Morality and Intelligence

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Nick_A »

F4
I think you mean complementary, but complementary does not mean of equal status. To serve does mean to be subordinate to.
Quite true. In pursuit of objective human meaning and purpose. the literal mind must serve the intuitive mind since it will be the source of “understanding.” Einstein describes why he is a religious man:
I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.

The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.
If Einstein is right it is only the egoistic stupidity of secular atheism and its glorified belief in literal thought that could deny intelligent design. Einstein could admit an intelligence far greater than his but the usual secular atheist is incapable of this humility through a lack of real intelligence.
The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men.
Yes, Einstein experienced the essence of religion and Man's relationship to it so in fact was a profoundly religious man. Of course with secular atheism dominant in universities of child abuse, any young person displaying a hint of such an experience will be put in his place and efforts to kill his religious spirit will begin as quickly as possible. Imagine having the nerve to contemplate intelligent design? It simply cannot be tolerated in academic philosophy in which God is the ultimate computer: the literal dual mind.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Sy Borg »

Nick_A wrote:
I think you mean complementary, but complementary does not mean of equal status. To serve does mean to be subordinate to.
Quite true. In pursuit of objective human meaning and purpose. the literal mind must serve the intuitive mind since it will be the source of “understanding.”
The "minds" you describe are clearly locked into a feedback loop. Instincts make their presence felt in consciousness - hunger, thirst, pain, exhaustion, emotions - messages from our body's various colonies of cells and bacteria to the cerebral cortex. The conscious mind processes the competing demands and, insofar as it is sensitive to the body's signals, prioritises the extent to which it will allow the various urges and drives to be met, and when they will be met.
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Nick_A:

I asked:

"What is it about a position in relation to logical reasoning which would make it poison for 'the secularists and atheists'"?

You still haven’t answered this. I am asking about the process of logical reasoning, which you clearly don’t understand. So, given your own lack of understanding, I would like to know what it is about ‘secularists and atheists’ which leads you to assume that the process is ‘poison’ for them.


Your reply starts:
I really don’t know what to write that I haven’t already written.
I am not surprised. You have made no attempt to answer the question because you know that you are completely unable to do so. I have pointed out your prejudice and you do not even have the grace to apologise. What is worse, you tried to reinforce your prejudice by refering to an article which you did not understand. Prejudice supported by ignorance needs to be challenged.
Secularism and atheism must restrict existence to one level of reality. Levels of reality require a source for the verticality within which these levels have their existence. As soon as this idea expressed by those like Plotinus and his description of levels of reality are taken seriously, they could no longer be secularists or atheists. Consequently all sensible explanations for levels of reality are poison for secularists and atheists.
You weren’t prepared to explain, when I asked you, what you meant by ‘levels of reality’ or ‘verticality’. You aren’t going to get round it now by trying to fob me off with names. I am surprised that you didn’t run straight to Plato or Simone Weil. It’s what you do when you run out of ideas of your own. My question was asked “in relation to logical reasoning” but you have never refered to this and I doubt that you even know what it means.

As I stated previously, “If you choose not to answer the question then, as far as I am concerned, that is tantamount to accepting that you picked on ‘secularists and atheists’ out of sheer prejudice because you have no justification. In which case, I would feel that you are not worthy of continuing discussion”.

-- Updated 07 Apr 2017, 10:08 to add the following --

Reply to Nick_A:
If Einstein is right it is only the egoistic stupidity of secular atheism and its glorified belief in literal thought that could deny intelligent design. Einstein could admit an intelligence far greater than his but the usual secular atheist is incapable of this humility through a lack of real intelligence.
More prejudice. Do you want to discuss it?
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Sy Borg »

Nick_A wrote:Quite true. In pursuit of objective human meaning and purpose. the literal mind must serve the intuitive mind since it will be the source of “understanding.” Einstein describes why he is a religious man:
I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.

My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

There is no logical way to the discovery of elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.

The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books—-a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.

If Einstein is right it is only the egoistic stupidity of secular atheism and its glorified belief in literal thought that could deny intelligent design. Einstein could admit an intelligence far greater than his but the usual secular atheist is incapable of this humility through a lack of real intelligence.
The appeal to authority here needs to be called. Einstein was not infallible.

Further, Nick, a phrase like "egoistic stupidity of secular atheism" when in conversation with a secular atheist smells a lot like an ad hominem attack. You are the one who complains about non civil behaviour on forums. Please try to apply your expected standards to yourself. If you prefer not to, please refrain from complaining. The choice is yours.

Re: Einstein's quote. The sense I get there is that he believes the Earth, galaxy and the universe to be alive. Each of us could be thought of as a "vastly superior spirit" to each of our cells and microbes too. We may be part of much larger living things that have different kinds of lives to ours and are too big for us to perceive as life, like electrons within a living system observing nuclei in that system.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Fooloso4 »

Nick_A:
If Einstein is right it is only the egoistic stupidity of secular atheism and its glorified belief in literal thought that could deny intelligent design. Einstein could admit an intelligence far greater than his but the usual secular atheist is incapable of this humility through a lack of real intelligence.
The irony is that it is your own literalism that leads to your misunderstanding. Einstein was a secular atheist in so far as he thought the idea of a God person is childish. He called himself an agnostic. It is not an argument for intelligent design because there is no intelligent designer. There is no “real intelligence” in the sense of a superior intelligent being. The universe itself is intelligent. He believed that there was a harmony between the mind of man and the universal order.
The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion.
By way of clarification, he said this about mysticism:
The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
Albert Einstein, as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1954)
Yes, Einstein experienced the essence of religion and Man's relationship to it so in fact was a profoundly religious man.
What is the essence of religion? Einstein denied the existence of a personal God and a soul. He called himself a “religious nonbeliever” and did not believe in an afterlife. The universe itself was Einstein’s God. He considered himself profoundly religious in the following sense:
To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties — this knowledge, this feeling … that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men. ( as quoted in After Einstein : Proceedings of the Einstein Centennial Celebration)
He is expressing the sense of wonder that Plato refers to when he says that philosophy begins in wonder. This is something very different than Simone Weil waiting for the man/god Jesus Christ to come and save her. He expressed awe at the vast ordered whole that is the universe. It is the natural order, in and of itself, that inspired awe in Einstein, not a supernatural order created in the minds of men. His was the same sense of awe and wonder that many secular, atheist, academic scientists today say that is at the heart of their work.

-- Updated April 7th, 2017, 9:44 am to add the following --

Greta:
The appeal to authority here needs to be called. Einstein was not infallible.
But for Nick Einstein is just a player in the new world order he envisions and hopes to usher in:
... the beginning of a collective awareness of the natural unity of intellect and objective meaning which defines an objectively intelligent human being. (#118)
This is why he tries to link Einstein and Tesla to Simone Weil and make it appear as if they are all saying the same thing. If there is a natural unity between intellect and objective meaning then, as objectively intelligent human beings, they must all be playing their part in revealing objective meaning. And this is why he is so vehemently opposed to education, secularism, atheism, and anyone and anything else that gives the lie to the homogeneity intelligent thought he fosters. The agenda is to be a pied piper hoping to entice:
… anyone lurking who senses there is something more than secularism, atheism, and secularized religion, pop psychology, and New Age which answers the deeper questions we have. (#107)
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Nick_A »

Iapetus wrote:
You weren’t prepared to explain, when I asked you, what you meant by ‘levels of reality’ or ‘verticality’. You aren’t going to get round it now by trying to fob me off with names. I am surprised that you didn’t run straight to Plato or Simone Weil. It’s what you do when you run out of ideas of your own. My question was asked “in relation to logical reasoning” but you have never refered to this and I doubt that you even know what it means.

As I stated previously, “If you choose not to answer the question then, as far as I am concerned, that is tantamount to accepting that you picked on ‘secularists and atheists’ out of sheer prejudice because you have no justification. In which case, I would feel that you are not worthy of continuing discussion”.
Actually I didn’t know you were completely ignorant of these concepts. Without quoting others, this is what they basically mean.

As I’ve learned it, the universe is a vertical octave structured in vertical time. Each note of an octave could be considered a level of reality, Each note in a musical octave is defined in relation to the vibratory quality of the note above and below it. The octave of the universe consists of levels of reality each defined by the vibratory quality and density of matter above and below it. The process of existence takes place within each level of reality. The universal processes of involution and evolution consist of movement of the life forces moving through and connecting these levels.

Verticality refers to the vertical quality of a moment. Our actions are responses in horizontal time: moment by moment, hour by hour and day by day for example. Vertical time measures the quality of being within a moment. Our being changes moment by moment. Moments reflect either a lesser or greater quality of human being. Imagine a cross. Horizontal time is the horizontal line and vertical time is the vertical line of being. Horizontal time moves through being or vertical time which is NOW.

Without the experience of pondering you cannot understand these things yet you would want to argue about what you don’t understand.

Once a person experiences the movement of vertical time they can no longer believe that secularism can answer the great human questions of the heart and these answers must come from a higher source along the line of being or vertical time in which they already exist. You want to proceed logically without understanding the variables. Nothing good can come from that approach.
If Einstein is right it is only the egoistic stupidity of secular atheism and its glorified belief in literal thought that could deny intelligent design. Einstein could admit an intelligence far greater than his but the usual secular atheist is incapable of this humility through a lack of real intelligence.


More prejudice. Do you want to discuss it?
Of course. I cannot see how an atheist can so quicky deny both the design of the universe and the necessity of a quality of consciousness able to create the laws necessary to create and sustain the universe which seemed so obvious to Einstein
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Sy Borg »

Nick_A wrote:I cannot see how an atheist can so quickly deny both the design of the universe and the necessity of a quality of consciousness able to create the laws necessary to create and sustain the universe which seemed so obvious to Einstein
Nor can secularists see how theists so readily buy into obvious superstition.

The universe has changed over time, just as we do. Yet we were not designed, but bred with evolved features.

Theists - and atheists for that matter - have been taking Biblical material far, far too literally. The ancients, whose mode of communication was filled with metaphors in lieu of scientific terminology, would probably be amused and appalled at how literally modern people take their obviously metaphorical concepts.

Now even poor Einstein must labour under literal interpretations of his metaphorical and poetic statements. Note that Einstein tended to be much more poetically inclined than most others in his field, aside from Max Planck and Richard Feynman. His metaphors should be taken as spoken by a broad minded secularist, not a closet theist.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Nick_A »

Nick wrote:Greta wrote:
If Einstein is right it is only the egoistic stupidity of secular atheism and its glorified belief in literal thought that could deny intelligent design. Einstein could admit an intelligence far greater than his but the usual secular atheist is incapable of this humility through a lack of real intelligence.

The appeal to authority here needs to be called. Einstein was not infallible.

Further, Nick, a phrase like "egoistic stupidity of secular atheism" when in conversation with a secular atheist smells a lot like an ad hominem attack. You are the one who complains about non civil behaviour on forums. Please try to apply your expected standards to yourself. If you prefer not to, please refrain from complaining. The choice is yours.
It isn’t an attack; it is an observation.
So, if someone talks to a Christian about, say, the stupidity of subscribing to Iron Age superstitions, then you would consider that to be only an observation? Not insulting at all? Not suggestive that you are stupid? Would you consider that to be a valid observation or an insulting misguided judgement?

Is it nothing to complain about? Maybe. If you embrace the bearpit approach to debate, fine (as long as there is not a descent into FB-style lunacy), but then there's less grounds for you to make complaints should someone bite back.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Fooloso4 »

Nick_A:
I cannot see how an atheist can so quicky deny both the design of the universe and the necessity of a quality of consciousness able to create the laws necessary to create and sustain the universe which seemed so obvious to Einstein.
You have just explained why it is so important to try to understand a thinker on his or her own terms. There are many who have not be so quick to deny intelligent design but who have rejected it nonetheless. This view is not limited to atheists either. There are contemporary theists who reject the concept of God as a divine watchmaker.

-- Updated April 7th, 2017, 8:05 pm to add the following --

Nick_A:
Einstein:

But, on the other hand, everyone one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naïve.


What does Einstein mean by ‘spirit’? It does, after all, mean different things.

Who do you think he was referring to when he said the religiosity of someone more naive?
"All human knowledge thus begins with intuitions, proceeds thence to concepts, and ends with ideas." - Immanuel Kant
What does Kant mean by intuition?
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Nick_A »

F4 wrote:
Yes, Einstein experienced the essence of religion and Man's relationship to it so in fact was a profoundly religious man.


What is the essence of religion? Einstein denied the existence of a personal God and a soul. He called himself a “religious nonbeliever” and did not believe in an afterlife. The universe itself was Einstein’s God. He considered himself profoundly religious in the following sense:
This is the essential question. Members here argue secular religion but who speaks of the essence of religion? The essence of religion is the conscious awareness of a connection between our being (what we are) and a source for it. Arguments about personal gods are only secular devolutions or creating God in the image of Man.

Simone Weil describes the essence of religion:
Draft for a Statement of Human Obligation
Profession of Faith
There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.
Corresponding to this reality, at the centre of the human heart, is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world.
Another terrestrial manifestation of this reality lies in the absurd and insoluble contradictions which are always the terminus of human thought when it moves exclusively in this world.
Just as the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts, so that other reality is the sole foundation of good………………….
There is no personal God. The essence of religion strives to awaken Man to the source of good.
He is expressing the sense of wonder that Plato refers to when he says that philosophy begins in wonder. This is something very different than Simone Weil waiting for the man/god Jesus Christ to come and save her. He expressed awe at the vast ordered whole that is the universe. It is the natural order, in and of itself, that inspired awe in Einstein, not a supernatural order created in the minds of men. His was the same sense of awe and wonder that many secular, atheist, academic scientists today say that is at the heart of their work.
Einstein understood the essence of religion. Simone practiced conscious attention and achieved certain states of meditation that allowed for a completely unexpected experience. She wasn’t waiting to be saved. She was an objective seeker of truth and benefited from it.
But for Nick Einstein is just a player in the new world order he envisions and hopes to usher in
I cannot usher it in. I support the efforts of some truly exceptional people who may
This is why he tries to link Einstein and Tesla to Simone Weil and make it appear as if they are all saying the same thing. If there is a natural unity between intellect and objective meaning then, as objectively intelligent human beings, they must all be playing their part in revealing objective meaning. And this is why he is so vehemently opposed to education, secularism, atheism, and anyone and anything else that gives the lie to the homogeneity intelligent thought he fosters. The agenda is to be a pied piper hoping to entice
You give me too much credit. I cannot entice you. I learn the dynamics of resistance from you. You are a secularist who supports the Great Beast as described by Plato and Simone. I support those who are willing to “annoy the Great Beast” in the cause of human consciousness and the unification of science and the essence of religion. I support education as opposed to secular indoctrination for some reason also called education.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Sy Borg »

Nick_A wrote:F4 wrote:
This is why he tries to link Einstein and Tesla to Simone Weil and make it appear as if they are all saying the same thing. If there is a natural unity between intellect and objective meaning then, as objectively intelligent human beings, they must all be playing their part in revealing objective meaning. And this is why he is so vehemently opposed to education, secularism, atheism, and anyone and anything else that gives the lie to the homogeneity intelligent thought he fosters. The agenda is to be a pied piper hoping to entice
You give me too much credit. I cannot entice you. I learn the dynamics of resistance from you. You are a secularist who supports the Great Beast as described by Plato and Simone. I support those who are willing to “annoy the Great Beast” in the cause of human consciousness and the unification of science and the essence of religion. I support education as opposed to secular indoctrination for some reason also called education.
The robust debate continues.

You know what the Great Beast is? Each major colony of humans is effectively a "great beast" (certainly a large one). It has its own energy flows and rhythms, inputs and outputs - and yes, that "beast" tries to control you as one of its "cells". Why wouldn't it? Any emergent colonial quasi-organism will control its cells. This element of control emerges even in small groups. It makes sense since a beast cannot survive if its constituent parts are not operating in harmony, in a state of anarchy. Internal anarchy is sickness and death for the "beast" of society, and most of its denizens.

While sciences, as collectivist undertakings, are effectively "great beasts", so too are religions, which impose their own controls. You can't avoid being part of, or interacting with, "great beasts" without becoming a hermit. Most people learn the art of flying under the radar, taking the liberties they need in order to be happy, but discreetly enough to avoid the "beast's" attention or care.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Fooloso4 »

Nick_A:
The essence of religion is the conscious awareness of a connection between our being (what we are) and a source for it.
This is ambiguous enough to be spun in different ways. There is, according to Einstein, no transcendent source of being. Nature is the source for our being. There is nothing outside of nature that is the source for it, nothing outside the natural world at all.
There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.
You have just shown why it was incorrect for you to say that Einstein experienced the essence of religion as understood by you and Weil. He denied Weil’s reality outside the world, outside space and time.
The essence of religion strives to awaken Man to the source of good.
The source of the good according to Einstein is man. Good is a human value, determined and practiced by man.
Einstein understood the essence of religion.
So you have said, except what he understood as the essence of religion is not what you or Weil claims it is. It is a fundamental error not to determine the way in which terms are used by authors. The terms ‘spirit’ and ‘intuition’ are two terms that need to be understood as Einstein used them, not how you might already understand them. A couple of hints: Einstein follows Kant with regard to the meaning of intuition. Look at Kant’s definition and explanation of intuition. He uses the term ‘spirit’ in relation to different things, what is the connection?
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Belindi »

Nick_A wrote:
Simone Weil describes the essence of religion:

Draft for a Statement of Human Obligation
Profession of Faith
There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.
Corresponding to this reality, at the centre of the human heart, is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world.
Another terrestrial manifestation of this reality lies in the absurd and insoluble contradictions which are always the terminus of human thought when it moves exclusively in this world.
Just as the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts, so that other reality is the sole foundation of good………………….
I wish!
And wish that this "sole foundation of good" would reveal itself unambiguously to men. And do it now before any more suffering happens. But it won't, will it Nick? So supposing that Simone is right and there is this "sole foundation of good" excactly as she describes, how can it affect what decisions we make?
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Nick_A:
Actually I didn’t know you were completely ignorant of these concepts.
Typically, you haven’t stated what ‘these concepts’ are. If you are refering to ‘levels of reality’ or ‘verticality’, then I first asked you about these in post #103 of April 5. I asked you again in post #109 and, once more, in #123. I asked because I couldn’t understand what you were writing, so I sought clarification. You didn’t offer any, so I remained ignorant. That was down entirely to you. So, if you say you didn’t know that I was “completely ignorant of these concepts”, then either you did not read what I wrote or you are dishonest. If you can think of another explanation which reflects you in a kinder light, then I would like to hear it.
Without quoting others, this is what they basically mean.

As I’ve learned it, the universe is a vertical octave structured in vertical time. Each note of an octave could be considered a level of reality ….
Wherever you have learned this, it is not in the world of comprehensible English. I could play the same games, based on silly assertions without ever explaining anything.

Everybody knows that there are at least 27 levels of reality, modulated by a triune of vertical postulates which devolve into mechanical animal life but also vibrate to give a harmonic which is said to be in the image of God but just lower in scale much like lower C on the piano is in the image of high C in pitch but just lower in scale.

There. All clear now? So don’t give me any more about your measly two or three levels of reality.
Without the experience of pondering you cannot understand these things yet you would want to argue about what you don’t understand.
Ponder what I just said.
Once a person experiences the movement of vertical time they can no longer believe that secularism can answer the great human questions of the heart and these answers must come from a higher source along the line of being or vertical time in which they already exist. You want to proceed logically without understanding the variables. Nothing good can come from that approach.
I have just googled ‘movement of vertical time’ and get lots of sites about jumping and arm movements. So I tried ‘vertical time' and got ‘the realm of light, angels, gardens of incredible color’. In the context of our discussion it is nonsense but it is, at least, a simple explanation. You must be incapable of offering such explanations. Perhaps you live in a society which converses in such terms. Most of those in this forum do not. I wish you would appreciate that.

So to the issue of prejudice. I have already explained, with evidence, why I thought that your earlier condemnations of secularists and atheists were prejudiced and ignorant. I then stated, “If you choose not to answer the question then, as far as I am concerned, that is tantamount to accepting that you picked on ‘secularists and atheists’ out of sheer prejudice because you have no justification. In which case, I would feel that you are not worthy of continuing discussion”.

You chose not to answer the question.

My accusation is based on your condemnation of whole groups of people, based on what you think you know about a selected few. That is prejudice. It is based on ignorance.

Now you say:
Of course. I cannot see how an atheist can so quicky deny both the design of the universe and the necessity of a quality of consciousness able to create the laws necessary to create and sustain the universe which seemed so obvious to Einstein
I have, therefore, to ask you a similar question to my original one. It is very simple. What belief is held in common by atheists which enables you to criticise them? Please don’t tell me about denial of God. That is a non-acceptance of a belief which gives atheists a particular label, just as we could have non-unicornists or non-little-green-menists. It is not a belief in itself.

What belief is held in common by atheists which enables you to criticise them?
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Nick_A »

Greta wrote:
You know what the Great Beast is? Each major colony of humans is effectively a "great beast" (certainly a large one). It has its own energy flows and rhythms, inputs and outputs - and yes, that "beast" tries to control you as one of its "cells". Why wouldn't it? Any emergent colonial quasi-organism will control its cells. This element of control emerges even in small groups. It makes sense since a beast cannot survive if its constituent parts are not operating in harmony, in a state of anarchy. Internal anarchy is sickness and death for the "beast" of society, and most of its denizens.

While sciences, as collectivist undertakings, are effectively "great beasts", so too are religions, which impose their own controls. You can't avoid being part of, or interacting with, "great beasts" without becoming a hermit. Most people learn the art of flying under the radar, taking the liberties they need in order to be happy, but discreetly enough to avoid the "beast's" attention or care.
You describe the Great Beast well and it does consist of groupings of lesser types of beasts. However is it possible a collective group of human beings can develop with a quality of consciousness as opposed to indoctrination distinguishing them from the Great Beast?

Thomas Merton wrote of Simone Weil:
It is unclear whether Weil knew of Merton, but Merton records being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.
It is possible that a small minority could be dedicated to outgrowing the dominance of the Beast and establish a metaxu, an environment which supports conscious growth connecting above and below? It would be the beginning of a super civilization. As you can see it is a long way off and the Beast will use all its resources to prevent it since allowing it means its death.

As far as the question if egoistic stupidity is a legitimate observation: Einstein is quoted in Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.”
The source is obviously egoistic stupidity. I remember over in [another forum] when I began a thread on blind belief and blind denial. I remember all the silliness and insult it provoked. Yet it is egoistic stupidity that keeps people in psychological slavery by supporting all sorts of imagination. If this is insulting, it is a necessary insult for anyone concerned with the reality of the human condition and how to awaken from it.

-- Updated Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:56 am to add the following --
Belindi wrote:Nick_A wrote:
Simone Weil describes the essence of religion:

Draft for a Statement of Human Obligation
Profession of Faith
There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.
Corresponding to this reality, at the centre of the human heart, is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world.
Another terrestrial manifestation of this reality lies in the absurd and insoluble contradictions which are always the terminus of human thought when it moves exclusively in this world.
Just as the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts, so that other reality is the sole foundation of good………………….




I wish!
And wish that this "sole foundation of good" would reveal itself unambiguously to men. And do it now before any more suffering happens. But it won't, will it Nick? So supposing that Simone is right and there is this "sole foundation of good" excactly as she describes, how can it affect what decisions we make?
Man in the universe is too far from the Source to be told anything. This is why we need the Son as an intermediary. Help is there already. People just deny it and are closed to it so everything remains the same.
“Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace.” Simone Weil
So the question becomes how to consciously open to receive the help of grace in regards to the human condition you refer to.

-- Updated Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:15 am to add the following --

Iapetus
What belief is held in common by atheists which enables you to criticise them?
First of all there are two types of atheists. From wiki:
Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist; negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any other type of atheism, i.e. where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none.[1][2][3]
The terms "negative atheism" and "positive atheism" were used by Antony Flew in 1976[1] and have appeared in Michael Martin's writings since 1990.[4]
Negative atheists still have an open mind. They bring legitimate and important questions. I criticize positive atheists as did Einstein for their intolerance. I’ll repeat what I quoted to Greta. This attitude of dominant intolerance is just egoistic stupidity as far as I’m concerned
As far as the question if egoistic stupidity is a legitimate observation: Einstein is quoted in Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.”

-- Updated Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:15 am to add the following --

F4
This is ambiguous enough to be spun in different ways. There is, according to Einstein, no transcendent source of being. Nature is the source for our being. There is nothing outside of nature that is the source for it, nothing outside the natural world at all.
This is not so clear. Here is a very good article on Einstein’s beliefs. It concludes with

http://www.bethinking.org/god/did-einst ... eve-in-god
To sum up: Einstein was – like Newton before him – deeply religious and a firm believer in a transcendent God. However Einstein rejected anthropomorphic and personal understandings of the word ‘God’. His beliefs may be seen as a form of Deism: "the belief in the existence of a Supreme Being as the source of finite existence, with rejection of revelation and the supernatural doctrines of Christianity" (The Oxford English Dictionary). If any intellectual high treason has been committed, it has been committed by Dawkins himself, who has failed to deal carefully with what Einstein actually said, thereby confusing two very different understandings of God. He should have paid more attention to Max Jammer’s book, and to the conclusions Jammer reached after studying all the evidence. There is another conclusion to be drawn from this: Dawkins has pointed out the attempt in America to rebrand atheists as ‘brights’, implying atheists are clever and theists stupid. If Einstein was clearly a theist, like Newton, this is arrant nonsense. This should help to stop the bullying of Christian children, who are told they are stupid to believe in God. One girl personally known to the author was bullied so much for being a Christian that she had to move schools. So, after all of Dawkins’ rhetorical bluster and verbal swagger, we are left with fallacious reasoning and factual errors – a case of ‘argument weak, shout louder’
You have just shown why it was incorrect for you to say that Einstein experienced the essence of religion as understood by you and Weil. He denied Weil’s reality outside the world, outside space and time.
Einstein didn't directly speculate on the domain of the Source as far as I know. He understood the essence of religion which is the recognition of an intelligence responsible for universal laws and the world in which we exist. That recognition is the essence of religion.
The source of the good according to Einstein is man. Good is a human value, determined and practiced by man.
The article and the sources quoted do not support this. Genesis 1 says: 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

Good as used here is not the pronouncement of a secular expert initiating universal creation. Man made conceptions of good and the objective good are not the same
So you have said, except what he understood as the essence of religion is not what you or Weil claims it is. It is a fundamental error not to determine the way in which terms are used by authors.
From the article:
On Spinoza, Einstein said, "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."[31] Some – like Dawkins – think Spinoza equated God with the material universe (pantheism), but Spinoza himself made clear this is mistaken. Spinoza wrote, "The view of certain people that I identify God with nature is quite mistaken."[32] The French philosopher Martial Guéroult suggested the term panentheism, rather than pantheism, to describe Spinoza’s view of the relation between God and the universe. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘panentheism’ as the theory or belief that God encompasses and interpenetrates the universe, but at the same time is greater than, and independent of it. So panentheism is similar to pantheism, but crucially in addition believes that God exists as a mind or a spirit. The idea that God is both transcendent and immanent is also a major tenet of both Christianity and Judaism.
Einstein clearly appreciated a quality of spirit (conscious mind) which is the Source yet is within the universe. If true, this quality of conscious mind can provide the materiality through grace serving as spiritual nourishment which would enable Man to outgrow indoctrinated morality and open to the experience of objective conscience which deals would serve to balance emotional and intellectual intelligence.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021