Science, Democracy and God

[nutronjon]

As I understand democracy, it has everything to do with discovering truth, and governing ourselves with an understanding of universal laws and self evident truths (science).

 

It is understanding, no one man can know enough to govern wisely for many. Not even a committee can have as much information as the masses. Democracy isn't suppose to be authority over the people, but rule by reason, and this makes education vital to democracy. The masses must be well educated and capable of reasoning. Unfortunately, this is not the result of education for technology. Education for technology, prepares individuals for the Borg. Education for democracy prepares people to be their own authority and to work together as equals. There is a huge cultural difference, between the two purposes of education.

 

Education for technology, favors those with good memories, and prepares people to rely on authority. It rapidly advances technology, however, it doesn't prepare people for self government and weighing the values of different ideas. Liberal education for democracy prepares everyone for science, but there is an unfortunate misconception of what liberal education is about. People think liberal education is about arts, and they have a limited understanding of the arts, as though it means paintings, music and fancy lace. The truth is, science is essential to democracy, because democracy is about discovering truths and rule by reason, so science is essential to liberal education. This however, is science that stresses the need to weigh values. It means coming to science with a sense of social responsibility, and not just the NAZI German goal of power and glory, and feats such as the "Shock and Awe" attack on Iraq made possible by stealing Germany's technology and method of education, and also, capitalism without morality which also results from replacing liberal education with Germany's model of education for technology.

 

The US is now technological smart, but at the expense of its wisdom.

[Thunderbird]

The archetype you speak is the techno-warrior. This war is waged against the natural way of life. America has become a state without a spiritual center. It has been taken over by religious dogma, and corporate government powers, that manipulate the masses though there fear and intolerance.

 

nutronjon; have you read any Ken Cary books? They are mostly based on the native American Tribal veiws of the creator. I find them as spiritual poetic truths, without any dogma about it.

 

 

excerpt from "The Mystery Revealed",

VISION:

A Personal Call to Create a New World

 

I am the Presence where there is no time but the eternal now. I am Alpha and Omega, the source of all beginnings and the completion of all cycles. The reality of what I am is beyond time. My interest is time. I create time that I might appear in diversity and clothe my attributes in form, that these attributes, appearing as created ones, may enjoy relationships in my nature, which is love.

 

I love because I AM. Where my attention turns to detail, I appear as the many. All things appear in my love, because of my love. I am one in spirit, many in form, the source of all living; and all that live, live in me...

 

Do not place filters upon my awareness, to twist it, to interpret it, to refashion it in some pattern of fear. Those who do this place masks over their perception; they see only their own interpretations. Release all interpretations of life that require tension to sustain them. Relax fully in the immensity of my present love for you and let me show you the way...

 

There is no mystery to my ways. The only mystery has been why my people have stubbornly favored their images of God over the Living Reality of my Presence...

Be with me now. Let your heart be still. Let all within the field of your awareness drift gently to a state of rest. Take time for me, and I will give you a new time and a new way to use the time you have. A day set aside? An Hour? A few moments? More than the air, you need communion with your Holy spirit. Take the time to be still, to be with me. Let yourself rest in Eternal Being. Know the peace and security of your Creator's Presence, the inheritance, the birthright you have forgotten. Sustain yourself in a restful state, trusting,while I flow refreshing through your circuitry, soothing you with grace, illuminating your understanding. To consciousness I call you, to a time of birth and awakening, to an Age of Discovery and adventure, but most of all, I call you home, home to your Being, where you and I are One.

 

As you come home to me, I come home to the Earth. My joy is your joy. Our joy is full. Its good to be home. Through you, I come home, not only to the earth, but to all the material plane. Through you, I come to make a conscious home inside the universe of my Creation. Through you, I am born in a manger of matter, in a Bethlehem of space, beneath a canopy of stars...

 

For I am the first and the last, the beginning and the end, the Creator of all that is and of all that is to be. My potential is infinite, my being, eternal. All creation is an ever-unfolding picture of what I conceive. The star fields are my canvas, humans are my brushes, biology is my paint. The picture I create lives and dances, sparkling in multidimensional form as together with my people, I journey down the living corridors of time. My consciousness is the gift that I offer to all my children, all women, all men of all races, tribes and nations who choose to dedicate themselves to LIVES of LOVE.

 

As I leave these words to rest without me, I do not leave you. I am always with you. To the extent that you are open to the spirit of these words, my presence will grow in your life until you and I are one in consciousness as we have ever been one in Reality. I beat with every throb of your heart, feel with every touch of your hand, cry your every tear, breathe your every breath. I am never far away. I am the only Truth and the only Reality.

 

Welcome home, my human spirit. You have a happy childhood just around the corner.

-Ken Carey

[nutronjon]

The archetype you speak is the techno-warrior. This war is waged against the natural way of life. America has become a state without a spiritual center. It has been taken over by religious dogma, and corporate government powers, that manipulate the masses though there fear and intolerance.

 

nutronjon; have you read any Ken Cary books? They are mostly based on the native American Tribal veiws of the creator. I find them as spiritual poetic truths, without any dogma about it.

 

No I haven't read Ken Cary's books but the wisdom comes from many sources, Zen and Hinduism are also popular sources. We have to wonder how so much of humanity broke from this wisdom, and why some are completely resistant to it?

 

I am so thankful that following the Renaissance, those literate in the Greek and Roman classics, found native Americans who helped them understand the consciousness. Are you also impressed by how those who ignore the wisdom are either Christian or atheist? It is like the Christian and atheist are flip sides of the same coin. Neither one of them "get it".

 

Why did you chose to use the term warrior, though? To understand is the path of peace, not war. There you are using the term warrior, and the Muslims fight for Allah, and Christians fight for Jesus, and Hinduism speaks of war. But the Hau de no sau nee say:

 

"The Peacemaker came to the people with a message that human beings should cease abusing one another. He stated that humans are capable of reason, that through that power of reason all men desire peace, and that it is necessary that the people organize to ensure that peace will be possible among the people who walk about on the earth. That was the original word about laws-laws were originally made to prevent the abuse of humans." from "A Basic Call To Consciousness"

[modest]

No I haven't read Ken Cary's books but the wisdom comes from many sources, Zen and Hinduism are also popular sources. We have to wonder how so much of humanity broke from this wisdom, and why some are completely resistant to it?

 

I'd agree that there is a lot of wisdom about leadership and ruling to be found in the Japanese zen, and Hinduism and all the eastern philosophies really.

 

My particularly favorite example (that deals with governing) is the tao.

 

Do you believe it is possible for a society to successfully use a philosophy like taoism to guide their strategy on governing even though it is so atheistic?

 

If a country is governed with tolerance,

the people are comfortable and honest.

If a country is governed with repression,

the people are depressed and crafty.

 

When the will to power is in charge,

the higher the ideals, the lower the results.

Try to make people happy,

and you lay the groundwork for misery.

Try to make people moral,

and you lay the groundwork for vice.

 

-modest

[C1ay]

As I understand democracy, it has everything to do with discovering truth, and governing ourselves with an understanding of universal laws and self evident truths (science).

 

Then you have a gross misunderstanding. Democracy (literally "rule by the people", from the Greek demos, "people", and kratos, "rule") is a form of government. It is effectively mob rule. It has nothing to do with truths or science.

[nutronjon]

I'd agree that there is a lot of wisdom about leadership and ruling to be found in the Japanese zen, and Hinduism and all the eastern philosophies really.

 

My particularly favorite example (that deals with governing) is the tao.

 

Do you believe it is possible for a society to successfully use a philosophy like taoism to guide their strategy on governing even though it is so atheistic?

 

 

 

-modest

 

Hum, considering only highly moral people can have liberty, and morality is learned, the idea that teaching morality gets the opposite is distressing. I do not believe this is true. I believe through education, it is possible to prepare the young for good moral judgement, and that the effort results in a highly moral society. The US stopped doing this in 1958, and the ramifications have been just dreadful.

 

I do not find atheisim agreedable. Nor are the traditional religions agreeable to me. I favor the Greek concept of reason, and thinking of this as God. The morality follows this reasoning. The morality is based in understanding cause and effect, and that if we do bad, bad will follow, and when we do good, good will follow. That is the obvious definition of good and bad. With this understanding, it is only reasonable to choose good. As Cicero understood how this works, no one gets away with a bad deed, however, as Socrates explained, it may take 3 generations for the results of our deeds to be noticable. This system is not for ignorant people, therefore, education is more important to democracies with liberty, than it is for other forms of government. Without education for good moral judgement, it is neccessary to have authority over the people, and that destroys a democracy.

[freeztar]

The morality is based in understanding cause and effect, and that if we do bad, bad will follow, and when we do good, good will follow. That is the obvious definition of good and bad. With this understanding, it is only reasonable to choose good. As Cicero understood how this works, no one gets away with a bad deed, however, as Socrates explained, it may take 3 generations for the results of our deeds to be noticable. This system is not for ignorant people, therefore, education is more important to democracies with liberty, than it is for other forms of government. Without education for good moral judgement, it is neccessary to have authority over the people, and that destroys a democracy.

 

I agree. Education is paramount!

[modest]

Hum, considering only highly moral people can have liberty, and morality is learned, the idea that teaching morality gets the opposite is distressing. I do not believe this is true. I believe through education, it is possible to prepare the young for good moral judgement, and that the effort results in a highly moral society. The US stopped doing this in 1958, and the ramifications have been just dreadful.

 

That quote is written for the leader of a government - it was written to the leader of a nation. In that context you may find its wisdom. The more morality is legislated through government - the less responsibility people have for personal morality. It just isn't the job for a nation's leader to teach morality.

 

-modest

[freeztar]

The more morality is legislated through government - the less responsibility people have for personal morality. It just isn't the job for a nation's leader to teach morality.

 

:hihi:

[nutronjon]

That quote is written for the leader of a government - it was written to the leader of a nation. In that context you may find its wisdom. The more morality is legislated through government - the less responsibility people have for personal morality. It just isn't the job for a nation's leader to teach morality.

 

-modest

 

yes, no :hihi:

 

Man, I am amazed by how close our thinking can be, and still not be in agreement.

 

Try to make people moral,

and you lay the groundwork for vice.

 

Okay, how this is done? If is done by authority over the people, yes the result is very bad. On the other hand, if you go about making the people moral, by preparing them to make good moral judgements, the result is very good. Notice in the word "conscience", is the word "science"? One of the meanings of "con" is "to know". So consciences is to know science. This would be science coming out of philosophy, such as the concepts of Socrates and Aristotle.

 

Vital to understanding democracy and the reasoning for liberty, is having knowledge of Socrates, especially regarding education.

 

Socrates' Educational Theory

I. Theory of Value: What knowledge and skills are worthwhile learning? What are the goals of education?

 

Socrates believed that there were different kinds of knowledge, important and trivial. He acknowledges that most of us know many "trivial" things. He states that the craftsman possesses important knowledge, the practice of his craft, but this is important only to himself, the craftsman. But this is not the important knowledge that Socrates is referring to. The most important of all knowledge is "how best to live." He posits that this is not easily answered, and most people live in shameful ignorance regarding matters of ethics and morals.

 

When the reasoning is better understood, there will be understanding of Thomas Jeffersons passionate desire for the US government to provide universal education.

[nutronjon]

This is Thomas Jefferson's thoughts about government, education, science and liberty. :)

 

Jefferson on education

Educating the People

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

--Thomas Jefferson to W. Jarvis, 1820.

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."

--Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Va., 1782.

 

The information of the people at large can alone make them the safe as they are the sole depositary of our political and religious freedom.

--Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1810.

 

The diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.

--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801.

 

Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be informed to a certain degree.

--Thomas Jefferson to Littleton Waller Tazewell, 1805.

 

[The] provision [in the new constitution of Spain] which ... after a certain epoch, disfranchises every citizen who cannot read and write ... is the fruitful germ of the improvement of everything good and the correction of everything imperfect in the present constitution. This will give you an enlightened people and an energetic public opinion which will control and enchain the aristocratic spirit of the government.

--Thomas Jefferson to Chevalier de Ouis, 1814.

 

No Freedom Without Education

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

--Thomas Jefferson to C. Yancey, 1816.

I look to the diffusion of light and education as the resource most to be relied on for ameliorating the conditions, promoting the virtue and advancing the happiness of man.

--Thomas Jefferson to Cornelius Camden Blatchly, 1822.

 

I feel ... an ardent desire to see knowledge so disseminated through the mass of mankind that it may, at length, reach even the extremes of society: beggars and kings.

--Thomas Jefferson: Reply to American Philosophical Society, 1808.

 

And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.

 

Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.

--Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Price, 1789.

 

Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, the people, if well informed, may be relied on to set them to rights.

--Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Price, 1789.

 

It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that, too, of the people with a certain degree of instruction. This is the business of the state to effect, and on a general plan.

--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786.

 

[i have] a conviction that science is important to the preservation of our republican government, and that it is also essential to its protection against foreign power.

--Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1821.

 

The value of science to a republican people, the security it gives to liberty by enlightening the minds of its citizens, the protection it affords against foreign power, the virtue it inculcates, the just emulation of the distinction it confers on nations foremost in it; in short, its identification with power, morals, order and happiness (which merits to it premiums of encouragement rather than repressive taxes), are considerations [that should] always [be] present and [bear] with their just weight.

--Thomas Jefferson: On the Book Duty, 1821.

[REASON]

Hum, considering only highly moral people can have liberty, and morality is learned, the idea that teaching morality gets the opposite is distressing...

 

Who qualifies as "highly moral?" Who decides the qualifications? Would it be the leader of our democracy of reason, George W. Bush?

 

 

...The morality follows this reasoning. The morality is based in understanding cause and effect, and that if we do bad, bad will follow, and when we do good, good will follow. That is the obvious definition of good and bad.

 

The obvious definition of good and bad is that if we do good, good will follow, and when we do bad, bad will follow? :)

 

There is obviously NO definition for good and bad in your statement. How is one to know what is good and bad? Who decides what is moral? Granted, for some behaviors we can easily find agreement, others are highly subjective and lead to fierce disagreement.

 

Generally speaking, there is very little definitive morality applicable to all human beings. Ultimately, even with intensive moral education provided (whatever that involves), morality is self applied, and there are no guarantees that any individual sense of morality will become the foundation for how someone chooses to make decisions in their lives.

 

This is why we have laws.

[modest]

Try to make people moral,

and you lay the groundwork for vice.

 

Okay, how this is done? If is done by authority over the people, yes the result is very bad. On the other hand, if you go about making the people moral, by preparing them to make good moral judgements, the result is very good. Notice in the word "conscience", is the word "science"? One of the meanings of "con" is "to know". So consciences is to know science. This would be science coming out of philosophy, such as the concepts of Socrates and Aristotle.

 

Vital to understanding democracy and the reasoning for liberty, is having knowledge of Socrates, especially regarding education.

 

When the reasoning is better understood, there will be understanding of Thomas Jeffersons passionate desire for the US government to provide universal education.

 

We’re still not quite on the same page.

 

The Tao is talking about enforcing morality - not teaching it. It’s like the harder you squeeze a lump of clay - the more you loose through your fingers. That’s kind of the theme that runs through the text. There is a difference between saying something is good (which obviously morality is good) and saying something is good for government to define and enforce.

 

It’s very much related to separation of church and state... (you're thinking of Thomas Jefferson aren't you :)). It is not the job of government to tell people what their religion is. Nor their moral code. These are things parents teach their children. The text is simply saying that the harder a leader tries to "make" people moral - the less moral they will be.

 

I believe this is what the quote means. I think (considering your writing on the ‘thought police’ thread) that you would see some wisdom here. I know the writer was neither Roman nor Greek - but it still may be valid, no?

 

-modest

[nutronjon]

Who qualifies as "highly moral?" Who decides the qualifications? Would it be the leader of our democracy of reason, George W. Bush?

 

 

 

 

The obvious definition of good and bad is that if we do good, good will follow, and when we do bad, bad will follow? :)

 

There is obviously NO definition for good and bad in your statement. How is one to know what is good and bad? Who decides what is moral? Granted, for some behaviors we can easily find agreement, others are highly subjective and lead to fierce disagreement.

 

Generally speaking, there is very little definitive morality applicable to all human beings. Ultimately, even with intensive moral education provided (whatever that involves), morality is self applied, and there are no guarantees that any individual sense of morality will become the foundation for how someone chooses to make decisions in their lives.

 

This is why we have laws.

 

 

I am done for the night- in a democracy it is a consensus of the best reasoning that determines what is moral and what makes life better. Not a leader. I just got told to stop speaking of democracy and the Greek and Roman classics, because this is not an interesting subject, and this present discussion has turned so depressing, I want a lobotomy so I don't care any more.

 

Three cheers for science that is completely separated from thousands of years of wisdom, and no one gets what this has to do with NAZI Germany, and why the US elected Bush to office twice. God I am depressed.

[C1ay]

I am done for the night- in a democracy it is a consensus of the best reasoning that determines what is moral and what makes life better.

 

No, it is simply a consensus of the people in making government. In a population with more retards than intellects you end up with the worst reasoning behind the government. You really do need to spend more time at your studies before you run around the internet making such ignorant proclamations.

[nutronjon]

This post was deleted because it is my understanding I will be banned for linking to Cicero and Eisnstien.

 

That better well closes this thread, because I am forbidden for posting the most relevent information.

[Moontanman]

I am done for the night- in a democracy it is a consensus of the best reasoning that determines what is moral and what makes life better. Not a leader. I just got told to stop speaking of democracy and the Greek and Roman classics, because this is not an interesting subject, and this present discussion has turned so depressing, I want a lobotomy so I don't care any more.

 

Three cheers for science that is completely separated from thousands of years of wisdom, and no one gets what this has to do with NAZI Germany, and why the US elected Bush to office twice. God I am depressed.

 

Nutron, are you aware of what you are saying? Science didn't get Bush elected president, the religious right did because they thought that was what god wanted! Bush has stated publicly that he is waging war in the name of democracy and God. the Nazi's were not atheists, they were quite religious, they thought that their god wanted them to do the things they did. they used this religious belief to do many horrible things. Science didn't make them do the things they did, their belief in their own superiority an their God's superiority was what promoted them to do what they did. They perverted science to show their own superiority and the superiority of their god. If God was the controlling influence of science we would still be burning people at the stake for believing the Earth orbits around the sun. Religion has always tried to control science and the results were always bad. Religion in control gets you crusades, Inquisitions, persecution of anyone who dares to disagree. Religion by it's own hand has been responsible for more death and horror than any other force in human history. Science should be defined by religion? I don't think so, if not for science and the free thinking people the world would be hell. I would never say you cannot believe in god, of what ever stripe you want to think of god but to say things would be better if we believed in and used god to define reality is simply wrong my friend and more importantly dangerous.