Religion General – Harmonia Philosophica

Eternal river… For ever changing…

Photo by **Spiros Kakos** from **Pexels**

Ancient Egyptians considered the Nile river to be the source of all life. The steady northward path of the river has nourished the fertile valleys of northeast Africa for millions of years and in doing so, shaped the course of human civilization.

The Nile’s unchanging path, however, has been a geologic mystery because long-lived rivers usually move over time. Researchers at The University of Texas at Austin have cracked the case by linking the river’s flow to the movement of rock in the Earth’s deep mantle. In the course of their investigation, they found the eternal river to be much older than anyone realized, with the scientists estimating the age of the Nile to be 30 million years — about six times as long as previously thought. (1)

Behold the eternal river.

Behold the temporary life.

Heraclitus was right.

You can never step into it twice.

But not because the river is changing.

But because you are…

Get into that river.

And see yourself.

Floating away…

Away from the river.

To a shore where there is nothing but a tree.

Walk to that tree.

But eat not from its fruits.

Can you hear a river nearby?

Harsh sounds…

Neuroscientists have analyzed how people react when they listen to a range of different sounds, the aim being to establish the extent to which repetitive sound frequencies are considered unpleasant. Their results showed that the conventional sound-processing circuit is activated but that the cortical and sub-cortical areas involved in the processing of salience and aversion are also solicited. This explains why the brain goes into a state of alert on hearing this type of sound. (1)

We used to live in Paradise.

Afraid of nothing.

Then we learned new things.

And fear is in our soul ever since.

We used to listen to everything.

Standing alone in the forest, being afraid of nothing.

But we couldn’t bear the silence. And we closed our ears.

Destroyed the forest and started listening closely.

Of the footsteps approaching.

Within the safety of love.

We are afraid of our self…

Shhhh…

Are you brave enough to look down to your own feet on the dirt?

Human enhancements. Society.

Photo by **Keenan Constance** from **Pexels**

Human enhancement technologies are opening up tremendous new possibilities. But they’re also raising important questions about what it means to be human. These technologies are currently geared towards upgrading or restoring physical and psychological abilities for medical purposes. An application is surfacing, however, that is designed with another goal in mind: embellishing performance. An international team of researchers has been examining the ethical issues arising from these experiments. (1)

Society is based on humans getting together.

But humans want to improve.

And, thus, they believe society will do too.

Society is based on humans and humans are based on society. But this was not always the case. Society is a very recent construct. We used to be alone. And only at some point did we start realizing the potential in cooperating with others. It seems like a noble cause. But it is not. Humans have always looked towards their personal interest. They wish they could cooperate with others to serve that interest, through society. They wish they could enhance themselves to serve that interest.

But there is another way of seeing things.

A Man tried to teach that way once.

But we killed Him. Because it is not easy to kill one’s self.

That there is no us. That there are no others. There can be a society based on these premises. But not a society with other people.

But a society with the only One who matters…

Forget about society.

Let go of you.

And you will see.

That we are already all together…

Painting… Praying… Reading…

Photo by **Maria Orlova** from **Pexels**

During the European Middle Ages, literacy and written texts were largely the province of religious institutions. Richly illustrated manuscripts were created in monasteries for use by members of religious institutions and by the nobility. Some of these illuminated manuscripts were embellished with luxurious paints and pigments, including gold leaf and ultramarine, a rare and expensive blue pigment made from lapis lazuli stone.

In a study published in Science Advances, an international team of researchers led by the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History and the University of York shed light on the role of women in the creation of such manuscripts with a surprising discovery — the identification of lapis lazuli pigment embedded in the calcified dental plaque of a middle-aged woman buried at a small women’s monastery in Germany around 1100 AD. Their analysis suggests that the woman was likely a painter of richly illuminated religious texts. (1)

Reading. Writing. Praying.

We see the evidence.

To prove that something happened.

We analyze the dental plaque.

To know what this woman did.

And yet, all her efforts are cancelled.

By our lust for proof.

By our eagerness for knowledge.

For the books she helped write, called on for a different kind of knowledge. Knowledge not based on books or proof. Knowledge not based on what you see or hear. But wisdom based on the unseen and the unprovable. For it is that which is the only thing worth seeking in this irrational life governed by the unseen and the unprovable.

That woman did write or supported the writing of holy books. And she did so without the need to prove that to anyone. Her belief was strong enough not to ask for such earthly manifests of recognition. For she recognized the true essence of herself in the humility of a God who came to Earth as a Man and who was recognized by only a few fishermen.

So, the next time you open such a book, remember.

It is not a book written to be read.

But a book which is already read and that is why it was written…

How many scientists are Christians? (Does it matter?)

Statistics of religiousness are a hot topic.

A friend recently initiated a discussion regarding science, religion and the ‘war’ between them. One of the basic elements of the discussion was the number of scientists who are Christians and of course the actual number of christians in the world to-day. The discussion heated up, with many people invoking researches and polls where the number of scientists who are religious or atheists was documented, explained or projected, while taking into accounts multiple criteria and factors.

Yes, the number of religious scientists may be falling.

On the other hand, there could be polls claiming otherwise.

But at the end, does it matter at all?

Should Christianity care about diminishing or increasing numbers of christians?

If we take a good look we will understand that we are looking at the whole topic from the wrong angle. The problem of Christianity to-day is not that it has a dropping number of faithful going to the church. Or an increasing number of people going to the church. The problem is that Christianity (and christians) care about the number of people going to the church…

Nietzsche once said that the first and last Christian died at the cross. Whether this is true or not I do not know, however I do know that I would surely prefer to have Christianity with only one Christian who is a good and humble person, than having billions of followers who argue and debate about whether the numbers of Christians are rising or falling…

And since the discussion is abour religion and science, the same applies to science as well. I would also prefer science with only one proper scientist, open to all possibilities, self-criticizing eveything and with a free spirit, rather than millions of self-proclaimed scientists who are just parroting the same things over and over again because someone else has said them.

In every case, remember: Less is more…

Be aware and be worried when your followers increase too much.

You are doing things suspiciously right…

PS. All the above also apply for atheism and agnosticism as well.