In this view, time and space are illusions, created by us. Change results from us changing our minds about what we want which has no impact on what God established at all.

A simple example that is an ideational metaphor for this concept is the Necker Cube.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necker_Cube

This is a 2D picture that appears to be a 3D cube. Because there’s an ambiguity where the lines cross we can ask, which face is in front? We can decide to see one face or another in front, but that has no impact whatever on the picture – only our perception of it.

In reality, there is no face in front. But, our minds ‘see’ the cube as being a 3D wire frame structure – and can decide to assign one face in front of the other. When we change our minds the image ‘flips’ – this the mystics say is a metaphor for all that seems to happen in the cosmos!

A changeless universe is the field in which our minds operate in perfect union with God. We choose to see elements in this changeless universe – think of a projection as in a Gram-Schmidt process establishing a basis in a random set of vectors.

As we change our minds about what we choose to see, the universe obliges, just as the Necker cube.

The cosmos is far more complex than a Necker cube, and there are a lot more things going on in it – much of it seems outside our control. Well, when we look at a Necker cube – we see a cube and can pick which face to see in front. We can’t choose to see a sphere for example.

Alright, so this explains why things seem to happen beyond our control, even though we’re responsible for the things that happen. But, can we really produce a stationary image that has a lot going on in it? After all a Necker Cube is pretty simple, the universe is not.

Check this out;

http://vidareal.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/800px-anomalous-motion-illusion1.png

Note that it consists of waves moving across a field of points. The ambiguity here stems from whether or not we see the ‘points’ as bowls or domes. By changing how we interpret these elements, we see spacing shift and so waves shift around as our mind changes about them.

The common features are;

1) seeing 3 dimensions in a 2D object;
2) interpreting an ambiguity in the 2D source object;

Can physical reality be like this?

Well, there is an idea of a block universe – minkowski space – and even higher dimensional universes where everything that can happen is forever fixed – and our perception is merely a way of looking at a projection of this higher dimension onto a lower one.

Of course, mystics who think about this sort of thing like pointing out that Young’s double slit experiment, and a variety of delayed choice experiments, like Einstein Podolsky Rosen, involve ambiguous results based on how one looks at the experiment, suggesting that reality as we know it is merely a mental projection based on how we resolve the ambiguities.

Of course this is an over-statement, since we do not have sufficient scientific data to say how this hypothesis about human perception is true.

So why support it?

Because it seems so?

Even so, this sort of hypothesis does provide a means to provide a path for scientifically consistent explanation of religious ideas. In fact, these ideas lead to a version of reality that is complementary to scientific understanding.

Science says that you are an epiphenomenon of many interacting systems. Brought into being for a brief moment of time in an unimaginably complex and vast cosmos, only to be obliterated for ever after this moment and ultimately the cosmos itself ends after an unimaginably vast period of time.

More specifically, cosmos evolves stars and galaxies. Stars produce metals. Metals (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen) formed the Earth. Earth over a long period of time evolved living systems. Living systems evolved bodies. Bodies evolved brains. Brains produce thoughts the way hearts produce heartbeats. Thoughts collect into a psyche. Psyche creates your personality – which then looks out on the vast uncaring cosmos and makes plans about it.

This is the perception science gives us.

There is another way – the way of knowing based on who and what we are.

Science says this is either meaningless, or at best, encoded into our psyche by its structure and has no real meaning beyond that – except as it has helped us survive in the past.

Mystics say inner knowing is the basis of reality not the mundane physical world. The ‘outer world’ is uncertain and filled with noise. They see the world from the ‘opposite end’ so to speak. The mystics see science has an upside down view of the world.

Descartes said – I think therefore I am. He knew without proof that he existed. From this he could make conclusions about what he observed. This is an example of inner knowing.

Perception is based on observation of external reality and is subject to change by a nearly infinite number of factors.

Knowing is based on observation of an internal reality and is changeless.

You know you exist for example. You also might know you love someone. These forms of knowing are quite distinct from perception.

Mystics and sensitives know many things without observation OF THIS TYPE! Mystics who pretend to be scientists and know things that do not relate to the internal psychological world at all, are poor mystics (and scientists) indeed.

In fact it can be said that ALL who attempt to operate in mundane reality AS scientists or engineers, are fakers and pretenders who have little to nothing to do with the very deep understanding possible to human consciousness and are confusing things – giving import to things that true mystics properly put far outside their field of knowing.

Someone who seems to get it is Eckhart Tolle, who is a proponent for the depth of knowledge that exists inside you – well beyond the appetites we all know and simple knowings such as Descartes observation describes, an entire universe exists inside;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EpZ43Yjk-k

From the viewpoint of science this might be considered as a way of knowing quite different than looking at the world around us for information. Here we have a source of knowing within that informs and motivates the personality, and that knowing is the basis of things and a way of being without thinking about the external world. The external world becomes a source of random noise that on occasion must be taken care of.. lol – the way most deal with unconscious processes… Those who travel regularly to the inner realm say that there is a deep seated commonality to be found there that will one day unite all of us. From a scientific point of view this is similar to saying that the structure of our brains being similar gives rise to similar processes within that produce similar knowing.

The thing is, we are not *entirely* ‘the voice in the head’ – we do have another dimension – that the spiritual have arrogated to themselves – but could become a science of approached rightly.

Scientists will be quick to point to the brain structure responsible for this, and that it is nothing more than an epiphenomenon of this structure as Jill Bolte speaks of it;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU

However, this ‘explanation’ doesn’t change the internal experience of this ‘expanded’ ‘spiritual’ reality any more than a physiological explanation of orgasm changes our experience of it and our enjoyment of it or its place in our lives.

Bottom line, we can view ourselves as an epiphenomenon caught in a vast universe – based on our perception of the cosmos.

Alternatively, we can open up to the knowing inside us, and view ourselves as the unchanging source that gives meaning to all things happening ‘out there’ and allows us to feel more alive and greater being by being connected to the knowledge within.

Why is this important?

Mystics say, perception constantly changes. So, absolute commitment is not possible with perception. Without commitment there cannot be love. Without love, there can not be true creativity.

On the other hand,

Knowing is changeless, they say. With deep knowing one can commit to what is known. With commitment there can be true love without fear. All creativity comes from love and so we can express our creativity, which is the true purpose of our being alive here – the expression of our creative faculties.

Creation is the basis of ALL life. Whether its the creation of a child, a finely crafted furnishing, clothing, artwork, meal, or song – the quality of these is a reflection of the love within.

We all know these things to be true – yet we have degraded this knowledge since it IS knowledge that comes from within.

The mystics tell us that we are here now, and have always been here, and will always be here. This scares non-mystics, but being dependent on a random uncaring universe scares mystics.

What is the science behind all of this mumbo-jumbo? We are what we are – and we know what we know. Mystics say if we all open to inner knowing we will all see the same inner realities – and in that way we are already joined. This forms the basis of a scientific process every bit as valid as a science based on the mundane world – but it lacks any history that is known by science at present.

Both will agree – what is real is – without our understanding. It will be no matter what we know or believe. It is only us who suffer if we choose to ignore what is real.

The scientific method is a path to true knowledge, and even true knowing – and can be applied to the inner world as well as the outer. Freud knew this, and this knowledge has been ignored for too long.

it’s been my experience that most people who come to the point of “losing their religion” are doing just that: they’ve already had all kinds of indoctrinations and studies and church-goings.

it’s interesting that you, slippery, seem to think that it’s the other way around – that all the poor people who are atheists started out with no knowledge of religion(s) or jesus.

i hope you’ll forgive me for saying so, cause wouldn’t jesus?! but i would place a bet that most atheists/agnostics know more about your own religion (christianity) than you do.

tsk tsk. WWJD?

…you sir, are an inconsiderate, illogical, elementary, redundant, ass hat, in my humble opinion…

do you mean like this:

Enjoy your 15 minutes of fame, you fool.

quantum physics IS filled with a lot of theory and works in progress. “works in progress” being an important phrase.

anyhoo – compare the realities of nuclear fusion with the parting of the red sea and see which one wins.

fwiw, true scientific method has no country or cultural boundaries, though i would agree that monetary issues can arise and affect scientific studies.

While I personally cannot say with authority the absolute truth about God, I can say asolutely my BELIEF of the truth in God.

If you were to ask me why I believe so firmly, I could not produce any “proof” nor would I need to.

I would instead try to share the reasons for my belief which are based on my own personal perspectives. It would ultimately be your choice whether or not to follow my belief.

But for someone to ridicule me for what I believe is disrespectful to say the least, and that is even IF they had some verifiable proof of their own theory which counters mine.

They do not, yet they speak with the same authority as if they had. When challenged on this fact, they delve into namecalling, logical fallacy, and overall childishness. Sad.

I mean, if I find something to be ridiculous, as they assert, then I wouldn’t spend much time arguing the fact…

Would you? If I told you something you hold to be utterly ridiculous, would you go out of your way to “prove it wrong” or would you simply ignore it and go about your business? hmmm…

Recognizing the difference between these two statements might focus the dialogue.