us understand what created all this chaos:

"It happened when we abused our free will. Foolishly, we used it to choose evil, not the good. For selfish and evil reasons, some of us became greedy for wealth and power. Instead of choosing to serve one another and create a commonwealth, some of us chose the way of power and dictatorship. Foolishly, we thought that there is a shortage of wealth and power and that for us to have any we had to force others to give us theirs and serve us. If we are among those who chose the foolish way of power and greed it is always a good idea to change our minds--to repent.

"Most of us, because we lost our power and wealth, also, foolishly assumed that there is a shortage. Because of this we became slothful, blind to the possibilities and apathetic about our opportunities. We buried our talents. And we allowed corrupt politicians, put in power by the equally corrupt business leaders, especially the corrupt bankers--to control us and keep in debt and bondage. If we are in this group now is our opportunity to be aware, to wake up and repent: They did it before and, unless we stay awake, they will do it, again!"


BTW, there is a difference between good and bad religions, between good and wise philosophers and prophets and those who are not. Of course there have always been great and self-sacrificing moral leaders like Socrates, Aristotle, the Hebrew and Gentile prophets of the Old and New Testaments, the many sages from the east, the great reformers from the Middle Ages onwards, even to this day. Such have risked, and still risk, their very lives in standing up to the hirelings, clergy and lay, in control of bad, highly organized and non-democratic religions. Strongly desiring to maintain their own position of privilege and power, such corrupt leaders, even now, often remain silent, or openly cooperate with the powers that be.

In the face of this, I am sure all good people agree that, "The price of freedom is constant vigilance?" Knowing this then, are we willing to choose to be at one with all that good, orderly and desirable--to support good leaders and have the wisdom and courage to pay the price?

=============================================
Yes, there are those who give religion a bad name, and all forms of evil ought to be exposed.

However, to be morally fair, there are religions, such as the Salvation Army, the Red Cresent (Muslim version of the the Red Cross), World Vision (non-sectarian and religion-inspired), the Unitarians, and religion-inspired secular organizations such as the Red Cross, etc.

Of course, I am also proud of the work done by my own United Church of Canada.
http://united-church.ca/communications/news/response/100113

"The church has already committed $20,000 to relief efforts by partners in the region."
A charity I helped start (1973) and I volunteer with, is the Family Life Foundation (non-sectarian) http://www.flfcanada It will be adding to the support by the churches
BTW, all are safe ways to send your support.

rick.... now you are starting to sound less like a modernist and starting to sound more like a post-modernist

Hey, anything to keep you guessing.

oh, is that what your doing.... I thought the wagner modernist bastions we're maybe starting to get a little flaky, cracks we're beginning to form, and fissures were beginning to widen, lol!

This is a marvelous piece by Hey. I certainly agree that the hole of unsubstantiated make-believe by religious faiths is not so easy to get out of.

Not easy at least for commoners. Let me give my take on this in continuation of the Singularity of Future, recently I have dabbled with.

The crux of this write-up is that everything depends on the initiative and the creativity of the mind. The end-point solely hinges on this inexhaustively potential skill.

It's with the same skill that religions are to be interpreted as well. The bottom line of this realm is definitely not natural science; but the well-developed psychology. The difference between the winner and the loser is the way they interpret the reality in front of them. I don't think I need to explain this in great detail here. The moment we enter this realm, it's not merely the veracity of physical reality; but the enormous task and exercise needed for a sick mind to get rid of its wrong interpretations formulate the new science altogether.

Let's deal with religions in the same way too. Once we formulate the rational foundation for the Guiding Spirit behind all manifestations, it alone can act as the prism through which religions need to be freshly looked at. Our dreams are symbolic, we know. A habitual winner will interpret them in one way and the loser in another way. This again reveals the need for the conscious to rise above the unconscious, however difficult and smothering the process might be.

Once you are convinced that the search for the unity behind multiplicity is the only genuine one, all the talk of father and son and retorting back to a spirit can only appear as symbolic drama trying to communicate some basic truth. The Quron definitely plays this role. And yet what happens if the christian drama is required to project what might ultimately be fulfilled through one individual who rises to reach the higest growth of the psyche. Again the direct conflict between Upanishads and Buddhism is a much welcome record. Both are definitely required to cleanse each other and they stand in need of further cleansing in the light of today's abundant knowledge. If rightly adopted all such evocative symbols are badly needed to raise our own spirit to the heighest believing mode that what I legitimately desire ought to happen just on its own.

Have I taken you safely back to my original theme? My point is that each and every word, incident and fairy tale of religions will have a specific role to play in the ultimate reach of the individual to the cosmic spirit.

This is the core understanding of Humanism.

What is described here is a step above Humanism. Humanists don't require religious texts. I have argued otherwise.

If Tom doesn't believe he is eligible for an engineering seat and that he can fairly cross the entrance exam, he wouldn't put his hands into any of these efforts. Objective assesment of his eligibility as well as a minimum of self-confidence in his own abilities are pre-conditions even to make him plunge into the consideration of the thought. Leave alone taking one step.

The way one evaluates a situation is certainly prone to multiple view-points, starting from the most optimistic to the worst pessimistic shades.

Once this is understood, Cosmic Spirit definitely has the freedom to offer symbols, interventions and even scriptures that possess inherent beauty to display different appropriate meanings at different levels of history.

To be frank, I have argued two years back in this very forum that the Spirit has played a deceitful game upon the people. Now I am stating things in a much more positive manner.

In the realm of communication, relationship and psychological maturity, it's purely in the nature of things to display multiple of levels of meaning. Mathematical and physical objectivity are certainly important. But in higher realms, multiple dimensions are integral to the very concept of beauty. The laws of determining if a particular story depicts this specific meaning or not will be easily judged by a community of people. So one doesn't have to argue there are no standards here.

I got the meaning of BTW just two days back, after I had misinterpreted Code Buttons short reaction to my post. Ridiculously late, no doubt. But this doesn't imply I can coin a new word today and command the world to follow it. So it's obvious there are very clear rules even in the field of interpretation.

Had the Spirit not indicated the summit point of evolution, human beings would have been deprived of at least one strong indicator to boost up their confidence in the ultimate riches of Nature. It's only when all things are joined together, the holistic picture and the unassailable faith born of this beauty can reap wonders on the earth.

Finally all these arguments are a waste, if they don't push me towards achieving little more than what I have managed until now.

So which religious texts do the super-humanists require? All of them? Parts of the Bible are just plain wrong, you know.

Whichever parts are plain wrong, we super-humanists would definitely state them to be so, along with Rick, the humanist.

Whichever parts are helpful, supportive, inspiring and reaffirming our own rational sense of the Spirit, we will definitely feel free to quote and meditate upon. Whatever is indicative of a pre-existing super design culminating in the divine invitation to human beings to climb up to the summit of evolution, we would definitely heed and appreciate.

The rock bottom is our own rational foundation. Any form of interpretation would be subject to this prism.

Sounds like we agree. I like reason. And I feel free to pick and choose the parts of religious texts that I like. And when Jesus spoke wrongly, I will say so. His 'only through me' assertion, for instance.

What is 'the summit of evolution'?

I agree.

As an active minister, every now and then, to educate my congregation as the nature of the Bible and as part of the church service I
read passages like as follows:

Psalm 137:7-8 (New Living Translation)

7 O Lord, remember what the Edomites did
on the day the armies of Babylon captured Jerusalem.
"Destroy it!" they yelled.
"Level it to the ground!"
8 O Babylon, you will be destroyed.
Happy is the one who pays you back
for what you have done to us.

================================
This is just one of a number of what are called: the cursing psalms. For example, see Psalm 69. There are others.

Another example is Deuteronomy 20, which is about war. Verses 10-20 are especially brutal.
When I read and gave an exposition on such passages I always added: This not the word of GOD, but from us.

Most of the New Testament is much more positive.
====================
BTW, for any Bible passage in a number of translations:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...7-8&version=NLT

Think of neuroscience experiments such as associating a red signal with a mild electric shock performed on subjects over a period of time and attempting to remove the bad memory through displaying the signal alone without any more shock for equally the same number of time later.

We know that the mind requires such strong signals and repetition of experience before it gets conditioned to a specific way of thinking, feeling, believing and reacting.

Any human being who repeatedly impacts his own mind with sufficient reasoning and awareness processes simply believing in the Truth that Nature will offer whatever he appropriately desires will finally see that these miracles begin to happen.

Over and above the habitual thinking process that human beings are very well accustomed to by now, a habitual believing process will turn out to be yet another specification of human mind.

It is this stage that I have called the Summit of Evolution.

One definitely needs to get out of such compulsive readings which are blatant revenge and vendetta. The interpretation of relying on divine help in moments of adversity certainly exists even for such texts.

But any system that forces me to read them again and again is indeed repugnant.