Bear with here dameeva, we have to think hard on this. Feel free to take your time responding. We're in no hurry...
dameeva:
What if the photon has a consciousness that views the observer's consciousness before the observer and knowingly creates an experience for the observer, from the observer. This would bring it full circle to indicate a process of creation that we certainly play a part in.
No no no... a thousand times no. Think about it...
If the photon has a consciousness that creates the experience, then it is the light that is creating reality, not the observer. An observer by definition only observes. All I am saying is that we can manipulte what is, and change it. But that is not creating, but altering.
We have altered what was good by playing God. The results speak for themeselves. We don't make very good gods.
That was the temptation that led to our downfall. Satan said to Eve, that 'on the day that you eat of it,
you shall become as God'.
I have watched 'What The Bleep' several times and something strikes me about it...
It presents reality as being whatever we want it to be. It essentially does away with any notion that one way is better than another. And especially the notion that judging 'this' as wrong and 'that' as right as valid. And it actully posits the notion (by implication) that
that is the problem with the world. But, it then says we need to shift from a Christian paradigm to this 'new way' and that
that is the truth.
How can they do the very thing they say is the problem? Labeling one way as bad, and then positing a new 'one way'?
There is some terrible philosophy going on in their... do you see?
I can illustrate this another way if you'll take some time to examine the point. But in this case, it was the 'conservative' radio talk show host Michael Savage essentially saying the same thing.
Fascinating!
--------------
Savage Philosophy
The Wheel of Religion
Liberalism as a Mental Disorder
I have been a casual fan of Mr. Savage’s radio show and thinking for about 10 years, and have read at least one of his books and found it very informative, entertaining, and accurate. In my opinion, he is generally a very clear thinker who is logically demanding. But on two issues, it is also my opinion, that he is suffering from what he very provocatively calls, ”a mental disorder’ (liberalism). Michael has been seduced himself by the illogical traumas that result from philosophical contradictions. It is Savage’s ”Wheel of Religion’, and ”Liberalism as a Mental Disorder’ that I wish to address.
Recently, Mr. Savage has spoken quite openly and plainly of his inability and unwillingness to accept religious philosophies that claim to be exclusively true. He finds such exclusivity unacceptable, and to a point most of us would agree, since extremism is not in and of itself, a virtue. If it were, then certainly the Islamic Fundamentalists would have all of us beaten quite handsomely. As a substitute for what he finds to be offensive and narrow, he has offered a simple philosophical analogy, and he calls it, ”The Wheel of Religion’. There is no doubt listening to him, that he believes this analogy to be accurate and true.
He asks his audience to imagine a wheel. And the spokes of that wheel represent the religions of the world and the hub represents God. The premise is simple; all spokes lead to God. And in this way, it is implied that we should view other religious methodologies as equal to our own in leading to existential peace and meaning. This philosophy is presupposed to be less antagonistic and more tolerant by avoiding a claim of exclusivity over the worldviews that are so deeply personal and uniquely treasured in each person’s life and culture. This is strange and mystical stuff from a man who frequently and openly mocks ”tolerance’ with glee.
I want to make three main points:
1. Truth (by definition) is exclusive.
2. All philosophies such as ”The wheel of Religion’ are exclusive by implication.
3. How we can best choose a coherent worldview.
1. Truth by definition is exclusive. Probably the simplest illustration of this is mathematics. There are an infinite number of digits available to us conceptually. The largest figure I have heard of is called a ”Google’. But the point is that out of all of those possible numbers, only one of them is the correct solution to the problem 1+1+1=y. And the solution to that problem is the number 3.
The main function of the exclusivity of truth is to exclude the incorrect answer or answers. When we arrive at an answer accurately (logically) we can, with clear understanding, see the answer and make practical application of the knowledge.
2.’ The Wheel of Religion’, as with all philosophy, excludes alternative solutions to the existential questions that face all men. If ”The Wheel of Religion’ is the way, and the truth, then the claim of Jesus Christ, that ”I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me’, must be false. And the reason is simple. Jesus proclaims that we can only come to God by Him, and the ”Wheel of Religion’ excludes that solution by saying that we can come to God by any religion we are cultured in or personally suits us. Mr. Savage cannot both imply that Christ a liar, and also imply that Christ spoke the truth.
All philosophy is exclusive by definition. There may be overlap and agreement on certain truths within differing worldviews, but ultimately they divide and become opposed to one another at their foundations.
3. When choosing a worldview, we must look for coherence. If it is found to be contradictory, then it must be assumed to be false. So when we are offered such a worldview as ”The Wheel of Religion’; one that is invented with the sole purpose of freeing us from exclusivity, then we can immediately recognize the problem. It defeats itself, because it must then claim itself to be the way, the truth and the life, exclusively..
Now this presents an interesting opportunity when deciding what to believe in terms of truth claims. How can we choose at all, without excluding something else? So I ask you, ”what is wiser to choose’? A worldview which is peddled by men who are unaware of their own claim to exclusivity? Or a worldview that is offered by a man who is fully aware of Himself and makes no apology for the clarity and sufficiency of His providence?
That’s what choice is all about. We have a lot of things available to us in this world, and we certainly would not be wise to choose some of them, or all. It would be plainly illogical.
“ . The modern habit of saying ”Every man has a different philosophy; this is my philosophy and it suits me’ (the habit of saying this is mere weak-mindedness). A cosmic philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a cosmic philosophy is constructed to fit a cosmos. A man can no more possess a private religion than he can possess a private sun and moon”.
(Introduction to THE BOOK OF JOB "Man is most comforted by paradoxes." by G.K. Chesterton)
Now, there is one more thing I would like to say about ”Savage Philosophy’, and it is in regard to ”Liberalism as a Mental Disorder’. Dr. Savage has mentioned on numerous occasions that it is not just Democrats (or self styled Liberals) who suffer from this condition, but also Republicans (and self styled Conservatives), and to an alarming degree, our whole culture. I think he is onto something absolutely pivotal.
The mental disorder we all suffer from, to one extent or another is really just the illogical out-workings caused by avoiding certain realities and attempting to accommodate them in our own thinking. And these are the result of sin. The true condition is called ”Sin’. And it is this ”Spiritual Disorder’ that Michael Savage partially diagnoses with his tepid description of ”Liberalism is a Mental Disorder’.
As a result of only partially diagnosing the problem, Dr. Savage falls into the same trap that so many of us do, and that is of throwing stones. The Liberals blame the Conservatives. The Jews blame the Muslims. The ACLU blames the ”Christian Right’. The Father blames the Mother. The Son blames the Father, etc. And everyone lives ”unhappily’ ever after.
The real solution to the problem lies in each individual’s responsibility to look into the mirror of God’s Ten Commandments and see for himself what he truly is. It is in ”the light’ of that truth that we can begin to see what it is that Jesus was trying to tell us all along. He is the truth. And no man comes to the Father but by the truth. His words correspond to reality. He asks us to remember how far we have fallen, and that it is not even arguable.
“The depravity of man is at once, the most empirically verifiable reality. Yet at the same time, it is the most intellectually resisted fact.” (Malcomb Muggeridge)
If we are honest in your own hearts, we will hear His words clearly, and He counsels us to give it up. Our hollow philosophies do not even convince us, let alone an all seeing God who loved us enough to die in our stead. The problem with the world is not our enemies. The problem with the world is you and me. Until we admit that, we cannot begin to accept the solution which is openness and honesty. If we do not admit that, then we will only throw stones and accuse our neighbor of the very things we are guilty of ourselves.
Colossians 2: 8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
--------------
I have one more illustration to drive this point home if it is not immediately offensive to you...
---------------
Death to Extremists
Early this week I was delivering a deck package to a home in Eureka Ca, and one of the guys working on the project has a bumper sticker on the back of his pick-up that says, ”DEATH TO EXTREMISTS’.
I immediately chuckled to myself and after exiting my truck I spoke to him and explained how much I enjoyed his bumper sticker. He just chuckled himself, somewhat anxiously, not exactly sure what I had meant.
I said, “Its a little ”extreme’ though . isn’t it?” To which he nervously replied and said, “Yeah, there’s some irony there.”
He then went on to explain that some of his family had become born-again Christians and that they were driving him crazy, so being a ”moderate’, his wife had the sticker custom made for him a while back.
I asked him, “So you are ”extremely’ moderate?”
Again he laughed nervously and said, “No . I am only ”moderately’ moderate.”
That was about the extent of our conversation. I did tell him that I too was born-again like his family members and understood the terms.
I might have said to him in response to his last statement (“No . I am only’ moderately’ moderate”) that, “That would explain your ”extreme displeasure’ with extremism”, but I did not think of it so quickly.
I could tell that he had come to understand the dilemma (and not in terms of irony, but contradiction), and that his acidic cynicism had waned over some period of time. I sensed he wanted to speak more about it, and I also would have loved to sit down and discuss these things in detail. He was seeking resolution to the mess (very cautiously), but we both were in a rush to get back to our responsibilities with work.
Anyway, there’s no sense in pushing people who are beginning to see the light (of reason). I think that once they understand that their beliefs contain violent contradictions, it’s only a matter of time. At least . that’s how it was for me.
Ps. It reminds me . ”Do you know what the ”fundamental’ problem with this world is?’
Fundamentalism!
Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, let us reason together," says the Lord. "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.
Rob
------------------
Have I adequately made the point? And is there a flaw in my analysis?
™ Version 4.2