I though that the Quaker idea of God was the “inner light” that God is the cumulative goodness of all people. This can be thought to include or exclude the supernatural, depending on if you consider human society and relationships to be natural or supernatural.

So in the end I can’t see a difference between non-theist Quakers and theist Quakers.

I do not think the Bible is “the literal word of God” but I respect it as it was created by the goodness (inner light) of people trying to improve their own society, thus in the Quaker definition it written by “God.” I also see it as a strong force for good in the world.

Does this make me theist or non-theist? I believe in the goodness of other people and I believe that to be God.

Can you say a little more about the book “Science Without Bounds” in terms of its connection to what I’m talking about here? I’m curious.

james

Nice to meet you at the FGC Gathering. Are you familiar with the book “Science Without Bounds”? It is available free on the internet and easily found with a search. I found the book quite interesting in a number of ways one of which was about the physics of it all. Seems related to what you are discussing.

Your phrase above–”the world ‘outside’ is merely a subset of ‘me’”–sounds to me like ordinary, singular solipsism. If it isn’t, can you clarify?

I think the theory that thoughts can affect the world other than through the physical body is possible, but unproven. There have been thousands of attempts to prove it, but no repeatable successes. My intuition is that there might be some very weak, unreliable forces, akin to sound or light or radio waves, that emanate from the brain and could potentially affect the exterior world.

But even this would be physical/natural, and probably isn’t what you’re talking about.

Mathematically, you can map anything inside a circle to the outside and vice versa. So inside/outside is almost a fake dichotomy–the difference being that, if I understand you rightly, you would consider it impossible for our thoughts and feelings to influence events in the shared physical world except by muscle power (including using muscles to send information as in speaking or typing) or other mechanical means. Long ago, I believed the same.

If we are to follow the spirit of science, rather than the ideology of “science,” then we can try different viewpoints as working hypotheses–and see how that changes what we experience. I did that. There proved to be more going on than my former model could account for. You can try the same, or just keep telling me I must be mistaken; that’s up to you.

While I think mystical experiences can potential broaden one’s perspective, my view is that they are likely just another sort of illusion from the ones we operate under in our normal lives.

Your objection–that I haven’t really transcended my mind, or something like that–is something I would not only confess, but insist upon. Not just for me, but for everyone, all the time. As I said, the self is the central illusion that makes us human–I can’t get around that, ever, even for a minute. But it matters greatly to remind ourselves when we can that self only exists, only has meaning, in relationship with not-self. It’s no miracle, no magic, but it is a genuine shift of perspective in a simple, human, possible sense.

I believe you’re telling the truth, Forrest, but I think you misinterpret your own experience. You make massive assumptions about the ultimate nature of reality based on tricks of the mind. That is not a reliable process.

And your suggestion that the world outside is merely a subset of you sounds merely solipsistic. A more realistic way of viewing this would be, everything you know of the world outside, comes through your senses and your consciousness. All of which are deeply flawed, just like everyone else’s.

Anyway. There are different ways to portray all this, in which the world “outside” is merely a subset of “me”.

Where you talk about seeing your self “in the perspective of the larger world,” I object that only a mind can see a perspective, so that your “larger world” is not in fact larger but really a mere subset of the various perspectives available to you. Is there a reason to avail yourself of another? Yes, if you do you will find that the mystical perspective is in fact more accurate.

But why believe me?

As I recently said elsewhere: The part of religion I see worth preserving is about approaching life in a spirit of love and reverence, about understanding the natural, literal fact that we are nothing in isolation, become ourselves only in relationship with each other and the world, about honoring the powerful mystery of the simple fact that we exist and think and feel, without trying to manufacture reasons or explanations for that mystery.