Ken Wilber made a life's work of applying the scientific method to theology here in the states and has a reasonable following, although I find something undefinable (for me) missing.
On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 9:53:06 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: > > Perhaps the most spectacular development in recent history has been the > truly amazing rise of the importance of science, and the effect it is > having on every facet of human life. No less amazing, particularly to the > scientist, is the equally spectacular lack of understanding of the > scientific endeavor which the non-scientist not only exhibits but seems to > revel in. > > A present-day educated man would be disdainfully scornful of anyone who > knew nothing of the writings of Dante or Homer, the paintings of EI Greco > or Renoir, or the music of Telemann or Verdi. Yet, this same man is heard > to brag that he never could pass elementary physics and that high-school > biology made him sick at his stomach. > > The intellectual of the future not only will know something of science but > will be so attuned to its intellectual discipline that he can use its > relevant teachings to make progress in his own field of learning. We are > gathered together here not to look backward or even at the present but > forward to the future to try to plot a course for theology in the modern > idiom—to search for the relevancy of all aspects of the modern world to the > highest aspirations and goals toward which men strive. > > Specifically what I want to address my remarks to is the thesis that > theologians have much to learn from the methodology and intellectual > discipline of the scientist. In my opinion a knowledge of the intellectual > procedures in common use by a research physicist in his search for the > organization of the universe is far from irrelevant in developing a modern > epistemology for theology. … > > *Of course, most people are happy to learn as little as possible to get by > (ignorance)*. The above is from a 1966 issue of Zygon, a journal on > science and religion - http://www.zygonjournal.org/index.htm - you can > look at the odd article and abstracts there, though sadly the journal > itself is very expensive. > > Today's ecological, technological, and social world presents a very > different context than that of the original audience of Genesis. To “fill > the earth and subdue it” were not the immanent possibilities and problems > they are today. On the other hand, the creaturely environment in and > through which humanity has emerged to bear the image of God continues to > present limits and challenges to promoting wholesomeness. Bearing the image > and likeness of the creator depicted in Genesis means striving to meet each > new challenge with creativity and compassion. In Ancient Near Eastern > contexts these challenges arose in part from a frustrating inability for > humankind to influence and control its natural and social environments. In > contemporary contexts, especially in developed nations, these challenges > arise from an apparent inability for humanity to curb its detrimental > influence and control over its natural and social environments. > > 1. > The cosmology of Genesis 1, along with its mention of the image of God, is > very likely a polemical ideological critique of the Babylonian cosmology > depicted in EE, in which the god Marduk ascends to power through military > and political conquest > After becoming chief among the gods, Marduk creates the heavens and earth > by killing and mutilating the body of Tiamat, the goddess representing the > chaos of the deep salt seas. He and his ally Ea create human beings from > the blood of Tiamat's consort, Qingu, as a means of punishing this rival > and for the purpose of conscripting creatures who toil in order to provide > the gods with sustenance and occasion to rest. > 2. > The order and means of creation and the purposes of created entities are > similar in Genesis and EE. Both Marduk and Elohim create through fiat and > separating—light from dark, waters from waters, heavens from the Earth, and > water from land. Heavenly luminaries also bear similar functions in each > account. Both cosmologies define the role of the sun, moon, and stars in > marking the passage of days and seasons. However, since the ancient > Israelites do not involve heavenly bodies in worship, the luminaries are > given a lower status—they “serve” not as divine sources of light but as > carriers of light to govern the day and night.. Further, Elohim does not > create by separating the body parts of dead deities. The forces of chaos, > Marduk must overcome in order to create, are utterly depersonified in the > Genesis cosmology. The goddess Tiamat is almost unrecognizable as the > tehom—the deep sea—over which the breath (ruach) of God so effortlessly > hovers. By contrast, Marduk must breathe or otherwise conjure a great wind > to disturb the insides of Tiamat, affording him the opportunity to kill > her, and only then to create. Yahweh Elohim is not a mere replacement of > Marduk. The Israelites’ God has no personal rivals, and whatever semblance > of primordial chaos can be found in Genesis 1, it is brushed aside by the > constitutive utterance, “Let there be…” In Genesis created reality and its > purposes come about through acts of divine freedom and generosity, rather > than retribution and necessity. Yahweh Elohim empowers the creation to > “bring forth” what it will and sees “that it was good.” Creation in the > Hebrew Bible is an act of liberation rather than subjugation. > 3. > Finally, both cosmologies call for political and ethical mimesis . With EE > the move from myth to ritual and politics is more straightforward than with > the Genesis cosmology. Imperial conquest, such as that of the Southern > Kingdom of Judah ca. 587–538 BCE, is a reenactment Marduk's rise to power > over the forces of chaos. Captive peoples then provide the labor force on > which Babylonian society and its elite depended. In the drama surrounding > the annual New Year's festival (Akitu), the Babylonian king stood in as > Marduk, a representation or “image” of this god on earth, set there to > implement divine purposes. I really hate the rationalisation of slavery. > Against this conceptual backdrop, it would appear that in the Genesis > cosmology the royal image concept is democratized. It still bears a > functional purpose, but in very different ways. In the midst of being > “subdued” and “ruled over” in captivity, the Israelites are called in hope > against hope to bear the image and likeness of God, as they “fill the > earth, and subdue it; and rule over” its creatures, while deriving > sustenance from its plant life . Yahweh Elohim is able to rest after > creating humankind, but not due to the fruits of human labor (Genesis 2:3). > Rather, this creator calls humankind to take part in this Sabbath rest, as > Exodus 20:8–11 records. More than a despotic ruler, royal statue, or a mute > idol, all humankind bears an “image” of God that is a “likeness” unto > divine agency. > > What is ignorance when one can leave the average Christian in the dust on > their own? Francis will know loads more than me on this kind of stuff. I > was distracted learning biochemistry. What is ignorance? > > > > > On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 1:19:51 AM UTC, archytas wrote: >> >> Good thinking in there Andrew. The eventual morality is not good for >> free speech. It is possible to put aside manners and question what role >> they play in ignorance and bullying. I assume this is part of Gabby's >> frame of underlying violence. Trust is involved in this, assuming others >> aren't the sort to really lurk in shadows with an ice pick of revenge. >> There have been many polite societies living in the comfort of manners, >> etiquette and politesse on the backs of slaves - all really full of >> arrogance, disrespect and hypocrisy concealed in "learning". The violence >> of society civilised by manners has been explored (Norbert Elias). There's >> a rather wonderful film - 'Burke and Hare' - that links the body-snatchers >> to Darwin and stresses hypocrisy. There's a brilliantly funny sex scene in >> it, lamentably unusual. >> >> I don't really know what Gabby's frame is, though she has been courteous >> to say I still come out to play..As a kid I was dragged along to play with >> various cousins I had nothing in common with and some poor sod who was >> locked in his room to learn piano two hours a day - and would have been his >> punching bag if not too quick on my feet. It's hard to know where the >> therapy line is drawn. >> >> There are many frames of interpretation. Gabby may even have been >> instructing us on various roles and our lack of imagination, perhaps even >> of the stubbornness of people who will speak in front of others. Most >> people are chronically petty and insular to their own world view - at least >> as evidenced in our literature and whatever the internet is. The tree >> falls silently in a beige universe, whose signals we turn into a virtual >> cognition (though there is one-way creation in this interpretation). Such >> pennies rarely drop in our education system. >> >> We talk framed by context - even the idea of 'staying on thread' is a >> frame of violence, given we often solve difficult problems from left field >> and new frames. In academic staff meetings, one frame is making sure you >> leave the room with nothing to do, and put students into groups and you >> 'find' (already know) they will just discover how pointless other people >> are other than to their own idle yet libidinous plan. The phrase 'work out >> what you want to do' instigates panic they run away from. The better kids >> soon desert the others. >> >> One can guess the frame of another and play its games in an attempt to >> understand them. What do you do with someone who doesn't know of the beige >> universe, its silent falling trees and on to quasars spinning at a quarter >> of the speed of light? And those kids who can't or won't listen to this >> other, turning everything to the soggy mediocrity of their own comfort? >> Including the teacher who tells the kids all sorts of 'comforting' (to >> her) stuff about the education they can't do in later life? Gabby hits >> some nails, though I think some of them get bent and need to be taken out >> and straightened to better explanation. >> >> Feedback that Bitcoin is boring, old hat and so on, is rather like the >> falling tree - the argument should lead to recognition of how conventional >> money is and how we might change it. This is a tough ask here, when less >> than 10% of our MPs know nearly all money is created by private banks - >> though one suspects the real problem is not just ignorance but an >> unwillingness to give to the argument of another. Gabby's Hope Sunshine >> was at least a very clever attempt at non-verbal conversation in text >> production. I rather admire the woman - but don't tell her ... >> >> >> >> On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 5:54:52 PM UTC, andrew vecsey wrote: >>> >>> I was just responding to your question. I will try to explain. Let`s say >>> that you are "bullied" by me and ignore me for it. As I understood your >>> question, you were pondering what happens next. How do I respond to that. >>> One way or ways I might respond is to change your ignoring me to trying to >>> make you look or feel ignorant. How can I do that? I give 4 possible >>> scenarios. >>> >>> 1. I could continue to bully you anonymously or to make you think >>> that I am not the only one who is bullying you by bullying you in the >>> name >>> of another name. >>> 2. I could try to derail you or your line of thought hoping you will >>> feel confused and frustrated and weakened. >>> 3. I could make it all into a joke belittling you and making fun of >>> you >>> 4. I could combine the 3 ways above by using something that people >>> consider very "deep with meaning" but is actually meaningless. For >>> example >>> I could refer your reaction to a well known work of art by Picasso that >>> many claim has deep underlying genius, or say something like "Does a >>> falling tree make a sound when there is no one to hear it?" leaving you >>> hopefully a bit confused. >>> >>> As far as hearing in my reply "blind allegations", your hearing is right >>> on. That is the reply to your other question pondering how we the members >>> identify ourselves with in such a situation. My allegation is that we all >>> use these ways to turn being ignored into ignorance. And that sometimes we >>> are blind and do not see that when we try to make someone else look or feel >>> ignorant, we are also showing our own ignorance. I claim that disrespect, >>> arrogance, and hypocrisy are all faces of ignorance. >>> >>> On Sunday, March 15, 2015 at 3:17:56 PM UTC+1, Hope Sunshine wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello and thank you for entering this multilogue here Andrew! >>>> Unfortunately I cannot make any real connections to what you are saying >>>> here, all I see is blind allegations. But maybe the others will be able to >>>> make their rhyme on it. Cheers anyways. >>>> >>>> Am Sonntag, 15. März 2015 09:24:56 UTC+1 schrieb andrew vecsey: >>>>> >>>>> Your very interesting question has been ignored by all "thinkers" in >>>>> this group of thinkers, except for facilitator who points out the >>>>> difference between "ignoring" and "ignorance". >>>>> As to your question of where the "unwanted that is ignored" go? For >>>>> those who successfully ignore it, it shouldn`t matter. It seeks attention >>>>> elsewhere by changing its form. This can be done by various ways or >>>>> combinations of ways such as: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Changing its name to a new name, AKA "hiding behind a new ID", >>>>> or "showing weakness", >>>>> 2. Derailing the topic AKA "going off topic" or "showing >>>>> ignorance". >>>>> 3. Making fun of it,AKA "showing arrogance". >>>>> 4. Using shallow and meaningless words that can not be understood >>>>> and normally assumed to be "deep", AKA "being a hypocrite". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 12:01:33 PM UTC+1, Hope Sunshine wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello my fellow sunshiners, >>>>>> >>>>>> how is everyone doing today? Giving the best you can? Great! :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's if we can push it a little further and take a closer look at >>>>>> the argument that ignoring the unwanted is a viable strategy in >>>>>> surviving >>>>>> in systems that depend on the existence of bullies. >>>>>> How much con you identify with seeing yourself placed in such a >>>>>> system? Which role would you like to take there? Where to can the >>>>>> ignored >>>>>> "stuff" escape? >>>>>> Any suggestions? >>>>>> >>>>>> Speak up as not to be spoken for, my fellow sunshiners. :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-eD7JydMkCX8/VQFx6FKiG5I/AAAAAAAAABY/F00luPRrYkg/s1600/Speak%2BUp.jpg> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
