Ierrellus wrote: I would argue that religions and ethics began when the brain evolved enough to allow consciousness of Self, as this this in place of ordinarily this and that consciousness. Evolution of life forms depends on the deterministic creative agendas of DNA. Cosequently, philosophies that deny the self or eschew evolutionary theories are not my cup of tea. The real debate between some scientists and some philosophers has to do with whether the creative agenda of DNA is purposeful or random and fortuitous. I opt for purpose.
Yes, related to the point that you raised here: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=193043
In fact, religious narratives can be said to revolve entirely around this teleological sense of reality. After all, the whole point of broaching it is to focus the discussion on "the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes."
And if the only "purpose" resides in the "brute facticity" of matter evolving into mind evolving into consciousness evolving into "self" evolving into a manifestation of matter able to reflect on its own existence, then "what in the world" is the purpose of that?
And the more we probe this the more bewildering it seems to get.
Mindless matter evolving into mindful matter but no less matter inherently embedded in immutable laws that can only ever unfold into a future that was never going to be anything other than what it can only be.
But then minds create Gods. Gods said to create us. And these Gods create us to either behave or to not behave in accordance with His will. But then other minds point out that if God is omniscient, He knows all and if He knows all then human autonomy is itself subsumed in that.
And it is here that this particular mind -- this particular "I" -- created a thread in order to explore how all of this is related to the behaviors that we choose on this side of the grave in order that our fate on the other side of the grave might be as we imagine it to be.
Ierrellus wrote: Some religious thinkers believe that the advent of the "I', the fall into mind, is the root of all evil because the "I' can easily forget its place in the we. Some, such as the writers Of ACIM, believe evil is the lie of dearth, the thought that there isn't really enough of necessities to go around thus perpetuating us vs them mentality. But the "I " is a lens of consciousness, an evidence of the personal. It is not the gateway to hell or to delusion.
Possibly. But until those religious thinkers are willing to explore a particular "I" embedded in a particular "we" embedded in a particular set of circumstances embedded in a particular historical and cultural context, what "on earth" will they be talking about?
So, sure, if anyone here bumps into religious thinkers who actually are willing to explore that part of it, by all means, send them here.