I wonder...

I'm on board too, sqrl if ya'll have me (I'm not bipolar.) And faye! you said that on a guy's thread!!! LOL

I found this discussion on another posting site. It looks like many people are questioning the same thing right now.
G.

Honest scientists (just about every scientist I knew at the time) live in a
belief system that might seem scary to some. At any moment, they have
many working hypotheses about how the world works. Some of these are
supported by immense amounts of our human experience.

Maxwell’s equations, for example, in four short lines of mathematics,
provide beautiful explanations of why the sky is blue, why sticks look bent
in water, why electromagnetic waves, from light to x-rays to radio waves,
have the properties they do - and thousands of other experiences of our
world.

From quantum mechanics we can derive our periodic table of elements,
understand why metals conduct heat and electricity well, and figure out
how to construct quantum devices like transistors and electronics that have revolutionized our lives.

In fact, quantum mechanics is, I think, the most thoroughly and precisely
tested theory of physics.

But that doesn’t mean that it’s “true”. Or that “it’s a fact”.

No, quantum mechanics, like every other scientific theory is a theory. And
an honest scientist always stays open to the possibility that even a well-
established theory may just be a portion of a better theory, better in the
sense that it explains more stuff.

For example the classical Newtonian theory of the world, tied together our experiences of falling objects, the tides, and the positions of the planets. Two hundred years later, Einstein’s theory of relativity added to Newton’s brilliant work. Einstein created a framework that included Newton’s mechanics, but added subtle predictions that have found to be correct – that space is “bent” by matter, that clocks slow down when accelerating, and that Maxwell’s equations, which describe how electromagnetic radiation moves at the speed of light, are not flawed when one asks the question, “speed relative to what?”.

Despite all this impressive predictive ability, for me it is always possible
that our current theories can be improved, can be seen in new, coherent,
and beautiful ways that expand our understanding of our universe. Such a new theory must tie together everything our older theory was able to connect, but will include new predictions that shed light on or predict phenomena that we do not yet understand or have thought to study.

I spoken concentrated so far about well established theories, and hope I
have made clear how even such wonderful feats of our consciousness must always be considered potentially incomplete. One other thing I want to emphasize is how much all science, at any point in time, is full of new theories, about which less experimental testing has been done, and about which scientific controversy swirls. This is the normal development of science. Good scientists are comfortable with ambiguity and controversy about theories in their areas of research. To paraphrase Alice in Wonderland, they are capable believing six impossible things before breakfast. This suspension of belief is important in maintaining an open mind to possibilities. Someone who “just wants to know the truth” would find it pretty upsetting.

I find it fascinating and I welcome the improvements scientists have made in understanding the world we live and the universe as a whole. As of late we have been able to see galaxies and worlds we had no idea that existed. It's not just empty space out there. This is the area of my interest. the universe. I think being bp makes me more stimulated to this field because much of the time I feel I'm more out there than in here. LOL. thank you Ganesha for these fascinating insights. I hope there's plenty more where that came from. TgrsPurr.

And here I was, hiding in my closet, afraid of being the only geek in the world who gave a rat's *** about Quantum Physics! Thank you Sky and Ganesha for both bringing it up. Yum, quantum acorns.

To my way of thinking, the single greatest conundrum in the world of physics has been the Heisenberg (sp?) principle alluded to by Sky. It was he, who demonstraded that the smallest particle, when measured, expresses itself impossibly as either wave or particle according to how it is measured, implying a link between beholder and beheld which has been rather a nasty contingency for science to deal with.

Well I am about to make at least two people in the world very very happy.

A wonderful Finnish Scientist named Ervin Laszlo has just published a book titled, "Science And The Akashic Field." It is nothing less than the first ever credible integral theory of everything. It is a remarkably accessible read in a modestly slim volume. I can't recommend it enough. Like a good new theory must, it addresses all that has come before and encompasses all of the current leading edge questions.

Just like gravitational, and electro magnetic fields, while invisible, are scientifically demonstrable, so too turns out to be the field of space demonstrably charged with the knowledge of all that has gone before.

Indeed, the divine and physics seem to be looking eachother in the eye.

Please, oh please, someone read it.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>

Indeed, the divine and physics seem to be looking eachother in the eye.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said, " If we stare into the abyss for long enough, the abyss will stare back at us."

Cheers, Myzen

I like that Myzen, in fact, I like that a lot. So true, lol. That's the appeal, I think. TgrsPurr.

Ah Myzen, thank you for following along here. You seem to draw freely from a broad and classical education with wisdom and insight. Love the N. quote.

And all of you have shared good exchanges here, I can't seem to muster myself for the individual response approach here, lazy sqrl disorder or something. So, thank you all.

Bob Marely wrote, " Free yourselves from mental slavery; none but ourselves can free our minds." Indeed, the gauntlet thrown down by MI is a challenge on that order. If we do not change the way we think, the way we think will never change. What could better describe "death" than a cessation of that endeavor or a limiting of it?

The business of suspending belief and disbelief, while phrased variously, is at the core of most therapy approaches. The way we think has everything to do with the way we perceive and understand the world and ourselves within it.

Is it really true that a religeous belief is exempt from even examination? I wonder if that could be explained in rational philosophical terms without resorting to what is religeous testimony? It seems like a practice which is fundamentally undermining to sound mental health.

Good post sqrl.

I first wanted to respond to your statement regarding freeing ourselves from mental slavery. I believe that the manic state is highly condusive to that, at least for me, because I'm functioning on a higher plain as it is. New and unique thoughts come to me like Niagra Falls. I question many things, pere into the abyss and as Myzen so aptly put it, find the abyss staring back at me. Pentetrating my thoughts with wonders of the universe we live in. Feeling so small in the cosmic sense and yet expansive in the manic sense, I feel as though I'm at the center of the abyss.

On the topic of faith, I believe it should be held under the hot lights and spot light of scrutiny. We should never just take something at face value, but allow ourselves to experience it, welcome the thought processes that come naturally and then make a concerted effort to stand it on it's head and see how it holds up. I believe I've done this with many aspects of my faith, but it will take a life time and then some to make this approach with all aspects of my faith. The things that hold up to scrutiny and suspended belief I can integrate into the very fabric of my being and make it one with me, continually challenging it and expanding it. It's a truly awesome experience because it always brings me closer to God as I understand Him. The Universe is a massive place, infinite, endless, beautiful. And yet, what is it that holds it all together. Extensive research has been done on the likelihood of earth forming as it has over the millions of years of existance and many scientists have come to the conclusion that something supernatural must have been and continues to guide it, glue it all together, forming the world as we know it. For those of you who question why would God allow something like 9/11 to take place...all those innocent lives, the suffering and the continued suffering. My belief...God is right where we put him...out of the picture by taking Him out of our schools, pledge of allegiance, our homes and our lives. God is a gentleman, He will not overstep our freewill. This may raise some eyebrows for some. but I ask you to keep in mind, this is MY belief. You don't have to agree with it.

I appreciate the opportunity sqrl to cement these thoughts together. To cause me to dwell on my beliefs, suspend disbelief and see what unfolds. My thoughts above are what has transpired thus far, in a nut shell. If I were to spell it all out, I'm sure I'd crash the sight. If anyone is ever interested in discussing this in further detail, I welcome the opportunity in PM, this affords the opportunity to speak freely and completely openly.

I welcome your thoughts sqrl on what I've had to say here. I welcome a new perspective and added opportunity to suspend disbelief.
TgrsPurr. xo

Thanks Tgr, for that description. You demonstrate some pretty nimble agility to be able to discuss your faith in secular terms, and I appreciate that. Assuming then, that you consent to some friendly probing of what you posted, I'll do that. But if it should cross a line for you at anytime, feel free to so signify and I will divert.

You hit upon several areas of key interest to me. First of course you describe the process of examination well, you understand it just fine, obviously.

Then you touched briefly upon the question of cohesion in the universe, and the impossibility of purely random evolution to account for what we today behold. That idea brings back the quantum physics discussion above. Part of what it means to demonstrate the Akashic Field scientifically is that evolution then is not random at all, but informed by every particle/space unit of all that has ever gone before. That book by Laszlo would be a read you never regretted if the nature of the universe is something that gives you pause. I find it vital to my endlessly unfolding understanding of the essential how it "isness" of the world.

Then you touched on what is called Theodicy which is the philosophical and theological argument for and against the reconciliation of evil with the concept of god. The arguments, centuries old and continuing to this day, while loftily intellectual without exception, all are inconclusive and most even by their own admission. It's a riddle. Some of the givens you submit toward the end of that part intrigue me, and forgive me for the poking to follow. I'm hoping through some humorous observation to prompt another level of inquiry not belittle your views. K? K.

The God as gentleman Theodicy will not work. I mean, what gentleman, for being excluded from any activity, would blithely smite thousands of people? Is that your suggestion? That a gentleman of any sort should be afforded the latitude for petulant violence and havoc does little to sooth the secularist or the faithful I should think. "Put me back in the picture, or else, " is that what you're saying?

So, if I apply a mindfulness model to the above unfolding, it looks like the mind comes out focused, and clear, touches the fabric of the universe question and remains clear and focused, but then the theodicy question derailed the clarity into a declaration which doesn't seem to match energetically or intellectually what was in the beginning.

So, to put it into a question form, what do you see when you re read that now? When you talk about god in relation to suffering, what shifts? That thinking in that moment, on the page at least, seems to veer from the kind of thinking that preceeded it a moment before. Without looking at what the thoughts are, can you see a difference in the "kind" of thinking between those moments.

I know this is all very abstract, and I'm fairly manic lately, but my inquiry is sincere. I'm getting something out of this, if it's not too difficult a thing to continue with. I really appreciate your candor and sincerity.

LOL. Okay, allow me to explain in further detail. When it comes to God as gentleman. God does not "impose" himself where we don't want him. We have methodically and consistantly as of late kicked him out of just about every area of the american way of life. This IS a fact. So when the enemy comes to attack, we are without our protection because it staying exactly where we as a COUNTRY have put Him. We have asked Him to leave our government, our schools and our lives. By the same token, God took this opportunity to turn some of it around for the good of Him, many ppl turned to him once again in their hour of need. Many "came home" in their faith. God did not allow 9/11 to take place, what could he do to stop it? But He was and always will be there for those who want Him, seek Him and cry out to Him. God does not want us to suffer, we choose to suffer on my levels. Our ignorance/arrogance being at the root of that statement. I for one turn TO God. I surrender to His will each and everyday of my life, moment by moment. After all, He is far more wise than I. But in the answers I receive to my problems, questions, requests...I turn them on their head and see how they hold up. I'm usually not disappointed.

Hope this clarifies. I'm not asking you to agree sqrl. but I am asking that you suspend your disbelief and take a fresh look at what I've said, eh? I sense a certain degree of animosity on your part, why is that? I don't mean to be offensive, but your statements are admament. It is in doing exactly as you have suggested that I'm able to make the statements you consider incongruous.

I in no way see an inconsistancy in my previous post. It is congruent, open minded, faithful and suspends disbelief. I'm okay with the fact that you may categorically disagree, all I'm asking is that perhaps you could a little more of an open mind when it comes to what I'm sharing here. You made some rather large proclamations of where I'm "wrong" in your view. I guess, again, it comes down to belief. As for the fact that all faiths and religions don't have all the absolutes and answers, I couldn't agree more. That is where "FAITH" is so important. To trust in something you may not necessarily be able to concretely see, tough, taste, smell or explain. But it is rather something you "feel", in one's soul, in the fabric of one's being. Displayed in actions in everyday life. Displayed in the sense of peace one has in the "faith". The love one is replete with day in and day out. It may be an intangible, but so is falling "in love". How does one know one has fallen in-love...you just know. You feel it. It becomes apart of the very fabric of who and what you are.
TgrsPurr.

It's a tricky thing to talk about I see.

More that any particulars about this or that article of religeous faith, I'm intrigued by what looks to me like an abdication of free will more than anything. People in discussing religeous belief seem to share in common a point at which there is no more "will" to exercise in the exploration of life and it's significance. I can't understand it. And invariably it is expressed, however eloquently, as reasons why one won't look past point "x." For me, it comes down to the impossibility of drawing such a line, after which I give up my own autonomy. I'm sure you don't see it like that, it's just how it looks to me.

Anyway, I think we got some good exchange out of it. I hope I haven't offended too badly. tc.

sqrl, I am in no way offended. I welcome the exchange of points of view, expressing ones points of view and the right to disagree. I like being challenged in this sense. I do feel misinterpreted though by you and I'm not sure why that is...I feel I've made some excellent points here. My understanding of what you're saying above is that you think this all comes down to "free will". For the most part it is, we can either choose to accept or deny, we can either choose to believe it or not. But that doesn't change reality either. Some things God has set in motion are not up for negotiation or the exercising of free will. Such as is there a heaven and a hell. You ARE here for a purpose. Your life DOES of have meaning. We ABSOLUTELY have choices. We are born and we die. But inbetween the lines of all these things is where we choose our path in and about these things.

I hope that I have not offended you dear sqrl. I love your mind, I love the way you think. And, of course, I adore you.
TgrsPurr.

I would very much hate for this thread to get locked because of the content of these posts. I'm hoping this thread is being seen for what it is...an expression of suspending disbelief...in whatever form that may take, including one's beliefs.

If I've offended, I apologize, it was never my intent.

Love to all. TgrsPurr. xo

If we didn't have faith an spirtuality and (Gods)sunshine to kiss our noses and without sunshine there wouldn't be trees with nuts on them for bushy tail
Amy

Hi folks,

If anyone wants a good debate on philosophy/theology I am registered at a site called 'The Mad Philosopher's Guild' as 'ethinker'. I hope I'm allowed to mention the link here. You can argue to your hearts content there, as the aims of the site are different to psych central.

I like to do my philosophy over there, and come here for the reasons I've mentioned before - to give and receive support in the face of our illnesses.

Good thoughts to you all, Myzen.

Oh get out, I'm so there. Thanks Myzen, I'm looking forward to looking in on that.

Cheers, mate.

I am sorry I am so late coming to this thread. I haven't been around much lately.

First, a big hurrah to sqrl for this post. When I read your stuff it reminds me I am no where near as smart as I think I am lol. I think that the ability to question one's one beliefs is the key to understanding them. Suspending your beliefs is the key to open-mindedness and the elimination of prejuidice. When you ask questions, the answers can improve your understanding and perhaps provide you with an enlightenment you might not otherwise experience. You don't need the dali lama to experience spiritual enlightenment. When you suspend belief, you open your mind to new possibilites, never before considered. To me, that's a good thing.

It's no surprise to me that such a philosophical question as, "can you suspend belief long enough to immerse yourself in a contrary view?" should evoke a response about fatih. Philosophy and religion are intertwined. I guess I just see the whole thing in a different light.

I find that I spend most of the time awash in a sea of facts, opinions, theories, and beliefs. I'm like a blue whale on this sea, filter-feeding on the constantly in-rushing stream of information, extracting whatever I can of relevance, and only when I have need, collect it together to form an opinion. I am able to judge the extent of my own knowledge by the strength of the argument I present to support my belief. If i know my argument is weak I won't comment until I obtain more information.

Hummmm... what a bunch of hoo-haw. And to think I mainly just wanted to say that whenever you can open your mind to new possibilites, in effect, suspend your beliefs, it is in itself an form of enlightenment, beneficial to your mind and your spirit. When you see things in new ways you achieve an improved understanding of your unquie perspective of the universe as an individual. I really think that is at the heart of sqrl's original post and I embrace it whole-heartedly in my own life as much as possible.

So good to read your musings again sqrl. I hope you are doing ok. I'm hangin' in there.

Hey Reb, so good to see you!! What a fantastic post you made. I wish I'd said what you did. Brilliant.

In a CBT group I was in, the counselor there wrote on the board once, "If we don't change the way we think, the way we think will never change." Who among us is satisfied with the way they think?

I hope you can come around some more, you are a wonderful mind to kibbitz with. thanks.

Be well, my friend.