Fundamentalism

dragonflySite AdminJoined: 01 Nov 2006Posts: 32
Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:32 am Post subject: Fundamentalism

Should spirituality have any part to play in politics? With growing fundamentalism beginning to exert powerful influences on political policy making world wide. What danger do you see with religious fundamentalism and its impact upon our planet and leaders of governments?

Michael Joined: 30 Nov 2006Posts: 14Location: Grafton
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:20 pm Post subject:

Fundamentalists - religious, political or economic are the bane of mankind and the enemy of truth. Religious fundamentalist of all religions have always been control freaks who do not like truth. Religious fundamentalists thrive on fear and ignorance. In fact you could say that fear and ignorance are what they are peddling. Free thinkers have always been persecuted by fundamentalists.



The "dark ages" were the time when religion held sway over humanity. The peasants lived in fear and were controlled by superstition, "tradition", and the church. It was only with the coming of the renaissance and removal of restrictions placed by churches on free thinking that science was able to redevelop from its original Greek, Egyptian and Middle Eastern roots. Any improvements in the human condition in the last 5 hundred years have come from research and investigation and logic replacing religious dogma. Luckily no one is burnt at the stake anymore for saying that the earth revolves around the sun and that the earth is not the centre of the universe. Science has revealed the the Universe is a beautiful and wondrous place, and given us some insights into how it works. However there is a need to remain eternally vigilant against religious nutters.



The latest form of creationist nonsense is called laughingly "intelligent design". If we are not careful these throwbacks would soon try to stop teaching science and return to superstitious mumbo jumbo. Now we have to deal with right wing and left wing political fundamentalists and "economic rationalists" - economic fundamentalists as well. The right wing political fundamentalists use fear tactics to gain and maintain control. They use fears of "terrorists" to get people to voluntarily give up freedoms that were hard won so that they can be "protected" from any nasties out there. Remember "the boat people invasion", "children overboard", and "weapons of mass destruction" of a certain political coalition to get people to vote for them, and look at what has come from it. Working Conditions have been eroded, freedom of speech restricted. Australia has marched back down the time tunnel 50 years at least. They want us to all have to carry an ID card so that all of our movements/ purchases etc can be recorded and tracked. Left wing political fundamentalist (communists, stalinists, maoists) have always functioned on total control of their populations and their freedoms of free speech, thought action and travel. They deny freedom of speech, control all media and use threats and intimidation to control their population. Look at the plight of the peasants in North Korea, or what the Communist Chinese have done in Tibet since they invaded it. Finally, we have economic "rationalists" (Economic fundamentalists) to deal with. Remember the "level playing field", the J curve, and the "global economy", G7, G10, GATT, etc. All that has resulted from this is an export of our jobs to the country that pays the lowest wages while the executives of these "global companies" pay themselves fat salaries and bonuses for sacking staff, cutting services, hiking fees and charges and reducing services. All of the above indicated flow from "fundamentalists" of one type or another. Hence they are the bane of humanity - its worst enemy and the greatest hindrance to improvement of the human condition. Michael

coradcorJoined: 29 Oct 2006Posts: 36
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:59 pm Post subject: fundamentalism

Hi Michael.. love your postings... But is there such a thing a scientific fundamentalism as well? You mention political, economic and religious, all of which i agree with, but i also feel there is scientific fundamentalism. At the moment we live in a paradigm of reality that insists that there is an objective world out there that can be observed, dissected, commented upon by us.....and that in doing so we have no impact upon it....we do not effect it. I feel like this way of viewing our reality has been grounded into our very perception of life and was influenced by the scientific methods of the last 500years in particular. Or, in other words, if we get angry, upset with unfair/destructive aspects of this reality, is our reaction contributing to that reality....or does it make no difference what soever? Interestingly enough it is science that is slowly but surely dispelling this illusion..with quantum physics and movies such as What the Bleep? (have you seen it?)



Fundamentalist scientists do not burn people at the stake who disagree..but they certainly can still ridicule, isolate and discredit anyone who disagrees with their 'truth'. I think fundamentalism is an aspect of ego human nature and has the potential to worm its way into all aspects of our existence, even in the way in which we 'fight' fundamentalism. The best way to dispel fundamentalism is by ensuring that we do not think like that from within. Because quantum physics is now insisting that consciousness effects our reality (something that spiritual people have know for a long while..) then the way in which we approach this will be all important. Otherwise we will only replace one form of fundamentalism with another...

MichaelJoined: 30 Nov 2006Posts: 14Location: Grafton
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:13 pm Post subject:

Hello Coradcor. I am pleased you like my postings. Just a couple of comments. If you have studied any quantum mechanics you may have heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. This principle states that just by observing something (taking some measurement using light waves because of the atomic scales we need to measure) we actually interfere with the item we are studying. To be exact, you cannot know the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time, because the very act of measuring one changes the other.



Have you heard of the idea that nothing happens without an observer? This one is a bit like the statement that "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears/sees it, did it fall? The other interesting idea to come from theoretical physics is the idea of an infinite number of parallel universes where every possible outcome (even theoretical ones) exists. Every decision/choice you make creates an additional universe with a new set of possibilities resulting from the choices you make. The problem with scientists (and anyone else) who spends a lot of time and money studying something is that they then have a "patch to defend". This is especially true when they have personally developed or supported some particular theory. Then when a new better theory comes along they are resistant to dropping all they have based their reputation on and adopting the new better theory.

Unfortunately some scientists have this flaw. Whether you would call it resistance to change, blinkered vision, or personal prejudices does not matter. I would pull back slightly from calling it scientific fundamentalism, and call it human weakness. I am one of those who has had some scientific training, but I still believe that there is more "out there" than we can see and feel, and science has yet discovered. What I am particularly worried about is when religious fundamentalist thinkers try to impose their dogma on research. Creationism is a classic example of this. Creationists will totally ignore a mountain of research from a range of disciplines which independently prove that something is a fact and say "it is not in the bible so it cannot be true". They will ignore fossils of ancient sea creatures or dinosaurs found in rocks on the tops of mountains and say it was a result of Noahs flood. However if you asked them why this creature was not saved by Noah (ie one of the passengers in his ark), as all of the creatures were supposed to have been saved (2 by 2, 7 by 7) they would ignore the question and the evidence like they did not even exist. This type are also partial to changing the results of any experiments when the result did not coincide with their religious belief.

Religious fundamentalists initiated a prosecution in the US in the 20's or 30's against a school teacher for teaching Darwin's theory of Evolution. It made America a laughing stock around the world at the time. Spencer Tracy made a very good movie about it a long time ago (worth watching). Now there is a hardly a real scientist is the world who does not believe in the theory of evolution (except the few who come from Religious Universities in the US with bogus science degrees). To qualify with an Honours degree in science from one of these "Universities" all you have to do is quote the bible in all of your work and you will pass with flying colours.

Michael

coradcorJoined: 29 Oct 2006Posts: 36
Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject: reply

Hi Michael, Thanks for your reply!!! I have not had any formal scientific training and so it is actually good to have someone who has training involved in the forum (so i can pick your brain at times.... ) but the 'essence' of quantum findings is what i find absolutely amazing....the idea that something that is INTANGIBLE (consciousness, mind..) effecting something that is TANGIBLE/PHYSICAL.. is simply not possible in a purely mechanical universe......it disturbs the very foundation of our current paradigm/reality.



We are used to seeing the mind as a side effect (epiphenomena) of the brain....not the other way around. The idea that consciousness is primary is revolutionary to our current way of living. Don't get me wrong: If i had to throw my lot in with either the religious fundamentalists or the scientific 'fundamentalists' ... i would be choosing the scientists any day....i guess i have had though experiences (while at uni) of trying to broach the subject ( of a greater reality) with various professors and was met with a constant wall of patronising ridicule or rock solid 'you are wrong'.



It annoys me now because i did not realize at the time that all this quantum stuff had been around for many decades already, and so their reaction was hardly displaying the type of 'openness' that one would expect of a truly objective mind. It was never a matter of expecting them to agree....but simply be objective enough to admit that there are other possibilities... based on science. I was young and impressionable at the time and found myself immediately thinking that they must be the right ones. This is truly terrible! And i feel it is a subtle form of forcing one's views onto others. They may not have have openly ignored 'logic'...but it was still present. And it certainly effected my life in a negative way for many years. I had not really experienced the Church growing up....so was spared their 'fundamentalism'.... (other than one Priest who was actually an amazing person....)...and so my first encounter with 'fundamentalism' was actually in the realm of Academia....ironic really!

MichaelJoined: 30 Nov 2006Posts: 14Location: Grafton
Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:02 pm Post subject:

Hello again coradcor. I know what you mean. I once broached the idea of plants having some sort of consciousness with a University Lecturer - whether they might have some sort of undiscovered nervous system (this question was prompted by the story (true or false unknown) of electrically monitoring plants and then the researcher ripping up and killing one of the plants. Supposedly when this person came back into the room the electrical signals put out by the other plants went off scale like they recognised him. Plus other plant behaviours like knowing when to flower, when to drop their leaves for winter, amazing plant strategies like mimicking the appearance of a female wasp in their flowers so that the male wasp will try to mate with it and get covered in pollen in the process which is then transferred to another flower of the species.



How could a plant "know" what a female wasp looks like. This is extremely unlikely to have occured as a genetic accident (mutation) as there are too many genes involved. She poo pooed the idea of plant consciousness as unscientific. Another lecturer came into the lecture theatre one day an said continental drift was a load of hoey. A few weeks later he came back with his tail between his legs and said things had changed - the latest research from multiple disciplines had proven it almost beyond doubt - plus discovering the mechanism by which it occurred (plate tectonics).



Science does not know all of the answers, and some scientists are rigid in their thinking (blinkered) and resistant to change. However science has given us tools to improve our understanding of the universe, which otherwise we could only speculate about. PS the implications of quantum mechanics, theoretical physics and cosmology are truly mind blowing. Things can be in two places at the same time, black holes "evaporate", etc. MichaelLast edited by Michael


coradcorJoined: 29 Oct 2006Posts: 36
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:27 am Post subject: strange...

Dear Michael, I had to laugh when i read your posting....the similarity in experience is just more than a little spooky! I, too, approached a lecturer (in Philosophy) about plants (but mine was in relation to their reaction, either positive or negative, to music)... and was totally dismissed in a patronising way. I also had a lecturer come in one day (Pyschology) and announce that anyone who believes in anything other than the material world was wrong and had serious problems! I remember stopping for a moment (in absolute horror) and looking around the packed theatre and thinking to myself, "Why isn't anyone running out of the door in despair at what this man has just said..." but of course no one did! I hope this post is not seen as self indulgent! It is probably getting off track a bit...i wonder how many other people out there though have had similar experiences though? p.s. i think it was in Canberra a few years ago that some scientist managed to prove that one atom could be in two places simultaneously! Do you know anything about that? Does this mean we will be able to say one day, "Beam me up, Scotty!" too?

MichaelJoined: 30 Nov 2006Posts: 14Location: Grafton
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:05 pm Post subject:

Hello Coracdor, If we have too much to drink it might be "Scott me up Beamy". I suppose the point to take from our previous postings is the need to separate the message from the messenger. The messenger can often have flaws and human weaknesses - ego, vested interest, a well paying job and reputation to protect, etc. However, if the message or information is basically correct then we need to focus on it.



How often have people "worshiped" the deliverer of the message, and then doubted the validity of the message when the person delivering it was found to be flawed. This is true of science and religion, and the "esoteric arts". Therefore there is hope for "science" because the newly graduated scientists will still be idealistic and open enough to progress human understanding. While those "fossilised" and entrenched in their academic positions will always be resistant to change and new ideas (that aren't their own). Therefore I think that I have just agreed with your earlier assertion about scientific fundamentalism (in one manner of speaking). I think the fundamentals of fundamentalism (pardon the pun) is that resistance to change or new ideas is its main defining characteristic.



Fundamentalists can only really preach to other fundamentalists (the converted). Those with open minds will quickly walk away, or be "put off" by listening to the closed minded rantings of fundamentalists. I am reading a very interesting book by Mary White called Earth Alive. Current research indicates that we (the so called higher animals and plants) are really large assemblages of single celled algae and bacteria that over Billions of years learned how to absorb other bacteria and viruses into our cells structure without digesting them, and this is how we have acquired our more complex cell structure, functions and behaviours (Lynn Margulis is the originator of this idea). Therefore we are in essence a giant symbiotic organism. One of the interesting implications of this is that these first organisms are almost immortal in that they have kept reproducing by cell division, and therefore each of us contains a large number of the genes belonging to these parent life forms. Gives new meaning to the "interconnectedness" of all life don't you think! It also cancels the idea that these earlier forms of life are "primitive". They are exceedingly advanced, and had solved/developed most of the biochemical processes for life to exist on Earth as well as creating a Biosphere/Atmosphere suitable for us "higher" lifeforms to exist.



This idea of the "sacredness" and interconnectedness of all life has come from scientific research not religious speculation - ironic don't you think? It is symptomatic of human arrogance that we think that we are the crowning glory of all life on earth, the ultimate species. If we don't get our act together we won't be here much longer. There is nothing we have within us that has not been developed/perfected somewhere else first. The only advantage that I can see that we might have is our ability to "comprehend" better than other organisms, but even about this I am not sure, because we do not understand where consciousness and thought comes from and maybe tiny organisms understand as well as we do - after all we are an assemblage of microorganisms.



Michael

coradcorJoined: 29 Oct 2006Posts: 36
Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:00 am Post subject: life, the universe and everything..

Hi Michael Next time i have a few glasses of red wine (which probably wont be too far into the future..) i will remember 'Scott me up Beamy." I like your definition of fundamentalism: the resistance to change or new ideas... and because of our interconnectedness (from a biological level as you have pointed out and a quantum physics/consciousness level - not to mention a spiritual level)



I feel that i must start from within myself: I must ensure that i am not resistant to new ideas and changes first before i expect others to be open. You speak eloquently of our biological interconnectedness (which i totally agree with) and i have also spoken to people within the field of physics who say that from an atomic level we are literally part of the stars. So, once again, our interconnectedness is emphasised.



Human beings, however, have the ability, unlike other species, to step outside of the natural biological chain of events, our 'interconnectedness' and impose their will, thought, consciousness upon the natural world. And, in doing so, create isolated environments which are totally at odds with symbiotic nature. It is a power trip that has been going on for such a long time and I agree with you that such a disregard for the natural order of things cannot be sustained forever. But also feel that the very thing that we are arrogantly disregarding (i.e. our interconnectedness) will also be the very thing (ironically) that saves us!



Here is a quote from a website relating to our impact upon the world: "The interrelation of human consciousness and the observed world is obvious in Bell's Theorem. Human consciousness and the physical world cannot be regarded as distinct, separate entities. What we call physical reality, the external world, is shaped - to some extent - by human thought. The lesson is clear; we cannot separate our own existence from that of the world outside. We are intimately associated not only with the earth we inhabit, but with the farthest reaches of the cosmos." http://www.hinduism.co.za/hinduism.htm#The%20Implications%20of%20this%20theorem%20are%20staggering The connection between our consciousness and the current state of our world, for me, cannot be ignored.



What is it within us that is contributing to the current state of the world? We may not be the ones 'pulling the trigger' so to speak, but that does not mean that from the level of consciousness we are not contributing to the current situation. This is not to say, of course, that we should not also contribute from a macro level to improving things (i.e. by speaking up, lobbying, protesting, doing the right things ourselves) but we need to solve this problem from all angles otherwise we will not solve it! It would be like trying to solve a cancer by just treating the external symptoms.



At some point our consciousness took a 'wrong turn' and has indulged itself in the most horrendous power trip (perhaps going back to Genesis and God supposedly giving us dominion over the earth to do with as we will). But i also suspect that this 'event' was a result of a far more significant event: our divorce from the sacred feminine in our consciousness (which you have traced the history of in other posts.) and in doing so our consciousness became imbalanced. It is meant to be the balance of male/female, god/godess, yin/yang. Without balance within, we can only create imbalance without. Without the mitigating effects of the 'yin' , the 'yang' runs rampant with power abuse! This responsibility from an internal level for the current situation is for me both damned annoying and exhilirating all at the same time. I want so much to get seriously pissed off with Howard and Bush (who share in the definition of fundamentalism: resistance to new ideas and change) and blame others for the current situation.......but there is still this little voice within me that says, 'what about you? Are you being resistant to the new idea that you are contributing to this world from the level of consciousness. And what are you going to do about that?" . I

MichaelJoined: 30 Nov 2006Posts: 14Location: Grafton
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:32 am Post subject:

Hello coradcor.

Today I listened to a radio program put out by Christian Fundamentalists trying to discredit Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution by natural selection. I thought that I would post this to illustrate the danger and the methods of such fundamentalists. The tactic they used was to put up two separate and unrelated statements. One was about the nastiness and attrocities committed by Nazi Germans and Imperial Japanese in World War Two. The second statement was a total misrepresentation of Darwin's theory of evolution. They then proceeded to try to link the first item to the second. ie the actions of Nazi's and Japs was a result of their following of Darwin's theories. Darwin at no point in his treatise ever talks about master races or racial superiority.



In Darwins theory evolution takes place on an individual basis not a species basis - evolution of species by natural selection. This means that if an individual has a genetic mutation which gives it some advantage over other individuals of the species and improves its chances of survival in a hard world then this individual will probably live longer and thereby propagate more. This will increase the frequency of this trait in the next generation. And so species evolve over time. There is no master anything, just relative advantages between individuals. The fact that "good upright god fearing" Christians have been murdering and oppressing Jews and non-conformist Christian groups (Cathars, etc) for 1500 years prior to Darwin and his theory is an inconvenient fact that never gets mentioned, as it would ruin the argument and reveal its false logic. Another historical item which does not get mentioned regarding attrocities (murder, torture, etc) is called the "Holy" Inquisition - which I do believe has something to do with "Christians" - Catholics again. The Germans were merely perpetuating behaviours, prejudices and intolerances, that have been prevalent in Christian Europe for centuries - just on a much bigger scale.



Similarly, there were pogroms against Jews in Tsarist Russia long before Darwin. With regard to the Japanese, they have a long history of violent behaviour to each other and foreigners that existed well before Darwin. My understanding is that some of the early Christian Missionaries to Japan were boiled alive, or dispatched is some similar unpleasant manner. The point here is that Japan and Germany in world war 2 were indulging in the same empire building that the other European "Powers" had been doing for some time, but using more extreme methods to remove any that they considered opponents or "undesirables". These other colonial powers Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Italy also have a long list of attrocities committed against native populations around the world for the last 600 years to answer for. Christian Fundamentalists and other Fundamentalists will not hesitate to lie, distort the facts, misrepresent the facts, and deliberately omit any information that does not aid in the dissemination of their falsehoods and wacky dogmas. Truthfulness has no place in a fundamentalists list of desirable character traits. Hence my earlier postings warning of the dangers posed by these sad individuals. Michael

MB on EdgeJoined: 29 Oct 2006Posts: 17
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:48 am Post subject:

I've been trying to catch my breath after reading what you two have been writing! Trying to keep up!! Its brilliant stuff, thought provoking. Now lets see if I can add anything worth while... The arguments / manipulation people use to gain power, be seen as 'right' or to cover their own mistakes is incredible. Not just from one area of the community, but all. Even down to an individual basis in everyday life. (This includes me, I know I'm guilty of it and I'm not proud of myself for it) The lies I hear around me everyday, those that roll off the tongue so easily without thought are so dangerous! Is this what you, Coradcor, were getting at? Taking responsibility - admission of error and learning from it? Remain open to new ideas, no matter where they come from and integrate it with your beliefs of your world. To neither trivialise nor condemn someone for their thoughts if they are different to yours.



How do you know they are not right and you are wrong? We don't understand everything of this world. There is a great deal of difference between those who take what they want and disregard the rest for improvement of self... or to gain power through deception. Trouble starts when we deceive ourselves into thinking we are justified in putting forward our opinions, and in the process twist the truth, proven facts, for some sort of personal gain. Its all up to us to see through the lies and not buy into it. Don't give away your power; don't give them the satisfaction of your anger. We all get disheartened with others, its human nature. We just need to respect ourselves and try not to let it overwhelm us. Question for ourselves, not just agree._________________Peace be with you


coradcorJoined: 29 Oct 2006Posts: 36
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:25 pm Post subject: reply

Dear Michael and MB on edge, Yes..i agree with both of you...the ability of human beings to lie to ourselves and only see what we want to see has been going on since the dawn of time.. In philosophical terms it even has a title: apologetics! This is not about objectively seeing both sides to the argument but rather rigorously defending what you believe only....and it is always so easy to ignore what doesn't quite fit into your world view (as Michael has pointed out in his post with the Christians who distort the facts for their own purposes! It is also deeply ironic to see the Chrisitans associating the concept of 'master race' to a lack of their religion....when it has been their motivating force since they gained power back in the fourth century AD) But i also agree with you, MB on edge, that i also cannot help but ask myself "Where am i doing that too?" And if i am honest i am sure that i am also capable of such self deception. Self responsibility is a huge issue and we simply cannot ask other people to do what we are not prepared to do ourselves! Not just because of ethics but because we are all connected (at the biological, consciousness, spiritual levels...) then such an action will only contribute to the hardening of this aspect of the human being into our world, not detract from it, no matter how much we may be protesting... I love your comment MB on edge to not give away our power by giving up. As Michael pointed out in his favourite book post, the Lord of the Rings is a story of people who continue to fight on despite the odds, despite everything screaming at them to the contrary, despite all logical analysis of the situation ........ and in the end they break through!! There is a message in there somewhere!!