zoofence.com

I've always been fascinated by the physical sciences. IMO books like A Brief History of Time or Cosmos or The Immense Journey are books about God.

Lately I'm particularly fascinated by such things as "dark matter" and "dark energy." No one has ever seen, detected, measured, or otherwise examined either dark matter or dark energy, because neither has any actual physical presence. These are things that "ain't there, but they are." The existence of both is postulated because conditions exist in the universe which cannot be explained otherwise. Galaxies that should fly apart due to centrifugal force continue to hold together; clusters of galaxies that should fly apart for the same reason stay clustered. There is obviously "gravity" at work that is exerted by forces which cannot be seen or detected.

To anyone who is to any degree spiritually oriented, the apparent explanation of "dark matter" and "dark energy" would be, "God." And, of course, "God" is ultimately the explanation of everyything, because everything is God. But I am not comfortable with simply leaving it at that. Numerous mysteries of science have at various times been attributed to "God" and later explained by minds like those of Einstein and Hawking as natural physical phenomena, and I expect the same will occur with dark matter/energy.

And then, so what? Even if every nano-detail of the universe is explained, finally, in physical or mathematical terms, it will still all be God, and we will still not have explained the minds that explained the phenomena. I can see in all of this increasing evidence that indeed, everything being God, you are I and I am you and we are dark matter and energy and galaxies and all of that.

Even the "churches" are beginning to see that. The Episcopal Church has adopted the African word ubuntu, which roughly translates, "I in you and you in me." It is the awareness of ubuntu that led the recent general convention of the EC to extend both ordination and marriage rites to homosexual persons. (And boy, are the tradition Christians steamed about that!) It's beginning to dawn on some in the traditional Christian circles that the churches are dying, withering on the vine, because they are continuing to try to live in the 19th century, and thus cannot speak to 21st century people.

Maybe John Lennon was wiser than we know when he wrote about a world with "nothing to kill or die for, and no religion, too." Just dark matter and dark energy ... and you and me and us .. and perhaps, our anthem will be Pooh's song: "Ask me a riddle and I reply, 'Cottleston, cottleston, cottleston pie.'" We will, after all, not be occupied trying to explain anything any more, because we will all know that "the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao."

Here's how it boils down for me right at this point:

"As soon as we see that nothing makes any sense whatever, it all makes perfect sense."

Jai Ram
Art

thanks I started to believe in a just and loving GOD when I learned of covalent tertiary carbon bonding and the beauty of it just over came my anger and spoke to me in ways that no 'scripture' ever had . It is still a place I can visit. 'The Tao of Physics' imho is a holy book. Every electron in the whole universe knows what every other electron is doing . I attended ACIM group for about 10yrs and would every couple of years say the electron thing and the same guy would say I don't believe that and I would say 'did u look it up' and his answer was always no but still did not believe me. U can lead a horse etc. I do believe that some day the electron thing will jolt that fellow seeker. Some sunday night I will go and say it again . Have a nice evening my friends
stew

"books like A Brief History of Time or Cosmos or The Immense Journey are books about God"

"Every electron in the whole universe knows what every other electron is doing"

As will come as no surprise to even the most casual TZF reader/visitor, I could not agree more with those statements. More, I know them to be True.

Here's the thing. God being all there is, all books are about God, just as all names, even all words, are names of God. Likewise, the entirety being a single, undifferentiated, seamless Whole, there are no "parts" but if there were, they would be in constant, instantaneous communication with one another and the Whole itself.

So where does that leave science? As I see it, science (and mythology and religion) serve the inevitable, essential function of providing the separative egoic personality (what each of us calls "me, not you") a tool and an opportunity to decipher and understand the nature of what is.

Can they all be simulataneously correct, even though they sound so different? Why not? They are like languages. In speaking of the same thing, they all sound different, but they are all nonetheless saying the same thing.

They do so differently because we are all (uh, we all perceive ourselves to be) different.

My experience has been that those at the outermost limits of their chosen territory, whether linguists, mythologists, scientists, or theologians, recognize and embrace the synonymy of their fields and their discoveries. It is only those of us who depend for our sense of identity or self-worth upon our perceived differences, who insist on shedding blood here.

ubuntu ... very cool. Good for the Episcopal Church!

Although I do not quite see the connection, as soon as I read these two posts I was reminded of this incident from many years ago when I was speaking publicly about these matters. After a sermon, a woman asked me if I wear a seatbelt when driving a car, to which I said that I do, and to which she then asked, "Why? Don't you believe that God will protect you?"

What came to mind immediately, of course, was "you shall not tempt" (Matthew 4:5), but instead I replied that I use a seatbelt for the same reason I use a pants belt. "You see, ma'am", I said, "to God it doesn't make any difference whether my pants are up around my waist or down around my ankles. He loves me however I wear my pants. But it makes a big difference to me".

What came to mind immediately, of course, was "you shall not tempt" (Matthew 4:5), but instead I replied that I use a seatbelt for the same reason I use a pants belt. "You see, ma'am", I said, "to God it doesn't make any difference whether my pants are up around my waist or down around my ankles. He loves me however I wear my pants. But it makes a big difference to me".

Indeed. I too cringe when I hear the old "Don't you trust God" thing, whether it's about seat belts or motorcycle helmets or whatever.

Howevr, the same thing turns deadly when it is "I will trust God to heal my dying child rather than show 'lack of faith' by taking him to a doctor."

All that sort of thing, of course,is based on a theistic concept of God: Us here, God there, Him not me and me is not He, etc., so that "God" become a term meaning deus ex machina, a being not unlike us but much bigger and really cool, who will jump in a fix things when we break them. Bishop John Shelby Spong, in the book Why Christianity Must Change Or Die, makes a strong case for "non-theistic" faith. He argues that (a) theism is dead: no one in the modern scientific age can seriously embrace the local, separate, human-like God that was so easily accepted in the nineteenth century; (b) Atheism is silly; so (c) we need to find and learn a non-theistic understanding of Who/What God is, and we can only do that by looking at the ways He has manifested Himself -- ie.e, the universe, and in particular us.

I've lately been seeing and feeling far more clearly the difference between religion and spirituality, and I've been debating it on my other message board, ChristianBoard.com, under the title "lawyers or lovers?" ... and it's really rattling some cages. Suggest that God can and actually might involve Himself in the life of someone who does not periodically utter the name "Jesus," and you'll get an argument. Yet it is luminously clear to me, especially in my experiences in AA, that nothing is more counterproductive to the reclaiming and redemption of a suffering addict (or any other suffering person) than religion. And it reminds me of a marvelous statement by the Trappist monk Thomas Merton: "It is a terrible thng when such a person [religious] gets the idea that he is a prophet or a messenger of God or a man who has a mission to reform the world ... He is capable of destroying religion and making the name of God odious to men." So much so that many who come into AA despise religion and religious people so much that if any word of religion were spoken in their first meeting they would leave immediately and probably die drunk in a few months or years, courtesy of religion. Why do they hate religion so much? Because of the way they have been treated by religion and by religious people.

Religion is, of course, not all bad. Religion has given us plainsong and Bach and Palestrina. Religion has been the motivator for such phenomena as Mother Teresa and Schweitzer and the Dalai Lama. It is only when religion is commandeered by self-proclaimed messiahs and saviours that it becomes a curse and a blight.

Okay, end of rant. Me go sleep now because me recovering from surgery and still sore and tired.

Ubuntu
Art

Hay I am trying to finish a third metal sculpture for an 'open' show so am in the zone , am so blessed. Anyway just a quick mention that each key stroke on the internet proves the theory of all electrons knowing what all the others r doing. I am going to go back to that as my last thought before sleep[did that a couple of decades ago and was good to me]. As an arc welder I get to see electrons up close and personal. When I feel the urge to bore u all I will go into my 'welding as a spiritual discipline'. Sorry when I am doing a piece I have trouble focusing on anything else. I was going to erase this but I am among friends so.
namaste
stew

just a blessing to all and joy and peace, inspired by the artificial 'new year'.