h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Matholwch - Am I mad?

No, I would guess that most of the things for which you use Deitys or super-natural beings (of whatever rank) are now, if not actually observable, at least explainable by Quantum/Chaos reasoning.(of whatever discipline)

I rekon you could do a big sum to explain why, every so often, your PC will do something you wanted it to do, but before you actually clicked on whatever it was you were about to click. (or is it just me?)

Like, how does a small change (a thought) in the electro-magnetic patterns within my cranium (surrounded by the electro-magnetic field of the monitor) effect the more or less similar structures (but not so wet) and electro-magnetic patterns inside a box two feet away?

And if I flap a butter-flys wing inside my head, can it stir a volcano in the heart of my love. Via the internet?

When I was a child I had a walker, that I could push along and use as support until I could walk un-aided. I now, at 34, manage to walk on my hind legs quite steadily -most of the time

Here's a thought -

Is (or could) the internet (a creation of collective Human thought) be a means by which the Collective Unconscious is attempting to "Lead us to the Light"

Can we learn and evolve to use what we already have inside us (which is all just part of the same big oneness anyway) to directly effect the order and flow of Chaos?

Suppose that would explain the Duality of man and God, InI of Rastafarian theology and Pelagius (and Coptic) etc insistance that Jesus was just a bloke and you can talk to God yourself cos your part of Him (it).

Personally, I prefer to focus my "Spiritual" energy towards images of Women, aspects of the Goddess - I can never remember their names though The Pauline S&M (Handsome young fella -unmarried 30 something rabbi, yeah right!! nailed to a cross) just don't do it for me.

But does it really matter, what the "Point of Focus" is, as long as it allows you to focus ?

Absolutely brilliant!
At last a forum and a debate where I get a decent challenge to my 'superstitions' and 'ignorance'.
Thank you Hoovooloo!
I shall return in a couple of days once I have:
a) thought through your arguments thoroughly.
b) re-read my notes on evolutionary theory.
One point though that I notice here that does not happen on the normal pagan noticeboards I inhabit is the lack of courtesy and respect. Your points are well-made and deserve a debate (deep relishing going on over here), but it is unnecessary to be rude. It defeats your purpose and individuals less scarred than me may be put off by it. People who may otherwise appreciate your insight.
Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

A fact is a fact only within a given theoretical framework.

Even "The reason I can see a computer screen in front of me is that there IS a computer screen in front of me" is a theoretical framework {for empirical facts) although we tend not to notice it because it's universal, automatic, and has no obvious workable alternatives.

Space is curved is a fact within a more complex, less universal, non automatic theoretical framework.

Facts about people are facts within an even more complex theoretical framework about human nature.

Moreover the empirical facts of one discipline may be the theoretical framework of another, the two often overlapping in complex ways.

Scientists, and rationalists generally, work within a theoretical framework of formal determinism, that is, the belief that the universe is coherently connected together by consistent rules. The content of the rules, however, is provided by observation.

Formal determinism cannot be proved empirically because it is part of the theoretical framework WITHIN which empirical facts are made.
Nor can it be disproved empirically. We simply have no notion of what an uncaused event would look like.

How do believers in God(s) feel that their beliefs contribute to their understanding of how the universe works?

Hi Matholwch,
I share your same basic faith but see it more this way: we can worship processes like evolution, photosynthesis, cell reproduction, death and everything else *as* deities. For instance, I do not literally (i.e, like it really happened) believe that Persephone (or equivalent) was taken into the Underworld for six months and that is *why* we have seasons, but it is a very good way of portraying the seasons so that they may be worshipped. I tried to explain to a very bad example of Christian tolerance my view by using the example of trees, instead of saying his God makes the tree sprout new leaves, I might say it's the Goddess' work. But by that I mean it's a result of chemical reactions. However, to me it does not make it any less marvellous.
The problem I have with most major religions is that they do not, generally, do this- it's all second-hand, and because God did it there's no room for other explanations. It puts the adherants and their God-given surroundings at a distance. What does it matter how it happened- what happened, or that it happened at all, is bloody amazing.

Greetings all,
Interesting topic you started, only you have not specified the parametres for the discussion: In order for anyone to give a, more or less intelligent, answer to your question it would be necessary to know your definition of "God" or "Gods" or even "deity".Your view and/or opinion may not at all be the same as mine and we would therefor discuss two entirely different subjects.
Speaking for myself, as a practitioner of an Earthbound filosophy, my deities grew from ancestor-worship through time into the triple or triunite deities they are. That most of them have in one form or another a strong connection with nature in all its forms is quite understandable. Earthbound filosophies are just that:they are based on and celebrated within the wheel of the year and the seasons, deities linked to harvest,winter, spring and new life and so on are therefor an essential part. Within the deity one finds the properties and strengths, but also the weaknesses of the season AND of the human living in that season; in short a deity who stands not above the practitioners, but amongst them. It is up to the individual practitioner to accept as much or as little from the deities as he/she wants or can, based on their understanding and their knowledge of the philosophy or religion they choose to be part of.
Always open to discuss this further,
walk in Light,
Star*

Hi Matholwch (how do you pronounce that, btw?)

"Absolutely brilliant!
At last a forum and a debate where I get a decent challenge to my 'superstitions' and 'ignorance'.
Thank you Hoovooloo!"

You're very welcome!

"I shall return in a couple of days once I have:
a) thought through your arguments thoroughly.
b) re-read my notes on evolutionary theory."

Would it be impertinent to ask who wrote your notes? Evolutionary theory is a constantly changing field, with new ideas being considered all the time... for example the concept of punctuated equilibrium is at odds with the constant gradual change Darwin thought was going on. There are certainly a lot of good books about it available, but make sure whatever you're reading is relatively recent. In an act of shameless self-promotion, I'm going to suggest that you check out A730522 and it's associated entries, too.

"One point though that I notice here that does not happen on the normal pagan noticeboards I inhabit is the lack of courtesy and respect."

Hmm. I've read my reply to you again. It contains the following phrases:

"There is no evidence whatever for the existence of a god, and if you can point to some I should be very grateful."

[in response to your observation that being a Druid automatically marks you out as "a nutter"] "Not at all, unless you show yourself to be. I make no prejudgements, and especially not based on things I know absolutely nothing about."

I also said: "My mind is open. Give me evidence. I'm open to it. I'm not prejudiced. You're a Druid? Cool. What does that mean, to you? What do you believe, and why?"

Now, admittedly I also said these things:

[In response to an erroneous statement about evolution] "Garbage which merely shows that the author knows as much about evolution as the average ignorant Creationist." That I would defend as fact, if bluntly put. The intention was to provoke a reaction, since I assumed you'd be offended to be compared to a blinkered flat-earther Fundamentalist Christian.

And, in response to your questioning the evolutionary point of song, poetry and art: "I'm amazed that a person with the IQ necessary to operate a computer can be so dense as to have to ask this question" - I meant this. You're obviously intelligent. You obviously think about things. The evolutionary advantages were obvious to me almost before I started to think about it. I would, uncharitably perhaps, characterise that as a "dumb question", and responded harshly.

However - here are some things you said in the post I was replying to:

"the so-called rationalists or scientists in our world"
"Such arrant nonsense."
"They cling to their little dogmas"
"Luckily for us most mathematicians are brighter than the scientific community they lead"
"To such limited people I ask..."
"Please do not reply 'nothing', even Isaac Newton wasn't daft enough to fall for that pat answer"
"come on you poor blinkered rationalists, throw off your prejudices"

Do these represent the "courtesy and respect" you say are missing?

"Your points are well-made and deserve a debate (deep relishing going on over here)"

Here too!

"but it is unnecessary to be rude."

Not wishing to be flippant, I disagree. Sometimes it IS necessary to be rude, in my opinion. I may typically be expected to become rude after having been described as "limited", "blinkered" or "prejudiced", say. Since I am one of your "so-called rationalists" (why so-called? Do you think I'm not, really? Am I just pretending?), you *were* having a pop at me with those words. Why are you surprised that I reply in kind?

"It defeats your purpose and individuals less scarred than me may be put off by it. People who may otherwise appreciate your insight."

I try (and I admit I'm not always successful) to write according to the situation. I'm not just blanket rude to everyone. I'd draw your attention to, for instance, from this very thread... F55607?thread=192835&skip=24 . Respectful and courteous posts get, from me, respectful and courteous (and very long...) replies.

Glad we've got that out of the way...

H.

Greetings,

Sorry for intruding in what seems to be a private discussion , but can't help submit the following :"...dumb question..." There are no dumb questions, the only dumb question is the one not asked.

Brightest Blessings /|Star*

Good point there, star... but...

Asking someone a question which they believe to have an extremely obvious answer is forgivable if:

1. the questioner truly does not know the answer for sensible reasons. Children ask questions like that all the time. These are not "dumb questions".

2. the questioner KNOWS the answer, but is asking the question to make a point - example: I could ask a Christian, Jew or Muslim, "is the earth flat?". I KNOW the answer. It isn't a dumb question because I'm asking to test how completely they follow their professed faith. (Sheikh Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, the supreme religious authority in Saudi Arabia issued a fatwa in 1993 declaring that the world is flat. You did read that date right - 1993, less than ten years ago. And the Christian/Jewish bible states quite clearly that the earth is flat. This is not something which it is possible to be allegorical about. IF you believe the earth to be an oblate spheroid, you are not a true Christian, Jew, or Muslim.)

3. the question is related to an extremely obscure subject in which the person asked is an expert.

None of the above applied to the question Matholwch posed. If a person of demonstrated intelligence and articulacy asks a question with an obvious answer, an answer they should have been able to come up with themselves with barely a moment's thought, and they ask it not to make a point but because they appear not to know the answer - isn't that a dumb question?

H.

Hoisted upon me own petard! Aaargh!
Fair play, upon reading my post again I perhaps was less than gracious to all you 'blinkered rationalists' out there. Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa. Apologies.
I think this possibly because I have developed oversensitive reactions. You must understand that to declare yourself openly pagan, either in the real world or upon this virtual simulation, is to invite oftimes vitriolic abuse from both the rationalist wing and the supporters of Abrahamic extremism.

Which of course is irrelevant to the debate at hand. So, the game is afoot, let us go on Watson!
One of the differences you will quickly find Hoovooloo between my Abrahamic cousins and the nebulous confederation that is neo-paganism, is that as a whole we are fairly accepting of the scientific and/or rationalist perspective of the universe.
Where we differ, however, is that we are prepared to believe that there really is much more to it than is explained by the present level of scientific knowledge. Most of us see the divine, in many countenances, in just about everything around us. Many of us experience a relationship to this divine presence on a daily basis.
In the druid communities, this experience is often practical. We spend a lot of time out there, on the land, communicating with the spiritual presences that inhabit the trees, groves and streams. Talking to our ancestors through ritual, trance and dream. Being guided by the Awen, the flowing spirit of the divine.
Unlike the Abrahamics, we do not debase ourselves to these presences, nor treat them to abject worship. We work with them as equals, as friends and as students. We believe that the universe is filled with a divine spirit and we try to find ways to work in harmony with it.
One of the problems that our society suffers from today is the moral vacuum left by the collapse of the Churches. Morals and ethics are rarely taught in schools, except as an oddity of history. They are rarely discussed at home. The spiritual side of life for many people is being left untended, to decay and die.
As a result new 'cults' take over the space left over by this failure. Cults of self-gratification and over-consumption. Where 'my needs' become more important than that of the land. We are becoming a spiritually-bankrupt people, and the results are heart-breaking to see.
This makes me angry, as you can understand. Thus when someone tries to attack the spiritual paths in this land, then I rise to the bait. It is true though we are easy to attack. Many of our ideas and beliefs seem implausible, even ludicrous to the outsider always used to a simple, logical explanation for everything. When we try to explain that many of our beliefs are based on personal experimentation and experience. That they are grounded in thousands of years of practice across many cultures. We are derided.
The problem for us is that to understand what we believe you have to experience it for yourself. Unlike the Abrahamics we have no great store of dogma to ram down your gullet. To do so would be to break ouer own belief in the sanctity of personal choice. Each person must approach this understanding upon their own terms.
I admit my knowledge of evolution is outdated (college notes about 20 years old), but from what I know I am not at odds with the general theory. I am willing to bone up on it and learn more.
Would you though be willing to spend the time to learn our lore? I myself am seven years along a twenty-one year training course to become a full druid priest. A course that includes science, philosophy, art, prose, history, herbalism, comparative religions, poetry, herbalism, antropology, psychology, counselling, agriculture, astronomy and song.
I hope that this answers some of your questions. In my experience it normally raises many more. I look forward to your dissection of my arguments....
Blessings,
Matholwch /|\

"Hoisted upon me own petard! ...Apologies."

Accepted! Onward...

"I think this possibly because I have developed oversensitive reactions. You must understand that to declare yourself openly pagan, either in the real world or upon this virtual simulation, is to invite oftimes vitriolic abuse from both the rationalist wing and the supporters of Abrahamic extremism."

You may find this place a little more tolerant. You may not... But there are quite a few people who would more or less fit the description "pagan" who post here, and I think they'd agree that this is a fairly easy place be pretty much anything.

"we are fairly accepting of the scientific and/or rationalist perspective of the universe."

Good start.

"Where we differ, however, is that we are prepared to believe that there really is much more to it than is explained by the present level of scientific knowledge."

That's not a point of difference. Where I think you differ is that *I* think that most of the things currently unknown to science, and which science does not declare unknowable in principle, will eventually be known. Which doesn't leave much of a gap...

"Many of us experience a relationship to this divine presence on a daily basis."

I'm not denying it. I'm only saying that most of what you're talking about is something which I believe is going on in your head, and nowhere else.

"In the druid communities, this experience is often practical. We spend a lot of time out there, on the land, communicating with the spiritual presences that inhabit the trees, groves and streams. Talking to our ancestors through ritual, trance and dream. Being guided by the Awen, the flowing spirit of the divine."

How is this "practical"? (serious question) What practical benefits do you get out of it? Can you predict the future reliably, as science can? Can you cure disease reliably by non-science based methods? I'm looking here for a practical application of your beliefs to something outside your own mind.

"One of the problems that our society suffers from today is the moral vacuum left by the collapse of the Churches."

There are over a billion Christians in the world, over half a billion Muslims, I wouldn't say that churches have "collapsed". You only have to look at the politics of the US to see the power of the religious right.

"Morals and ethics are rarely taught in schools, except as an oddity of history."

I went to a church school. Don't they exist any more?

"They are rarely discussed at home."

Any evidence for that?

"The spiritual side of life for many people is being left untended, to decay and die."

Leaving aside for the moment that I don't believe that is the case, personally I think that if we WERE leaving behind our primitive superstitions, that can only be a GOOD thing. I've asked elsewhere on this site for people to imagine a world without science (not difficult - it was this world until relatively recently) and then imagine a world without religion. I can see many reasons why I would not want to live in a world without science, and I can't think of a single reason why living in a world completely free of religion of any kind wouldn't be MUCH better than what we've got.

"When we try to explain that many of our beliefs are based on personal experimentation and experience. That they are grounded in thousands of years of practice across many cultures. We are derided."

Well, I'm not deriding them. I'm honestly interested in the results of your experimentation and experience.

"The problem for us is that to understand what we believe you have to experience it for yourself."

Well, you're experiencing the fruits of rational enquiry by looking at the screen you're reading this on, so I don't need to even start explaining the benefits of my world-view. Offer me something as tangible, simple and immediate as that, and I shall be truly fascinated.

"I admit my knowledge of evolution is outdated (college notes about 20 years old)"

I *think* that's quite up to date enough, helps if it mentioned punctuated equilibrium, not sure how recent a notion that is. You must understand I've been involved in discussions with Creationists who think it's very clever to point out the mistakes Darwin made in "The Origin of Species", as though that were the last word on the subject. What is with those people and old books?

"Would you though be willing to spend the time to learn our lore?"

Well... yes. Up to a point. What would be the benefits to me? (ooh, there I go, "what's in it for me", my morality has obviously collapsed ). Seriously though - I am interested to know what you believe and why. I'm particularly interested to know how you think someone else would benefit from believing as you do.

I think everyone would benefit from believing as I do because I believe I know the boundaries of my true knowledge better than most. I know what I know, and I know what I don't know, and I think the same is not true of people who engage in superstition, be it yourself, or the archbishop of Canterbury, or a person reading their horoscope.

"I myself am seven years along a twenty-one year training course to become a full druid priest. A course that includes science, philosophy, art, prose, history, herbalism, comparative religions, poetry, herbalism, antropology, psychology, counselling, agriculture, astronomy and song."

Strong on the herbalism then.

Interesting list.

"I hope that this answers some of your questions. In my experience it normally raises many more. I look forward to your dissection of my arguments...."

Well, there you go. Onward...

H.

This discussion seems to be going round in circles, and I am starting to get dizzy. God fact or fiction?. It seems to be causing a riot.
Semaj, Be happy.

Just thought I'd dive in as well. Change God for 'This Universe type stuff we are in, surrounded by and will probably never quite understand' and most religions make a little more sense but are still too blinkered. Humans I think will either succeed in surfing their evolutionary wave or we'll fall off back into the soup.

Does anyone agree that the Roman Catholic Church is a clever mutation of the Roman Empire (political/religious from military/political)?
One Billion .........phew quite successful

All I can say is if God does exist, then He has gone to an awful lot of trouble to make Himself redundant. There is no process in this Universe which requires the presence of God in order to get started or to proceed.

Deity was originally invoked to explain phenomena that were not understood. Why is there a rainbow? Because God put it there as a promise never to flood the world again. Why do we exist? Because God created us in his own image.

There are still questions that science cannot answer (the origin of life for example), but that doesn't mean that the answer has to be supernatural. In fact throughout history, natural explanations have been found for the vast majority of phenomena originally thought to have a supernatural origin. Humans originally thought that earthquakes were caused by God. Now we know that they are caused by tectonic movement.

God is not necessary in this Universe because it works perfectly well without Him.

(note: for 'God' in this post, read 'god, godess or multiple gods or deities of any description' and for 'He' and 'Him' read 'he, she, it or they'.)

However, most people don't believe in God's to merely explain away phenomena that was thought to be supernatural during humanity's dark pre-science days. They seem to have a personal bond or friendship with this thing called God. I'm not sure even describing this as a "crutch" adequetly describes it. The question is, is this thing in their head or is it a part of objective reality? In my opinion the stunning lack of evidence of the latter leads me to believe the former. But I'm sure those with direct "experience" of a God would disagree, but they could not say or do or show me anything that would prove otherwise. God's very nature is elusive to the point of being very suspicious.

Ste

The present versions of God/Religion do seem to allow everyone to be in a 'warm fluffy towel type club' and it seems appealing to be able to tidy up this Spirituality and Universe stuff with letting it be Somebody elses problem!

That gives more time to go to Hooters in San Diego, which if I was God would probably be where I'd do most of my planning.

Do you think we can pass on emotions through our DNA?

"That's not a point of difference. Where I think you differ is that *I* think that most of the things currently unknown to science, and which science does not declare unknowable in principle, will eventually be known. Which doesn't leave much of a gap..."

I also think that science will one day have access to most of the secrets of the universe (except such things as why navel lint is always blue and where do half-used Biro's disappear to...). However, this is well into the future where science and spirituality may well be closer than either are presently comfortable to believe.

"I'm not denying it. I'm only saying that most of what you're talking about is something which I believe is going on in your head, and nowhere else."

I can assure you that at group events the consensus reality of what I experience is shared and often amplified. Your belief that it goes on in my head and nowhere else is as unsupportable as many of my arguments seem to be to you.

"How is this "practical"? (serious question) What practical benefits do you get out of it? Can you predict the future reliably, as science can? Can you cure disease reliably by non-science based methods? I'm looking here for a practical application of your beliefs to something outside your own mind."

It is practical because we don't accept blindly what we feel. We go out and seek contact with others and try it for ourselves. I doubt many (sorry but I have to use the word) 'rationalists' take the time to do that with scientific theories. The benefits I get from it are manyfold and include greater understanding of my environment, an approach to life that works with the world rather than against it, a spiritual bulwark against the viccisitudes of daily living and more, much more. Science can no more accurately predict the future than I can. But, like I can, it can seek to influence the course of events and hope that something doesn't come out of left field and kick it into touch. Hmmm...curing disease, laying on hands as well I suppose? Puh-lease don't confuse a pagan relationship with the divine with miracles...that's a strictly Abrahamic (and I must say New Age) social control mechanism. On the other hand as someone who has a serious sports knee injury the only things that have given me reliable relief are Acupuncture and Reiki, both unproven hokum, but available on the NHS nonetheless.

"There are over a billion Christians in the world, over half a billion Muslims, I wouldn't say that churches have "collapsed". You only have to look at the politics of the US to see the power of the religious right."

From the Anglican Churches figures we find that Church attendance and participation in the UK and Europe are now just 16% of what they were 40 years ago. In Wales, where I hail from, there are more Chapels being converted into homes and Carpet Warehouses than left in regular use. And where they are the congregation are aging rapidly. Sounds like a collapse to me. World figures are very misleading as they are based either on Vatican or National figues that are deeply suspect. The Saudi Government, for instance, claims that every single man, woman and child in the country are devout, practising Muslims. The Nigerian government counts everyone as either Muslim or Anglican. The half a million catholics in Biafra are not mentioned. Brazil claims to have more Catholics in its population than the WHO actually knows exist in reality (the Brazilian government are trying to pull in international funds by misrepresenting its population, a common 'scam' amongst developing nations). The Indonesians for years tried to say that the East Timorese were Muslim except for a handful of extremists, and we know the result of that.

"I went to a church school. Don't they exist any more?"

Indeed they do, but are precious little minority of the general school population. My fourteen year old daughter attends a very good Comprehensive and is taking RE to GCSE. The National Curriculum is a joke and teaches religion, and ethics, as history.
I must admit my evidence for morals and ethics being taught at home is anecdotal and based on a 'sample' of a few dozen friends.

"The spiritual side of life for many people is being left untended, to decay and die."

"Leaving aside for the moment that I don't believe that is the case, personally I think that if we WERE leaving behind our primitive superstitions, that can only be a GOOD thing. I've asked elsewhere on this site for people to imagine a world without science (not difficult - it was this world until relatively recently) and then imagine a world without religion. I can see many reasons why I would not want to live in a world without science, and I can't think of a single reason why living in a world completely free of religion of any kind wouldn't be MUCH better than what we've got."

I'm afraid your imagination has got the better of you for neither of these worlds can exist. You might as well try to wish gravity away.

"Well, I'm not deriding them. I'm honestly interested in the results of your experimentation and experience."

Which is why I am still here. You must understand that modern druidry is not an evangelistic path. We have no desire to convert or convince anyone. But if asked we will try to explain our beliefs.

"Offer me something as tangible, simple and immediate as that, and I shall be truly fascinated."

Here we go with the simple and immediate again . Our world view is neither simple nor immediate. It is grounded in the belief that the universe is more complex than we presently or perhaps can imagine. Our lives are quests for 'truth', a continuous journey towards a receding horizon where the brow of each answer reveals a valley of questions. It's good fun too, for those with an inquiring mind.

"You must understand I've been involved in discussions with Creationists who think it's very clever to point out the mistakes Darwin made in "The Origin of Species", as though that were the last word on the subject. What is with those people and old books? "

'Those people' only have that old book of social tales and laws to fall back on that's why. Any 'truth', other than that expressed by ancient hebrew scholars, is a challenge to the supremacy and power of their belief. Its a bit of a sad life really, living in fear of your deity, living in fear of your inevitable end, clinging to the wreckage of a book that is riddled with errancies and contradictions and that was written to help a people in a society extinct by millenia. Seing the devil behind every bush, and placing responsibility for every wrong at his feet rather than taking responsibility for it themselves. They really need chucking in the Total Perspective Vortex......pant, pant.....rant over. Oooh they do get my goat though sometimes.

In modern druidry we accept that the sum and nature of human knowledge increase with each generation, and we relish it. We do not cling to dogma.

"I think everyone would benefit from believing as I do because I believe I know the boundaries of my true knowledge better than most. I know what I know, and I know what I don't know, and I think the same is not true of people who engage in superstition, be it yourself, or the archbishop of Canterbury, or a person reading their horoscope."

'The first step to wisdom is in recognising how little you really know.' Hmmm... a favourite Buddhist quote of mine. How do you define superstition by the way?

Well here I have to leave you for a few days. Off to the states on business. Strangely for a superstitious, tree-hugging peasant, in my daily life I'm a Quality Engineering Manager in a High tech. electronics company...wonders will never cease .

Blessings,
Matholwch.

"I also think that science will one day have access to most of the secrets of the universe .... However, this is well into the future where science and spirituality may well be closer than either are presently comfortable to believe."

The fact that it's well in the future doesn't, in my opinion, affect that principle - that gods fill gaps, and eventually there will BE no gaps. The question of when it will happen is really irrelevant if you accept the principle that it will.

"I can assure you that at group events the consensus reality of what I experience is shared and often amplified."

I've personally experienced altered consensual realities at group events, shared and amplified altered perceptions in the presence of others, so I *think* I have some handle on what you're talking about. But I've never experienced anything that I needed any outside force to explain, beyond my own mind and its interaction with others present. Perhaps I'm missing something. I accept it's possible that I am...

"Your belief that it goes on in my head and nowhere else is as unsupportable as many of my arguments seem to be to you."

Not just your head - as you say, sharing a consensual experience can deepen it for the participants. But that doesn't necessarily require a mystical explanation, and if you can have that experience without a mystical element (and you indisputably can) then why do you need to invoke it for any similar event?

"It is practical because we don't accept blindly what we feel. We go out and seek contact with others and try it for ourselves. I doubt many (sorry but I have to use the word) 'rationalists' take the time to do that with scientific theories."

Think back about 12 years. Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced to the world at a press conference that they had achieved a fusion reaction in a test tube at room temperature and pressure. If true, this opened the door to an imminent future of unlimited clean energy, and an end to the damaging reliance on fossil fuels and the politically disastrous world dependence on oil from unstable, uncivilised middle eastern states (whoops, bit of politics there). There was an ENORMOUS feeling of WANTING to believe that Fleischmann and Pons were right. And what was the reaction of the scientific community? Did they swallow up the announcement and celebrate? Did they blindly accept what they felt? Absolutely not. People across the planet rushed to their laboratories, some of them half-asleep in the middle of the night - because their FIRST instinct was not "I believe", but "I GOTTA see this for myself". THAT is practical rationalism. And the result was that Fleischmann and Pons were shown to be, to put it delicately, over-enthusiastic. Nobody managed to repeat their results, and as a result we don't have limitless clean energy and the world is still tiptoeing round the royal family of a fundamentalist religious monarchy.

"The benefits I get from it are manyfold and include greater understanding of my environment"

But you could get that from science! In fact, you could clearly get a BETTER understanding of your environment from a study of science, given your previous apparent misunderstandings of the basics of evolution.

"an approach to life that works with the world rather than against it"

What discipline warned us of the dangers of CFCs? Global warming? El Nino? Mad cow disease? No religion offers any practical help to AIDS sufferers. Science does. Science tells you where you and the world are conflicting. Some people choose to fight it, some choose to work with it. But our knowledge, as a global society, comes almost exclusively from the efforts of the rationalists.

"a spiritual bulwark against the viccisitudes of daily living "

Now you're talking. You're describing religion as I see it - a crutch (no pejorative tone intended) for people who cannot otherwise deal with their lives.

"Science can no more accurately predict the future than I can."

Nonsense. I stood on a hillside in Cornwall on August 11th 1999, after twenty five years of anticipation, and the scientific prediction of the future that I had read as a child came true, TO THE SECOND. The sun disappeared from the sky and the world was in twilight for two minutes and eleven seconds PRECISELY - AS PREDICTED. I have a friend who is planning an expensive trip to the other side of the planet this winter, based on nothing more than a prediction of the future - made by science. If she stands in South Australia on the 4th of December and there is no total eclipse, I might concede that science cannot reliably predict the future. Want to bet on it? How accurate a prediction of the future can you make, using only the tools of your spirituality?

"Hmmm...curing disease, laying on hands as well I suppose?"

Not necessarily. Anything you like. The tools of your spirituality, used to do something science can do, reliably and repeatably. Prayer has been tried as a cure for cholera. It doesn't work, I know that. Do you have anything at all in your spiritual toolbox which has *any* comparable success against cholera, leprosy, malaria, bubonic plague, smallpox, tuberculosis, measles, mumps, etc. etc. etc. ? How long a list do you want of diseases practically eradicated by the use of science? Can you name ONE condition or disease which is even noticeably affected in double blind tests by prayer or spiritual methods?

"Puh-lease don't confuse a pagan relationship with the divine with miracles..."

I'm not looking for miracles. Miracles are by definition one-off events. Science doesn't produce miracles. It produces solid, repeatable, workaday solutions which can be applied to EVERYONE, not just one lucky person who happened to die near the prophet. Chemotherapy is not a miracle. Heart transplants are not miracles.

"that's a strictly Abrahamic (and I must say New Age) social control mechanism."

Hey! We agree!

"On the other hand as someone who has a serious sports knee injury the only things that have given me reliable relief are Acupuncture and Reiki, both unproven hokum, but available on the NHS nonetheless."

Hang on... "unproven hokum"? Hokum, perhaps. But proven. I don't pretend to know how acupuncture works and I don't think most scientists do either, but the solid, repeatable evidence suggests that it does, and not just on humans either. Reiki I know nothing about, so I won't comment on it, beyond saying that if the NHS is funding it, I can only hope that it too has been double-blind tested and found to be of help.

"I wouldn't say that churches have "collapsed". You only have to look at the politics of the US to see the power of the religious right."

"Church attendance and participation in the UK and Europe are now just 16% of what they were 40 years ago."

What's the percentage difference of bishops in the House of Lords? Has that changed at all?

"Sounds like a collapse to me."

I don't hear an answer to my point about the power of the religious right in the US...

"The National Curriculum ...teaches religion, and ethics, as history."

I have to say - good, about religion. Not so good about ethics...

"I can see many reasons why I would not want to live in a world without science, and I can't think of a single reason why living in a world completely free of religion of any kind wouldn't be MUCH better than what we've got."

"I'm afraid your imagination has got the better of you for neither of these worlds can exist. You might as well try to wish gravity away."

No imagination is required to picture a world without science. It was THIS world, until relatively recently. For over a thousand years after Christ, the Western world was primarily ruled by religion, and science did not exist. Look what it got us. Massive infant and child mortality, crusades, plagues, and basically a life which was "nasty, brutish and short". Science has doubled our lifespan, massively reduced infant mortality, eliminated most of the diseases which killed our forebears and given us the means to feed a global population twenty times the size of that of a few hundred years ago. Look at the world of William the Conqueror for a world without science. Would you want to live there? Now imagine a world without religion - a world that had NEVER had religion. No crusades, no Holocaust, no slavery, probably no September 11th, morality and ethic based on pragmatism and the good of all, so rooted in the past but not shackled to it by dogma. I'd rather live there. And I agree, I might as well wish gravity away. Funnily enough, that might happen sooner than you think... ask Evgeny Podkletnov, or do a google search on his name...

"Which is why I am still here. You must understand that modern druidry is not an evangelistic path. We have no desire to convert or convince anyone. But if asked we will try to explain our beliefs."

I'm asking.

""Offer me something as tangible, simple and immediate as that, and I shall be truly fascinated."

Here we go with the simple and immediate again . Our world view is neither simple nor immediate."

I'm not asking for your world-view, and I understand that to appreciate that in all its complexity would take years - BUT... The monitor of your computer is NOT my world-view. It is, however, a simple, tangible PRODUCT of my world-view. Are you telling me there is NOTHING you can show or tell me which is a tangible, demonstrable product of yours? Because if you are - if there is nothing you can point to and say "here is a benefit derived from my beliefs" - then I must shake my head and wonder what would make anyone start down the long road you've taken.

"It is grounded in the belief that the universe is more complex than we presently or perhaps can imagine."

So's science. Isn't it?

"Our lives are quests for 'truth', a continuous journey towards a receding horizon where the brow of each answer reveals a valley of questions."

Still sounds like science to me.

"It's good fun too, for those with an inquiring mind."

STILL sounds like science to me.

"Oooh they do get my goat though sometimes."

Mine too. I could make a comment here about Druids and goats, but it would be cheap, and more importantly and less forgivably, probably not funny...

"How do you define superstition by the way?"

WOW! There's a GOOD question. I'm going to have to think about that one and get back to you if I'm to do it any justice...

"I'm a Quality Engineering Manager in a High tech. electronics company..."

Never mind! I'm sure one day you'll transcend engineering and get a proper job!

H.
Engineer.

Doesn't he live on his own, in a small house, on a lonely planet and is totally unaware of who he is?

Greetings again,

Absolutely fascinated by this ungoing discussion. If I am intruding, let me know,but I hope you allow me my two cents worth from time to time.
I think it is only fair H. to let you know that I am following the path of the Druid as well, my opinions and comments therefor would be similar, if not always identical to M.'s.
One passage of your last entry really had me thinking (yes, we do think for ourselves it is actually encouraged...).

"No imagination is required to picture a world without science.
It was THIS world, until relatively recently. For over a thousand years after Christ, the Western world was primarily ruled by religion, and science did not exist."

It amazes me that you would mention "after Christ" as a recognition-point in time. I realise that most of the World does, but that doesn't make it binding for everyone.I am sure you are aware that science in its earliest forms dates from a time far before "Christ" and I don't think it is necessary to point out the importance (to this very day) of quite a bit of the discoveries made before the Christian era.
That most of the Western world was primarily ruled by religion is true, but although I am openinded towards every religion and filosophy, I don't neccesarily have to like the fact that wise and knowledgable people were tortured, maimed and killed because they refused to subscribe to a religion which tried to rule their minds and threatend them with eternal damnation if they didn't comply. "Wise and knowledgable" could stand for..erm...lets see..."wytche" maybe or "druid"(shaman,runemaster,and so on).I am sure you will agree that herbology, astronomy and psychology, to name only a few, are sciences and these subjects always have been a big part of the training within the Craft, Druidry,Shamanism and many more.



"Look what it got us. Massive infant and child mortality, crusades, plagues, and basically a life which was "nasty, brutish and short". Science has doubled our lifespan, massively reduced infant mortality, eliminated most of the diseases which killed our forebears and given us the means to feed a global population twenty times the size of that of a few hundred years ago."

Far from saying that I look down on or even disagree with the enormous evolution especially medical science has made, one can hardly blame religion for the diseases which roamed the world for hundreds of years.With growing population ways needed to be found to feed everyone...true, but allow me: first of all: we DON'T feed everyone do we?Secondly: are you so sure genetic manipulation of crops (another way of feeding people through science) is such a good thing?

"Now imagine a world without religion - a world that had NEVER had religion. No crusades, no Holocaust, no slavery, probably no September 11th, morality and ethic based on pragmatism and the good of all, so rooted in the past but not shackled to it by dogma. I'd rather live there."

No crusades? Agreed.
No Holocaust? Highly unlikely. The Holocaust, although "sold" as a religious issue had very little to do with it. History does make that one rather clear.
No slavery? Again religion served its purpose here as an excuse;an excuse for economic and political gain, in other words: power.
September 11th?Fundamentalism of any kind is wrong, but I am not even sure the deeper reason for this tragedy was religion. In all honesty the imperialism of the Western world and the threat of globalisation may have had a large part in the anger coldness neccesary to plan and execute the attacks.

... ask Evgeny Podkletnov, or do a google search on his name...

I will, as I said, always open to learn...

Walk in Light /|Star*

Greetings again,

Absolutely fascinated by this ungoing discussion. If I am intruding, let me know,but I hope you allow me my two cents worth from time to time.
I think it is only fair H. to let you know that I am following the path of the Druid as well, my opinions and comments therefor would be similar, if not always identical to M.'s.
One passage of your last entry really had me thinking (yes, we do think for ourselves it is actually encouraged...).

"No imagination is required to picture a world without science.
It was THIS world, until relatively recently. For over a thousand years after Christ, the Western world was primarily ruled by religion, and science did not exist."

It amazes me that you would mention "after Christ" as a recognition-point in time. I realise that most of the World does, but that doesn't make it binding for everyone.I am sure you are aware that science in its earliest forms dates from a time far before "Christ" and I don't think it is necessary to point out the importance (to this very day) of quite a bit of the discoveries made before the Christian era.
That most of the Western world was primarily ruled by religion is true, but although I am openinded towards every religion and filosophy, I don't neccesarily have to like the fact that wise and knowledgable people were tortured, maimed and killed because they refused to subscribe to a religion which tried to rule their minds and threatend them with eternal damnation if they didn't comply. "Wise and knowledgable" could stand for..erm...lets see..."wytche" maybe or "druid"(shaman,runemaster,and so on).I am sure you will agree that herbology, astronomy and psychology, to name only a few, are sciences and these subjects always have been a big part of the training within the Craft, Druidry,Shamanism and many more.



"Look what it got us. Massive infant and child mortality, crusades, plagues, and basically a life which was "nasty, brutish and short". Science has doubled our lifespan, massively reduced infant mortality, eliminated most of the diseases which killed our forebears and given us the means to feed a global population twenty times the size of that of a few hundred years ago."

Far from saying that I look down on or even disagree with the enormous evolution especially medical science has made, one can hardly blame religion for the diseases which roamed the world for hundreds of years.With growing population ways needed to be found to feed everyone...true, but allow me: first of all: we DON'T feed everyone do we?Secondly: are you so sure genetic manipulation of crops (another way of feeding people through science) is such a good thing?

"Now imagine a world without religion - a world that had NEVER had religion. No crusades, no Holocaust, no slavery, probably no September 11th, morality and ethic based on pragmatism and the good of all, so rooted in the past but not shackled to it by dogma. I'd rather live there."

No crusades? Agreed.
No Holocaust? Highly unlikely. The Holocaust, although "sold" as a religious issue had very little to do with it. History does make that one rather clear.
No slavery? Again religion served its purpose here as an excuse;an excuse for economic and political gain, in other words: power.
September 11th?Fundamentalism of any kind is wrong, but I am not even sure the deeper reason for this tragedy was religion. In all honesty the imperialism of the Western world and the threat of globalisation may have had a large part in the anger coldness neccesary to plan and execute the attacks.

... ask Evgeny Podkletnov, or do a google search on his name...

I will, as I said, always open to learn...

Walk in Light /|Star*