Did Darwin Kill God

Great topic for a thread Norbu! The quick answer is no!;)

However, the long answer (which really depends on what one's concept of "God" is) from me will have to wait until I get back from holiday in a couple of weeks!

:wave:

Judy

Translation:

In other words, folks, this is an interesting documentary indeed, that I got a link to from elsewhere. We tend to think that Christianity has always taken the Bible literally, and there have been endless threads on HP about the fact that it is not intended to be taken literally. At least not the Old Testament. This documentary demonstrates on the one hand that the fundamentalist literal approach to the Bible only began around 1925. Prior to that, and back to early Christianity, Christians knew, accepted, and wrote that it is largely allegorical e.g. the story or stories of the Creation in Genesis.

Secondly, Darwin never saw his theory of evolution as competing against religion. He viewed evolution as a wonderful example of God in action, imminent in the world and not aloof from it. After the publication of his theory and its acceptance, faith in the Bible and Christianity did not fall in the West, but arose.

Fundamentalism in Christianity and the rejection of evolution dates back to political occurrences circa 1925. See the prog. 🙂

V

Great topic for a thread Norbu! The quick answer is no!;)

However, the long answer (which really depends on what one's concept of "God" is) from me will have to wait until I get back from holiday in a couple of weeks!

:wave:

Judy

Judy, I think the point really, if you haven't seen it, is the documentary and its contents! 🙂

V

Fundamentalism in Christianity and the rejection of evolution dates back to political occurrences circa 1925. See the prog.

They obviously didn't look into Charles Spurgeon and the Down Garde Controversy in the 1880s? IMO Much of English history has been shaped by the battle of fundamentalism, i.e. the English Civil war.

Obviously evolution couldn't have been rejected by fundamentalists until it had been documented. But there has always been a thread of fundamental Christianity, as there are in other reglions.

Myarka.

[Now I have to admit that I found this programme a little on the basic side and so my attention was waning at various points.:rolleyes:]

For me, of course Darwin himself did not kill the concept of God. As was stated in the programme, Darwin did not lose his faith due to his study, he lost it due to watching his 10 year old daughter suffering and dying of what is now thought to have been cholera.

So has Darwin’s theories killed God? IMO no, but it doesn’t stop later generations from extrapolating and manipulating his work to justify their own stance in whatever field they reside.

RxXx

Edit to add: enjoy your hols Judy. x

Obviously evolution couldn't have been rejected by fundamentalists until it had been documented. But there has always been a thread of fundamental Christianity, as there are in other reglions.

I reckon "fact" is just a metaphor that we get stuck on. When someone gets stuck on "fact" someone else disagrees because they use their "fact" to justify their agenda.

So is truth just a trick people use to trap others with their memes?

And what were memes before facts existed?

Norbu

I reckon "fact" is just a metaphor that we get stuck on. When someone gets stuck on "fact" someone else disagrees because they use their "fact" to justify their agenda.

So is truth just a trick people use to trap others with their memes?

And what were memes before facts existed?

Norbu

Sorry I don't want to go too far off topic.......

However ;),

There are very few global facts, only perceptions, opinions and theories. Sure facts should just remain at the personal level, i.e. I ate, I shaved, I've got blue eyes, etc...

Therefore society/culture survives and only finds its direction through memes and is therefore dynamic?

Myarka

But there has always been a thread of fundamental Christianity, as there are in other reglions.

Yes, of course. But in Christianity it was not a mainstream movement with the political power or sheer numbers we now see in the USA and elsewhere. TV documentaries, having maybe just 50 minutes, simplify a bit, and so did my post, as I had even less than 50 minutes! 🙂

But the US fundy mid-West movement was startling at the time it began, and dates from more-or-less political events in the 1920s. This interests me, or rather the reverse does - that Christianity has basically never accepted things such as Genesis as literal, but rather as 'stories to make you think'. I'm interested, because obviously today's fundies are simply unaware of this, believing they're following some continuous line or 'religion' going right back 2,000 years. Effectively, this is not so.

[But try telling them that!:eek:]

V

Yes, of course. But in Christianity it was not a mainstream movement with the political power or sheer numbers we now see in the USA and elsewhere.

I'm sorry V, but I must be being thick today...... Surely the puritans were a mainstream movement with political power? Or the puritan european city states like Geneva? Or Wilberforce? Weren't all these fundies?

There are very few global facts, only perceptions, opinions and theorys. Sure facts shuld just ramain at the personal level, i.e. I ate, I shaved, I've got blue eyes, etc...

I thought "I" was a meme?

Norbu

I thought "I" was a meme?

Norbu

Very cheeky, Norbu:D.

But it only has relevance if we believe in the foundation of memes, huh?

RxXx

Judy, I think the point really, if you haven't seen it, is the documentary and its contents! 🙂

V

Errrrm.. V, actually, I did watch the documentary and I stand by what I say above. 😉

Thanks Cirrus for your wishes, I'm sure it'll be great - when I can tear myself away from HP! 🙂

Judy

I thought "I" was a meme?

There are no such things as memes. And that's a 'fact'. Just another construct to follow and believe as a model, or not. 🙂

V

Has anybody considered what was not discussed on that video.
If we are the result of evolution as Darwin suggests, where will evolution end, if indeed it does. !!!.
If we are the result of Creation, why such a poor example for the Soul
to work with. The human mind and body are so easily corrupted.

I do think that there is a need for more information as to the actual reason for our existence. It could effect how we interpret the Darwin and Creator versions of our origin.
Different factions do seem to use there own version of events to support their own origin beliefs.

However as regards the thread ......In my opinion, there does not seem any evidence to suggest that Darwin considered his theories as a challenge to a belief in a God.

If we are the result of Creation, why such a poor example for the Soul
to work with. The human mind and body are so easily corrupted.

That's just a very personalised point of view, though. As 'Shakespeare' wrote: "What a piece of work is a man"! What a wonderful and inspiring example of God in action so many people are, and all are in potential! The human mind and body are so easily elevated into lofty heights, with just a bit of effort and desire to do so.

I do think that there is a need for more information as to the actual reason for our existence.

"Information"? :p

But that makes it sound as if there should be a physical or online encyclopedia somewhere. Look up "The actual reason for existence" and it'll be all printed out there? LOL. And written by whom? It's something we have to figure out for ourselves. It's what makes life interesting.

V

Has anybody considered what was not discussed on that video.
If we are the result of evolution as Darwin suggests, where will evolution end, if indeed it does. !!!.

Mmm... I thought that was the interesting thing about the programme and what makes this an interesting subject to post a string on.

The debate essentially boils down to a question of whether a scientific explaination for life on earth is a valid basis for rejecting spiritual causality or not. Whether you think it is or it isn't isn't actually do with the scientific explanation but is more to do with your beliefs about "what it is that exist of itself" or what is ultimately "real."

Is matter self existent?
Is spirit self existent?
Are both self existent?
Are neither self existent?

Or none of the above?
Or all of the above?
Or both all and none of the above?
Or neither both or all of the above?

And so on forever.

My conclusion is that it's beyond language to make sense of these questions. Some say that the way round this problem is to explain that language is merely functional and when we try to enter into this debate we are going up a dead end because language only describes pseudoelements defineable by convention from a relative perspective in processes of change; including what we mean by "I."

On the other hand I kind of think this is a bit of a cop out even if it is largely true. And the reason is this:

Processes described by functions fit patterns that seem to pre-exist the relative existence of the process itself. These patterns are like platonic forms... and that's where "God" creeps back in.

So I'd say you can't have evoltion without God and you cannot have a blind machine without intrinsic order. And intrinsic order is something that only gets recognised by awareness at the same time as awareness being associated with these complex patterns (life) that emerge out of "the blind watchmakers" work. It woulde seem that purpose, form, mind, love... cannot be removed from the "blind machine."

Norbu

That's just a very personalized point of view, though. As 'Shakespeare' wrote: "What a piece of work is a man"! What a wonderful and inspiring example of God in action so many people are, and all are in potential! The human mind and body are so easily elevated into lofty heights, with just a bit of effort and desire to do so.

V

Venetian, I am cautious in relying on other peoples opinions. Although they are perfectly entitled to them. Shakespeare was a play write. He would probably have been very successful in Hollywood., however there is no evidence that he had the wisdom of "Solomon". His description of man
is poetic. History has shown us there is a darker side to man. Evolution may be the path that allows us to rise above any spiritual failings. The Creation path does not appear to allow for a similar development.

Information"? :p
quote/
But that makes it sound as if there should be a physical or on line encyclopedia somewhere. Look up "The actual reason for existence" and it'll be all printed out there? LOL. And written by whom? It's something we have to figure out for ourselves. It's what makes life interesting.

Venetian, Science is applying itself to a greater understanding of spiritual matters.There are answers. Information does not appear by magic, It has to be painstakingly discovered. Spiritual messages are being given that do "tie up" with recorded history. Love is normally given by spirit as the supreme objective. A question is why love. Is it an energy that is a requirement of the universe. If so how could the universe use it. To say that its up to the individual to decide for themselves is very limiting. If a child in school knows the purpose of education, the out come is more successful. I believe there is a common purpose for our existence.
IMO of course......

IMO of course......

:wave:I see you like the term IMO now then 😉

:wave:I see you like the term IMO now then 😉

I put it in especially for you Fleur.............

Venetian, Science is applying itself to a greater understanding of spiritual matters.There are answers. Information does not appear by magic, It has to be painstakingly discovered. Spiritual messages are being given that do "tie up" with recorded history. Love is normally given by spirit as the supreme objective. A question is why love. Is it an energy that is a requirement of the universe. If so how could the universe use it. To say that its up to the individual to decide for themselves is very limiting. If a child in school knows the purpose of education, the out come is more successful. I believe there is a common purpose for our existence.

My own PoV is quite near to that. I'm not quite sure if I'd call it "science" that gets the greater understanding. I agree that there are answers. I believe there is a common purpose for our existence. The problem is that, well at least two problems:

1. I actually feel satisfied that, for me, I have these answers. In my youth I had them as questions, and to my satisfaction they are answered. The problem is that others also have 'their' answers, and they differ to mine. So unlike hard science, which progresses forward largely as one body, spiritual answers rely much more on intuition, discernment, etc. You can't just find the answer and then dispense it to the world as "information" they'll instantly accept.

2. Similar to problem '1', apart from people getting competing and different answers, when spiritual truths really do seem well-documented and well-founded (perhaps even involving some hard scientific research at times), many, probably the vast majority of people, still don't accept this 'information' as it doesn't fit into their world-view (or comparative lack of one).

V

I actually feel satisfied that, for me, I have these answers. In my youth I had them as questions, and to my satisfaction they are answered. The problem is that others also have 'their' answers, and they differ to mine.

Doesn't this suggest that these kind of answers are more like metaphors than facts?

So unlike hard science, which progresses forward largely as one body, spiritual answers rely much more on intuition, discernment, etc.

Mmm... I'm not so sure that science progresses forward largely as one body and it doesn't rely largely on intuition. There is, and always has been a divide in science between those who see science proving a material universe to be the ultimate and mindless cause of life and those that see science to be process of discovery of the intrinsic order of the universe. And that when this second view is held there is room for all sorts of possibilities.

...apart from people getting competing and different answers, when spiritual truths really do seem well-documented and well-founded (perhaps even involving some hard scientific research at times), many, probably the vast majority of people, still don't accept this 'information' as it doesn't fit into their world-view (or comparative lack of one).

I think there are many aspects of both science as well as spiritual belief that are metaphor, allegory, collective self delusion etc as much as enlightened discovery.

What the scientific approach does offer is methods that can test certain ideas quite effectively. However, what can be tested is limited by many factors, not least, what people are willing to put resources into testing. e.g. drugs companies will spend money on testing drugs but it is much harder getting funds to test therapies that don't drive industries that have the resources, and are subject to regulation of the pharmaceutical industry.

The scientific empirical method of testing ideas, while there is no denying, has its faults, does have some highly valuable aspects. One significant reason is that authority of truth is subject to independent testing. And this independent testing then makes the ideas univerally applicable. When this comes to testing meditation techniques' usefulness in therapy, for example, the meditation technique then becomes independent of a religious power structure.

In time it will be interesting to see where this process goes. I'd say it challenges fundamentalist views from all quarters; those who confuse metaphor and fact and those who confuse relative and absolute, often for dubious motives and/or outdated reasons.

Norbu

Posted by Venetian: I actually feel satisfied that, for me, I have these answers. In my youth I had them as questions, and to my satisfaction they are answered. The problem is that others also have 'their' answers, and they differ to mine.

Doesn't this suggest that these kind of answers are more like metaphors than facts?

That's often the case, as we see all around us with competing world-views. But it's not always the case IMHO, no. This is where philosophy and the philosophical approach, based upon human intellect only and its permanent limitations falls short of mystical experiences and the Union with Oneness at the heart of all real Truth ... which cannot be conveyed in words, either as description, or philosophically, or poetically, and etc. It's where words and intellect end, and Truth is there. Truth not as a belief-system learned and quoted, but as lived, experienced, known, but impossible to convey in words to another.

These 'answers' are hardly my exclusive property, but are arrived at by many and through many different spiritual journeys. It's the learn-and-quote human-intellect based religious approaches which we may indeed call 'more like metaphors'.

V

This is where philosophy and the philosophical approach, based upon human intellect only and its permanent limitations falls short of mystical experiences and the Union with Oneness at the heart of all real Truth ... which cannot be conveyed in words, either as description, or philosophically, or poetically, and etc. It's where words and intellect end, and Truth is there. Truth not as a belief-system learned and quoted, but as lived, experienced, known, but impossible to convey in words to another.

Isn't this: "which cannot be conveyed in words," the very reason why the words that attempt to describe "it" can never be more than metaphors? This includes scientific description, and poetic description. This, IMO, is all philosophy can ever say: that the ultimate Truth or whatever words you use to describe "it" can never be facsimiles of what "it" is.

The trouble is people; interpret words to be more than this. They confuse convention that describes relative truth as an objective truth (i.e. matter is self existant and consciousness is a special function of the brain) or they confuse what is a special form of convention used to describe ultimate reality as a facsimile of it. In both cases, IMO, these are different kinds of fundamentalism.

Words used to describe ultimate reality can never be more than "fingers pointing at the moon." Just because I don't believe words to be any more than signposts to the experience of reality I don't in any way deny the reality of the experience, the reality of the mind that has this experience or the objective nature of the experience. I am just, perhaps, a little more reluctant than some to assert what this mind, this experience and this reality "is" because I am, perhaps also, a little over-sensitive to the problems that misinterpretation of language used to describe "it" can lead to.

This is because fundamentalist misinterpretation of language, by making it more than various categories metaphor, can lead to war, the oppression of peoples, of women, of the weak, of people with darker skins, of the sick, and the socially oppressed as well as lead to mental torment of those who subscribe to these exaggerated views.

Ego driven by fear of seeing its own selfless nature declares it knows ultimate truth. Ego clings to words that become shackles of servitude belonging to the graven image to which it sells the soul. In a vain attempt to escape its own voidness, ego exchanges a "pearl of great price" for suffering.

Submitting to the tyranny of external material objects as cause for all experience, we are helpless in the face of suffering caused by conditions. If we submit to the tyranny of subjective experience we are lost in our own solipsistic dream worlds that are always frustrated by the evidence of our senses. And, if we submit to the tyranny of unity, purpose becomes a recovery from a pointless fall from grace.

This doesn't mean that ideas like "oneness," "individuality" and "objective existence" are not useful signposts on the path to underdstanding... liberation even?

Norbu

Yep, that's all true.

V

However, the long answer (which really depends on what one's concept of "God" is) from me will have to wait until I get back from holiday in a couple of weeks!

In short, I agree with you on this. And I think the programme covered a number of topics not just an account of the rather simplistic opposing positions of creationists and atheists.

The really interesting aspect of the discussion, which I admit wasn't so very obviously dealt with but did come into towards the end of the programme was the development of the ideas of "process." On the one hand atheists see process as evidence of a material machine whereas others see that the process of evolution seems to adopt common patterns that are not inherited; in individual cell lines and in communities.

One of the examples given in this programme was the way songs seem to have common properties across various species. We are lead to ask the question: Who made the principles of music before the lovesong was sung?

Norbu

Very cheeky, Norbu:D.

But it only has relevance if we believe in the foundation of memes, huh?

RxXx

Mmm... the idea of memes and genes is that they are just information that self replicates. Genes and memes are mindless in themselves. Genes are codes on DNA and memes are [reducible to] patterns of neurological activity. Some genes and memes replicate more and survive better than other genes and memes.

The interesting thing is that these mindless mechanical processes based on genes seem to build cells, organisms and communities. All of these things seem to be greater than the sum of their parts. in many ways the order, complexity and mind that arises seem to undermine the ideas of selection and replication that are at the base of the theory of memes and genes in the first place.

Norbu

Well, I suppose terms that we create to possibly help us understand our being more must originate from somewhere and the fact that a 'meme' is a Dawkins' term is just something I will have to accept, or not.:rolleyes:

So I can see how a ‘meme’ is used to explain/justify cultural behaviours and so on but I am still left with the underlying feeling of, ‘so what?’ But only because it is not a necessary element on my path. We all differ.:)

This, however, is an interesting statement, Norbu. Maybe you would expand on it more?

in many ways the order, complexity and mind that arises seem to undermine the ideas of selection and replication that are at the base of the theory of memes and genes in the first place.

RxXx

This, however, is an interesting statement, Norbu. Maybe you would expand on it more?

OK

First I think we have to make a distinction between fact from theory.

The following are facts: Information is stored in sequences of base pairs on DNA and this information is replicated each time a cell divides. This information is passed on from cell to cell in cell lines. This information is used by the cell as a library of instructions that can be used to make proteins if and when required by the cell. Sometimes replication of DNA is not accurate (biologists call this "mutation"). Often mutations have no effect on the cell and no effect on the organism. Sometimes mutations are fatal to the cell and sometimes fatal to the organism. Sometimes mutations cause advances in cell activity which results in the organism being better equipped to survive. Sometimes this beneficial mutation enables more effective cellular action and sometimes it leads to an structural or functional improvement of an organ. Sometimes this mutation leads to a change in behaviour that results in improved cooperation between individuals, sometimes of the same species and sometimes of different species.

At first sight this looks like a nice explanation for life and evolution that is based on a mindless process. I am defining the mindless process here as one that is subject to mechanical cause and effects of parts that interact. Sometimes there are random factors but to a great extent these processes are mechanical and do not have purpose. This is the prevailing scientific view. However when you look more closely there are a number of things that don't add up.

Convergent evolution: This happens when species that are unrelated evolve in similar ways. The Thylacine (marsupial wolf) is an example. There seems to be a blueprint for "dog-like carnivore" that evolution has shaped completely unrelated lineages to fit. Not only are there enormous numbers of examples of convergent evolution in individual species there seem to principles that define the way an ecosystem can evolve. For example peat bogs are found widely across the world. Each one of these peat bogs in different continents has different species that have evolved to fit very similar niches in a very similar ecosystem.

When we go back to the cell itself the theory that genes build life begins to look more and more problematic. What actually seems to be happening is that cells use genetic information more like a library. To say that genes build organisms is a bit like saying you are working on reproducing Shakespeare's combined works when, all you've done is give a chimpanzee a typewriter. Cells are mindblowingly complex and this complexity includes the library of information stored in DNA, but claiming genes build organisms is about as ridiculous as suggesting that books build libraries, librarians, cataloging systems as well as visitors to the library.

There are many things that just don't add up if you say that "genes build" organisms. Randomness and mechanical processes just don't add up probabilistically to explain how organisms build themselves and how evolution takes place. There seems to be a "ghost in the machine" even at this level of reductionist analysis.

Of course "THE ghost in the machine" is even more of a problem. The mind itself seems to be entirely elusive and beyond any reductionist explanation. Not only this but the state of mind seems to effect the way the machine functions. If the mind is full of patterns of thinking that sustain strong emotions that related to stress the body suffers. If the mind is full of ideas that relate to peace and happiness the body fairs much better.

One of the most challenging ideas to the orthodoxy that selection pressure on a population only operates at an individual level is that some genes are important to programming behaviour that then enables cooperation between individuals. This cooperation between individuals makes cooperating individuals more successful than ones that fail to cooperate. This reaches a point where variation in society is actually an advantage for all of society even if some characteristics would render an individual unfit if they had to fend for themselves. Characteristics like cooperation, mutualism, and love even, begin to counteract selective pressures on individuals that would otherwise fail to survive while enhancing the survival prospects of all members of the community.

It seems that cell activity and evolution are not so much mindless automatic processes but are drawn towards harmony, balance and order. Patterns that express these characteristics seem to have no material existence. What's more, these characteristics and their patterns only seem to exist as ideas in the mind that imagines them. Not just a mind that imagines them but a mind that has the capacity for love and compassion seems to be able to recognise these kinds of patterns and behave in a way that facilitates outcomes that these patterns would produce, more readily. In fact, to somehow suggest that randomness and mechanical function (which are just as much mental creations as "harmony, balance and order.") are somehow the law of science is about as reasonable as proposing that God is the creator of all.

Norbu

The last sentence would be better:

"In fact, to somehow suggest that randomness and mechanical function (which are just as much mental creations as "harmony, balance and order.") are somehow the law of science can't be more reasonable than proposing that God is the creator of all."

OK

First I think we have to make a distinction between fact from theory.

The following are facts: Information is stored in sequences of base pairs on DNA and this information is replicated each time a cell divides. This information is passed on from cell to cell in cell lines. This information is used by the cell as a library of instructions that can be used to make proteins if and when required by the cell. Sometimes replication of DNA is not accurate (biologists call this "mutation"). Often mutations have no effect on the cell and no effect on the organism. Sometimes mutations are fatal to the cell and sometimes fatal to the organism. Sometimes mutations cause advances in cell activity which results in the organism being better equipped to survive. Sometimes this beneficial mutation enables more effective cellular action and sometimes it leads to an structural or functional improvement of an organ. Sometimes this mutation leads to a change in behaviour that results in improved cooperation between individuals, sometimes of the same species and sometimes of different species.

At first sight this looks like a nice explanation for life and evolution that is based on a mindless process. I am defining the mindless process here as one that is subject to mechanical cause and effects of parts that interact. Sometimes there are random factors but to a great extent these processes are mechanical and do not have purpose. This is the prevailing scientific view. However when you look more closely there are a number of things that don't add up.

Convergent evolution: This happens when species that are unrelated evolve in similar ways. The Thylacine (marsupial wolf) is an example. There seems to be a blueprint for "dog-like carnivore" that evolution has shaped completely unrelated lineages to fit. Not only are there enormous numbers of examples of convergent evolution in individual species there seem to principles that define the way an ecosystem can evolve. For example peat bogs are found widely across the world. Each one of these peat bogs in different continents has different species that have evolved to fit very similar niches in a very similar ecosystem.

When we go back to the cell itself the theory that genes build life begins to look more and more problematic. What actually seems to be happening is that cells use genetic information more like a library. To say that genes build organisms is a bit like saying you are working on reproducing Shakespeare's combined works when, all you've done is give a chimpanzee a typewriter. Cells are mindblowingly complex and this complexity includes the library of information stored in DNA, but claiming genes build organisms is about as ridiculous as suggesting that books build libraries, librarians, cataloging systems as well as visitors to the library.

There are many things that just don't add up if you say that "genes build" organisms. Randomness and mechanical processes just don't add up probabilistically to explain how organisms build themselves and how evolution takes place. There seems to be a "ghost in the machine" even at this level of reductionist analysis.

Of course "THE ghost in the machine" is even more of a problem. The mind itself seems to be entirely elusive and beyond any reductionist explanation. Not only this but the state of mind seems to effect the way the machine functions. If the mind is full of patterns of thinking that sustain strong emotions that related to stress the body suffers. If the mind is full of ideas that relate to peace and happiness the body fairs much better.

One of the most challenging ideas to the orthodoxy that selection pressure on a population only operates at an individual level is that some genes are important to programming behaviour that then enables cooperation between individuals. This cooperation between individuals makes cooperating individuals more successful than ones that fail to cooperate. This reaches a point where variation in society is actually an advantage for all of society even if some characteristics would render an individual unfit if they had to fend for themselves. Characteristics like cooperation, mutualism, and love even, begin to counteract selective pressures on individuals that would otherwise fail to survive while enhancing the survival prospects of all members of the community.

It seems that cell activity and evolution are not so much mindless automatic processes but are drawn towards harmony, balance and order. Patterns that express these characteristics seem to have no material existence. What's more, these characteristics and their patterns only seem to exist as ideas in the mind that imagines them. Not just a mind that imagines them but a mind that has the capacity for love and compassion seems to be able to recognise these kinds of patterns and behave in a way that facilitates outcomes that these patterns would produce, more readily. In fact, to somehow suggest that randomness and mechanical function (which are just as much mental creations as "harmony, balance and order.") are somehow the law of science is about as reasonable as proposing that God is the creator of all.

Norbu

Hi Norbu,

I find this excellent reasoning! I have only had a chance to read it through once so far, so a quick humble response to honour your time in creating the post on my request:

When you study cells, even at the basic level that I have, you see in front of you a truly fascinating world. I can not see it as a mindless process, in fact quite the opposite, it is amazing. A single cell may be performing mechanical processes but, for me, there is a collective intelligence in action. Each cell has the potential to work in union with another. It always fascinated me how the actions within our bodies represent the outer world too, like a community working in harmony or not as the case may be.

It is another reason why I believe that the answers to life we seek sit within us but not just at the physical level, of course. The mind, body and spirit are so intrinsically interlinked. And so I understand why some are drawn to study our physical existence at such depth. So when you have found the truth to life through your study, Norbu, be sure to drop me a PM with the answers! I can keep a secret.;):)

RxXx