Seems right to me.

I agree that we attempt to explain the world and don't always come up with accurate explanations, leading to belief in magic and the supernatural.

I don't see why you are saying that god is something though.

God is not a thing it is a notion. The notion is that all matter and energy in the universe is infinitely singular, or, in simpler words, all is one. The notion that everything is one, I believe, is true.
When we let go of our conscious comprehension of space and time in the physical sense and feel that complete union with all in the universe, we are experiencing what some would call "god". We are experiencing everything at once, becoming infinitely singular in mind and body, so to speak.
There is no turn of phrase that could succinctly describe this phenomenon, but we can consciously understand the concept at the very least.
I believe that religion is a conscious attempt to free yourself from the constraints of your own mind and experience "god". (Notice the quotation marks)

Even if mathematics is the language of nature, binary code is a different story, nor do scientific conclusions necessarily lead to the conclusion that everything is one, or "essentially" one. The unity of existence is a strictly human postulate made possible by our ability to create universals.

But even if the universe was "one," it is a natural universe and most conceptions of deity place it outside of the natural universe. So then there is the universe and then there is God: TWO.

It seems to me that all the evidence points to a unity. It is well established that all partial metaphysical views are logically absurd, and the results of the natural sciences are consistent with their falsity.

I do agree that it must be a natural universe, and that the true explanation of the universe must be naturalistic to qualify as an explanation. But I do not use my assumptions to limit what I mean by 'naturalistic.'

It is a commonplace mistake to associate the claim that the universe is a unity with theism. In the past many people have been crucified by theists for making this claim. I have a nice essay by an Islamic scholar pointing out the Al-Lah is not God. This is the orthodox Sufi view, who call themselves the 'true followers of Mohammed.' More generally it's the orthodox view in mysticism.

Religion does not depend on theism, and it's only the theists who say that it does.

C.S Peirce is brilliant on this topic of unity. His unfinished 'A Guess at the Riddle' often sounds like Plotinus. His 'arithmetic of circles' is isomorphic with Spencer Brown's 'calculus of indications,' by which he models the emergence of forms from a unity. By so doing he solves Russell's paradox, thus allowing his system to become complete. .

I really do believe that everything points towards a unity.

"nor do scientific conclusions necessarily lead to the conclusion that everything is one"

I'm not a scientist, nor can I say that I even understand the simplest of quantum mechanical theory, but this is one concept I read about that supports what I'm saying:
In an experiment, scientists fired protons (or some type of small matter, what type is irrelevant) through a single slit in a sheet of metal. There was a second sheet on which the fired protons made a pattern when they splattered into it. They then fired protons through a metal sheet with two slits. The pattern changed. Both of these steps were recorded with video camera and the protons were viewable as they flew threw the slits.
In the second trial, they repeated both steps WITHOUT video-recording the experiment. The two resulting patterns were the same this time around.
The conclusion in the article I read was that particles behave differently while under observation than they do without an observer present.
This conclusion leads to a secondary conclusion that human observation changes reality.
Our perception of reality is not the actual reality, in other words. The human mind takes information from the external world and processes it in a way that it can comprehend, most importantly translating the data into a 3-Dimensional physical environment and a 4th dimensional progression through time.
Without being absurd or fictional in anyway, it truly is the concept of the matrix movie, except that our brains are the computers creating the simulations, not the other way around...
Is it not feasible that all matter and energy is infinitely singular, as it is in a black hole, and that we are beings outside the physical matrix of our brain-computers? When people say that they've "seen the light" or "talked to god" they aren't crazy. Perhaps they've somehow transcended their computational limits, if only briefly.
I like my theory because it takes the spiritual out of the realm of the supernatural and places it firmly within the clutches of quantifiable science.
All in all though, it is only my personal explanation, and I will always accept new information with open arms (and open mind).

---------- Post added 01-02-2010 at 07:22 PM ----------

"most conceptions of deity place it outside of the natural universe"

What I am conceiving here is not the notion of a deity. Deity implies a character present. A being with personality, or at the very least, intentions and choices to make of some sort. My conception of god is purely conceptual, in that I don't think god exists at all except as a notion. I don't believe there is "a" god, but that the notion of "god" exists in the light of all things being infinitely singular. That is what we're talking about when we speak of "god". Not a deity, which would indeed be separate.

---------- Post added 01-02-2010 at 07:29 PM ----------

Also, I have an additional unrelated (or possible related, I don't really know) question. Why did my thread get categorized as Evangelical? I don't recall posting in the Evangelical subcategory of philosophy of religion...
Did an administrator relocate my thread here for some reason?
I know nothing of Evangelicalism, so perhaps the content of my post is appropriate here. I don't know.
My gut feeling is telling me, however, that it's in the wrong place. I consider the content of my philosophy to be founded in existentialism.
If anyone has the answer I'm looking for, I would appreciate it.
Thanks

I don't think you're ill at all. But mysticism always was within the realm of physics, as nearly all the quantum pioneers realised. The universe is a unity, ergo it has no parts, ergo distance is arbitrary. You have many respectable physicists on your side.

The problem is how to cross the conceptual and linguisitic divide that separates your view from those who think mysticism is theism, monism, vague intuitions, claptrap, etc., and consequently that you are a religious nutcase with an axe to grind. It's probably impossible.

I didn't notice this was tagged Evangelical. Probably just a mistake. I did once suggest PF has a category for discussions like this and may do again. They always get stuck under something innapropriate and clog up the works for people who don't want to discuss such things.

must be the title...it suggests that you are evangelizing...trying to convert people. i dont believe that was your intention, and i have no idea where the thread should go. i dont think anyone ever believes they are evangelizing, and there was a very funny discussion about this subforum and it was 'heretofore labeled the dustbin'. because who would ever want to evangelize on a philosophy forum?

no, i take back the question, actually it has been done...but it was well hidden in the title of the OP so it wouldnt be construed as such.

why did you choose such a name for yourself? not that i mind, but generally people who are mentally ill dont realize it...

My name is a play on words. If you're into hip hop you would get it. Ill is slang for good, impressive. I am not mentally handicapped lol

From my experience on forums, I am starting to observe that every statement containing the words 'religion is...' or 'God is....' nearly always concludes with a claim to have 'really gotten to the bottom of the matter' and explained it (or explained it away) in a few phrases.

It is true, particularly in esoteric spirituality, that there are some very succinct statements which amount to a couple of stanzas, or express some deep truths, in a few lines of text. However these are often best understood within the context of the tradition which gave rise to them, and additionally are often subject of commentaries which are extremely voluminous, which 'unpack' the meanings that are communicated in a few terse phrases. And often they are only really understood by those who have spent a long time contemplating them.

So - your 'religion is...' statement ("an attempt by people to experience that infinite singularity") may be true. But on the other hand, there is a great deal more to 'religion' than that. Religion is many different things and is understood in a huge variety of ways by different people, cultures, traditions. Religion is also singing in church, births deaths and marriages, intricate liturgy, scriptures, rites and rituals, and a whole heap of other things too numerous to mention.

And also consider that the statement of an abstract principle, regardless of the truth it might indicate, may have limited usefulness from the viewpoint of providing a toolkit for 'transcending the limitations of our brains'. You can be well aware of these limitations in an intellectual sense, without being able to actually transcend them.

By way of comparison, the most succinct form of the Buddha's teaching is exceedlingly simple: 'refrain from doing evil, learn to do good, purify the mind'. Easy to say but hard to do. If were as easy to do it as to say it, there would need no need for Buddhism.

So - I don't think the OP is incorrect or coming from a bad place. But these are some considerations from a communications viewpoint.

thank you! i am a bit handicapped when it comes to modern slang. but i do l ike hip hop, i just dont pay any attention to the words~

Could an administrator possibly move this thread back to the philosophy of religion board? This post is not evangelism, I really feel like it has no place here...
Or, at least give me an explanation of why it was moved, because I don't see the reason.

---------- Post added 01-04-2010 at 08:28 PM ----------



Oh, you're missing the best part... "you couldn't beat me to death if I let you just first"...I love hip hop word play, double meanings...

in that case, i need a dictionary! double meanings are lost on me if i only see one and not the other...for instance, i dont understand the one in your quote above either...explain?

you couldn't beat me to death if i let you jump first...means throwing the first punch in a fight or even if they both jumped over a cliff and raced to their own deaths. he still couldn't beat him to death...it's a play on 'beat to death' as a fight and also as a race, and it's a play on 'jump first' as jumping someone or jumping over a cliff

it's like one of those pictures that's a duck and a rabbit at the same time, depending on the focus of your eyes, except for your ears.

Are you sure about that?

"Religion is also singing in church, births deaths and marriages, intricate liturgy, scriptures, rites and rituals, and a whole heap of other things too numerous to mention."

I see those things as parts of a culture. They're expressive of religious ideas, but not religion itself. Obviously everyone will have different definitions of the word religion though. For some, it includes all the auxiliary traditions and what not. For me, religion is simply whatever you do as an attempt to experience 'god'. It differs for each person, even among people of the same religion.
My intention wasn't to put religion in a box and give it a name, it was to explain the underlying phenomenon, the reason why people are religious. The why, not the how...
Why it's rational and appropriate to believe in 'god', from a secular standpoint. That seems like an oxymoron, but my whole conception of 'god' is derived from my understanding of modern science and existentialism. 'God' is not a deity, in my explanation, it's just the word we use to describe the scientific notion that all matter and space is singular. So, 'god' becomes secular.

---------- Post added 01-06-2010 at 11:54 AM ----------



No. But that's my story and I'm stickin' with it.

Joseph Campbell remarked that "Religion is what gets in the way of the religious experience."

Yeah. That, and a lot of other things.

I kind of sympathise with where you're coming from, and agree to some extent, but I do wonder whether this will provide you (or anyone) with a roadworthy vehicle. In other words, is it just idle speculation? Among many other things, religion is transformative: it changes you. As part of what makes it useful, actually, it changes you in ways you can't imagine or possibly do yourself - because this is often what it takes to 'experience God', if that is the aim.

But you might actually define it in such a way that it seems like you're saying something about 'God', but are actually not. In which case it might not have whatever that factor, that mojo, or whatever it is, that actually makes it work. I guess you will have to decide that.