One Government, One Official Language, One Official Religion. Is It Possible?

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

The only Truth we know for sure is science.

That's a problem, though - science itself is merely a tool for exploring the physical universe, but the ideas shaped from that exploration continually change and contradict over time.

Additionally, in only being able to explore the physical universe, it is not able to explain those concepts that go beyond direct observation (in fact, science cannot explain all controlled observations either).

Even the most basic questions of our existence are still unexplainable by science - for example, you see yourself as conscious and typing the above posts, yet consciousness itself, its origins and expressions, are still unexplained. If science cannot answer such profound questions, there is always going to be philosophical systems that will need to try and bridge that gap.

2c.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

That's a problem, though - science itself is merely a tool for exploring the physical universe, but the ideas shaped from that exploration continually change and contradict over time.

Additionally, in only being able to explore the physical universe, it is not able to explain those concepts that go beyond direct observation (in fact, science cannot explain all controlled observations either).

Even the most basic questions of our existence are still unexplainable by science - for example, you see yourself as conscious and typing the above posts, yet consciousness itself, its origins and expressions, are still unexplained. If science cannot answer such profound questions, there is always going to be philosophical systems that will need to try and bridge that gap.

2c.

Excellent point...(did I think/say/type that?)

[Faustus]

I was reading a book and came across a quote that made me think of this thread, so I thought I'd post it here (pay close attention to the last paragraph):

About two years before he died in 2002, [Stephen Jay Gould] sent me a copy of Rocks of Ages, his intriguing book that was designed to resolve the conflict between science and religion. His approach was to separate the two completely, in what he called "nonoverlapping magisteria." The great observations of science would define the natural world, and the overall teaching (margisterium) of religion would define the spiritual world, and they should not intrude on each other. For me, this was an acceptable approach. There is no place for religion in the science classroom, but it will not end the commitment of some devout Christians to reject all aspects of Charles Darwin's explanation of evolution or any geological discoveries that indicate an earth that is more than six thousand years old. Neither did Gould's approach match my own personal belief that God created the universe and that new scientific discoveries, when proven, must be accepted even if they are not compatible with some of the biblical descriptions of creation and the centrality and configuration of the earth and heavens. There will always be people who insist on one aspect of knowledge to the exclusion of the other and are plagued with the realization that religion and science cannot prove each other. This doesn't bother me. We are all born with free will, to accept or reject whatever we choose. At the same time, we have no right to deprive other people of the freedom to study and accept or reject propositions that are put forward as truths.

I found that a decidedly balanced view, and one that reflects many of my thoughts on the issue of science vs. religion. Some deists may choose to reject science because it doesn't mesh with their interpretation of the Bible. I am not one of them. Most of the people I know who are religious don't fall into that category, either. The same goes for the author of the book I'm reading- President Jimmy Carter (a man who, BTW, is a devout Baptist and still teaches Sunday school every week back in Plains, Georgia).

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The question is less, perhaps "Will it happen?" as much as "Is it desirable?"

Humanity is an extraordinary diverse species in terms of our cultures. The concept of "One government, one language, one religion" could be construed as effectively requiring the eradication of all differences.

Sometimes perhaps it is our diversity that is our strength...

Perhaps better to ask for something smaller yet similarly big - "One understanding" - a place where we can all meet as equals, regardless of our differences?

2c.

I am going back to another old thread of yours. Every culture on the planet shares fundamental, family, clan, and national values that were imprinted in our DNA during speciific Ages of human evolution. (IF this were not so, we would be faced with civilizing an ape with every new born) We all share in the family ethic of meticulous sharing; the extended-family values of an agricultural, chore-based work ethic, community commitment and the courage to face a lion; in the National values of religious respect for Religuious Scripture, the Divine appointment of our monarchs, and the ethic of conscientious crafstmanship. Our international problems began with the on-going evolutionary imperatives that aroused our intellectual curiosity to the next level, and we began to question everything. This pseudo-intellectual syndrome re-occures in every teen age psyche (rebelliously so, if the former foundation ethics are not firmly re-established during up-bringing). In this new Nuclear Age, the concept of an egalitarian global society, all working together to steward the home planet as a single family estate, is not an idealistic pipe-dream, I see it as an evolutionary imperative. It is our next logical step in the ladder of human maturation. The current immature contentious divisions in religious beliefs and political systems of human management will all disappear as soon as we let go of them and face the common challenges that lie ahead of us. Our populations impacting ever more severely on the existing environment will force us to let go of the Old Age. (The parable of the prodigasl son is appropo here. We will stop gambling with nuclear guns and return to our family estate.) Having one central mind and one central heart, all engaged in a global-wide effort to get this planet running smoothly, will not in anyway rob us of our individuality. On the contrary, the removal of all the petty arguments and artificial limitations and that we currently impose on ourselves, will liberat the individual genius and allow it to soar to super-natural heights. Communism tried to achieve this utopian vision- the big mistake was the removal of spiritual belief - ending in corruption and social collapse.

[truthseeker]

Excellent point, MagnetMan.

But is putting down the guns possible? During peacetime anywhere, the US has the highest numbers in homocide (or so I understand). There is a height to paranoia and fear that would make it almost impossible to convince nations to put away their defense mechanisms. I think that even the majority of people worldwide are routing for peace, but there is another agenda that must come to pass - Isn't there?

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

Excellent point, MagnetMan.

But is putting down the guns possible? During peacetime anywhere, the US has the highest numbers in homocide (or so I understand). There is a height to paranoia and fear that would make it almost impossible to convince nations to put away their defense mechanisms. I think that even the majority of people worldwide are routing for peace, but there is another agenda that must come to pass - Isn't there?

Quite right. There is no quick fix. The main answer lies in education. We have to take a dual brain approach that exercises both the intuitive as well as the analytical halves of the human psyche. We have to do away with the one-sided educational system presently in place and rear a new generation of kids that are ethically self-policed. Luckily Nobel Prize scientists like Roger Sperry have already done a lot of work on dual brain potentials over the last fifty years. A more peaceful world can be achieved by a new educational policy inside a decade - that is if some nut does not start a global war before then. In the meantime, all you and I can do is encourage others to make the effort and do some right brain exercises and see the results for themselves. Studies have proved that meditation. yoga, tai chi etc. all improve IQ and evoke deeper feelings of spirituallity. This in turn evokes an imprinted sense of community commitment. One's conscience is pricked and forces one to reach out beyond the self. If each of us can convince two people to follow suit, a Nuclear Age chain reaction of thirty such exchanges can evoke 6 billion souls down the road to world peace.

[brucegdc]

Ok folks - COOL IT! Flames, personal attacks and proseletyzing are not permitted here. We do require a modicum of respect for each other and each other's beliefs. If this continues, the thread will be closed &/or edited to remove the problematic posts - and probably with a heavy hand

As a suggestion, when you're about to write "you are/believe X", pause - that's likely to be something that is inflammatory. Stick to what you believe/are and don't tell others what they are/believe - as the public schools over here say "stick to 'I' phrases" :-)

Re-reading the Code of Conduct occasionally is also a *good* thing.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussions.

[Kaldayen]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

Believing in a big green monster under your house is not rational and can never be proven. Saying the universe is God cannot be proven either, but it makes sense.

It makes sense... in your point of view. How is saying "universe is God" more rational than anyone else's beliefs?
___
Kal

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by Kaldayen

It makes sense... in your point of view. How is saying "universe is God" more rational than anyone else's beliefs?
___
Kal

A more better word to use is omniverse (because the universe may in fact be a multiverse, or go even further). God is usually described as omnipresent. The Omniverse is omnipresent whether it be a multiverse or universe. We all know there is an infinite, although we don't what it is. We know universe (or beyond) exists, because this is proven.

The universe being God isn't necessarily the best definition. The absolute highest point we can imagine and more is God. Right now we only know the universe. We don't know whether the universe has deities like Zeus, Yahweh, or Odin. I'm not saying they don't exist but chances are it is highly unlikely (with thousands of religions claiming truth, more logical explanations for religions, ect.).

[Quahom1]

This thread is getting out of hand, rather quickly. We do not run a "slug fest" here at CR. I suggest everyone cool off for a bit.

v/r

Quahom

[MagnetMan]

In this new Nuclear Age, the concept of an egalitarian global society, all working together to steward the home planet as a single family estate, is not an idealistic pipe-dream, I see it as an evolutionary imperative. It is our next logical step in the ladder of human maturation. The current immature contentious divisions in religious beliefs and political systems of human management will all disappear as soon as we let go of them and face the common challenges that lie ahead of us. Our populations impacting ever more severely on the existing environment will force us to let go of the Old Age. (The parable of the prodigasl son is appropo here. We will stop gambling with nuclear guns and return to our family estate.) Having one central mind and one central heart, all engaged in a global-wide effort to get this planet running smoothly, will not in anyway rob us of our individuality. On the contrary, the removal of all the petty arguments and artificial limitations and that we currently impose on ourselves, will liberat the individual genius and allow it to soar to super-natural heights. Communism tried to achieve this utopian vision- the big mistake was the removal of spiritual belief - ending in corruption and social collapse.

I posted this before, hoping for some input.

[Silverbackman]

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

I posted this before, hoping for some input.

The problem with communism is that it had one way at looking at the world. I viewed interest or profit and anything against the collective good as dangerous.

I don't view a one world government as idealistic pipe-dream utopia. In fact I am almost positive things will not be perfect utopia. In my opinion it is just a major step that we must take. Just like our step to global republicanism.

Federative republics are also a step as well. The United States is perfect example. No more than 250 years ago the idea of the original 13 colonies becoming one nation was a pipe-dream as well. Many people thought the cultures were too different and the size was too great. Only about 150 years ago did our country truly become a true nation considering how much power states rights had.

[brucegdc]

You may notice a large number of posts are now missing. Personal attacks are not allowed anywhere on these boards. Keep it civil, please.

[MagnetMan]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

The problem with communism is that it had one way at looking at the world. I viewed interest or profit and anything against the collective good as dangerous.

Marx was extremely perceptive as regards the intrinsic immorality of capitalism (which can only exist by channeling profits into centralized points, no matter what collateral damage it might do to others or the environment in the process) That is the central reason why more than half the world did, and still does, accept communism's basic moral premise - even though they are now realizing that if you want beat the devil you have to use hellfire to fight hellfire - and are in there giving is a hell of a run for our money. And because they have already experienced the end game, they are bound to win all the marbles and end up banishing artifcial fiscal policies forever and ever Amen.

I have already posted elsewhere that where Marx failed in his reasonoimng, was in calling religion an opiate - which it is - but an absolutely necessary one, that is if you wish to keep society away from the temptations of temporal power and corruption.

[quopte] I don't view a one world government as idealistic pipe-dream utopia. In fact I am almost positive things will not be perfect utopia. In my opinion it is just a major step that we must take. Just like our step to global republicanism.]/quote]

I am not sure if you are saying aye or nay here. I are you saying that graduating from contentious international confrontations into global egalitarianism it is indeed our next logical evolutionary step, I agree completely.

Federative republics are also a step as well. The United States is perfect example. No more than 250 years ago the idea of the original 13 colonies becoming one nation was a pipe-dream as well. Many people thought the cultures were too different and the size was too great. Only about 150 years ago did our country truly become a true nation considering how much power states rights had.

The move from autocarcies to republics initiated a mass change of consciousness. Letting go of our Iron Age indoctrinated Belief of the Divine appointment of our Kings was an enormous step that galavanized the whole world into a New Age of internationalism. (All hail Thomas Paine!) In America we gradually stopped calling each other wops and kikes and the like (still more gradually - niggers) and enjoyed an entirely new sense of the essential equality of the collective self.

We are now on the verge of yet another mass change of consciousness - into a Nuclear Age of globalism - (our 5th logical evolutionary step) We no longer need rich men to travel to Washington to represent our regional votes. The internet and satelite communication put each one of us in charge of our collective destiny. Republicism is becoming increasingly passe and a mature sense of democratic freedom is arising. (Hurray for the end of lobbyism and toadyism!)

Current international wars over the merits of capitalism and communism will morph together into an entirely new global philosophy. The artificial idea of ownership (political and private boundaries and the atronomical expense required to maintain and police that status qou) must eventually collpase under its own weight. Our prisons are bursting at the seams. The civil laws and bureaucracies required to oversee our current system has already bankrupted our state treasury)

As exponential population growth impacts ever more severely on the global enviroment, resistence movements (using terrorist tactics) will become ever more insistant in their demands for parity. All of this will eventually force us to see the sheer impotency of all existing international systems of government (including the United Nations) to deal with future shock.

As the 21st Century progresses, all current pseudo-intellectual arguments over politics and religion will finally, by a process of attrition if nothing else, be put to rest..Amen

The basic morality of Custodianship must eventually emerge as our guiding global philosophy. I fully believe that we will very soon transcend Mickey Mouse Corporate goals, and the teenage idolization of individuals, and engage in an era of responsible parenthood and planet management with every last one of us employed in the vast engineering challenges it poses,