Evolution vs. creation

Plato, I just wish to confirm my love of animals. One should be kind to animals. This is my conviction. Of course, one cannot be kind to the vicious beasts, as you well know. But to most animals one should be kind.

As to what you say concerning man's instincts, of course this is true, for man has both the animal (senses) and human (rational faculty) within him. But man is much more evolved than the animal, as you well know. Man's intelligence cannot be compared to that of the animal. If animals had "true" intelligence, they would have developed societies and science, as we did. Animals will forever remain animals for this station has been assigned to them by their Creator.

Please note that when i use the word "inferior" or "superior" i do not at all insinuate any sort of pejorative nuance, implied or otherwise. I refer simply to rank and level of existence.

I must ask you a question: If the purpose of Holy Books is not to guide man to the path of righteousness, what is their purpose?


What really is "instinct"?

Supposing you were driving in your car and approached a red light. Suddenly the car behind you slams into yours from behind. Your response is probably any of the following:

a) anger;
b) self-control.

Now, anger comes about as a result of fear (in this example). Fear makes us "freeze" for some seconds but soon we "defreeze" from the state of fear and the energy released into the nervous system has to have an outlet. The uncontrolled expression of this energy is called "anger". Anger is a neurological response (a nervous reaction) uncontrolled by the mind. If one has never trained himself in the art of self-control, the nervous reaction will take over and color a person's behavior (his response to outside stimuli).

Self-control, on the other hand, indicates that a person is sufficiently self-taught in recognizing physiological impulses and exercises a willing control over them. In order to recognize such impulses one needs a power beyond that which all ranks below man (mineral, vegetable, animal) possess.

Now, animals do not have such a power. Because it is within their nature, they promptly react to all situations according to the physiological responses to outside stimuli. In other words, they have no self- control.

In brief, to be "human" means to have self-control. To be "like an animal" is to base one's reactions (and actions) on instinct alone which thing is proper for animals but not for man.

Now, having said all this, i must add that animals do have intelligence. However, when compared to the intelligence of man, it is not true "intelligence" for intelligence alone isn't enough. One needs another faculty which helps the mind synthesize knowledge and draw conclusions. Some people call this power of synthesis the "soul" but whatever it is called, it is far superior to all the mental faculties combined!

I must allow Abdu'l-Baha to continue this exposition:

"Though man has powers and outer senses in common with the animal, yet an extraordinary power exists in him of which the animal is bereft. The sciences, arts, inventions, trades and discoveries of realities are the results of this spiritual power. This is a power which encompasses all things, comprehends their realities, discovers all the hidden mysteries of beings, and through this knowledge controls them. It even perceives things which do not exist outwardly--that is to say, intellectual realities which are not sensible, and which have no outward existence because they are invisible; so it comprehends the mind, the spirit, the qualities, the characters, the love and sorrow of man, which are intellectual realities. Moreover, these existing sciences, arts, laws and endless inventions of man at one time were invisible, mysterious and hidden secrets; it is only the all-encompassing human power which has discovered and brought them out from the plane of the invisible to the plane of the visible. So telegraphy, photography, phonography and all such inventions and wonderful arts were at one time hidden mysteries. The human reality discovered and brought them out from the plane of the invisible to the plane of the visible. There was even a time when the qualities of this iron...-- indeed of all the minerals--were hidden mysteries; men discovered this mineral, and wrought it in this industrial form. It is the same with all the other discoveries and inventions of man, which are innumerable.

"This we cannot deny. If we say that these are effects of powers which animals also have, and of the powers of the bodily senses, we see clearly and evidently that the animals are, in regard to these powers, superior to man. For example, the sight of animals is much more keen than the sight of man; so also is their power of smell and taste. Briefly, in the powers which animals and men have in common, the animal is often the more powerful. For example, let us take the power of memory. If you carry a pigeon from here to a distant country, and there set it free, it will return, for it remembers the way. Take a dog from here to the center of Asia, set him free, and he will come back here and never once lose the road. So it is with the other powers such as hearing, sight, smell, taste and touch.

"Thus it is clear that if there were not in man a power different from any of those of the animals, the latter would be superior to man in inventions and the comprehension of realities. Therefore, it is evident that man has a gift which the animal does not possess. Now, the animal perceives sensible things but does not perceive intellectual realities. For example, that which is within the range of its vision the animal sees, but that which is beyond the range of sight it is not possible for it to perceive, and it cannot imagine it. So it is not possible for the animal to understand that the earth has the form of a globe. But man from known things proves unknown things and discovers unknown truths. For example, man sees the curve of the horizon, and from this he infers the roundness of the earth. The Pole Star at Akká [Israel], for instance, is at 33-- that is to say, it is 33 above the horizon. When a man goes toward the North Pole, the Pole Star rises one degree above the horizon for each degree of distance that he travels-- that is to say, the altitude of the Pole Star will be 34, then 40, then 50, then 60, then 70. If he reaches the North Pole the altitude of the Pole Star will be 90 or have attained the zenith--that is to say, will be directly overhead. This Pole Star and its ascension are sensible things. The further one goes toward the Pole, the higher the Pole Star rises; from these two known truths an unknown thing has been discovered--that is, that the horizon is curved, meaning that the horizon of each degree of the earth is a different horizon from that of another degree. Man perceives this and proves from it an invisible thing which is the roundness of the earth. This it is impossible for the animal to perceive. In the same way, it cannot understand that the sun is the center and that the earth revolves around it. The animal is the captive of the senses and bound by them; all that is beyond the senses, the things that they do not control, the animal can never understand, although in the outer senses it is greater than man. Hence it is proved and verified that in man there is a power of discovery by which he is distinguished from the animals, and this is the spirit of man.

"Praise be to God! man is always turned toward the heights, and his aspiration is lofty; he always desires to reach a greater world than the world in which he is, and to mount to a higher sphere than that in which he is. The love of exaltation is one of the characteristics of man. I am astonished that certain philosophers of America and Europe are content to gradually approach the animal world and so to go backward; for the tendency of existence must be toward exaltation. Nevertheless, if you said to one of them, "You are an animal," he would be extremely hurt and angry.

"What a difference between the human world and the world of the animal, between the elevation of man and the abasement of the animal, between the perfections of man and the ignorance of the animal, between the light of man and the darkness of the animal, between the glory of man and the degradation of the animal! An Arab child of ten years can manage two or three hundred camels in the desert, and with his voice can lead them forward or turn them back. A weak Hindu can so control a huge elephant that the elephant becomes the most obedient of servants. All
things are subdued by the hand of man; he can resist nature while all other creatures are captives of nature: none can depart from her requirements. Man alone can resist nature. Nature attracts bodies to the center of the earth; man through mechanical means goes far from it and soars in the air. Nature prevents man from crossing the seas; man builds a ship, and he travels and voyages across the great ocean, and so on; the subject is endless. For example, man drives engines over the mountains and through the wildernesses, and gathers in one spot the news of the events of the East and West. All this is contrary to nature. The sea with its grandeur cannot deviate by an atom from the laws of nature; the sun in all its magnificence cannot deviate as much as a needle's point from the laws of nature, and can never comprehend the conditions, the state, the qualities, the movements and the nature of man."

Salutations and peace be upon all who possess discernment

I have only one small thing to say..

Your posts look like "Galatacica Religioinalis"

I love these threads.

Just waiting for my peabrain to boot into English :\
I want to bring up an important issue that popped along after my posting over the value of religion.


Exerpts from an old post by Boris...

We don't need religion to tell us how to live!

Science *can*, and *does* specify moral codes -- the particular science I'm talking about is called 'Sociology'. Science can study relationships and behavior, and determine what works best and what makes people happiest. Then, it can generalize those observations and present them as recommendations for conduct in general. So you see, good behavior can be encouraged by pure science -- with personal happiness being the ultimate motivator.

And you're quite right -- once we discard religion (not any particular religion, but the very notion thereof!), then we are likely to have far fewer fanatics in the world -- and far less misery, and far more reason.


Boris, I'm not sure how it Sociology would be as effective as Religion is today. Religion keeps the world from going sociopathic, and I'm not so sure if any kind of Sociology could replace what Religion prevents.

Sociopathy is a psychological phenomenon; it has nothing to do with world views. In fact, there are such extreme sociopaths within religious and sectarian folds, that they rather belong in a mental institution before they decide to burn alive in the name of armageddon.

I claim that mental balance and psychological strength can be derived with greater fidelity from sources that have a demonstrably clearer message and obviously solid foundations. Religion is, and always will be, a presumptious attempt at mind-control; as such it will never succeed. I believe that character and virtue can be built by argument alone -- because when someone is convinced through an argument of a certain behavioral virtue, they ought to take the advice more seriously than someone who has been irrationally indoctrinated through metaphysical handwaving and pseudo-divine authority -- with seemingly arbitrary, and often culturally biased, beliefs.

I am; therefore I think.

It is a strange claim indeed that all animals who are not already sentient are doomed forever from reaching the heights we have reached. It is also rather questionable to assume that we ourselves have reached the pinnacle of evolution. Time has not stopped; and neither has the evolutionary process. The very existence of different skin colors, blood types, body factors and genetic peculiarities among various (until recently secluded) populations of the globe attests to the on-going process of genetic reshuffling and evolutionary branching. Although the recent advances in technology have breached the geological barriers that have kept the various populations apart, and thus are even now helping to annul the genetic variability homo sapiens has obtained over the last few dozen millennia, there is no reason to assume we shall stop evolving -- even because a rather obvious new evolutionary route has been opened to our species by the very technology that is bringing an end to the natural human evolution. It is my belief that our species will continue to evolve through self-modification, and even possibly also through cybernetic enhancement.

I do not contest your claim that presently humans are the most sophisticated species on the planet. However, that still leaves our status suspect at larger scales (e.g. our galactic, or perhaps even stellar, neighbourhood). Also, even now our status could change drastically. It has been shown that in the case of nuclear war, or massive astronomical disaster, we would likely become extinct -- and the insect species will inherit the earth from us, just as the mammals once did from the dinosaurs. Thus, even now the possibility cannot be ruled out that within another 500 million years the Earth wouldn't be teeming with sentient and rather self-important descendants of the modern cockroach...


Self-control is not unique to humans. Higher primates have been known to suppress their feelings in social circumstances; for example, it has been observed that chimps engage in self-conscious deception -- i.e. they can rather purposefully deceit somebody else, being fully aware of what they are doing. They also are able to subsume anger or hatred, for example when they are playing submissive to the pack leader. (By the way, this latter degree of self-control is even present in such lowly animals as wolves.)

What is unique to us is the <u>degree</u> of our self-control. But what truly sets us apart is not self-control; it is our ability to rationalize the world, as well as our actions. (Though I must say I am not entirely correct. You see, as far as evolutionary advances go, there is never a clear black/white delineation between abilities. Rather, what one observes is a steady ramp. So, I would think it reasonable to suspect that certain higher animals as well are able to rationalize the world and their own life to a certain extent, albeit not in words, and by far not to the esoteric degree that we can.)

But self-control is not the central issue here; it is the foundations of moral behavior that initially triggered this digression. My claim is that self-control has nothing to do with morality; it is our emotions (behavior modulated by the more anscient parts of our brains -- instinct if you will) that encourage mutual benevolence. Those of us who are aggressive and antisocial tend to find themselves isolated, which is not emotionally satisfactory. There is a rather natural tendency toward compassion and reciprocity, at least within a certain circle of friends or relatives, in order to be accepted into the group and have company.

Self-control in itself plays no role in generating moral principles (although unquestionably it is a useful tool for enforcing those principles). Certain serial killers, brutal dictators and unethical scientists, to wit, have been known to exercise a good deal of self-control, nevertheless woefully failing in their moral stature. Neither religion, nor self-control, nor punitive law could ever exterminate the moral deviants from our midst -- we can force them into hiding, or into wearing masks, but we cannot change what they are. It is my hope that socially harmful behavior stems from lack of comprehension of the bigger picture, from lack of vision beyond the self, and lack of empathy for others. While the last could only be hoped to be cured with drugs in a general case (and psychological intervention within a more limited range), the rest could potentially be countered through reasoned confrontation and forced self-reexamination.

I am; therefore I think.

this is why religion has a role as these are matters not exclusive to the brain. on one hand religion purports the model of ethic -
it is also a matter of the Spirit. often a reference to god is a reference to harmonious action with the Spirit (however the interpretation usually is obscured) ; this biding by the principal which you have stated -consideration of others rather then mainly the self. it is true that some practices are dogma however zen buddhism is nondogmatic. this is an approach which is very much like your 'ascertained' hope. it is funny ... the diversity of religion is quite like terminology - in that definitions may weave in and out of a particular context. however, the ultimate goal is enlightenment.
and this is the foundation of the 'term' faith. faith in god, faith in numbers .

Please excuse my redundency: please, when objecting to my posts, or underlining any particular issue with which you invite me to participate in its further elaboration, quote my words so that i may know exactly what you are referring to.

This would really be appreciated. Thank you.


I recall in one of your posts you seemed to be saying that science and religion go hand-in-hand to which i responded by applauding this excellent of ideas.

Now, in response to one of Boris' posts, you shed further light on this by stating that "Science *can*, and *does* specify moral codes -- the particular science I'm talking about is called 'Sociology'."

Again, i must applaud your keen observations!!! It goes without saying that where religion is practiced without science it becomes superstition, and where science is practiced without religion, it becomes gross materialism with absolutely no meaningful goal for the human race in general. Sociology, Psychology, Social Work and the general helping sciences are all in favour of bringing a balance in people's lives. Their purpose is lofty, noble, and these scientists all work for the betterment of mankind (yes, i know there are bad apples in every basket, but we must look to the good, not the bad).

You are quite right when you say that

"...once we discard religion (not any particular religion, but the very notion thereof!), then we are likely to have far fewer fanatics in the world -- and far less misery, and far more reason."

What humanity requires is that sort of belief that is reasonable, accords to reason, is devoid of superstition, beliefs which do not disrupt the general order with sensational outburst of fanatical claims, and is based on empty and illusory gods come from the ephemeral imaginations of the ignorant! We need lofty principles upon which to base our beliefs---principles like: the unfettered investigation of truth; the oneness of mankind; universal peace; the abandonment and elimination of racial, religious, worldly and political prejudices, prejudices which destroy the foundation of mankind; righteousness and justice; the betterment of morals and heavenly education; the equality of the rights between men and women; the diffusion of knowledge and education on a world scale; fairness and justice with regards economic questions; the creation of an auxiliary universal language taught in every nation of the world; and so on and so forth.

Now, none of these things can come about through the power of religion alone. Nay! Religion and science are to come together that all these wonderful aims may be realized in the world of being.

In the world today there is a religion with about 5 million adherents scattered in every country of the world which actually believes and strives to concretize just such beliefs. These people call themselves "Baha'is" and their religion is called the "Baha'i Faith." This relatively new world religion is founded upon the unity of science and religion and upon investigation of truth. They uphold the principle that religion must be the cause of amity, union and harmony among men but that without the assistance of science these things cannot be. They establish the equality of both sexes and propound economic principles which are for the happiness of individuals. They diffuse universal education, that every soul may as much as possible have a share of knowledge. They abrogate and nullify religious, racial, political, patriotic and economic prejudices and the like. Such teachings, i believe, are the cause of the illumination and the life of the world of humanity.


In your post you write that "... the diversity of religion is quite like terminology - in that definitions may weave in and out of a particular context. However, the ultimate goal is enlightenment. and this is the foundation of the 'term' faith. faith in god, faith in numbers."

I fully understand what you mean with regards the weaving metaphor. I would add that though faith comes with understanding or "enlightenment", as you say, yet we must not forget that faith itself has a purpose. To have faith really means to believe and to believe means to be obedient. Obedience, then, is the object of faith. Now, when the foundation of our beliefs is sound, reasonable, conducive to the betterment of ourselves, our families, and society in general, the result is the realization that before the marvels and mystery of life we are truly humble---which leads to humility. Humility, in turn, makes of us true examples for others to follow. Thereby, our very existence becomes as a treasure replete with rich meaning. Who would barter this treasure trove for the dust heap of a deserted dessert dune---though full of dazzling sand grains eager to please the mind in search of meaning within such rubbish?!


[This message has been edited by dumaurier (edited July 13, 1999).]
Boris, your postings don't fully convince me enough to say that the majority of humans can get along without religion or faith.

The way I see it, almost all of us belong in a mental institution, not just the victims of a "mental phenomenon."

There are a few rare exceptions, I agree, but it is my belief that most people go crazy because of the things that happen around them, not because of themselves.


And, I also want to justify something to everyone. I favor no side, but I seek to favor the one that is most reliable, assuring, and real, to not only me, but everyone.

I was raised by my parents to be a christian, but, through discussions like these, with additional independent thinking, I have been led to doubt, and I have turned to science for answers because I see no answers in religion, just teachings of faith and nothing concrete.

The way I see it, "doubting" Thomas was the only one who had some brains out of the apostles. When the apostles told him that Jesus was alive, he said he wouldn't believe it until he saw it for himself and felt the nail pierced hands! Bible classes will use this story as an example of how it isn't right to doubt, but I've gained wisdom from this story and concluded the opposite. Doubting is necessary, and skeptism is above and beyond it!

Seeing is believing.


Boris, have you ever talked to a religious person in real life? Have you ever seen them exposed to true facts? It isn't always pretty.



Yes, my first posting was important and brought up a necessary topic to this debate. Science and religion, can, indeed work together, <u>at the moment</u>. But what about 50 years from now? 100? What will the effect be when science grows and religion shrinks? Could it be as pretty as the religious individual we see today who is confronted with facts?

Also, another thing to mention. Some churches are already starting to attack science from another percpective, and starting to say that teaching kids that they evolved from monkeys is one of the sole reasons for the Colorado shootings.
Teaching the facts leads to trouble! How ironic!

And I must say, this is a very interesting topic to ponder on if you think about it deep enough.

Can truth cause more damage than a lie? I think it could. But it is, none the less truth.


I must say, in all frankness, that from the very beginning i felt you had love in your heart and the more i read you the more confirmed i am in this belief.

I fully agree with you that doubt and skepticism in today's world must be the driving principle until we, on our own accord, find truth. It is certain that if i told an intelligent person that there was an elephant in the next room i would expect him to get up and go investigate the truth of this assertion. This, to me, is what "true" religion's all about; the promotion of the principle of the right to search and investigate truth. But we see everywhere people simply believing in the existence of that elephant without first making personal effort; without personal investigation. This is called "blind faith," as you know. And here is where the dilema lies: that on one hand we have a truth of which each and everyone could investigate for himself, and on the other, we have those who have no need of such proofs to reach belief.
This is a subtle subject.

I would like to give you my personal view with regards some of the points in your post, namely, "Science and religion, can, indeed work together, at the moment. But what about 50 years from now? 100? What will the effect be when science grows and religion shrinks? Could it be as pretty as the religious individual we see today who is confronted with facts?"

What i find particularly of note is the far-reaching extent to which our sciences have developed in the past 100 years. Imagine the next century! Yet, i understand that it is an extremely difficult task for humanity to burn the veils of superstition or to melt away the attachment, so cherished, to materialism and material proofs. The notion of moderation, i believe, is a concept that the mature mind must eventually understand in all its implications. If you look around the world today you will note that it is very similar to that stage of development in the adolescent child. But the child must sooner or later grow out of this phase, as your own personal development testifies. I see humanity in the same light. It will eventually give up its rebelliousness, its morbid attachment to sensual gratifications, its notion of reckless "freedom". Then it will enter that phase of maturity where responsibility plays a major role. But we must give it time. We must never give up hope of humanity's attainment of this state. It is certain that in our moral irresponsibility we have killed millions (Hiroshima, etc...). But all these errors are lessons from which slowly man learns. And we have learned an extreme lot in such a brief span of time, you will agree. I truly believe in the goodness of God and must, therefore, also believe that He will not allow his heedless children to continue playing thoughtless games. There is much hope still for science and religion to work hand-in-hand and be as two lovers. Of this i have no doubt.

Your concluding statement,

"Can truth cause more damage than a lie?
I think it could.
But it is, nonetheless truth,"

is right on the mark!!!

You have only to think back when Christ proclaimed His holy mission. He came with the Truth and see, then, what happened to the lie!! Today it is no different. Contemporary clergy are no better than those very Pharisees who corrupted the Teachings of Moses and which, as a consequence, caused the death of Christ.

But closer to home, you have only to consider certain policies of the USA of which would do well to face the truth. I'm thinking, in particular, about a study that was done a year or so ago with regards statistics on the number of deaths caused by handguns. The study compared the USA, where handguns are allowed, and Canada where handguns are not allowed. The statistics were a blaring insult to intelligence itself because whereas in Canada deaths by handguns are very rare due to the law forbidding them, in the USA people die daily due to the permission granted the populace of having them. The truth here would benefit the people of the USA in large measure but the people prefer living a lie!

Nice talking to you


My claim is not that today all people can get by without religion. In fact, it is my observation that the woeful state of social affairs witnessed now is caused by precisely the painful emergence of the world as a whole from an ignorant, superstitious fog onto the plane of irrefutable facts and structured, empirical knowledge. The chaos, extremism, illogical behavior, and despair displayed by the disillusioned former faithfuls are what I draw upon in support of the argument that religion as a whole is a terrible thing. It promotes dogma, it suppresses critical thought, it blinds to actual facts, and it serves to distort reality -- inevitably leading toward traumatic disillusionment and acute disorientation when time comes to confront reality. All this twisting of the mind can only contribute to, not take away from, the increasing random violence and deteriorating social institutions that we witness today.

I claim that this is indeed a time of transition. We have a choice: either critical and unencumbered thought prevails and superstition is relegated to history, or we continue to invent new ways to twist reality to fit the new facts, but at the same time to chain and distort minds within the confines of a new dogma. As we progress, it is indeed inevitable that the domain of religion will shrink ever more, as science is able to explain various aspects of our existence with increasing sophistication and penetration. Extrapolated far into the future, it is clear that religion will eventually have no place to go but retreat all the way to the times before creation and perhaps even beyond -- to regions which could in principle be truly closed to scientific inquiry. However, this gradual retreat of dogma is only likely to perpetuate fanaticism and turmoil -- things unnecessary and indeed undesirable, at least in my opinion. With such prognosis in mind, I openly argue for ending the tyranny of 'faith' as prematurely as possible -- that humanity may emerge onto the next stage of cognitive evolution all the sooner, and with less overall suffering.

I am; therefore I think.

[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 14, 1999).]
Religion has had a dark past, this is certain. But it has also had a glorious history, too. This fact cannot be denied. Civilizations have been built upon the foundation of religion (Judaic, Buddhic Islamic, Christian civilization, etc). No king or emperor can claim to have founded a civilization as great and as long lasting as those mentioned. On the contrary, if anyone were to claim the contrary he would be the greatest liar for historical record proves the contrary. Where is the great Roman empire? the Byzantinian empire? the Persian empire? the Egyptian empire? the Ottoman empire? Each and everyone of these has faded in the distant darkness of a forgotten past leaving only archeaological curios and obscure writings! But the civilizations founded on the bedrock of the religions of Abraham, Moses, Muhammad and Christ have endured the test of time and are, even today, everliving! For sure, men have corrupted the Holy Teachings and this has caused misunderstandings and the establishment of senseless dogmas and countless superstitions. But today man is coming out of the dark ages of superstitions and of following in the steps of forefathers. Religion is being renewed with a fresh impetus by the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. You have only to do a cursory study of the Baha'i Faith to discover the truth of these words. This is a new world faith brought down by God not for any one people or race, but it is meant for the benefit of the entire human race. "The earth is but one country," claims Baha'u'llah, "and mankind its citizens."

Abdu'l-Baha writes,
"All things are subject to re-formation. This is a century of life and renewal. Sciences and arts, industry and invention have been reformed. Law and ethics have been reconstituted, reorganized. The world of thought has been regenerated. Sciences of former ages and philosophies of the past are useless today. Present exigencies demand new methods of solution; world problems are without precedent. Old ideas and modes of thought are fast becoming obsolete. Ancient laws and archaic ethical systems will not meet the requirements of modern conditions, for this is clearly the century of a new life, the century of the revelation of the reality and therefore the greatest of all centuries. Consider how the scientific developments of fifty years have surpassed and eclipsed the knowledge and achievements of all the former ages combined. Would the announcements and theories of ancient astronomers explain our present knowledge of the sun-worlds and planetary systems? Would the mask of obscurity which beclouded mediaeval centuries meet the demand for clear-eyed vision and understanding which characterizes the world today? Will the despotism of former governments answer the call for freedom which has risen from the heart of humanity in this cycle of illumination? It is evident that no vital results are now forthcoming from the customs, institutions and standpoints of the past. In view of this, shall blind imitations of ancestral forms and theological interpretations continue to guide and control the religious life and spiritual development of humanity today? Shall man gifted with the power of reason unthinkingly follow and adhere to dogma, creeds and hereditary beliefs which will not bear the analysis of reason in this century of effulgent reality? Unquestionably this will not satisfy men of science, for when they find premise or conclusion contrary to present standards of proof and without real foundation, they reject that which has been formerly accepted as standard and correct and move forward from new foundations."

He further says,
"The fourth teaching of Bahá'u'lláh is the agreement of religion and science. God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation."

Religion, as we know it, is a thing of the past. No use harping on a dead corpse. Let us open our eyes to the new reality all about us. Religion has been renewed and could never fade from the face of existence. This is the most glorious century of all centuries.

"Therefore it is our duty to put forth our greatest efforts and summon all our energies in order that the bonds of unity and accord may be established among mankind. For thousands of years we have had bloodshed and strife. It is enough; it is sufficient. Now is the time to associate together in love and harmony. For thousands of years we have tried the sword and warfare; let mankind for a time at least live in peace. Review history and consider how much savagery, how much bloodshed and battle the world has witnessed. It has been either religious warfare, political warfare or some other clash of human interests. The world of humanity has never enjoyed the blessing of Universal Peace. Year by year the implements of warfare have been increased and perfected. Consider the wars of past centuries; only ten, fifteen or twenty thousand at the most were killed but now it is possible to kill one hundred thousand in a single day. In ancient times warfare was carried on with the sword; today it is the smokeless gun. Formerly battleships were sailing vessels; today they are dreadnoughts. Consider the increase and improvement in the weapons of war. God has created us all human and all countries of the world are parts of the same globe. We are all his servants. He is kind and just to all. Why should we be unkind and unjust to each other? He provides for all. Why should we deprive one another? He protects and preserves all. Why should we kill our fellow-creatures? If this warfare and strife be for the sake of religion, it is evident that it violates the spirit and basis of all religion. All the divine Manifestations have proclaimed the oneness of God and the unity of mankind. They have taught that men should love and mutually help each other in order that they might progress. Now if this conception of religion be true, its essential principle is the oneness of humanity. The fundamental truth of the Manifestations is peace. This underlies all religion, all justice. The divine purpose is that men should live in unity, concord and agreement and should love one another. Consider the virtues of the human world and realize that the oneness of humanity is the primary foundation of them all. Read the Gospel and the other holy books. You will find their fundamentals are one and the same. Therefore unity is the essential truth of religion and when so understood embraces all the virtues of the human world. Praise be to God! this knowledge has been spread, eyes have been opened and ears have become attentive. Therefore we must endeavor to promulgate and practice the religion of God which has been founded by all the prophets. And the religion of God is absolute love and unity." (Abdu'l-Baha

Peace be on the lovers of all humanity

Religion and Science have their good points
and their bad points.
I am a christian, so I know quite a bit about
god and the bible.

However, there are just a few things about
Religion that really annoy me.

1) Why do people conceive god as an
individual, or moreoverly, a man?
that relates very much to the theory
of the "Earth-Centered Universe"
at a time when women had no rights.
I do not understand how the ultimate
being and evolved form in our universe
can be a planet sized infinitely aged
man with a beard.

2) The Christian concept of heaven and hell.
Why do people think that heaven is a
sea of clouds with a floating castle and
naked, winged women/men with trumpets?
Why do people think that hell is a
large, cavernous furnace?
Why do people think that the devil is
a horned red boogy man?

Many people don't understand this,
but where you go after you die is
a totally different place.
Many people say that the place you go
after you die is called the "Asteral
Dimension." I beg to differ.

You see, every view that I have seen
is entirely based in 3rd dimension
views. When you die, you cease to
exist physically meaning that you
no longer have emotions, desires,
or an image. In a 3rd dimention sense,
you are only energy, but in a 5th dimention
sense, you are beyond that, beyond
physical grasp.
You cease to exist in the 3rd dimension,
and in Space/Time. You become part
of the 5th dimension, thus a part of god.
Think of the 5th Dimension as infinity,
a place where existence occours in
all time/space at once.

3) Evolution and Creation.

We were created and we evolved.
Our universe was created by the Big Bang.
Fromn the big bang, came atoms, protons,
and energy which in turn created us.
Since God is energy and we were created
from energy, you can think of us as
being created by God.
However, after creation, evolution
occours. This happened when life was
created and it happens even so today
when babies are born. Evolution is
another word for "Adaption."
When something is put into a situation,
it adapts to it in order to survive.

4) The Devil

All the devil is is just negative energy.
In truth, there is no such individual
with two horns and red skin lurking
in the center of the earth.
Christianity teaches that the devil
causes negative behavior;
Negativity causes negative behavior
thus you can relate the two together.
However, if you break it all down,
you should see that it is all brought
on by emotions of aggression.
Aggression is only a neurological function
build into the mind for only one thing
which is self-preservation.

That's all for now.



With respect to the images about the bearded God, Satan, hell, et al, i believe one must put it all into perspective and context. Such images did not originate in contemporary society but are carry overs of past centuries when man was uneducated, thought that it was evil to bathe, believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe and so on. The clergy used extraordinary techniques with specific motives in order to frighten people so that they could conform to laws, be obedient, not deviate from what the church, for example, believed to be the right path to salvation. But you must understand that people were afraid of lightening in the Medieval Ages, menstruating women were sent to the forest to "purge themselves of the evil that possessed them." The Bible was interpreted not by the people-- mainly because hardly anybody could read and write and books were not available-- but by the monks and clergy. The Bible was misinterpreted and taken literaly by these ecclesiestics. So, in light of all this, naturally fantastic imagery was used.

I think some perspective is needed here.

thanks for you complimenting on my
statement there. It's good to know
that there are people who understand me.

Many people here such as Zygos and Andromeda
think I'm a goverment agent. Why is that?
In my view, probably because I posted
a skeptic message with skeptic views.

what are your opinions on what occours
to people after they pass away?

I would like to add on the discussion
about what occours after death.
When you die, you cease to exist physically
and become one with god in the 5th
dimension. But what about the 4th dimension?
What happened to that?
That is what I left out in my previous

My opinion is that when you die, one
must pass through the 4th dimension
before he or she can reach the 5th.

In terms,
the 3rd dimension is physical existance,
the 5th dimension is existence with god,
but what of the 4th dimension? what
happens there?

Robert Bruce, a parapsychologist, deals
with this kind of matter. He has written
up 2 volumes of treasties based on
Asteral Projection and Psychic activity
and even has a book labeled "Astral Dynamics."
When you die, you exist as energy hence
you exist in an body of energy. Many
people call this the astral body.
after death, you are in someway connected
to the physical dimension; my opinion
is that it is through memory.
after you die, a reality is created for
you by your subconscious.

I gotta stop writing now. Sorry.
I'll try to finish this later when
I have time.


By the way, please don't slam me for
these views, I try hard to see things
in general perspective.
I think it's time for another anal and ever hilarious little quote from Aloysius...


You are sincerely welcomed.

With reference to your post on life after death, i am a firm believer in this. That is to say that i believe that life on this earthly plane is not final and we do not perish after we have put away our physical frame. Mind you, i cannot prove this to anyone. But i do believe that i will continue living in the afterlife.

The way i view this whole idea of life after death is in this way: Let us liken the physical body to a bird's cage and the soul to the bird. Now, if that cage is destroyed the bird is free to fly. Whereas at one time it was confined to the prison of the cage, now it is liberated. There is much more freedom for the bird outside that cage! This is the way i view it.

Another way to see it is in the analogy of the baby in the womb. H.B. Danesh, M.D., in his book, "The Psychology of Spirituality" (Paradigm Publishing, Victoria, Canada), presents a most wonderful but graphic story when he is explaining the death of a parent to a child. I wish to share this with you and so i will type the entire story here for you to enjoy:

"As you know, life begins in the mother's womb when the ovum from the mother and the sperm from the father come together to become a fertilized egg. This little egg then begins to grow and divide until it gradually takes the shape of a child with a head, two eyes, two ears, a nose, a mouth, hands, legs, and all the other parts of the body.

"Now imagine if there were little beings living in the womb. We'll call them the 'I.W.' (the Inhabitants of the Womb). These I.W.s have a good life in the womb. They swim around, hide in the corners of the womb, and come together to play and talk.

"One day an older I.W. was very sad, and a younger one asked why. The older I.W. said that he was sad because of this little baby in the womb. The other I.W.s were surprised. 'Why?' they asked. 'She is in good shape. We counted her fingers, and they are the right number. We looked at her eyes, and they are in the right place. So are her ears, nose, and mouth. Everything about her is just right. Why are you sad about her?'

"The older I.W. said, 'Yes, I know everything is right with the baby. I'm so sad because she is going to die.' The other I.W.s said, 'What do you mean she's going to die?' And the older I.W. responded, 'We have seen this happen before. These babies grow up here and when they are perfect then they die--they go away, and we never see them again. That is why I'm so sad.'

"Another I.W. said, 'But I have heard that there is another world after the womb, and these babies die from here to go to a bigger world. They say that in that world there is a sun and a moon and many stars, and trees, lakes, and seas, and cities, and flowers, and people, and animals. They say it is beautiful.' And another I.W. said, 'Do you have proof that another world exists after the womb? Have you seen the sun, the moon, and all those things you described? They are not real; they are figments of your imagination.' And yet another I.W. said, 'But this doesn't make sense. If this baby came here and grew up for a while and is now going to die, what was the purpose? And why did this baby grow eyes and legs and hands and ears and the many other parts of her body? She didn't need them to live here. Could it be that she grew them for life in the world after the womb?'

"The I.W.s got into a heated discussion about whether or not a world existed after the womb. While they were arguing, the little baby died. Or did she? She definitely died from the world of the womb. She would not be able to go back, and the I.W.s would not hear from her again. So far as they were concerned, that was the end of her.

"But the little baby is now in this world and is growing up and living here. And she will continue her life here until a time comes that it will no longer be possible for her to live in this world. Then she will die from this world and will be born into another world. You see, death is a birth at the same time. So in this world we are also I.W.s, 'the Inhabitants of the World,' asking ourselves, 'Is there life after this world?' the same way that the I.W.s were asking whether there was a world after the womb."

As to your mention of the various dimensions, these are details of which we cannot be certain. We know of people who have died and come back to life. These people experience the "other" side in individualistic, subjective and unique ways. If they are Christians they might see Christ; if they are Buddhists they might see Buddha; if they feel totally guilty in their lives they might see whatever frightening anomalies; and so on. This seems to point to the theory that they were, indeed, in another dimension but interpreted it according to their subjective experiences and beliefs gleaned in this life. Part of this may be due to the theory that they retained their conscious mind when in this other world. However, you will admit that all this is conjecture and we really don't know. How much less can we speculate about the proposed variances in the dimensions you mention?

When my father died, something very strange occurred which would have raised anybody's hair on end. I retained my calm in the entire affair and viewed that peculiar instance as absolute proof of another life. But such experiences are highly personal. They cannot constitute proof for others. One thing is certain, God is perfect and in this perfection it is highly unlikely that He would create such a fine creature with intelligence--man--only to end his life after only a few years. A father and mother love their children and would never wish to see them extinguished. God loves us and i don't think He would have created us for the purpose of eventually extinguishing us from the face of existence.

I believe in life after death.


I try to look at things
in general perspective.
However, when I sometimes try and
explain something, people tend to
get confused on the matter because
I don't use the right words.
Instead of using the word "energy,"
I will use the term, "essence."
Essence is energy, but a spiritual,
non-physical form of it.

As for the 4th dimension, I sort of
confused myself as I was thinking and
jabbered on about stuff I did not intend
to talk about.

What I really wanted to talk about is
What do you concieve hell to be?
In my opinion, there is no furnace that
is the destined place where sinners go
to. Hell is rather a state of being
that comes and goes. Hell is always
with you - when you live and when you
die. Hell is the state of sufferment.

I.E. - imagine your soul ripped away
from you; now you have none. Imagine
that now that you don't exist and
will never exist and that you will
always exist in utter darkness shut
away from any dimension and reality.
That is the greatest form of suffering
one could ever comprehend thus that
would be eternal hell.

Hell can also be emotional. Pain, anguish,
and self-pitty are states of hell
because they put you in a state of

as for the 4th dimension, you move
into it and a reality is generated for
you depending on a number of variables
associated with you physical existance.
Religion can play a big role here and
fits in with the theory of the appearence
god makes. Basically, the 4th dimension
is what you want it to be.
If one believes that he or she will go
to hell after physical death, then
that is what happens. If one believes
that the afterlife will be clouds,
then clouds it shall be.
My belief is that the 4th dimension is
a cross between the 3rd and 5th.
You're dead, but not quite with god yet.