Is Creationism Adapting to Scientific Progress or Stagnating in Dogma?

[Loren Booda]

How has Creationism compensated and compromised itself in the face of irrefutable scientific evidence over the past 150 years? Will there come a day when all scientific discovery is alternatively "explained" for zealots in terms of the fundamentalist premise of Scripture, rivaling the scientific method for intellectuals?

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

For some it appears that illusion is superior to the mental and physical necessities of reality.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

That's an interesting possibility, but I don't forsee it happening. The problem with religion is that it's illogical; therefore, it would be difficult for religious individuals to use scientific method properly while continuing to be religious. The two are opposites, despite what some may say. Intelligent design is an example of religious individuals attempting to use scientific method, and they have failed horribly. The only people who believe them, for the most part, are other religious individuals, which happen to control the government in some places.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

That's an interesting possibility, but I don't forsee it happening. The problem with religion is that it's illogical; therefore, it would be difficult for religious individuals to use scientific method properly while continuing to be religious. The two are opposites, despite what some may say. Intelligent design is an example of religious individuals attempting to use scientific method, and they have failed horribly. The only people who believe them, for the most part, are other religious individuals, which happen to control the government in some places.

Logic and reason must follow from proven premises. Attempting to tack on a logical explanation to a faulty premise will eventually always end in ruin. Let's hope that reason will prevail or the ruin will be upon not only those who refuse to begin with reason but on all of us who do not meet the challenges created by living among those who prefer the denigration of reason to questioning the basis of their beliefs.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Proven premises are excessive when common sense can prevail. We do not always debate the core premises of mathematics before discussing branches of those mathematics; we accept what has been concluded beforehand. Axioms are subjective, and, on this issue, what I said is what I believe to be self-evident.

 

[Loren Booda]

What prevents evolution from being created by Diety?

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Proven premises are excessive when common sense can prevail. We do not always debate the core premises of mathematics before discussing branches of those mathematics; we accept what has been concluded beforehand. Axioms are subjective, and, on this issue, what I said is what I believe to be self-evident.

I do not know about mathematics but philosophically common sense, (whatever that is), is not an issue. Axioms are self-evident and are the basis upon which all proofs rest. They have the property that any attempts to disprove them rely on the use of them in that attempt, therefore, such attempts can only fail. I am curious . . . do you happen to know whether mathematical axioms share these characteristics and if so, is there any simple explanation of this I might understand?

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

What prevents evolution from being created by Diety?

Do you mean a 'Deity'? What difference would (does) it make?

Philosophically, it would open a Pandora’s box of speculation but I believe there is plenty to speculate about for now. I imagine if we ever arrive at a point where such speculation would be all that was left then we would ourselves be equivalents, with the ability to create our own 'Deity' or universe. Not that some have not already tried.

 

[ahrkron]

What prevents evolution from being created by Diety?

Nothing. An all-powerfull being could very well have created the universe two seconds ago with all planted evidence to make us believe in evolution (and in the age of the universe). One just needs to justify this universe-size deception.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Nothing. An all-powerfull being could very well have created the universe two seconds ago with all planted evidence to make us believe in evolution (and in the age of the universe). One just needs to justify this universe-size deception.

It doesn't have to be two seconds ago; one could interpret Loren's statement to mean that the Deity created the basis of evolution, which has happened exactly as we've discovered it.

 

[PIT2]

Is it actually possible for a theory of creation by an intelligence(creation of anything at all) to be scientific?

Are there any examples?

 

[Hurkyl]

Axioms are self-evident and are the basis upon which all proofs rest.

Something is self-evident only when your imagination is insufficient to imagine the alternative.

That's an interesting possibility, but I don't forsee it happening. The problem with religion is that it's illogical; therefore, it would be difficult for religious individuals to use scientific method properly while continuing to be religious.

I don't think so. It's easy enough to consider scientific evidence into religion: for example, scientific evidence can be used to justify the interpretation of the creation story where "day" is to be interpreted as "age" or "era", and not as "24 hours".


That said, I would certainly agree that most people who practice religion are illogical... just like most people who do not practice religion. And either way, those who are not willing to spend the time and effort to study things properly are left to believing the experts.

An all-powerfull being could very well have created the universe two seconds ago with all planted evidence to make us believe in evolution (and in the age of the universe). One just needs to justify this universe-size deception.

Why? Nobody is asserting this to be true, so why would anyone need to justify it?

 

[selfAdjoint]

What prevents evolution from being created by Diety?

Nothing at all. Evolution is not a denial of theism, just of folktales about cration that are accepted by some sectarian theists.

The Roman Catholic church has evolved(!) a pretty nuanced view where all the hypotheses of evolution, including random variation of the genome and random events causing selection, hold true, but the whole scheme is due to the foreordained will of god, with a predetermined outcome. This view cannot be told from atheistic evolution by any finite test that I can think of.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Is it actually possible for a theory of creation by an intelligence(creation of anything at all) to be scientific?
Are there any examples?

I think the problem is empirical epistomology. Keep in mind, to be scientific, one ventures a hypothesis with the expectation that it can be confirmed by sense experience.

Here's the catch: what if the experience of the proposed universal intelligence is not experienceable by the senses? If so, then it can never be subject to scientific research nor would it be possible to formulate a scientific theory (since it can't be confirmed via sense experience).

So the question becomes (if we assume that experience is the basis of knowledge), is there a legitimate conscious experience that is not sensual and yet has the potential to reveal the universal intelligence?

And either way, those who are not willing to spend the time and effort to study things properly are left to believing the experts.

Good point. In my opinion, to study and properly evaluate reports of a universal intelligence is not furthered by studying religious or science experts. Neither seem to know a thing about the (reported) experience.

One obviously can't turn to religious fanatics or blind faith believers to find out about that experience, and one cannot turn to the religious experts either because they are studying the history of events, not the experience.

Right now, for example, a great many university Christian scholars are describing Jesus as some sort of religious reformer ranging from radical to passive. Not one single solitary scholar I can find (save possibly Elaine Pagels and Jacob Needleman) has thought to examine the conscious experience of Jesus. Too bad.

 

[DM]

one cannot turn to the religious experts either because they are studying the history of events, not the experience.

History does in many respects teach us about experiences. Studying the history of Jews for instance, not only gives you a cocktail of facts and opinions, but also gives you a sense of experience. The history of Anti-Semitism in the hands of Nazis engulfs you completely.

Not one single solitary scholar I can find (save possibly Elaine Pagels and Jacob Needleman) has thought to examine the conscious experience of Jesus. Too bad.

And what was the conscious of Jesus? Don't you think that by attempting to judge, introspect and examine one's thought about Jesus's cousciousness creates subjective ideas that may be completely false? Whilst this may be totally acceptable in the minds of atheists, it is somewhat different in the eyes of Christians.

 

[PIT2]

I think the problem is empirical epistomology. Keep in mind, to be scientific, one ventures a hypothesis with the expectation that it can be confirmed by sense experience.

But a creation theory of anything at all (cars, houses) surely can't be completely out of the reach of empiricism? We can observe people creating such things, yet I don't recall any scientific theories about creationary acts (which may be because i don't know enough about this stuff).

Here's the catch: what if the experience of the proposed universal intelligence is not experienceable by the senses? If so, then it can never be subject to scientific research nor would it be possible to formulate a scientific theory (since it can't be confirmed via sense experience).

Can u give examples of things that are not experienced through the senses? (thoughts perhaps?)
I haven't really thought which parts of my experience come from senses or not so I am not sure about this.

So the question becomes (if we assume that experience is the basis of knowledge), is there a legitimate conscious experience that is not sensual and yet has the potential to reveal the universal intelligence?

The question is also interesting even if it reveals anything at all, not necesarily a universal intelligence.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

OH the spiders, the spiders; they're crawling everywhere. See what you've done?

 

[Les Sleeth]

And what was the conscious of Jesus? Don't you think that by attempting to judge, introspect and examine one's thought about Jesus's cousciousness creates subjective ideas that may be completely false? Whilst this may be totally acceptable in the minds of atheists, it is somewhat different in the eyes of Christians.

You have to study looking specifically for clues to the conscious experience. Fortunately, there were a great many people who attempted to keep that experience alive, rather than turn it into a religion, so you don't have to rely just on the meager reports of Jesus' actual words to study the experience. I can see you know nothing about this subject, so you might do a little research into Christian mysticism before you go further with your arguments.

 

[Les Sleeth]

But a creation theory of anything at all (cars, houses) surely can't be completely out of the reach of empiricism? We can observe people creating such things, yet I don't recall any scientific theories about creationary acts (which may be because i don't know enough about this stuff).

Not "completely" out of reach, but it becomes a problem if you want to contemplate if some sort of universal consciousness has played a role in the development of the universe. Assume for a moment there is such a guiding consciousness. Yes, you can see all the stuff unfold from it, but you can't see the consciousness itself (with the senses anyway). So you can have a scientific creation theory from the point where we can sensually experience things, but not prior to that.

Can u give examples of things that are not experienced through the senses? (thoughts perhaps?)
I haven't really thought which parts of my experience come from senses or not so I am not sure about this.
The question is also interesting even if it reveals anything at all, not necesarily a universal intelligence.

Inner experience. There are people who practice actually withdrawing from the senses to have a purely inner conscious experience. It is the most successful of these people in fact who have provided the best reports of "something more" than physicalness.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Nothing. An all-powerfull being could very well have created the universe two seconds ago with all planted evidence to make us believe in evolution (and in the age of the universe). One just needs to justify this universe-size deception.

Deception only deceives the deceiver and those who hold the unjustified opinions of others above their own ability to reason.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Something is self-evident only when your imagination is insufficient to imagine the alternative.

The alternative to relying on reason is unimaginable.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Inner experience. There are people who practice actually withdrawing from the senses to have a purely inner conscious experience. It is the most successful of these people in fact who have provided the best reports of "something more" than physicalness.

If “less is more” than non-existence must be their ideal.

 

[Les Sleeth]

If “less is more” than non-existence must be their ideal.

? Not sure what you mean, but permanent conscious existence is the goal, not non-existence.

 

[Hurkyl]

The alternative to relying on reason is unimaginable.

You seem to have a good handle on one alternative -- relying on one-line comebacks.

You seem to have missed my point though. While there are alternatives to relying on reason, I did not feel the need to go in that direction -- the notion that any proposition can be self-evident is simple enough to argue against.

do you happen to know whether mathematical axioms share these characteristics

An axiom is nothing more (or less) than an assertion we've decided to call an axiom.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

You seem to have a good handle on one alternative -- relying on one-line comebacks.
You seem to have missed my point though. While there are alternatives to relying on reason, I did not feel the need to go in that direction -- the notion that any proposition can be self-evident is simple enough to argue against.
An axiom is nothing more (or less) than an assertion we've decided to call an axiom.

Very funny, thanks for the info. I gracefully bow out of this discussion since it involves the m word, no disrespect intended. Your all beyond my comprehension and I've got my mind spread out all over this forum right now anyway. No way I could do you justice.

 

[DM]

Fortunately, there were a great many people who attempted to keep that experience alive, rather than turn it into a religion, so you don't have to rely just on the meager reports of Jesus' actual words to study the experience.

You blatantly ignored my insight into this matter. Read it again Mister.

I can see you know nothing about this subject, so you might do a little research into Christian mysticism before you go further with your arguments.

I shall ignore this for now.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Fortunately, there were a great many people who attempted to keep that experience alive, rather than turn it into a religion, so you don't have to rely just on the meager reports of Jesus' actual words to study the experience.

You blatantly ignored my insight into this matter. Read it again Mister.

Okay. You said, "History does in many respects teach us about experiences. Studying the history of Jews for instance, not only gives you a cocktail of facts and opinions, but also gives you a sense of experience. The history of Anti-Semitism in the hands of Nazis engulfs you completely."

I don't deny that the common experiences of humanity are well documented, Jews among them, or that one can't vicariously get a sense of those experiences.

However, I am not talking about an ordinary experience, I am talking about a very specific experience widely practiced, but by a relative few, of which the world knows almost nothing about. The fact that you seem to think the experience of anti-semitism equates to the experience I am talking about once again shows me you really know nothing about it. So I didn't "blatantly ignore" your insight, I didn't and still don't see how it is relevant to the experience I am talking about.

But more than that, in your next comment seem to question my recommendation to study the experience of Jesus (i.e., versus his behavior or what scholars propose was his theology).

First I said:

Not one single solitary scholar I can find (save possibly Elaine Pagels and Jacob Needleman) has thought to examine the conscious experience of Jesus. Too bad.

To that you answered:

And what was the conscious of Jesus? Don't you think that by attempting to judge, introspect and examine one's thought about Jesus's cousciousness creates subjective ideas that may be completely false? Whilst this may be totally acceptable in the minds of atheists, it is somewhat different in the eyes of Christians.

How am I supposed to interpret that except that you don't believe one should try to study the experience of Jesus? You are sending me mixed messages.

Look, I didn't say one should actually assume after studying that one has got Jesus' experience all figured out (BTW, I study the experience of the Buddha, Mohammed, Nanak, Joshu, and many more as well . . . I am fascinated by it). All I advocated was studying it. I myself have been in scholarly pursuit of that subject for over 30 years. I think I understand a few things about it, but that's it.

 

[DM]

All I advocated was studying it. I myself have been in scholarly pursuit of that subject for over 30 years. I think I understand a few things about it, but that's it.

And the early response I posed challanges you to answer it, not to confuse or give you "mixed messages". I want you to tell me why should one study the experience of Jesus? What effect would it have on you and other people? Could the deductions made influence theism? If so how and why? Is it right to distribute subjective ideas concerning the experience of Jesus and endeavour to influence people to believe in evolution? or creationism?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I want you to tell me why should one study the experience of Jesus? What effect would it have on you and other people?

Just for a moment assume that before all else a human being is consciousness. Each of us walk around this planet having experiences, experiences that wouldn't be possible unless we were consciousness. You see people experiencing joy, you see people experiencing anger, you see people experiencing insight, you see people experiencing despair, and so on. All experiences are potentials of consciousness.

Now, I prefer to see Jesus as a human being who was manifesting a potential of consciousness. Me, as a student of consciousnes potential, I want to know what was going on inside him. What sort of experience had he learned, developed, had bestowed on him . . .

If you study the history of inward-oriented humans, you can find others who seem to have had the kind of conscious experience Jesus was having. But the issue gets all confused, particularly with Jesus, because most people are NOT looking at his conscious experience. Usually they talk about miracles, being the son of God, rising from the dead, redeeming mankind, fulfilling OT prophecies, and so on. All that stuff may or may not be true, but it really makes no difference to the study of Jesus' consciousness.

So my point is that one can look at Jesus in a way that avoids all the theological balony (sorry, but I don't like theology). For example, had Jesus learned a new consciousness potential, one that is reflected by his statement "I and my Father are One"? Is it possible to join with some sort of greater consciousness that may exist behind apparent reality?

One thing I know is that there is a history of Christians, monastics mostly, who practiced turning their attention inward. These are known as the Christian "mystics." Study them and you will see the conscious experience they report seems resemble things Jesus described.

Further, it isn't just Christians who report this "merging" experience, but inward-oriented people in many cultures have reported it. So as someone interested in this experience, I have tried to track its history and understand what was going on.

In regard to what effect such study might have on people, to me it is always good to understand, to be curious, to question. I think too many people just accept the interpretations of religious authorities without ever studying the history behind beliefs. To me that is ignorance, so anything which might help to relieve ignorance is a good thing.

Could the deductions made influence theism? If so how and why? Is it right to distribute subjective ideas concerning the experience of Jesus and endeavour to influence people to believe in evolution? or creationism?

I have little to say about all those questions. I don't believe in believing things unless I or someone else has experienced them, so I have little interest in rationalistic or speculative theology. I don't see any "right" or "wrong" when it comes to talking about Jesus. Let the truth be known whatever it is. I don't endeavor to influence people to believe in anything except what is supported by evidence and that includes evolution and creationism. To tell you the truth, I find myself most often challenging why people believe things. I don't see why anyone would wholeheartedly believe Darwinist evolution since key evidence is missing; and I don't see why anyone would wholeheartedly believe creationism since both evidence is missing and much of it doesn't make sense.

 

[jim mcnamara]

...And either way, those who are not willing to spend the time and effort to study things properly are left to believing the experts.

The most interesting aspect of that is picking an expert.

How about this goofy idea:
The act of choosing an expert ultimately defeats any logic in relying on the expert. After all, if one knows little about the field how do you defend your choice of expertise to skeptics?

Well, what criteria do people use to pick an expert when they know nothing about the subject?

A choice based on knowledge of the subject has problems because "he ain't got none".

Is the choice based on:
personal opinion about what makes an expert,
the opinion of others,
how the person presents him/herself?

(IMO the selection is most often made on what the chooser believes, a priori, about the subject at hand. Plus, how the expert's pontifications match the chooser's already defined point of view on the subject. )

Rigrously validating the selection process must entail being able to substantiate the choice of expert. Somehow. Which if you want to use a logical approach, means the chooser would have to know a lot about the subject to start with. Ooops, contradiction.

Not that any of this ever stopped somebody from citing an essentially unidentifiable 'expert' source. For example, some 300 word piece written about Geology on www.cnn.com and written by a journalism major. Who got a 'D' in Geology for Poets 101 at the Fine Arts College. I dunno.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Hurkyl is a Mathematician - Goodies like the axiom of choice and Peano postulates and company create interesting but specialized world views for folks in that discipline - IMO.

My definition: an axiom a starting assumption. Kind of self-referential this. An axiom on axioms :) Does that imply that anyone gets to make an axiom about what is an axiom... ugh.

And further, I seem to remember Alonzo Church discussing the idea that some axioms have to be posited before any new system can be discussed logically. That was back in the days before Godel broke everybody's bubble.

I don't have any idea what a 'critical mass' for axioms is, in order to define some kind of system which is amenable to logical disourse. Anybody know?

Even better: is there one primary axiom without which no logical system can ever be constructed?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I don't have any idea what a 'critical mass' for axioms is, in order to define some kind of system which is amenable to logical disourse. Anybody know?

I don't know, but I have my own test for axioms, and that is if they "work." If you are familiar with philosophical pragmatism, then you might appreciate where I'm coming from. To the extent that an axiom can be relied to help describe the way reality works, or is useful to some internal system, I would call it true or effective. Critical mass to me is any point beyond which an axiom fails to hold true.

 

[Rade]

...is there one primary axiom without which no logical system can ever be constructed?

Sure, "Existence exist". Try to construct a comprehensive and "logical" philosophy from the axiom "Existence does not exist".

 

[Loren Booda]

...or does that just demonstrate a limit of philosophy itself?

 

[DM]

I don't see why anyone would wholeheartedly believe Darwinist evolution since key evidence is missing; and I don't see why anyone would wholeheartedly believe creationism since both evidence is missing and much of it doesn't make sense.

Would you study the experience of Jesus if Christianity had not been created?

Hence why are you so interested in studying the experience of Jesus if it doesn't address his theological practises? Doesn't studying his life and experiences outside theology eradicate the whole figure?

In my view it does. Studying Jesus as a normal person and not as the son of God is equal to studying a character that does not exist. The only reason you know Jesus's name is because it's mentioned in the bible, is it not?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Would you study the experience of Jesus if Christianity had not been created?

Surely you jest. If only Christianity hadn't been created! At least I might have a chance of studying Jesus without all the nonsense theologians have piled onto everything.

Hence why are you so interested in studying the experience of Jesus if it doesn't address his theological practises? Doesn't studying his life and experiences outside theology eradicate the whole figure?

Have you had a chance to look at Christian mysticism, as I suggested? Evelyn Underhill's classic is still relevant, and Jacob Needleman's more recent "Lost Christianity" offers insight.

I don't think Christianity represents Jesus much, most of it is Paul.

Studying Jesus as a normal person and not as the son of God is equal to studying a character that does not exist. The only reason you know Jesus's name is because it's mentioned in the bible, is it not?

The "bible" is a collection of individual writings and they might have been preserved whether or not anyone ever collected them into the bible. No one writing was an actual withness. It's too bad the book of Thomas wasn't included, I suspect he really was a witness.

But I don't buy any of the son of god stuff, rising from the dead, miracles, messiah, etc. I see it as Christian propaganda, most of invented to impress competing Jewish and/or pagan supernatural claims amd win converts. While I think Jesus was fully human, I think his conscious experience is something the world has seen very little of, and is what attracted people to him while he was alive.

I am not saying that Jesus wasn't commissioned by God, I am not saying he didn't show a chosen few a way to escape death. But popular Christianity has very little of that teaching left in it. To find that you have to study the Christian mystics.

In any case, my interest is the conscious experience Jesus had. I have explained why in earlier posts.

 

[DM]

The "bible" is a collection of individual writings and they might have been preserved whether or not anyone ever collected them into the bible. No one writing was an actual withness. It's too bad the book of Thomas wasn't included, I suspect he really was a witness.

You're somewhat alluding and giving me very ambiguous responses. Not that I want to criticize you in any way or form but so far you have failed to answer the very basic questions. Where did you hear or read about Jesus? Do you believe the discovery of Jesus was stolen and fabricated by a religious movement that we know today to be Christianity?

But popular Christianity has very little of that teaching left in it. To find that you have to study the Christian mystics.

Let's start with its meaning:

"Mysticism, according to its historical and psychological definitions, is the direct intuition or experience of God; and a mystic is a person who has, to a greater or less degree, such a direct experience -- one whose religion and life are centered, not merely on an accepted belief or practice, but on that which the person regards as first hand personal knowledge."

Evelyn Underhill
Mystics of the Church

The mystic in this case is Jesus as opposed to you or me. What I'm therefore able to deduce from your answers is that in your view, Jesus practised mysticism and was not killed, resurrected and titled the son of God.

I think his conscious experience is something the world has seen very little of, and is what attracted people to him while he was alive.

For the sake of unwanted equivocation, can you describe to me how you interpret a "conscious experience". Experience with whom? God?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Where did you hear or read about Jesus? Do you believe the discovery of Jesus was stolen and fabricated by a religious movement that we know today to be Christianity?

I've studied every bit of writing I could, including gnostic texts. But I agree that the Bible, especially Q and Mark, probably represent the best preservation of what Jesus said and did.

I think Jesus was a genuine historical figure (besides Christian writings there are other non-Christian references to him, Josephus for example).

However, I don't think what is taught as representing Jesus today necesssarily has anything to do with what Jesus was really all about.

"Mysticism, according to its historical and psychological definitions, is the direct intuition or experience of God; and a mystic is a person who has, to a greater or less degree, such a direct experience -- one whose religion and life are centered, not merely on an accepted belief or practice, but on that which the person regards as first hand personal knowledge."
Evelyn Underhill
Mystics of the Church

Underhill is most valuable for the collection of inner practitioners you can find in her book, but her interpretation of mysticism is skewed toward her own beliefs somewhat. To call what one experiences in the mystical experience "God" is a leap. It certainly is within the Christian tradition to call it God, so Underhill is just reflecting that (plus she was a Christian). To understand the mystics like John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, or Teresa of Avila, you have to study a particular type of "prayer" they practiced which they called "union."

In that practice, when one is successful one merges with something that seems greater than oneself. In that experience is where people start talking about the greater thing being God. But the experience itself doesn't really talk to people and say "you are experiencing Me, God." It's just a sense that you've joined something conscious and vast.

So a conservative approach (which the Buddha, for instance, preferred) would be to just say one joins with "something" and not attempt to say what it is.

The mystic in this case is Jesus as opposed to you or me. What I'm therefore able to deduce from your answers is that in your view, Jesus practised mysticism and was not killed, resurrected and titled the son of God.

I say Jesus taught union because if you study what went on after his death, there were a great many hermits living in caves in the deserts around Palestine, Egypt, and Asia Minor who were practicing union (check out a book called "The Desert Fathers" by Woodell) who claimed to be followers of Jesus. Since union was never heard of before Jesus, and since so many were practicing as Christians, it seems logical to propose that Jesus was the source of the teaching. This practice was preserved in monastic settings for 1600 years.

I believe Jesus was killed. But I don't think he rose from the dead. People believed all that supernatural stuff back then, and if someone was really from God, then that was expected. My opinion is that Christians exaggerated incidents to pump up the image of Jesus to the superstitious populations. There is no evidence that the universe can work in anyway except naturally.

If Jesus was manifesting and teaching the "mystical" experience, he might have been doing so at the request of some greater consciousness he'd become "one" with. According to reports, he does seem to indicate this. In history there does seem to be certain individuals who were very powerfully within the experience, and who claimed ordination. Of course, whether it's true or not no one knows. But it is the nature of the experience of "union" that fascinates me, and which I have studied all these years.

For the sake of unwanted equivocation, can you describe to me how you interpret a "conscious experience". Experience with whom? God?

Ahhhhh, well interpretation is very, very tricky. Ordinary conscious experience I define as to be aware, to know one is aware, and then to "retain" that knowing so one becomes more "experienced." So, for example, a nose is "aware" in that it can sense information, but if there wasn't something more, something which knows that nose is detecting information then experience wouldn't happen; and if one couldn't retain that experience, then one would not develop as an individual, but rather would be a perpetually blank slate that experiences but doesn't develop.

When it comes to interpreting the mystical experience, that is a tough one. I think for someone as deeply into it as Jesus (100%?) it might be possible to really know what you've become a part of. But for most inner practitioners, they themselves report that the experience is usually brief; it takes many years of dedicated practice to "retain" a bit of the experience. It is hard to be sure what one has joined with when it happens briefly like that, so people who call it God I suspect are just adopting a traditional interpretation.

The Buddha preferred to call it a "plane where there is neither extension nor motion. . . there is no coming or going or remaining or deceasing or uprising. . . . an unborn, not become, not made, uncompounded . . ." Similar to how Jesus taught it was possible to escape death (or ceasing to exist) the Buddha said, "because [that plane exists] . . . an escape can be shown for what is born, has become, is made, is compounded." [i.e., the born, made compounded human]

 

[DM]

Very unequivocal indeed. I'm starting to get the sense of mysticism and gradually processing a credible interpretation of a 'conscious experience'. Interesting views I must say.