What is Christianity support?

[loverofhumanity]

Thanks. The best part of discussion is to listen and learn from the other. The takeaways I am getting from this are informative to me and help me to understand the different approaches to these things from the perspective of other general types of thought. It would be hard to explain what that means to me. I would hope in the process it would also help your knowledge about these things and expand the range of your understanding. I have a considerable amount of knowledge, information, and insights into these areas I'm bringing into this.

I'm going to attempt to offer some responses as they come up and I'm reading through the material you shared in the link here beginning at section 48, "The Difference between Man and Animal". So this will probably be several posts as I only have limited amounts of time to respond at a time. If you could wait to respond until I say I'm done in a few posts, that would be easier than to deal with replies in between. I'll offer my first response shortly.....

Wind walker you are a very good investigator and very fair as well. Thanks for sharing your views.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The first thing I want to speak to in my impressions of the article you shared is to look at the time period in which it was written. A lot of his information is out-dated, and additionally shows a misunderstanding of evolution which seems to persist through to today in sadly commonly misconceptions. You yourself mistakenly repeated this in assuming evolution teaches that monkeys and apes will eventually become humans. If reading this material is where you get that mistaken idea from, then I would suggest you consider the viability of your source material about evolution. You rather should try to find actual scientist who teach this, and in lieu of not finding any, which you plainly and simply will not find any, then you need to reevaluate the value this material you are relying on to give you knowledge.

Just a bit about the context of the time period this was written here. `Abdu'l-Bahá lived between ~1844 to 1921. Not only was our scientific knowledge not what it is today, what was there within science was even less-understood by the general populus then it is today! As an example of this, my great grandfather was part of a community where this preacher offered a $5,000 prize to anyone who could prove the earth was a globe, and not a flat plate floating in space with the sun orbiting it. This was not a joke at all, but represented a very popular misunderstanding of the "spherical earth theory". I would recommend you reading this in which he offers his own "science" to prove the flat-earth model. It's rather elaborate and well-considered, but is absolutely wrong of course. It was published in 1931 (same era as Abdul-Baha), in Modern Mechanix magazine. http://blog.modernmechanix.com/5000-for-proving-the-earth-is-a-globe/

As I am reading the first few paragraphs of the article you linked to, this above article is what popped to mind right away for me. Just this statement here, "They place man in the lineage of the animal, saying that at one time man was an animal, and that the species gradually changed and evolved until it reached the human degree". What it appears he is saying is that scientists believe man evolved into something other than an animal. That of course is untrue, and always has been. But to the popular misunderstanding of science, that's what it "sounds like" to them.

Let me pick up my thoughts later as I continue on this before responding.

I am really very grateful for that article about the world being flat. I was looking for in depth information about it a few weeks ago so now thanks to you I've made a PDF copy to keep for reference.

With science you said they don't go outside biological analysis is that correct? I agree with the biological evolution of man's body or physical aspects.

What we're saying is that man is not only a biological being but has another 'layer' to his reality which is a spiritual dimension due to having a soul and that man's superiority in thought, reflection, contemplation etc come from this soul not as a result of being a more advanced animal. Animals on the contrary when it comes to the senses are far superior to man. They have keener sight, smell and hearing and memory. So it's not biologically that we are superior.

"We cannot understand the exact nature of the soul. It is, Bahá’u’lláh says, “a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind…can ever hope to unravel.’ The soul is ‘the first among all created things to declare the excellence of its Creator, the first to recognize His glory, to cleave to His truth, and to bow down in adoration before Him”.

http://www.bahai.org/beliefs/life-spirit/human-soul/rational-soul

Leaving the rational soul out of the equation is where I think we differ.

If we include its existence, then we are agreeing that there is a specific human kingdom.

 

[Windwalker]

In a soon to come response here, I'm going to talk a little about where people have come in their thinking about the ramifications of evolution, and how that appears to have influenced what the essay is responding to at the time. Science has come a ways in certain thinking that man is only a machine, which is what I think is being reacting against in this. Complexity sciences realizes it's no quite so simple as reducing everything down to some imagined deterministic, mechanistic reality. With that I fully agree. More later.

 

[loverofhumanity]

In a soon to come response here, I'm going to talk a little about where people have come in their thinking about the ramifications of evolution, and how that appears to have influenced what the essay is responding to at the time. Science has come a ways in certain thinking that man is only a machine, which is what I think is being reacting against in this. Complexity sciences realizes it's no quite so simple as reducing everything down to some imagined deterministic, mechanistic reality. With that I fully agree. More later.

My goal here is to try and get a compromise between science and religion so at least we give each other the benefit of the doubt that we both have truth and we both may be right in our own way.

It's just seeing things in a different perspective that's all embracing and holistic and can accommodate both science and religion.

 

[Windwalker]

My goal here is to try and get a compromise between science and religion so at least we give each other the benefit of the doubt that we both have truth and we both may be right in our own way.

It's just seeing things in a different perspective that's all embracing and holistic and can accommodate both science and religion.

Ditto. But it has to be done carefully, and not based on errors of understanding, both from religion's misconceptions about what science teaches, and from the secular or "scientific" misunderstandings of what religion actually is about. One only has to listen to Dawkins to hear his ignorance of religion on parade. The sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. I'm hoping to lay the foundation a little better here to unfold what I'd like to tie into your points.

 

[Windwalker]

Sorry it's taking me time to get back to this. I've been busier the last couple days. On point 4 under section 48 he talks about what you touched upon earlier in our conversation, stating that what distinguishes humans from animals is our creativity. "All sciences, arts, inventions, crafts, and discoveries of realities proceed from this singular power". This again, is not unique in the species. Inventions happen in non-human species in tool-making. He would not have known that at that time, and he made his argument that the human "soul" is this "singular power" responsible for this. If this is "soul", then the raven has that too, as well as quite a number of known animals, if not far, far more than we are aware of yet. It makes perfect sense to me based on what we observe in humans. We inherited it through evolution, as did other animals.

But an interesting note to this, in section 4 he speaks about "hidden mysteries", that "The telegraph, the photograph, the phonograph—all such great inventions and crafts were once hidden mysteries which that human reality discovered and brought forth from the invisible to the visible realm".That's a fascinating understanding on his part! You may not be aware of this but what he appears to be drawing from are Platonic forms. That there are the "perfect forms" in the mind of God, hidden, which these forms here on earth are representations of. This almost gets too involved to talk about in this thread, but what it does point out is as I said before, there are clear influences in his thinking here which he is weaving into his takes on these things.

In reality, there is no archetypal "photograph" in the mind of God which our genius has uncovered and "brought forth from the invisible to the visible realm". The inventions literally were created out of nothing out of the mind of man, simply manipulating elements, hence why I call this tool-making. The idea of a camera did not first exist in the mind of God in eternity. It's important when reading material like this to take into account the world and the ideas that were popular in the author's times. Clearly, an archetypal "telegraph" does not fit within the way our minds think today. When was the last time you imagined the iPhone was something in the mind of God, already created in the heavens before the universe was created, waiting there for us to bring "forth from the invisible to the visible realm"? Ever?

Section 6: "Moreover, the animal perceives sensible things but cannot perceive conceptual realities. For example, the animal sees that which is within the range of its vision but cannot comprehend or conceive that which lies beyond it. Thus it is not possible for the animal to comprehend that the earth has a spherical shape." This is demonstrably untrue. A fox hunting a rabbit can hold a mental image of that rabbit in its mind while the rabbit is no longer visible to it. It has an "idea" of that rabbit as he runs down the fence line to get around it to come back to where the rabbit is on the other side. He is holding that image in his mind, while not actually seeing it. That is a "conceptual reality". The rabbit exists in his mind, apart from the rabbit itself.

So, again, in our evolution this ability to have "mental images" or "conceptual realities", has its beginning in nature, in animal forms, before humans! It's everywhere, actually. It's not novel to us. What we do, again, is simply take that which we inherited through evolution, to whole new levels of sophistication. This does not set us apart from the animals as entirely novel and unique. It simply means we evolved the same things further, to a higher, more complex sophisticated degree. Our imagining a spherical earth, is simply a more sophisticated form of the fox holding a mental image of a rabbit it saw as he runs along the fence to the other side to get it.

Section 7: "It cannot comprehend anything that lies beyond the reach or control of the senses, even though it excels man in the outward powers and senses. It is therefore clearly established that man is endowed with a power of discovery that distinguishes him from the animal, and this power is none but the human spirit." His examples in this section are that "It is likewise impossible for the animal to comprehend that the sun is the centre and that the earth revolves around it". Yes, that is not possible, but only because of the level and degree of sophistication of conceptual frameworks which our larger brains are capable of holding. The "human spirit" is not responsible for this. The brain is.

Again, the fox is doing the same thing we are holding the rabbit as a "conceptual reality" as he maps out a path to his target he can no longer see with the his senses. But his brain is not large enough to take basic mental images and turn them into entire realities of maps and models of the world to the level and degree humans can! If "spirit" is responsible for "conceptual realities", then the fox share Spirit as well as humans, as well as all animal life. I actually do believe that. The difference I see is really more a matter of degrees of the same things due to the sophistication of the vessel.

The "human spirit", is not a scientific thing. It's a poetic description of really what is our imagination! The imagination of humans reaches the heavens themselves! Now that, is a distinction between man and "lower" animal life forms. But even that owes itself to this world, shared by all other animal life. That self-same spirit which drives all life to "be and become" is within us as well, and the sophistication of our "machine", or biological bodies and brains, afford us the capacity to take that further up the scale, to where we self-reflect and ask questions about the nature of being itself! Yes, we are unique, but only in how we take what Nature has brought to us before, shared with all life to one degree or another. We have a bigger "bank account", is probably a way to talk about it.

Section 8: "I am astonished that certain philosophers in Europe and America have consented to lower themselves to the animal realm and so to regress, whereas all existence must ever aspire towards exaltation". While I just more or less affirmed in my own way what he is trying to say in this section, I believe he is misunderstanding the purpose why science looks at humans as part of the animal kingdom. It's NOT to reduce us to lower animal life forms, but to understand us as we are today by understanding our origins! That's not to say we are "nothing but animals".

That is a gross misunderstanding of "reductionism" as a scientific discipline where you look at the components that go into making up the whole, in an effort to understand the whole. While that approach has its own limitations, as systems theory and the complexity sciences in general demonstrate, to conclude we are "no better than animals" is not a scientific statement. Furthermore, I believe that he, like so many evolution-deniers today, are simply reacting to their own fear of being "insignificant", to not imagine themselves as the apple of God's eye, the pinnacle of creation, not like the other animals. The response to science is nothing but a projection of their own fears about their own self-image.

And this, is a problem to me with the religion itself being unable to reimagine us as humans as beautiful and unique, without having to say we are the "best". To have to compare yourself as "not them" in order to feel special, is an emotional dysfunction. I say, thank God for Evolution, to teach us a little more about ourselves and grow up a bit beyond this false self image. True Wisdom, true Freedom begins with humility. This is something very few understand.

I'll pick up with section 9 later on. I think this approach of going through these section by section will help both my understanding of the material, and allow me to share perspectives on these questions you may have not been exposed to yet. They demonstrate why for me the questions I raise and articulate are in fact vitally important to address in order to "harmonize science and religion". As I said, they have to be addressed as valid questions and concerns. Also I want to reiterate, I'm not in total opposition to his actual underlying points, despite the errors and flaws in his understandings and reasoning behind them.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Windwalker you are very understanding and most patient. Everything you say makes perfect sense.

On Abdul-Baha's Credentials.

The Ether.

A crack had appeared in the ether hypothesis as early as 1887, when A.A. Michelson and Edward Morley failed to find relative differences in the speed of light resulting from earth’s supposed motion through the ether. Problems continued to pile up until the publication of Einstein’s first relativity paper (1905), a paper modestly titled “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”. This single seminal event swept away the classical ether hypothesis, taking with it the old physics and ultimately the entire old world order.

Einstein’s first relativity paper (“ On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”) was published in the German Annals of Physics in September 1905. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s statement about the non-material nature of ether is found in the book Some Answered Questions. The latter comprises 84 talks, covering 1904 through early 1906.

Abdul-Baha said of ether:

Ether (He said in a 1905 table-talk) is an “intellectual reality” rather than a physical substance. Such a reality “. . . has no outward form and no place and is not perceptible to the senses . . . Even ethereal matter, the forces of which are said in physics to be heat, light, electricity and magnetism, is an intellectual reality, and is not sensible . . . In explaining these intellectual realities, one is obliged to express them by sensible figures because in exterior existence there is nothing that is not material.” (SAQ, pp. 83-84)

Both men agreed in denying the existence of a mechanical ether, but Einstein went beyond this by denying that light requires a medium of any kind. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, on the contrary, indicated that light does require a medium, even though that medium has only a conceptual, non-localized form of existence. a full decade had to pass before this issue could be settled. When this finally occurred, it was Einstein himself who settled it in ‘Abdul-Baha’s favor.

It is fitting that physics –the most concrete of the so-called “hard sciences” –was the first to confirm the metaphorical nature of physical reality affirmed by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Since the dawn of quantum mechanics in the 1920s, virtually every major physics breakthrough has in some way reinforced this outlook. The result has been, in the words of Sir James Jeans, “a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science, approaches almost to unanimity that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a nonmechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine” (Jeans, Quantum Questions, p. 144).

This is from a Book called Abdul-Baha, Einstein and Ether.

Funny though. You've got me reading about science and I've got you reading about religion!!!! Let's unite the two.

 

[Windwalker]

Funny though. You've got me reading about science and I've got you reading about religion!!!! Let's unite the two.

I've been reading about religion for quite some time in my life now. Though I'd heard of the Baha'i' some years ago, I never actually looked into it until recently here on this forum. It's helping me to understand some things that help me put pieces of the puzzle together I've been processing in my mind for some time. Again, hard to explain what that actually looks like in my mind.

As far as uniting the two, science and religion, I actually think that goal is probably responsible for the sort of mess we see in the pseudosciences which many with religious backgrounds tend to gravitate towards. I'll just mention this here as a type of placeholder where I will hopefully tie this together at some point as I continue through your article. You see this attempt to "unite the two", in New Age religions. You see it in Creationism (Christian evolution-deniers). It seems a desire to embrace modernity, but an inability to make that shift from mythic systems to rational systems In reality it's not at its heart about "uniting" science and religion, but trying to unite mythic and rational systems of thought.

By mythic systems I don't mean "falsehoods", BTW. Mythic systems are a type of symbolic system. They hold truths, but they are held in frameworks of gods and other external entities which are responsible for the laws of nature we have, as well as the events of our lives, whom we interface with our realities through to effect changes, or understand reality with. Rational systems are not 'supernatural', but remove 'supernatural' elements or 'divine will' from the equation. The hope by those in mythic systems who wish to "unite the two", science and religion, is actually more a matter of reintroducing the supernatural into science, or mythic systems into rational systems. The reasons for that get rather involved.

All that is not to say there is no way to hold faith and reason together, which I believe there certainly is! But it doesn't happen by bringing science into the domain of mythic religion, nor by trying to bring mythic religion up to rational systems, attempting to validate mythic symbols as "scientific" using the tools of science, "proving" the prophet has supernatural insights into matters of science and reason without the benefit of education or scientific investigation, i.e., "magical knowledge", or to put another familiar term to it "revealed knowledge", which is at it's heart supernatural.

The supernatural is at the heart of mythic systems. This means of supernatural knowledge is the cornerstone premise of all "revealed religions", making them deeply bound and committed to maintaining the mythic systems surrounding them. The struggle to move beyond that into rational systems would mean dislodging the mythic foundation, the supernatural or "magical", either abandoning it for something like atheism (which is quite common these days), or to do something far harder and more emotionally costly which is to "demythologize" the symbols, yet embrace them in a new way where they maintain their symbolic power (which they certainly have).

The deconstruction of myth from a scientific perspective is relatively easy. It's easy enough also to discredit pseudoscience using the tools of science (pseudoscience seems to be the "bridge" between the two systems, which ultimately only serves mythic systems as another form of mythic symbolism - not grounded in the rational). But evolving the meaning within mythic symbolism to be held in rational worldspaces and beyond is altogether the greater challenge. A simpler way to put that is it's harder to redeem the baby of the spiritual from the bathwater of myth than it is to chuck the whole tub out, baby and all.

My personal solution to this is a whole other part of our conversation that is yet to be touched upon. The premises for that have to be looked at a little first. But basically it's a matter of recognizing that mythic symbolism, and rational symbolism both are simply metaphoric expressions of something beyond them both. To say one set of symbols is "the real truth", is to mistake the finger pointing at the moon with the moon itself. To put a finer, more exact way to express that, albeit doubtlessly confusing to most, there is a relationship between truth and facticity which is realized in unitive consciousness. I'll have to unpack what that means later, if we manage to get to that!

Ok, so I went a little further into it there, but forgive me I think it's more for my own thoughts to come back to as it was coming to mind just now. I'll respond to the next section in the article in the next post.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I've been reading about religion for quite some time in my life now. Though I'd heard of the Baha'i' some years ago, I never actually looked into it until recently here on this forum. It's helping me to understand some things that help me put pieces of the puzzle together I've been processing in my mind for some time. Again, hard to explain what that actually looks like in my mind.

As far as uniting the two, science and religion, I actually think that goal is probably responsible for the sort of mess we see in the pseudosciences which many with religious backgrounds tend to gravitate towards. I'll just mention this here as a type of placeholder where I will hopefully tie this together at some point as I continue through your article. You see this attempt to "unite the two", in New Age religions. You see it in Creationism (Christian evolution-deniers). It seems a desire to embrace modernity, but an inability to make that shift from mythic systems to rational systems In reality it's not at its heart about "uniting" science and religion, but trying to unite mythic and rational systems of thought.

By mythic systems I don't mean "falsehoods", BTW. Mythic systems are a type of symbolic system. They hold truths, but they are held in frameworks of gods and other external entities which are responsible for the laws of nature we have, as well as the events of our lives, whom we interface with our realities through to effect changes, or understand reality with. Rational systems are not 'supernatural', but remove 'supernatural' elements or 'divine will' from the equation. The hope by those in mythic systems who wish to "unite the two", science and religion, is actually more a matter of reintroducing the supernatural into science, or mythic systems into rational systems. The reasons for that get rather involved.

All that is not to say there is no way to hold faith and reason together, which I believe there certainly is! But it doesn't happen by bringing science into the domain of mythic religion, nor by trying to bring mythic religion up to rational systems, attempting to validate mythic symbols as "scientific" using the tools of science, "proving" the prophet has supernatural insights into matters of science and reason without the benefit of education or scientific investigation, i.e., "magical knowledge", or to put another familiar term to it "revealed knowledge", which is at it's heart supernatural.

The supernatural is at the heart of mythic systems. This means of supernatural knowledge is the cornerstone premise of all "revealed religions", making them deeply bound and committed to maintaining the mythic systems surrounding them. The struggle to move beyond that into rational systems would mean dislodging the mythic foundation, the supernatural or "magical", either abandoning it for something like atheism (which is quite common these days), or to do something far harder and more emotionally costly which is to "demythologize" the symbols, yet embrace them in a new way where they maintain their symbolic power (which they certainly have).

The deconstruction of myth from a scientific perspective is relatively easy. It's easy enough also to discredit pseudoscience using the tools of science (pseudoscience seems to be the "bridge" between the two systems, which ultimately only serves mythic systems as another form of mythic symbolism - not grounded in the rational). But evolving the meaning within mythic symbolism to be held in rational worldspaces and beyond is altogether the greater challenge. A simpler way to put that is it's harder to redeem the baby of the spiritual from the bathwater of myth than it is to chuck the whole tub out, baby and all.

My personal solution to this is a whole other part of our conversation that is yet to be touched upon. The premises for that have to be looked at a little first. But basically it's a matter of recognizing that mythic symbolism, and rational symbolism both are simply metaphoric expressions of something beyond them both. To say one set of symbols is "the real truth", is to mistake the finger pointing at the moon with the moon itself. To put a finer, more exact way to express that, albeit doubtlessly confusing to most, there is a relationship between truth and facticity which is realized in unitive consciousness. I'll have to unpack what that means later, if we manage to get to that!

Ok, so I went a little further into it there, but forgive me I think it's more for my own thoughts to come back to as it was coming to mind just now. I'll respond to the next section in the article in the next post.

I like the way you said they are both metaphoric expressions of something beyond them both.

Science is uniting the world although it may not realise just how great its contribution to world peace is. If not for science, the very concept of world peace could not exist and did not exist until advances in technology and communications shrunk our world physically into one global village.

The Faith of Baha'u'llah which has come to establish world unity and peace could never have progressed if not for science.

When Baha'u'llah said:"The world is but one country and mankind its citizens", the means for world-citizenship had not come about so people thought it was a strange idea until now we have things like the Internet and flight which interestingly 'accompanied' His Revelation, which science has brought about that assist in the establishment of these teachings.


"Put all your beliefs into harmony with science; there can be no opposition, for truth is one. When religion, shorn of its superstitions, traditions, and unintelligent dogmas, shows its conformity with science, then will there be a great unifying, cleansing force in the world which will sweep before it all wars, disagreements, discords and struggles – and then will mankind be united in the power of the Love of God. – Abdu’l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 146

As it is said, science and religion are like two wings of a bird without which flight is impossible. We know science brings about the technologies for world peace but also religion must free itself from superstition to benefit mankind.

What can science gain out of religion? I think direction, a moral compass so science is put to uses that benefit humanity and not to create technologies that might destroy it such as nuclear weapons.

Very good discussion and I'm learning a lot from you and hopefully more. Many thanks and look forward to your next communication but in your own time of course.

 

[Windwalker]

Moving to section 9 from the article:

What a difference between the world of man and the world of the animal! What a difference between the loftiness of man and the abasement of the animal, between the perfections of man and the ignorance of the animal, between the light of man and the darkness of the animal, between the glory of man and the degradation of the animal! An Arab child of ten years can subdue two or three hundred camels in the desert and lead them about with his mere voice. A feeble Indian can so subdue a mighty elephant as to compel it to move in strict obedience. All things are subdued by the hand of man, who withstands nature itself.
​

What I find fascinating in this is again the era in which it was written, but as well as what appears to be potentially part and parcel with mythic worldviews which hold mankind as the pinnacle of God's creation. There is an inherent anthropocentric reality to them, where man is the center of the universe with only God and the heavenly realms above them. "He has made him a little lower than the angels", the psalmist says. They see themselves as "above" the animals, and "above" nature itself. I think this 'conceit', to use the term somewhat respectfully, is what leads to the adamant refusal to accept the ramifications that mankind evolved from an earlier species, such as a four-legged fish! That understanding of our human origins puts us squarely into the realm of the natural, again removing the "supernatural" as a variable.

Again, the attempt to merge or "unite" science and religion in this case is to reintroduce the supernatural, or mythic systems into rationalistic systems. Because of the inability to reimagine ourselves as a species as part of this naturalistic system, it tries to deny the science which says we are. The core reason behind this is frankly one thing only - self-image. We wish desperately to elevate ourselves "above" the animal, mistakenly assuming animals have no sense of basic order, balance, respect, and other such human qualities (which they actually do have).

Now, I hate to introduce this thought here, but it does bear mentioning as it is part and parcel with this whole humans are "above" the animals mentality. Racism. Please bear with me a little, and give some credence to my thinking here. Racism on a human level between those of one race towards another, is doing and saying exactly the same things that we see here about comparing humans to animals. Let me for a minute just change up the words to see how they sound sadly too familiar.

First, I wish to stress that in no way am I trying to say this gentleman was a racist towards other humans! That is not my thought or intention. But listen to the language he employs towards animals and see how it fits when you change the words "man" with "whites", and "animals" with "blacks", or "Jews" or you could just use any other ethnic signifiers between groups of humans you want. Again, I am not in anyway saying he was a racist, but strictly to show how you hear this exact same language being used by those who are in fact actual racists:

What a difference between the world of whites and the world of blacks! What a difference between the loftiness of whites and the abasement of the blacks, between the perfections of whites and the ignorance of the blacks, between the light of whites and the darkness of the blacks, between the glory of white men and the degradation of the black man! A white child of ten years can subdue two or three hundred blacks in the field and lead them about with his mere voice. A feeble woman can so subdue a mighty black man as to compel it to move in strict obedience. All things are subdued by the hands of whites, who withstands nature itself.
​

I sincerely do not mean to offend here in this, but to solely make the point that an anthropocentric view of ourselves as a species, is really the same thing you see between ethnic groups where they "dehumanize" the other. This dehumanization also extends to life outside ourselves! The same "ethnocentric" thinking applies, except in this case is "species-centric" thinking. And that is my point. It's highly biased and inaccurate rationally, basing itself on the most superficial levels, artificially creating things which makes us "better" than the other. Ethnocentric thinking is inherently an "us versus them" mentality. Anthropocentric thinking is exactly the same thing.

For me personally, I see us as brilliant and beautiful in God's creation as a shining light. But so are all other created life forms! Each brilliant and beautiful and shining God's light. And I as a human, can look across that distinction of our forms and embrace the beauty of God in all life. I think there is something rather inherently divisive in our own heart and spirit between us and God in our hubris to imagine ourselves as "not them", not "the other". We are not nearly so "high" as we imagine. Humility is the door to God.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Moving to section 9 from the article:

What a difference between the world of man and the world of the animal! What a difference between the loftiness of man and the abasement of the animal, between the perfections of man and the ignorance of the animal, between the light of man and the darkness of the animal, between the glory of man and the degradation of the animal! An Arab child of ten years can subdue two or three hundred camels in the desert and lead them about with his mere voice. A feeble Indian can so subdue a mighty elephant as to compel it to move in strict obedience. All things are subdued by the hand of man, who withstands nature itself.
​

What I find fascinating in this is again the era in which it was written, but as well as what appears to be potentially part and parcel with mythic worldviews which hold mankind as the pinnacle of God's creation. There is an inherent anthropocentric reality to them, where man is the center of the universe with only God and the heavenly realms above them. "He has made him a little lower than the angels", the psalmist says. They see themselves as "above" the animals, and "above" nature itself. I think this 'conceit', to use the term somewhat respectfully, is what leads to the adamant refusal to accept the ramifications that mankind evolved from an earlier species, such as a four-legged fish! That understanding of our human origins puts us squarely into the realm of the natural, again removing the "supernatural" as a variable.

Again, the attempt to merge or "unite" science and religion in this case is to reintroduce the supernatural, or mythic systems into rationalistic systems. Because of the inability to reimagine ourselves as a species as part of this naturalistic system, it tries to deny the science which says we are. The core reason behind this is frankly one thing only - self-image. We wish desperately to elevate ourselves "above" the animal, mistakenly assuming animals have no sense of basic order, balance, respect, and other such human qualities (which they actually do have).

Now, I hate to introduce this thought here, but it does bear mentioning as it is part and particle with this whole humans are "above" the animals mentality. Racism. Please bear with me a little, and give some credence to my thinking here. Racism on a human level between those of one race towards another, is doing and saying exactly the same things that we see here about comparing humans to animals. Let me for a minute just change up the words to see how they sound familiar. First, I wish to stress that in no way am I trying to say this gentleman was a racist towards other humans! That is not my thought or intention. But listen to the language he employs towards animals and see how it fits when you change the words "man" with "whites", and "animals" with "blacks", or "Jews" or let's just put some other ethnic signifier. Again, I am not in anyway saying he was a racist, but strictly to show how you hear this exact same language being used by those who are in fact actual racists:

What a difference between the world of whites and the world of blacks! What a difference between the loftiness of whites and the abasement of the blacks, between the perfections of whites and the ignorance of the blacks, between the light of whites and the darkness of the blacks, between the glory of white men and the degradation of the black man! A white child of ten years can subdue two or three hundred blacks in the field and lead them about with his mere voice. A feeble woman can so subdue a mighty black man as to compel it to move in strict obedience. All things are subdued by the hands of whites, who withstands nature itself.
​

I sincerely do not mean to offend here in this, but to solely make the point that an anthropocentric view of ourselves as a species, is really the same thing you see between ethnic groups where they "dehumanize" the other. This dehumanization also extends to life outside ourselves! The same "ethnocentric" thinking applies, except in this case is "species-centric" thinking. And that is my point. It's highly biased and inaccurate rationally, basing itself on the most superficial levels, artificially creating things which makes us "better" than the other. Ethnocentric thinking is inherently an "us versus them" mentality. Anthropocentric thinking is exactly the same thing.

For me personally, I see us as brilliant and beautiful in God's creation as a shining light. But so are all other created life forms! Each brilliant and beautiful and shining God's light. And I as a human, can look across that distinction of our forms and embrace the beauty of God in all life. I think there is something rather inherently divisive in our own heart and spirit between us and God in our hubris to imagine ourselves as "not them", not "the other".

We are told all creation is precious and animals as well. I think He's just speaking factually about the exalted station of man.

What if there is a soul and lower forms of life do not possess one?

What if we were always inherently human even if we looked like a fish? Clearly we developed along a different line to the lower species. Aren't we are a far more advanced species than anything else in existence.

“Thus, you see that however much this mineral may progress, its progress remains within its own degree; you cannot possibly bring this crystal, for example, to a state where it gains the power of sight."

Excerpt From: Bahá, Abdu’l. “Some Answered Questions.” Bahá’í

 

[Windwalker]

We are told all creation is precious and animals as well. I think He's just speaking factually about the exalted station of man.

Ok.

What if there is a soul and lower forms of life do not possess one?

I attribute this "reaching" to the "soul" of life itself, inherent in all life including humans. You simply see it manifesting in higher forms, through our particularly sophisticated minds, which itself evolved over time, which itself is inherent in all life in lesser to greater forms. Again, think of it as a more highly refined lens to focus reality through. It's not that we have a lens and other life does not. Ours is simply more polished, or refined. In other words, it doesn't originate in us. It originates in Life itself and is seen in all life, including ours.

What if we were always inherently human even if we looked like a fish?

I would agree with this in this context only, that we as humans are simply Life in form. We, as Life, existed as such before this form as humans. Therefore we were the fish. If you remove being "human" from being homo sapiens, then all life forms are human.

Clearly we developed along a different line to the lower species. Aren't we are a far more advanced species than anything else in existence.

Only in certain areas, but certainly not in others. We are in fact hardly the pinnacle of evolution. That too is a very anthropocentric point of view, esteeming our own unique traits above others. But evolutionarily speaking arthropods are vastly far more adept to survival than we are! We can only survive in very limited climates and conditions, and have to use our brains to try to change our own environments to survive it! And then, only in limited ways. We simply are not created for durability and survival! It's strictly the development of our brains that allowed us to be creative to survive. That too is true of other species as well, by the way. We just do that to incredible degrees of complexity, and then not all that well as we our now in fact killing ourselves as a species. So much for being more "advanced".

“Thus, you see that however much this mineral may progress, its progress remains within its own degree; you cannot possibly bring this crystal, for example, to a state where it gains the power of sight."

Actually this is true and not true at the same time. Comparing animal to animal, as opposed to minerals and humans, you most certainly can change the organism through evolution to gain the power of sight. That's is exactly what evolution teaches.

I'll be moving into the main section you pointed me to next, "Evolution and the Existence of Man"

 

[loverofhumanity]

Ok.


I attribute this "reaching" to the "soul" of life itself, inherent in all life including humans. You simply see it manifesting in higher forms, through our particularly sophisticated minds, which itself evolved over time, which itself is inherent in all life in lesser to greater forms. Again, think of it as a more highly refined lens to focus reality through. It's not that we have a lens and other life does not. Ours is simply more polished, or refined. In other words, it doesn't originate in us. It originates in Life itself and is seen in all life, including ours.


I would agree with this in this context only, that we as humans are simply Life in form. We, as Life, existed as such before this form as humans. Therefore we were the fish. If you remove being "human" from being homo sapiens, then all life forms are human.


Only in certain areas, but certainly not in others. We are in fact hardly the pinnacle of evolution. That too is a very anthropocentric point of view, esteeming our own unique traits above others. But evolutionarily speaking arthropods are vastly far more adept to survival than we are! We can only survive in very limited climates and conditions, and have to use our brains to try to change our own environments to survive it! And then, only in limited ways. We simply are not created for durability and survival! It's strictly the development of our brains that allowed us to be creative to survive. That too is true of other species as well, by the way. We just do that to incredible degrees of complexity, and then not all that well as we our now in fact killing ourselves as a species. So much for being more "advanced".


Actually this is true and not true at the same time. Comparing animal to animal, as opposed to minerals and humans, you most certainly can change the organism through evolution to gain the power of sight. That's is exactly what evolution teaches.

I'll be moving into the main section you pointed me to next, "Evolution and the Existence of Man"

I think often we are speaking of similar things but using different terminology. Yes the mineral cannot progress to sight because it's kingdom does not have sight. But in the animal kingdom there exists sight so animals can evolve into forms which have sight again because it's a part of that kingdom.

But the animal no matter how much he progresses cannot advance beyond the senses. So the animal kingdom has no knowledge of God or science which man can bring forth from the invisible to the visible previously unknown knowledge and man can advance spiritually by learning virtues.

The animal kingdom cannot know God or science or virtues because it does not possess the human kingdoms 'other sense' - the soul which gives man inner sight and inner hearing.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Windwalker]

But the animal no matter how much he progresses cannot advance beyond the senses.

I like this format of discussion as I work my way through what you shared in the link. I have a question what you mean by "beyond the senses". Can you elaborate on what you mean by the senses? Do you mean the conventional 'five senses", or something like that?

So the animal kingdom has no knowledge of God or science which man can bring forth from the invisible to the visible previously unknown knowledge and man can advance spiritually by learning virtues.

There is a lot in this sentence to unpack. I'm not entirely sure where to begin.

Let me begin with knowledge of God. When it comes to something like that, there are of course degrees of knowledge. Like pretty much anything, there is lesser light and greater light. But it's still all knowledge. So when you say the animal kingdom has no knowledge of God, how can you be so certain of that? What kind of knowledge? Theological? If so, of course not. But is that the only knowledge of God that exists??? Most certainly not, I would argue! God is Love. To know Love, is to know God. Do animals know Love? I believe so, certainly! But how that is known is in whatever capacity is available to the perceiver. Like I said before, the wetness of water is still the same wetness no matter how deep or shallow the waters.

The animal kingdom cannot know God or science or virtues because it does not possess the human kingdoms 'other sense' - the soul which gives man inner sight and inner hearing.

And what is meant by this? What inner sight and inner hearing? If we wish to shift from scientific knowledge to spiritual knowledge, I'm more than ready to talk about that aspect. To me, this is where the deeper discussion needs to go.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I like this format of discussion as I work my way through what you shared in the link. I have a question what you mean by "beyond the senses". Can you elaborate on what you mean by the senses? Do you mean the conventional 'five senses", or something like that?


There is a lot in this sentence to unpack. I'm not entirely sure where to begin.

Let me begin with knowledge of God. When it comes to something like that, there are of course degrees of knowledge. Like pretty much anything, there is lesser light and greater light. But it's still all knowledge. So when you say the animal kingdom has no knowledge of God, how can you be so certain of that? What kind of knowledge? Theological? If so, of course not. But is that the only knowledge of God that exists??? Most certainly not, I would argue! God is Love. To know Love, is to know God. Do animals know Love? I believe so, certainly! But how that is known is in whatever capacity is available to the perceiver. Like I said before, the wetness of water is still the same wetness no matter how deep or shallow the waters.

And what is meant by this? What inner sight and inner hearing? If we wish to shift from scientific knowledge to spiritual knowledge, I'm more than ready to talk about that aspect. To me, this is where the deeper discussion needs to go.

Beyond senses I mean the five senses. By spiritual knowledge I mean the spiritual senses of perception and understanding of God.

Spiritual knowledge is 'scientific also' only that man has not discovered how it works but it has been called the 'science of the knowledge of God'.

By knowledge of God I mean a conscious active belief in a God and His Prophets and obedience to the laws of the Holy Books. There is no sing that other forms of life apart from man possess this ability.

"He has given us material gifts and spiritual graces, outer sight to view the lights of the sun and inner vision by which we may perceive the glory of God. He has designed the outer ear to enjoy the melodies of sound and the inner hearing wherewith we may hear the voice of our Creator."

"The retina of outer vision, though sensitive and delicate, may, nevertheless, be a hindrance to the inner eye which alone can perceive. The bestowals of God which are manifest in all phenomenal life are sometimes hidden by intervening veils of mental and mortal vision which render man spiritually blind and incapable, but when those scales are removed and the veils rent asunder, then the great signs of God will become visible, and he will witness the eternal light filling the world. The bestowals of God are all and always manifest. The promises of heaven are ever present. The favors of God are all-surrounding, but should the conscious eye of the soul of man remain veiled and darkened, he will be led to deny these universal signs and remain deprived of these manifestations of divine bounty."

 

[Windwalker]

Beyond senses I mean the five senses. By spiritual knowledge I mean the spiritual senses of perception and understanding of God.

As an interesting update to our understanding of the senses in case you aren't aware, what we grew up hearing that we have five sense neurologists are now saying is actually more like 21 different senses. Not that that changes too much what you are getting at here as I will lump all 21 senses into a single thing which can be called sensory perception. It can be boiled down to bodily sensations which give the mind a perception of the outer world. This mode of perceiving (or seeing to use "sight" in this way), is physiological.

To draw from the thirteenth century Christian mystic St. Bonaventure, there are three eyes of knowledge. The eye of flesh (the 21 senses); the eye of reason (or mind); and the eye of spirit (or contemplation, mystical states of knowing). Each of these are different ways to perceive reality, in other words. So yes, I would agree spiritual knowledge is distinct from sensory perception, as well as a cognitive perception. I just want to lay the groundwork a little here that the rest of this will build off of momentarily.

Spiritual knowledge is 'scientific also' only that man has not discovered how it works but it has been called the 'science of the knowledge of God'.

I would agree with this in part, but we need to qualify that the eye of spirit, as I mention above, is scientific only in the broadest sense of the word "science". Mysticism, and that's what we are talking about here is not in the same camp as the empirical sciences which are all about investigating the material world using the eye of flesh, or sensory data. The empiric-analytic sciences (which modern science is) is distinctly different from the eye of reason whose tools are hermeneutical, and the eye of spirit whose tools of inquiry are mediative.

By knowledge of God I mean a conscious active belief in a God and His Prophets and obedience to the laws of the Holy Books.

Here is where I'm going to differ, and I'll explain why. Prepare to start going deep. You've just entered into my lair.

In the three eyes, the three modes of knowing I mentioned, religious beliefs fall under the eye of reason. Knowing about God is not the same thing as knowing God. Learning about God through religious teachings certainly has its place, but it is primarily mental in nature. It is mental models, linguistic constructs that the mind can look to understand what God is. It is a conceptual reality at its core.

Knowledge of God itself on the other hand is a direct experience. It transcends the eye of mind entering into the eye of spirit. It is quite literally "beyond belief". This is the mystical experience. This is Gnosis, a face to face, spirit to spirit communion. And that is not something you can learn about from another. It cannot be taught. It cannot be believed in. It is not something one can reason their way into. It is something you enter into through setting aside all seeking with the mind to attempt to reason and understand.

Knowledge about God, or "beliefs" can have the effect of inspiring faith, to be sure. But it is that faith itself that, how can I say it, carries one beyond belief into Love itself. At such a point you are now swimming in the Ocean itself, rather than hearing about it, reading about it, and mentally accepting the truth about it. Believing in the Ocean, is not the same thing as actually swimming in the ocean. These are two different types of knowledge.

Before I go on here, please look again at my signature line below where I quote someone who said this as it really struck me as spot-on when I read it. "A mystic is not one who sees God as an object, but is immersed in God as an atmosphere." A religious belief sees God as an object, which is something outside of yourself. That is a very key and critical understanding we'll continue to explore here when we talk about the inner and outer worlds.

There is no sign that other forms of life apart from man possess this ability.

Yes, and the reason for that is only because what you are talking about is dependent upon mental constructions which depend upon language. Oh dear... here we go diving in now. *takes a deep breath and thinks how to approach this* I really hope that you follow with me carefully on this as there may be quite a lot here you are not aware of and would benefit from knowing. So please take the time to carefully track with it, and ask me questions if it confuses you, or makes you head hurt or something.

Our highly sophisticated and complex mental realities we live within are built upon metal objects which consist largely of words, linguistic-signs. We name things. We put a linguistic wrapper around the object and call it by the name. Once we name it, it becomes something we then interface and interact with inside if our 'thought-world' to give it some sort of description. That now in no small way removes the actual reality of what that thing is from us, because we have now mentally identified it as something, and now relate to it as that mental object we see it as. We have in effect replaced the actuality of it, with the idea of it. Even if the object is right there in front of us, we are still relating to it through our ideas about it. Our thoughts about the object become fused with the thing itself to where we cannot truly see it as it is outside our thoughts about it. Are you with me so far?

Animals do not have this highly sophisticated system of 'word-signs' that we do, that we are aware of anyway. But even they have to have rudimentary ways of identifying what an object is to themselves. Back to the fox again. When it sees the rabbit, it mentally identifies it as "food". It represents symbolically to it a meal. It is a mental object, which when what it perceives through its many senses, such as sight or smell, the mind says "Food!" to it, and the mind signals the body to respond in the hunt.

When it comes to language, words can be used and called up to identify the object, such as "predator", without having to actually rely about the senses to directly see it. In the case of animals, they too have language in the forms of types of calls which have meaning associated with them. Those are in effect "words". They call out to others with that identifier, in effect saying, "predator, run!". That is actually using a symbolic representation of the thing itself to put the thoughts of one animal into the thoughts of other animals. This is exactly what language is and does. That's important to understand.

So now we come again to levels of sophistication. It's not that animals aren't doing what we're doing. we just simply are doing it to a whole different level of sophistication. Our vocabularies are considerably more extensive, as well as moving into highly subtle and nuanced in meaning, simply because our realities are vastly more complex than the realities of a fox.

Let's shift this for a moment to humans only with language. The mental reality of someone who has a limited vocabulary will in fact be considerably smaller, narrower, and less subtle and nuanced as the mental reality of someone with an extensive vocabulary. The more words we have for things, the more refined and sophisticated our understandings of it become, and the more wide and sophisticated our world becomes to us. Rather than seeing in only rudimentary shapes and colors, 'blocks', I call them, you see curves and angles, dimensionalities, depths, and wide and varying shades of colors. Like the basic eye becomes more refined through the addition of physical features to see more detail, the mind becomes more refined through the sophistication of its linguistic structures.

Ok, so let's now talk about religious belief again understanding this. An animal very likely has no language to talk about God, because "God" is in fact a linguistic identifier to represent something unique to us. We have to first look at what WE mean by God before we can talk adequately about animals. *rolls up sleeves again and bears down in thought*

What do we mean when we use the identifier "God"? What do you mean? What do I mean? I'm going to try to limit this part to two basic things. The first is conceptual. The second is experiential. Okay? First conceptual. Paul Tillich I think has the best way to talk about this when he says that God is one's "Ultimate Concern". "God" as a word conceptually represents to our minds that which is "ultimate" to us. It represents the Absolute. It symbolically represents the Infinite. It represents our highest or ultimate concern. When we say "God" it turns the focus of our attention to the ultimate Absolute. Such is the power of words.

Secondly, it can be a word to represent an actual, firsthand experience of the Absolute. That is different than a concept of the Absolute. That is different than belief. That is different than faith as well. Faith is replaced by experience. Once you have experience, then the words you use are conceptual only in the sense of trying to describe an actual experience, as opposed to trying to explain your conceptual ideas about something yet beyond your own experience. To use words coming from the place of describing experience is not the same thing as using words to try to describe an idea. Words can point to experience, as well as point to ideas.

So, with that very basic distinction made, let's get back to talking about animals. Do animals live inside a vast and complex world of mental objects comprised of networks of linguistic signs like humans do? Highly unlikely! So God naturally would not exist as a metal object to them like it does to us! But does that mean that animals have no experience of God, even if they have no words for it? Not at all. I believe animals do experience God. In fact all humans do as well! But the difference with humans is that we fall out of touch with that Essential Reality we are all part of when we move from a state of Simple Being, into the "alternative reality" of the mental world. This is the proverbial "Fall of Man". We fall from Grace - literally. It is an existential reality of separation that all humans enter into as we enter the adult human reality where we leave the Garden of Eden, into the world of distinction, the world of words, in other words.

There's a great deal more here I'm just beginning to scratch the surface on, and I hope you're still with me so far. This can for the moment stand as a basic foundational understanding we can move forward from. For the moment, my hands are tired typing and I need a mental break.

 

[Windwalker]

Picking up where I just left off from.....

"He has given us material gifts and spiritual graces, outer sight to view the lights of the sun and inner vision by which we may perceive the glory of God. He has designed the outer ear to enjoy the melodies of sound and the inner hearing wherewith we may hear the voice of our Creator."

While I agree fully with this, how I mean it and how he means it may be two different things. Now we go "inside", from the outer to the inner. This is where it gets really fun!

What do I mean by interior and what does he mean? I may be wrong, but my feeling is that he means the inner world of thoughts, consideration, pondering, reflection, and so forth. This "interior world" is the mental space of dreams and imagination, ideas and concepts, and most of what I have been talking about in the previous detailed post this morning. While this is in fact not a world perceived by the senses, the "eye of flesh", it is a world perceived by the eye of reason or mind. But here's the slight tweak to this "inner world", it is still a world of objects! We are in effect "looking at" objects. It is still not truly the inner world, the actual interior spaces. These thoughts and ideas are actually bouncing off mental objects. The "we" looking at the thoughts, is not actually the thoughts! We are not our thoughts, we have thoughts. We are not our fingers, we have fingers. We can look at our thoughts. And if we are not our thoughts, then who are we, really?

Is your head hurting yet?

So what is this "inner vision" he speaks of? What is the perceiving eye? Is it mental? Is it conceptual? Or is it at a deeper level than that?

"The retina of outer vision, though sensitive and delicate, may, nevertheless, be a hindrance to the inner eye which alone can perceive. The bestowals of God which are manifest in all phenomenal life are sometimes hidden by intervening veils of mental and mortal vision which render man spiritually blind and incapable, but when those scales are removed and the veils rent asunder, then the great signs of God will become visible, and he will witness the eternal light filling the world. The bestowals of God are all and always manifest. The promises of heaven are ever present. The favors of God are all-surrounding, but should the conscious eye of the soul of man remain veiled and darkened, he will be led to deny these universal signs and remain deprived of these manifestations of divine bounty."

Again, the words sound mostly right, but how are they truly understood? How are they understood by you? What does this look like to you? How do you "see" all these things of God? With which eye, and how? This is where things should get even more interesting.

 

[Windwalker]

I want to focus mainly on our current discussion for the moment from the last few posts we've made. But I was just reading this from the article I'm working my way though and want to point out. Afterwards, I want to focus again with you on this inner and outer world we just started talking about.

I noticed right away an error of his understanding of what evolution teachers which you should be made aware of. He says, "They hold, moreover, that both vegetable and animal kingdoms have undergone transformation; for in certain strata of the earth, plants have been discovered which existed in the past but which have since disappeared, meaning that they evolved, became hardier, and changed in form and appearance, and thus the species have changed." I think I've mentioned this before, but this is not evolution. When the species ceases to exist, it means it's gone extinct. It does not mean it evolved into something else. A particular branch in the tree of life, literally, dead-ends. It simply dies, and does not transform into something else. Human beings at some point, probably sooner than later, will actually become fully extinct. We will not become another type of human.

One other point, I find it actually incredibly irritating is to hear these questions about evolution being framed as coming from "Certain European philosophers". They are not philosophers. They are scientists. Doing science is quite different from philosophy. This shows a certain point of view they think it's a matter of opinion, which science really, truly is not a matter of opinion. You're not free to disagree with science unless you have other science youself to make an argument with. The Theory of Evolution is not a matter of philosophical opinion. Theory in science does not mean opinion. Do you understand that difference?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Picking up where I just left off from.....


While I agree fully with this, how I mean it and how he means it may be two different things. Now we go "inside", from the outer to the inner. This is where it gets really fun!

What do I mean by interior and what does he mean? I may be wrong, but my feeling is that he means the inner world of thoughts, consideration, pondering, reflection, and so forth. This "interior world" is the mental space of dreams and imagination, ideas and concepts, and most of what I have been talking about in the previous detailed post this morning. While this is in fact not a world perceived by the senses, the "eye of flesh", it is a world perceived by the eye of reason or mind. But here's the slight tweak to this "inner world", it is still a world of objects! We are in effect "looking at" objects. It is still not truly the inner world, the actual interior spaces. These thoughts and ideas are actually bouncing off mental objects. The "we" looking at the thoughts, is not actually the thoughts! We are not our thoughts, we have thoughts. We are not our fingers, we have fingers. We can look at our thoughts. And if we are not our thoughts, then who are we, really?

Is your head hurting yet?

So what is this "inner vision" he speaks of? What is the perceiving eye? Is it mental? Is it conceptual? Or is it at a deeper level than that?


Again, the words sound mostly right, but how are they truly understood? How are they understood by you? What does this look like to you? How do you "see" all these things of God? With which eye, and how? This is where things should get even more interesting.

I like your explanation about swimming in the sea. That is very good.

And everything you say all makes complete sense.

This is the best way how I could describe inner vision and inner hearing which is such a deeper level that only these Words adequately portray what is perceived.

"How great the multitude of truths which the garment of words can never contain! How vast the number of such verities as no expression can adequately describe, whose significance can never be unfolded, and to which not even the remotest allusions can be made! " Baha'u'llah

And

“When the pen set to picturing this station,
It broke in pieces and the page was torn.

Excerpt From: Bahá’u’lláh. “The Seven Valleys and the Four Valleys.”

There is a higher reality in man that cannot be described with words.

It is what we can't explain I feel, that makes us unique as a species.

“Dost thou reckon thyself only a puny form
When within thee the universe is folded?

Excerpt From: Bahá’u’lláh. “The Seven Valleys and the Four Valleys.”

 

[loverofhumanity]

I want to focus mainly on our current discussion for the moment from the last few posts we've made. But I was just reading this from the article I'm working my way though and want to point out. Afterwards, I want to focus again with you on this inner and outer world we just started talking about.

I noticed right away an error of his understanding of what evolution teachers which you should be made aware of. He says, "They hold, moreover, that both vegetable and animal kingdoms have undergone transformation; for in certain strata of the earth, plants have been discovered which existed in the past but which have since disappeared, meaning that they evolved, became hardier, and changed in form and appearance, and thus the species have changed." I think I've mentioned this before, but this is not evolution. When the species ceases to exist, it means it's gone extinct. It does not mean it evolved into something else. A particular branch in the tree of life, literally, dead-ends. It simply dies, and does not transform into something else. Human beings at some point, probably sooner than later, will actually become fully extinct. We will not become another type of human.

One other point, I find it actually incredibly irritating is to hear these questions about evolution being framed as coming from "Certain European philosophers". They are not philosophers. They are scientists. Doing science is quite different from philosophy. This shows a certain point of view they think it's a matter of opinion, which science really, truly is not a matter of opinion. You're not free to disagree with science unless you have other science youself to make an argument with. The Theory of Evolution is not a matter of philosophical opinion. Theory in science does not mean opinion. Do you understand that difference?

I think it's just the time and language used then. I think with regards to the vegetable and animal He's simply speaking about evolution about previous forms evolving into newer forms, not extinction. He means ceases to exist in its previous form not ceases to exist as in extinction completely . Just the language.