Previous posts in this discussion:
PostLife Force, Sentience, and Sin; Ric Mauricio Responds to Tor Guimaraes (John Eipper, USA, 08/27/18 3:47 am)
Ric Mauricio responds to Tor Guimaraes (21 August):
Oh, no, no, Tor. You cannot just close this discussion. It is way too thought-provoking. I have read Tor's book and I can say that many of his concepts are logical (oh, my Spock ears are tingling).
Here is my take and I do understand that religionists may find my take quite heretical. (I believe this is the stance of the Roman Catholic Church and yes, I was a Catholic during the reign of John XXIII.) Years ago, when studying atomic structures, my mind started a thought process that begot (got that word from the Bible) my view of the philosophical/religious world. I noticed that the electrons circled around the nucleus, much like the planets circle around the sun. So my next questions was why the electrons just don't go flying off and away from the nucleus. And since the atoms make up the substance of everything, from solar systems to the cells in our bodies, if the electrons flew off, our solar system and our bodies (in fact, everything that exists) would just explode into chaos, the atoms deconstructing and flying off. So what is keeping this from happening? What is that life force that holds it all together?
Atheists would call it science. Religionists would call it God. Oh, they may both be right, and it just a difference of semantics. Since this life force holds every human being together, can we not say then that every human being is representative of that life force, or God, as the religionists would say? After all, Genesis does say that we are made in the image of God.
The big difference, of course, is sentience. Atheists would argue that this life force has no sentience. By the way, when I speak to atheists, I point out the life force idea. It often gets them thinking. Religionists would argue that this life force does have sentience. Now one can argue that prayer works or does not work. Could it be that indeed prayer connects us telepathically to another sentient being (a human being) who then assists in our time of need, and thus our prayers are answered?
But what about those that suffer at the hands of others? Unfortunately, the definition of sentience doesn't necessarily say that sentience is a good thing. One person's feeling could be joy at witnessing another person's suffering. Not an enlightened feeling to be sure, but sentience nonetheless.
Of course, this personal view of the universe and God's place in this thinking is not new. It is called pantheism and put forth by Baruch Spinoza. Most religions reject this view because it makes God impersonal. I see their point. It is indeed quite challenging to have been brought up in teachings from your early childhood to your adulthood to seek a different mind path. It is difficult for me to reject Jesus as a God who came to save us. As I study Jesus' teachings, I am more aware that he was attempting to enlighten us, not unlike Siddhartha. Jesus was moving us away from sin. But what is sin? Sin in Spanish means "without." To me "sin" literally means "without enlightenment."
Follow the WAIS of enlightenment.
JE comments: Ah, you are very WAIS, Ric! The ultimate question connected to your electron quandary: why is there is, and not is not? (Bill Clinton will forgive me.)
Whenever I think of sin, I am reminded of the late Jaime Cardinal Sin of the Philippines. Names like this you cannot make up.