"Forbidden" science
mike3
Is there some sort of scientific research that a Baha'i would be
prohibited from engaging in? One thing that I think of here is what I
call "hot" areas of research that involve possibly morally
controversial practices. These arise most often in the area of medical
science. Namely, stuff like research with stem cells of the embryonic
type, which requires the destruction of human embryos to obtain the
cells, something that seems like it would be considered wrong from the
Baha'i point of view -- however what about less direct involvement,
e.g. if one uses the results obtained from such studies? Are those
results "tainted"? What about other forms of such controversial
research such as that into cloning? Although I suppose "therapeutic"
cloning to grow organs, for example, may be less "iffy" than, say
"reproductive" cloning. And what about human genetic engineering, for
example to genetically engineer ourselves to remove disease-generating
genes from the gene pool, add more regenerative capacity (so, for
example, to be able to grow a new arm instead of having to have a
prosthetic)? Esp. the "germ line" stuff (see caveats about embryonic
stem cells, for example, as it also involves the experimentation on a
human embryo). Would it be non-permissible for a Baha'i to participate
in attempts to develop such sciences and technologies due to these
tricky bits? If not, then what exactly would be the correct manner of
approach? Are there other sciences on this list of "bad" ones?
Also, I saw this:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.bahai/msg/68c8124d6879e381?hl=en&dmode=source
"This Day is the age of light and the age of gold, spiritually and
physically. The physical realm reflects the spiritual condition of
humanity. Just as this corrupt age is replete with all manner of
illnesses and plagues, the Golden Age will be, first of all, an age of
golden people, people with refined and exalted characters. As
Baha'u'llah
says, it will even be discovered how to make gold from other elements,
so
gold will become plentiful; a Golden Age physically, as well as
spiritually. On page 116 of Gleanings, in a passage that may be more
than
hyperbole, Baha'u'llah speaks of buildings made entirely of gold.
In the realm of science and invention, things are moving more towards
light: Light-based computers and telephones, for example, will
probably
be standard in the beginning of the next century. And I believe that
advancement in the knowledge and use of physical light and the other
parts
of the electromagnic spectrum will advance apace with humanity's
spiritual
illumination. "As above, so below."
All of this is to say that I believe that just as the Baha'i Writings
indicate that the science of medicine is in its infancy, and that the
Baha'i System is in its embryonic stage, likewise the science of light
is
in its infancy. I think that the knowledge of the reality of nature,
particularly as related to the greater use of light and magnetism and
gravitational forces, are in their earliest stages. It may be
centuries
before the value of `Abdu'l-Baha's statements on ether, as applied to
physical reality, are fully appreciated.
It took science how many centuries to understand that the sun doesn't
pass
through the sky, we're turning? And how long for the greatest medical
advancement of all -- the washing of one's hands -- to become standard
practice among physicians?
After we're long gone, science may advance to the knowledge that what
we
view as empty space is indeed filled with a medium, and that as
`Abdu'l-Baha says, light and magnetism are the waves that travel in
that
medium. The key may well be hidden in a passage of Baha'u'llah's
Writings
that is applied by a scientist. But I think that for the present, we
lack
the data to back that up. So let's be patient with one another."
However, regardless (keep in mind that this is also an opinion piece)
of whether the present science is right or wrong, would it be bad to
attempt to work to try and discover that new data, to throw effort
into aiding in the process of propelling those science on beyond its
infancy into the next stage (which need not be the mature stage, just
the next step to it -- so the termination of such sciences' infancies
may come far sooner than "many centuries", esp. considering the
increase in the rate at which scientific progress has been made over
the last couple of centuries. I've also heard of theories of
"technological/scientific singularity". Though I am skeptical of how
far one can take such ideas, it might at the very least mean the end
of the infancy stage, and movement to the next one after that, may be
sooner than "many centuries".), using clues and inspiration from the
religious text? Say one wanted to try and investigate if that "aether"
really exists, if it really is a literally existent thing (which is
not a given. It may not be good to dismiss a literal interpretation
for some things blindly, but it is also not good to go and insist on
it. Testing is required to determine what's really up.). Would that be
bad?
Especially considering some of these technologies may be needed quite
soon. If we have, for example, a way to make limitless gold, then it
could also be a way to make limitless amounts of other elements, such
as uranium, which means easy energy (suggesting that "Free Energy" is
indeed possible.). And we're quickly running out of fossil energy...
"peak oil", for example, may have already been passed (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil for more.) So what about trying
to develop some sort of "exotic" power source to help compensate for
the loss of fossil energy?
mike
Baha'is are enjoined to exercise wisdom alongside morality when it
comes to science. But as far as I know the administration doesn't
interfere with most reasonable scientific exploits. Places you might
get into trouble would be doing cruel experiments on humans, or
animals..etc.
Cloning is a questionable act in my opinion simply because there are
unresolved issues. Ie. you could clone a person, but their lifespan
and health may be limited. I'd like to think that for most Baha'is
this is a common sense matter.
In regards to stem cells, most people don't appreciate that stem
cells can be harvested from wisdom teeth and various other areas of an
adult body that don't require a fetus. Science is at a point where we
can turn certain cells into stem cells. My feeling here is that so
long as we are educated about where the stem cells come from I don't
see harm in this.
The key here is to know that our acts don't directly or indirectly
support cruelty, mistreatment, oppression or murder.
We should also gauge how mature our society is. For example, if I
were to discover how to turn a black person white, I may not choose to
divulge this information simply because I know my society isn't
capable of handling this knowledge. I can state that I've changed
paths in my own career and even dumped research for similar reasons.
In the end, I still make my contributions and am well to do, but I
avoid releasing information that I feel my society can't handle. It's
just not worth it to me to save a few lives at the expense of
oppressing entire groups.
The powers that be simply don't inspire my trust. I cringe when I
think about corporations like Nokia who sell spyware technology to the
iranian government. The very technology this government now uses to
hunt and kill street protesters with cell phones. As a Baha'i, I would
want nothing to do with aiding or assisting such a corporation.
Please appreciate that _all_ of this is my opinion as one Baha'i.
I'm certain that others will have a different spin, but I do know that
irregardless of religion, in certain circles, many people think like
me. Society will need to mature for many of our current advances to be
realized.
Suzanne
Hi Mike,
I very much agree with what you have said here. This is why true
religion and science need to go hand in hand. The one gives you the
moral compass and the other makes discoveries and advances of human
knowledge and civilization. However, without a moral compass, science
can go astray.
Suzanne
mike3
> Baha'is are enjoined to exercise wisdom alongside morality when it
> comes to science. But as far as I know the administration doesn't
> interfere with most reasonable scientific exploits. Places you might
> get into trouble would be doing cruel experiments on humans, or
> animals..etc.
>
> Cloning is a questionable act in my opinion simply because there are
> unresolved issues. Ie. you could clone a person, but their lifespan
> and health may be limited. I'd like to think that for most Baha'is
> this is a common sense matter.
>
> In regards to stem cells, most people don't appreciate that stem
> cells can be harvested from wisdom teeth and various other areas of an
> adult body that don't require a fetus. Science is at a point where we
> can turn certain cells into stem cells. My feeling here is that so
> long as we are educated about where the stem cells come from I don't
> see harm in this.
However I've also heard things that suggest embryonic cells are still
needed as part of conducting the research, as the methods to generate
stem cells from other cells was obtained by researching embryonic and
so more embryonic research is required. Of course I don't know how
much of that is absolutely true (i.e. are they truly NEEDED to
continue
the rest of the research, or is it just an "easy" route?) and how much
is
laziness and/or dogmatism (neither of which are permissible in
science,
especially the latter.).
> The key here is to know that our acts don't directly or indirectly
> support cruelty, mistreatment, oppression or murder.
>
> We should also gauge how mature our society is. For example, if I
> were to discover how to turn a black person white, I may not choose to
> divulge this information simply because I know my society isn't
> capable of handling this knowledge. I can state that I've changed
> paths in my own career and even dumped research for similar reasons.
What sort of avenue of research did you encounter and dump that
would have fit that bill? Was it something that "turned black people
white"?
> In the end, I still make my contributions and am well to do, but I
> avoid releasing information that I feel my society can't handle. It's
> just not worth it to me to save a few lives at the expense of
> oppressing entire groups.
>
However I'm not sure how "turning black people white" would save
a lot of lives (and the oppression you mention would likely take far
more lives.). It would be better to just eliminate the underlying
discrimination problem. Which of course would render such "technology"
unnecessary. Thus in the society that was mature enough to handle
it, it would not be useful. Instead, if the goal was to eliminate the
pain
of black people being discriminated, then one should throw the
might into increasing the maturity of the society instead of bothering
with trying to develop these ridiculous technologies. This
hypothetical
example seems to be of trying to create a technological solution to a
social, moral, and spiritual problem (racism). However I would not
agree
with such a solution either (I'm not a rabid technophile who thinks
technology can solve EVERYthing, even those sort of problems. Of
course I'm not a rapid techno_phobe_ either who says we should all
give up technology and go back to the stone age.) This is not though
what I had in mind when I was talking about "forbidden" sciences. I
was talking about technological solutions to problems for which
technological solutions are appropriate, yet where the solutions
present interesting moral conundrums, e.g. with the stem cells to
cure disease, where you get that moral bit in there about the embryos.
> The powers that be simply don't inspire my trust. I cringe when I
> think about corporations like Nokia who sell spyware technology to the
> iranian government. The very technology this government now uses to
> hunt and kill street protesters with cell phones. As a Baha'i, I would
> want nothing to do with aiding or assisting such a corporation.
>
Would you try to pursue some sort of action against the company
however
for doing such things?
> Please appreciate that _all_ of this is my opinion as one Baha'i.
> I'm certain that others will have a different spin, but I do know that
> irregardless of religion, in certain circles, many people think like
> me. Society will need to mature for many of our current advances to be
> realized.
What do you mean, "to be realized"? If they're "current" then aren't
they
already "realized"? Furthermore, will it require hundreds or thousands
of
years just to get mature enough for those current advances? I do not
think
we could afford that. What appears to be happening, then, is that the
technological
advance is outstripping the pace of our social advance. It would seem
that
at some point, it will be stretched too far, and as they say,
something will
have to give.
mike
>However I've also heard things that suggest embryonic cells are still
>needed as part of conducting the research, as the methods to generate
It really depends. But for the most part, you can accomplish most
anything without the use of embryonic stem cells, there are
alternatives. My point is that politics has mis-represented the stem
cell debate. Most stem cell research will involve immortalized lines
which do not involve any regular use of embryos. Because of this
tragic misunderstanding research was exported to other countries
during the bush years and the US shamefully now lags far behind in
this area thanks largely to politics.
>I'm not a rabid technophile who thinks technology can solve EVERYthing, even those sort of >problems.
You might find this quote interesting:
O SON OF MAN!
Wert thou to speed through the immensity of space and traverse the
expanse of heaven, yet thou wouldst find no rest save in submission to
Our command and humbleness before Our Face.
(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)
>Would you try to pursue some sort of action against the company
>however for doing such things?
You wont catch me buying their products. But I feel certain that they
have already alienated people who will be much more vindictive than I
could ever want to imagine.
>What do you mean, "to be realized"? If they're "current" then aren't
I mean exactly that. Our society will need to mature to fully reap
the benefits of our _existing_ technology.
Douglas McAdam
On Jul 14, 2009, at 10:57 AM, mike wrote:
> I mean exactly that. Our society will need to mature to fully reap
> the benefits of our _existing_ technology.
I don't have enough scientific savvy to address the morality or
immorality of stem cell research but I do feel from my studies of the
Baha'i Teachings and my experience in society as a mature adult who
has worked in multi-industries, and Community Action Programs that I
can with confirmation say that we are seeing the negative effects of
the lack of spiritual development effecting the development and uses
of technology. We also see how our social, religious and civic
systems are in rapid decline. When we see the major of people finally
recognizing their true purpose in life and adhering to the new
Covenant of Baha'u'llah I'm sure we will see a new technology and its
uses that will stagger our imagination much similar to how we would
feel if we were cavemen suddenly transported into the new age.
regards,
doug
mike
> I can with confirmation say that we are seeing the negative effects of
> the lack of spiritual development effecting the development and uses
>of technology. We also see how our social, religious and civic
>systems are in rapid decline. When we see the major of people finally
>recognizing their true purpose in life and adhering to the new
Here's a wiki quote to mull over.
"Grigori Yakovlevich Perelman (Russian: ГригоÑ
�ий Яковлевич Ð
�ерельман),
born 13 June 1966 in Leningrad, USSR (now St. Petersburg, Russia),
sometimes known as Grisha Perelman, is a Russian mathematician who has
made landmark contributions to Riemannian geometry and geometric
topology. In particular, he proved Thurston's geometrization
conjecture. This solves in the affirmative the famous Poincaré
conjecture, posed in 1904 and regarded as one of the most important
and difficult open problems in mathematics until it was solved.<snip>
As of the spring of 2003, Perelman no longer works at the Steklov
Institute.[4] His friends are said to have stated that he currently
finds mathematics a painful topic to discuss; some even say that he
has abandoned mathematics entirely.[14] According to a 2006 interview,
Perelman is currently jobless, living with his mother in Saint
Petersburg.[4]
Although Perelman says in a The New Yorker article that he is
disappointed with the ethical standards of the field of mathematics,
the article implies that Perelman refers particularly to Yau's efforts
to downplay his role in the proof and play up the work of Cao and Zhu.
Perelman has said that "I can't say I'm outraged. Other people do
worse. Of course, there are many mathematicians who are more or less
honest. But almost all of them are conformists. They are more or less
honest, but they tolerate those who are not honest."[3] He has also
said that "It is not people who break ethical standards who are
regarded as aliens. It is people like me who are isolated."[3]"
I know he is not alone in his opinions and likewise know that there
are other fields with people just like him. Frankly, I'm surprised he
posted his answer. The same politics and lack of morality that's
invaded our government has invaded the universities. Major professors
are in large part political appointees who prey on young talent for
their own advancement, treating them little better that intellectual
slaves. He posted his answer to the net because it was the only way he
could insure his own recognition. He posted it in a way that it took
his colleagues 4 years to fill in what he already knew. This guy is
the equivalent of einstein to physics. In the face of this
overwhelming political atmosphere could we really believe we are
reaping the true benefits of our current knowledge?
No doubt, rome is in decline and its' golden age is over. I'd agree
with Doug that there is but one thing that could re-vitalize it. And
ironically the very people who stand to benefit the most from this
unwittingly oppose it.
mike3
> >However I've also heard things that suggest embryonic cells are still
> >needed as part of conducting the research, as the methods to generate
>
> It really depends. But for the most part, you can accomplish most
> anything without the use of embryonic stem cells, there are
> alternatives. My point is that politics has mis-represented the stem
> cell debate. Most stem cell research will involve immortalized lines
> which do not involve any regular use of embryos. Because of this
> tragic misunderstanding research was exported to other countries
> during the bush years and the US shamefully now lags far behind in
> this area thanks largely to politics.
>
Why does it matter whether it is the US or not that does it?
Although the rub is that by stigmatizing it so much, then that may
stop it
up, and prevent the useful good things it can give from happening.
> >I'm not a rabid technophile who thinks technology can solve EVERYthing,
even those sort of >problems.
>
> You might find this quote interesting:
>
> O SON OF MAN!
> Wert thou to speed through the immensity of space and traverse the
> expanse of heaven, yet thou wouldst find no rest save in submission to
> Our command and humbleness before Our Face.
>
> (Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)
>
> >Would you try to pursue some sort of action against the company
> >however for doing such things?
>
> You wont catch me buying their products. But I feel certain that they
> have already alienated people who will be much more vindictive than I
> could ever want to imagine.
>
Why would you not want to imagine it, though?
> >What do you mean, "to be realized"? If they're "current" then aren't
>
> I mean exactly that. Our society will need to mature to fully reap
> the benefits of our _existing_ technology.
Oh, to realize the _benefits_, not the technologies _themselves_.
Then it seems it must happen "soon", it cannot wait many centuries
and aeons... as I've mentioned, we seem to be lagging on the spiritual
front of progress despite the increase in the material one, and this
and lagging can't continue, and something will have to give, and we'll
HAVE to progress spiritually, a lot more than we have been doing over
the past decades/centuries. We'll hit some sort of crisis so major
that
there just won't be any other way out. Will it be fun? Perhaps not,
but
I think it will happen and it must. And we have only ourselves to
blame
for choosing a no-fun, hard and painful route.
mike3
> > I can with confirmation say that we are seeing the negative effects of
> > the lack of spiritual development effecting the development and uses
> >of technology. We also see how our social, religious and civic
> >systems are in rapid decline. When we see the major of people fina
lly
> >recognizing their true purpose in life and adhering to the new
>
> Here's a wiki quote to mull over.
>
> "Grigori Yakovlevich Perelman (Russian: Григо
So does this mean I, for example, should never bother with science at
all,
then?
> No doubt, rome is in decline and its' golden age is over. I'd agree
> with Doug that there is but one thing that could re-vitalize it. And
> ironically the very people who stand to benefit the most from this
> unwittingly oppose it.
You mean because they "toss out religion" like crazy?
Douglas McAdam
Hi Mike3-
I would say it is a mistake to think that what science says today is
absolute truth. Our power of faith and reason must be in harmony for
it is those powers that produce our sciences and religions. And from
my understanding both must be directed towards the fulfillment of
God's Purpose for mankind in order to be efficient. That does not
mean science or our powers of faith and intellect cannot produce
wonderful things, but it does mean those powers can become misused and
create greedy materialism or be used for ego related purposes. Many
things we take for granted and on faith. For example when you buy a
product there is law saying the product ingredients etc. must be
revealed on the label and approved by the Govt. agency, etc. We are
not scientists so we are taking it all for granted but still we also
know that govt. officials and scientists can be corrupt.
>
>
>> No doubt, rome is in decline and its' golden age is over. I'd agree
>> with Doug that there is but one thing that could re-vitalize it. And
>> ironically the very people who stand to benefit the most from this
>> unwittingly oppose it.
>
> You mean because they "toss out religion" like crazy?
There is a traditional history of the old resisting the new in all
things. In our own Baha'i Writings there are quotes saying the
process of growth is a dual power of disintegration and integration.
Each Revelation from God brings new growth, new ways of thinking,
feeling and acting. Those who reject the new are still operating out
of old ways of thinking, feeling and acting for the most part but yet
they also cannot help but adopt certain aspects of things. For
example take the subject of equality. Although not practiced before
we now find most people accepting gender, racial and religious
equality. The old religions have adopted new things claiming it was
already in their religion before.
We have moved from one stage of unity to another in spite of
resistance to change for it is God's Will. We are moving now to unite
the entire planet and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it but
they can slow it down by clinging to their old beliefs and ways of
living.
regards,
doug
>
>
mike3
wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2009, at 5:30 AM, mike3 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 16, 7:58 am, mike <mikera...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I know he is not alone in his opinions and likewise know that there
> >> are other fields with people just like him. Frankly, I'm surprised he
> >> posted his answer. The same politics and lack of morality that's
> >> invaded our government has invaded the universities. Major professors
> >> are in large part political appointees who prey on young talent for
> >> their own advancement, treating them little better that intellectual
> >> slaves. He posted his answer to the net because it was the only way
> >> he
> >> could insure his own recognition. He posted it in a way that it took
> >> his colleagues 4 years to fill in what he already knew. This guy is
> >> the equivalent of einstein to physics. In the face of this
> >> overwhelming political atmosphere could we really believe we are
> >> reaping the true benefits of our current knowledge?
>
> > So does this mean I, for example, should never bother with science at
> > all,
> > then?
>
> Hi Mike3-
> I would say it is a mistake to think that what science says today is
>
> it is those powers that produce our sciences and religions.
I did not claim science was absolute truth, and I do not think *real*
science
would lay any claim to absolute truth. If anything, I think the
opposite:
science will *never* be *absolute* truth. I was talking about getting
involved in the
practice of science, not about whether or not knowledge obtained from
science
is "absolute truth" or not, as it's not, and *real* science would have
absolutely
no problem with this idea, for everything in real science is subject
to revision.
> And from
>
> my understanding both must be directed towards the fulfillment of
> God's Purpose for mankind in order to be efficient. That does not
> mean science or our powers of faith and intellect cannot produce
> wonderful things, but it does mean those powers can become misused and
>
> create greedy materialism or be used for ego related purposes. Many
> things we take for granted and on faith. For example when you buy a
> product there is law saying the product ingredients etc. must be
> revealed on the label and approved by the Govt. agency, etc. We are
> not scientists so we are taking it all for granted but still we also
> know that govt. officials and scientists can be corrupt.
>
Of course, but what I'm asking about is how to approach the science
the
right way, to do it RIGHT. The question was about that because greedy
materialism and other filth exists in there, does that mean I
shouldn't
bother going into the practice of science?
>
>
> >> No doubt, rome is in decline and its' golden age is over. I'd agree
> >> with Doug that there is but one thing that could re-vitalize it. And
> >> ironically the very people who stand to benefit the most from this
> >> unwittingly oppose it.
>
> > You mean because they "toss out religion" like crazy?
>
> There is a traditional history of the old resisting the new in all
> things. In our own Baha'i Writings there are quotes saying the
> process of growth is a dual power of disintegration and integration.
>
So then is it this "tossing out of religion" by science that was being
referred to in the post, as the "unwittingly opposed" thing?
Douglas McAdam
Hi Mike-
Emails are limited in terms of understandings. I was not saying you
said science is absolute. I am merely saying that some folks do think
in terms of science being right and religion wrong when conflicts
occur. I also do not know any scientists who think their science is
absolute truth. Most see science as evolving knowledge and in fact
history proves this. However I do know many Baha'i scholars who, when
faced with what "appears to be" a conflict between science and current
understandings of our Primary Sources will assert that science is
right and thus they tend to try to explain away why the Writings
disagree. To me a true scientist and seeker of truth, a Baha'i for
example, would be open minded and not think in absolute terms.
>
>
>> And from
>>
>> my understanding both must be directed towards the fulfillment of
>> God's Purpose for mankind in order to be efficient. That does not
>> mean science or our powers of faith and intellect cannot produce
>> wonderful things, but it does mean those powers can become misused
>> and
>
>>
>> create greedy materialism or be used for ego related purposes. Many
>
>> things we take for granted and on faith. For example when you buy a
>
>> product there is law saying the product ingredients etc. must be
>> revealed on the label and approved by the Govt. agency, etc. We are
>
>> not scientists so we are taking it all for granted but still we also
>> know that govt. officials and scientists can be corrupt.
>>
>
> Of course, but what I'm asking about is how to approach the science
> the
> right way, to do it RIGHT. The question was about that because greedy
> materialism and other filth exists in there, does that mean I
> shouldn't
> bother going into the practice of science?
On the contrary, I think that is a sign prompting one to get into
science. I'm now dealing with the negative effects on me with medical
practicioners who seem more inclined to consider income, profits and
the like instead of healing. The more we can influence these
practices with proper thinking, morals and ethics the better off we
all are. But to do nothing is to me being part of the problem.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>> No doubt, rome is in decline and its' golden age is over. I'd
>>>> agree
>>>> with Doug that there is but one thing that could re-vitalize it.
>>>> And
>>>> ironically the very people who stand to benefit the most from this
>>>> unwittingly oppose it.
>>
>>> You mean because they "toss out religion" like crazy?
>>
>> There is a traditional history of the old resisting the new in all
>> things. In our own Baha'i Writings there are quotes saying the
>> process of growth is a dual power of disintegration and integration.
>>
>
> So then is it this "tossing out of religion" by science that was being
> referred to in the post, as the "unwittingly opposed" thing?
I think so but then we must consider the many centuries of the rift
between science and religion, the Dark Ages, for example and how
reasoning people simply could not buy into what the declined religion,
the churches in power at the time, were teaching. Look at what they
did to the early philosophers like Copernicus and Gallileo for
example. This attitude has been passed down, especially in our
western world where it seems there is more value being placed on
academic strength than spiritual development.
God bless us all,
doug
mike3
wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2009, at 6:05 AM, mike3 wrote:
> > I did not claim science was absolute truth, and I do not think *real*
> > science
> > would lay any claim to absolute truth. If anything, I think the
> > opposite:
> > science will *never* be *absolute* truth. I was talking about getting
> > involved in the
> > practice of science, not about whether or not knowledge obtained from
> > science
> > is "absolute truth" or not, as it's not, and *real* science would have
> > absolutely
> > no problem with this idea, for everything in real science is subject
> > to revision.
>
> Hi Mike-
> Emails are limited in terms of understandings. I was not saying you
> said science is absolute. I am merely saying that some folks do think
>
> in terms of science being right and religion wrong when conflicts
> occur. I also do not know any scientists who think their science is
> absolute truth. Most see science as evolving knowledge and in fact
> history proves this. However I do know many Baha'i scholars who, when
>
> faced with what "appears to be" a conflict between science and current
>
> understandings of our Primary Sources will assert that science is
> right and thus they tend to try to explain away why the Writings
> disagree. To me a true scientist and seeker of truth, a Baha'i for
> example, would be open minded and not think in absolute terms.
>
Could you give be an example of such an issue? Furthermore, it may
take additional _scientific_ research as well as more though about
the religion to know if it is the "science", or the understanding of
the
religion, or both, that are wrong. Would it be wrong to do such
additional
scientific research?
<snip>
> > Of course, but what I'm asking about is how to approach the science
> > the
> > right way, to do it RIGHT. The question was about that because greedy
> > materialism and other filth exists in there, does that mean I
> > shouldn't
> > bother going into the practice of science?
>
> On the contrary, I think that is a sign prompting one to get into
> science. I'm now dealing with the negative effects on me with medical
>
> practicioners who seem more inclined to consider income, profits and
>
> the like instead of healing. The more we can influence these
> practices with proper thinking, morals and ethics the better off we
> all are. But to do nothing is to me being part of the problem.
>
That makes more sense, then. What are those medical practitioners you
mention doing that seems "more inclined to consider income, profits
and
the like instead of healing"?
<snip>
> > So then is it this "tossing out of religion" by science that was being
> > referred to in the post, as the "unwittingly opposed" thing?
>
> I think so but then we must consider the many centuries of the rift
> between science and religion, the Dark Ages, for example and how
> reasoning people simply could not buy into what the declined religion,
>
> the churches in power at the time, were teaching.
So then they swung to the other extreme, which was to totally give up
on
religion?
> Look at what they
> did to the early philosophers like Copernicus and Gallileo for
> example. This attitude has been passed down, especially in our
> western world where it seems there is more value being placed on
> academic strength than spiritual development.
>
Could you give me an example of that last bit -- "more value being
placed
on academic strength than spiritual development"? Are you referring
to,
say, the prevalence of, say, "egotism" among a lot of "scientists"?
mike3
Is the level of maturity required to reap the benefits of our
_existing_
technology equal to that required for the Golden Age of man, and will
only be achieved in the _very distant_ future, i.e. hundreds to
thousands
of years from now?
Douglas McAdam
Hi Mike-
Off hand I cannot give a specific example of a conflict between
science and religion but there is a conflict between what some Baha'is
believe about Homosexuals. Those who disagree with the Baha'i
teachings will try to say the Guardian made a mistake cause the
Writings are really referring to "boys" not necessarily homosexuals.
Another of course is the role of women
And there are definite conflicts between Baha'i Laws and Civil Laws
regarding the use of alcohol and drugs.
My position is that we should be open minded to conduct more
research and realize that our current state of spiritual development
is in its infancy. As we progress spiritually our understanding and
application of the Writings will no doubt improve.
>
>
> <snip>
>>> Of course, but what I'm asking about is how to approach the science
>>> the
>>> right way, to do it RIGHT. The question was about that because
>>> greedy
>>> materialism and other filth exists in there, does that mean I
>>> shouldn't
>>> bother going into the practice of science?
>>
>> On the contrary, I think that is a sign prompting one to get into
>> science. I'm now dealing with the negative effects on me with
>> medical
>
>>
>> practicioners who seem more inclined to consider income, profits and
>
>>
>> the like instead of healing. The more we can influence these
>> practices with proper thinking, morals and ethics the better off we
>> all are. But to do nothing is to me being part of the problem.
>>
>
> That makes more sense, then. What are those medical practitioners you
> mention doing that seems "more inclined to consider income, profits
> and
> the like instead of healing"?
I think maybe my own profession (Accounting and Bus. Mgmt) might have
influenced our medical practices. As clinics, HMO etc. were formed
they had to hire accounting and legal professionals who then imposed
business mgmt. practices as if the medical profession was just another
business focused on increasing patients and profits. I once was in on
a discussion with doctors when my own supervisors were telling the
doctors they needed to keep each patient visit down to six minutes in
order to accommodate the volume. And of course there is the advt. I
often heard doctors discussing their golf game or stock market
investments instead of focusing on patients. And of course there is
the current practice of Medicare only paying 80% of health cost and
the doctors charging more.
>
>
> <snip>
>>> So then is it this "tossing out of religion" by science that was
>>> being
>>> referred to in the post, as the "unwittingly opposed" thing?
>>
>> I think so but then we must consider the many centuries of the rift
>> between science and religion, the Dark Ages, for example and how
>> reasoning people simply could not buy into what the declined
>> religion,
>
>>
>> the churches in power at the time, were teaching.
>
> So then they swung to the other extreme, which was to totally give up
> on
> religion?
I don't know about totally but it does seem that the rift between
current science and old declining religion grew more and more and
especially here in the western world and so for decades now we tend to
value academic strength, intellectualism, more than spiritual.
>
>
>> Look at what they
>> did to the early philosophers like Copernicus and Gallileo for
>> example. This attitude has been passed down, especially in our
>> western world where it seems there is more value being placed on
>> academic strength than spiritual development.
>>
>
> Could you give me an example of that last bit -- "more value being
> placed
> on academic strength than spiritual development"? Are you referring
> to,
> say, the prevalence of, say, "egotism" among a lot of "scientists"?
I'm not exactly sure I would call it egotism. I think maybe we have
this idea that one who has college education is smarter than those who
don't and in many cases this might be true. But I believe that one
must have a balance, a harmony of faith and reason and their products
of science and religion in order to have less egoism and more focus on
realistic material and spiritual development. I'm not sure what
criteria we can use but it seems to me that if what Baha'u'llah
teaches is true, i.e. that we are created to know and worship God then
we have the capacity to do so and also if we are created to acquire
virtues we have that capacity too. In fact the Writings are quite
clear about how our lower nature is supposed to be a servant to the
higher nature which is created to serve God and humanity. Thus is a
person is confronted with Baha'u'llah and His Teachings and rejects
them then is that really a proper use of this capacity we are given?
Again I am talking about a soul who knowingly rejects the
Manifestation not those who are still works in process. Or what
about people using these God given powers for their own personal gain,
even at the cost of the well being of others. We could examine the
entire list of misbehaviors such as alcohol and drug abuse, wars,
crime, etc. and see that they are the result of a misapplication of
our capacities.
The Writings tell us all we can know of things are the qualities an
effects but we cannot know the essence of things. Science can study
the effects and experiment and discover laws and principles. But
there is a wide belief that science cannot study spiritual realities.
I disagree, I believe we have yet to discover the proper methodology
for such a study and in time this will come but if we are closed
minded and think that science cannot do it then we won't discover it.
I always thought scientists were people who wanted to learn about the
mysteries of things and it troubles me to read where certain Baha'is
will claim science cannot study spiritual realities. Seems to me we
should be able to observe behaviors and discover cause and effect.
With God's Divine Assistance anything is possible.
God bless,
doug
Douglas McAdam
On Jul 19, 2009, at 6:28 PM, mike3 wrote:
>> I mean exactly that. Our society will need to mature to fully reap
>> the benefits of our _existing_ technology.
>
> Is the level of maturity required to reap the benefits of our
> _existing_
> technology equal to that required for the Golden Age of man, and will
> only be achieved in the _very distant_ future, i.e. hundreds to
> thousands
> of years from now?
Dear Mike3-
I don't know how anyone can predict this condition. We are not
prophets. However we can sort of speculate by looking at certain
conditions such as the growth of the Baha'i Faith. Researchers tell
us that our world population will reach 9 billion by the year 2050.
That is a 50% growth rate in about 45 years. And then after that it
will increase even more dramatically due to how numbers double etc.
There are Writings that show how we must achieve certain conditions
before the Lesser Peace. I once heard a scholar say that the Guardian
more or less hinted that the Most Great Peace would occur in the year
2044 and you know how 1844 is a significant date.
If we look back and the tremendous technological advances in the past
200 years and then estimate that same growth in the next two centuries
my goodness it is astounding. Guy Murchie, in his book the Seven
Mysteries of Life listed how travel, communication and other things
had so dramatically increased and how the number of wars had
diminished, that the average age had dramatically increased. Why the
average in the early 30s I think was on 48 years of age and today it
is something in the 80s.
But my main point is that while it is interesting to speculate we best
put our energy into teaching and applying the new knowledge that has
been revealed to us by God's current Manifestation, Baha'u'llah.
regards,
doug
mike3
wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2009, at 2:50 PM, mike3 wrote:
> > Could you give be an example of such an issue? Furthermore, it may
> > take additional _scientific_ research as well as more though about
> > the religion to know if it is the "science", or the understanding of
> > the
> > religion, or both, that are wrong. Would it be wrong to do such
> > additional
> > scientific research?
>
> Hi Mike-
> Off hand I cannot give a specific example of a conflict between
> science and religion but there is a conflict between what some Baha'is
> believe about Homosexuals. Those who disagree with the Baha'i
> teachings will try to say the Guardian made a mistake cause the
> Writings are really referring to "boys" not necessarily homosexuals.
But why is this? Because they want to keep doing that gay sex no
matter what, or is it because they think that it implies one must
apply
prejudice against the homosexuals _as people_, even though that's
not what it's about?
> Another of course is the role of women
How's that?
> And there are definite conflicts between Baha'i Laws and Civil Laws
> regarding the use of alcohol and drugs.
You mean because alcohol is prohibited in Baha'i law, but often
permissible in civil law (though drugs are often prohibited in both)?
> My position is that we should be open minded to conduct more
> research and realize that our current state of spiritual development
> is in its infancy. As we progress spiritually our understanding and
> application of the Writings will no doubt improve.
>
Well of course, as that's the only way we can grow out of the infancy.
<snip>
> > That makes more sense, then. What are those medical practitioners you
> > mention doing that seems "more inclined to consider income, profits
> > and
> > the like instead of healing"?
>
> I think maybe my own profession (Accounting and Bus. Mgmt) might have
> influenced our medical practices. As clinics, HMO etc. were formed
> they had to hire accounting and legal professionals who then imposed
> business mgmt. practices as if the medical profession was just another
> business focused on increasing patients and profits. I once was in on
> a discussion with doctors when my own supervisors were telling the
> doctors they needed to keep each patient visit down to six minutes in
> order to accommodate the volume. And of course there is the advt. I
> often heard doctors discussing their golf game or stock market
> investments instead of focusing on patients. And of course there is
> the current practice of Medicare only paying 80% of health cost and
> the doctors charging more.
>
So they were just slacking off with those discussions not helping the
patients when they needed it?
<snip>
> I don't know about totally but it does seem that the rift between
> current science and old declining religion grew more and more and
> especially here in the western world and so for decades now we tend to
> value academic strength, intellectualism, more than spiritual.
>
But what _exactly_ does that mean, anyway? Is it something like
where someone who does great with science is considered higher and
more noble than someone who doesn't and instead got some other
"blah" job even if the guy/girl who does good with the science is a
total jerk and the other one with the "lowly" job has a sweet heart
full
of light and loves everyone and does good things for them _because
of that light_ and so on?
I just read something that relates to responsibility, or lack thereof,
with
science. There was this SONAR program where the scientists blasted
extremely powerful sound waves in the deep oceans to map the sea
bottom. It can also be used to find oil and gas. The enormous amounts
of
energy were killing whales, and the scientists were denying it saying
"naah no evidence, not our machines!", or, well, something to that
effect.
<snip>
So how would one go about developing such a methodology, anyway? It
would be interesting to do.
> I always thought scientists were people who wanted to learn about the
> mysteries of things and it troubles me to read where certain Baha'is
> will claim science cannot study spiritual realities. Seems to me we
> should be able to observe behaviors and discover cause and effect.
>
> With God's Divine Assistance anything is possible.
>
> God bless,
> doug
>
<snip>
mike3
wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2009, at 2:50 PM, mike3 wrote:
> > Could you give be an example of such an issue? Furthermore, it may
> > take additional _scientific_ research as well as more though about
> > the religion to know if it is the "science", or the understanding of
> > the
> > religion, or both, that are wrong. Would it be wrong to do such
> > additional
> > scientific research?
>
> Hi Mike-
> Off hand I cannot give a specific example of a conflict between
> science and religion but there is a conflict between what some Baha'is
> believe about Homosexuals. Those who disagree with the Baha'i
> teachings will try to say the Guardian made a mistake cause the
> Writings are really referring to "boys" not necessarily homosexuals.
But why is this? Because they want to keep doing that gay sex no
matter what, or is it because they think that it implies one must
apply
prejudice against the homosexuals _as people_, even though that's
not what it's about?
> Another of course is the role of women
How's that?
> And there are definite conflicts between Baha'i Laws and Civil Laws
> regarding the use of alcohol and drugs.
You mean because alcohol is prohibited in Baha'i law, but often
permissible in civil law (though drugs are often prohibited in both)?
> My position is that we should be open minded to conduct more
> research and realize that our current state of spiritual development
> is in its infancy. As we progress spiritually our understanding and
> application of the Writings will no doubt improve.
>
Well of course, as that's the only way we can grow out of the infancy.
<snip>
> > That makes more sense, then. What are those medical practitioners you
> > mention doing that seems "more inclined to consider income, profits
> > and
> > the like instead of healing"?
>
> I think maybe my own profession (Accounting and Bus. Mgmt) might have
> influenced our medical practices. As clinics, HMO etc. were formed
> they had to hire accounting and legal professionals who then imposed
> business mgmt. practices as if the medical profession was just another
> business focused on increasing patients and profits. I once was in on
> a discussion with doctors when my own supervisors were telling the
> doctors they needed to keep each patient visit down to six minutes in
> order to accommodate the volume. And of course there is the advt. I
> often heard doctors discussing their golf game or stock market
> investments instead of focusing on patients. And of course there is
> the current practice of Medicare only paying 80% of health cost and
> the doctors charging more.
>
So they were just slacking off with those discussions not helping the
patients when they needed it?
<snip>
> I don't know about totally but it does seem that the rift between
> current science and old declining religion grew more and more and
> especially here in the western world and so for decades now we tend to
> value academic strength, intellectualism, more than spiritual.
>
But what _exactly_ does that mean, anyway? Is it something like
where someone who does great with science is considered higher and
more noble than someone who doesn't and instead got some other
"blah" job even if the guy/girl who does good with the science is a
total jerk and the other one with the "lowly" job has a sweet heart
full
of light and loves everyone and does good things for them _because
of that light_ and so on?
I just read something that relates to responsibility, or lack thereof,
with
science. There was this SONAR program where the scientists blasted
extremely powerful sound waves in the deep oceans to map the sea
bottom. It can also be used to find oil and gas. The enormous amounts
of
energy were killing whales, and the scientists were denying it saying
"naah no evidence, not our machines!", or, well, something to that
effect.
<snip>
So how would one go about developing such a methodology, anyway? It
would be interesting to do.
> I always thought scientists were people who wanted to learn about the
> mysteries of things and it troubles me to read where certain Baha'is
> will claim science cannot study spiritual realities. Seems to me we
> should be able to observe behaviors and discover cause and effect.
>
> With God's Divine Assistance anything is possible.
>
> God bless,
> doug
>
<snip>
mike3
wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2009, at 6:28 PM, mike3 wrote:
>
> >> I mean exactly that. Our society will need to mature to fully reap
> >> the benefits of our _existing_ technology.
>
> > Is the level of maturity required to reap the benefits of our
> > _existing_
> > technology equal to that required for the Golden Age of man, and will
> > only be achieved in the _very distant_ future, i.e. hundreds to
> > thousands
> > of years from now?
>
> Dear Mike3-
> I don't know how anyone can predict this condition. We are not
> prophets. However we can sort of speculate by looking at certain
> conditions such as the growth of the Baha'i Faith. Researchers tell
> us that our world population will reach 9 billion by the year 2050.
> will increase even more dramatically due to how numbers double etc.
> There are Writings that show how we must achieve certain conditions
> before the Lesser Peace. I once heard a scholar say that the Guardian
> more or less hinted that the Most Great Peace would occur in the year
> 2044 and you know how 1844 is a significant date.
> If we look back and the tremendous technological advances in the past
> 200 years and then estimate that same growth in the next two centuries
> my goodness it is astounding. Guy Murchie, in his book the Seven
> Mysteries of Life listed how travel, communication and other things
> had so dramatically increased and how the number of wars had
> diminished, that the average age had dramatically increased. Why the
> average in the early 30s I think was on 48 years of age and today it
> is something in the 80s.
>
The above doesn't seem to quite answer the other part of the question,
namely about how much maturity would be required just to reap the
benefits of our _existing_ technology, though...
> But my main point is that while it is interesting to speculate we best
> put our energy into teaching and applying the new knowledge that has
> been revealed to us by God's current Manifestation, Baha'u'llah.
>
I.e. to actually _make_ that more mature civilization.
Douglas McAdam
Hi Mike3-
I would say that if the majority of society were more virtuous and
realistic from proper education we would not only utilize our current
technology more effectively but would find ourselves inventing new and
improved technology. As to what constitutes "proper education" I
would say it would be the type that realistically deals with body,
mind and spirit and teaches us how to intelligently deal with reality
in totality, i.e. what has been revealed by the Prophets of God and
what has been discovered and experienced by the use of our unified
knowing powers. If we had education that informed us of the overall
purpose of life, who we are, how to live our lives and get along with
others so we can achieve and maintain love and unity in the world I'm
sure we would see a tremendous increase in our intelligence and the
use of our technology. Such education is available but one must seek
it in various ways and places and not always finding what is best. We
need proper education regarding nutrition, intellectual and especially
the realm of faith. All this education should be such that it
satisfies our needs in those areas. If we looked at the human being
as having a lower or animal/physical nature and asked ourselves "are
we getting those needs satisfied?" I doubt they are. For example do
we have pure air, water, land, food, etc.? In the intellectual area
is education, including higher education compulsory and universal for
all people, and is it quality education? And with regard to our
spiritual nature are we getting proper spiritual education or are we
being corrupted by those who spread prejudices?
>
>
>> But my main point is that while it is interesting to speculate we
>> best
>
>> put our energy into teaching and applying the new knowledge that has
>> been revealed to us by God's current Manifestation, Baha'u'llah.
>>
>
> I.e. to actually _make_ that more mature civilization.
Yes, but it happens one heart at a time for the only way we can help
change others is to change ourselves. Lots of people preach maturity
but how many are actually living it?
In closing, regarding education, let me say that at this moment in my
life and looking back many years and considering the backgrounds of
those who are in the decision making areas, govt. etc. there has to be
a problem with education for most of those who represent the "powers
that be" have had what we call higher education, most probably from
ivy league schools. If this is the result of that kind of education
then we need to change it entirely.
regards,
doug
>
>
Douglas McAdam
On Jul 21, 2009, at 5:51 AM, mike3 wrote:
> On Jul 20, 12:14 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> On Jul 19, 2009, at 2:50 PM, mike3 wrote:
> <snip>
>>> Could you give be an example of such an issue? Furthermore, it may
>>> take additional _scientific_ research as well as more though about
>>> the religion to know if it is the "science", or the understanding
>>> of
>>> the
>>> religion, or both, that are wrong. Would it be wrong to do such
>>> additional
>>> scientific research?
Hi Mike3-
I would say we should delve even more profoundly into the condition of
homosexuality.
And I would say the reason gays are trying to rationalize their
condition and the Writings is because of how they feel. In fact it is
my experience that we all tend to rationalize our use of things by
virtue of how we feel instead of going by reason and science or in
obedience to God's Laws. I think the Purpose of Life is something to
think about too. If we are created to know and worship God, to carry
forth and advancing civilization, to procreate and bring a new servant
to God and He has created us male and female to be complimentary in
the realization of our overall purpose then it stands to reason for me
that somewhere along the line we must have done something to interfere
with the process and thus have created homosexuals who feel as they do
about their own sex and who wish to marry etc. That is how they
feel. And I suppose too that there is a possibility that gays are
conditioned to feel as they do by experiences in their growing up.
So, bottom line for me is that science should step up its research
because if God has forbidden same sex partners etc. then there is a
good reason for this that we can discover.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Mike-
>> Off hand I cannot give a specific example of a conflict between
>> science and religion but there is a conflict between what some
>> Baha'is
>> believe about Homosexuals. Those who disagree with the Baha'i
>> teachings will try to say the Guardian made a mistake cause the
>> Writings are really referring to "boys" not necessarily homosexuals.
>
> But why is this? Because they want to keep doing that gay sex no
> matter what, or is it because they think that it implies one must
> apply
> prejudice against the homosexuals _as people_, even though that's
> not what it's about?
Not sure what you are saying here. I explained above that gays want
to find ways to rationalize and justify their homosexual behavior and
non-gays often show extreme prejudice against gays.
>
>
>> Another of course is the role of women
>
> How's that?
Equality of males and females is a principle in the Baha'i Faith and
in America we have the guarantee of equal rights but it is not fully
practiced and that causes problems in society. Males demonstrate this
inequality a great deal by the way they talk and treat women, calling
them hoes, bitches, my old lady, etc. and I suppose women also have
degrading language about males.
>
>
>> And there are definite conflicts between Baha'i Laws and Civil Laws
>> regarding the use of alcohol and drugs.
>
> You mean because alcohol is prohibited in Baha'i law, but often
> permissible in civil law (though drugs are often prohibited in both)?
Yes, and many try to rationalize these things wanting all drugs to be
legal.
>
>
>> My position is that we should be open minded to conduct more
>> research and realize that our current state of spiritual development
>> is in its infancy. As we progress spiritually our understanding and
>> application of the Writings will no doubt improve.
>>
>
> Well of course, as that's the only way we can grow out of the infancy.
Yes.
>
>
> <snip>
>>> That makes more sense, then. What are those medical practitioners
>>> you
>>> mention doing that seems "more inclined to consider income, profits
>>> and
>>> the like instead of healing"?
>>
>> I think maybe my own profession (Accounting and Bus. Mgmt) might have
>> influenced our medical practices. As clinics, HMO etc. were formed
>> they had to hire accounting and legal professionals who then imposed
>> business mgmt. practices as if the medical profession was just
>> another
>> business focused on increasing patients and profits. I once was in
>> on
>> a discussion with doctors when my own supervisors were telling the
>> doctors they needed to keep each patient visit down to six minutes in
>> order to accommodate the volume. And of course there is the advt. I
>> often heard doctors discussing their golf game or stock market
>> investments instead of focusing on patients. And of course there is
>> the current practice of Medicare only paying 80% of health cost and
>> the doctors charging more.
>>
>
> So they were just slacking off with those discussions not helping the
> patients when they needed it?
Yes, or maybe they do not truly have seriously taken the hippocratic
oath and placing more focus on income.
>
>
> <snip>
>> I don't know about totally but it does seem that the rift between
>> current science and old declining religion grew more and more and
>> especially here in the western world and so for decades now we tend
>> to
>> value academic strength, intellectualism, more than spiritual.
>>
>
> But what _exactly_ does that mean, anyway? Is it something like
> where someone who does great with science is considered higher and
> more noble than someone who doesn't and instead got some other
> "blah" job even if the guy/girl who does good with the science is a
> total jerk and the other one with the "lowly" job has a sweet heart
> full
> of light and loves everyone and does good things for them _because
> of that light_ and so on?
>
> I just read something that relates to responsibility, or lack thereof,
> with
> science. There was this SONAR program where the scientists blasted
> extremely powerful sound waves in the deep oceans to map the sea
> bottom. It can also be used to find oil and gas. The enormous amounts
> of
> energy were killing whales, and the scientists were denying it saying
> "naah no evidence, not our machines!", or, well, something to that
> effect.
It is common thought and attitude to treat people on some kind of
pyramid of success and power. All our organizations are patterned
after the idea of a pyramid with the God figure on top, the middle and
the lower. Business has the CEO as the God, then they have the Middle
Mgmt and the Labor on the bottom. People generally show more respect
for the upper classes.
But what I meant about this rift and the attitude in the western world
is that most people in not accepting the declining religious
practices, beliefs, etc. will opt for intellectual development rather
than spiritual. Or they have a materialistic practice of religion
paying more attention to idols, artifacts, rites, etc.
The hints that I ran into when studying the Baha'i Writings and
Messages from the Guardian and Univ. House of Justice seems to
indicate that it has something to do with study of the effects of
living the life of a believer, observing the brain signals with
current technology to see how it functions with and without spiritual
input. We can only study the effects of things not their essences.
We observe, categorize, use divisive analysis to study phenomena and
learn that a principle or power is at work, such as gravity, chemico-
electric, magnetism etc. and so why not we discover some sort of power
or Life Force is at work that changes behaviors? The program I use
for rehab. and addictions here was directly drawn from the Baha'i
Writings but without all the religious terminology and it passes the
separation of church and state rules. It teaches us who we are, how
to live our lives and realize our true purpose, how to get along with
others and make right decision. But it also has to help us root out
our long standing evils and overlay these old memories with new
realistic reactions thus improving our perceptions which lead to
better feelings and actions.
Trouble with a lot of scientists and other professionals is that when
they encounter religious terms it can often close their minds and I
don't blame them the way religion has traditionally been taught in our
society.
regards,
doug
mike3
This would make sense. Of course politics(TM) is in there to block
it all off. "Liberal" politics scoffs at the idea that there may be
anything
wrong here. And everyone associates "liberal" politics with "better"
(which isn't really so. It has some good things, it has some bad
things.
But it isn't any "better" that "conservative" politics or whatever.).
<snip>
> > But why is this? Because they want to keep doing that gay sex no
> > matter what, or is it because they think that it implies one must
> > apply
> > prejudice against the homosexuals _as people_, even though that's
> > not what it's about?
>
> Not sure what you are saying here. I explained above that gays want
> to find ways to rationalize and justify their homosexual behavior and
> non-gays often show extreme prejudice against gays.
>
Yeah, but why try to justify it? Is it because they'd think if they
don't,
then that's caving into prejudice, or supporting prejudice? (Even
though
prejudice is also wrong too.)
> >> Another of course is the role of women
>
> > How's that?
>
> Equality of males and females is a principle in the Baha'i Faith and
> in America we have the guarantee of equal rights but it is not fully
> practiced and that causes problems in society. Males demonstrate this
> inequality a great deal by the way they talk and treat women, calling
> them hoes, bitches, my old lady, etc. and I suppose women also have
> degrading language about males.
>
And I suppose how women are often treated as "sex objects" in the
culture would also be another one.
>
>
> >> And there are definite conflicts between Baha'i Laws and Civil Laws
> >> regarding the use of alcohol and drugs.
>
> > You mean because alcohol is prohibited in Baha'i law, but often
> > permissible in civil law (though drugs are often prohibited in both)?
>
> Yes, and many try to rationalize these things wanting all drugs to be
> legal.
>
I.e. they think that if the alcohol can be legal, everything else
should be,
when the opposite would make more sense. (i.e. none of them legal)
>
>
> >> My position is that we should be open minded to conduct more
> >> research and realize that our current state of spiritual development
> >> is in its infancy. As we progress spiritually our understanding and
> >> application of the Writings will no doubt improve.
>
> > Well of course, as that's the only way we can grow out of the infancy.
>
> Yes.
<snip>
> > So they were just slacking off with those discussions not helping the
> > patients when they needed it?
>
> Yes, or maybe they do not truly have seriously taken the hippocratic
> oath and placing more focus on income.
>
That's not cool.
<snip>
> > But what _exactly_ does that mean, anyway? Is it something like
> > where someone who does great with science is considered higher and
> > more noble than someone who doesn't and instead got some other
> > "blah" job even if the guy/girl who does good with the science is a
> > total jerk and the other one with the "lowly" job has a sweet heart
> > full
> > of light and loves everyone and does good things for them _because
> > of that light_ and so on?
>
> > I just read something that relates to responsibility, or lack thereof,
> > with
> > science. There was this SONAR program where the scientists blasted
> > extremely powerful sound waves in the deep oceans to map the sea
> > bottom. It can also be used to find oil and gas. The enormous amounts
> > of
> > energy were killing whales, and the scientists were denying it saying
> > "naah no evidence, not our machines!", or, well, something to that
> > effect.
>
> It is common thought and attitude to treat people on some kind of
> pyramid of success and power. All our organizations are patterned
> after the idea of a pyramid with the God figure on top, the middle and
> the lower. Business has the CEO as the God, then they have the Middle
> Mgmt and the Labor on the bottom. People generally show more respect
> for the upper classes.
And conversely, low respect for the "lower" classes on the "pyramid",
which
can actually be a _de_structive effect for them.
What would be a better way to pattern it, then?
> But what I meant about this rift and the attitude in the western world
> is that most people in not accepting the declining religious
> practices, beliefs, etc. will opt for intellectual development rather
> than spiritual. Or they have a materialistic practice of religion
> paying more attention to idols, artifacts, rites, etc.
>
I.e. they see the problems with most mainstream religion, yet react to
it in
the wrong manner: toss out _all_ religion and toss out spiritual
growth.
<snip>
> > So how would one go about developing such a methodology, anyway? It
> > would be interesting to do.
>
> The hints that I ran into when studying the Baha'i Writings and
> Messages from the Guardian and Univ. House of Justice seems to
> indicate that it has something to do with study of the effects of
> living the life of a believer, observing the brain signals with
> current technology to see how it functions with and without spiritual
> input. We can only study the effects of things not their essences.
> We observe, categorize, use divisive analysis to study phenomena and
> learn that a principle or power is at work, such as gravity, chemico-
> electric, magnetism etc. and so why not we discover some sort of power
> or Life Force is at work that changes behaviors? The program I use
> for rehab. and addictions here was directly drawn from the Baha'i
> Writings but without all the religious terminology and it passes the
> separation of church and state rules. It teaches us who we are, how
> to live our lives and realize our true purpose, how to get along with
> others and make right decision. But it also has to help us root out
> our long standing evils and overlay these old memories with new
> realistic reactions thus improving our perceptions which lead to
> better feelings and actions.
I'm curious. How good does this program work, compared to, say
systems built off more "secular" things?
> Trouble with a lot of scientists and other professionals is that when
> they encounter religious terms it can often close their minds and I
> don't blame them the way religion has traditionally been taught in our
> society.
>
So then most of it is a reaction to all the dark stuff seen in most
mainstream
religion?
mike3
wrote:
> On Jul 21, 2009, at 5:54 AM, mike3 wrote:
> > The above doesn't seem to quite answer the other part of the question,
> > namely about how much maturity would be required just to reap the
> > benefits of our _existing_ technology, though...
>
> Hi Mike3-
> I would say that if the majority of society were more virtuous and
> realistic from proper education we would not only utilize our current
> technology more effectively but would find ourselves inventing new and
> improved technology.
But this can only happen when a _majority_ gets that, right? And does
it
have to be at the level of maturity of the Golden Age just to reap the
full
benefits of _existing_ technology, not just more mature than it is
now?
> As to what constitutes "proper education" I
> would say it would be the type that realistically deals with body,
> mind and spirit and teaches us how to intelligently deal with reality
> in totality, i.e. what has been revealed by the Prophets of God and
> what has been discovered and experienced by the use of our unified
> knowing powers. If we had education that informed us of the overall
> purpose of life, who we are, how to live our lives and get along with
> others so we can achieve and maintain love and unity in the world I'm
> sure we would see a tremendous increase in our intelligence and the
> use of our technology. Such education is available but one must seek
> it in various ways and places and not always finding what is best. We
> need proper education regarding nutrition, intellectual and especially
> the realm of faith. All this education should be such that it
> satisfies our needs in those areas. If we looked at the human being
> as having a lower or animal/physical nature and asked ourselves "are
> we getting those needs satisfied?" I doubt they are. For example do
> we have pure air, water, land, food, etc.? In the intellectual area
> is education, including higher education compulsory and universal for
> all people, and is it quality education? And with regard to our
> spiritual nature are we getting proper spiritual education or are we
> being corrupted by those who spread prejudices?
>
Is there any way to get this type of education and/or how can this
type
of education be brought to the peoples of the world?
>
>
> >> But my main point is that while it is interesting to speculate we
> >> best
>
> >> put our energy into teaching and applying the new knowledge that has
> >> been revealed to us by God's current Manifestation, Baha'u'llah.
>
> > I.e. to actually _make_ that more mature civilization.
>
> Yes, but it happens one heart at a time for the only way we can help
> change others is to change ourselves. Lots of people preach maturity
> but how many are actually living it?
>
But it would seem that would take an extraordinarily long time as
there's
so many people on the planet.
> In closing, regarding education, let me say that at this moment in my
> life and looking back many years and considering the backgrounds of
> those who are in the decision making areas, govt. etc. there has to be
> a problem with education for most of those who represent the "powers
> that be" have had what we call higher education, most probably from
> ivy league schools. If this is the result of that kind of education
> then we need to change it entirely.
>
How can such a change be affected? And does this mean I should stay
way away from those type of educational institutions? If so, does that
mean I can't do science or something?
Douglas McAdam
I will answer your comments below
..
On Jul 22, 2009, at 3:06 PM, mike3 wrote:
> On Jul 21, 9:25 am, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> On Jul 21, 2009, at 5:54 AM, mike3 wrote:
> <snip>
>>> The above doesn't seem to quite answer the other part of the
>>> question,
>>> namely about how much maturity would be required just to reap the
>>> benefits of our _existing_ technology, though...
>>
>> Hi Mike3-
>> I would say that if the majority of society were more virtuous and
>> realistic from proper education we would not only utilize our current
>> technology more effectively but would find ourselves inventing new
>> and
>
>> improved technology.
>
> But this can only happen when a _majority_ gets that, right? And does
> it
> have to be at the level of maturity of the Golden Age just to reap the
> full
> benefits of _existing_ technology, not just more mature than it is
> now?
No, I don't think we have to reach the level of the Golden Age to reap
these benefits. Actually it seems to me like an ongoing process,
improvements coming all the time as well as seeing the old in
decline. The Guardian mentioned a twofold process of integration and
disintegration going on.
One would have to seek out this kind of education. For example there
is an ANISA group still active which was first founded by Dr. Daniel
C. Jordan. Also we have the knowledge from the Baha'i Writings that
will prompt us to independently search for truth and reality. I don't
know about others but for me and many of my friends we all said that
upon Declaration there was an extreme thirst for knowledge. All of
this is brought to the world in different ways by different souls.
Baha'is are striving to teach the Faith to all and many other souls
are developing wonderful things and sharing what they can via many
avenues such as the Internet, and other media. However what others
share, and even what Baha'is share needs to be studied and measured by
standards available both in and out of the Baha'i Faith. Science and
Religion and our power of faith and reason need to be in harmony.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>> But my main point is that while it is interesting to speculate we
>>>> best
>>
>>>> put our energy into teaching and applying the new knowledge that
>>>> has
>>>> been revealed to us by God's current Manifestation, Baha'u'llah.
>>
>>> I.e. to actually _make_ that more mature civilization.
>>
>> Yes, but it happens one heart at a time for the only way we can help
>> change others is to change ourselves. Lots of people preach maturity
>
>> but how many are actually living it?
>>
>
> But it would seem that would take an extraordinarily long time as
> there's
> so many people on the planet.
Actually it could happen quite rapidly if we Baha'is were to do what
we are guided to do by the House of Justice. If each Baha'i were to
introduce and new soul to the Faith each year as one of the Teaching
Quotes stated, then mathematically we would double our population each
year. You can do the math and see how rapidly we would then change
the world.
>
>
>> In closing, regarding education, let me say that at this moment in my
>> life and looking back many years and considering the backgrounds of
>> those who are in the decision making areas, govt. etc. there has to
>> be
>
>> a problem with education for most of those who represent the "powers
>> that be" have had what we call higher education, most probably from
>> ivy league schools. If this is the result of that kind of education
>
>> then we need to change it entirely.
>>
>
> How can such a change be affected? And does this mean I should stay
> way away from those type of educational institutions? If so, does that
> mean I can't do science or something?
The change is affected by how much we ourselves spread the Word of God
and answer issues that arise in our process of education. Any time I
run into a social problem I do my best to teach the solution but one
also must be wise and on occasion spoon feed, for you could win a
battle and lose the war in a way. In our Jail classes we must be
careful to pick our battles with the Criminal Justice System. I would
not stay away from any highly recognized college or univ. because they
do offer wonderful academic knowledge but I would also do what I need
to do to get the maximum benefit and not be swayed by their politics
or other biases. I find it helpful to use the Socratic method in
dealing with problems and people. Asking questions often causes them
to think differently instead of answering automatically as they
usually do.
God bless,
doug
>
>
>
>
Douglas McAdam
On Jul 22, 2009, at 2:45 PM, mike3 wrote:
> On Jul 21, 1:37 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>>
>
> <snip>
>>> But why is this? Because they want to keep doing that gay sex no
>>> matter what, or is it because they think that it implies one must
>>> apply
>>> prejudice against the homosexuals _as people_, even though that's
>>> not what it's about?
>>
>> Not sure what you are saying here. I explained above that gays want
>
>> to find ways to rationalize and justify their homosexual behavior and
>> non-gays often show extreme prejudice against gays.
>>
>
> Yeah, but why try to justify it? Is it because they'd think if they
> don't,
> then that's caving into prejudice, or supporting prejudice? (Even
> though
> prejudice is also wrong too.)
I thought I had explained the why but let me try again. Most people
try to rationalize any behavior that society thinks is bad behavior.
We try to justify the use of alcohol and drugs, criminal behavior,
sexual promiscuity, etc., etc., etc. So homosexuals or transsexuals
will try to find ways to have their behavior and condition accepted.
I'm not saying their behavior is wrong, I'm saying that by and large
society says it is wrong and of course it appears clearly that God is
saying it is wrong and so people who believe in what God says
sometimes act as judge of others and that causes even more problems.
Our society has all sorts of laws or attitudes that are not directly
in obedience to God's Laws. Where does it stop? There is a sort of
humorous story about a Govt. Agency rep. in SF who was issuing
licenses to those who wish to marry. Two gay men came in and
requested a license and the rep. said marriage was only for male and
female. They told him the law had changed and so he had to give them
a license. Then three gays came in wanting to be married and he said
it was only for couples but they said he had no right to interpret the
law so narrowly. He gave them a license. The story went on to show
how the most unusual ideas would have to be adopted when people decide
for themselves what is legal or not.
>
>
>>>> Another of course is the role of women
>>
>>> How's that?
>>
>> Equality of males and females is a principle in the Baha'i Faith and
>> in America we have the guarantee of equal rights but it is not fully
>> practiced and that causes problems in society. Males demonstrate
>> this
>
>> inequality a great deal by the way they talk and treat women, calling
>> them hoes, bitches, my old lady, etc. and I suppose women also have
>> degrading language about males.
>>
>
> And I suppose how women are often treated as "sex objects" in the
> culture would also be another one.
It is demonstrated in almost every aspect of social life. Often women
are passed over for promotions in corporations because of an attitude
a women is too emotional to be a boss. It is an old attitude that
women should be in the kitchen and men do the work. My wife is an
example of being free cause she does auto body work, carpentry,
masonry, and is a wonderful artist and cook also. We consulted to
share duties based on our individual assets or talents and experience.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>> And there are definite conflicts between Baha'i Laws and Civil Laws
>>>> regarding the use of alcohol and drugs.
>>
>>> You mean because alcohol is prohibited in Baha'i law, but often
>>> permissible in civil law (though drugs are often prohibited in
>>> both)?
>>
>> Yes, and many try to rationalize these things wanting all drugs to be
>> legal.
>>
>
> I.e. they think that if the alcohol can be legal, everything else
> should be,
> when the opposite would make more sense. (i.e. none of them legal)
Well, I am only going by my own understanding of Baha'i Laws. It
seems to me that if God's Manifestation gave us these laws then they
are for the benefit of humanity and sooner or later should be
introduced into civil laws but not as a matter of force or coercion
like some religions have done when they became spiritually
defective. Again I think science can help us see the importance of
such laws.
We can still have the pyramid type model of organization but the
attitudes of each individual and level would be one of equality, or
seeing each as a complimentary aspect of the whole. Take a man and
wife for example. They would see each in a complimentary manner and
respect and value each others unique contribution and nature.
Decisions should be made by the principles of consultation, not by
arbitrary rule. Course it would also be a matter of mutual agreement
how any organization should be operated. I recall in my own
experience of doing mgmt. and staff training where I asked individual
workers in a department in a large corp. whom they would elect as
Foreman and Supervisor and why. We passed out a questionaire and for
the most part they would elect the same persons mgmt. would have hired
on the basis of experience and education but the result was different
because the result was from a unanimous decision from the staff and
not something forced upon them . I do the same thing in each class I
present at the Jail. I ask the new class what kinds of rules they
think we should run the class by and we discuss them all and usually
they come up with the same that I would. Course I also have a way of
steering things by penetrating each idea they give with questions that
cause them to rethink their choices.
>
>
>> But what I meant about this rift and the attitude in the western
>> world
>
>> is that most people in not accepting the declining religious
>> practices, beliefs, etc. will opt for intellectual development
>> rather
>
>> than spiritual. Or they have a materialistic practice of religion
>> paying more attention to idols, artifacts, rites, etc.
>>
>
> I.e. they see the problems with most mainstream religion, yet react to
> it in
> the wrong manner: toss out _all_ religion and toss out spiritual
> growth.
Yes, and for sure there are lots of examples of traditional
religionists acting in ways that appear contrary to what a true
religion teaches. Witness the current debate between Evolutionists
and Creationists for example.
>
>
> <snip>
>>> So how would one go about developing such a methodology, anyway? It
>>> would be interesting to do.
>>
>> The hints that I ran into when studying the Baha'i Writings and
>> Messages from the Guardian and Univ. House of Justice seems to
>> indicate that it has something to do with study of the effects of
>> living the life of a believer, observing the brain signals with
>> current technology to see how it functions with and without spiritual
>> input. We can only study the effects of things not their essences.
>> We observe, categorize, use divisive analysis to study phenomena and
>> learn that a principle or power is at work, such as gravity, chemico-
>> electric, magnetism etc. and so why not we discover some sort of
>> power
>
>> or Life Force is at work that changes behaviors? The program I use
>> for rehab. and addictions here was directly drawn from the Baha'i
>> Writings but without all the religious terminology and it passes the
>> separation of church and state rules. It teaches us who we are, how
>
>> to live our lives and realize our true purpose, how to get along with
>> others and make right decision. But it also has to help us root out
>
>> our long standing evils and overlay these old memories with new
>> realistic reactions thus improving our perceptions which lead to
>> better feelings and actions.
>
> I'm curious. How good does this program work, compared to, say
> systems built off more "secular" things?
We do not have the funds to do a proper computer data base statistical
sampling but our best estimate based on our own records show the
current Jail recidivism rate to be 80% and ours is 35% and maybe
better. For years we have tried to find professional assistance to
help us write up a Proposal and Grant to operate a three year project
where we test three groups, i.e. 200 with no program and no Aftercare,
200 with only our program of rehab. and 200 with our program and three
years of Aftercare based on our program philosophy and general Baha'i
education. We desire to have a Prevention Program in the Schools and
then our Rehab. Program in the Criminal Justice System and followed by
an holistic Aftercare Program. However to qualify for Grants one must
not only have a scientifically prepared Proposal one also must have a
professional Grants Writer who can seek funding and then one also
needs a prominent and influence name or group to endorse it all. In
our mainstream Christian culture we find that often when anyone knows
we are Bahai's they don't offer us the same opportunities.
>
>
>> Trouble with a lot of scientists and other professionals is that when
>> they encounter religious terms it can often close their minds and I
>> don't blame them the way religion has traditionally been taught in
>> our
>
>> society.
>>
>
> So then most of it is a reaction to all the dark stuff seen in most
> mainstream
> religion?
>
It seems to be a carry over from the original problem that led to the
Dark Ages. Many people believe that science cannot research spiritual
realities for the method is restricted to only the phenomenal world.
To me this is a belief and I would think most true scientists would be
open to investigating all phenomena, both material and spiritual
rather than giving in to self-limiting thoughts. There are ways to
overcome this but it would take group of detached souls using the
Baha'i principle of consultation and independent investigation of
religion rather than the current debate styles of a "win at all cost"
variety and the inherent ego battles that preside.
I can only share my own limited understanding of things but it seems
to me that if God has given us the principle of the harmony of faith
and reason that produces our sciences and religions and tells us they
are fundamentally in unity and harmony then that must mean we can use
our reasoning powers to investigate and validate or invalidate
spiritual realities. Of course I will say there is no way to prove
the existence of God and maybe some other beliefs but yet all we can
really observe is the effects of things. Here is are two paragraphs
from an essay a friend of mine wrote.
"Up to the present time, modern science has concentrated entirely
on understanding material reality, the assumption being that this is
the only reality. Hence, scientific attempts to understand man have
reflected the same assumption, with limited results. Modern Western
medicine, for instance, is now confronting the evidence of successful
forms of healing not dependent on the cause and effect relationships
explicable by the laws of chemistry and physics. It is evident that
belief, faith, trust, and hope have an effect on patients. But, until
there is a science of reality that rests on the assumption of non-
actual forms of reality as well as actual forms of reality, from which
a new medicine can be developed, modern, Western medical science will
remain out of touch with many of the essential realities of man which
are immaterial in nature, including many of those directly involved in
the promotion of physical health and healing.
Throughout history, human beings have felt compelled to accept what
has been intuitively self-evident about themselves, namely that the
phenomenon of life includes far more than a mere collection of
chemical compounds. The “far more” part of life has been and is
variously referred to as the soul or spirit, etc. Such acceptance
gave rise to religion, philosophy, and the arts. Science, however,
having adopted a more limited assumption about the nature of reality
of man, has, for this reason, made its major achievement in
understanding the lower ontological levels of being that are primarily
dominated by the physical laws of physics and chemistry. It is for
this reason that we have achieved such incredible technological
advancements, but have not made too much progress in moral and social
development."
Sorry for such a long reply my friend,
God bless,
doug
mike3
wrote:
<snip>
Thank you for your response. I only have a few more questions about a
few
parts. Because of this I've snipped material that I did not have any
further
comments or questions on, so what little I do have doesn't get "lost"
among all the
stuff.
> > Yeah, but why try to justify it? Is it because they'd think if they
> > don't,
> > then that's caving into prejudice, or supporting prejudice? (Even
> > though
> > prejudice is also wrong too.)
>
> I thought I had explained the why but let me try again. Most peopl
e
>
> try to rationalize any behavior that society thinks is bad behavior.
>
> We try to justify the use of alcohol and drugs, criminal behavior,
> sexual promiscuity, etc., etc., etc. So homosexuals or transsexuals
> will try to find ways to have their behavior and condition accepted.
>
Why is it that we try and justify *every*thing like that? To me
it sounds like nobody wants to live with any sort of law or rule
and wants to believe anything and everything is OK to do.
<snip>
> > I.e. they see the problems with most mainstream religion, yet react to
> > it in
> > the wrong manner: toss out _all_ religion and toss out spiritual
> > growth.
>
> Yes, and for sure there are lots of examples of traditional
> religionists acting in ways that appear contrary to what a true
> religion teaches. Witness the current debate between Evolutionists
> and Creationists for example.
>
Agreed.
<snip>
> I can only share my own limited understanding of things but it seems
> to me that if God has given us the principle of the harmony of faith
> and reason that produces our sciences and religions and tells us they
>
> are fundamentally in unity and harmony then that must mean we can use
>
> our reasoning powers to investigate and validate or invalidate
> spiritual realities. Of course I will say there is no way to prove
> the existence of God and maybe some other beliefs but yet all we can
> really observe is the effects of things. Here is are two paragraphs
> from an essay a friend of mine wrote.
>
So then what is the justification behind these beliefs? As don't
you need, say, to believe in God before you can accept
Baha'u'llah as a messenger of God?
How is it though that we need more comprehensive assumptions in
***science*** in order to advance in the moral and social areas of
development?
mike3
wrote:
<snip>
Thank you for your response. I only have a few more questions about a
few
parts. Because of this I've snipped material that I did not have any
further
comments or questions on, so what little I do have doesn't get "lost"
among all the
stuff.
> > Yeah, but why try to justify it? Is it because they'd think if they
> > don't,
> > then that's caving into prejudice, or supporting prejudice? (Even
> > though
> > prejudice is also wrong too.)
>
> I thought I had explained the why but let me try again. Most peopl
e
>
> try to rationalize any behavior that society thinks is bad behavior.
>
> We try to justify the use of alcohol and drugs, criminal behavior,
> sexual promiscuity, etc., etc., etc. So homosexuals or transsexuals
> will try to find ways to have their behavior and condition accepted.
>
Why is it that we try and justify *every*thing like that? To me
it sounds like nobody wants to live with any sort of law or rule
and wants to believe anything and everything is OK to do.
<snip>
> > I.e. they see the problems with most mainstream religion, yet react to
> > it in
> > the wrong manner: toss out _all_ religion and toss out spiritual
> > growth.
>
> Yes, and for sure there are lots of examples of traditional
> religionists acting in ways that appear contrary to what a true
> religion teaches. Witness the current debate between Evolutionists
> and Creationists for example.
>
Agreed.
<snip>
> I can only share my own limited understanding of things but it seems
> to me that if God has given us the principle of the harmony of faith
> and reason that produces our sciences and religions and tells us they
>
> are fundamentally in unity and harmony then that must mean we can use
>
> our reasoning powers to investigate and validate or invalidate
> spiritual realities. Of course I will say there is no way to prove
> the existence of God and maybe some other beliefs but yet all we can
> really observe is the effects of things. Here is are two paragraphs
> from an essay a friend of mine wrote.
>
So then what is the justification behind these beliefs? As don't
you need, say, to believe in God before you can accept
Baha'u'llah as a messenger of God?
> "Up to the present time, modern science has concentrated entirely
How is it though that we need more comprehensive assumptions in
***science*** in order to advance in the moral and social areas of
development?
> Sorry for such a long reply my friend,
>
> God bless,
>
> doug
Douglas McAdam
Hi Mike3-
I wouldn't generalize this way for I think the majority of people see
the logic of laws and try to respect them. However we are all
struggling with our ego problems. We know it is wrong to do certain
things but we like the feeling these things give us and so we try to
rationalize them. For example an addict gets started by trying
something that he or she may or may not know is forbidden, like
cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, etc. And in many cases the body will
shows signs of rejecting these, say like getting dizzy and coughing
with the first cigarette does. But because of peer pressure, wanting
to be in with the group, we go ahead and overlook these signs and do
it again and again until we have perverted our body innate wisdom and
then the body is in complete charge and we use our intellect to
rationalize this behavior. At that time there are no morals and
ethics for the addict does what is needed to feed the habit. And it
is not just chemicals, we may become addicted to other things like
exercise, food, music, sports, sex, etc.
>
>
>>>
> <snip>
>> I can only share my own limited understanding of things but it seems
>> to me that if God has given us the principle of the harmony of faith
>> and reason that produces our sciences and religions and tells us they
>>
>> are fundamentally in unity and harmony then that must mean we can use
>>
>> our reasoning powers to investigate and validate or invalidate
>> spiritual realities. Of course I will say there is no way to prove
>> the existence of God and maybe some other beliefs but yet all we can
>> really observe is the effects of things. Here is are two paragraphs
>
>> from an essay a friend of mine wrote.
>>
>
> So then what is the justification behind these beliefs? As don't
> you need, say, to believe in God before you can accept
> Baha'u'llah as a messenger of God?
Again, as I have mentioned before, we are talking about beliefs, not
true faith for true faith is conscious knowledge and that comes about
by testing one's beliefs empirically. Many people simply belief their
is no God and many believe there is but how many really give it a lot
of thought? For example let us suppose we approach this in a detached
way, being objective like a scientist or rational person. We look at
the effects in nature, see the entire universe and logically we can
see there is complete order and harmony which implies intelligence for
only intelligence can create such organization. We can logically
surmise that a chance wind cannot blow a random pile of bricks into a
home. It simply cannot be accidental as some believe. So we can
conclude there must be a primary cause, an intelligence that created
all this. But as we dwell on these ideas and deal with doubters many
other scenarios can come up because of our doubts, or because of our
beliefs. So to me a reasonable person would say let us include both
material and spiritual aspects into our idea of reality in totality,
meaning we will consider what our senses and intellects report and
understand and also what our faith offers us in the form of an
Enlightener and what is revealed to us that we call Revelation for
afterall there are only three ways in which we learn, i.e. Discovery,
Experience and Revelation. This involves all degrees of our knowing
powers such as senses, intellect and faith and intuition. So our
power of faith is what enables us to learn but we must also use our
other powers to validate or invalidate what we believe. Rather than
be closed minded we attempt to be objective and acknowledge that we
need to accept on belief (faith) an Enlightener from God and what He
reveals to us in Divine Revelation and then we put those Teachings to
the test with our senses and intellect. Belief + Experience
Conscious knowledge which the Guardian says is true faith. There is
more to this than I can explain in detail in one email for it involves
a process but in summary then our problem is one of self-imposed
limitations with our beliefs. The scientist or intellectually strong
person might believe there is no God and if they do believe in God
they believe there is no way science can investigate and invalidate or
validate spiritual realities. To me a true scientist would realize
this is an unknown and a mystery that needs to be investigated and
understood. I think the old rift between science and religion, caused
when new science met the decline and corrupted religion has affected
current thought on this on behalf of many intellectually strong
people. In other words the limited perception and beliefs many people
have is causing them to focus on purely material phenomena with
science and I believe that if they would open up and really study the
Baha'i Revelation and focus also on this kind of research, putting
into action what the Teachings advise, we would see an entirely
dramatically evident increase in knowledge and technology along with a
more efficient application of this knowledge.
Because, as I mentioned before all we can know is the effects of
things. We can research and validate or invalidate the effects of
morals and ethics on society. Psychology in a way does this. I
recall a study done by the APA way back I think in the early 70s when
there was an increasing global awareness . Scientists from all over
the world were pooling information. We had Global Awareness type
studies of specific areas. One was when the APA studied the world
mental health for three years and concluded that at that current rate
of mental illness being shown we then would see by the year 2000 that
8021777521f the world's population would suffer from some type and degree
of mental illness. However what they deem as mental illness and what
some of us believe might be debatable. For example they have
identified such things as psychoses, neuroses in general and have a
book that defines specific illness such as paranoia, etc. But to me
the inability to face and deal intelligently with reality is a sign of
a degree of mental illness and that makes us all suspect. By illness
meaning we don't have enough knowledge or that we may have irrational
beliefs or irrational knowledge. Anyway at my old age now I can look
back at those early years and witness society today and can believe
that we are showing a lot of negative effects of bad behavior. The
APA at the time said what was needed to stem this increasing illness
was a commonly agree upon set of morals and ethics and witness how
these things are constantly being debated. I believe we have this set
of morals and ethics in the Baha'i Teachings but witness also how so
many are in opposition to this new Revelation, which to me is also a
sign of mental and spiritual illness.
>
God bless,
doug
mike3
wrote:
<snip>
Thanks for your response. But it raised one more question:
> Anyway at my old age now I can look
>
> back at those early years and witness society today and can believe
> that we are showing a lot of negative effects of bad behavior.
Does this mean it's just getting worse, and _nothing_is getting
better, and it will be a long time before we actually start seeing
_positive_ things happening in significant amounts -- enough for
the trend toward "getting worse" to start reversing?
mike3
wrote:
<snip for brevity, no further comments/questions on the snipped stuff>
Thank you for this response. I've got a couple questions, though:
> However what others
> share, and even what Baha'is share needs to be studied and measured by
> standards available both in and out of the Baha'i Faith. Science and
> Religion and our power of faith and reason need to be in harmony.
What sort of standards "outside" would need to be used, in addition to
the ones
"inside"?
<snip>
> The change is affected by how much we ourselves spread the Word of God
> and answer issues that arise in our process of education. Any time I ~d
> run into a social problem I do my best to teach the solution but one
> also must be wise and on occasion spoon feed, for you could win a
> battle and lose the war in a way. In our Jail classes we must be
> careful to pick our battles with the Criminal Justice System. I would
> not stay away from any highly recognized college or univ. because they
> do offer wonderful academic knowledge but I would also do what I need
> to do to get the maximum benefit and not be swayed by their politics
> or other biases. I find it helpful to use the Socratic method in
> dealing with problems and people. Asking questions often causes them
> to think differently instead of answering automatically as they
> usually do.
>
What can one do to not be swayed by their politics or other biases?
Douglas McAdam
On Jul 25, 2009, at 2:10 PM, mike3 wrote:
> On Jul 25, 9:31 am, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Thanks for your response. But it raised one more question:
>
>> Anyway at my old age now I can look
>>
>> back at those early years and witness society today and can believe
>> that we are showing a lot of negative effects of bad behavior.
>
> Does this mean it's just getting worse, and _nothing_is getting
> better, and it will be a long time before we actually start seeing
> _positive_ things happening in significant amounts -- enough for
> the trend toward "getting worse" to start reversing?
Hi Mike3-
As I said before there are two things happening, a disintegration and
an integration aspect of the overall process of development. The old
is falling apart and the new unfolding. However it takes sensitivity
to see both. Most or our media is related to selling news and
information of the negative type while the positive things often get
no publicity. Some positive things are often stifled or put aside
somehow by the old world powers that be who do not wish to see their
power thwarted. And some peoples ideas of what is positive often
creates more problems. For example many religious fanatics believe
their often violent behaviors to apostates or non-believers is a
positive reaction for they belief God has inspired it. However even
if we are not seeing all the positive things happening they still are
having effects. Take for example the Baha'i Teachings on the
elimination of all forms of prejudice, i.e. racial, religious, gender,
class and the need for universal and compulsory education and the
overall equal rights etc. Most people now accept these truths even if
they have no idea from whence they came. One of my scholarly friends
back in the 70s did a study and discovered we have had several full
blown Renaissances. She then uncovered what appeared to be basic
predicators to each. First is the condition where we are aware of
problems in society but attempts to rectify them fail and make things
worse because of not having the holistic knowledge. Second is the
appearance of a charismatic personality (say like a Manifestation) who
articulates new knowledge which eventually becomes written down in
books.
Third is the opposition to this new knowledge by the existing powers
that be who feel they are losing their influence and control on others.
Fourth is a gradual acceptance of the new knowledge even where the old
peoples in control try to say they already had all this stuff to try
to retain their authority.
Fifth is a final acceptance and a Renaissance is then experienced.
The Beloved Guardian of the Baha'i Faith said that we are now in the
condition of moving out of "unmitigated obscurity into active
oppression."
I tend to feel that things must get worse both socially and
individually before a dramatic change is made. For example here in
our little city we have a major employer in the auto industry, i.e.
Chrysler and Delphi and all the associated service industries who
employ the dramatically largest percentage of people. Many have early
retirement and own a nice home, have a couple of cars, go to Florida
for vacation, and generally have all the luxuries. So there
perception of things are different than the almost 20% now
unemployed. Now that many are threatened with the loss their
retirement and health benefits their perceptions are quite different.
peace,
doug
Douglas McAdam
On Jul 25, 2009, at 2:14 PM, mike3 wrote:
> On Jul 23, 10:07 am, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> <snip for brevity, no further comments/questions on the snipped stuff>
> Thank you for this response. I've got a couple questions, though:
>
>> However what others
>> share, and even what Baha'is share needs to be studied and measured
>> by
>> standards available both in and out of the Baha'i Faith. Science and
>> Religion and our power of faith and reason need to be in harmony.
>
> What sort of standards "outside" would need to be used, in addition to
> the ones
> "inside"?
HI Mike-
Hmmn!, I sort of took it for granted we know these standards, such as
critical thinking, use of the scientific method, being objective and
free of prejudices, search for truth, the Ten Commandments, the new
Laws Baha'u'llah has brought us, etc.
We need to know the type and condition of all the necessary resources
and that will take a holistic perception of things. We are talking
about a system here and each system has three components, i.e., Human
and Material Resources, perceived and utilized by Communication. In
other words how we perceive these resources determine how best to
combine and apply them for the proper purposes. The standards
"outside" must be compared to an modified to meet those "inside".
For example what standard is being used by many to justify racial and
religious prejudices? If examined we will find they are based solely
on beliefs not real knowledge.
>
>
> <snip>
>> The change is affected by how much we ourselves spread the Word of
>> God
>
>> and answer issues that arise in our process of education. Any time
>> I ~d
>
>> run into a social problem I do my best to teach the solution but one
>> also must be wise and on occasion spoon feed, for you could win a
>> battle and lose the war in a way. In our Jail classes we must be
>> careful to pick our battles with the Criminal Justice System. I
>> would
>
>> not stay away from any highly recognized college or univ. because
>> they
>
>> do offer wonderful academic knowledge but I would also do what I need
>> to do to get the maximum benefit and not be swayed by their politics
>> or other biases. I find it helpful to use the Socratic method in
>> dealing with problems and people. Asking questions often causes them
>
>> to think differently instead of answering automatically as they
>> usually do.
>>
>
> What can one do to not be swayed by their politics or other biases?
Well if one has the type of knowledge I am referring to, i.e. what is
revealed by God through His Manifestations including the present
Revelation of Baha'i and has accepted and experienced all this by use
of reason, science and the like then that in effect helps us to be
immune to the politics and other biases but yet we still will feel the
effects in our lives. The difference is that Baha'is are taught that
all these tests and difficulties are the very means of our growth if
we deal with them in the manner revealed to us by God. It is not the
stressful things that cause us problems it is how we deal with them.
So once we recognize this truth we then, in spite of feeling negative
effects, pain etc., we will give praise to God for the opportunity to
acquire virtues for in analyzing each stimulus coming our way we will
discover what virtues we need. For example if we see and feel and
injustice we then know we need justice. If we are impatient we know
it is an opportunity to acquire the virtue of patience.
This appears to be an eternal process for each age has its own tests
and difficulties relevant to our condition and the need for change
along with our capacity to do so. Problems of the stone age are not
the same as our present problems and probably 500 years from now we
will look back on today's society as being barbaric.
peace,
doug
>
>
mike3
I think so.
But this doesn't mean it _must_ be "500 years" before we have anything
even somewhat better than we do now, though, does it?
mike3
wrote:
<snip for brevity, no further comments/questions>
> individually before a dramatic change is made. For example here in
> our little city we have a major employer in the auto industry, i.e.
> Chrysler and Delphi and all the associated service industries who
> employ the dramatically largest percentage of people. Many have early
> retirement and own a nice home, have a couple of cars, go to Florida
> for vacation, and generally have all the luxuries. So there
> unemployed. Now that many are threatened with the loss their
> retirement and health benefits their perceptions are quite different.
>
But will this time of "worsening" last for a very long time?
Furthermore
if both disintegration of old _and_ integration of new are occuring at
once,
what does this "worsening" refer to, exactly?
Douglas McAdam
On Jul 27, 2009, at 2:55 PM, mike3 wrote:
>> This appears to be an eternal process for each age has its own tests
>> and difficulties relevant to our condition and the need for change
>> along with our capacity to do so. Problems of the stone age are not
>
>> the same as our present problems and probably 500 years from now we
>> will look back on today's society as being barbaric.
>>
>
> But this doesn't mean it _must_ be "500 years" before we have anything
> even somewhat better than we do now, though, does it?
Hi Mike3-
I think that each decade shows progress but it will take a long time
to have such a change that causes us to look back on today as
barbarism. Look at the difference in history as we look back 100, 500
or 1,000 years. Yet those changes happened moment by moment, reaction
by reaction, day by day, year by year, etc. Observe what it is like
when growing out of the childhood years. At the age when we become
more fully conscious we can look back at our childish acts. And at
another time we can look at adults and wonder how they do what they go
for many actions do not make sense to us. I recall wondering myself
and dealing with my son's observance as to the logic of the electoral
college or telling us tobacco was harmful and yet we give financial
aid to tobacco farmers.
regards,
doug
Douglas McAdam
Hi Mike3-
Well, here again we are sharing an opinion based on our current and
limited understanding of morals, ethics, right behavior, the nature of
human beings, etc. With the advent of the Baha'i Revelation it
appears the generality of humans believe in the elimination of all
forms of prejudices, gender, class, race, religions etc. and laws have
been made to insure the rights of peoples. So I would say that the
worsening refers to behaviors that are contrary to the nature of the
human being, our purpose, how to live our lives and get along with
others which has been revealed in the Baha'i Revelation. In other
words our behavior should exemplify that which the Baha'i Teachings
offer and which will achieve our overall purpose from God to establish
love and unity in the entire Creation.
So the effects depends on the views of the individual which also
depends on the type of knowledge they have. For those who see a
holistic type of view in which reason and faith or science and
religion appear to be in harmony they see a lot of negative effects of
the old world order in decline but they also see some positive
growth. It depends on perceptions which depend on education, which
depends on discovery, experience and revelation.
regards,
doug
mike3
wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2009, at 2:55 PM, mike3 wrote:
>
> >> This appears to be an eternal process for each age has its own tests
> >> and difficulties relevant to our condition and the need for change
> >> along with our capacity to do so. Problems of the stone age are not
>
> >> the same as our present problems and probably 500 years from now we
> >> will look back on today's society as being barbaric.
>
> > But this doesn't mean it _must_ be "500 years" before we have anything
> > even somewhat better than we do now, though, does it?
>
> Hi Mike3-
> I think that each decade shows progress but it will take a long time
> to have such a change that causes us to look back on today as
> barbarism.
But that point was not what I was referring to, rather, I was
referring
to the point where we'd have a world that is significantly better than
the one we have now, even if not _that_ far advanced as you are
mentioning. Or perhaps, just the point at when the "worsening" that
you mention here http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.bahai/msg/5ce8
fb2096b01bb8?hlen
"I tend to feel that things must get worse both socially and
individually before a dramatic change is made." ends and that
"dramatic"
change, if any, is made.
> Look at the difference in history as we look back 100, 500
> or 1,000 years. Yet those changes happened moment by moment, reaction
> by reaction, day by day, year by year, etc. Observe what it is like
> when growing out of the childhood years. At the age when we become
> more fully conscious we can look back at our childish acts. And at
> another time we can look at adults and wonder how they do what they go
> for many actions do not make sense to us. I recall wondering myself
> and dealing with my son's observance as to the logic of the electoral
> college or telling us tobacco was harmful and yet we give financial
> aid to tobacco farmers.
>
What's the thing about the electoral college?
Douglas McAdam
On Jul 29, 2009, at 3:00 PM, mike3 wrote:
> On Jul 28, 9:13 am, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 2009, at 2:55 PM, mike3 wrote:
>>
>>>> This appears to be an eternal process for each age has its own
>>>> tests
>>>> and difficulties relevant to our condition and the need for change
>>>> along with our capacity to do so. Problems of the stone age are
>>>> not
>>
>>>> the same as our present problems and probably 500 years from now we
>>>> will look back on today's society as being barbaric.
>>
>>> But this doesn't mean it _must_ be "500 years" before we have
>>> anything
>>> even somewhat better than we do now, though, does it?
>>
>> Hi Mike3-
>> I think that each decade shows progress but it will take a long time
>> to have such a change that causes us to look back on today as
>> barbarism.
>
> But that point was not what I was referring to, rather, I was
> referring
> to the point where we'd have a world that is significantly better than
> the one we have now, even if not _that_ far advanced as you are
> mentioning. Or perhaps, just the point at when the "worsening" that
> you mention here http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.bahai/msg/5ce8
> fb2096b01bb8?hl=en
> "I tend to feel that things must get worse both socially and
> individually before a dramatic change is made." ends and that
> "dramatic"
> change, if any, is made.
Guess I am not understanding what you mean. Things are indeed getting
worse and yet we also can see some positive change too but it seems to
me that we may be at a critical mass state and end up with some sort
of dramatic revolution like has happened historically. Sure hope it
will not be violent like the past.
>
>
>> Look at the difference in history as we look back 100, 500
>> or 1,000 years. Yet those changes happened moment by moment,
>> reaction
>
>> by reaction, day by day, year by year, etc. Observe what it is like
>
>> when growing out of the childhood years. At the age when we become
>> more fully conscious we can look back at our childish acts. And at
>> another time we can look at adults and wonder how they do what they
>> go
>
>> for many actions do not make sense to us. I recall wondering myself
>
>> and dealing with my son's observance as to the logic of the electoral
>> college or telling us tobacco was harmful and yet we give financial
>> aid to tobacco farmers.
>>
>
> What's the thing about the electoral college?
The whole idea of the Popular vote say choosing by a wide margin a new
President but the Electoral College over turns it and selects someone
different. Why both voting if the popular vote can be overturned by a
few reps. from each State. This is how George W. Bush got elected.
regards,
doug
>
>
mike3
> > "I tend to feel that things must get worse both socially and
> > individually before a dramatic change is made." ends and that
> > "dramatic"
> > change, if any, is made.
>
> Guess I am not understanding what you mean. Things are indeed getting
> worse and yet we also can see some positive change too but it seems to
> me that we may be at a critical mass state and end up with some sort
> of dramatic revolution like has happened historically. Sure hope it
> will not be violent like the past.
>
What I mean is just, must such a "revolutionary" change, or at least
the
end of this time of things getting worse, be very long off?
>
>
>
>
> >> Look at the difference in history as we look back 100, 500
> >> or 1,000 years. Yet those changes happened moment by moment,
> >> reaction
>
> >> by reaction, day by day, year by year, etc. Observe what it is like
>
> >> when growing out of the childhood years. At the age when we become
> >> more fully conscious we can look back at our childish acts. And at
> >> another time we can look at adults and wonder how they do what they
> >> go
>
> >> for many actions do not make sense to us. I recall wondering myself
>
> >> and dealing with my son's observance as to the logic of the electoral
> >> college or telling us tobacco was harmful and yet we give financial
> >> aid to tobacco farmers.
>
> > What's the thing about the electoral college?
>
> The whole idea of the Popular vote say choosing by a wide margin a new
> President but the Electoral College over turns it and selects someone
> different. Why both voting if the popular vote can be overturned by a
> few reps. from each State. This is how George W. Bush got elected.
>
Ah, OK.
Douglas McAdam
On Jul 31, 2009, at 3:19 PM, mike3 wrote:
>> Guess I am not understanding what you mean. Things are indeed
>> getting
>
>> worse and yet we also can see some positive change too but it seems
>> to
>
>> me that we may be at a critical mass state and end up with some sort
>> of dramatic revolution like has happened historically. Sure hope it
>
>> will not be violent like the past.
>>
>
> What I mean is just, must such a "revolutionary" change, or at least
> the
> end of this time of things getting worse, be very long off?
Hi Mike3-
I really don't know how anyone can estimate this. Some of my friends
in the social sciences say that here in America we are at critical
mass state and another problem such as the police beating up on a
black like Rodney
King, or some other racist action that gets captured on TV might
trigger a riot and society is heavily armed now.
Or maybe an economic collapse, prison riots, crowds protesting certain
govt. actions. Maybe it might be some sort of illness, a situation
whereby corporations producing inferior food products or drug
companies failing to test drugs before marketing. Anything is
possible when corruption becomes widespread and commonplace. Maybe we
might get invaded. Who knows?
doug
mike3
wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2009, at 3:19 PM, mike3 wrote:
>
> >> Guess I am not understanding what you mean. Things are indeed
> >> getting
>
> >> worse and yet we also can see some positive change too but it seems
> >> to
>
> >> me that we may be at a critical mass state and end up with some sort
> >> of dramatic revolution like has happened historically. Sure hope it
>
> >> will not be violent like the past.
>
> > What I mean is just, must such a "revolutionary" change, or at least
> > the
> > end of this time of things getting worse, be very long off?
>
> Hi Mike3-
> in the social sciences say that here in America we are at critical
> mass state and another problem such as the police beating up on a
> black like Rodney
> King, or some other racist action that gets captured on TV might
> trigger a riot and society is heavily armed now.
> Or maybe an economic collapse, prison riots, crowds protesting certain
> govt. actions. Maybe it might be some sort of illness, a situation
> whereby corporations producing inferior food products or drug
> companies failing to test drugs before marketing. Anything is
> possible when corruption becomes widespread and commonplace. Maybe we
> might get invaded. Who knows?
>
So then it might not necessarily be a really long long time in
the future. Although there isn't any way to know with certainty,
of course.
Douglas McAdam
computers, growth curves, and certain data to estimate future
conditions. For example if we see a certain condition change in the
past ten years we can more or less estimate a future change given that
the rates, etc. remain constant.
So it may well be that they can look back and see how much time
elapses since the last major change into the Industrial Era and then
estimate the future. Look at the whale oil business, and now what has
happened in the fossil fuel business for example.
Take for example the Baha'i goals of each one teach one and lead one
soul to the Faith each year. Just imagine what will happen with that
doubling effect. Or just to be more conservative we might use a
percentage of current members that will double. We might say "what
will the numbers look like in 50 years if we have only 2521777521r current
members, or 10% actually bring in a doubling. Why at 10% doubling
would mean the entire world pop. of today would be Baha'is in 15
years. Think what the society would be like with no wars, elimination
of all forms of prejudices, harmony of science and religion, people
only working in service oriented employment and businesses, the types
that do no harm the environment nor people, say. Why it staggers the
imagination to think what a future would be like if all the Baha'i
Teachings were that widespread. It would truly be heaven on earth.
So my idea is that I focus on what I can do right now and let the
future take care of itself by making sure my current decisions are
such that are service oriented and not out of greed, nor profit, nor
ego related. We can only change society one heart at a time by
changing ourselves.
regards,
doug
mike3
So does this mean that we won't have even much less prejudice
than now until the majority of the world's population is Baha'i? This
makes it sound like one has to be a Baha'i to reduce their
prejudice by any major amount. But that doesn't seem to make sense.
Am I missing something? (I hope so)
Douglas McAdam
On Aug 4, 2009, at 3:13 PM, mike3 wrote:
>
> So does this mean that we won't have even much less prejudice
> than now until the majority of the world's population is Baha'i? This
> makes it sound like one has to be a Baha'i to reduce their
> prejudice by any major amount. But that doesn't seem to make sense.
> Am I missing something? (I hope so)
I think you missed the point my friend, probably due to my poor
writing and the limitations of emails cause I know lots of people
today who are not Baha'is but who do not have prejudices about races,
religions, gender, etc. The point is that the Baha'i Teachings will
definitely have a major effect on society and the reason I submit is
because they make sense and the effects speak for themselves.
My understanding is that in the future there will be believers in the
One God, One Religion of God and One Humankind but there also will be
those who are in process. We will not have all these divisions in
society, just believers and those in process.
regards,
doug
mike3
wrote:
I'm sure it would, but will everything still be all horrible and
gloomy until
the _majority_ of the population is a Baha'i?
mike3
wrote:
I'm sure it would, but will everything still be all horrible and
Douglas McAdam
Hi Mike3-
I'm not sure anyone can answer this question but to me maybe it is a
matter of what a person decides to put their energy into. Before I
was a Baha'i I had prayed for God to send someone to help with all
this gloom etc. and He did and since I became a Baha'i I also see
positive things happening to which I put my energy into. I'd rather
put my energy into the solutions rather than commiserating about all
the gloom. As I understand it heaven and hell are not places but
rather states of mind.
regards,
doug
mike3
Thanks for the response. Also notice there is a lot of space between
"not horrible and gloomy" and "the best", too, as it may not be gloomy
but may still not be as great as it can be. So for the world to get
out of
the gloom might not require as much as becoming extremely great.
Hmm.
Douglas McAdam
Well, bottom line is that what is horrible and gloomy or what is best
is a matter of perception. If one lived in captivity, such as some
countries who stone to death apostates then ones perception might
indeed be horrible and gloomy but here in the USA we see some bad
things and at same time some good and compared to that other country
we are best.
regards,
doug
On Aug 8, 2009, at 1:30 PM, mike3 wrote:
>> snip
mike3
> Hi Mike3-
> Well, bottom line is that what is horrible and gloomy or what is best
> is a matter of perception. If one lived in captivity, such as some
> countries who stone to death apostates then ones perception might
> indeed be horrible and gloomy but here in the USA we see some bad
> things and at same time some good and compared to that other country
> we are best.
>
But what I'm saying is that we may get out of the _gloom_ even before
the
_majority_ of people are Baha'is. Of course things would be even
better once
they are, but the ending of the gloom can come earlier. It's a
continuum thing,
not a black/white thing.
Douglas McAdam
of the gloom" for some is not so for others. Here in America it seems
that the spirit rises and falls with the value of the dollar. People
here have been very much conditioned by a "quantity mentality" when
what is needed is a "quality mentality". Here people think more is
better, bigger is better, etc. So if the economy improves they think
it is "out of the gloom". For me, and many others, we still see the
inequality, i.e. racism, religious prejudice, gender and class
prejudices, the increasing almost epidemic drug and crime problem
which is overcrowding all jails and prisons and we see how most
decision makers think building more jails is the answer, or in some
cases when the politicians know they cannot sell more tax increases
for more jails they then start promoting rehab. but what gets the
attention for funding and application are the same old traditional
Christian based programs or certain psychological types and we never
hear of presenting Prevention classes in the schools, or holistic
programs and the type that deals with all forms of prejudices and the
whole person.
Personally I think it is going to get worse for history has a way of
repeating itself when it comes to societal changes. The old fights
the new until there is a complete breakdown, usually involving violent
revolution too and I sure hope that does not happen this time for
Americans are very heavily armed now.
But yet it is true the we may get out of the gloom before the majority
of people are Baha'is but I also think it will have a lot to do with
how widespread the Baha'i Teachings become. I would say that most
people today are approving the idea of elimination of all forms of
prejudice, equal rights etc. whereas years ago they did not. As we
spread the Bahai Teachings it has a deep and lasting effect on people.
regards,
doug
mike3
wrote:
> Well again Mike3, it is a matter of perception. What constitutes "out
> of the gloom" for some is not so for others. Here in America it seems
> that the spirit rises and falls with the value of the dollar. People
> here have been very much conditioned by a "quantity mentality" when
> what is needed is a "quality mentality". Here people think more is
> better, bigger is better, etc. So if the economy improves they think
> it is "out of the gloom". For me, and many others, we still see the
> inequality, i.e. racism, religious prejudice, gender and class
> prejudices, the increasing almost epidemic drug and crime problem
> which is overcrowding all jails and prisons and we see how most
> decision makers think building more jails is the answer, or in some
> cases when the politicians know they cannot sell more tax increases
> for more jails they then start promoting rehab. but what gets the
> attention for funding and application are the same old traditional
> Christian based programs or certain psychological types and we never
> hear of presenting Prevention classes in the schools, or holistic
> programs and the type that deals with all forms of prejudices and the
> whole person.
Then I'd think that "out of the gloom" would mean the time when
such prejudices, crime problems, etc. have been reduced to a
level significantly less than they are now, even if not eliminated
entirely.
> Personally I think it is going to get worse for history has a way of
> repeating itself when it comes to societal changes.
But can the cessation of this getting worse -- and the turnaround to
getting better -- happen before the majority of people are Baha'is, a
time that could be hundreds of years in the future? Could it be
feasible
this "worsening" could cease in 50, 100 years?
> The old fights
> the new until there is a complete breakdown, usually involving violent
> revolution too and I sure hope that does not happen this time for
> Americans are very heavily armed now.
> But yet it is true the we may get out of the gloom before the majority
> of people are Baha'is but I also think it will have a lot to do with
> how widespread the Baha'i Teachings become. I would say that most
> people today are approving the idea of elimination of all forms of
> prejudice, equal rights etc. whereas years ago they did not. As we
> spread the Bahai Teachings it has a deep and lasting effect on people.
>
That would make sense.
Douglas McAdam
Yes, I would think so too.
>
>> Personally I think it is going to get worse for history has a way of
>> repeating itself when it comes to societal changes.
>
> But can the cessation of this getting worse -- and the turnaround to
> getting better -- happen before the majority of people are Baha'is, a
> time that could be hundreds of years in the future? Could it be
> feasible
> this "worsening" could cease in 50, 100 years?
I don't know my friend, nor do I think anyone knows. Who knew before
hand what the Revolution against British rule would have on the
community? Who forecast what the effects of the Civil War would be?
However I do think that the collapse of the present systems in America
might happen in our own time. Gosh I can see what has transpired
since I was a boy and only paid five cents for a candy bar. Over all
these years just imagine what I have seen, i.e. man on the moon,
atomic bombs, speed of travel and communication , etc. Now they are
predicting a pop. of 7million by 2011.
Sen
My perception is that the worst is past; in fact that the depth of the
gloom was the second world war, the trough of the depression lasted
through the cold war (a period that includes the killing fields of the
Pol Pot regime, as horrific as those of WWII), and the rise since then
has been very slow and fitful and (as Rwanda showed) capable of a
reversal. The world today has problems, but it will always have
problems. It is still a better world, and better able to tackle world
problems, than was the case at the end of the cold war. It is a much
much better world than that of the 17th century for example.
There's no future for the Bahai community in preaching doom and gloom.
The people who are open to that message are not the builders and
movers whom we need.
Sen
Douglas McAdam
I agree that we should not be preaching doom and gloom and I hope you
don't think I am for that is not what I am trying to do at all. I'm
merely answering the questions that Mike is coming up with. On the
other hand I think it a mistake to go around thinking everything is
rosy. We cannot fix problems unless we are aware we have any. I
think it was Krishnamurti (sp) the Indian guru, when giving talks at
colleges years ago, who said that positive thinkers are not those who
ignore negative signs but rather those who see them and do something
about it.
regards,
doug
mike3
wrote:
So would this *require* "the *majority*" to be Baha'is -- and so until
that happens it's all "gloomy"?
>
>
> >> Personally I think it is going to get worse for history has a way of
> >> repeating itself when it comes to societal changes.
>
> > But can the cessation of this getting worse -- and the turnaround to
> > getting better -- happen before the majority of people are Baha'is, a
> > time that could be hundreds of years in the future? Could it be
> > feasible
> > this "worsening" could cease in 50, 100 years?
>
> I don't know my friend, nor do I think anyone knows. Who knew before
> hand what the Revolution against British rule would have on the
> community? Who forecast what the effects of the Civil War would be?
> However I do think that the collapse of the present systems in America
> might happen in our own time. Gosh I can see what has transpired
> since I was a boy and only paid five cents for a candy bar. Over all
> these years just imagine what I have seen, i.e. man on the moon,
> atomic bombs, speed of travel and communication , etc. Now they are
> predicting a pop. of 7million by 2011.
>
So the possibility of the cessation of the worsening being within the
mentioned timeframes is not impossible. What I'm curious about now
is what would be necessary to make that cessation happen?
I guess why I came up with these timeframes is because it seems
there are just certain problems with the present system that flat
out can't let it go on much longer than that. For example we use up
lots
of natural resources to run this system -- and those likely won't last
long,
esp. ones like oil and gas ("not last long" "not 'last' more than
the
50-100 years mentioned."). Perhaps that will demand some sort of big
change. After all the reasons we use them up so much is related to our
greedy materialism. Of course it would be better to change now than
to wait for the "crunch time" when it gets real tough, but the point
is it
puts a damper on any idea that this system could hang around for
centuries
more.
mike3
wrote:
> Hi Sen-
> I agree that we should not be preaching doom and gloom and I hope you
> don't think I am for that is not what I am trying to do at all. I'm
> merely answering the questions that Mike is coming up with. On the
> other hand I think it a mistake to go around thinking everything is
> rosy. We cannot fix problems unless we are aware we have any. I
> think it was Krishnamurti (sp) the Indian guru, when giving talks at
> colleges years ago, who said that positive thinkers are not those who
> ignore negative signs but rather those who see them and do something
> about it.
>
I'd think so as well.
Douglas McAdam
No, not at all. Like I said there is a process going on, one of
integration and disintegration and the more we expand our knowledge
the more we can see both evolving. In each beginning is an end and in
each end new beginning. In each problem a solution and in each
solution a problem. There is an old Sufi saying that says something
to the effect that the good deeds of the dear ones are the sins of the
near ones. I do not think gloomy is the right word to describe the
world today.
When resources run out we will invent new ones. We had coal and wood
energy and now it is oil. We will harness the sun, wind, etc. and
might even find new sources of energy but this time we will have
enough knowledge, virtues and experience to see things out to their
end and measure results good and bad for humanity. Years ago science
advised us we are heading for a problem with the burning of fossil
fuels but profiteers would not listen and society became to a state of
comfort and ease and not wanting to let go of the inefficient
appliances.
Again, when science is guided by the morals and ethics from religion
we will see a more efficient technology.
>
Douglas McAdam
Hi Mike3-
I just happened to think of something else relevant to our discussion
re: gloom and doom. Consider the following quote.
... Naturally there will be periods of distress and difficulty, and
even severe tests; but if that person turns firmly toward the divine
Manifestation, studies carefully His spiritual teachings and receives
the blessings of the Holy Spirit, he will find that in reality these
tests and difficulties have been the gifts of God to enable him to
grow and develop.
Deepening (5:91)
There is another quote, which I'm not able to find quickly, but which
sort of says that for something to be real it must show a sign that
registers on our sense perceptions. So in terms of the gloom and doom
signs we see and these quotes mentioned I would say that most Baha'is
see these signs as tests and thus will turn to their higher nature to
deal with them. In a way we can actually say thanks to God for giving
us this opportunity to grow and develop spiritually. It may not ease
our pain but at least it frees our mind to choose more realistic
reactions to take, which to me is to teach the Faith whose knowledge
is what is needed to overcome these problems and lift humanity to a
new level of spiritual development.
So while we see the doom and gloom we also see in them the means for
growth.
God bless,
doug
>
mike3
That makes sense.
So then to fix the problems, we need to get those morals. So then
yes, we'll need a change in that area (of morals, etc.) and soon
(given the
expected life time of those resources.). It can't wait hundreds of
years.
Furthermore if we had more morals then we would also not be so
profligately wasting of energy and would not need to consume as much
as
we do now, thus making the oil even less necessary. So perhaps as I
said
this will require us to get more morals.
Douglas McAdam
On Aug 15, 2009, at 2:28 PM, mike3 wrote:
>> When resources run out we will invent new ones. We had coal and wood
>
>> energy and now it is oil. We will harness the sun, wind, etc. and
>> might even find new sources of energy but this time we will have
>> enough knowledge, virtues and experience to see things out to their
>> end and measure results good and bad for humanity. Years ago science
>
>> advised us we are heading for a problem with the burning of fossil
>> fuels but profiteers would not listen and society became to a state
>> of
>
>> comfort and ease and not wanting to let go of the inefficient
>> appliances.
>>
>> Again, when science is guided by the morals and ethics from religion
>> we will see a more efficient technology.
>>
>>
>
> So then to fix the problems, we need to get those morals. So then
> yes, we'll need a change in that area (of morals, etc.) and soon
> (given the
> expected life time of those resources.). It can't wait hundreds of
> years.
> Furthermore if we had more morals then we would also not be so
> profligately wasting of energy and would not need to consume as much
> as
> we do now, thus making the oil even less necessary. So perhaps as I
> said
> this will require us to get more morals.
Or on the other hand we can wait until conditions get so bad we are
forced to do something, which may be where we are now. I recall the
scientists warning us way back in the 70s but they went unheeded
except in some cases the govt. took action to make new regulations
regarding pollution etc.
It does seem that preceding any great progress in civilization mankind
must experience some sort of calamity. Hopefully this time we will
act more rapidly since we do now have more scientific knowledge about
such things.
regards,
doug
compx2
It is refreshing to hear a Baha'i opinion that does not seem based on
the surety of impending magical intervention.
Horrors have existed through history and no doubt will continue to
exist. Trying to make sense of nonsense is the human condition. If
God has power on earth He is not working exclusively through Baha'is.
If He were working exclusively through Baha'is His Power would be next
to nil. I have met a lot of Baha'is, so I know.
The movers and builders we need are those who see clearly the reasons
to build a new world order with or without the Baha'i Faith. People
with faith in the One True God recognize Him regardless of His Name.
Baha'is need to embrace the process, lead in sacrifice for the sake of
their neighbors, in acquiring virtues and rising to the spiritual
tasks at hand. If we can do this for God as an aid to ourselves,
well, that is the Baha'i Faith. Most Baha'is have it backwards. We
seem to think that being Baha'i is magical, but the truth is the magic
comes from the sacrifice, the virtue, performing the tasks at hand.
If we don't do it someone else will. Does it really matter it they
call themselves Baha'i or not? If we are the ones who do the work,
well, from my point of view, that is the Baha'i Faith.
--Kent
mike3
wrote:
That's right. And now with the peak gas...
> It does seem that preceding any great progress in civilization mankind
> must experience some sort of calamity. Hopefully this time we will
> act more rapidly since we do now have more scientific knowledge about
> such things.
>
I suppose so. Yet of course, as I mentioned, such a thing need not be
hundreds and hundreds of years in the future: there are things that
could potentially lead to calamity such as peak gas whose effects
can come much sooner than hundreds and hundreds of years in the
future.
Which means that the time for taking the action you mention is now.
Of course it is not so much that I look forward to disaster, but
rather look
forward to the better world that would come beyond it, or that we
could
build now and reduce the disaster. But the timing of the disaster
helps
to set a time frame or a limit as to just how long things can continue
in this state, and that's what I'm after.
Douglas McAdam
On Aug 16, 2009, at 2:38 PM, mike3 wrote:
> On Aug 15, 3:43 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> Hi Mike3
>>
>> On Aug 15, 2009, at 2:28 PM, mike3 wrote:
>> snip
>
>> It does seem that preceding any great progress in civilization
>> mankind
>
>> must experience some sort of calamity. Hopefully this time we will
>> act more rapidly since we do now have more scientific knowledge about
>> such things.
>>
>
> I suppose so. Yet of course, as I mentioned, such a thing need not be
> hundreds and hundreds of years in the future: there are things that
> could potentially lead to calamity such as peak gas whose effects
> can come much sooner than hundreds and hundreds of years in the
> future.
> Which means that the time for taking the action you mention is now.
Yes we must take action now. As to whether or not it takes hundreds
of years well just look back in history and see how long it took to
move from the time of no electricity. However in todays world the
speed of travel and communication, more widespread and better quality
is our education, etc. and so I would expect we will move much faster
from the nation building era to the international system.
>
> Of course it is not so much that I look forward to disaster, but
> rather look
> forward to the better world that would come beyond it, or that we
> could
> build now and reduce the disaster. But the timing of the disaster
> helps
> to set a time frame or a limit as to just how long things can continue
> in this state, and that's what I'm after.
The House of Justice in one of its letters said the biggest barrier
to world peace is the belief it is not possible.
So if we do our part today and spread the Baha'i Teachings far and
wide people's attitudes will change and a new potential will be
released.
regards,
doug
>
mike3
wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2009, at 2:38 PM, mike3 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 15, 3:43 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Hi Mike3
>
> >> On Aug 15, 2009, at 2:28 PM, mike3 wrote:
> >> snip
>
> >> It does seem that preceding any great progress in civilization
> >> mankind
>
> >> must experience some sort of calamity. Hopefully this time we will
> >> act more rapidly since we do now have more scientific knowledge about
> >> such things.
>
> > I suppose so. Yet of course, as I mentioned, such a thing need not be
> > hundreds and hundreds of years in the future: there are things that
> > could potentially lead to calamity such as peak gas whose effects
> > can come much sooner than hundreds and hundreds of years in the
> > future.
> > Which means that the time for taking the action you mention is now.
>
> Yes we must take action now. As to whether or not it takes hundreds
> of years well just look back in history and see how long it took to
> move from the time of no electricity.
Measured from what point? From the stone age? From the end of the
Middle Ages?
As I mentioned, the present system does not appear capable of holding
out hundreds of years. I alos pointed out that you mentioned that a
great
revolution may require some sort of calamity, and how stuff that could
possibly precipitate this need not be hundreds and hundreds of years
in the future. If this "calamity" sets a sort of "dead line", then
hundreds and
hundreds of years seems unlikely.
> However in todays world the
> speed of travel and communication, more widespread and better quality
> is our education, etc. and so I would expect we will move much faster
> from the nation building era to the international system.
>
>
>
> > Of course it is not so much that I look forward to disaster, but
> > rather look
> > forward to the better world that would come beyond it, or that we
> > could
> > build now and reduce the disaster. But the timing of the disaster
> > helps
> > to set a time frame or a limit as to just how long things can continue
> > in this state, and that's what I'm after.
>
> The House of Justice in one of its letters said the biggest barrier
> to world peace is the belief it is not possible.
>
I would think so. If nobody believes it is possible nobody will bother
doing anything to really try to bring it about.
Douglas McAdam
Hi Mike3-
I'm merely making an analogy and not a specifically accurate time? I
appreciate your wanting to be detailed and accurate but the point is
that it takes a long time for an entire renaissance to occur. For
example we can say from the time of Adam until electricity was
invented was thousands of years and thus it takes eons to make a
change or we might measure change from one day before it was invented
in which case it would seem rapid advance.
>
> As I mentioned, the present system does not appear capable of holding
> out hundreds of years. I alos pointed out that you mentioned that a
> great
> revolution may require some sort of calamity, and how stuff that could
> possibly precipitate this need not be hundreds and hundreds of years
> in the future. If this "calamity" sets a sort of "dead line", then
> hundreds and
> hundreds of years seems unlikely.
Or it could be that the calamity has already happened and we are
simply in a period of being more conscious of the decline because our
knowledge has increased. Things appear to reach a critical mass state
in some cases. Witness the seasons and how they gradually change then
one day it appears to go from one phase to another quite
dramatically. Historians appear to have labelled periods in history
such as the Dark Ages, Counter-cultural Revolution, etc.
>
>> However in todays world the
>> speed of travel and communication, more widespread and better quality
>> is our education, etc. and so I would expect we will move much faster
>> from the nation building era to the international system.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Of course it is not so much that I look forward to disaster, but
>>> rather look
>>> forward to the better world that would come beyond it, or that we
>>> could
>>> build now and reduce the disaster. But the timing of the disaster
>>> helps
>>> to set a time frame or a limit as to just how long things can
>>> continue
>>> in this state, and that's what I'm after.
>>
>> The House of Justice in one of its letters said the biggest barrier
>
>> to world peace is the belief it is not possible.
>>
>
> I would think so. If nobody believes it is possible nobody will bother
> doing anything to really try to bring it about.
I always ask each new class I have at the jail if the Inmates believe
we can have world peace and world unity and without fail it is usually
90% who say no we cannot reach this goal. Then I remind them of the
history of the USA in which 13 separate sovereignties united under the
Federalist Principle in which Cities, Counties and States have their
own govt. but all are subservient to the Federal Govt. and if any
States were to go to war with each other the Feds would step in and
strip the govt. and get the people to elect a new one. Then I ask,
"If America did this they why do we believe no other nations can do
so, do we think we are God's chosen people and the only ones capable
of peace and unity?" This makes them think about how they have been
conditioned to think in a certain limiting manner.
We Baha'is, and many others to, have a broader perspective about human
beings, our capacity, our purpose and powers and the overall goal God
has for us and so we are taking action, albeit we are small in numbers
but growing all the time and can see positive effects here and there.
Douglas McAdam
Hi Mike3-
I'm merely making an analogy and not a specifically accurate time? I
appreciate your wanting to be detailed and accurate but the point is
that it takes a long time for an entire renaissance to occur. For
example we can say from the time of Adam until electricity was
invented was thousands of years and thus it takes eons to make a
change or we might measure change from one day before it was invented
in which case it would seem rapid advance.
>
> As I mentioned, the present system does not appear capable of holding
> out hundreds of years. I alos pointed out that you mentioned that a
> great
> revolution may require some sort of calamity, and how stuff that could
> possibly precipitate this need not be hundreds and hundreds of years
> in the future. If this "calamity" sets a sort of "dead line", then
> hundreds and
> hundreds of years seems unlikely.
Or it could be that the calamity has already happened and we are
simply in a period of being more conscious of the decline because our
knowledge has increased. Things appear to reach a critical mass state
in some cases. Witness the seasons and how they gradually change then
one day it appears to go from one phase to another quite
dramatically. Historians appear to have labelled periods in history
such as the Dark Ages, Counter-cultural Revolution, etc.
>
>> However in todays world the
>> speed of travel and communication, more widespread and better quality
>> is our education, etc. and so I would expect we will move much faster
>> from the nation building era to the international system.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Of course it is not so much that I look forward to disaster, but
>>> rather look
>>> forward to the better world that would come beyond it, or that we
>>> could
>>> build now and reduce the disaster. But the timing of the disaster
>>> helps
>>> to set a time frame or a limit as to just how long things can
>>> continue
>>> in this state, and that's what I'm after.
>>
>> The House of Justice in one of its letters said the biggest barrier
>
>> to world peace is the belief it is not possible.
>>
>
> I would think so. If nobody believes it is possible nobody will bother
> doing anything to really try to bring it about.
I always ask each new class I have at the jail if the Inmates believe
we can have world peace and world unity and without fail it is usually
90% who say no we cannot reach this goal. Then I remind them of the
history of the USA in which 13 separate sovereignties united under the
Federalist Principle in which Cities, Counties and States have their
own govt. but all are subservient to the Federal Govt. and if any
States were to go to war with each other the Feds would step in and
strip the govt. and get the people to elect a new one. Then I ask,
"If America did this they why do we believe no other nations can do
so, do we think we are God's chosen people and the only ones capable
of peace and unity?" This makes them think about how they have been
conditioned to think in a certain limiting manner.
We Baha'is, and many others to, have a broader perspective about human
beings, our capacity, our purpose and powers and the overall goal God
has for us and so we are taking action, albeit we are small in numbers
but growing all the time and can see positive effects here and there.
>