Friend Brinton’s insightful study of the Quaker Movement in the last 300 years, how the Society has 4 different emphases

Currently, in the U.S. and many other nations (and in various ideological or religious movements in history), most humans seem given to extremes and fragmentation.
This leaves us often divisive, unbalanced, and distorted in our quest for truth.

As Howard H. Brinton insightfully explains in Friends for 300 Years this divisiveness and fragmentation even happens to good renewal movements such as the Friends, who came into being for the very purpose of regaining wholistic truth and avoiding all destructive tendencies of human history.

"Through the three centuries of Quaker history the four primary elements present in all religion have at different times exerted their influence in varying degrees."
-Brinton

Mystic Inner Life
Evangel Outreach
Social Justice
Rationalism

From 1650 to about 1750, mysticism and evangel outreach were in balance in the group as a whole though some individuals tended to stress one or the other.

But then mysticism and evangelicalism became a major conflict, each pressing the other to bad extremes among Quakers as a whole.

By the 1800’s, Quietism, (an excessive focus on mysticism—the inner life) became dominant, and the early expressive evangel preaching and sharing of truth with those outside of the society greatly receded.

Instead, the Friends became “a peculiar society” which besides their “inner life” focused on exclusive boundaries and rigid rules.
Exactly the Opposite of the Early Friends who emphasized the CENTER, not exclusion and conformity to outward rules and dress.

During the latter half of the 20th century and the 1st 23 years of the 21st, rationalism and social justice took over and have assumed greater prominence,
(except for a few fundamentalist Friends who have abandoned the key points of the Society and, instead, inserted-asserted Reformed theology, the exact opposite of ALL that Quakerism means)!

Brinton:
"The best type of religion is one in which the mystical, the evangelical, the rational and the social are so related that each exercises a restraint on the others. Too exclusive an emphasis on mysticism results in a religion which is individualistic, subjective and vague."

Too dominant an evangelicalism results in religion which is authoritarian, creedal and external; too great an emphasis on rationalism results in a cold, intellectual religion which appeals only to the few.

Too engrossing a devotion to the social justice results in a religion which, in improving the outer environment, ignores serious defects of the inner life which cause the outer disorders.

Brinton also goes on to warn against "vitalism which worships the life-force in its biological sense" which has very little in common with the central message of the Early Friends.

My response to Brinton's excellent analysis: About the only point where I disagree with Brinton is when he says the 4 qualities "each exercise a restraint on the others."

No--and that sounds too negative--it is rather that when Most bathed in the Light, the 4 parts of true transcendental reality relate/commune, giving a redeeming uplifting of each other and are the Seed of true moral and spiritual becoming.

Read Friends for 300 Years (or the updated version, Friends for 350 Years) and be not only intellectually enlightened, but raised up in the LIGHT!
Friend on the edge, Daniel

WHAT IS REALITY?

2 Divergent, Contradictory Ways of Human Perceiving

Poetry versus prose, fact versus story, symbolic versus technologic, intuitive versus rational, emotion versus logic, experience versus learning, reason versus tradition,

religion versus science, transcendent versus temporal, sacred versus secular, spiritual versus material, supernatural versus natural, personal versus impersonal—

What bipolar opposites!

Yet they both exist within every one of us, the human species.

HOWEVER some modern thinkers claim they are irreconcilable.

Yet from a different angle, these 2 ways of perceiving, “seeing,” so often divergent and opposite, do sometimes interrelate.

They aren’t always extreme clashers/antithetical/ contradictory/mutually incompatible/ not always (as in never shall the twain meet) like “fundamentalists” of religion and “scientilists” of science adamantly claim--incompatible.

But they do, indeed, offer 2 very different ways of perceiving reality.

The HUGE question is whether those perceptions are mutally exclusive or complimentary, even married as in the old saw--opposites attract:-).

The issue of these 2 divergent ways of perceiving is like the old joke about sex: Is the word, sex, an acronym for “sensitive experiential ecstasy”?

OR

the short term for biological interaction between a primate with XY chromosomes with one with XX chromosomes?

Or like the joke pun about the elephant versus the mouse in the room?

It’s ‘irrelevant’;- like these last few lines.)

-- #1 Our first contrast:

POETRY/STORY:

From the Jewish, Christian, Islamic religions, the ancient text of Genesis (written 500 B.C.E. in Babylon by Jewish scribes as a poem to honor the 7th day of Shabbat)

Genesis 1 In the beginning of G-d’s preparing the heavens and the earth — 2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Wind of G-d fluttering on the face of the waters, And G-d said, "Let light be; and light is."

On the 4th day of Creation: 14 And G-d said, "Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens...and the stars..." And there is an evening and there is a morning, day 4.

VERSUS

PROSE/FACT:

From the Lecture 113--8. Early Universe by astronomer Chris Impey, University of Arizona, Tucson

"...the frontier of knowledge is...the Planck Era. An amazing ten to the minus 43 seconds after the big bang.

“Conceptually, this is a time in the infinite universe when space itself was as curved as a particle. When the distinction between space and time did not exist. Or the objects in space and the space that contain them. This was when the universe was smaller than the smallest subatomic particle.

“Just thinking about the Big Bang, it's an extraordinary event. A 100 billion galaxies and a 100,000 billion, billion stars they contained were all compressed into a space smaller than a sub atomic particle. What the big bang theory really says is that... The universe itself was created in a quantum event...

“...a theory of black holes, of galaxies, and a theory of, of atoms, of light, of force. So, we have two great theories of physics, the theory of the very big, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and the theory of the very small, the Quantum Theory...

“The exponential expansion of inflation essentially blew up quantum fluctuations to macroscopic size, where they would subsequently become the seeds for galaxy formation. That same expansion of course, is responsible for the flatness and smoothness of space. Whatever the initial curvature, and it must have been extreme, space has now inflated to an enormous size, or space curvature in any large region is negligible.

“This idea puts the microwave sky in a whole new light. What is says is that when we look at the microwave background radiation through a radio telescope, we're look at quantum fluctuations writ large on the sky, the seeds for galaxy formation.

“So hypothetically, about a microsecond after the Big Bang, the universe would have had a temperature of about a trillion degrees. That's the energy from which neutrons and protons can have their anti-particle pairs created spontaneously out of pure energy. Below that temperature, or after that time, such creation is not possible. The speculation is that there was a very slight imbalance in the amount of matter versus anti-matter.

“From the time a few minutes after the Big Bang until just under 400,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe was simply an expanding and cooling plasma, cooling from a temperature of 10 million Kelvin down to about 3,000 Kelvin. When the universe reached this size, density and temperature, it reached the point where electrons could combine with protons to form stable hydrogen and also helium atoms.

“It takes perhaps 100 or 200 million years after the Big Bang for the first objects to switch on as light bulbs in the sky. Stars and galaxies." https://www.coursera.org/learn/astro/lecture/RFkHq/8-early-universe

-- The first account is poetic story, from us finite primates looking up and creating, telling a narrative of meaning.

The second account is factual prose, from us observing, discerning objective facts in the cosmos.

Are these two perspectives totally contradictory?

Is a complete divorce necessary as well as the killing of the former, like some secular scientists such as biologists Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins and astrophysicist Brian Greene think?

For instance, Greene, states: “The ancient declaration that "nothing exists but atoms and the void," is not far from the truth.” Though Greene does add, “But what's wondrous is all that atoms in the void, when arranged in organized configurations, can accomplish.”

Of course, then the question is HOW and WHY?

IF there is no story, no creator, no transcendence, no worth, no meaning, no moral realism, no human rights, etc.—“nothing except atoms and the void” HOW/WHY did those multi-trillions of “organized configurations” in Reality come about?!

What is the “void”?

I suppose many famous atheists could be correct when they posit CHANCE brought forth “organized configurations.” Given enough to infinity, possibly laws of physics, galaxies, solar systems, Life, consciousness, reason, math, stories, morals, etc. could have luckily appeared into existence over deep time, though I don’t see how.

Or why.

OR is the very contrary opposite account of what is REAL, actually the truth?

Reality is a sharing couple of both meaningful story and atoms-matter-energy facts, committed to interaction like geneticist Francis Collins, astrophysicist George Ellis, and astronomer Chris Impey think?

According to Chris Impey, the two contrary views are interrelated:

"We're made of tiny subatomic particles and are part of a vast space-time arena, yet we hold both extremes in our heads...the powerful narrative that science has created to help us organize and understand the world.

“We have a story of how the universe grew from a jot of space-time to the splendor of 50 billion galaxies. We have a story of how a broth of molecules on the primeval Earth turned into flesh and blood.

“And we have a story of how one of the millions of species evolved to hold those 50 billion galaxies inside its head." How It Began page xii, How It Ends, page 11 By Chris Impey

-- At this aged point in my long life of seeking and searching, BOTH the storied poetic and the factual matter-energy intrigue me and guide me.

I love both ways of perceiving.

In the Light,

Dan Wilcox

Part #2: Prayer and Fishhooks

Prayer and Fishhooks*

Our third daughter, Hope, learned-disabled early, Struggling with the squiggles and numeric symbols

Of unseen realities, of knowing, that set the stars In motion and our human minds in transition.

How dangerous those fish-hooked praying supplications

Her childish zest died while, as her father and provider, I practiced disabling late, raised to belief's unreason

In the rigid way of Huck's Miss Watson, so stubborn In righteous doctrine, ignoring our doctor's suggestion, Not giving Hope medication, but certain in literal petition.

How dangerous those fish-hooked praying supplications

So I prayed time-round-the-three for our daughter's minded healing, But just like gullible Finn and his never-gotten fishhooks,

Hope got none, and I— doubt, ill-gotten mishap, and bilge, Eventually lessening into cynicism, the wounded death Of an ash-filled, but empty-petitioning/requesting mouth.

How dangerous those fish-hooked praying supplications

Yet unlike Huck, to this day I keep reeling out petitions, Focusing like the Widow (Huck's other guardian),

On heartened prayer, the learning of spiritual gifts; But not even the gentle fish lures of patience

And boundless joy ever ripple my faithless way; I, too, become the lost orphan in the dying of trust.

How dangerous those fish-hooked praying supplications

No longer a fisher of miracles in the doubtful churning, Of the endless surging views of oceans seven

The world round, I struggle between trust And reason, earnest but lost in cruel confusion

Fearing those extremes — nihilistic negation And fishy delusion — doubting all to a hellish end.

How dangerous those fish-hooked praying supplications

Still rises the good news of caring medicine: Briefly free of false hooks, we gave our dear Hope,

So dead to minded school, the late prescription And she was upward raised, yes, recovering soon A zest for learning — early for her, way late for me –

How wondrous thoughtful reason-decided invocations

Except to say the real hook of it all is that True knowing is not gulping barbs of pious deceit,

Nor being gilled or gulled into the dying of truth, But yearning and learning — like Descartes and Kant

Of old — finding in humble, reasoned trust The poetry and prose of spiritual growth, A Godly way of reasoned becoming,

How wondrous thoughtful reason-based deliberations

--Dan Wilcox

First published in The Centrifugal Eye then in the published poetry collection, Psalms, Yawps, and Howls

-- *From Huck Finn: “Well I got a good going-over in the morning from old Miss Watson on account of my clothes; but the widow she didn't scold, but only cleaned off the grease and clay, and looked so sorry that I thought I would behave awhile if I could. Then Miss Watson she took me in the closet and prayed, but nothing come of it."

"She told me to pray every day, and whatever I asked for I would get it. But it warn't so I tried it. Once I got a fish-line, but no hooks. It warn't any good to me without hooks."

"I tried for the hooks three or four times, but somehow I couldn't make it work. By and by, one day, I asked Miss Watson to try for me, but she said I was a fool. She never told me why, and I couldn't make it out no way."

"I set down one time back in the woods, and had a long think about it. I says to myself, if a body can get anything they pray for...why can't the widow get back her silver snuffbox that was stole? Why can't Miss Watson fat up?"

"No, says I to myself, there ain't nothing in it. I went and told the widow about it, and she said the thing a body could get by praying for it was "spiritual gifts." This was too many for me, but she told me what she meant -- I must help other people, and do everything I could for other people, and look out for them all the time, and never think about myself."

"This was including Miss Watson, as I took it. I went out in the woods and turned it over in my mind a long time, but I couldn't see no advantage about it -- except for the other people; so at last I reckoned I wouldn't worry about it any more, but just let it go."

"Sometimes the widow would take me one side and talk about Providence in a way to make a body's mouth water; but maybe next day Miss Watson would take hold and knock it all down again."

"I judged I could see that there was two Providences, and a poor chap would stand considerable show with the widow's Providence, but if Miss Watson's got him there warn't no help for him any more."

"I thought it all out, and reckoned I would belong to the widow's if he wanted me, though I couldn't make out how he was a-going to be any better off then than what he was before, seeing I was so ignorant, and so kind of low-down and ornery.”

Wise words of yearning and learning from The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Samuel L. Clemens

-- In the Light of Hope and Reason,

Yearning and Learning, Trust and Skepticism,

Ideals and Science, Imagination and Fact...

Dan Wilcox

The Significance of the Human Species from an Enlightenment Perspective

Why do quite a few modern thinkers (from Stephen Jay Gould to Yual Noah Harari to Sam Harris) emphasize minimizing, negating, discounting, dehumanizing, etc.—and that all humans lack inherent worth?

These naysayers deny so many essential characteristics that define what a human is—the reality of human conscious awareness, moral realism, the ability to reason, to think so we can transcend our limited space in time and place, our ability to choose among alternative actions, our moral responsibility, our creativity, hope for an open future, the amazing structure of our brain and body, our DNA, artistic creations, sense of wonder and awe, and so forth.

But enough of the negative. What I wish to write about is the significance of the Enlightenment Story of humans.

This story rejects superstition, tradition, intolerance, injustice, inequality, oppression, dogmatic pride, and instead emphasizes reason, the scientific method, openness, justice, equality, caring and compassion and cognizant humility toward the wonder and mystery of reality, the cosmos, the nature of sentient life, the human species, and human reflecting and seeking.

The story goes like this. Ultimate Reality brought into being and becoming the cosmos (this universe, or the multiverse if indeed there is more than one cosmos) about 13.8 billion years ago.

For transcendent reasons unknown to our limited human minds, over that vast period of time in an expanse beyond most people’s fathoming, U.R., popularly called “God,” brought about a complex movement of the physical which developed into galaxies, solar systems, and planets, etc. about 9 billion years ago.

Our Milky Way galaxy alone has over 100 billion stars, and there are over a trillion other galaxies in the observable universe!

Then, approximately, at least 3.5. billion years ago, 1 billion years after its coming into becoming, basic life first appeared. Life followed evolutionary paths which branched out in many directions until at some point sentient life, and then intelligent life (able to use reason and to reflect and to transcend) came to be and to become.

One form of this intelligent life appeared in a minor solar system on the edge of the Milky Way Galaxy, which is called by us, the human species.

For hundreds of thousands of years, we as a species remained primarily at an instinctive level just surviving in at times hostile environments, but yet sensing a transcendence in our short life that came out as basic reverence and awe at existence and life.

Gradually, humans kept seeking, discovering, and reflecting on reality, especially in the last 10 thousand years. Of course, humans often erred into superstition and delusion when trying to ascertain the meaning of it all. Learning isn't quick nor is it easy.

At present, multi-millions of humans still tend to swing off center to 2 extremes—1. that of an egocentric organized religious view where the human species, despite its brief tiny presence in a vast universe, is the very center of creation

OR

2. the other already mentioned, a secular negating view where the human species is considered, inconsequential, a minor “bush” in the evolutionary jungle of life.

The Enlightenment view seeks a more balanced view, one that recognizes our species’ tiny presence and its very limited understanding of the in depth aspects of reality, let alone to know extensively why or even how it all came about,

YET

which is amazed in wonder and awe that in our brief consciousness, awareness, reflection, reason, and transcendence we get to participate in this incredible adventure of reality.

We get to seek, to study, to test, to question, to grow however slowly toward greater and greater knowledge of this vast existence. And that, my friend, (to quote an old Quaker) is the joy and wonder of our living, and becoming aware.

In the Light,

Dan Wilcox

Muhammad was NO Prophet of God

1. No prophet of God would invade a town and behead 500 Jewish men who opposed him and then sell their wives and children into slavery.

Muhammad did.

2. No prophet of God would rob caravans.

Muhammad did.

3. No prophet of God would marry a 6-year-old when he is 50 years old!!

Muhammad did.

4. No prophet of God would marry his adopted son's wife as soon as she divorced his son!

Muhammad did.

5. No prophet of God would own slaves.

Muhammad did.

6. No prophet of God would call for people of other religions to be beheaded.

Muhammad did in the Quran.

7. No prophet of God would commit polygamy, marrying many women.

Muhammad did.


Maybe there are no prophets of God.

However there are human leaders who, unlike Muhammad, do stand up for compassion, justice, equality, human rights, women's rights, freedom to reject your religion, freedom of speech, etc.

* Drawing of Muhammad from Wikipedia

In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

Support free speech: Request that Indonesia release Meliana for false charge of blasphemy

from Amnesty International:

"URGENT ACTION: 18 MONTHS IN PRISON FOR MOSQUE NOISE COMPLAINT (INDONESIA: UA 161.18)
Meliana, an ethnic Chinese Buddhist woman, has been convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to 18 months in prison for complaining about the loudspeaker volume at a local mosque.

Amnesty International considers her a prisoner of conscience who must be immediately and unconditionally released.

Meliana, an ethnic Chinese Buddhist woman, has been convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to 18 months in prison for complaining about the loudspeaker volume at a local mosque.

1) TAKE ACTION
Write a letter, send an email, call, fax or tweet:

Immediately and unconditionally release Meliana and all other individuals who have been convicted of blasphemy;
Ensure that Meliana and her family are given effective protection from violence or threats of violence;
Repeal or amend all blasphemy provisions set out in laws and regulations which violate the rights to freedom of expression and of thought, conscience and religion.
Contact these two officials by 10 October, 2018:
Ministry of Law and Human Rights
Minister Yasonna Laoly
Jalan H.R. Rasuna Said Kav 6-7
Jakarta Selatan, DKI
Jakarta, Indonesia 12940
Fax: +62 (0)21 525 3004
Email: rohumas@kemenkumham.go.id
Salutation: Dear Minister

Ambassador Budi Bowoleksono
Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia
2020 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington DC 20036
Phone: 202 775 5200
Twitter: @KBRIWashDC @b_bowoleksono
Salutation: Dear Ambassador

--
Read the rest of this urgent action at AI:
https://www.amnestyusa.org/urgent-actions/urgent-action-18-months-in-prison-for-mosque-noise-complaint-indonesia-ua-161-18/

--

MORE INFORMATION from THE STRAITS TIMES about the basis for the blasphemy charge:

"Criticism mounts in Indonesia against jailing of woman for complaining about volume of mosque speaker

"Wahyudi SoeriaatmadjaIndonesia Correspondent
JAKARTA - Criticism has mounted, even among Muslims, against the jailing of an Indonesian woman of Chinese descent for complaining to a neighbour about the volume of the azan (call to prayer) from the speaker of the community mosque.

"Civil society groups and lawyers denounced the verdict as excessive and silly while the two biggest Muslim organisations in the country, Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah, questioned the use of the blasphemy clause against the woman.

"I do not see how saying 'azan is too loud' is an expression of hatred or hostility towards a particular group or religion," Mr Robikin Emhas, head of the legal, human rights and legislation department at Nahdlatul Ulama, Indonesia's largest Muslim organisation with more than 80 million members, was quoted as saying in a statement.

"The blasphemy clause should not be used to "bulldoze" anyone's right to express opinions and Muslims should consider such opinions as "constructive criticism in a plural society", he said...

"Meliana, 44, a Buddhist, was found guilty on Tuesday (Aug 21) of blasphemy by the Medan district court in North Sumatra and sentenced to 1½ years in prison. The mother of four is a resident of Tanjung Balai sub-district in the eastern part of the province. Her husband, a labourer at a local swallow's nest farm which supplies bird's nests to restaurants, lost his job because of her trial.

"On July 22, 2016, Meliana was speaking with the owner of a small convenience store, who was her neighbour, when she referred to the volume of the speaker at the nearby mosque, saying that it had become louder than previously...This quickly spread on social media, which then triggered riots as Muslims, offended by the remarks, went on the rampage. Several Buddhist temples were burnt in what was believed to be the worst bout of anti-Chinese violence in the country since 1998...Meliana became a victim of a mob who descended on her house...who then vandalised and burned her house...

"Dozens of people, including former Jakarta governor Basuki "Ahok" Tjahaja Purnama, have been sent to prison under Indonesia's controversial blasphemy laws, the Jakarta Post reported."

Read the rest of the news on Meliana at:
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/criticism-mounts-in-indonesia-against-jailing-of-woman-for-complaining-about-volume-of

Shine the light of goodness, justice, and compassion,

Daniel Wilcox

Guest Post: How the Ebola Virus Taught Me About the Gospel

How the Ebola Virus Taught Me About the Gospel: Read that article. It is an excerpt from Canadian professor Randal Rauser's book, What’s So Confusing About Grace?

Intriguing! Rauser writes about compassion, NOT dogma or doctrine or even religion!


The "Ebola Virus..." article demonstrates very powerful ethical concern vividly!

BUT it also brings in a counter storm of theodicy. Of countless philosophical, cosmological, and ethical questions...

Rather than list my own as I usually do, I would be interested in hearing from any passersby who have troubling questions to ask.


Inspired and Troubled,

Daniel Wilcox

ALWAYS define terms, carefully, first!

AronRa, a strongly convinced atheist, has created a number of powerful YouTube videos explaining why theism is a delusion.

BUT what is strange and baffling is that I, a strongly convinced theist, actually, agree with a fairly large number of his central points!

For instance, I completely agree with AronRa's opposition to "creationism" being taught in public schools. The religious concept is a delusion! It has been proven over and over by countless scientific evidence that earth wasn't created about 6-10,000 years ago.

Creationism is fallacious, anti-scientific and contrary to biology, genetics, anthropology, physics, etc.

As a former teacher, it deeply troubles me that millions of Americans still call for "creationism" in its various forms to be an option in public education! And that the government of Turkey has decided to eliminate the teaching of evolution in its schools!
Etc.

In one of AranRa's almost humorous, tongue-twisting, exact phrases he states that his atheism represents--
"secular, humanist, skeptical, rational, scientifically literate, intellectual..."

Without going into a lot of detail, based upon AronRa's videos it appears that I am by his definitions--
secular
humanist
skeptical

rational
scientifically literate
intellectual
!

So, then exactly how is it that he and I have completely different central worldviews and lifestances toward reality?

According to his central definitions of atheism, theism, and religion, I am an "atheist"!
(This isn't all that new. In 2017, a number of atheists claimed that I was really an "atheist."
At about the same time, a famous Christian leader emphasized--as no doubt many others would--that I was NEVER a Christian in my 55 years as a devout, dedicated Christian, not even when I was a liberal Baptist youth minister, elder, mission worker, Bible teacher, etc.)

YET, I am intellectually convinced theist.

HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!

Here's one example of why definitions of terms are vital.

One point I especially appreciate about AronRa is that he, carefully, explicitly defines his words, even in his short popular videos.

Consider this:
"Anti-theist Answers to Slick Questions" by AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6qRT6MjjSs

1. How do you define atheism?

"Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity...
“a deity being defined as a magical anthropomorphic immortal”
--AronRa

Lightwaveseeker (my response):

Baffling! Confusing and Bemusing.

In at least 61 years of my 70-year-life, I NEVER believed in "a magical, anthropomorphic immortal."

What I believed before I was about 7 or 9 years of age, I don't remember, but probably whatever I was told by my parents, others, and books. All I do remember is having been born with a "why" in my throat, always asking questions about life, until it often drove my parents to tell me to stop asking, to just accept...

That I refused to do.

However, by the time I was about 9 years of age, when I often tried to conceive of "God," I thought of God as like oxygen--real, invisible, everywhere, and necessary for life:-)

To my knowledge, as a child, I NEVER thought God was "magical,"
and NEVER thought God was "anthropomorphic,"
and certainly didn't think so as a teen, a university student, a thinker, mental health worker, educator, etc.

If one defines theism as belief in "a magical anthropomorphic immortal," then I've never been a theist as long as I've been a thinking, questioning, doubting seeker.

Of course, most of my adult life I have viewed "God" as defined by Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary in its opening definition:
God "1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality:"

I don't recall ever using the term "immortal" to describe "u.r.", however, I did think the ultimate nature of reality was everlasting or eternal, which are synonyms of "immortal."

So in the last word, guilty as charged.

AronRa also thinks there are moral absolutes, that there are human rights, and so forth.

Heck, AronRa and Lightwaveseeker have a lot more in common than one would first suppose.

Wonders never cease;-)

In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

UNDERSTANDING “I”

UNDERSTANDING “I”

Every human "I" experiences at least 3 experiential senses of self, sometimes called "ego states."

Our
TAUGHT/FELT/THOUGHT

For instance, notice how the 3 senses of self exist in a juvenile delinquent's statement:

"I knew we were harming the old woman; (THOUGHT)

we shouldn't have hurt her; (TAUGHT)

but I felt like it."* (FELT)


Or another way of describing our 3 ego states of TAUGHT/FELT/THOUGHT:

CONSCIENCE/EMOTION/REASON

Or

RECEIVE/EXPERIENCE/COMPUTE

Or in more abstract terms:

RELIGION/MYSTICISM/SKETICISM

This is adapted from Dr. Eric Berne’s Transactional Analysis. His creative, life-changing theory of the human psyche
was transformational for millions of people in the last 60 years. Dr. Berne demonstrated keen insight into human nature
in his books such as Games People Play.

Sometimes his terms got misapplied or misunderstood however.

For instance, in his effort to get away from psychoanalytical abstract terms--and displaying a sense of playfullness--Berne defined
the inner realities of the
Human Psyche as

“PARENT” (implanted instructions from adults)

"CHILD" (creative, how we felt as a child, and feel experientially now)

"ADULT" (fact-checking now)

Berne wrote that these senses of "I" were real and experiential, not abstract descriptions such as earlier psychologists and psychiatrists had termed
3 divisions of the human psyche.



For examples, Sigmund Freud's abstract terms:
SUPER-EGO or CONSCIENCE
ID (BERNE’S “Little Fascist”)
EGO or CONSCIOUS ME

The most misunderstood aspect of Berne's theory was his statement of "I'M OKAY; YOU"RE OKAY." This view of positive psychology was popularized by other psychologists including Thomas Harris in his famous book, I'M OK, YOU'RE OK.

Too often, people in general, and scoffers thought that "okay" meant that TA leaders were stating, every human is fine just as he is.

NO!

Obviously, based on the wars of the 20th century which slaughtered multi-millions of humans, the millions of rapes and enslavements, constant abuse of children, and unending domestic violence,
this wasn't Berne's key point at all.

Rather Berne was giving the Enlightenment, humanistic ethical truth of "inherent human value/worth" a new-face-over uplift into popular user-friendly words.


The central key of Transactional Analysis was that every single human is of inherent worth, is "ok."

That ALL of human miscommunication, intolerance, abuse, and destruction come from distortions and denials of each human being inherently valuable.







In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

*Adapted from Games People Play by Berne, I'M OK, You're OK by Harris, Introduce Yourself to T.A. by Paul McCormick and Leonard Campos, etc.

Belief-O-Matic® | With its new survey, I still come out as "Liberal Quaker":-), UU, second.

Belief-O-Matic® | What religion am I? | What is my faith? | Religion Quiz | Faith Quiz - Beliefnet


In the Light of surveys;-)

Daniel Wilcox

A Cosmic View

Don't miss this mind-expanding science documentary,
Journey to the Edge of the Universe.

Journey is a powerful documentary on the nature of the cosmos,
vividly rendered and narrated.

Despite having read a fair number of science, astronomy, and cosmology books in my brief time, including one I am still reading, The Elegant Universe by astronomer Brian Greene, I was still wowed by this excellent documentary.

The film is user-friendly, but not basic. It stretches the mind. And one feels awe and admiration, and a sense of infinity.

Thanks to National Geographic for creating the film, and for ever-rewarding Netflix making it available.

And the movie was a welcome vacation from the daily news. In the midst of so much wrong, sorrow, angst, despair, and human debacle, it was a very good time to step back and take a cosmic view through a science video.

Viewing and hearing about the limitless, intellectually beautiful structure of the universe, and it's cosmic journey creating time and space as it advances into an ever expanding reality, was exhilarating and helped me keep the current bad religious and political scene in perspective.


In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

Shocking Statements by Two Famous Writers, One an Atheist, One a Theist

Two Contrary Views of Two Famous Writers:

#1 "Union with Christ imparts an inner elevation, comfort in affliction, tranquil reliance,
and a heart which opens itself to everything noble and great not for the sake of ambition
or desire for fame, but for the sake of Christ.

Union with Christ produces a joy which the Epicurean seeks in vain in his shallow philosophy,
which the deeper thinker vainly pursues in the most hidden depths of knowledge.

It is a joy known only to the simple and childlike heart,
united with Christ and through Him with God, a joy which elevates life and makes it more beautiful."1






VERSUS







#2 "You know, I think, that I believe in no religion.

There is absolutely no proof for any of them,
and from a philosophical standpoint Christianity is not even the best.

All religions, that is, all mythologies to give them their proper name, are merely man's invention--Christ as much as Loki.

Primitive man found himself surrounded by all sorts of terrible things he didn't understand--thunder,
pestilence, snakes, etc:what more natural then to suppose that these were animated by evil spirits trying to torture him.

These he kept off by cringing to them, singing songs and making sacrifices etc. Gradually from being mere
nature-spirits these supposed beings were elevated into more elaborate ideas,
such as the old gods: and when man became more refined he pretended that these spirits were good as well as powerful.

Thus religion, that is to say mythology grew up. Often too, great men
were regarded as gods after their death-such as Heracles or Odin:
thus after the death of a Hebrew philosopher Yeshua
(whose name we have corrupted into Jesus)
he became regarded as a god, a cult sprang up,
which was afterwards connected with the ancient Hebrew Jahweh-worship,
and so Christianity came into being-one mythology among many.

Of course, mind you, I am not laying down as a certainty that there is nothing outside
the material world; considering the discoveries that are always being made, this would be foolish. Anything MAY exist."2
--

Oops;-) I got the two photos backwards.

See the surprising footnotes:

NOTES

1. The praise of the Christian religion was written by Karl Marx.
Pub. in "Karl Marx as a schoolboy" in the German volume
Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels Gesamtausgabe.
From "The Baptism of Karl Marx" by Eugene Kamenka, lecturer in philosophy, University of Malaya,
The Hibbert Journal, vol. 56, no. 3, April 1958, pp.345-46.

Versus

2. The skeptical dismissal of the Christian religion was written by C.S. Lewis
in a letter to his friend Arthur Greeves on October 12, 1916.
Pub.in They Stand Together, p.135).
--

This conundrum of opposites which reversed in their lives has intrigued me for years--
from devout theist to hard atheist: Karl Marx

versus

from skeptical atheist to devout theist: C.S. Lewis--
especially now that I have also journeyed so very far philosophically from where I was at when a youth.

Are not these two shocking quotes intriguing hooks
to get us into doing biographical and historical
and philosophical research into how Karl Marx and C.S. Lewis so drastically
changed their views in a matter of 20-25 years?

Into inquiring why some humans greatly change
in their lifestances and worldviews,
BUT
others stay put in the place,
culture, and social outlook they were born into?

Search on.

Become seekers of truth.


In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

Review of God and the Reach of Reason

God and the Reach of Reason by atheist philosopher Erik J. Wielenberg

Lucidly written explanations of rational theism versus rational atheism.

A book-length, intriguing comparison and contrast of 3 thinkers' views:

#1 What one theist (Oxford professor and writer, C.S. Lewis)
has in common philosophically
--strange as it may seem--
with two very famous atheists
(the Scottish atheist philosopher, David Hume)
and the British skeptic and atheist Bertrand Russell).

#2 How all three disagree on vital points concerning the nature of reality.

This is a very good thinkers' book, written in balanced, measured, lucid, and well-explained prose, explicating difficult philosophical issues and controversies in a user-friendly way.

Wielenberg is respectful toward those with whom he strongly disagrees, which is a wonderful change from the usual, given the tendency of so many leaders to demonstrate intolerance, discourtesy, and even personal attacks. Consider all of the hateful, demeaning political and religious slander and verbal abuse of the recent past by many American leaders.

Only a few times does the philosophical book become obscurely
technical, dry, and boring.

One of the most insightful volumes I read in the last year.

I was also impressed because, unlike most nontheists, Erik J. Wielenberg thinks objective ethics exist, are real. He--contrary to the vast majority of atheists--is a strong moral realist. He is professor of philosophy at DePauw University in Greencastle, Indiana.

From his website:
"[A]ll the teaching must still be done by concrete human individuals. The State has to use the men who exist. Nay, as long as we remain a democracy, it is men who give the State its powers. And over these men, until all freedom is extinguished, the free winds of opinion blow." - C.S. Lewis

In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

Words All Humans Need to Hear in the Current World Crises

Wise Words from a psychologist for all Americans, indeed, all humans world wide,
in the current crises:

“Do what you can, with what you have, with where you are RIGHT NOW.”

“I am the decisive element in [my life]. It’s my personal approach that creates the climate. It’s my daily mood that makes my weather!

As a [human being], I possess a tremendous power to make [my life, and indirectly, other people’s lives] miserable or joyous.

I can be a tool of torture or an instrument of inspiration. I can humiliate or humor, hurt or heal.

In all situations, it is my response that decides whether a crisis will be escalated or de-escalated and [each other person] humanized or de-humanized.

Never deny or ignore [others’] feelings.

Only behavior is treated as unacceptable, not the [person].

Depersonalize negative interactions by mentioning only the problem.

Attach rules to things...

Dependence breeds hostility.

[Others] need to learn to [be free to] choose, but within the safety of limits.

Limit criticism to a specific event—don't say ‘never,’ ‘always,’ as in: ‘You never listen,’ ‘You always'..."

Refrain from using words that you would not want [others] to repeat.

Ignore irrelevant behavior.

Truth for its own sake can be a deadly weapon in...relations. Truth without compassion can destroy love.

Some...try too hard to prove exactly how, where and why they have been right. This approach will bring bitterness and disappointment.

When attitudes are hostile, facts are unconvincing."

Adapted from Haim Ginott, psychologist, psychotherapist, and educator,
Today’s Education, November-December 1973
--



Such important insights!


In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

Artesian Well of Hope

Most Christian leaders now claim I and many others were never
Christians, never lovers of God,
that our deepest most meaningful experiences and beliefs were false heresies:-(

According to them, we were conceived in sinfulness
and long before our births foreordained to eternal damnation
along with billions of other "worthless" evil humans:-(

It's very weird--and despairing--that even some U.S. Quaker meetings
are promoting such negative religious leaders!

BUT

Back in the 1950's, we grew in a very different sort of religion,
one with a wonderful story,

one where every newly conceived infant was precious and innocent,

one where every human was of inherent worth and value,

one which encouraged us to work for equality, justice, human rights and well-being.

We were convinced that Ultimate Reality
cared about every single human who had ever been born and would ever be born.

My favorite heroes were those compassionate leaders who gave up comfortable lives
and went to harsh places to help the impoverished, the suffering,
and even those who chose and committed unjust, immoral actions.

There was hope for everybody, for every single human being!

When these generous, hopeful leaders spoke at free will Baptist gatherings and conferences, I asked for their autographs and kept them in a special box, like the autographs of sports heroes.

When I discovered the moral truth of the Sermon on the Mount,
that of peacemaking and nonviolence,
one such inspiring leader gave me encouragement to stand up against all those--
almost all the Americans I knew (including our Christian club leader)--who were telling me to go and kill Vietnamese.

I will always be grateful for his witness against the slaughter of war, even if his religion was an illusion.

And I will always be thankful for the witness of Friends in meeting, one of whom
sang of communion, compassion, and inclusion, when I and others were experiencing so much despairing theology.

Here's a short poem in which I tried to distill one very meaningful,
and deeply blessed experience of my hopeful youth.

A transcendent experience, one of ecstatic joy
and the commitment to work for ethical change
and deep idealism--
--

Artesian Well

I can’t carry a basic tune
Anymore than a bat can sing Hebrew
Or envision hieroglyphics,

But once I welled up bursting forth
Beyond all melodious barriers
Of sensuous fountaining,

Songing the voice of all singing.
Hosanna to the Highest and Deepest,
All-embracing universal cosmic Ultimate

Usually, I vocalize low
And hesitantly with insecure effort
But on that humid, many peopled

Saturday evened night in the crowded hall
In the midst of a thousand voiced praise
I not only caroled the Keys but was mused,

Songing the voice of all singing,
Hosanna to the Highest and Deepest
All-embracing universal cosmic Ultimate

We human instruments, fluting beautifully
One glorious open canticled Magnificat
With so much climatic passion;

Me, a human oboe in a great orchestra of tone
Being Bached and Beethovened,
To the alleluiaed heights,

Songing the voice of all singing,
Hosanna to the Highest and Deepest
All-embracing universal cosmic Ultimate.

Lava-hot harmonied, a chorale of joyous, exultant
Joy, the Transcendent's artesian well bursting forth,
Geysering up in ecstatic adulation,

Welling skyward beyond all measuring
Bursting beyond all selves
To God, our lover, all communioned,

Songing the voice of all singing,
Hosanna to the Highest and Deepest
All-embracing universal cosmic Ultimate.

Selah


-Daniel Wilcox

First pub. in
The Clockwise Cat in
different form and in
selah river poetry collection
--

2 Divergent, Contradictory Ways of Human Perceiving

Poetry versus prose, fact versus story,
symbolic versus technologic,
intuitive versus rational,
emotion versus logic,
experience versus learning,
reason versus tradition,

religion versus science,
transcendent versus temporal,
sacred versus secular,
spiritual versus material,
supernatural versus natural,
personal versus impersonal—

What bipolar opposites!

Yet within everyone of us, the human species, homo sapiens.

Some thinkers claim they are irreconcilable.

Yet from a different angle, these 2 ways of perceiving, “seeing,”
so often divergent and opposite, do sometimes interrelate.

They aren’t always extreme clashers/antithetical/
contradictory/mutually incompatible/
not always (as in never shall the twain meet)
like “fundamentalists” of religion
and “scientilists” of science adamantly claim--incompatible.

But they do, indeed, offer 2 very different ways of perceiving reality.

The HUGE question is whether those perceptions are mutally exclusive
or complimentary, even married as in the old saw--opposites attract:-).

The issue of these 2 divergent ways of perceiving is like the old joke about sex:
Is the word, sex, an acronym for
“sensitive experiential ecstasy”?
OR
the short term for biological interaction between a primate
with XY chromosomes with one with XX chromosomes?

Or like the joke about the elephant versus the mouse in the room?

It’s ‘irrelevant’;-
like these last few lines.)
--

#1 Our first contrast:

POETRY/STORY:

From the Jewish, Christian, Islamic religions,
the ancient text of Genesis (written 500 B.C.E.
in Babylon by Jewish scribes as a poem to honor
the 7th day of Shabbat)

Genesis
1 In the beginning of G-d’s preparing the heavens and the earth — 2 the earth hath existed waste and void,
and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Wind of G-d fluttering on the face of the waters,
And G-d said, "Let light be; and light is."

On the 4th day of Creation:
14 And G-d said, "Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens...and the stars..."
And there is an evening and there is a morning, day 4.

VERSUS


PROSE/FACT:

From the Lecture 113--8. Early Universe
by astronomer Chris Impey,
University of Arizona, Tucson

"...the frontier of knowledge is...the Planck Era. An amazing ten to the minus 43 seconds after the big bang.

Conceptually, this is a time in the infinite universe when space itself was as curved as a particle. When the distinction between space and time did not exist. Or the objects in space and the space that contain them. This was when the universe was smaller than the smallest subatomic particle.

Just thinking about the Big Bang, it's an extraordinary event. A 100 billion galaxies and a 100,000 billion billion stars they contained were all compressed into a space smaller than a sub atomic particle. What the big bang theory really says is that...
The universe itself was created in a quantum event...

...a theory of black holes, of galaxies, and a theory of, of atoms, of light, of force. So we have two great theories of physics, the theory of the very big, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and the theory of the very small, the Quantum Theory...

The exponential expansion of inflation essentially blew up quantum fluctuations to macroscopic size, where they would subsequently become the seeds for galaxy formation. That same expansion of course, is responsible for the flatness and smoothness of space. Whatever the initial curvature, and it must have been extreme, space has now inflated to an enormous size, or space curvature in any large region is negligible.

This idea puts the microwave sky in a whole new light. What is says is that when we look at the microwave background radiation through a radio telescope, we're look at quantum fluctuations writ large on the sky, the seeds for galaxy formation.

So hypothetically, about a microsecond after the Big Bang, the universe would have had a temperature of about a trillion degrees. That's the energy from which neutrons and protons can have their anti-particle pairs created spontaneously out of pure energy. Below that temperature, or after that time, such creation is not possible. The speculation is that there was a very slight imbalance in the amount of matter versus anti-matter.

From the time a few minutes after the Big Bang until just under 400,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe was simply an expanding and cooling plasma, cooling from a temperature of 10 million Kelvin down to about 3,000 Kelvin. When the universe reached this size, density and temperature, it reached the point where electrons could combine with protons to form stable hydrogen and also helium atoms.

It takes perhaps 100 or 200 million years after the Big Bang for the first objects to switch on
as light bulbs in the sky. Stars and galaxies."
https://www.coursera.org/learn/astro/lecture/RFkHq/8-early-universe
--


The first account is poetic story, from us finite primates looking up and creating,
telling a narrative of meaning.

The second account is factual prose, from us observing,
discerning objective facts in the cosmos.

Are these two perspectives totally contradictory?

Is a complete divorce necessary as some secular scientists
such as biologist Jerry Coyne
and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins think?

Or are the two opposite accounts, a sharing couple, committed to interaction
like geneticist Francis Collins
and cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller think?

According to the astronomer Chris Impey, the two views are interelated:

"We're made of tiny subabtomic particles and are part of a vast space-time arena,
yet we hold both extremes in our heads....the powerful narrative that science
has created to help us organize and understand the world.

We have a story of how the universe grew from a jot of space-time to the splendor
of 50 billion galaxies. We have a story of how a broth of molecules on the primeval
Earth turned into flesh and blood.

And we have a story of how one of the millions of species
evolved to hold those 50 billion galaxies
inside its head."
How It Began page xii,
How It Ends, page 11
--

BOTH the poetic and the factual intrigue me; I love both ways of perceiving.


#2 TO BE CONTINUED


In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

The Stark Difference Between Modern Science and Modern Religion

Islam's Religion Against Blasphemy

versus

Modern Science's Historic Discovery

Caution: One must be careful not to fall for the Either/Or Fallacy,
blaming ALL of modern science,
or ALL of modern religion
for the horrendous evils in history and today.

But the real facts are these: without modern science, there would be no drones, aerial bombing, gas warfare, and massive slaughters via conventional and nuclear weapons.

But the real facts are these: without modern religion, there would be no doctrinal persecution, torture, and slaughter of humans around the globe.

No Syria,
Iraq,
Yemen,
Afghanistan,
Libya,
Iran,
Pakistan,
Somalia,
Saudi Arabia...

(Of course there would still be destruction and evil
in other forms, but that is a story for another day.)

Two Countering Stories from the News today:

Oldest Human Remains Found from 400,000 Years Ago

by Asaf Kamer

"Located outside of Rosh HaAyin and Tel Aviv, Qesem Cave was accidentally discovered during road work 16 years ago; since then, the cave has revealed a wealth of information on early humans, and helps shed light on the evolution of humanity."

"A powerful controlled explosion designed to demolish a giant limestone boulder blocking the path of the road exposed the entrance to a giant limestone cave which had been sealed for over 200,000 years."

"This 200,000 year old time capsule contained within it rare artifacts from a critical point in the evolution of humanity, and turned the cave, now called "Qesem Cave," into one of the most important pre-historic sites in the world."

"Archaeology Professor at Tel Aviv University Ron Barkai is the head of digging at Qesem Cave."

Inside Qesem Cave, Photo by Ron Barkai, Tel Aviv University

"It's a very special cave," he said. "It reflects an unknown stage in the history of humanity. We don’t know which type of human lived here."

"We know that they acted differently than everyone else who lived in this area before them. They seem like a different type of human..."

"If we aren't mistaken, they were more similar to us (humans today), and not their forefathers the Homo erectus."

"Avi Gofer, another archaeologist from Tel Aviv University and who also helps manage the dig excitedly talks discusses the artifacts left behind by these early peoples, including flint tools and animal bones."

"This cave has been unusually well preserved," Gofer says. "The people who lived here were a huge revolution (in the history of humanity). What these people did here is completely different than what other humans were doing; in terms of chiseling technology, behavior, hunting techniques, organization, use of fire, and much more. In other words, there was an explosion of change (at Qesem Cave), and a lot of innovations."

"One of the major discoveries at Qesem Cave which changed history books was the discovery of the oldest evidence of the consumption of cooked meat."

Professor Torsten Otmeier of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany:
"This site is approximately 400,000 years old."

Photo by Ron Barkai

"If you look at what (the early humans) did here, on their hunting strategies, the way they made their tools and how they prepared their food, it points to one of the most important changes in the history of mankind."

"Before this era, early humans acted in a completely different manner. (This site) represents one of the most important turning points in the evolution of mankind."

"Despite the heat and the harsh and sometimes dangerous physical labor, diggers who come from all over the world work diligently and with scientific precision as they sift dirt, sand, and limestone in the cave. A long conveyor belt brings dirt up from the depths of the cave to the surface, where the dirt is sifted for artifacts."

Professor Barkai explains the technological differences between Homo erectus and the type of humans whose remains were found in the cave:

"They made flint knives alongside other large artifacts such as hand axes which enabled these early peoples to hold onto the tool with one hand and cut. These are the oldest examples of knives in the history of humanity."

"By comparison...Europe only started seeing humans using knives 30,000 years ago."

"These knives were created 400,000 years ago...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4846834,00.html

VERSUS

JORDAN WRITER, NAHID HATTAR, in ISLAM BLASPHEMY CASE, KILLED

Nahid HattarImage copyright PETRA NEWS AGENCY

"Mr Hattar was attacked on social media for sharing the cartoon"

"A Jordanian writer charged with offending Islam after allegedly sharing a satirical cartoon on his Facebook page has been killed."

"Nahid Hattar was hit by three bullets outside the court in the capital Amman where he was standing trial."

"Police have arrested the suspected shooter, Riad Abdullah. Jordanian media said he was local imam who had been upset by the cartoon...A witness told the Associate Press news agency that Mr Abdullah had a long beard and was wearing a long robe, common among conservative Muslims.

"Nahid Hattar was detained in August for 15 days on charges of insulting God after he published a cartoon depicting a bearded man lying in bed with two women and smoking, asking God to bring him a drink."

Nahid was an atheist, and "was attacked on social media for being anti-Islam."

"He said he had not meant to cause offence and wanted to expose radical Islamists' view of heaven."

"Authorities said he had broken the law by sharing the cartoon."

"The prime minister was the first one who incited against Nahid when he ordered his arrest and put him on trial for sharing the cartoon, and that ignited the public against him and led to his killing,"
Saa Hattar, the writer's cousin
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37465656
--

Two stories with very different methods and two very different ends.

May we choose to reject All forms of religious and scientific harm and slaughter.

However, this week it doesn't look good.

Many Americans opposed the U.S. selling 1.5 billion to Saudi Arabia which is waging a vicious Islamic war in Yemen where over 10,000 have been killed, many of them by bombing.

But this week, the U.S. Senate voted by a large majority to support the destruction, to support sending weapons to a ruthless Islamic government which is largely, or at least partially, responsible for the endless Islamic slaughter of the last 50 years.

Plus, like Jordan, Pakistan, etc., Saudi Arabia's Islamic government denies its citizens basic human rights including freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

It imprisons innocent civilians for their writing and for their beliefs.

How dark is the darkness of world religion and politics,

Live, instead, in the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

Evaluating Morality without Religion

But look at how strange the list is considering that it was posted by nontheists this week on the Internet.

Many theists agree with all of these points, especially Friendly-oriented ones. Indeed, most of these points are why they are theists!

Quakers live in the Light with a very similar list.

#1 REASON, not superstition:
Great theistic scientists such Arthur Eddington, English astronomer, astrophysicist, philosopher, and mathematician would very strongly agree and support this phrase brainer!

For REASON is the CenterPoint of the Enlightenment and is the basis of science.

I strongly agree, am reason-centered, and hate superstition in all its forms.

If so many theists support "REASON, not superstition," what does this then have to do with atheism?!

The view that reason is reliable, that it qualifies as the best way for all humans to function would seem to show that it aligns with reality.

Thus it is probably inherent in reality, as much as math. It isn't a human construct, isn't an accident, and isn't a subjective cultural standard.

If so, that is a deep theistic outlook, not an atheistic one.

After all, reason was a center-post of great leaders such as Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc.

All of them were committed to belief and trust in the God of reason, that reason is the way for humans to make decisions and to probe life, the cosmos, and all of reality.

As the Enlightenment's declarations emphasized, they based their views of justice, human rights, and truth on reality's God.

Arthur Eddington put it this way:
“The mind-stuff of the world is, of course, something more general than our individual conscious minds.... The mind-stuff is not spread in space and time; these are part of the cyclic scheme ultimately derived out of it.... It is necessary to keep reminding ourselves that all knowledge of our environment from which the world of physics is constructed, has entered in the form of messages transmitted along the nerves to the seat of consciousness...."

"Consciousness is not sharply defined, but fades into subconsciousness; and beyond that we must postulate something indefinite but yet continuous with our mental nature.... It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character. But no one can deny that mind is the first and most direct thing in our experience, and all else is remote inference."
— Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 276-81.

#2 ETHICS, not dogma:
The beginning of the Friends was ethically directed, not dogmatic or doctrinal; in fact the leaders strongly opposed religious dogma.

When Friends encountered injustice, immoral actions, and abuse, many of them stood up against such unethical behavior, no matter how much the perpetrators of the actions justified by them by religious or atheistic dogma.

And millions of ethical social activists of other worldviews have done so as well.

#3 RESPECT, not worship:
This is a more difficult statement to deal with because of the semantic problems. Friends and many other searchers for truth, justice, human rights, equality, reconciliation, peace would support the importance of RESPECT.

But here’s the conundrum: Quakers and many other theists base their support for respect in WORSHIP!

What so many of us mean by the term, “worship,” is probably--most likely--NOT
what the secularist meant by the term.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, worship means:
"the act of showing respect and love..."

Friends mean communion,
communication,
wonder,
transcendence,
spiritual intimacy...




The original writer of "...not worship" wasn't opposing "the act of showing respect and love...," nor was he against communication, intimacy, or wonder.

Rather, based on #1's statement, it seems likely that he does show a lot of respect, even love, for REASON and other important humanistic values.

It's the second part and secondary definitions of "worship" that secularists reject--
that of "...for a god, especially by praying with other people who believe in the same god... reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power.."
and
"...a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual."

Yes, nontheists think “worship” is a very negative term meaning:
delusion,
harmful, mean servile scraping,
and terrified fear of the dogmatic god of hellfire who is obsessed with his own glory.

Their rejection of "worship," is the rejection of doctrinal, creedal Christian, Muslim, and Hindu dogma; rejection of the Augustinian/Reformed/Sunni/Shia/Hindu God who is fixated on his own self.

They reject the divinity that, to quote Mahatma Gandhi, treats humans as “toys.” The same god who considers humankind as worthless, that every human infant is "in essence, evil" at conception, etc.

If that is the definition of “worship,” then we certainly are opposed to worship, too.

So were Enlightenment figures including Thomas Jefferson.

Maybe, we ought to abandon the word itself, because like other overused empty-bucket words--
ones which are used, abused, and misunderstood such as god, good, love, etc.—-
“worship” confuses rather than enlightens.



#4 COURAGE, not fear:
This would seem to be a universal agreed upon virtue by nearly all humans, though acting in courage, not fear, is entirely more difficult than supporting the action.

#5 FACT, not myth:
Again, this is another case of slimy semantics;-) Most people would agree if one means the common everyday definitions.

But again, applying this is more difficult for most people than one would ever imagine. Just look at the current presidential candidate campaign where most Americans are majoring in “myths,” advocating all sorts of ad hominem, distortions, plain propaganda, slander, and demeaning, untrue stories.

Much of the media is full of some of the most ridiculously superstitious, irrational, and unfactual information. And these "myth" spews come from many secular as well as religious leaders.

#6 MORALITY, not religion.
Ditto for what I explained in the numbers above.

It is very important to emphasize this separation, this rejection. Nearly always in the past, and everywhere now, religion is the source, cause, and inflictor of countless immoral attitudes, outlooks, laws, rituals, behaviors, and actions.

The most baffling aspect of this statement though is that many of the nontheists who claim to support “morality” actually think that no real ethics exist, that ethics are whatever humans choose them to be.

For instance, one nontheist leader stated, "There are no universal moral values."

Another, there is "no moral responsibility" not even for murdering and raping!

Instead, what many secularists mean by the term “morality” is only
“subjective preference,”
“like/dislike,”
“social construct,”
"cultural standards,"
and so forth.

They claim being opposed to slavery or rape or dishonesty, etc. is only similar to disliking a color such as blue or disliking chocolate!

According to them, morality is only an "opinion."

Other nontheists state that morality is a purposeless adaption of evolution, a survival mechanism.

From an interview with the brilliant biologist Richard Dawkins:

RD: My value judgment itself could come from my evolutionary past.

JB: So therefore it’s just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.

RD: You could say that, it doesn’t in any case, nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.

JB: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.

RD: You could say that, yeah.
--

Philosopher of Science professor Michael Ruse, makes similar statements:

“Morality is a biological adaptation, no less than are hands and feet and teeth … Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction.”
-
American historian of science William Provine, professor of the history of science at Cornell University:

“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us, loud and clear, and I must say that these are basically Darwin’s views: there are...no purposive forces of any kind...
no ultimate foundation for ethics,
no ultimate meaning in life,
and no free will for humans either..."
--

Evolutionist Craig Palmer:
"That there is obviously some evolutionary basis to rape just like there is some evolutionary basis to all aspects of living things.

In the book we narrow it down to two plausible specific evolutionary reasons for why we are a species in which rape occurs. One is just a by-product of evolved differences between the sexualities of males and females.

Or, two, rape might be an adaptation. There might have been selection favouring males who raped under some circumstances in the past. And therefore there might be some aspects of male brains designed specifically to rape under some conditions.

An evolutionary reason is also known as the ultimate level of explanation. It’s really the question of why are we the way we are?
And the evolutionary answer is what selective forces favoured those traits in hundreds or thousands of past generations that we eventually end up with today.
A Natural History Of Rape: Biological Bases Of Sexual Coercion by Craig Palmer and Randy Thornhill, MIT Press
--

Thankfully, Palmer disagrees with evolution's adaption and states that he is strongly opposed to rape, that such a human action is immoral, but he does think that raping is a result of natural selection.

Thus it is uncertain and confusing how so very many secularists yet claim that human ethics result from evolution.

If both raping versus non-raping, slavery versus abolition, and all other actions of humans are ONLY the result of natural selection, how can anyone think that morality exists (except as one adaption of evolution)?

How could we humans come to an understanding as to which evolutionary adaptions are better than the other contrary ones?

Lastly, on a related topic, it would appear that when Palmer says "there is some evolutionary basis to all aspects of living things" he also means that the human fixation for "religion" is a result of natural selection, too!


#7 CLARITY, not delusion:
See above.

#8 GOOD, not god:
What?! How can there possibly be any good without god?

Again, everyone needs to define the terms. If one means the god of religion, then, for sure, good can exist without god.

Indeed, religion often opposes the good as in the case of Segregation in the United States and in the case of Apartheid in South Africa. And, currently, in the U.S. and many other countries throughout the world, religion supports inequality, injustice, and sexism.

One of the center-points of the Enlightenment is that religion opposes the GOOD.

But if one means by “not god” that reality—all of existence is completely meaningless, purposeless, then “good” in the sense of objective, true, and real can’t exist.

If there is no objective, true, and real “good,” then how could we humans do “good”?

That would be like saying there is NO COLOR, but please paint a drawing in red, since it is the best color!

Huh?

#9 SKEPTICISM, not cynicism:
This is an extremely important value to hold. Merriam-Webster Dictionary--skeptic: “a person who questions or doubts…”

Such an attitude/behavior is the very first step to learning.

Without questioning, no learning is possible, only memorization and brain-washing.

And, who, except very negative, dysfunctional, or even nihilistic individuals wants to be a cynic?

Yes, I know there are actually a number of famous cynics,
but cynicism doesn’t bring hope,
doesn't rescue those who are suffering,
doesn't seek to free prisoners of conscience...

M-W-D- cynic: “a person who has negative opinions about other people...especially a person who believes that people are selfish, a faultfinding captious critic.

#10 RATIONALITY, not ideology:
Many a hand-clap to that:-) So many humans, even ones who manage to understand and reject superstition, religion, and illusion often yet get caught in the wiles of ideologies.

History is strewn with millions of corpses and devastated landscapes which show that this is all too true.

Every individual first needs to use his/her reason within to live rationally before trying to fix the mental attitudes/structures, behaviors, and wrong actions of others.

GREAT TO-DO LIST for humanity, for all of us humans!

I would add a few more essentials such as:

#11 EQUALITY, not sexism, racism, nationalism

#12 COMPASSION, not survival, natural selection,

#13 INCLUSION, not anti-immigration, prejudice,

#14: NONVIOLENT PEACEMAKING, not war,

#15 NO-HARM FOOD, not meat-eating,

#16 WONDER, not materialism

#17 HOPE, not negativity



In every moment, choose to live closer to these essential center-points.

In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox