For those who want to join in and need reference to the original thread, see the link.

>>Quoting Wmblake first:

"I think there are two primary questions: one, is there a consciousness independent of, or causal of physical/psychological reality (and if so, is there a unitary >consciousness or “God”) and two, is science the only way to ask >questions of the universe?

"To the question of consciousness ...

"The longer [answer] is there are practices common to all religions (see psychiatrist Roger Walsh’s Essential Spirituality) and those who have mastered these have similar physiological process that neuroscience has measured, and they report similar subjective accounts – and they describe things like having identity with a unitary consciousness that includes the experience of the eternal now."  


>>Zin Answers here:

But Wmblake, there is something you overlook here.  Human beings may report similar experiences because genetically we are quite similar.  Being cut from the same cloth, internally, we are perceiving similar processes-- let's say, the process of fantasy, without any input from anything external, anything spiritual.  Neurological observations notwithstanding.  Religions answer similar needs in similar animals.  Religious/Mystical experiences would look very similar, I'd expect.

If we infer some spiritual process that eminates into a human being from outside, we should ask some important questions.  How is it propogated?  How is it received?  And then we have a conundrum.  Why is our brain and skull physically so closed if it can receive these?  We have some very well defined senses, and some very recognizable organs committed to them.


>>From Wmblake:

"Writer Ken Wilber boils scientific inquiry into this idea: “’If you want to know this, do that.' This injunction is an actual practice, not a mere concept. If you want to know if it is raining outside, go to the window and look. If you want to know if a cell has a nucleus, then learn to take histological sections, learn how to stain cells, put them under a microscope, and look. If others report the same results, you’ve got proof.”  To confirm or refute the claims these mystics make, you have to use the tools that develop elevated consciousness."  


>>Zin interjects:

If I want to prove it to anybody else's satisfaction, or say, to the whole world, as Galileo convinced it, yes, that's the process to follow.  My own standards might be lower, and processes lazier, say, if I'm the only one I intend to convince.

That being noted, the scientific method you cite works for discovering things.   The problem is, it  also requires interaction to the physical universe to have any validitity.  Once you're describing mental processes, that can't be described in terms of one of the senses, or altering the position of your limbs or your breathing, there is no longer a scientific method left.

And there's a further problem. You are really observing something that nobody else can observe or confirm:  The world within your own consciousness. It's not one universe that everybody can observe anymore. Or a procedure that can be followed and confirmed, or that your mind is really well adapted to do or describe. It may end up being the same, not because there was a communication with anything spiritual, but because of the similarity you started out with.


>>From Wmblake:

"So a guy like Larry Dossey (I forget the book title) looks at the research examining the impact of prayer (“non-local healing”) and finds enough good evidence that you can’t discount it out-of-hand.  Nor can you demand to stop the presses for this breaking news flash.  But he does site a LOT of decent research over 30 years that tend to support the idea of a spiritual reality.

"That being said, the access to this consciousness has correlate physiological and psychological processes.  When I meditate, two things are in play: 1, my body has to shift (eg, relax) and 2, my psychology has to be aligned with certain principles for this relaxation to take deeper and deeper levels.  I can’t meditate past a certain point if I have enduring rage, for example.  These psychological and physical conditions are prerequisites.  I cannot personally and absolutely confirm that I have achieved a sense of identity with the infinite & eternal.  So, in fact, from all I can personally confirm, you might be right.

"Now, to the second question – science as the only valid means of inquiry.  I did not interpret you too narrowly.  My buried point is that we see based on our assumptions."


>>From Zin:

A pertinent concern, indeed, but it needs to be clarified.  I'll contend that the same information will come into our senses no matter what we believe (with the exception that it might effect where we aim our eyes and such) but the process of interpreting starts immediately, and unfortunate to say, our memory goes to work based on interpretations.  I believe most of these will not even be conscious.   This happens because human memory, and the resources available for it, is finite.  For most of us, memory stores just enough that things can be reconstructed.  But all of this is laden with interpretations.

You may indeed, try to stay open to spiritual experiences-- but I argue that this will bias you *for* that interpretation.  It won't neutralize it.

The most you could do, really, is try to catch yourself in the act of throwing away details that might be important to reconstructing a scene or a process and note them, and keep them, and try to make alternate interpretations based upon them.      


>>Wmblake continued:

[snip]

"I am working on a project concerning breast cancer.  The discussion you & I are having is played out in spades in this field.  On one hand, there is research and much anecdotal evidence supporting mind-body connection that can help in responding to the disease, and that some healers occasionally are a part of unpredictable healing.  On the other hand, this evidence is certainly loose, largely because we don’t know how to identity, let alone control for all the variables.  So the medical literature on this is all over the place.  And leading authorities disagree as deeply as you and I do.  Why?  It’s not just about the data.  It’s about the bias that interprets what the data means.  

"So the scientist in me says the best we can say is “maybe, maybe not,” but the mediator in me says getting my belief system aligned with authentic spiritual growth (and this is THE problem – sorting bs from wisdom) is a basket worth putting all my eggs into."

>>Zin answers, finally:

It sounds enjoyable, Wmblake, and I say that in all sincerity.  But please observe that the anticipation of the spiritual is also a bias.  I'll say Galileo was probably biased about what he would see when he turned his telescope to the sky.  The important thing is, that finally, the man was honest about what he did see.  Darwin also, who was very religious, was perhaps biased about what he'd find on his voyage.  Finally, he didn't let his bias effect his account of what he found.  Maybe many discoveries are not that overwhelming.  Or maybe there is a secret to casting bias aside in the face of facts.

We are bags of chemicals.  There are no outside "spiritual" forces acting on us. What people experience as a "religious experience", for example, an awareness of the presence of "God", is only happening in their minds.

In my view spiritualism is not the act of spiritual forces on us, but rather how we act according to what we believe is right and wrong.  I do agree that all this (sense of spirit) is in our minds (memories).

When it comes to the comparison of science and spiritualism, I'm not sure this is possible.  I'm more interested in how they intersect, i.e., the ``ethics of scientific research''. Regarding the minimization of biases, it would seem the best we can do is clinical trials and even this setting is problematic.


``There are more things in heaven and earth than your imagination could ever dream of''

think that religious people have a monopoly on morality.  I have spoken to people who literally believe this, who think that a belief in God is the foundation for ethical behavior.




-- Modified on 3/16/2005 5:57:24 PM

The problem is, the God they've chosen to believe in is one that judges people first and foremost on their belief in Him.  This is a common theme in all modern monotheisms.  Believers learn to spin this in different ways, saying that it's just healthier for the Soul to believe in God-- but the basic premise still comes down to that God has made rockier for anyone who doesn't believe in Him.

Devout Christians have absorbed this as the cornerstone of right and wrong.  And unfortunately, they learn first to judge everyone, themselves included, first and foremost on the belief in God.  They are absolutely disciplined to the notion.  

It's also why the belief has such a hold on them.  They can't begin to doubt without an extreme anxiety, dread and guilt.  Some put the idea totally out of their minds.

I might be an atheist, but to a further degree than that, I believe that my belief in a God has no bearing on my fate or the outcome of anybody's existence.  Belief is just a mental process, it's not going save or damn you.  Making it the folcrum of your destiny just distorts a perfectly ordinary mental process.    

I swear there aint no heaven, but I pray there aint no hell. One thing certain, only dyin will tell. I know they're only song lyrics, but they sum it up pretty well. How can you prove they're wrong. In short, you can't, so they can prey on the weak minded fears that we all have. If you don't believe in my God, you're a bad person, and you're going to hell.

My opinion. God is all powerful, yet so petty, that if I don't worship him exactly the right way he is going to send me to hell for all eternity. Yeah, Bleep You!!! and the horse you rode in on.

If you weren't told about them from a young age, why would you ever guess that there would be an afterlife?  

Somebody made them up one day, and now our culture is stuck with the notions.  

First, thanks for the thoughtful post, Zin.  I do enjoy a constructive conversation about the nature of reality.  

To your first questions: “How is spiritual process propogated?  How is it received? And then we have a conundrum.  Why is our brain and skull physically so closed if it can receive these?  We have some very well defined senses, and some very recognizable organs committed to them.”  

Either there is consciousness of a spiritual nature (e.g., continues beyond death, ultimately unitary) in the human psyche or there isn’t. The best in describing the process of this discovery are found in the most serious sects of Buddhism and Hinduism.  

I apologize for how abstract this is going to get – I just don’t know a better way to write about it.  Almost all the mental imagery we have is sense-based.  We think about stuff that we can see, feel, hear, etc – as you say.  A major subset of this would be emotions, which are felt sensations of specific qualities based in the body.  We use language and images to describe these to each other and ourselves.  Even our identity is a description – “I am William Blake, poet. I like tall women. I am lusty.” And so on.  So, what happens when one has gained enough mastery over his own mind (and this mastery is a key step that takes decades to develop) so that he no can differentiate his identity from all this mental activity.  In the movie 2001, this is what happens in the end, when Hal’s cognitive processes are unplugged – the astronaut then immediately enters a mystic realm.  A person begins to recognize flows of energy first up and through the body that often get blocked in the so-called chakras.  Learning to open these chakras again takes time, as well as requires a certain moral development. But as these get opened, things start to happen that are, well, not ordinary.  Profound experiences of love, gratitude, peace, etc.  

But, so far I am only describing what happens as a result of diligent spiritual practice.  The core question that you ask is, well, were’s the God in all of this, where’s the reality outside the wiring of the body?  It’s a damn good question.  

And one I can’t answer very well.

But here’s my best shot.  One of the things that happens as one explores consciousness that is not sense-based is that he notices an “observer” about his psyche.  This is a common technique in some psychotherapeutic modes – observe one’s emotions, for example.  The nature of this observer is that it is utterly still, an unchanging now.  (Ok, all of you who need to, now is a good time to guffaw and laugh.  Enjoy yourselves.  It’s on me.)  The way I explain this to myself is that it’s the identity within me that hasn’t changed as I have aged, that connects me to the boy I was, and so on.  

I can only stay centered in this consciousness for a few moments, as it unleashes a lot of energy within my body, and those charka “valves” are not open wide enough to let it flow through me.  But what others who can do this say is that this so-called “eternal now” is the origin of identify.  From its perspective, one’s ego is much like one’s hand – it’s something we possess, not who we are.  Who we are is unitary and shares identity with all life.

Now, the Buddhists don’t call a God into play at all to explain and describe this.  They are content that it resolves suffering in life.  They call it mind (I’m not a Buddhist, but I think this is what they call it.)

To your second question, “My own standards might be lower, and processes lazier, say, if I'm the only one I intend to convince” and the rest - this is a really complex line of thinking to travel down.  Ken Wilber does a great job of it in The Marriage of Sense and Soul.  He talks at length about the issues you raise, and with a tremendous scholarship.  I really do highly recommend it.  

But let’s just agree to all your points here.  Let’s assume it’s a purely personal experience and there is no proof (or disproof) that there is anything more than chemical reactions.  What we do know is that to create these chemical reactions takes the highest moral strivings (getting those chakras open is not a trivial feat).  It reminds me of the debate about Shakespeare when someone said that “Shakespeare didn’t write all that stuff.  Someone else did who called himself Shakespeare.”  The point is that this experience is at the core of human longing.  I say this unequivocally.

Damn, this is long.  My apologies.  But one more thing.  You comment, “the anticipation of the spiritual is also a bias.”  Yep.  If there is one central point I have tried to make on this board over the months, it is that we all are driven by unconscious biases (called developmental states) in our emphasizing certain pieces of data and discarding others.  And in fact, the sublime experience of faith is bias played out in spades – and yet is among the most beautiful experiences I know.  Creativity is a bias – the bias to be open to your hunches.  As a friend of mine likes to say, “You’ll see when you believe it.”  I would assert that atheism is also a bias.  Agnosticism is a much more honest assessment of these questions.  

What I don’t understand is why a person would be an atheist.  Disproving God is literally impossible.  Now, mind you, I am not talking about the Disney animated  version of God practiced by so many in the world of all religions.  Let’s just all agree there are some truly mind-bogglingly idiotic belief systems out there with absolutely no connection to actual reality.  

But that dismissal of the Disney God is far different from the private conclusion that there is no transcendent truth about human nature possible.  But I will grant this – American religion is full of b.s, there is so little access to good information and the marketing-driven media is so full of shit that it’s hard to see a model of spirituality worth thinking about.  Even so, I don’t know how one responds to the depth of need of his or her own heart without an open-ended model of human growth that is ultimately spiritual.

Enough!  And for all 3 of you who read this far, hope it was worth your time.  

I think this is more a function of the developmental status of the believer than anything else.  There are loads of Christians who do not think this way, for example.  

The problem is that it's the fundamentalists who have a very simple and resonant message for a large group of people at the same developmental level who are the most effective and organized activists.

A transcendent truth about human nature?

I think the goal of life is what Jung called "individuation" - simply put, it is to become the person you were meant to be.

But it seems to me to be stretching it to find a "God" in this process.

That is a defect of religious people that is often highlighted by those who do not believe but really, it proves nothing. It is debate by character assaination. But people really seem to like it.

BK

I think the goal of life is what Jung called "individuation" - simply put, it is to become the person you were meant to be.

But it seems to me to be stretching it to find a "God" in this process.
................................................................

Jack, you know I'm dumb as a doorknob so please indulge me a bit.

If you believe as I, that humans are physical, mental, and spiritual, then "finding a God in all of this" is central to "becoming the person you were meant to be".

In this regard I believe the discussion with the atheist is largely acedemic and mastabatory. By that I mean, if someone lives their life as "God intends", neither I nor God gives a shit whether you claim to believe in him or not. The "claiming" crap seems to me to be more of a human hangup than a legit God thing.

It's my belief that God is more about what we do than what we think. What I find quite amusing is the notion that because someone "thinks" there is no God, that makes it so. No more then my "belief" is proof.

Just another human egocentric thang.....

Long time, no see. hope all is well.

BK
 

Granted, people are selfish.  However, that you see so much hypocricy from religious fundametalists is not, IMHO, attributable to their basic human defects -- it is because they (via their religion) believe that They, having Gods ear, are morally superior to others.  Yes, the vast majority of us are bigots in one way/degree or another, but the religious right does just that ... take it to the extreme.

To me, this war is a perfect example.  The lack of WMD's, etc. aside, would this war have been so popular amongst its supporters if Iraqis were White Christians (please don't tell me Christians aren't capable of terrorism).

When I say "becoming the person you were meant to be", I don't really mean living your life as "God" intends, but I understand that people who believe in God may feel that the two are the same thing.

I think that we agree that it is one's actions that really matter, and not their beliefs.  I do not think that ethical behavior must be rooted in spiritual beliefs, and it seems you may agree with this too.

I can see your perspective that it is egotistical for someone to say "I don't think there is a God, so therefore there isn't".  I have a scientific worldview, whereas you have a spiritual worldview.  I am thinking that you enjoy the thought of the "mystery" of the universe, and believe that there are many things that are simply unknowable.  I have had many conversations with people who feel that scientists are guilty of hubris, and are egotistical, because they presume to penetrate the "unknowable".  You and I have different perspectives on this.

Yeah, I haven't spent too much time on this board lately - I find all the petty backbiting to be a turnoff.  Not enough converations like you and I are having.  But things are good - hope all is well with you too.  

Actually, I agree that the character of those who believe in God has nothing to do with whether or not God exists.

My problem is indeed with the character of many of those who believe in God.

You look at the God in the scriptures, Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah, and that's exactly the character he has.  He exacts his heaviest punishments on those who don't believe in Him.  The first commandment starts with the clause: "I am the Lord thy God..."   He, and his prophets, rail on about punishments for non-believers, or weak believers.  The message is clear.

Even when Jesus amends the most important commandments, he keeps this one as the cornerstone.  "Love God..."  You have to acknowledge before you can love.  Islam is like this, but even moreso.  Unbelievers must be killed.  My main objection to the religion, BTW.  In Christianity at least, there is some ambiguity whether unbelievers should be killed and looted or left to for God's judgment.  But Christians will crack down on unbelievers if they get anxious that God might be getting angry.  (Remember Falwell's statement after 9/11?)  He does punish whole nations in the scriptures for their lack of faith, doesn't he?  

(BTW, this is peculiar behavior if there is really no doubt of His existence.  How many people, or animals, have the general problem of having to bully the notion of their **existence** on others?)

So, I disagree.  It's not character assassination.  I contend the problem isn't generated within the individuals.  It's incited and cultivated in them by their own scriptures, and otherwise communicated to them by the monotheistic culture they're in.  Many Christians will cultivate their humbleness as a counterbalance to this; otherwise, they're behavior would become so odious even to them that they'd live paralyzed by fear of Hellfire.

First, I start with the fact that what you, and indeed everyone, takes from a religion to define its fundamental character is, by definition, highly selective.

At the risk of being damned to hell forever, let's look at the Christ figure and the idea that "no man comes to the Father but through me."  We could look at a million other ideas. What does this mean?  Well, it depends on who you ask.

To a literally minded person, and the history of Christianity is full of such people in leadership roles and throughout its  followers (and this developmental quality is of course not limited to Christians), this means something like believing this specific person and historical figure is unique in all of history and accepting this uniqueness ("son of God") is the essential ingredient of salvation.

But this idea is enriched by other ideas of Jesus, like "the kingdom is heaven is within."  "Seek first the kingdom of heaven and all things will be added unto you."  

So what does this do to the first quote?  And how does it reconcile with what other wisdom traditions teach?  One almost never hears this idea from the televangelists, but it's there in black-and-white.  To me it means that Christ embodied a quality (forgiveness, redemption - great salves for shame, one of the core dilemmas of life) and responding to this quality congruently, in kind, creates a unique experience in this process of inner self development.  Now, does one have to reflect upon the historical figure of Jesus to attain this? Decidely not.  But the quality of experience (the transition of shame to worthy of being loved) is a critical piece of the growth process and it cannot be achieved by something as paltry as the "self esteem" messages our children are taught in public schools.

That being said, there is no doubt that there is a ton of stuff in the Bible that can easily be taken as license for awful behavior.  I won't defend Christianity.  It's record speaks for itself.  But that doesn't mean that there isn't authentic spiritual nature that, yes, one does have to be open to seeing in order to see it.

I will describe what God is to me, so this is personal rather than academic.

It is the relentless urge in me to grow more joyous.  But I discover this and submit to it rather than decide it - my ego has to take a back seat to something about my psyche that is more fundamental than even the personality I have developed in total.  So, in that sense, the process of "individuation" merges with a force beyond my personality (as one conceives of it normally) yet which is wholly internal and known through rigorous honesty and not a small amount of self-discipline.  So it includes individuation, with this caveat: at some point individuation includes contemplation of aspects of the psyche that are not of my ego/personality/will.

I agree with BK that the mere belief in a god is beside the point.  With global communication so possible, I hope we become less bound by the religion we are born into and more able to meld the essentials of authentic growth from this global wealth taken as a whole. And I agree also with his comment about what we do matters more than what we believe. But what we think also matters – the model we hold of life/God/the universe/nature vis-à-vis us – what’s all the uncontrollable unknown like? Benevolent? Impersonal? Punitive? Redemptive?  Martin Buber wrote a book, I & Thou – in it he argues that a person is inseparable from the context in which he thinks he lives (“thou”).  And the key phrase here is “thinks he lives.” (or she. Sorry ladies. Lazy writing). We form ideas about reality and they become reality to us – and yet are but a small approximation of the truth.  And how we construe this reality is what developmental psychologists say form stages of human development that are predictive, etc.

Before I get too abstract – the point is that I hold myself accountable for the reality I think I live within and the qualities I attribute to it.  So, the best I can say about God is that I have a preference for believing in a God that makes sense to me, is consistent with every piece of data I can integrate, is the origin of the urge to grow, is real enough to resolve existential dispair, and encourages greater and greater visions of what real joy feels like.  

But that’s just me.  


-- Modified on 3/18/2005 12:10:28 PM

In the scientist, I marvel at the incredible mind he has both been given and developed. IMO, nature/God, predisposes people to have certain skills but they must work to as well to develop it further. I have a friend who is a micro-something er other researcher at a world renowed facility here in LA. I am amazed at his ability to grasp the interrealtions of microscopic, submicroscopic stuff. To me, it is incomprehensible, but to him it is like tying his shoe. IN my own children I see nature's handiwork. I even see it in the folks here that hate me!! LOL! I know why that happens and for the most part, it does'n t bother me.

yes, I see, or I should say, I aspire to see all things first thru a spiritual prism. Everything follows from that. It is an exceedingly difficult thing to do because the world of the material is evermost apperant, hence the easiest to see.  I do place behavior FAR ahead of dogmatic alligence and am not blinded to, nor by, the failings exhibited of those who profess some sort of faith. MANY find themselves on this path out of vice, rather than virtue so, in my experience, they, like I, have much to learn.

Best,

BK

Being a dummy, my view is simplier. God is that small voice in my being that tries to guide my behavior. It is the struggle between guilt and responsibility, passion and reason. Love and lust.

I believe we were created to help one another. Or, to love, and be loved thru action. Each person must find within themselves the degree to which this needs to be done. What anyone else does has no bearing on what happens in this regard to me.

This is my answer to the question of "no one passes to the father but thru me", or whatever. Me, or Christ, or Jesus, was his instructions on how to treat each other. Emmitt Fox, in Sermon ON the MOunt poses some very intersting concepts in this regard. It's been many years since I've read it last but some concepts still stuck. It's not, in my view, important to "ackknowledge, afirm, foist up, or anything like that, an idea of God. Hell, convince yourself and everyone who'll listen "He's" a hoax. It don't change nothing.

The only way to fullfill this is by treating other people properly.  and it's just my opinion that if you do this, and say there is no God, I've got no quarrel with you, indeed, you probably got one up on me cuz I can be an asshole far more often than I like. Sorry.

BK

One last thing, and this is just food for thought. What if Heaven and Hell are "present states of Mind" rather than somewhere you go later?????

That's what I think they are.....weird huh?

Fundamentally, we agree. ("God is that small voice in my being that tries to guide my behavior.") The best of religious instruction are practices that amplify this connection.  There is a second piece to this "small voice," and that is the increase of intensely meaningful and personal experiences.  

I think there is more to it than just how we treat each other - but how we do this is certainly in the mix.  I think as we grow developmentally, we "calm down" and our identity and connectedness to others expands.  In other words, our capacity to feel compassion and love grows.  The contemplation of spiritual beauty accompanied with the behavior we each know is right and good increases our sense of well-being.  

Here's my point.  If one can cut through the clatter of popular religion (and the clatter is just as present with modern Hinduism and it is for Christianity) so that we have good maps of the terrain of the psyche, it is possible to grow in self-knowledge to the point that "God" (or whatever name works) becomes a reality - like a giant internal tuning fork with its unique pitch.  Each person can only know personally how resonant he or she is with.  But to the degree we discover how to grow this resonance, we grow in every way.  It is the ultimate act of personal responsibility, and the process to strengthen authentic moral behavior.  

And I know that Heaven and Hell are states of mind we can know while alive.  I've seen more than a glimpse of each.  I have no idea what happens when you die, but I suspect the quality of experience one has fostered more-or-less continues after death.  

Reebate by character assassination?

Most everything you describe is what I, and obviously you, consider human failings of those who would profess God. My point was simply that to cite these shortcomings as evidence of God's existence or not is way off base. It does'nt even belong in the debate but it is often the first thing cited.

One should not reject Christianity for what happened during the Crusades anymore then they should join, hoping to get extra Christmas presents. gg

BK

... or lack thereof.  You know my position on that already, but it's a totally different issue.  If you see that I'm just making the same argument again, it's comparible, perhaps to guilt by association.  

Because I have that prior conclusion, due to other reasons, that there's nothing like God in this universe, then I feel compelled to ask further: what are monotheistic religions really doing then?  What does the Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah character do for believers?

I don't reject Christianity for what happened in the crusades.  I reject Christianity because I've never seen a God in this universe, and all accounts by people about God that I've read seem to be happening in a different universe than the one I live in.  That's it.  Period.  

Everything else I write about it is just a matter of understanding, strategizing, posturing to, and communicating with the vast majority of humanity, who doesn't see it this way-- to my endangerment.

First, here's your quote, "I reject Christianity because I've never seen a God in this universe, and all accounts by people about God that I've read seem to be happening in a different universe than the one I live in."

Actually a few questions....

Is it Christianity you reject, or is it broader?  I certainly can understand rejecting Chrisitanity.  (I can also understand embracing it.) But it's not clear to me how much you've taken the silliest or more difficult ideas of Christianity and generalized them to all spiritual reality.  

But if your position is that there is no spiritual reality (consciousness that transcends the body and is causal of the psyche), then what do you do with all the evidence to the contrary - discount it as wishful thinking, delusional or fraudulent?  You cannot ignore the powerful minds throughout history who are credible in every other way who assert there is a spiritual reality.  There is abundant science that validates states of consciousness that are transcendant, and identify practices that foster this.  What do you do with this?  

Then, finally, this fundamental sense one has is highly personal.  I believe you when you say that nothing in your experience points to a God - and that you and I live in "different universes."  If you'll grant me a position of intellectual honesty for the moment, then the question follows: how have I looked at life differently than you to conclude otherwise?  We must be viewing our existential dilemmas with different aspects of the mind.  Either I have construed the data with a romantic longing, or I have access to a personal experience that eludes you.  

And I would tell you it's that I have looked both with my intellectual facilties (I don't discount science) and also with my longing (I don't discount my subjective need for meaning and for profound joy).  This means that I do indeed choose internal directions based on preference - I prefer this experience to that.  So, to one of your earlier challenges, I have in fact given the existence of a spiritual reality an opening along based on hope that it's there.  And it is a self fulfilling prophesy.  I saw it once I believed it, so to speak.  

The point is that I think we choose these deeply personal convictions based partially on the evidence as we see it, but also because it satisfies a preference in us.  And your atheism, which seems as arbitrary a belief as I can imagine, satisfies something for you.  If I am not just a pompous and delusional ass making up stuff out of fantasies, then my question for you is: What? What does atheism do for you?  I mean, at the deepest levels?

It is my belief that much of what you speak of is "the byproduct", or results from trying to live right. But you know there is no way of concretely dicerning cause from effect sometimes. Or, for all practical purposes, is it relevant. It's been said, "understanding" is the booby prize. lol

On death, I remember being at a funeral one time, looking down at a long time mentor. He had 100's of friends many of whom wept. One of my buddies pulled me aside and said, "look at these folks, they don't realize what their doing. They're crying over that pile of bones we used to call Bill. Bill ain't dead. Bill's Earthsuit stopped working but Bill's still alive. Bill's still alive in the lives of all these folks he touched."

That was 15 years ago. I think of my friend Bill most everytime I face a dilema of any import. Bill ain't dead, never will be.

BK

I am only interested in understanding in the service of experience.  I feel strongly that I can increase my conscious awareness of the God of my understanding, and I want to do that because it makes me feel ... incredible.

Apologies. I'll get to them soon.