I can certainly feel empathy for your view. I feel much the same way. If I had to choose between the biblical fables of God and atheism, then atheism is by far the more attractive choice.

Fortunately, for me, I've found a really beautiful philosophy that gives me choices beyond those two.

truth is another philisophical argument, it is often times the thing that gets repeated and agreed with the most,,,

but anyway,, I have no problem with faith equalling truth or with those who oppose that logic,,,its just that some who oppose it actually believe that none of their beliefs(opposing a belief in the God of the bible) are based upon faith ,,,,,and in doing so they often come across as pretentious , self serving, pedantic, and arrogant( and I can aknowledge that many believers do too,,,)

which is why , when the tone of the conversation seems to be more about ego than information,, I take a break,,,

"Make the lie big. Repeat it often enough. And it becomes the truth."--Stalin(I think)

NO! Truth is not philosophy. The truth is the truth, regardless of how many people believe it.
It was once believed by most people that the Earth was flat. It is not.
It was once believed, by most, that slavery was a good and proper thing. It is not.
ect
ect
ect

And believing in those is different how? Besides, in your opinion, that your mythical beliefs are good while theirs is evil?
Both are unsubstantiated, unprovable, goofy nonsense.

To be honest, I think "theirs" is evil while yours, if I have discerned it correctly, is more benign.

Oh my dear Arcamedees, you are jumping to conclusions here based on assumptions and misconceptions that aren’t even close to reflecting the reality of the situation.

You write: “in your opinion, that your mythical beliefs are good while theirs is evil?”

I have no “mythical beliefs”. This is the error you are making. Although I confess that it may often appear that I do because sometimes I refer to things like a “Moon Goddess”, but I’m not viewing this as a mythology. I fully recognize that it’s a psychic archetype. I’m totally aware of this. Moreover, were have I ever claimed that it’s important for anyone else to use this particular psychic archetype. I’m sure that I never have suggested any such thing because that would be contrary to my understandings and beliefs.

So, I have no ‘mythical beliefs”. That’s just a misconception on your part because you don’t fully understand my spiritual philosophy. And I certainly don’t blame you for that, I’ve never written any books on the topic, nor have I even truly tried to explain it to anyone in any great depth. But fasten your seat belt because I’m about to make an attempt just for you.

This is going to be a short ‘thesis’ of sorts so grab a cup of tea (or whatever drink you prefer) and settle in for a cerebral journey. I’ll break this up with bold headings to make it easier to digest.

The Secular Scientific View

This view stems mostly from the biologists’ and geneticists’ communities. The idea seems rather simple and straight-forward (although I assure you that this is a falsehood already), and the idea is as follows: Human consciousness and awareness (our ability to perceive and experience) is nothing more than an emergent property that arises from the physical complexity of our physical brains, body and nervous system. This is there current stance and “Theory of Mind”, if you will. (not to be confused with the psychologist’s “Theory of Mind” which is a totally different concept altogether.

In other words, they are suggesting (almost demanding) that from a scientific point of view our conscious awareness is nothing more than an emergent property of the complex physical patterns and activities of our physical brains.

That sounds real good on the surface. Almost to the point where it seem foolish to reject it. But that’s hardly the case. An ‘emergent property’ itself is nothing more than a human abstract concept. So is that the explanation of the true nature of our conscious awareness? That it’s merely an abstract concept? That’s a bit circular is it not?

In other words, what is it that is actually doing the perceiving and experiencing? The emergent property itself? That’s a pretty abstract almost “mythical” philosophy right there. And if its not the emergent property itself that is doing the actual perceiving and experiencing then what is the fundamental entity that is having the actual experience of perception? The physical brain itself? What sense does that make? How can a physical brain actually experience anything if all it amounts to is a mass of atoms. Are the atoms themselves experiencing this form?

In other words, this explanation is not rock solid by any stretch of the imagination. It leaves many questions unanswered. Plus it ultimately relies upon a Classical or Newtonian picture of physical reality which has indeed been shown to be false. (more about that below, in the section entitled “My Scientific Spiritual View”)

But first let’s visit the Easter Mystics again

The Fundamental Philosophy of Eastern Mysticism

Please notice that this is not a mythology. This is a philosophical view. Yes, it is also a spiritual view of life, but that just happens to be where this philosophy leads.

Rather than speaking in terms of “pantheism” which is taken to assume a concept of “spirit” prior to the philosophy, let’s think in terms of “animism” where an underlying animating force is simply observed to be apparent in everything.

Let’s go back now and consider the Biologist’s view that consciousness (which the Eastern Mystics see as ‘spirit’) is nothing more than an emergent property of form.

Well, the Eastern Mystics say, “Sure, you can view it that way”, however, they also point out that if this is true of human brains then it’s also true of all forms. Every form in the physical world has some essence of an ‘emergent property’ associated with it. In this sense “consciousness” or “spirit” is present in everything.

No you may argue the semantics of using the term “consciousness” here. But in this context that’s a trivial argument. The bottom line is that consciousness is an emergent property of form, then all forms have some emergent properties and therefore some essence of “consciousness”. It is important to at least consider this on an abstract level especially considering where I’ll be taking this in the next and final section of this thesis.

The Eastern Mystics (philosophers) then conclude that “all is consciousness, and you are it”. Tat t’vam asi.

Please keep in mind that this is not a ‘mythology’ at all. It’s a very well-thought-out philosophical approach to answering the riddle of life. It makes sense. And it certainly makes every bit as much sense as the Biologist’s secular notion that human consciousness is just an emergent property of the brain. Once that’s been recognized then the Eastern Mystic view that all forms must have emergent properties to at least some degree must necessarily follow.

So in a sense the Eastern Mystics have taken what modern Biologists have observed and have simply applied this observation to the entire universe and everything in it.

My Scientific Spiritual View

At first glance the title of this section may appear as an oxymoron to what science is supposed to be. But in truth, it really is a scientific explanation of spirit. At least it’s every bit as valid and competitive with the Biologists observations that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of form.

And here’s the scientific explanation:

The Biologists claim that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of physical form. So the next obvious question is quite straight-forward. What is physical form? Well that’s the study of physics right? So we turn to physics.

What does physics have to say about physical form? Well, in Classical or Newtonian physics, form was believed to be the result of configurations of little tiny hard balls. Balls that basically behave like billiard balls. That’s the foundation of physical form.

Well, that was the picture back in Classical physics. However, in modern physics which includes the observations of the quantum world and Quantum Theory, physicists have lost their balls. We have no observed that at a fundamental level there is no such thing as physical form. All that appears to exist is some sort of truly weird “quantum soup” or “quantum foam” that itself does not even obey the laws of ‘physics’.

Sure, we’ve created a model of potentiality and probability that appears to assign some statistical mathematical descriptions as long we don’t focus in on any single event, but only on large numbers of events. But still, the bottom line is that physical form is not at all what we had first thought. It’s not merely a configuration of hard balls. Instead it’s a very dynamic well of infinite possibility emerging from a soup of apparent chaos.

So what do we have now? Now we have precisely the opposite of what the Biologists see. We have form as an emergent property of something far deeper and mysterious. Mysterious? What’s that? Well, that’s Mysticism! Mysticism is simply a belief and observation that the world is truly a mystery beyond our ability to comprehend.

This is what the Eastern Mystics have concluded. The world is an emergent property of the divine mystery and you are that. Tat t’vam asi.

No mythology required.

And the Eastern mystics take this all one step further. Like the Biologists the Eastern Mystics recognize that consciousness is one of the many things that emerge from this infinite sea of potentiality. Therefore consciousness must be innate to the cosmic sea. And we are but a wave on the ocean of cosmic consciousness.

Summary and Conclusion

The Eastern Mystical view of life is every bit as grounded in philosophical thinking and scientific knowledge and observation as the Biological Secular view is. No need for mythology here. It’s just as well-grounded as secularism.

I have personally taken the Eastern View and recognized that this same view is consistent with various practices and traditions of witchcraft and shamanism. I’ll be the FIRST to grant that this won’t apply to all practices and schools of thought associated with witchcraft and shamanism. I personally have to roll my eyes when I see what some people have turned those ideologies into. And I will grant you that many of them have indeed turned them into hardcore beliefs in particular mythologies. They have lost sight of the value of psychic archetypes and have indeed become idol worshipers, of the mythological legends instead.

I probably should never even mention witchcraft and shamanism or concepts like the Mood Goddess on these boards because I’m certain that no one can possibly have the psychic archetypical understanding of them that I do (save for a few very special Witches).

This is why it’s far better for me to speak in terms of Eastern Mysticism. That’s really the bottom line anyway. That’s where the ideas of witchcraft and shamanism actually came from original anyway. Witchcraft and shamanism is really nothing more than Eastern Mysticism romanticized. And it’s the romantic aspect that attracts me.

I hope the effort I put into this post was worth it and you now have at least some understanding why it is that I don’t believe in, or rely upon any mythical beliefs. I do however use them as tools for the manifestation of psychic archetypal thought-forms. And I find that to be quite valuable and constructive. It has practical value for me that I cannot deny.

I find almost my arguments with religious people the conversation ends with.. "well you just gotta have faith". Arguing logic with people religious people is like discussing algebra with a brick.

I find almost my arguments with religious people the conversation ends with.. "well you just gotta have faith". Arguing logic with people religious people is like discussing algebra with a brick.

it shows the dangers of only understanding parts of scientific principles.
I stand by my original statement. You can call it whatever makes you happy. It's still a fantasy and wishfull thinking. As artfully conceived as your mythos is, it's still not real. Just exactly the same as everybody else's mythos.

MikeTM76

I find almost my arguments with religious people the conversation ends with.. "well you just gotta have faith". Arguing logic with people religious people is like discussing algebra with a brick.

I find almost my arguments with religious people the conversation ends with.. "well you just gotta have faith". Arguing logic with people religious people is like discussing algebra with a brick.

To get this back onto the topic of the OP...

There are millions (or billions) of other planets in our galaxy, there are a huge amount of other galaxies in our universe, our universe could very well be a part of a bigger multi-verse.

So, there are billions upon billions of chances for it to be "just right". So much so that it really isn't a miracle at all.

Tell me I'm wrong.

To get this back onto the topic of the OP...

There are millions (or billions) of other planets in our galaxy, there are a huge amount of other galaxies in our universe, our universe could very well be a part of a bigger multi-verse.

So, there are billions upon billions of chances for it to be "just right". So much so that it really isn't a miracle at all.

hmm, kind of a different spin,, I would think that something having a one in a million or one in billions chance of happening, could actually VERY WELL be considered a miracle,,,

If you think that science supports atheism, then you better think again, because it does no such thing.

I would say that Science does not support anything in theism, whether theist or atheist. Science deals in the real word, Theism deals with belief.

“Real world”?