The Reconciliation Of Science / Unification Theory

[dieadderalls]

This essay seeks to reconcile religion with science, by way of allegory, philosophy and theology. Unfortunately the incoherent ramblings of Cataphatic Christians are easily misinterpreted as the true nature of religion, but this is not so, for they believe in a pagan ideal, an idolatrous god, the idea of which I shall explain later in this text. For a length of time I feared I was biased due to my Catholic upbringing, but during my tentative teenage years I rejected that ideology in favour of agnosticism, and have in turn abandoned that in favour of Aldous Huxley's mind-at-large theory, all the while maintaining the precepts of philosophy. In the Doors of Perception Huxley speaks of a "greater consciousness" which can be synonymously termed higher perception (sometimes literally, in Huxley's case, with mescaline), or - in my opinion - God (a name I am uncomfortable using due to the complexity of the concepts involved, I shall explain in this essay what I mean and seek to answer any subsequent questions).

 

A quick note: Judaism does not have one name for G-d, but several, depending on circumstance/level of perception, this may also be an allegory for self-perception, but that is something I would prefer not to enter into as it would unnecessarily complicate proceedings. Interestingly several of these names are in fact not even anthropomorphic names, but concepts e.g. Elokim or Elohim, which comes from the root word El, which is the Hebrew verb for "to be", a concept I will later relate to Plato's philosophical concept of the Demiurge.

 

The triumph of reason over blind faith was very nearly consumated simultaneously across the world, with the Islamic Mutazilite revolution, and similarly infecting Judaism by route of ancient Greece. The philosophy of Aristotle and Plato became a cornerstone of what is known as Apophatic theology. It is worthy of note that only those uneducated in complex theology will refer to the Monad in "Cataphatic" terms i.e. god "is" fearsome. More advanced theologians refer to Hashem not in terms of what he is, but in terms of what he is not. The reasoning behind this is that the Monad is beyond human conception, and any attempt to capture it in speech will inevitably fail, so it would make more sense to refer to him as a Buddhist refers to objective reality; in a Koan or - synonymously - in a non-objective sense.

 

I fear I am getting away from the point though. My claim is that the Monad, G-d, Elokim, Brahma and so on and so on are simply pre-scientific terms for the void that exists outside of our universe. (I am assuming this void exists due to the existence of entropy, i.e. because matter is losing energy (and consequently energy is losing matter), due to expansion, there must be a larger - possibly infinite - space that it is expanding into. The word infinite may in fact be synonymous with G-d, as would the words void, blank and nothing.) The Monad is everything, it is infinite and nothing, beyond human comprehension, which is interestingly one of the precepts of G-d in Christianity, and in Judaism and Islam.

 

As Anselm says in the Monologion;

 

"God's existence is absolute and it includes no composition and we comprehend only the fact that He exists, not His essence. Consequently it is a false assumption to hold that He has any positive attribute... still less has He accidents (מקרה), which could be described by an attribute. Hence it is clear that He has no positive attribute whatever. The negative attributes are necessary to direct the mind to the truths which we must believe... When we say of this being, that it exists, we mean that its non-existence is impossible; it is living — it is not dead; ...it is the first — its existence is not due to any cause; it has power, wisdom, and will — it is not feeble or ignorant; He is One — there are not more Gods than one… Every attribute predicated of God denotes either the quality of an action, or, when the attribute is intended to convey some idea of the Divine Being itself — and not of His actions — the negation of the opposite"

 

Does this not sound familiar?

 

There are several accepted precepts of G-d by theologians, however I believe confusion has emerged from the fact that the bible does not have one G-d, but two. As a Platonist and a Gnosticist, I believe in the existence of a second entity, called the Demiurge, which shapes matter. However this entity is not as you would believe it, it is not solely recognizable as a G-d, or Hashem (the dark god of Judaism), but is visible as all matter. By matter I am referring to the known Universe, which - even in it's dark spaces is not void, but filled with dark matter and anti-matter. Perhaps small spaces are indeed empty of every kind of matter, but this is due to the universes expansion into the void and is simply the natural destruction of the Demiurge by exposure to the Monad.

 

Again I fear that I am missing the point completely, and merely explaining the concepts necessary to understand or deal with the idea. My theory is that the Bible has been mistranslated into Latin, and even further into English, and that the concepts therein are in fact not conceptual as "G-d", a bearded white man, but are terms for void (nothingness) and valid (somethingness). These ideas, separate to a veangeful physical god, are reconcilable with science, and are in fact the theories postulated by the most advanced theologians, compared to the ravings of the religious flock claiming a "hand of god" or thus anthropomorphising the un-anthropomorphiseable. That's not even a word, but it sounded pretty great in my head.

 

 

I'm looking for come criticism (hopefully not ad hominem) and perhaps more terms with which to explain the concepts in question. Unification of theoretical ideas is the only way to bring together all the peoples of the world and such. You know the drill.

 

Heh.

 

 

references:

 

http://www.logoslibrary.org/anselm/monologion/01.html - anselm

http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/classics/leibniz/monad.htm - leibniz

http://www.teachittome.com/seforim2/seforim/the_guide_for_the_perplexed.pdf - maimonides

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology - a well composed page on the history of the way of negation (via negativa)

 

btw peace out broheims.

[Moontanman]

I am curious, you seem to be almost desperate to show some significance to writings by bronze age savages who wrote about the myths they made up about a deity, these myths about their concept of a deity and reality as they saw it and your desire is to some how connect these things with Science? Why would any writings of such totally uninformed bronze age sheep herders have any connection with reality of the modern age much less science?

[dieadderalls]

I am curious, you seem to be almost desperate to show some significance to writings by bronze age savages who wrote about the myths they made up about a deity, these myths about their concept of a deity and reality as they saw it and your desire is to some how connect these things with Science? Why would any writings of such totally uninformed bronze age sheep herders have any connection with reality of the modern age much less science?

 

Please excuse my ignorance, but was Plato a bronze age savage? His theories informed and fueled the theological revolution at that time, along with some of the ideas of Aristotle. The most advanced theologians were influenced by the philosophical ideas of the time, which are suggested to be the major source of conflict in our society to this day. Those arguments set aside, what do you mean by uninformed? These people knew more about the land than we do today, and they set aside huge amounts of time for introspection and reflection (prayer and meditation); the purpose of humankind (homo sapien means wise man, and wisdom flows from self-knowledge and experience).

 

I don't understand what you mean by that comment at all.

 

When the Torah is read as a sociological and psychological examination of humankind, you can see similarities emerge in modern scenarios (e.g. the United State of America, which is essentially going through the ten plagues mentioned in Exodus). In addition Genesis can be read as supporting the scientific view on the formation of the universe. Most scientists agree that the evolution of life is incredibly unlikely without external aid. I'm not confining that idea to G-d, but the entire concept of matter vs. non-matter is what I see the bible as addressing.

 

Whoever wrote that **** was a freakin' genius!

 

The same goes for Jesus, whose teachings resemble very strongly the teachings of Buddhism, which emphasise the existence of the void etc.

 

I don't know, I'm looking for meaning because I don't believe that someone would go to the trouble of writing a whopping huge tome unless they really thought people had something to gain by reading it, or thought it was true. People don't do stuff for no reason, even if the reasons are unconscious.

[dieadderalls]

Please excuse my ignorance, but was Plato a bronze age savage? His theories informed and fueled the theological revolution at that time, along with some of the ideas of Aristotle. The most advanced theologians were influenced by the philosophical ideas of the time, which are suggested to be the major source of conflict in our society to this day. Those arguments set aside, what do you mean by uninformed? These people knew more about the land than we do today, and they set aside huge amounts of time for introspection and reflection (prayer and meditation); the purpose of humankind (homo sapien means wise man, and wisdom flows from self-knowledge and experience).

 

I don't understand what you mean by that comment at all.

 

When the Torah is read as a sociological and psychological examination of humankind, you can see similarities emerge in modern scenarios (e.g. the United State of America, which is essentially going through the ten plagues mentioned in Exodus). In addition Genesis can be read as supporting the scientific view on the formation of the universe. Most scientists agree that the evolution of life is incredibly unlikely without external aid. I'm not confining that idea to G-d, but the entire concept of matter vs. non-matter is what I see the bible as addressing.

 

Whoever wrote that **** was a freakin' genius!

 

The same goes for Jesus, whose teachings resemble very strongly the teachings of Buddhism, which emphasise the existence of the void etc.

 

I don't know, I'm looking for meaning because I don't believe that someone would go to the trouble of writing a whopping huge tome unless they really thought people had something to gain by reading it, or thought it was true. People don't do stuff for no reason, even if the reasons are unconscious.

 

on further reading my theory is still flawed, i don't have an accurate conception of anything i'm talking about beyond a wiki definition and a couple of texts that seem to correlate. it's not even worth talking about until i get my **** sorted out.

[Moontanman]

on further reading my theory is still flawed, i don't have an accurate conception of anything i'm talking about beyond a wiki definition and a couple of texts that seem to correlate. it's not even worth talking about until i get my **** sorted out.

 

 

I applaud you, you have taken the first step toward knowledge, so few people who assert the things you did in your OP ever realize how intellectually unsupportable such assertions really are. I am impressed, please feel free to ask me anything and if I can contribute to your knowledge I will do so, if not I will do my best to find someone who can answer your questions.

[dieadderalls]

I applaud you, you have taken the first step toward knowledge, so few people who assert the things you did in your OP ever realize how intellectually unsupportable such assertions really are. I am impressed, please feel free to ask me anything and if I can contribute to your knowledge I will do so, if not I will do my best to find someone who can answer your questions.

 

Most of my claims are supported by the "mystical experiences" that I have had as a result of experimental LSD usage. Many will argue that instead of making the mind open, it makes it closed and delusional, but I can recall the "valve" to the mind-at-large opening. In The Doors of Perception Huxley states that there is an "All-mind" or omnipotent intelligence, which is connected to everything, but ego (or self) shuts it out. The LSD experience sometimes culminates in the destruction of self, or ego-death, and I remember feeling nothing, and knowing the paradoxicality of it's existence. My hypothesis is that the id, or anything sub-ego, is in fact nothing-ness, much like the infinite space outside of the universe (which some people claim doesn't even exist, so what the hell am I talking about).

 

From this idea I correlated with Buddhism, which seeks out nothing-ness, or nirvana, and then with early Judaism, which speaks of G-d in negative terms, however further examination reveals that I should perhaps be looking earlier, or not be looking at all.

 

I'd appreciate your opinion, I'm just incredibly confused.

[Moontanman]

Most of my claims are supported by the "mystical experiences" that I have had as a result of experimental LSD usage. Many will argue that instead of making the mind open, it makes it closed and delusional, but I can recall the "valve" to the mind-at-large opening. In The Doors of Perception Huxley states that there is an "All-mind" or omnipotent intelligence, which is connected to everything, but ego (or self) shuts it out. The LSD experience sometimes culminates in the destruction of self, or ego-death, and I remember feeling nothing, and knowing the paradoxicality of it's existence. My hypothesis is that the id, or anything sub-ego, is in fact nothing-ness, much like the infinite space outside of the universe (which some people claim doesn't even exist, so what the hell am I talking about).

 

From this idea I correlated with Buddhism, which seeks out nothing-ness, or nirvana, and then with early Judaism, which speaks of G-d in negative terms, however further examination reveals that I should perhaps be looking earlier, or not be looking at all.

 

I'd appreciate your opinion, I'm just incredibly confused.

 

 

I would suggest you throttle back on the hallucinogens, Reality, what a concept!!!

[dieadderalls]

I would suggest you throttle back on the hallucinogens, Reality, what a concept!!!

 

Uh, more like "Reality, what a fluid concept!!!". Are you seriously suggesting an objective reality? That's actually quite crazy... Playing with our consciousness is one of the great benefits of being a human being, homo sapien (literally wise man, or man who thinks).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism

 

I know it's a wiki link, but it's a pretty interesting read...

 

In some cultures hallucinogens, or entheogens, are used as part of the coming of age ceremony. They help the individual to attain a sense of self, to see their true nature or true face (as they call it in buddhism). Isn't it worth investigating the side-effects of consciousness and expanding on them?

 

Besides LSD is one of the more respected hallucinogens, gaining momentum as an earth shattering experience in the scientific community and the world at large.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050901073759.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080701083522.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100906202905.htm

[Qfwfq]

You approach something wich is against our rules, which is discussion of drugs in order to promote non-scientific experimentation of them and showing off having taken them. Watch out not to pass this line.

 

Besides LSD is one of the more respected hallucinogens, gaining momentum as an earth shattering experience in the scientific community and the world at large.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050901073759.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080701083522.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100906202905.htm

According to those articles, apart from treating some terminally ill patients, the benefit of LSD is to temporarily induce a sort of schizophrenia, which helped a few shrinks to better understand the problems of such patients.