I have posted this from time to time onvarious forums. Considering some of the current issue of this thread, I thought it would be appropriate to do so now.
-OGM
__________________
"In the great classic, near eastern religions, man's life on earth is conceived as pain and suffering, and an inheritance of man's fall from grace (or Paradise Lost). According to these traditions, after man's expulsion from paradise, because of his disobedience to his "God", man alone could not recover his erstwhile innocence, even by striving to become a superhuman of humility, submission, and kindness, etc., but only by an intercession of a god, or God-man sacrifice, could man ever hope to regain paradise, in another world, a spirit world. This "New Jerusalem" is a concept which it contrary to the universal order of things which man's science has inductively gleaned from the study of nature, and as such, (in these classic near eastern religions) man's concept of morality is a product of his vision of the world and his hope to regain lost innocence.
Man's concept of morality has most recently been connected with what he conceived to be good (moral) and to be bad (immoral). Man's immorality has been equated with "sin" in his a priori understanding: this idea of morality has changed tremendously during his short tenure on earth. But contrarily, what is moral in Nature? And has this natural morality altered through time? "Truth" and "falsehood" are important ingredients in man's consideration of morality, but truth may be defined, in the sense of subjective truth with its definitions and criteria, differing from person to person, institution to institution, place to place, and time to time.
Man is essentially incapable of committing "sin" beyond the magnitude of the individual and collective sins, for the universe is independent of mankind's hopes, fears, aspirations, and indeed, complete understanding, past, present, and future. We may, however, admit a possible transient misdemeanor in that man's efforts have had some deleterious effects on the earth, and even possibly on parts of the solar system, but certainly this can have little or no effect on the galaxy or the universe at large. Further, the earth and sister planets and their satellites are almost insignificant parts of our almost insignificant star system in an almost insignificant galaxy, and in an almost infinitesimal speck in our universe (be it cosmos or chaos matters not).
Man's paradigm of morality is religion based on axiomatic reasoning, not subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God; submission to his God will make all known which man needs in his life, and the rest on a "need to know basis" will be revealed to him in the after world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it is handed down from above: (In this belief system) All things are known to God and all man needs to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual revelation from God to man.
Man's concept, and Nature's concept of reality and harmony differ in the highest order. Man has accused his a priori deities of duplicity, for men have always asked the question, "Why should good men suffer",and very often the misery of good men is far greater than that of those who do not conform to the highest criteria for goodness as defined by man's totemic customs and religions. This question has been asked and answers have been attempted ever since man realized his "selfness" and became an introspective creature.
In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy in the cosmos; its indifference extends from the lowest forms of life to that of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independently of man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from indifferent Nature.
These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite, revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to operate in perpetuity (if time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony, Chaos never returning to Cosmos."
- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002
_____________________________________
And I always interject a bit here for clarification. Religious people often tell me if one doesn't believe in God then one has no purpose in life, or that there can be no meaningful purpose in life. My response is that having a meaningful purpose in life is not dependent on a belief in the supernatural. Albert Einstein once said:
“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time space, and human consciousness. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task (purpose) must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. While no one can achieve this completely, the striving for such achievement is a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.”
So we are a tiny, almost microscopic part of the universe, this universe (I took this image on 09/05/2010):
There are at least 13 galaxies in this image, which represents a portion of our sky that is smaller than a first quarter moon. All of which contain billions of star systems and billions of solar systems. If I can resolver 13 galaxies on a digital sensor in a matter of 12 minutes, imagine how many others are out there that didn't rise above the signal to noise ratio of the sensor.
As Carl Sagan once said, "if it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space". And if it isn't just us, imagine all the other civilizations out there with similar questions about themselves, about life, and the universe. Are they coming to the same axiomatic conclusions we often come to, or have they evolved a different set of reasoning skills altogether? If we are to ever to advance our knowledge of the universe, of which we are a part, and find the answers to these and many other questions, I think we need to evolve a different set of reasoning skills as well. Because "God did it" simply doesn't explain anything.
