Quote from man:
now the different forms of believing in a superhuman
being, in "god", have a position in all this development.
when your child starts to draw it will first not really
"get it" as it might want. there will be more or less
strange beings on the paper with funny hands and
strange heads. over time the child will learn how to
make the picture more adequate to what it wants
and what it sees.
to me it is the same with beliefs in god. people start
with some father-like or super-heroe-like image
and over time develop a more "adequate" picture.
on this road the seeker will realise that the very
concept of a god that is independent of the seeker
is not really matching. finally the opinion of seekers
converge. be they christian, buddhists, hindus or
muslims. only early stages of the spiritual journey
allow for conflicting religions.
I essentially agree with this point of view.
What you describe is a form of Lamarckian evolution, whereby ideas and memes are passed on from sender to receiver with natural selection influencing the mix. This process unfolds quickly in generational time, but painfully slow from an individual perspective. (Unless you are a receiver and just got walloped. That's quite an experience, let me tell you.)
The analogy of the child's drawing is a very good one.
If humanity itself is the child, and humanity continues to mature and learn as knowledge accumulates, then each new iteration of the drawing should bear higher correspondence to reality. As unschooled children, it was natural for us to start crudely; even Mozart and Da Vinci had to begin somewhere.
The idea of spiritual convergence also fits with my tongue-in-cheek 'Alpha Centauri' hypothesis, the gist of which is that God waits for us on a distant star. By the time we develop sufficient technological means to reach Him, we will have found spiritual enlightenment as well.
The two forms of advancement go hand in hand; without sufficient enlightenment, technology will eventually destroy us. Headlines like
this one leave little doubt. Spiritual convergence is a sort of mandate, just as vanquishing cancer is a mandate.
(Whether God owns a lazyboy on Alpha Centauri, or even exists at all, is irrelevant by the way; the hypothesis is meant to highlight the notion of long-run evolutionary purpose. Maybe we are following a path that all sentient life follows, assuming they don't knock themselves out of the tournament.)
Re mind over matter: I suspect we will eventually shed our reverence for supernatural trappings, for the same reason we no longer believe in witch doctors. (Except at the Fed.)
Reality itself is so compelling, and so amazing, that we don't need to gussy it up with illogical deus ex machinas. Truth is stranger than fiction, and more wonderful than fiction to boot. A sci-fi magnate (I forget who) observed that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. In this sense, we have access to magic... real magic. The fake stuff doesn't compare. Moving stuff around with your mind? It's
already been done. Regenerated limbs? Dramatically extended life? Superhuman strength? Oasis in the desert? Just a matter of time. Who needs supernatural powers? Don't we already have them in a sense?
What I want to know is, why isn't it possible to conceive of a deeper reason for reality's existence
without insisting that the rules of reality can be bent Yuri Geller style. What if reality is like a PS3 game, where it isn't possible to break the rules or hack the box... but the player can still do amazing things? Would this be so bad? Isn't it actually more of a relief to know that logical rules are in place, than to pine for a fantasy world where shit can just stop making sense?
We are still in very early days, I believe. It is fascinating to see.
For example, the scientific community is just now waking up--really grasping the fact that popular religions should be challenged. MUST be challenged, if we are to make it for the long haul. The difference between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Pat Robertson is merely one of degree; both see the world ending in a glorious ball of fire, to their and their followers' benefit. That ain't cool.
But the scientific community is still immature too; logical positivism, for example, is as obnoxious a doctrine as fundamentalism in some ways. It doesn't have the hold it once did, but there are still vestiges.
The real advancement--the spiritual convergence that you speak of--will perhaps come when we are able to cast off wrong answers (religious answers) without casting off spirituality in the process.
When we recognize that spirituality has deep value as a concept, while shedding ourselves of false illusions and embracing the primacy of logic... that will really be something.
p.s. thanks for that--glad you contributed
