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 
April 23, 2010 at 3:54 pm |
I welcome your blog. You raise very interesting points of which I myself have considered often in my 67 years.
Are not atheism and religion really just different value systems based on particular beliefs? Whatever beliefs one has internalized, or whatever one chooses to call oneself, if the result represents possessing values that reflect the true sense of right and wrong that I agree are hardwired into each of us, why not just applaud that? What purpose is there in trying to parcial out the bases for individuals being and acting truly human?
I don’t think I agree that people like Stalin and Hitler had no beliefs, their beliefs just went contrary to what was naturally human in them.
April 24, 2010 at 5:05 am |
Hello Dan–I’m taking the honor of being your first comment. You are not starting out lightly here! I’m impressed & look forward to reading more.
April 24, 2010 at 12:55 pm |
Dan, I’m most positively impressed by your blog. I think you should integrate it with othersuch thoughts and subjects in that school of thought and collate them into a book. For a number of years up until Bob Mashek broke his hip, he and I ventured into a similar realm of thinking and enjoyed exchangng our thughts, some of which could have been considered somewhat “radical” to the conventional mindsets among religionists, psychologists, philosophers – and such. Since Bob moved away from Calmar to Virginia to be near his son and their family, and then had his accident, I seldom hear from him. I miss our exchanges. Bob is well traveled, well read and brilliant.
It is likewse that I enjoy your thoughts. It is good to see people of seasoning journaling the fruits of hir lifes learning and sharing them with their “fellow life travelers”. Too many elders waste their time remorsefully regretting what they did not achieve in their lifetime – or on idle or selfish thinking while they spend their retirent. They are spiritualy, psychically dead long before they finally die.
Keep up the good work. Not only will it help to prevent the onset of Alzhimers, but also the best part of you will live on long after you pass.
April 25, 2010 at 2:18 pm |
I really liked your comments. Pretty in depth for me without the background work you’ve done. I didn’t find anything I would disagree with. I won’t try to add anything at this time. I need to sort out my thoughts before I put them down in print.
April 25, 2010 at 7:19 pm |
Thanks for taking the time to read my stuff and for your comments. The positive comments may give me the energy to stay with it.
April 27, 2010 at 7:33 pm |
Dan,
Here are a few shallow thoughts on consciousness, theism and atheism – along with a recommendation to view this thought-provoking 17-minute video from Jill Bolte Taylor for more profound stimulation on these issues: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229. Taylor’s video suggests we’ve a left and right brain consciousness – and that we might be happier if we allowed the right one more play in our lives.
My experience suggests that what many call “god” is usually merely an “echo chamber in space” claimed to be reinforcing believers’ conscious prejudices. Atheists’ biases have less of a presumed transcendental reference point. Everyone who doesn’t worship any particular group’s or individual’s “god” is labeled an “atheist” – as happened to early Christians in Rome. Such tags are meaningless, in my opinion.
Mystics claiming to have somehow “experienced God” are intriguing and yet must remain suspect to those without such an “experience.” The Old Testament prophets as well as the anonymous other biblical authors demanding absurd punishments on “outsiders” should be considered “mystics” who believed they received divine inspiration – but how many people with any psychological education who’ve read the bible believe a God of love dictated such petty vindictiveness?
Recall our New Testament scholar, John McConnell’s, response upon being asked about inspiration, Dan, at GE: “I wouldn’t read anything unless I regarded it inspired.” And Thomas Aquinas insisted that “whatever is received is received according to the mode of the receiver.” Maybe each person is “inspired” when s/he follows the most unselfish option in any given decision? Buddhists might put it thus: egotism is the greatest obstacle to enlightenment.
Keep up your thoughtful probing, Dan, and perhaps volunteer to lead a discussion in July when some of the world’s elite theists, atheists and agnostics gather near Sing Sing Prison.
May 17, 2010 at 7:10 pm |
Sorry to be so late in replying to your thoughtful comment. When it arrived I was so swamped with studio deadlines that I didn’t give it proper attention. Beside, being new to this blog business, I’m only beginning to figure out how it works.
I found the video by Jill Bolte Taylor more than worth the price of admission. About a year ago I read a book on the same subject — maybe it was by the same lady. I hope that by my regular meditations, I’m more or less putting into practice what she suggests. But for who knows what reasons, I feel that I have a long ways to go. Looking forward to the gathering near Sing Sing
April 28, 2010 at 4:57 pm |
Hello again, Dan and other of us bloggers who ponder upon and wonder at the true wonders of our world which project far beyond the material Great Wall of China, – The Great Pyrimids, etc. and are so sadly and direly overlooked by our specie, the wonders of our Spirit.
This might be the time appropriate to Quote Goethe in saying ” The highest happiness of mankind as a thinking being is o probe what is knowable – and to quietly revere that which is unknowable.”
As we reach that time in our latter years when we have endured and survived the tempsts, battles and tests during our lifetime which have finally brought us to the threshold of our eternity – It is high time when we should finally be capable of weighing in and sparating the wheat from the chaff.
The harvest is near – it is far beyond the time for us or Apollos to plant our seeds and do our watering. It is time that we should choose from whose – and which field to harvest.
The grain is no greener in the field of the Mayan, the Roman, or the Egyptian than it is in the fields of Greece.
May 6, 2010 at 6:19 pm |
I love that quote from Goethe. Hadn’t seen it before. The rest of your comment is so poetic that it must be from some great author. If those are your words, you are the one who should write a book.
April 29, 2010 at 1:49 am |
Hey Dan –
Buddhists are commonly viewed as atheistic, and Muslims as theistic. The former’s approach to protesting the Vietnam War was self-immolation while the latter’s strategy in opposing U.S. interventionism is suicide bombings wiping out as many human lives as possible. I’m pretty sure you’d regard the Buddhist approach a tad more “moral”? The future St. Paul officiated at the slaughter of Stephen (Acts 7:58) so wasn’t he another theistic terrorist of some stripe? Emerson remarked: “What you are speaks so loud I can’t hear what you say.” I think that’s also your opinion?
May 5, 2010 at 3:10 am |
Dan et al –
Because it’s possible that my comments have botched the discussion, please accept my apology and promise to back off permanently. I only wadded in because instructed to do so by Mother Pat Murphy:). Ed
August 27, 2010 at 3:57 pm |
I totally love your stuff, Dan! Probably not possible to respond with my own conceptual thinking!
Sometimes I think that God is simply all that is not selfish! Certainly we can’t think big enough in terms of the Supreme being. And — maybe the afterlife is all of this in full blossom! Total largesse!
August 27, 2010 at 7:27 pm |
Thanks for taking the time to read my stuff which I have been told is too intellectual. No doubt it is and I’ll try to improve in the future. I have a couple of ideas for future blogs. Just need a little more time and energy. I’m just glad that there are so many interesting subjects to work on.
September 9, 2010 at 4:03 am |
Hello again, Dan ! Sorry I haven’t had more time to join in on your blogs, however, I enjoy them immensely. Sometime back, arose the subject of whether Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin partook in a system of belief or not. Everyone has some system of belief … whether theistic or atheistic. Then there are those who follow the persuasion that humanity is supreme – and sometimes even “god”. Such was the belief system of Josef Stalin as we might witness by the fact that such as Marx, Lenin (etc.) were represented after death by statues as the Roman Catholic church does with statues and icons in art. As far as Hitler …. it is fairly common knowledge that he was into cult astrology mingled with some snippets of Zoroastrianism and other religions of middle East antiquity. (Thus the Swastika – which was originally a symbol of good fortune) Hitler himself (with Jewish ancestry on his mothers side of the family tree) was an oxymoron to the very philosophy and system of belief that he extolled and propagated so vigorously.
Myself ? …. well I like to keep life as simple and real as possible. I embrace a very basic spirit of what has become Christianity …. I often attend different places of worship or communion with them in my beliefs in conjunction with theirs (as long as it isn’t weird, overt or extreme) I avoid partaking in either (religious or political) argument and honor the right and privilege of others to practice their own chosen persuasion if it is working for them and the good in this world.
Life can be complicated and confusing if one chooses to continuously make it so by “seeking the absolute truth” without choosing one that is rock solid for him. Mankind is so complex with the many different races, cultures, languages and geographic variables that we might somehow discover that there really are no absolutes and we could spend a lifetime seeking when we could – and should be living.
Nonetheless … the quest is interesting and good mental and spiritual exercise. Keep up the good work.
September 9, 2010 at 5:43 am |
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I can find no fault in what you write. In fact I find it heartening. I like your philosophy of life and religion.
Hope that I’m not in that class of folks who spend too much effort in seeking and not enough in living. That’s always a possibility. I see myself as trying to simplify and clear up the muddy water of many belief systems–getting rid of what is false or unnecessary and keeping only the kernel of truth. Guess I don’t always come across that way.
.