I just can't keep up with your pearls of wisdom, Andy! Here's one from a little earlier that I missed ...

'By definition, you can’t keep the Truth under wraps for long.'
But by definition of what - 'truth'? Ah yes, here it is in the Oxford Bonkers Dictionary: 'Truth (n): that which cannot be kept under wraps for long'. Hahahahahahaha! Oh this is too much; I need a lie down!

Laugh? I had to wring my socks out! This is tremendous!

Too right dude. If we couldn't laugh in this world, then where would we be?

Why do I want to run up to you my Furry friend and give you a big hug? (No, I'm not gay.) It's just a happy reality we live in.

But by definition of what - 'truth'? Ah yes, here it is in the Oxford Bonkers Dictionary: 'Truth (n): that which cannot be kept under wraps for long'. Hahahahahahaha! Oh this is too much; I need a lie down

I'll get back to you later dude. I'm on my dinner time at the moment, which has just run out.

Andy

Ah, so when you use such words as 'proof' and 'truth' and 'science' and 'vibration' and 'frequency' and 'consciousness' etc. etc. etc. they are sufficienty flexible to mean (1) anything you want them to, and (2) nothing that requires you to address potentially awkward questions. I don't doubt your sincerity Andy, but the corruption of the language to this extent to obfuscate meaning is a mechanism that has been well employed by supposedly spiritual con-merchants and charlatans throughout this planet's history. Try as you might to dress up your religious beliefs in the language of science and rationalism, this is a dishonest practice. They are matters of faith, pure and simple, and you should be content to describe them in such terms. I would have no beef with you under such circumstances. That you cannot do this, but resort to scientific-sounding mumbo-jumbo suggests only that you find your undisguised faith alone to be somehow lacking.

'Why do I want to run up to you my Furry friend and give you a big hug? (No, I'm not gay.)'
Wouldn't mind if you were. I have to tip my hat to you, Andy ... you're taking this battering with no small aplomb. We each still think we're right, of course, and neither of us is going to give an inch, which is as it should be ... but I can't help but be impressed.

All right, here's a bit of my favourite 'mumbo jumbo' for you. It goes without saying that I think of it in purely Humanist terms, but if you choose to interpret it differently, that's strictly your business ...

'May the long-time sun shine on you
All love surround you
And the pure light within you
Guide you all the way home'
(The Incredible String Band)

See? I even have the occasional fuzzy moment myself ...

This is entirely incorrect. The speed of light, for example, is 186,000 miles per second no matter what you might "draw from your mind." The notion that light travels at 186,000 miles per second is 100% subjective. If an alien race from a different world had chosen to label another unit of time a “second”, then it would indeed be scientific fact that light travels at 10 miles per second. When scientists substitute the word “describe" with "explain”, it can mislead us.

It is NOT subjective! The speed of light is exactly the speed of light. Your alien analogy is flawed. While they may describe it as x ft per sec. and their second is different from ours, that does NOT change the way WE perceive the speed of light. Nor would our measurement change the way the alien perceives it.

They are matters of faith, pure and simple, and you should be content to describe them in such terms. I would have no beef with you under such circumstances

Furry, when we’re talking about ultimate issues of existence, (and my main concern throughout this discussion has been with the bigger picture and the nature of 'who we really are'), faith is inherent to the human condition. From an intellectual point of view, the only way anyone could possess a faith-free understanding is to have an infallible knowledge of everything.

“Faith” is only necessary from an intellectual point of view. I’ve already mentioned principles such as “intuition”, and “inner-wisdom”. As long as we're ‘coming from’ the level of our head alone, as opposed to our head and heart combined, spiritual matters and so-called “wisdom” will sound like hocus pocus, or like plays on words. But there is logic there, if you seek it. (“Wisdom”, to me, is soul-logic.)

I’m fully aware that most of my points will cut zero mustard for a scientifically minded person such as yourself Furry boy. Yet I don’t expect it to cut any mustard. I’m simply describing my points of view, just as you are.

I think it's great that Jesus taught that the Truth can be understood by nothing more than a “child-like faith”. This means that regardless of our intellectual capacity, we can comprehend ultimate truth with childlike simplicity and humble trust in God. But how can this principle mean anything to a hardened scientist? It can’t, as long as they remain in that frame of mind. In my opinion, such people simply aren’t ready for spiritual truths and higher esoteric wisdom. (Apologies for the pomposity, but sometimes I have to accept I sound like a complete tosser.)

The notion that light travels at 186,000 miles per second is 100% subjective. If an alien race from a different world had chosen to label another unit of time a “second”, then it would indeed be scientific fact that light travels at 10 miles per second. When scientists substitute the word “describe" with "explain”, it can mislead us. It is NOT subjective! The speed of light is exactly the speed of light. Your alien analogy is flawed. While they may describe it as x ft per sec. and their second is different from ours, that does NOT change the way WE perceive the speed of light. Nor would our measurement change the way the alien perceives it.

Drmiler, you seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. I was implying that all words and descriptive concepts are subjective. I know that the speed of light is exactly the speed of light, and I know that the notion that “light travels at 186,000 miles per second” is correctly aligned with ‘what is so’. (At least it is according to our concept of a second.) But I was trying to say that when we apply the same principle to “The Infinite Existence”, our measurements and descriptive words fail. (I described the necessary implications of Infinity in post 48).

In other words, science will not be able to answer life’s deepest questions, such as, “Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?”, or “Is there any purpose to the cosmos or not?” These are eternal philosophical questions, which transcend scientific enquiry.

If we can’t rely on science to answer these frankly significant - and ultimate - questions, then what can we reply on? The point that I’ve been trying to make is that there is something we can rely on. It is called “inner wisdom”, which is effectively like a compass within, which transcends the finite views of the intellect. In the words of Jospeh Benner, “Spiritual growth results in an expansion of consciousness, which opens up a new world, one of which previously the seeker had been wholly unaware, although it had always been present awaiting his recognition.”

I even have the occasional fuzzy moment mysef

Furry, “fuzzy” is a good word, especially when talking about ultimate issues of existence. Take quantum physics, for example. To show why both the scientifically minded and the religionists must necessarily get ‘wishy washy’, (at least in terms of the intellect), consider the following two quotes, and see how similar they are:

The first is from Zen Buddhist D.T. Suzuki:
“The contradiction so puzzling to the ordinary way of thinking comes from the fact that we have to use language to communicate our inner experience which in its very nature transcends linguistics.”

Now consider the words of Werner Heisenberg, who is describing the nature of quantum particles:
“The problems of language are really serious. We wish to speak in some way about the structure of the atoms … But we cannot speak about atoms in ordinary language.”

Interesting stuff, don't you think? Sometimes we can't escape getting "fuzzy".

I have to tip my hat to you, Andy ... you're taking this battering with no small aplomb

I can’t see a battering anywhere. I can only see a delicious conversation with a Furry dude who seems to have a zest for the topic, just like me.

Interesting stuff, don't you think?

Obviously not.

Furry, I just wanted to say thanks for the chat. I’ve enjoyed it, and have got a lot out of it. I hope you have too in some way or another. I wanted to clear one last thing up, in case you scowled at it when you read it:

faith is inherent to the human condition

A lot of scientists would disagree with this statement. We don’t need faith to believe in gravity, for example. And we don’t need faith to believe that light travels at 186,000 miles per second. But faith is inherent to the human condition when we’re talking about ultimate issues of life, (“is there transcendent purpose to life and the cosmos?” etc.)

Even though our intellect must ‘drop its anchor in faith’ regarding conclusions about such issues, we can dig deeper than mortal consciousness alone. We can discern whether our ladder is against the right wall by getting in touch with inner-wisdom and intuition. So the question is, are we willing to look beyond the surface only, especially regarding this business about 'who we really are'? Once our ladder is against the right wall, we can “know the truth, and the truth shall set us free”, as Jesus said.

We haven't been left down here without a compass.

'Obviously not.'
But yes - it IS interesting! Apologies for the delay, but sometimes work, study, parenthood etc. do have to come first.

I still disagree fundamentally with your use of the word 'logic' to describe a requirement for faith, and with your assertion that faith is somehow necessary from an intellectual point of view. Intellectual perspectives in which there is no God / creator (insert your own preferred term here) can be completely consistent, and there are many notable examples throughout recent history. You may not find it particularly appealing, but that is a very different bone of contention.

Moving on, I agree with drmiler's assertion that the speed of light is not subjective, and believe that you are just indulging in wordplay here. However, I disagree with drmiler's argument ... he says 'that does NOT change the way WE perceive the speed of light. Nor would our measurement change the way the alien perceives it.' So he's talking about how the speed of light is PERCEIVED by an individual human / alien ... which is exactly the kind of subjectivity that he purports to be arguing against!

'In other words, science will not be able to answer life’s deepest questions, such as, “Why is there something, rather than nothing at all?”, or “Is there any purpose to the cosmos or not?” These are eternal philosophical questions, which transcend scientific enquiry.'
Now here - horror of horrors(!) - I think we agree absolutely. Science has its own area of examination, philosophy and religion theirs, and (most of the time at the very least) there is little or no common ground. Whatever people want to have faith in is nobody else's business, in my opinion ... until they start claiming physically measurable outcomes, which is when I feel obliged to demand that they demonstrate the results they claim under scientifically controlled circumstances.

'If we can’t rely on science to answer these frankly significant - and ultimate - questions, then what can we reply on?'
We can't rely on eg. economics or sport or music to answer these questions either, but that's no reason for dismissing them; providing a reason for existence just isn't on their frames of reference, and we would rightly accuse them of 'not knowing their place' if they pretended otherwise. You have answered your own question a little earlier, more or less. Philosophy, religion (perhaps this is closest to your choice here, what you refer to as 'spiritual wisdom'), Humanism, reading tea leaves ... any or all of these, whichever rings your bell. Personally, I think what we can rely on is our own need to ask the questions in the first place, and that's about all. (But hey, that's just my opinion.)

'But faith is inherent to the human condition when we’re talking about ultimate issues of life, (“is there transcendent purpose to life and the cosmos?” etc.)'
I disagree - faith as a quality is not required in order to consider these issues. Faith as a topic of such consideration, absolutely. But you don't have to be a believer to ponder the meaning (or, of course, lack of meaning) of existence. Many of the philosophers I alluded to before were / are open and honest about their lack of any belief in an afterlife or a supreme being, but demonstrably capable of plumbing the same depths of intellectual, philosophical and theological debate as any of their religious counterparts.

'We haven't been left down here without a compass.' Hmm. I would suggest that not only are we without a compass, but we haven't been left down here either, as that implies 'someone' doing the leaving. None of which is to say that we shouldn't be thoroughly fascinated by the experience. As the scientist Michael Faraday said in 1849, 'All this is a dream. Still, examine it with a few experiments.'

Right, now back to the work, study, parenthood etc.

Hi Furry,

I don’t have any qualms with anything you said there. I think it’s nice to end up (if this is the end) on a harmonious note. As you said, our views probably won’t have changed from this discussion. But I’d like to think we’ve extracted some good fodder from each other, which is always a healthy thing.

scientific-sounding mumbo-jumbo

I admit I’ve probably gone over the top with use of phrases such as “vibrational” and “frequency”, (my word processor actually puts a red line under "vibrational", so I’m not sure if the word even exists?) But I hope you can understand what I was trying to say. When it comes to describing "love" using scientific jargon, things might necessarily get a bit fuzzy. (I’ll just add that I took the principle of higher frequencies of energy inherent in consciousness from science books. I merged it with my own experiences and perceptions of spirituality and love, and came up with those fuzzy phrases. Maybe I could have just worded it better?)

Anyway, feel free to share any more views of yours Furry, and anyone else too. It's an interesting subject, and a deeply significant one, I think.

I’ll catch you soon,

Andy

Just saw your last paragraph Furry. It might have been an edit, or I missed it,

'All this is a dream. Still, examine it with a few experiments.'

Excellent stuff. I like that, and it's what I believe too. As for the compass thing, I think that's where our views differ. But to find peace with our model of the world is what really counts.

None of which is to say that we shouldn't be thoroughly fascinated by the experience.

Amen to that Furry!

'All this is a dream. Still, examine it with a few experiments.'
You didn't miss it; it was a late addition. It took me ages to find the quote, so I'm particularly glad you thought it was worth it!

'I think it’s nice to end up (if this is the end) on a harmonious note. As you said, our views probably won’t have changed from this discussion. But I’d like to think we’ve extracted some good fodder from each other, which is always a healthy thing.'
Couldn't have put it better myself. Looking forward to bumping into you again around the cyber-traps, Andy.