Atheism Versus Cosmic Consciousness

[chad]

To answer the question of this topic, one must first present a tenable case for the actual existence of a universal consciousness (Qualitification: what follows may be a bit heavy on a philosophical level). The proceeding, two pionts constitute that bear bones of a such a case:

 

1) Out of the diverse categories or kinds of religious experience, many are hopelessly conflictual and thereby rendered dubious at best. However, a certain class of religious experience is amazingy uniform across cultures and world-wide, thereby rendering it's particular truth claims at least worthy of serious consideration--Mysticism. The majority of Hindu, Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish, and etc mysticism converge into a common core of religious assertions about reality despite hailing from disparate cultures and doctrinal paradigms; namely, that reality is a categorical singularity or absolute oneness, where multiplicity and plurality are nonexistent, unbound by time/space dimensionality, and thus eternal, and this reality is a universal consciousness, where ego/individuality is completely assimilated onto the ultimate One. I understand that these postulates are very radical, but keep in mind, the experiential evidence from every mystical tradition cooraborates as such in contrast to the contradictory testimony of other-than-mystical religious experiences (i.e. visions, prophecies, hearing the voice of God, omens, feeling called to a divine mission, etc....). Because our experience of material reality is mediated through our sense faculties, technically, certainty that our sense experiences convey reality as it actually is, in an objective manner, is impossible. Therefore, the only way we can judge the probable objectivity of a sense experience is unanimity; that is, if everyone, from diverse backgrounds, described a hoarse in a very similar fashion, we consider the description in correspondence with reality and visa versa. Likewise, if every mystical tradition desribes reality in the same fashion, the case for the objectivity of this described reality is tenable.

2) I know that this point will provoke great skepticism, as it did in me before I actually began to examine the evidence: the experimental evidence of prayer's efficacy seems to indicate that the mind possesses non-local capacities. What the hell do I mean by non-local? Typically, we maintain that the mind is local or strictly limited to the body--that it only has the ability to act on the body in which it is contained--period. However, in his book entitled "Healing Words: The Power of Prayer And The Practice of Medicine", Larry Dossey, M.D, delineates a number of double-blind experiments that clearly exhibit statistically significant results concerning the "realness" of prayer; that is to say, that the mind is able to operate outside of the body or is not limited to the body in which it is contained (if you want the specifics details of the experiments, pleasre refer to the book; and note that these experiments were run by extremely prestegious universities like Princeton, Harvard, ect....that didin't "stack the deck" in terms of a pro-religious bias). More specifically, these experiments showed that prayer works regardless of spacial distances; it works from three feet and it works from 50,000 miles. Also, prayer works irrespective of time constrains; it works in the past, present, and future (to get a better understanding of this aspect, you must refer to the actual experiments themselves). Because the physical body is subjugated by the dimensions of space and time and prayer (or mental effort if you will) works without the normal restrictions of the space/time dimension, mind must be non-local or outside the body in some sense. And any dimension that is unbound by time and space is a demention without a mutiplicity or plurality of "things" or objects; therefore, it must be a universal whole or absolute singularity as the mystics state. Since mind operates in this timeless/spaceless dimension and mind produces consciousness, a universal consciousness is feasable. The experiments also demonstrated that the "power f prayer" is enhanced by loving and benevolent intentions. So, if the non-local effects of the mind are enhanced by love/benevolence, the notion that love/benevolence is built into the nature of this universal consciousness is reasonable.

 

I said all that to ask this key question: Some of you who are big-time rationalistis like myself won't be able to accept the above two points, but I'm asking you, for the sake of argument, assume that a universal consciousness, that is in some way loving and benevolent, actually exists--grant me that point. Ok, assuming that is true, would the position of atheism conlfict with this "truth", or could atheism somehow be harmonized with it? And if it could be harmonized with it, how so?

[chefranden]

I've prayed a lot of prayers.

 

I've never known any of them to work.

 

The mind is embodied. I ain't got nobody, I ain't got nomind.

 

If there is a cosmic consciousness, what makes you suppose that is human like? What if it is Walrus like, Wolverine like, Ferangie like, or maybe even Tom Cruise like?

 

I wouldn't have any confilict with Wolverine like, as it appears that the Cosmos is just as likely to bite you in the ass as not.

 

Warm Fuzzies are useful to social animals like ourselves. If the Cosmos has consciousness, it is not the consciousness of a social being due to there only being one Cosmos. It has no need of Warm Fuzzies.

[Asimov]

Maybe, but my lack of interest in reading a post is inversely proportional to the number of paragraphs multiplied by the number of sentences.

 

I dunno if that makes sense, but the point is put some goddamn paragraphs in there.

[Taphophilia]

Maybe, but my lack of interest in reading a post is inversely proportional to the number of paragraphs multiplied by the number of sentences.

 

I dunno if that makes sense, but the point is put some goddamn paragraphs in there.

 

You make perfect sense Asimov. I was thinking the same thing when I was this.

 

Chad,

 

The article is difficult to read. Although, I tried, it was pretty dry and difficult to get though and retain comprehention and I don't exactly understand the question you are asking.

 

Taph

[chad]

Chefranden,

 

Actually, the experimental evidence suggests the mind is disembodied; after all, insofar as prayer is synonymous with "mental effort", the evidence demonstrates the mind works/operates in a spaceless/timeless manner. And since body is inherently limited to space and time, the mind seems to work in dimensions outside the body. Hence, the opposite is the case: I ain't got no body doesn't necessarily mean ain't no mind.

 

I havn't assumed the this cosmic consciousness, if a reality, is human like. Rather, I contended that the experimental evidence demonstrates that benevolence/love enhance the effects of prayer; which means, to over simplify, that these features may be built into the nature of this cosmic consciousness. Thus the main question of this post: assuming that a comic consciousness is actual and possesses the attributes of benevolence/love in some way, can atheism be reconciled with this "truth". Or would atheism conflict with such a cosmic consciousness?

 

Taph, the above comments should answer your confusion about what question I was asking. And I'm sorry about the "dryness" of my thoughts; many philosophical arguments tend to be dry; unless, of course, you are one of those isolated intellectuals who revels in such boredom.

[Taphophilia]

I am not versed on philosophy, but I will take a stab at this.

 

What I think is that atheism is a/theism (no theist belief). Subscribing to a "collective consciousness" would be possible for an athiest if the collective consciousness is not viewed as being theistic.

[Asimov]

I think unless we can look at the universe from outside, we can't make any real statements regarding a collective universal consciousness.

[Open_Minded]

Chad....

 

I'm asking you, for the sake of argument, assume that a universal consciousness, that is in some way loving and benevolent, actually exists--grant me that point. Ok, assuming that is true, would the position of atheism conlfict with this "truth", or could atheism somehow be harmonized with it?

 

Short answer, yes. Many Buddhists are non-theistic. Some of the most interesting interfaith discussion I've had are with Buddhists and I am amazed at how much we have in common. I truly believe - on some level - we are aware of the same ONENESS. We just come at it from different cultural angels.

 

Keeping in mind that I completely agree with Asimov:

I think unless we can look at the universe from outside, we can't make any real statements regarding a collective universal consciousness.

 

The only thing that I would add, is the only statements we can make about ultimate reality (Oneness) are statements from a personal perspective. But, I do believe that it is possible to objectively examine the personal perspectives from multiple cultures, time periods etc, to come up with a more comprehensive understanding of what this Oneness might be like. I think this is what you were doing when you wrote the following:

 

However, a certain class of religious experience is amazingy uniform across cultures and world-wide, thereby rendering it's particular truth claims at least worthy of serious consideration--Mysticism. The majority of Hindu, Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish, and etc mysticism converge into a common core of religious assertions about reality despite hailing from disparate cultures and doctrinal paradigms; namely, that reality is a categorical singularity or absolute oneness, where multiplicity and plurality are nonexistent, unbound by time/space dimensionality, and thus eternal, and this reality is a universal consciousness, where ego/individuality is completely assimilated onto the ultimate One.

 

or when you talked about prayer....

 

Typically, we maintain that the mind is local or strictly limited to the body--that it only has the ability to act on the body in which it is contained--period. However, in his book entitled "Healing Words: The Power of Prayer And The Practice of Medicine", Larry Dossey, M.D, delineates a number of double-blind experiments that clearly exhibit statistically significant results concerning the "realness" of prayer; that is to say, that the mind is able to operate outside of the body or is not limited to the body in which it is contained (if you want the specifics details of the experiments, pleasre refer to the book; and note that these experiments were run by extremely prestegious universities like Princeton, Harvard, ect....that didin't "stack the deck" in terms of a pro-religious bias).

 

And if it could be harmonized with it, how so?

 

This is a good question... from my experience in interfaith dialog I would say the harmonizing happens when the different points of perception are accepted as partial awareness of the whole. As Asimov eluded earlier ... it is impossible for any one person to view the whole from outside and beyond. We can only "know" what we perceive partially. And it is possible for other humans to perceive partially, something different from ourselves - and yet still be aware of the same ONENESS.

 

Does this help answer you question?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi, Chad. A few reactions:

 

1. maybe lots of people have felt that the universe is one because the human brain is set up to filter and organize data in a way that can produce that sense. It need not follow that all things in the universe are one independently of minds. Certain people feel they experience of the "oneness" of everything, talk about it, philosophize, and then this meme gets started, in turn influencing others. After reading Schopenhauer I took a walk through the woods and felt this overwhelming sense of the oneness of everything behind my perceptions of leaves, trees, and light. Was it all one in itself, beyond the stream of perceptions passing by on the grid of my mind? I don't know how I can answer that. My mind constructs both my experience of separate objects and my less frequent moments when I feel that these objects at bottom are "one."

 

2. maybe everything is one at some quantum level, I don't know

 

3. I think philosophies that tend to equate God with "all that is" and such need not be religions. Religions are social and political phenomena. Religions organize and bind people through shared myth and ritual, decisions of leaders, breakdown of human race into "we" and "they," etc. etc. I'm not too worried whether to call someone who says the universe is God a theist or not. When this person starts saying, God tells me/us to do such and such, then I reach for my gun. (just kidding - sort of)

 

4. you said

the experimental evidence suggests the mind is disembodied; after all, insofar as prayer is synonymous with "mental effort", the evidence demonstrates the mind works/operates in a spaceless/timeless manner. And since body is inherently limited to space and time, the mind seems to work in dimensions outside the body. Hence, the opposite is the case: I ain't got no body doesn't necessarily mean ain't no mind.

 

Have you read Gilbert Ryle's The Concept of Mind?

 

I think the issue is how we talk about various functions of the brain and nervous system. Do you believe in an occult soul that retains its identity and cognitive functions and can travel outside the body, or that survives the death of the body (and perhaps enters into another body)? If not, then it seems best to define the mind as all the cognitive functions of the brain, or something like that. No brain, no mind.

[chefranden]

Chefranden,

 

Actually, the experimental evidence suggests the mind is disembodied; after all, insofar as prayer is synonymous with "mental effort", the evidence demonstrates the mind works/operates in a spaceless/timeless manner. And since body is inherently limited to space and time, the mind seems to work in dimensions outside the body. Hence, the opposite is the case: I ain't got no body doesn't necessarily mean ain't no mind.

 

The Cosmos thinks, therefore it is?

 

Perhaps you haven't read widely enough? (not that I have) Or perhaps you are just ignoring evidice to the contrary. Including the anecdotal evidence I offered above, and which you can find in abundance on this site.

 

http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/04/study-p...oesnt-work.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4681771.stm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12082681/

 

Antonio Demasio:

Descartes' Error : Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain

The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness

Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain

 

George Lakoff:

Philosophy in the Flesh : The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lakoff/lakoff_p1.html

 

1. I havn't assumed the this cosmic consciousness, if a reality, is human like. Rather, I contended that the experimental evidence demonstrates that benevolence/love enhance the effects of prayer; which means, to over simplify, that these features may be built into the nature of this cosmic consciousness. 2. Thus the main question of this post: assuming that a comic consciousness is actual and possesses the attributes of benevolence/love in some way, can atheism be reconciled with this "truth". Or would atheism conflict with such a cosmic consciousness?

 

1. Oh but you have speculated about benevolence/love being the nature of this comsic consciousness. These things are emotional artifacts of social animals, humans. If the cosmos is conscious it is not likely to exhibit the attributes of benevolence/love.

 

Even if prayer does something outside of placeboo, it's a hell of a jump from that to Cosmic Consciousness.

 

2. This athiest is in conflict with the idea of it, for the reasons already given. If Cosmic Consciousness were really real, no honest atheist would contest it, just as no honest atheist would contest a really real god.

[dibby]

The beauty of what the mystics say is that it can only be experienced for ourselves. We can speculate about its existence, but that is useless unless we "go within" and make the journey ourselves. I have had various experiences of greater awareness and glimping this connectivity, and it is definately an experience of love.

 

An atheist can certainly embrace this idea, because it is not postulating a supernatural deity. Theists need to get over the idea of god being a super person to embrace the One, which they can call God if they want. You have to be careful when using this word that you say what is meant by that word.

[Ouroboros]

2. maybe everything is one at some quantum level, I don't know

I think it must be one and same (one way or another) at the quantum level, but not necessarily sentient or conscious. It wouldn't surprise me considering Big Bang and quantum entanglement, that all quarks are entangled.

 

I just (today) read an article about theories for the sub-quantum state level. And if that theory is true, there is no free will. It would be a strong support for determinism.

 

On the other hand who could say if that sub-quantum states are just parts of a large mind? That's totally sci-fi dude And this super-brain wouldn't really know what we were thinking anymore than we know what our cells our doing in our body. We can know theoretically what they do, but I don't personally keep track of each one of them...

 

The Cosmos thinks, therefore it is?

That's actually pretty cool.

[Open_Minded]

The beauty of what the mystics say is that it can only be experienced for ourselves. We can speculate about its existence, but that is useless unless we "go within" and make the journey ourselves. I have had various experiences of greater awareness and glimping this connectivity, and it is definately an experience of love.

 

I agree with you completely, Dibby.

 

An atheist can certainly embrace this idea, because it is not postulating a supernatural deity. Theists need to get over the idea of god being a super person to embrace the One, which they can call God if they want. You have to be careful when using this word that you say what is meant by that word.

 

And, you are right, Theists do"need to get over the idea of god being a super person to embrace the One".

 

Like you, I have also had various experiences of ONENESS. To me the experience IS LOVE and IS WISDOM as well as ONENESS. The first language that occurred to me - in analysing these experiences - was "Christ", "Word made Flesh", and "Alpha and Omega". To me it was an experience of "God", but was not God in fullness - I don't think it's possible to experience God in fullness. How does one experience infinity in fullness?

 

What is important in talking about these experiences across boundries is to try to get underneath the language. In fact - this is the hardest part of interfaith/interspiritual dialog.

 

The language of religion can get in the way. But, the language of rational thinking can also be limiting, as well. As you said, Dibby, there are things in life that one must go "within" and discover for themselves.

[Amanda]

I think it must be one and same (one way or another) at the quantum level, but not necessarily sentient or conscious. It wouldn't surprise me considering Big Bang and quantum entanglement, that all quarks are entangled.

 

I just (today) read an article about theories for the sub-quantum state level. And if that theory is true, there is no free will. It would be a strong support for determinism.

 

On the other hand who could say if that sub-quantum states are just parts of a large mind? That's totally sci-fi dude And this super-brain wouldn't really know what we were thinking anymore than we know what our cells our doing in our body. We can know theoretically what they do, but I don't personally keep track of each one of them...

 

HanSolo, it seems to me that everything is interconnected to some degree... and determinsim is ultimately the case, IMHO. However... I think it is like a chemical reaction. If we put some things together, given their properties, we know what the end result will be. We don't know which atom will react first, nor the exact second it will be completed... but we will know that it will eventually turn into a certain compound or whatever. This is providing we know all the forces involved, the exact amount of each element, and all other information... such as if a catalyst was used or not. Maybe this is how the whole universe is... on such a grand scale, we can't even begin to KNOW all the information today.... but if something, somewhere, does... maybe even at an unconscious level, only to be released when there is the ability to comprehend it...

 

"we are a way for the universe to know itself" ---Carl Sagan

Would this suggest a collective consciousness... an awakening?

[Ouroboros]

Right. Even if determinism would be true, still the complexity is so great that there's no way to look at one piece and be able to predict exactly the outcome. We probably need the state on sub-quantum level for each quark in the universe in one snapshot. Which is impossible to do, but also impossible to create a machine that could store that information, since it needs to be same size or bigger than the universe. (considering that each quark is the most efficient way of storing the information of its state.)

 

"we are a way for the universe to know itself" ---Carl Sagan

Would this suggest a collective consciousness... an awakening?

Or maybe we're just a precursor to the future mega-consciousness. (Coming back to my little pet-philosophy about the sleeping god. Hihi.)

[dibby]

Or maybe we're just a precursor to the future mega-consciousness. (Coming back to my little pet-philosophy about the sleeping god. Hihi.)

Exactly. We are on a journey from unconscious oness to conscious oness......but in order for their to be conscious oness there needs to be an "individual" capable of being conscious. All mystics speak of our need to WAKE UP........we are the universe becoming conscious of what it is.

[Open_Minded]

Or maybe we're just a precursor to the future mega-consciousness. (Coming back to my little pet-philosophy about the sleeping god. Hihi.)

Exactly. We are on a journey from unconscious oness to conscious oness......but in order for their to be conscious oness there needs to be an "individual" capable of being conscious. All mystics speak of our need to WAKE UP........we are the universe becoming conscious of what it is.

 

Dibby.... All afternoon this post has been in the back of my mind. And I’ve wondered whether I should respond, or not. But, this search that we are talking about requires honesty – and so – I find myself sitting at my keyboard typing.

 

Where to start...

• I adamantly believe it is possible for atheists and theists to find common ground.
  
• Universal consciousness is something experienced by the mystics of all cultures.
  
• And finally, Dibby – and everyone else in this discussion – I’ve come to admire all of you in so many ways during my months in this on-line community.
  

Having said that, I’d like to say the phrase “but in order for there to be conscious oneness there needs to be an ‘individual’ capable of being conscious. All mystics speak of our need to WAKE UP ... we are the universe becoming conscious of what it is.” bothers me. Following are the reasons this phrase bothers me.

 

This statement seems to be a “center of the universe” statement. I may be reading it wrong – but it seems to be saying that universal consciousness is something we (as humans) initiate and bring into the universe?

 

These universal experiences of ONENESS are not limited to just being aware of the interconnectedness of everything. Along with these experiences come an intense awareness of wisdom/love in all, through all and beyond all.

 

In my (very subjective) opinion – this ONENESS/WISDOM/LOVE is infinite and eternal. And we participate IN it – not the other way around. In addition, this sense that WISDOM is eternal and infinite and pre-existing humanity is not limited to a western perspective. Following is a poem written in the 8th century by a Buddhist (Padma Sambhaua – author of the Tibetan Book of the Dead).

 

Astounding, I tell you the self-creating clear Light

Has always been!

Astounding! It is parentless pure

Consciousness!

Astounding! Primal Wisdom has no creator!

Astounding! It has never known birth &

Could never die!

Astounding! It is obvious everywhere but

With no one there to see it.

Astounding, I tell you! It has been lost in illusion

But no harm has touched it!

Astounding! It is enlightenment itself, yet

No good has come to it!

Astounding! It exists in everyone, but has

Been overlooked!

Astounding! Yet we go on looking for

Something other!

Astounding! It is the only thing that is ours

Yet we look for it elsewhere!

Astounding! Astounding!

 

Dibby – you are right. “All mystics speak of our need to WAKE UP”. But, this can also be interpreted to me “WAKE UP, be aware of that which you participate in. You did not begin it, you are merely a participant in the ‘Primal Wisdom’, the ‘parentless pure Consciousness’, the ‘self-creating clear Light’”. In my experience, waking up is more like this, rather than waking up as, “the universe becoming conscious of what it is”. We participate in a consciousness that has existed infinitely – our awareness may ‘grow’ that consciousness (for lack of a better metaphor) – but we do not create it. IT just IS, and always has been, and always will be.

 

In the end, from my perspective, we participate in the primal wisdom of the universe – we are NOT the center of this wisdom.

 

 

As I've said earlier - I do think it is possible to find common ground and I'm not looking for a debate here. Rather putting another perspective on the table and looking forward to discussion.

[Asimov]

Chefranden,

 

Actually, the experimental evidence suggests the mind is disembodied; after all, insofar as prayer is synonymous with "mental effort", the evidence demonstrates the mind works/operates in a spaceless/timeless manner. And since body is inherently limited to space and time, the mind seems to work in dimensions outside the body. Hence, the opposite is the case: I ain't got no body doesn't necessarily mean ain't no mind.

 

The experimental evidence suggests nothing of the sort, chad. We can affect other peoples minds by stimulating certain parts of the brain. Brain damage affects the mind, as do certain diseases.

 

Nothing operates in a spaceless/timeless manner, assertions like that are naked and meaningless.

[dr_funkenstein]

If we accept that consciousness is a function of the brain, then "collective consciousness" makes no sense unless there is some sort of physical "collective brain".

 

However we all live in communities, and the way we think as individuals is undoubtedly influenced by others in our community. Likewise, our own thoughts and actions can influence others in our community. So we see patterns and trends in the way people think moving through communities. I don't think this equates to the idea of a "collective consciousness" though.

[Amanda]

If we accept that consciousness is a function of the brain, then "collective consciousness" makes no sense unless there is some sort of physical "collective brain".

 

However we all live in communities, and the way we think as individuals is undoubtedly influenced by others in our community. Likewise, our own thoughts and actions can influence others in our community. So we see patterns and trends in the way people think moving through communities. I don't think this equates to the idea of a "collective consciousness" though.

 

Dr. Funkenstein, consider each cell of the body... as they do their 'own' thing. They may consider themselves separate, if they had or do have the capability to do so. However, they are all collectively of one body... and they effect the brain, and the brain effects them too.... if nothing else, by regards of the overall health of the body. Is it good to live in one's head and omit the body, or to live for the body and omit the brain? A collective effort is much better to all parts, no?

 

Open Minded, thanks for the great poem!

[dibby]

Yes OM I agree whole heartedly. The Infinite is always there. When I say that there needs to be an "individual" in order to be conscious, I don,t mean we create consciousness. It creates us, we are it. We are in consciousness and so is everything else,and it is infinitely more than the sum of its parts.

Sorry if I,m not too clear OM. We are coming at this from our different angles, and well, you know the limitations of language.

 

Dr. Funkenstein we don,t all accept that consciousness is merely the product of the brain hence the discussion.

 

What is physicality anyway? Science is still working on that one.

[Open_Minded]

Yes OM I agree whole heartedly. The Infinite is always there. When I say that there needs to be an "individual" in order to be conscious, I don,t mean we create consciousness. It creates us, we are it. We are in consciousness and so is everything else,and it is infinitely more than the sum of its parts.

Sorry if I,m not too clear OM. We are coming at this from our different angles, and well, you know the limitations of language.

 

Wow... you're right "the limitations of language". How wonderful.

 

Dr. Funkenstein we don,t all accept that consciousness is merely the product of the brain hence the discussion.

 

Here too, we agree.

 

This is difficult for me to put into words, so please bear with me folks. Why do we assume that we because we are aware this aspect of our being has no relationship to the rest of reality - that consciousness is merely an independent product of a living brain rather than an interactive participant in something infinite?

 

I mean -- we accept that human eyes evolved because the ability to "see" one's environment increased the chances of survival. Eyes, within any species, evolved for a reason - because there was something to see. There was something to be aware of, and having the ability to perceive increased an individual (and by extension a species chances of survival).

 

If - throughout all of history and in all cultures - there are documented cases of individuals perceiving an infinite consciousness, a ONENESS - INFINITE LOVE and INFINITE WISDOM, in all through all and beyond all... then shouldn't we (as human beings interested in survival) be asking what it is that these people perceive, instead of assuming - "it's all in their head"?

[Ouroboros]

As I related to new ideas within quantum mechanics, the consciousness and free will is strongly connected to the quantum level. Consciousness is just a very high level organization in the chaos of quantum events. We (humans) have evolved from a lower level of organization, so no one knows where we're going in the future. Can higher level of organization exist for computations and decision making? I think so. Is it possible to build a computer that have a higher number of ops/sec than a brain? Not today, but very likely in the future. Could nature evolve a higher level of brain? Of course, our brains are more developed than the brains only 10,000 years ago.