What I would like to do is share some of the thoughts, opinions, experiences, and conclusions that I’ve accumulated over the last 71 years. I would also like to receive thoughtful comments on what I post. A person is never too old to learn and grow and the minute that I think that my opinions or answers are the last word, I’ll know that I really am too old.
On the other hand, my hope is that I am able to express some ideas that will have value others who are also looking for truth and understanding–or in the absence of contributing understanding, maybe my other aim is to provide a bit of inspiration on occasion.
I’ve written down my thoughts on a fairly regular basis for almost 20 years now. On rereading what I’ve written, I realize that most of it pretty weak, but I would like to put some of it on a blog to see what others have to say. If there is a positive response, I will keep adding other chapters–some very short–none more than a few pages
I’ve read several books on consciousness over the last few years. I wrote the following thoughts on consciousness back in July of ’08:
Thoughts on the Place of Consciousness 7/16/08
Consciousness makes us special. Consciousness is pretty much synonymous with spiritual. It is real, and the aspect of reality that provides meaning to life.
Consciousness exists as a whole spectrum. It is present in the lower levels of creation as well as the varying degrees of consciousness in human beings.
The more we say about consciousness and the more we study it, the more we realize how mysterious it is — how it is beyond words — beyond what can be fully studied by science — even though science can observe and measure a great deal of what happens in the brain, when we have different thoughts and different experiences.
Consciousness and love are both beyond that which can be quantified and packaged.
We talk about love, truth, and beauty, but without consciousness there could be no love, no truth, and no beauty.
Scientists often refer to consciousness as an epiphenomenon, which gives the impression that it is a phenomenon less essential — perhaps less real than the phenomena that science studies.
Yet stepping back and looking at the big picture, all phenomena. without consciousness, would be nothing more then a mechanism without real meaning.
Any complete understanding of what is, needs to include consciousness. All great mystics whether Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish or other looked at, studied, and experienced the interior, the spiritual — the realm of consciousness.
True comprehensive understanding of the universe and conscious beings in the universe embraces both the exterior and the interior. It embraces forms and that which observes these forms.
As Einstein said: science without religion is blind and religion without science is lame.
Either discipline without the other is incomplete.
Certainly religion that does not move beyond magic and myth, even if it teaches morality is incomplete, and can even be harmful.
Science that does not recognize the spiritual, which coincides with consciousness or the interior aspect of reality, is, to a great degree, incomplete.
Decisions based on incomplete understanding, lead to unfortunate results; for example, science that rejects all religion — even the understanding of true mystics — would have dire consequences. Some of these consequences were exemplified by what happened when the Nazis were in power in Germany. The scientists who totally reject to the interior — the spiritual — have come up with some very unethical practices. For example the scientists in big corporations who set up in foreign countries where laws do not protect the environment have poisoned the water supplies and done great damage to whole populations.
At the other extreme, primitive or fundamental religions, which reject the legitimate findings of science, also have extremely negative effects on the happiness and well-being of those affected. An example would be the exploitation of women and children, xenophobia and persecution of nonbelievers. Also all the suffering that results from false fears of damnation in the far-reaching effects of such beliefs, not to mention the countless wars throughout history, that were fought in the name of religion.
Before going too far on into this line of reasoning, we must ask the question: does lack belief in God inevitably lead to evil? Do atheists have to be amoral or immoral?
My experience tells me that the answer is no. Many atheists — probably most atheists — are just as moral as believers.
Whether we believe or not, a sense of right and wrong is hardwired into us, as well as a desire to make a difference — to contribute to the good of mankind and the planet.
Unfortunately the experience of life for believers and nonbelievers causes some people’s wiring to change to become totally selfish or to lose their compassion — to become takers rather than contributors.
Is the path to becoming a taker i.e. a cancer cell in in the body of society — shorter for the nonbeliever? It appears that there would be less pressure on the nonbeliever or the atheist to live by the rules — less pressure from peers, from society, and from personal beliefs. This seems to be corroborated by the fact that the majority of the monsters of recent history like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. were not believers. On the other hand the body of believers also produces its monsters, among them Osama bin Laden.
My conclusion is that there are factors deeper than belief or unbelief, that determine a person’s ability or lack of ability to contribute to society.
We need to distinguish between atheists who have a conscience and those who don’t. Atheists like John Lennon saw atheism as a way to escape from slavery of religious beliefs.
Also, we need to distinguish between believers who are stuck in the magic or mythical levels and those who have progressed beyond these levels to a pluralistic worldview and even to a cosmos centered level of thinking.
To sum up, the conclusion that I have arrived at is:
There are two kinds of atheism and there are at least two kinds of religion.
There is an atheism without much understanding — an atheism which rejects all religions because of the evils that it sees in some religions.
There is a religion without much understanding, which rejects all atheism because of the evil that it sees in some atheists. There is also a religion that rejects all science — sees all science as the enemy and believes that the Bible is the only answer to all of life’s questions.
Then there is a higher level of atheism, which embraces the good, the true, and the beautiful, while at the same time rejecting belief in God.
There is also religion it goes beyond the angry God or the vengeful God — a religion that embraces the good, the true, and the beautiful and sees the legitimate truth of science as a real value.
In other words neither atheism nor religion is the answer. We must specify what level of atheism and what level religion we are talking about.
Atheism that is only interested in showing the evil of religion hasn’t taken us anyplace good nor will it.
Religion that is only interested in denouncing the evil of atheism also misses the point.
But atheism that truly goes beyond pointing out the evils of superstition and myths and the excesses of religion, and maintains its quest for the good, the true and beautiful can lead to good results. This was pointed out in the Vatican II Council. The statement was made in the Council documents, that salvation can be reached by nonbelievers, even by atheists of goodwill. These are the atheists without the baggage of superstition, who seek the good, and live with compassion.
Dan Hemesath's Blog 