Spirituality in a secular world | Rupert Sheldrake 

All events are perceived in terms of cause and effect. For far too long it has been taken for granted that the way that we describe the ways that we perceive things, is truly the way that things actually are. For example: "I get in my car. I drive to work." If you really are, as we say, "getting in your car" and "driving to work" then you have spoken in a manner that is indicative, representative, and/or symbolic of your actions as experienced. However, the words chosen (however represented) will always exist independant of the *reality experienced*. The thing is independent, insofar as it can occur in all possible circumstances, but this form of independence is a form of connection with the underlying objective reality, a form of dependence. It is not possible to transcend or even equal experienced reality by means of described reality. It is inevitable that any empirically described reality by means of observation will inherit the shortcomings attributable to [AND experienced via] the means of observation *experienced* AND *described* (the experience experienced is really experienced, and the experience described is really described. This should not require emphasis, and yet it does. The implications are apparent). Another way of expressing this in terms of observed human experience, would be to say "no thing observed can equal or exceed the speed of light in a vacuum". I.e., "the limitations of observation are experienced by means of observation, as the limits of description are experienced by means of description. When observation be dependent upon light, so be it limited by means of the experience of light. The reality experienced can not equal or transcend the objective reality underlying all experience. The reality described can not equal or transcend the reality experienced, nor can it surpass the means (and accordant limitations) of description via experience by way of objective reality. This insight does not belong to any one person, and any claim that it does would defy the logical understanding of the insight itself. It would be foolish to deny the reality underlying what is here written (in other words, to embrace "nihilism" which can be described as the belief that action is inconsequential and existence is meaningless and futile). If action is "pre-determined" then we are all automatons, and no action is our own. Yet no intelligible or coherent Universe could emerge from pure chaos (pure chaos being the exact opposite of pure coherence, any perfectly chaotic Universe would by definition be Eternally (here meaning: for all of space and time as one) incompatible with intelligence/ coherence). By definition, a perfectly incoherent Universe would be completely unintelligible, and a perfectly symmetrical Universe (in terms of space and time) would transcend the intrinsic limitations of any individual experience (which is necessarily asymmetrical in terms of space relative to time). If you suppose an infinite Universe equal parts space and time, any observation limited in terms of space and time will experience limitations in accordance with the observation experienced. In other words, an observer experiences a limited version of spacetime as they encounter asymmetry in observed spacetime. Observed spacetime is asymmetrical relative to the objectively real spacetime, which is really perfectly symmetrical.

Although a self-professed Christian (Anglican, I believe), orthodox Christians also don't "see eye to eye" with him, either - making this purported "support for the established church" rather specious. Same difference with Freeman Dyson: he attended church services and so on, but by his own admission he only cared about the communal bonding - not unlike someone attending a sports event. Sheldrake is still only a secular, and although he (correctly) pines for the spiritual, his New Agey views only serve to distract and sabotage his quest for the transcedental.

What you call "support for the established church", I call, "an open window for constructive dialogue".

@@ericfarina3935 Yeah, sure - because we sure as Hell can't have ecumenism in the Church - according, of course, to the critics of the Church, who're always very interested in "constructive dialogue", even as they smear it... 🙄

@@thstroyur Constructive dialogue is always available to the open-minded and thoughtful. I understand your comment, but that is neither here nor there. Neither critics of the "church" nor its members should be painted with so broad a brush.

@@ericfarina3935 And as such, your previous comment looses its ground.

@@bro83748And that is a great slogan!

@@bro83748 Is dogma wisdom? I would say the opposite

@@bro83748 dogma is rigid and absolute, true wisdom knows its limited and impermanent nature. Being old doesnt guarantee wisdom, but it can make you rigid, and convince you you already know, since you've seen it all before. Which I'd say is the opposite of wisdom

Don't know if you regard yourself as a religious person, but I always found it peculiar how many "conventionally" religious people feel the need to call everybody religious. Usually, by stretching the definition of the term to the point it loses all meaning....

@@edzejandehaan9265 you just define it stupid way. And now want me to be religious and expect that I call everybody religious. What is religious? Believing? You think you don't believe? You don't believe in democracy for example?

@@matterasmachineAh, I see what I'm dealing with here. Kindly forget I was so silly as to reply to your comment. Goodbye.

@@edzejandehaan9265 I See that you were searching for Cristian to say him how stupid are christians. So you found yourself.

Secular doesn't mean not religious. It just means you set your religion aside when dealing with someone who isn't part of your religious tribe. In other words, two people with different religious beliefs can be secular when doing business with each other, or for any other reason. We do it all the time.

Reductionism is dying!

@@vecumex9466 Indeed.