More debate on consciousness, evolution, and religion October 16, 2006
Posted by martinskov in book review, consciousness, evolution, intelligent design, religion.trackback
While Thomas is getting his kicks off at the SfN meeting in Atlanta I am toiling away at a number of long overdue papers here in the increasingly cold Denmark. I have several longer blog posts planned, but no time to write them. So, here’s three things to read in the meantime at other venues on the net.
First, John Searle reviews a new book on consciousness by Nicholas Humphrey, Seeing Red, in The New York Review of Books. I have always enjoyed Humphrey’s work, but his new theory on consciousness sounds plain weird (at least as retold by Searle; I haven’t read Humphrey’s book). In Searle’s words:
His [i.e., Humphrey's] account of sensation and perception contains the following striking claims: perception and sensation are totally independent; all consciousness is sensation; perception is never conscious; and all sensation is really action. The arguments for these claims are complicated and I will not try to summarize all of them; but what follows gives the flavor of his reasoning.
He writes, “I think the weight of evidence really does suggest that sensation and perception, although they are triggered by the same event, are essentially independent takes on this event, occurring not in series but in parallel, and only interacting, if they ever do, much further down the line.” And later he says that a visual sensation “can be put to several uses…, but the one thing it is not used for is as the raw material for the perception of the world. Perception has its own quite separate channel….” He tells us that we have the illusion that sensation and perception are linked because they occur at the same time.
Furthermore, sensations are really actions. We should more properly describe seeing red as “redding.” He draws the analogy between having a red sensation, on the one hand, and waving your hand or shouting, on the other; according to him all three are actions. He says: “Thus, when S has the red sensation, his impression is simply that ‘I’m redding, now, in this part of my visual field of my eyes.’”
According to Searle, Humphrey is lead to this rather speculative distinction between perception and sensation because he believes that the connundrum of consciousness will only be solved if we manage to put “mind” and “brain” on the same ontological footing. In contast, Searle argues that we should be satisfied with a neuroscientific explanation explaining the neural causes of consciousness. Very sensible, I would say.
Secondly, in their series of interviews on religion with prominent philosophers and scientists, Salon asks Richard Dawkins if he really thinks religion is evil. Dawkins answer in the affirmative:
Well, yes. I think there’s something very evil about faith, where faith means believing in something in the absence of evidence, and actually taking pride in believing in something in the absence of evidence. And the reason that’s dangerous is that it justifies essentially anything. If you’re taught in your holy book or by your priest that blasphemers should die or apostates should die — anybody who once believed in the religion and no longer does needs to be killed — that clearly is evil. And people don’t have to justify it because it’s their faith. They don’t have to say, “Well, here’s a very good reason for this.” All they need to say is, “That’s what my faith says.” And we’re all expected to back off and respect that. Whether or not we’re actually faithful ourselves, we’ve been brought up to respect faith and to regard it as something that should not be challenged. And that can have extremely evil consequences. The consequences it’s had historically — the Crusades, the Inquisition, right up to the present time where you have suicide bombers and people flying planes into skyscrapers in New York — all in the name of faith.
The interview contains lots of other statements that will infuriate people “of faith”.
Finally, the good people over at Panda’s Thumb do us all a great service by taking apart Jonathan Wells’ new intelligent design manifesto, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Chapter by chapter they go through the book’s many scientific shortcomings. The result is not pretty:
Jonathan Wells is one of the most notorious activists of the political ad campaign known as “intelligent design”. He is most well known for his attacks on modern biology, specifically his 2000 book, Icons of Evolution, which was panned by the scientific community for its fraudulent presentation of modern biology.
Does Jonathan Wells, aiming once again at the popular market, restore his scientific and academic reputation with his latest book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, or is it just old trash in a new bag? To find out, you will need to read our multi-part review, which begins tomorrow.
One thing is for sure, Jonathan Wells is too modest. His recently published, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, is not only politically incorrect but incorrect in most other ways as well: scientifically, logically, historically, legally, academically, and morally.
Together, these three texts should last you an afternoon or two. I hope to be back later this week with some musings on the neuroscience of religious cognition. Stay tuned!
-Martin
Hey, this is a very good post. Dawkins is the best
check out my blog at http://hypnagogicmind.blogspot.com/ . I am pretty much onto a subject alike, though I’d like to learn about eonsciousness and the brain more…
Thanks
I haven’t read Searle’s account yet but I found Humphrey’s “Seeing Red” an excellent book, carefully thought out and rational. Before following Humphrey’s argument, the premise(s) of the book sounds extreme, but he makes a careful case. He doesn’t attempt to settle the philosophic controversies around human-type consciousness, but simply underscores the evolved usefulness of it, as distinct from the kind that other creatures display. Worth reading.
Hi my name is Timothy Tang. This is an invitation to view my theory on consciousness at my web site http://www.freewebs.com/consciousnessdecoded
Keith,
If I ever get the time I will definitly read “Seeing Red”. I have read several of Humphrey’s other things, and I have always found him very reasonable. So, Searle’s review has left me quite intrigued!
Evil is a strange, unscientific word for Dawkins to use. Violence for political reasons, such as by Hitler, Stalin and Mao, rivals or surpasses violence for religious reasons. Any system of belief or unbelief can be twisted and used to justify almost anything. The Pennsylvania Amish response to the shooting of their school children shows another side to religious beliefs and arguably the only way to peace. Rationality has its limitations. There are times — as in dealing with tragedy or creating art — when we need to call on more in our selves. Science is helpful in some but hardly all matters. Any system of morality stemming from it is still an unproved upstart compared to the Perennial Philosophy as discussed by Aldous Huxley and others.
DREAMING OF A COMPLETE THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS
“Most scientists agree that the problem of consciousness is one of the major scientific challenges that need to be solved.”
In his inspiring book; Seeing Red: A Study in Consciousness Humphrey (2006) argues that even if we cannot quite explain what consciousness is, we can all agree that it is crucial to our sense of self as human beings. In this sense, it plays an important role for the way in which it “taps straight into people’s sense of their own metaphysical importance.” Consciousness makes us humans feel like we matter.
First of all, I fully agree with the previous statement, but on the other hand it is important to note that human consciousness is also limited. The idea that unconscious information processing plays an important role in human functioning and influences our daily life is not popular among scientists. Nevertheless, in recent years, more and more psychology (social cognition) studies have been published, showing that humans can make, for instance, good decisions unconsciously (e.g., Dijksterhuis, 2004; Dijksterhuis, Bos, Nordgren, & Van Baaren, 2006; Van den Noort, 2003).
The book (Humphrey, 2006) celebrates the mystery of consciousness, delighting in what we do not know about how our brains work. In a sense the book is inspiring for scientists to continue the search for answers. It is true that a lot remains a mystery and many key questions in neuroscience are still unanswered or at the best only partially answered (Van den Noort & Bosch, 2006). Note for instance that even the old debate on how neurons exactly communicate is in fact an unfinished issue (Fields, 2006). Of course, we know about the theories by Golgi and Ramón y Cajal, the discovery of the importance of glia cells in human information processing and the recent results on the coherence of activity of brain waves. But more scientific work needs to be done before answering the question: How are waves so well coordinated in the human brain?
No doubt a complete theory of consciousness would be one of the major breakthroughs in science (Penrose, 2005)! Such a theory should fit within physics, neuroscience, and psychology all at the same time. In order to achieve that we need answers on questions like; how are physics and human information processing linked? It is obvious that the laws of physics and the neuroscience findings on human information processing must somehow go hand in hand. Perhaps in future research, we can look at quantum physics to come to a more basic understanding of the mechanisms behind neuron communication, and as a result we might come to a better understanding of the human brain? However, several researchers remain skeptical (Koch & Hepp, 2006) and I agree with them that there is still important theoretical- and experimental work to do with respect to the relation between quantum mechanics and (higher) brain functions. To conclude, at the moment, we are far from a complete theory of consciousness (Penrose, 2005) and perhaps we have to wait for a brilliant Harvard scientist to solve this major scientific challenge…Up to then “I see red” and I can only dream of a complete theory. One thing is clear to me “somewhere in the past, present or future this issue will be solved. Let the book by Humphrey (2006) be an inspiration…”
References
Dijksterhuis, A. (2004). Think different: The merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 586-598.
Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M.W., Nordgren, L.F., & Van Baaren, R.B. (2006). On making the right choice: The deliberation-without-attention effect. Science, 311(5763), 1005-1007.
Fields, R.D. (2006). Beyond the neuron doctrine. Scientific American Mind, 17(3), 20-27.
Humphrey, N. (2006). Seeing Red: A Study in Consciousness. Harvard University Press.
Koch, C., & Hepp, K. (2006). Quantum mechanics in the brain. Nature, 440(7084), 611.
Penrose, R. (2005). A theory of everything? Nature, 433(7023), 259.
Van den Noort, M.W.M.L. (2003). The Unconscious Brain: The Relative Time and Information Theory of Emotions. Oegstgeest, The Netherlands: Citadel.
Van den Noort, M.W.M.L., & Bosch, M.P.C. (2006). Brain cell chatter. Scientific American Mind, 17(5), 4-5.
With Regards to A Science of Consciousness
The story(the mind) and the book (the brain) Nigel
http://network.nature.com/forums/bpcc/438?page=4..
my pet point comes immediately to light..especially with the “Point question” how is the book reading the story?” I wanted to point out that it is always the story reading(or trying to make sense of) the book. There is no way around my interpretation regardless of the constructs or data we assemble. Some things are not knowable -allwe have (are in essence) to probe is the story (our awareness and consciousness)..my view is that regarding the functioning of nature, the success of survival…that men simply add questions like children to his observations that exceed the needs of understanding .understanding of his continuance-complete meaning-especially when his philosophy is still incomplete..and that what we do not know -the question arising from inverting book with story sums to incoherent questioning. There is always a perplexity to nature-a part of the bundle-package deal in that our certainties are not constants but variables held higher in perception because they are more prominent with respect to the rest and explain more of the time the world we do experience and are familiar with But the world is always open -the forwards path is always in the greatest diversity direction of greatest openness , more surface and volume. It is just perplexing because the truth, even to our most highest held concepts is at a90 degree tangent to the line of sight-regardless of what we interpret-or concepts (for instance a detail of the road we most travel-but there are other roads) there is more question possible. The story reading the book-the story also arrives from the book-the result is all we have is the solid earth we sense, and a perception/survival mechanism that functions at it root in a manner superfluous to it. The gene for Beta-lactosidase for example is a palindrome-read the same forwards and reverse , and goes on to process milk even if all of the rest is inverted, the road we relate to and its actual mental-response eliciting meaning- relsted to a past road(i.e that our behavior is inappropriate to the present see Nietzsche -n the Jews and Arians)–we keep drinking eating as long as we physically sense a road. (for this reasoning I believe inversions if not a whole ironically genetic make up(e.g chromosomes are recently shown t contract to pulling forces rather than to expand-with regards our scientific planning for nature -it works against ourself-arrives from self denigrating (incoherency bearing) abstraction -which must originate and result in this phenomenon)) are at both the root and nature of what identifies mankind… and he comes to test -crossing points possessed with blinding inversions composing his nature -pass or fail there is no mechanism to say the difference and continues with his milk etc.) I think current genome mapping and analysis will find inversions related to sight and seeing -foot and mouth etc. swallowing (ideas?)(failed births related to up down water weight, etc) pathologies etc..the possibilities are immense. And yet a correct course is only a mental motion away to know this before our storys dig in the book to damage it. It is hard tofrom the ancient dialogues if something is perceived wrong then or not –a pursuit of knowledge for its own sake or a sense of something unjust, inappropriate to pursue a topic of morality and knowledge in order to define footing in a (subtly) slanted setting. I think the best,best grounded,soundest of all if George Berkeley on Mind and Matter-he never once transgresses a limit of man with respect to nature-himself-fills in the unknown with an aware always present deity as the only logical alternative and doesn’t believe in the existence of matter an odd eccentric sounding idea that is today controversial. Why are writing prominent at sometimes and unknown at others. I don’t think these occasions involve new spontaneous revelations. There are lots of new science references with new views related to emergence that open the doors to such interpretations. The theory of relativity breathes dualisms-seeks a monism but by its very conception is a monism yet incompatible immiscible with the dualisms of it’s basic nature-is very conflicting and arousing and illogical that only the highest IQs-abstractions (incoherent to ordinary language) can assimilate relative time A basic one, appropriate to consciousness and cognition is in Scientific American … http://science-community.sciam.com/blog-entry/Mind-Matters/Selective-Vision-Brains-Spin-Machine/300005903?& - Selective Vision: the Brains Spin Machine Starts Early Anticipating Reward: More Than Meets The Eye Susanna Martinez-Conde
Nigels analogy of book and story is very rich and good focusing point.
Marvin E. Kirsh
http://www.marvinekirsh.com
http://www.authorsden.com/marvinelikirsh
kirsh2152000@yahoo.com
Words - Inverting the Creation Evolution Debate
Remember
It is interesting to investigate meanings to the words of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. These ancient works, written in allegorical manner, as study will prove, are designed to call-up to our minds important significant subjects of a life of a higher more excellent plateau.
To begin, take verses from Exd. 20:8-12 commencing with the word “remember”, from “Remember the Sabbath day,” in the law given to Israel of old. “Remember”, taken from the Hebrew word ZAKAR means, “to mark (so as to be recognized).” See Strong’s lexicon -2142. “Remember” implies, to make or be remembered, remembrance. This remembrance is of a name denoted from 2145, remembered, i.e. male. ZAKAR means, remember the male, “as being the most noteworthy.” And “male” means mankind, therefore the reading is remember mankind. This is determined by referring to the Scriptures. So God (love-benevolent affection for others) created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam (mankind).
And why should mankind, the “most noteworthy”, be remembered? Because there is a great distinction between mankind and the rest of the animal kingdom, though we are all in accord with nature. The creative, inventive human was to have dominion over all life, be fruitful, replenish the earth and subdue it. The dignity of man was being recognized by the writers – man’s passion, tolerance, competence, awe, wonderment, realization of transcendence present in life and being. Mankind was the master of life, coming out of the earth, consciousness the most noteworthy of all. Mankind was an organism completely in harmony with the sacredness of nature, a living divinity, with Christ the anointed Spirit, dwelling within. Mankind possessed the inheritance given to all. Mankind had intrinsic conceptual thought and had control, insightfulness and determination.
Dominion
Dominion from RADAH in a creative form means, to rule, to govern, control, be a guide for action, a guide for direction in replenishment (flow, fill, furnish, gather, have wholly), in being fruitful (finding our being as the ground of being). Mankind’s senses abound.
Now reflect upon our elevated status as mankind is the epitome of spiritual experience. The writers were directing contemplation and meditation of the great work of the Benign, of the great philanthropic harmonious Evolve. Owing to the old Scripture writings being symbolic, the great power of Evolve is personified as God, the object of worship, God the Father. The great power of Evolve is the mystery that none of us can fully know. This substained allegory should be kept in mind throughout the reading of this paper.
Also the emanation of the creative principle is represented as a parent’s love for their offspring. Take the story of the old patriarch “Abraham; who is the father of us all.” This allegory encompasses the regenerative strength of the master of life - individual consciousness – harmony, rebirth, regeneration.
Cogitate, appreciate and revere the remarkable nature of motherhood - compatability. Yes, compatibility, that is the word, where duality ceases. Deliberate on the mutuality of the microscopic world. True affection or passion called “God is a consuming fire” burning within, enthusiasm, and that begat concept – a being of conceptuality, wisdom, linguistics.
To use concept, sentience, requires mental acuity - action. Considered thought plus purposeful action arrives at the very core of the question, what of this word “God”? The representation is a noun – the embodiment of love. Whereas the subject is a verb – thought plus action = creativity. The wondrous continuity of procreation amongst many levels of life, all an inseparable part of existence, is figured in such statements as, “Let the earth bring forth grass, and the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree after his kind, whose seed is in itself upon the earth, and it was so.”
“The Sabbath day, keep it holy.”
“Sabbath” or Shabath means, a temporary cessation, to repose, desist from exertion, cease, celebrate, intermission of a space of time between periods of endeavors. Plainly, a time to stop and think. This “time” in Exd. 20 is called “Sabbath day.”
Unfortunately the token Canaan rest, this tutorial “rest day” was literalised by the unbelief in man’s God-given ability to create. As the Sabbath rest in Canaan was an illustration of God’s spiritual rest after creation, literalizing it to a literal day produced an idol.
Day from YOWM means a day from one sunset to the next. Figuratively, a space of time, is defined by an associated word. In this instance the word is “sabbath.” YOWM can also mean:- age, always, continually, daily, to day, now, this day, forever, everlasting, perpetually, full year, yearly, and other periods. It may be observed there is no emphasis on any fixed “time.”
Holy
The statute says, “keep this repose holy.” Holy from GADASH is causative, something had come into being. QADASH means observe, consecrate, dedicate, hallow, proclaim, holy (er, place), sanctify, wholly.
What was the cause for such high esteem being placed upon this statutory maxim, “keep holy”? The human concept had emerged from the earth – ERETS, meaning ground. The same ground as the Greek word GE, where “the sower went forth to sow” in the New Testament parable.
In Genesis 1:2 “the earth was without form” from TOHUW meaning, a desolation, and representing a worthlessness and confusion. This “earth” “was void” from BOHUW indicating, an emptiness, a vacuity or no mental exertion, “and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” Deep for sea and waters is a metaphor for people throughout Scripture (not documented here). “And God said, Let there be light: And God called the light Day.” Alas! the being of conceptual thought had transcended. The scene of a new creation – rapture for life – having a real living experience.
Honor
Honor thy father and thy mother. The unrestricted congruous consciousness of relationship is perfection. It is life’s compatability complete with personal application of body, mind and soul. This should be applied to global governments, global communual consciousness, global spirituality. Liberation brings temperance and toleration, an appreication of cultures creating the desirable elementary, beneficient, response in humanity. Perfection, is sacred, concerned “not after the flesh but after the Spirit.” We know not how long mankind was without blemish before selfishness and the hunger for power was found in him.
Continual regeneration of the spirit of peaceful agreeableness is purity – the sacredness of the soul Temple. It finally begat the creative higher consciousness, possessing conceptual thought – a living mysterious creativity – portrayed in similar myths in all cultures. This “most noteworthy” accomplishment must be forever honored and respected by our very living. Hidden in the vault of antiquity the origin of nature’s progression is described by the symbolic writers as likening the wonderous marvel of the inception of knowing I am (if we will), as due to our father and mother who gave us life.
We are to extol benign, propagating, ever-advancing potency. This great moral influence teaches us, as no other can, the struggle for success of tolerance and unison. As though singing in one voice, make this lofty innate energy our object of worship, our indwelling God of love. As already stated, the Hebraic symbolic artists personified the great ethical fruitfulness. Early admonishers counseled us to revere and exalt it.
The writers of the Book of Hebrews, Pauline-like, who were presented as the embodiment of a little missionary worker, offered some meaning to the O.T. symbolic writings. Some Christian-Jews who had accepted the compassionate life of the Messianic Body were still clinging to the rigid teachings of literalism, given them by the Pharisees. They were also impoverished and tranquilized by the harsh dictates of the Sadducees.
The tenets of Judaism had crumbled with the silencing of the Messiah. There was not one stone of Judaism upon another that was not thrown down. Precepts symbolically written in the Mosaic law were to direct souls to forever extol nature’s pinnacle of development. After all, this Benign Endowment had set the Israelites free from bondage.
Inasmuch as man was the “most noteworthy” attainment he was to be venerated. This accomplishment was mainly lost to the sight of many. Later writers recorded that with metaphors ignored by keepers of the Oracles of God, the worship of idols was substituted. This delighted those holding the reins of power.
In Roman days, still embedded in the consciousness of many was the thought to literally keep one fixed day in seven as a day of refrain from labor and remember the Creator. But to remember what the power of Creativity had consummated, what Creativity had completed, that was the message. It was the same power used to expedite Exodus.
Honoring our elevated state possessing conceptual thought, makes us “I am”, and must ever be paramount. This we must believe if we are to redeem our pristine state and be set free from mind-control. The messianic life witnessed to this liberty. The example was set. God’s great helper can retrieve our original zenith. Only don’t abort the environment.
Today
According to the narrative in Exodus 20 ancient Israelites were to remember that Jehovah, their powerful active God of love, delivered them from Egyptian bondage. They were to honor this stirling benevolence by contemplating the magnitude of sublimity or rest, keep the sabbath day. “I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence, through the mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.” Deut. 5: 6,15.
This rest was a token, a type of God’s eternal rest to all to commemorate creativity. This token was also a product of capability given to conceptual thought, that would continually recur until ultimate realization. There were many illustrations of deliverers throughout the O.T. Scripture. All these forms were lessons of the ever-present substance existing from the beginning and were spherically anticipated in consummation. They were written for our admonition upon whom the ends of many dictatorial worlds have come.
The Messianic Body, personified as Jesus the Christ in the Gospels, fulfilled locally in Judea the essence of pure deliverance. This was in a confirmed life of liberated consciousness. With merciful loving deeds in spiritual healing and helpfulness the great antitype meets its edenic-given original gift. By ever-expanding movement the great ponderance into the advent of coming into a knowing-existence rolls on towards archetypes, which are elementary.
In the Hebraic writings there is one true rest. It is in remembrance of benign creativity. It is God’s rest.
Joshua, in Canaan, gave Israel a symbolic rest to honor a typical deliverance. Israel was under the Mosaic law. In the new covenant, love is the fulfilling of the law. The Jewish people were taught to keep a rest. It was called a Sabbath day. Oh! had this not been literalised, then well it may have been appreciated.
If there had also been another day, a literal day, “would not Joshua have spoken of another day.” He did not. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. “Let us labour, therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.” “Again, he (God, Creator) limiteth a certain day, saying in David, Today, after so long a time; as it is said, Today if ye will hear his voice; harden not your heart.” Today now, Today now, Today now.
What, no mention of the commandments?
More Words
Law and Commandments
“And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.” Exd. 24:12.
Law
As the narrative proceeds, it is evident that there was a law and commandments. Law from TORAH means, directions – and from YARAH = to point out, to teach, inform, instruct. The Mosaic law written in Exd. 20-23 was given in “words”. Words from DABAR.
The Exodus illustration is of a people in servitude, having left bondage they arrived in a new land with a free settlement. Having been given a law to learn a new way of living, this was a new creation to them. This law (TORAH) presented directions for upright human conduct for a people once cowered, brutalized and spiritless by dictates. The law was to give them liberty, but not license.
Commandments
Commandments from MITSVAH means, precept, ordinance. Also from TSAVAH, to constitute, enjoin, give a charge, send a message, set in order. This word commandment MITSVAH is not law = TORAH.
The ten commandments were ten words or ten DABAR, as quoted above and also in Exd. 34:28.
Deut. 4:12,13 writing of the same example confirms this. “And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: Ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only you heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant which he commanded (TSAVAH) you to perform, even ten commandments (10 DABAR = 10 words); and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And again Deut. 10:4 “And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments (10 DABAR = ten words) which the Lord spake unto you in the mount…” There is no mention in the Bible of the law (TORAH) having ten words = ten DABAR.
As Israel had been given a law there must be somewhere to keep it. It cannot be left to waft on a summer breeze, there must be a repository.
God said, “Let them make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them.” The law of excellence first written in the heart and mind of pristine man had been removed. The law of love symbolically written, was “the tree of life.” Happy is the man that findeth wisdom and the man that getteth understanding. She (the life-giver) is more precious than rubies. Her ways are the ways of pleasantness and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is everyone that retaineth her.” See Prov. 3 & 15:4. Selfishness, greed and love of power over others had polluted the original Sanctuary. This being “the sanctuary and the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man.” Now a modified procedure was devised to bring this desirable enjoinment to fruition.
The Mosaic law, a representation of transcendence, was placed in the tabernacle. The tabernacle was a pattern of the original abode of God’s law of compassion. That abode was the heavenly Temple, the soul Temple. Ten messages were given for the building of the tabernacle/temple where the Mosaic law was placed in the ark in the tabernacle.
The temple and its sacrificial service was a tutorial legend as to the true path of redeeming liberty of conscience. In the Gospel stories of one called Jesus, the old type met its antitype. Jesus was the Temple.
Details of the ten steps that were given to set in order the building of the tabernacle are briefly listed as follows:-
Make an ark with a mercy seat - Exd. 25:10-22
Make a table of showbread - Exd. 25:23-30.
Make a seven-stick candle - Exd. 25. 31-40.
Make curtains of fine line for walls of tabernacle - Exd. 26.1-6.
Make curtains of goat’s hair and ram’s skin dyed red for covering of tabernacle – Exd. 26:7-14.
Make boars for tabernacle - Exd. 26: 15 – 25.
Make bars of shittim wood - Exd. 26:26-30.
Make vail to divide holy from most holy and a hanging for door of tent - Exd. 26:31-37
Make altar of shittim wood- overlay with brass for burnt offering - Exd. 27:1-8.
Make an altar to burn incense – put it before the veil - Exd. 30:1-10.
New Dispensation
The purpose of this section of my paper is to show that the ever-developing and expanding process is incorporated into every facet of life. Conceptual thought learned to teach by relating simple objects to substance.
Man came to understand there was body (tangible) and soul (intangible). The O.T. stories relate how man perceived the soul Temple as the abode of the free Spirit when not in bondage. In bondage his conscience was repressed. But he was entitled to express his opinion.
To gather together in an express location would provide this necessary opportunity. An early illustration notes a portable tent of assembly would suffice.
The Scripture narrative relates that the children of Israel built a temple in Canaan. This was a model of the true Temple. The temple and its services in Jerusalem were to teach by demonstration the upright path to retrieve the lost right of liberty. The O.T. Bible history is a pictorial of life in ancient Israel. Did they progress with time and reach a higher comprehension?
As the Jews affiliated with the Western mind they realized the teachings of Judaism should not be accepted literally. They were written symbolically. The temple service was a token.
Turn to the New Testament to see how a great change was brought about in understanding, by comparing an archaic law of commandments contained in ordinances. (These ordinances were to do with separating Jews from Gentiles, the clean from the unclean). Note the teachings of the early missionaries, the resurrected Body, who travelled westward after the collapse of Judaism. You will see the difference when evolving steps come into play.
Here is an old archaic law, presented as having been given to one called Abraham. “He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.” Gen. 17:13.
Now here is where a difference arises. The Romans were taught, “if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.” To the Galatians, “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faithfulness which worketh by love.” See Gal. 5:1-6 & 6:15. “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.” 1 Cor. 7:18,19. The Hellenized Jewish teachers had marked a significant social advance. Evolution is never still.
The Messianic Body, the true Temple, by example gave us a knowledge of grace. Those who comprised this Body were persecuted and silenced. Their message rose again giving hope, showing mercy and benignity and enlightening many who were previously in darkness.
The Mosaic law, once understood, reflects God’s law of love, God’s law of liberty, and stands forever. The Levitical priesthood, and the tabernacle service had been a type for the time then present. Today the priest and the sanctuary are Melchisedec. King of righteousness, King of peace is the high priest. Love is the fulfilling of the law of faithfulness, hope and charity.
Before the Messianic people travelled westward to teach the Gentile world the sacrificial life, “we were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise… But now in Christ Jesus, (anointed deliverance) ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood (HAIMA = kindred) of Christ.” For he (the anointed peace) who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross (= uprightness and lateral compassion)…”
The conscientious soul, whether Jew or Gentile, is “Jerusalem which is above (elevated), is free, is the mother of us all.” This Jerusalem is the true church (EKKLESIA = those called out), ever the true nucleus of development and progress in the mind of the human.
http://www.myspace.com/jc13579
There is a way religious education harms which is not cited often. We know the human brain finishes its development until well after birth. The first decade of life is of paramount importance for the development of cognitive abilities. Religious indocrtination at early age very likely affects negatively the extent of synaptic networks. Did anybody actually look at the effects of indoctrination on cognitive skills?
Hi Healthy,
No, I don’t think so. It’s probably too skewed a question to be scientific. There are indications that Asians and Europeans/Americans can perceive visual input differently, and this has been taken as evidence that Asians think in terms of group, and Europeans think in terms of the individual. This, of course, I think is a whole lot of BS, and that the results do not warrant such conclusions. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that culture *may* have an effect on perception and cognition. Of course, this is only a correlation, not a causal link, so it might be that there are biological differences that drive the effect.
The same is the case with religion and its influence on thought. It may be shown, probably, that religious people perceive and interpret their experiences differently than atheist. But this would not support an idea that it is religion that drives the difference. Rather, one can just as well claim that people are attracted to religion because of the way they perceive the world differently. But this, IMO, is up for grabs, and just some fleeting thoughts from me. I’d love to hear about any studies of the relationship between religion and cognition. Anybody?
Cheers,
Thomas