From what we know about the natural, when we look at large and fast things, we totally failed until Einstein opened a whole new way of looking at it that changed everything. Our entire Newtonian system of physics was but an imperfect reflection of something we can measure now.
Therein lies the truest beauty of the scientific approach - it has the capacity to be self-correcting in light of new evidence, which is why (I am confident, anyway) if there is any aspect of reality that can be experienced, it can be approached scientifically. Pretty much every new scientific discovery has been made on the basis that what we thought was the case didn’t quite fit the evidence.
We were beholden to weirdness we could never have imagined.
I’ll get on to explaining my pantheism a little later, but this is certainly part of it…
This does not prove there is a construct so mysterious that it is actually going to be impossible to find – ever – but I think it shows that we are routinely accustomed to living in a world we know for a fact is a simplified “shadow” of “reality.”
I think one of the benefits of a scientific approach is that it keeps us in touch, so to speak, with just how much we don’t know with any degree of certainty. As Dawkins is fond of saying, we evolved to perceive medium-sized entities moving at moderate speeds - this was all we needed to survive in our ancestral environment. Our culture and technology have evolved at a far greater rate than our perceptive abilities.
I wholeheartedly agree with this, and this is why we “mystics,” or if you’re not buying that then “mystical wannabees,” tend to call the rest of the faithful (esp. self-righteous) to a truer and more authentic version of love.
Yet love is so nebulously defined and such a personalised experience that it is hard to know what version is
more authentic than any other. A core element of the problem here seems to be that the subjective concept of “self” is so central to our experience, to our very definition of who and what we are, yet “genuine” love is considered to be self
less. That almost makes it seem inhuman - and thus unachievable for most people!
That kind of religion is the kind Jesus came to save us from. He didn’t come to be our thought police, now taunting us with life or death with every passing thought instead of every observable action – He came to show us a truer love.
That may be the case but if so, plenty has been lost in the application.
As far as whether Jesus dying for us is an example of selfless love, you are right also in that we have to accept this on faith.
It fits with the storyline, certainly, to suppose it was so. However, I am still able to appreciate that (assuming Jesus existed as a real historical individual) he demonstrated the courage of his convictions, and thus is entitled to great respect - even admiration - as a person, as is anyone whose commitment leads them to make what we generally consider (even those who believe in an afterlife) to be the ultimate sacrifice; I don’t feel the need to assume
more than this.
It may well be the case that only the Christian concept of selfless love can result in a sacrifice such as that made by Kolbe; but I would suppose that it is equally the case that only a particular variety of committed belief could lead to the kinds of sacrifices made by others - such as the ‘heretics’ who valued honesty above recantation; the political prisoners who believed in their particular causes; the Buddhists who set themselves alight in “peaceful” protest against an unjust war - just to name a few. I think it may well be the specifics of any belief system, in concert, that lead to any extreme action, especially one that involves self-destruction.
The reason I believe He is authentic is that with His coaching and a whole of of others, I have been healed of a supposedly incurable mental illness and am currently experiencing the kind of “kingdom” Jesus talked about. It all makes sense. Even the literalists fighting about whether it makes sense, makes sense.
It makes sense to me, too, but for rather different reasons
Seriously, though, it’s great that you have reached a point of mental reconciliation, so to speak, with the world. Again, this is where I am at, but for different reasons.
I think when we worship our clergy (and most of us tend to do it) it screws up everything, including our souls and those of the clergy themselves.
Worship has been known to screw up any kind of human leader, religious or otherwise. Just look at Hitler and Stalin…
But since you are a pantheist, how does your belief differ from atheism – at least in light of this discussion topic?
I would have to say negligibly. Pantheism is, to me, more of an emotional response to the world than any kind of religious/spiritual conviction. I have no belief in a personal god, only that if there is anything that is worthy of reverence, anything upon which we depend for our wellbeing, it is the natural world of which we are part. Be that as it may, it does at least furnish me with the idea that my life is worth no more nor less, intrinsically, than that of any other; with this in mind, it may be - although I have yet to be in a position to test this theory - that there will come a day when giving up my life for another person or for a cause seems to me to be the best course of action. Time will tell, I guess…!
An atheist hailed as a Christian martyr 
