Nick_A wrote:True, but the essential purpose of religion which is conscious evolution is predicated on levels of reality. There can be levels of objective truth.
Ok, you kinda lose me here. It seems to be explained below, so I'll comment there about levels of reality and objective truths inside those levels.
We can study a tree and learn lawful facts about its birth, life, and death. However, will studying a tree allow one to know the objective truth of the forest it resides within which is also part of the tree?
Actually, the forest is not part of the tree... it's the other way around. And, though I'm no botanist, I believe that much can be learned about the forest from studying the tree.
It seems you sometimes confuse the term "objective truth" for something like reality, or existence, or history, depending on the context.
For the sake of the forest allowing sufficient light to nourish the trees, overcrowding must be avoided so young trees die. So for the sake of the forest trees must die yet the tree strives to live. Is this a contradiction or just two objective truths manifesting at different levels of reality.
Again, I don't see objective truths "manifesting". Sure, several realities or existences manifest. One tree gets crowded out, while another tree survives. Both attempt to survive, so their purposes (if you'll allow that bit of personification) are identical. However, it is hardly "for the sake of the forest" that these trees die out. They die out because of other factors. You mentioned light, but others could be lack of rain, animals, location, soil contamination, lightning, or many, many other factors.
Conscious evolution takes us out of the domain of the tree (a mechanical level of reality) and allows for the conscious experience of the forest (a higher conscious level of reality)
Trees are not conscious, so a tree is not aware that it is part of a forest, or even that it is a tree.
People are aware of themselves and their surroundings. We are aware that we are part of a society, and that things must be done for the good of society. Are you implying that the religious or spiritual are more aware or considerate of this than others are?
This is why it is self defeating to nit pick on these things in place of striving to become consciously able to acquire a conscious perspective.
On the contrary, this "nit picking" is necessary for me and those like me who can't just jump headfirst into a belief system and work out the "why" later. Those questions are what validate (or invalidate) beliefs for me.
Arguing for spirituality, one encounters an opposition from the agnostic perspective very similar to the opposition that the religious get. Even when you replace a god with a "higher state of being" there are still the same questions, such as:
"How do you KNOW you've reached a higher state of being, and that it isn't just psychological?"
"What evidence do you have to support your claim that you've reached this elevated state?"
... and so on. It is my personal belief that people make themselves believe what they want to be true. Someone looking for god will more than likely trick themselves into finding him, probably through a "sign" or some meaningless event that the seeker injects meaning into. Likewise, if one really desires a higher state of being and understanding, one will often be dishonest with onesself, and trick onesself into believing that they have reached this pinnacle of consciousness. It's only when one starts to "nit pick" that they find out their belief isn't as valid as they thought.
