If one wants to believe in the existence of God, one can certainly know God. But that's not so much have to do with actually knowing God, but rather with the decision to have faith, accept and follow God.
The question is how do we know when we "know" something versus when we think we know something? What makes an idea or theory into knowledge?
From my perspective knowledge is a very volatile structure simply because it is based on experience: one's own experience, testimony of authorities, empiricism, reason or revelation. Each of those experiences are impacted and distorted by personal judgement or a hidden agenda (political or otherwise).
That is why any knowledge can be argued with reason and supported by a particular set of logic. And that is why any conclusion about any knowledge is only as good as the supporting logic of the mass majority in favor of the theory.
But as new information emerges, old knowledge crumbles: and thus knowledge continually changes.
So how do we know that we know what we know today?
How do we know that we know what we don't know today?
And how much unknown is out there that we don't know that we don't know?
Everything we wish to know is only limited by the moment we decide that we know something. Because the moment we decide that we know something we stop questioning. When we stop questioning we stop searching for new knowledge that might contradict what we decided to know.
So the answer is yes: one can know God. The moment one decides to know God and stop questioning its existence and the teachings of the Bible.
~ By Anita Gardonyi
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
What would Plato think of American advertising?
by Anita Gardonyi on Wednesday, March 23, 2011
If Plato would have the opportunity to come back to life and watch American advertising and observe the life of the American society, he would probably ask the creator to return him into his grave, as he would realize that all his work on this earth has made no difference after all.
Plato had a view about human perception of reality that he very creatively described in his Allegory of the Cave. According to him most of humans are prisoners (of their own worldviews?) who can only face in one direction looking at a giant bare wall. High up behind them are other human beings making shadow stories on the giant wall in the light of a huge fire. The prisoners’ perception of reality is based on the story the shadows play out and they have no idea about the living beings creating the shadow stories. It is a metaphorical image of human reality: invisible truths under the apparent surface of things that only the most enlightened can grasp. Most people are not even aware of their own limited perspectives.
The purpose of advertising is to make things “appear” irresistible, beautiful, easy, affordable and pleasurable. For example: advertising defines what beauty should look like. The image the media suggests fits about 1% of the population, which leaves 99% feel inadequate and insecure: leaving them vulnerable and desperate to buy whatever products and services necessary to make them “beautiful”.
The puppeteers of society create images and impressions of what the perfect life should be like and use the media make people chase false dreams. They create an un-satisfiable crave for things that promise to bring happiness, but can never do so.
Plato would immediately notice that and he would be very disappointed in our society that despite his teachings we have yet to learn the very basics of life: there is a lot more to life than what we choose to see and understand. To walk to path of enlightenment means breaking free of our limitations: it would mean breaking free of what we know and understand.
But for most the bliss of ignorance offers the illusion of happiness… until the walls of the cave come crumbling down burying the last spark of hope forever…
If Plato would have the opportunity to come back to life and watch American advertising and observe the life of the American society, he would probably ask the creator to return him into his grave, as he would realize that all his work on this earth has made no difference after all.
Plato had a view about human perception of reality that he very creatively described in his Allegory of the Cave. According to him most of humans are prisoners (of their own worldviews?) who can only face in one direction looking at a giant bare wall. High up behind them are other human beings making shadow stories on the giant wall in the light of a huge fire. The prisoners’ perception of reality is based on the story the shadows play out and they have no idea about the living beings creating the shadow stories. It is a metaphorical image of human reality: invisible truths under the apparent surface of things that only the most enlightened can grasp. Most people are not even aware of their own limited perspectives.
The purpose of advertising is to make things “appear” irresistible, beautiful, easy, affordable and pleasurable. For example: advertising defines what beauty should look like. The image the media suggests fits about 1% of the population, which leaves 99% feel inadequate and insecure: leaving them vulnerable and desperate to buy whatever products and services necessary to make them “beautiful”.
The puppeteers of society create images and impressions of what the perfect life should be like and use the media make people chase false dreams. They create an un-satisfiable crave for things that promise to bring happiness, but can never do so.
Plato would immediately notice that and he would be very disappointed in our society that despite his teachings we have yet to learn the very basics of life: there is a lot more to life than what we choose to see and understand. To walk to path of enlightenment means breaking free of our limitations: it would mean breaking free of what we know and understand.
But for most the bliss of ignorance offers the illusion of happiness… until the walls of the cave come crumbling down burying the last spark of hope forever…
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Reality Check
Reality check
by Anita Gardonyi on Saturday, March 12, 2011 at 3:01pm
The stillness of the moment
The beauty of here and now
The agony of torment
Of distant nations sorrow
I breathe sun and life today
Wishing that there was a way
To stop the oozing of blood and pain
As the death toll rises in Japan
The greatest worry of our nation here
Is the rising gas price and to pay the bill
But all it takes is a major quake
Death will shock the sleeper awake
Dazed and confused
Paralyzed in fear
The illusion of invincible shatters
Suddenly life is the only thing that matters.
The walls of our false values
Will be washed away
By the tears and cries of survivors
And as our world lays in mud torn by sorrow
The rest of the universe lives for tomorrow
So don't take life for granted
If you have a helping hand: lend it!
When you have all to give, it's easy...
But when there is nothing left to give
Give the will to live
Smile, forgiveness and Love
Are the abundant treasures of the heart.
I breathe sun and life today
Wishing that there was a way
To stop the oozing pity of those
Who still have the illusion of false values.
~ By Anita Gardonyi
by Anita Gardonyi on Saturday, March 12, 2011 at 3:01pm
The stillness of the moment
The beauty of here and now
The agony of torment
Of distant nations sorrow
I breathe sun and life today
Wishing that there was a way
To stop the oozing of blood and pain
As the death toll rises in Japan
The greatest worry of our nation here
Is the rising gas price and to pay the bill
But all it takes is a major quake
Death will shock the sleeper awake
Dazed and confused
Paralyzed in fear
The illusion of invincible shatters
Suddenly life is the only thing that matters.
The walls of our false values
Will be washed away
By the tears and cries of survivors
And as our world lays in mud torn by sorrow
The rest of the universe lives for tomorrow
So don't take life for granted
If you have a helping hand: lend it!
When you have all to give, it's easy...
But when there is nothing left to give
Give the will to live
Smile, forgiveness and Love
Are the abundant treasures of the heart.
I breathe sun and life today
Wishing that there was a way
To stop the oozing pity of those
Who still have the illusion of false values.
~ By Anita Gardonyi
Friday, December 3, 2010
Christianity vs. Pantheism: Afterlife
How do Christian and Pantheistic views of the afterlife differ? How are they similar?
They are similar in a sense that they both believe in existence beyond the fall of the physical body.
But they have a very different idea about what happens after death. Christianity believes that after death the spirit is brought in front of the Lord for judgment (based on the life we lived): then it is determined if one is doomed to hell or the purgatory, or is granted the entrance to heaven.
Pantheism entirely rejects the notion of hell and the concept of heaven is very different that of the Christian’s: it is viewed as ultimately joining or reuniting the Divine source or to reincarnate into a new physical form (a form which is granted based on one’s accomplishments of their purpose through life).
****************
Samantha:
Christian's believe that body dies , but the person lives on. When Chrisitains die, their spirits, or souls, go directly onto the presence of Jesus. Whereas, the pantheists believe that the soul (atman) continues to live on" but this is an impersonal soul, not anything like their personality that makes a person unique. Their uniqueness (which is an illusion) is what dies in life.
These two share somewhat of a similar view of the afterlife as well, although both agree that the soul lives on; Pantheists place no real value on the soul.
Samantha,
I think that you have grasped very well the notion of pantheism (the aspect that we are all made of the same divine source, which make us all the same; and that our uniqueness is defined by the ego and the mind; both of which die with the human body). They certainly believe in afterlife. Only in the concept of "what afterlife is" where they differ. Also a big difference is that pantheism rejects the existence of hell, purgatory or heaven in a Christian sense. Heaven to them is reuniting with the Divine Source. Punishment is reincarnation in another physical life form to go through life again until we finally fulfill our purpose and only then we can reunite with the Divine Source.Not all pantheistic views have the same notion on reincarnation and karma, however. In some cases reincarnation or rebirth is a form of cyclic existence (birth, life, death, rebirth and so on). In other cases rebirth is based on karmic inheritance. Again in some views reincarnation can occur in five or six realm of existence while in other views a human will only reincarnate as another human, while there are some that believes that humans rarely if ever reincarnate again as human immediately after a human existence. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Neopaganism, Theosophy, Taoism (not a religion, but a philosophy) all bear common concepts of pantheism, but they have very different fundamental beliefs which makes it difficult to discuss under one umbrella. But the difference in the concept about afterlife is obvious.
************************
Dawn:
If reincarnation is a form of punishment, where does it all end? How do they know when they have fulfilled their purpose? What evidence do they have that this is the true afterlife? I am still unable to get this worldview to make sense in my mind. Maybe it's because I'm a Christian and reject all secular views.
Dawn,
The ultimate purpose is to return to the Divine Source. That is where it ends. That would be like going to heaven.
I described it as a "punishment" only to illustrate that in pantheism (that rejects the concept of hell as a form of punishment) reincarnation is the consequence of one's actions. Life, with both its joys and aches, is another chance to do it all over again: to learn, to grow and to fulfill one's purpose. There are guidelines in each religion, similarly as in the Bible, as to how one should act, feel and live. Pantheism is a view. You will learn more about religions by studying them directly. Hinduism, Buddhism and other religions carry pantheism views, but each have distinguished fundamental rules.
It is quite okay that it doesn't make sense in your mind and it is quite likely due to your loyalty to the Christian view. I don't necessarily understand everything, but I also don't reject things I do not understand. I say: "hmmm... I don't understand it, but just because I don't understand it, it doesn't mean it is not so. Just because someone else is certain that it is true, it still doesn't mean it is so. And whether it is true or not, it doesn't mean I have to agree with it." Learning is about gathering information in order to have the ability to form a better, more accurate image of your truth. The more information you absorb, the better you will be able to sort through facts, make connections and even better: ask better questions.
So if things don't make sense in your mind now; it's okay. Don't stop here! Seek more information and ask more questions! Or just agree to disagree and offer love, forgiveness and prayers to those who don't share your faith.
They are similar in a sense that they both believe in existence beyond the fall of the physical body.
But they have a very different idea about what happens after death. Christianity believes that after death the spirit is brought in front of the Lord for judgment (based on the life we lived): then it is determined if one is doomed to hell or the purgatory, or is granted the entrance to heaven.
Pantheism entirely rejects the notion of hell and the concept of heaven is very different that of the Christian’s: it is viewed as ultimately joining or reuniting the Divine source or to reincarnate into a new physical form (a form which is granted based on one’s accomplishments of their purpose through life).
****************
Samantha:
Christian's believe that body dies , but the person lives on. When Chrisitains die, their spirits, or souls, go directly onto the presence of Jesus. Whereas, the pantheists believe that the soul (atman) continues to live on" but this is an impersonal soul, not anything like their personality that makes a person unique. Their uniqueness (which is an illusion) is what dies in life.
These two share somewhat of a similar view of the afterlife as well, although both agree that the soul lives on; Pantheists place no real value on the soul.
Samantha,
I think that you have grasped very well the notion of pantheism (the aspect that we are all made of the same divine source, which make us all the same; and that our uniqueness is defined by the ego and the mind; both of which die with the human body). They certainly believe in afterlife. Only in the concept of "what afterlife is" where they differ. Also a big difference is that pantheism rejects the existence of hell, purgatory or heaven in a Christian sense. Heaven to them is reuniting with the Divine Source. Punishment is reincarnation in another physical life form to go through life again until we finally fulfill our purpose and only then we can reunite with the Divine Source.Not all pantheistic views have the same notion on reincarnation and karma, however. In some cases reincarnation or rebirth is a form of cyclic existence (birth, life, death, rebirth and so on). In other cases rebirth is based on karmic inheritance. Again in some views reincarnation can occur in five or six realm of existence while in other views a human will only reincarnate as another human, while there are some that believes that humans rarely if ever reincarnate again as human immediately after a human existence. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Neopaganism, Theosophy, Taoism (not a religion, but a philosophy) all bear common concepts of pantheism, but they have very different fundamental beliefs which makes it difficult to discuss under one umbrella. But the difference in the concept about afterlife is obvious.
************************
Dawn:
If reincarnation is a form of punishment, where does it all end? How do they know when they have fulfilled their purpose? What evidence do they have that this is the true afterlife? I am still unable to get this worldview to make sense in my mind. Maybe it's because I'm a Christian and reject all secular views.
Dawn,
The ultimate purpose is to return to the Divine Source. That is where it ends. That would be like going to heaven.
I described it as a "punishment" only to illustrate that in pantheism (that rejects the concept of hell as a form of punishment) reincarnation is the consequence of one's actions. Life, with both its joys and aches, is another chance to do it all over again: to learn, to grow and to fulfill one's purpose. There are guidelines in each religion, similarly as in the Bible, as to how one should act, feel and live. Pantheism is a view. You will learn more about religions by studying them directly. Hinduism, Buddhism and other religions carry pantheism views, but each have distinguished fundamental rules.
It is quite okay that it doesn't make sense in your mind and it is quite likely due to your loyalty to the Christian view. I don't necessarily understand everything, but I also don't reject things I do not understand. I say: "hmmm... I don't understand it, but just because I don't understand it, it doesn't mean it is not so. Just because someone else is certain that it is true, it still doesn't mean it is so. And whether it is true or not, it doesn't mean I have to agree with it." Learning is about gathering information in order to have the ability to form a better, more accurate image of your truth. The more information you absorb, the better you will be able to sort through facts, make connections and even better: ask better questions.
So if things don't make sense in your mind now; it's okay. Don't stop here! Seek more information and ask more questions! Or just agree to disagree and offer love, forgiveness and prayers to those who don't share your faith.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Meditation, Pantheism, Christianity
Why is meditation an important part of Eastern Pantheist traditions? What role does it serve?
According to Cosgrove meditation in the Eastern Pantheist traditions serve only to “help the person screen out sensory input in order to lower one’s perception of self and reality”. He contrasts meditation with prayer saying that the purpose of meditation is to empty the mind, while the purpose of prayer is to fill the mind with God. As indicated by Cosgrove, meditation is important in pantheism to help dissolve problems and create a sense of unity with the Universe. (Cosgrove, 2006)
There is, however, a different perspective on what meditation is, what it serves and why it is important (to pantheists or to anyone for that fact).
As said by the Meditation Society of America: “Meditation is a three step [concentration, meditation, contemplation] process that leads to a state of consciousness that brings serenity, clarity, and bliss.”
In that light, prayer is also a form of meditation where the subject of concentration is God. Using “om”, as an aid to tune out distractions and “empty” the mind, is only one of many techniques. Although meditation seems deceptively simple it takes practice and lots of discipline to gain control over the mind without the constantly intruding tantalizing, interesting thoughts.
When pantheists speak of “emptying the mind”, what they really mean is to empty out the garbage (uncontrolled, unwanted thoughts and feelings). The reason one needs to empty the mind first is to gain clarity or to be able to fill it with wanted thoughts and feelings.
The ultimate spiritual benefits of meditation has been clear hundreds of years ago, but now science has the ability to back that up with logical physiological evidence as well by the means of neuroscience: the study of the electrical brain activity and brain waves. (The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2010)
“…regular meditation actually alters the way the brain is wired, and that these changes could be at the heart of claims that meditation can improve health and well-being.” (Aubrey, 2005)
“Neuroscientists have found that meditators shift their brain activity to different areas of the cortex—brain waves in the stress-prone right frontal cortex move to the calmer left frontal cortex. In other words, they were calmer and happier than before.” (Allen, 2003)
“A second study, published last year in Psychosomatic Medicine, taught a randomized group of 90 cancer patients mindful meditation (another type of practice). After seven weeks, those who had meditated reported that they were significantly less depressed, anxious, angry and confused than the control group, which hadn't practiced meditation. The meditators also had more energy and fewer heart and gastrointestinal problems than did the other group.” (Barbor, 2001)
The physical and psychological benefits of meditation are recognized and widely accepted in the West today. The spiritual benefits are still mostly misunderstood or misinterpreted.
Meditation itself will not solve humanity’s problems, as Cosgrove puts it in perspective. Pantheists do not believe that “diming” sensory inputs will make problems not real. The purpose of meditation is to put problems in a different perspective: to help differentiate between problems one can control by taking actions; and problems one needs to accept and move on. When one’s mind is full of fear, anger, worry, racing thoughts and things to do’s; it is like trying to see the key that lies in the bottom of a bowl of water while the water is being swiftly stirred. Meditation (and prayer), from a spiritual perspective, serves the purpose to temporarily “dim” such sensory inputs, to stop the stirring and allow the water in the bowl to stand still: then one is able to see the key at the bottom.
A Christian concentrates on God by saying prayers, empties all other worries from the mind and as he/she becomes one with Christ, he/she waits and listens to God’s word to guide him/her.
A pantheist concentrates on the Universal Love by saying “om” or focusing on breathing or love or grace or by counting; empties all other worries from the mind and as he/she becomes one with the Universe, he/she waits and looks for “keys” to guide him/her.
The concept itself is only different in the fundamental belief of the entity of a personal God that transcends the world. That difference itself acts as an immense distorting glass wall between the two worldviews causing misconceptions and discrimination, as it is so evidently observable in the works of Cosgrove.
References
Allen, C. (2003) The benefits of meditation. Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200304/the-benefits-meditation
Aubrey, A. (2005) Science explores meditation’s effects on the Brain. Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4770779
Barbor, C. (2001) The science of meditaion. Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200105/the-science-meditation
Cosgrove, M. (2006) Foundation of Christian thought. Kregel Publications.
Meditation Society of America. (n.d.) What is meditation. Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://www.meditationsociety.com/what.html
The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) (2010, March 31). Brain waves and meditation. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2010/03/100319210631.htm
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2007) Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism
According to Cosgrove meditation in the Eastern Pantheist traditions serve only to “help the person screen out sensory input in order to lower one’s perception of self and reality”. He contrasts meditation with prayer saying that the purpose of meditation is to empty the mind, while the purpose of prayer is to fill the mind with God. As indicated by Cosgrove, meditation is important in pantheism to help dissolve problems and create a sense of unity with the Universe. (Cosgrove, 2006)
There is, however, a different perspective on what meditation is, what it serves and why it is important (to pantheists or to anyone for that fact).
As said by the Meditation Society of America: “Meditation is a three step [concentration, meditation, contemplation] process that leads to a state of consciousness that brings serenity, clarity, and bliss.”
In that light, prayer is also a form of meditation where the subject of concentration is God. Using “om”, as an aid to tune out distractions and “empty” the mind, is only one of many techniques. Although meditation seems deceptively simple it takes practice and lots of discipline to gain control over the mind without the constantly intruding tantalizing, interesting thoughts.
When pantheists speak of “emptying the mind”, what they really mean is to empty out the garbage (uncontrolled, unwanted thoughts and feelings). The reason one needs to empty the mind first is to gain clarity or to be able to fill it with wanted thoughts and feelings.
The ultimate spiritual benefits of meditation has been clear hundreds of years ago, but now science has the ability to back that up with logical physiological evidence as well by the means of neuroscience: the study of the electrical brain activity and brain waves. (The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2010)
“…regular meditation actually alters the way the brain is wired, and that these changes could be at the heart of claims that meditation can improve health and well-being.” (Aubrey, 2005)
“Neuroscientists have found that meditators shift their brain activity to different areas of the cortex—brain waves in the stress-prone right frontal cortex move to the calmer left frontal cortex. In other words, they were calmer and happier than before.” (Allen, 2003)
“A second study, published last year in Psychosomatic Medicine, taught a randomized group of 90 cancer patients mindful meditation (another type of practice). After seven weeks, those who had meditated reported that they were significantly less depressed, anxious, angry and confused than the control group, which hadn't practiced meditation. The meditators also had more energy and fewer heart and gastrointestinal problems than did the other group.” (Barbor, 2001)
The physical and psychological benefits of meditation are recognized and widely accepted in the West today. The spiritual benefits are still mostly misunderstood or misinterpreted.
Meditation itself will not solve humanity’s problems, as Cosgrove puts it in perspective. Pantheists do not believe that “diming” sensory inputs will make problems not real. The purpose of meditation is to put problems in a different perspective: to help differentiate between problems one can control by taking actions; and problems one needs to accept and move on. When one’s mind is full of fear, anger, worry, racing thoughts and things to do’s; it is like trying to see the key that lies in the bottom of a bowl of water while the water is being swiftly stirred. Meditation (and prayer), from a spiritual perspective, serves the purpose to temporarily “dim” such sensory inputs, to stop the stirring and allow the water in the bowl to stand still: then one is able to see the key at the bottom.
A Christian concentrates on God by saying prayers, empties all other worries from the mind and as he/she becomes one with Christ, he/she waits and listens to God’s word to guide him/her.
A pantheist concentrates on the Universal Love by saying “om” or focusing on breathing or love or grace or by counting; empties all other worries from the mind and as he/she becomes one with the Universe, he/she waits and looks for “keys” to guide him/her.
The concept itself is only different in the fundamental belief of the entity of a personal God that transcends the world. That difference itself acts as an immense distorting glass wall between the two worldviews causing misconceptions and discrimination, as it is so evidently observable in the works of Cosgrove.
References
Allen, C. (2003) The benefits of meditation. Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200304/the-benefits-meditation
Aubrey, A. (2005) Science explores meditation’s effects on the Brain. Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4770779
Barbor, C. (2001) The science of meditaion. Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200105/the-science-meditation
Cosgrove, M. (2006) Foundation of Christian thought. Kregel Publications.
Meditation Society of America. (n.d.) What is meditation. Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://www.meditationsociety.com/what.html
The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) (2010, March 31). Brain waves and meditation. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2010/03/100319210631.htm
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2007) Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Secular Humanism vs. Christianity
Question:
Secular Humanists feel that, "The good is not what some abstract God dictates, but what contributes to the liberation, growth, and progress of human beings. Instead of being God-centered, we should be human-centered" (Veith, 1994. p. 71). What do you think about this statement?
Answer:
Looking at the question from strictly moral and ethical point of view:
Given, that two people living very similar lives and adhering to identical ethical and moral codes; but one of them is atheist, while the other is Christian: is there a difference between them on a moral standard?
If a man, who doesn’t believe in supernatural, lives his life consistently in the acts of love, charity, truthfulness, hard work, loyalty and integrity, while fulfilling his purpose to serve humanity and our planet: is that man judged for his acts or for his beliefs?
But what about a Christian, who is God-centered, but fails to fulfill the standards, set by the Bible: is that man judged for his acts or for his beliefs?
Secular Humanism does not necessarily reject the principles of the Christian ethics and morals. It simply wants to take religion out of it. Secular Humanist principles however, are based on individual, scientific and social knowledge and thus it may not have unambiguous rules set in place, such in the Bible. Meaning, that while killing, stealing, cheating etc. are not acceptable in neither worldview; rules about sexuality or relationships in general may differ greatly.
Things that “contribute to the liberation, growth and progress of the human beings” are good. I would add: as long as it does no harm to our fellow humans and to our non-human World. I still seem to think that we, humans, have the inclination to grow and progress at the cost of our very planet and I don’t see that very ethical or moral at all, whether you are God-centered or Human centered.
Then there is another aspect to think about: many things secular humanists don’t necessarily reject, but don’t support either. Nature takes care of that. For example, homosexuality: Christianity considers it an “outgrowth of mankind’s sinful nature”. It is unacceptable morally. Period.
Morally, secular humanism doesn’t deny it… it doesn’t care. Why? Because nature takes care of that part. Secular Humanism is the cousin of Naturalism. One of their concepts is: only the strongest genes survive; only the strongest genes get to be passed on via reproduction. Well… with natural methods that will hardly happen amongst homosexual couples. (Surgical or other methods are not natural and that is the subject of a whole new moral/ethical discussion).
The Bible provides a very clear-cut set of rules defined by God: it leaves minimal room for misinterpretation and misuse. And because humans have a natural tendency to test their boundaries and fall into greed and lust, these guidelines are more effective in unifying humanity into one coherent moral/ethical direction. Secular Humanism in the question of morals and ethics is vague: it doesn’t provide effective guidance to those in doubt.
In conclusion, the statement itself in the beginning in the respect of morals and ethics is not necessarily bad or wrong, but rather incomplete and vague; leaving too much freedom for individual interpretation of what is moral or ethical.
From a religious aspect it’s a different discussion…
Question:
You wrote a thorough post on your thoughts about secular humanism. You made a great point about secular humanism wanting to take religion out of the picture completely. They do not believe in absolute truth, sinful nature, and suffering. Your conclusion about the way secular humanists view morals, "leaving too much freedom for individual interpretation of what is moral or ethical" is exactly right on target. I do however want you to think more about how Secular humanists view Christian morals and standards. Since secular humanist believe in the "is=ought" basis for ethics and relativism has sunk into the fabric of some of our culture too, this is counter to everything that the Bible speaks and teaches. So what is the answer to your question, "is that man judged for his acts or for his beliefs?" Thoughts?
Answer:
One is ought to be judged for one's acts; for only acts will reflect one's core beliefs, whether one is conscious of it or not.
By this I mean, that man could preach the word of God with all his heart, yet defy those words with his actions; while one, who consciously refuses to believe in the supernatural, acts upon the word of God driven by a subconscious or innate desire to serve and love.
By no means are people extreme one way or another, but ultimately actions are the end result of whatever worldview or belief system we harbor consciously or subconsciously.
The "is=ought" basis for ethics isn't necessarily counter to everything the Bible speaks and teaches.
"Secular humanists believe morality and meaning come from humanity and the natural world, not from God or the supernatural. It is our human values that give us rights, responsibilities, and dignity. We believe that morality should aim to bring out the best in people, so that all people can have the best in life. And morality must be based on our knowledge of human nature and the real world.
Humanist and religious morality share many basic principles because in fact both are underpinned by the fundamental human moral sense summarized in the Golden Rule: treat others with the same consideration as you would have them treat you. Humanists recognize that the common moral decencies - for example, people should not lie, steal, or kill; and they should be honest, generous, and cooperative - really are conducive to human welfare." (Cherry & Matsumura, n.d.)
The two worldviews, although they share many of the same moral and ethical values, differ in their fundamental belief about supernatural in such extreme measure, that any argument about their supportive reasoning is already decided pointless in the minds of the opposing party.
I would like to share links with you from the website of the Council of Secular Humanism. I think it is only fair to read about how they define their worldview from their point of view. It is not to say that anyone needs to take sides. But after gathering information from both Christian view on humanism and humanism view on humanism, you'll have a better (a more fair) chance to draw your own conclusions as to how and where they fit into the big picture.
Links to look into:
Cherry & Matsumura. (n.d.) 10 Myths about secular humanism. Retrieved from http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=cherry1_18_1&back=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secularhumanism.org%2Flib%2Flist.php%3Fpublication%3Dfi%26vol%3D18
Gunasekara, V. A. (n.d.) Core principles of humanism. Retrieved from http://www.uq.net.au/slsoc/manussa/coreprin.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=Bte168D9ShMC&pg=PT52&lpg=PT52&dq=secular+humanism+is%3Dought&source=bl&ots=xY8X8zlR81&sig=oS3Z8VZrUATTGku2r_aNP36yKW0&hl=en&ei=AyjoTLqlNMGqlAf60LzVCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=secular%20humanism%20is%3Dought&f=false
Secular Humanists feel that, "The good is not what some abstract God dictates, but what contributes to the liberation, growth, and progress of human beings. Instead of being God-centered, we should be human-centered" (Veith, 1994. p. 71). What do you think about this statement?
Answer:
Looking at the question from strictly moral and ethical point of view:
Given, that two people living very similar lives and adhering to identical ethical and moral codes; but one of them is atheist, while the other is Christian: is there a difference between them on a moral standard?
If a man, who doesn’t believe in supernatural, lives his life consistently in the acts of love, charity, truthfulness, hard work, loyalty and integrity, while fulfilling his purpose to serve humanity and our planet: is that man judged for his acts or for his beliefs?
But what about a Christian, who is God-centered, but fails to fulfill the standards, set by the Bible: is that man judged for his acts or for his beliefs?
Secular Humanism does not necessarily reject the principles of the Christian ethics and morals. It simply wants to take religion out of it. Secular Humanist principles however, are based on individual, scientific and social knowledge and thus it may not have unambiguous rules set in place, such in the Bible. Meaning, that while killing, stealing, cheating etc. are not acceptable in neither worldview; rules about sexuality or relationships in general may differ greatly.
Things that “contribute to the liberation, growth and progress of the human beings” are good. I would add: as long as it does no harm to our fellow humans and to our non-human World. I still seem to think that we, humans, have the inclination to grow and progress at the cost of our very planet and I don’t see that very ethical or moral at all, whether you are God-centered or Human centered.
Then there is another aspect to think about: many things secular humanists don’t necessarily reject, but don’t support either. Nature takes care of that. For example, homosexuality: Christianity considers it an “outgrowth of mankind’s sinful nature”. It is unacceptable morally. Period.
Morally, secular humanism doesn’t deny it… it doesn’t care. Why? Because nature takes care of that part. Secular Humanism is the cousin of Naturalism. One of their concepts is: only the strongest genes survive; only the strongest genes get to be passed on via reproduction. Well… with natural methods that will hardly happen amongst homosexual couples. (Surgical or other methods are not natural and that is the subject of a whole new moral/ethical discussion).
The Bible provides a very clear-cut set of rules defined by God: it leaves minimal room for misinterpretation and misuse. And because humans have a natural tendency to test their boundaries and fall into greed and lust, these guidelines are more effective in unifying humanity into one coherent moral/ethical direction. Secular Humanism in the question of morals and ethics is vague: it doesn’t provide effective guidance to those in doubt.
In conclusion, the statement itself in the beginning in the respect of morals and ethics is not necessarily bad or wrong, but rather incomplete and vague; leaving too much freedom for individual interpretation of what is moral or ethical.
From a religious aspect it’s a different discussion…
Question:
You wrote a thorough post on your thoughts about secular humanism. You made a great point about secular humanism wanting to take religion out of the picture completely. They do not believe in absolute truth, sinful nature, and suffering. Your conclusion about the way secular humanists view morals, "leaving too much freedom for individual interpretation of what is moral or ethical" is exactly right on target. I do however want you to think more about how Secular humanists view Christian morals and standards. Since secular humanist believe in the "is=ought" basis for ethics and relativism has sunk into the fabric of some of our culture too, this is counter to everything that the Bible speaks and teaches. So what is the answer to your question, "is that man judged for his acts or for his beliefs?" Thoughts?
Answer:
One is ought to be judged for one's acts; for only acts will reflect one's core beliefs, whether one is conscious of it or not.
By this I mean, that man could preach the word of God with all his heart, yet defy those words with his actions; while one, who consciously refuses to believe in the supernatural, acts upon the word of God driven by a subconscious or innate desire to serve and love.
By no means are people extreme one way or another, but ultimately actions are the end result of whatever worldview or belief system we harbor consciously or subconsciously.
The "is=ought" basis for ethics isn't necessarily counter to everything the Bible speaks and teaches.
"Secular humanists believe morality and meaning come from humanity and the natural world, not from God or the supernatural. It is our human values that give us rights, responsibilities, and dignity. We believe that morality should aim to bring out the best in people, so that all people can have the best in life. And morality must be based on our knowledge of human nature and the real world.
Humanist and religious morality share many basic principles because in fact both are underpinned by the fundamental human moral sense summarized in the Golden Rule: treat others with the same consideration as you would have them treat you. Humanists recognize that the common moral decencies - for example, people should not lie, steal, or kill; and they should be honest, generous, and cooperative - really are conducive to human welfare." (Cherry & Matsumura, n.d.)
The two worldviews, although they share many of the same moral and ethical values, differ in their fundamental belief about supernatural in such extreme measure, that any argument about their supportive reasoning is already decided pointless in the minds of the opposing party.
I would like to share links with you from the website of the Council of Secular Humanism. I think it is only fair to read about how they define their worldview from their point of view. It is not to say that anyone needs to take sides. But after gathering information from both Christian view on humanism and humanism view on humanism, you'll have a better (a more fair) chance to draw your own conclusions as to how and where they fit into the big picture.
Links to look into:
Cherry & Matsumura. (n.d.) 10 Myths about secular humanism. Retrieved from http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=cherry1_18_1&back=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secularhumanism.org%2Flib%2Flist.php%3Fpublication%3Dfi%26vol%3D18
Gunasekara, V. A. (n.d.) Core principles of humanism. Retrieved from http://www.uq.net.au/slsoc/manussa/coreprin.htm
Cosgrove, M. (2006) Foundations of Christian Thought.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Bte168D9ShMC&pg=PT52&lpg=PT52&dq=secular+humanism+is%3Dought&source=bl&ots=xY8X8zlR81&sig=oS3Z8VZrUATTGku2r_aNP36yKW0&hl=en&ei=AyjoTLqlNMGqlAf60LzVCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=secular%20humanism%20is%3Dought&f=false
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Escape from Freedom
"Whenever we seek to avoid the responsibility for our own behavior, we do so by attempting to give that responsibility to some other individual or organization or entity. But this means we then give away our power to that entity, be it "fate" or "society" or the government or the corporation or our boss. It is for this reason that Erich Fromm so aptly titled his study of Nazism and authoritarianism Escape from Freedom. In attempting to avoid the pain of responsibility, millions and even billions daily attempt to escape from freedom."
by M. Scott Peck, M.D. in The Road Less Traveled
Freedom is a great responsibility; choosing freedom means taking responsibility for our choices and their consequences. In other words: you are not the result of your circumstances, rather of your choices. You always have the choice to pass on the responsibility for your crappy life to society, to economy, to your spouse, to your boss... Because accepting responsibility would mean having to deal with the pain of hard work, mistakes and sacrifise.
So you have two choices:
1. Blame others: you can live passively in a comfortable crappy life, believing that you are powerless and allowing circumstances to command your possibilities (yeah, you don't have to deal with the weight of responsibilities).
2. Be in charge: you can live actively, taking risks and constantly challange yourself to move past your comfort zone: but never settle for less than your freedom to live your life the way you desire it.
So next time you complain about something in your life; step back and reflect for a moment. You always have a choice. Perhaps the reason to stay where you are is more valuable to you, than the price you'd need to pay to be where you want to be. Perhaps you didn't even see the alternative option...
But whether you take the time to see it or not; just know that it's there.
by Anita M. Gardonyi
by M. Scott Peck, M.D. in The Road Less Traveled
Freedom is a great responsibility; choosing freedom means taking responsibility for our choices and their consequences. In other words: you are not the result of your circumstances, rather of your choices. You always have the choice to pass on the responsibility for your crappy life to society, to economy, to your spouse, to your boss... Because accepting responsibility would mean having to deal with the pain of hard work, mistakes and sacrifise.
So you have two choices:
1. Blame others: you can live passively in a comfortable crappy life, believing that you are powerless and allowing circumstances to command your possibilities (yeah, you don't have to deal with the weight of responsibilities).
2. Be in charge: you can live actively, taking risks and constantly challange yourself to move past your comfort zone: but never settle for less than your freedom to live your life the way you desire it.
So next time you complain about something in your life; step back and reflect for a moment. You always have a choice. Perhaps the reason to stay where you are is more valuable to you, than the price you'd need to pay to be where you want to be. Perhaps you didn't even see the alternative option...
But whether you take the time to see it or not; just know that it's there.
by Anita M. Gardonyi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)