A New Creation

[Naturalist]

How do you as a physicist define energy?
Do you limit the term to 'the ability to do work'?

I'm not a physicist, though I've studied a lot of physics.

I wouldn't limit the term to the ability to do work, though that is the most common usage.

Matter is energy, but matter doesn't have the ability to do work.

 

[Ahanu]

No, the original sense of the word, and the metaphysical sense, is the primary sense. It's the first listing in a dictionary.

If the original sense is not how the word miracle is primarily used today, then it is no longer relevant. It has undergone a semantic shift.

The secondary sense, a wonder of nature, as in 'all life is a miracle'.

The ternary and more recent sense, of a misunderstood or unknown natural action, is the least of the three.

This third does not actually 'undo' the idea of miracles, simply states that what was often viewed as miraculous was actually unseen nature.

The third and second sense do if they become the primary way people begin to use the word miracle, because there will be no one left to believe in the idea, and it is just that - an idea! To list just one of many examples: China's economic reform is often referred to as the Chinese economic miracle. Today people are more likely to use "miracle" for extraordinary events with plausible scientific explanations, like medical breakthroughs or unexpected recoveries, or perhaps some positive event in life.

Of course, this semantic shift isn't occurring uniformly throughout all populations on the globe. Secular societies, urban places with a lot of diversity, and so on are more likely to discard the primary sense of the word miracle, whereas religious communities and more conservative rural areas are more likely to still engage with the primary sense of the word miracle.

My approach is more descriptive than prescriptive. It's about how people are currently using the word, not about how people should use the word (e.g., in its original sense).

 

[Ahanu]

If the original sense is not how the word miracle is primarily used today, then it is no longer relevant. It has undergone a semantic shift.



The third and second sense do if they become the primary way people begin to use the word miracle, because there will be no one left to believe in the idea, and it is just that - an idea! To list just one of many examples: China's economic reform is often referred to as the Chinese economic miracle. Today people are more likely to use "miracle" for extraordinary events with plausible scientific explanations, like medical breakthroughs or unexpected recoveries, or perhaps some positive event in life.

Of course, this semantic shift isn't occurring uniformly throughout all populations on the globe. Secular societies, urban places with a lot of diversity, and so on are more likely to discard the primary sense of the word miracle, whereas religious communities and more conservative rural areas are more likely to still engage with the primary sense of the word miracle.

One way a new creation occurs is through a change in perception.

 

[Thomas]

If the original sense is not how the word miracle is primarily used today, then it is no longer relevant. It has undergone a semantic shift.

D'you think so? Got evidence for that?

I'm not so sure. I would have though that if you ask a broad spectrum of the population what they think a miracle is, they'll give you the primary dictionary definition of the term, regardless of whether they believe in them or not.

 

[Thomas]

One way a new creation occurs is through a change in perception.

Our culture has seen a few – they say the photograph of earthrise over the moon from the window of the Apollo spacecraft had a profound effect on shifting our (western) perceptions ... Quantum Theory has superseded the Newtonian paradigm.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

One way a new creation occurs is through a change in perception.

The alterations of our perception to include the Oneness of Humanity would be a giant leap towards a new creation.

Regards Tony

 

[Thomas]

The alterations of our perception to include the Oneness of Humanity would be a giant leap towards a new creation.

Do you not think that concept already exists?

I agree that acting like it would be a vast improvement!

However, if that entails everyone thinking and believing the same way, then I would see that as retrogressive - as contrary to nature.

Like a choir with only one voice type, a song on one note ...

My desire is for unity in diversity

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Do you not think that concept already exists?

I agree that acting like it would be a vast improvement!

However, if that entails everyone thinking and believing the same way, then I would see that as retrogressive - as contrary to nature.

Like a choir with only one voice type, a song on one note ...

My desire is for unity in diversity

Unity in Diversity is a listed Baha'i Principle.

"In reality all are members of one human family -- children of one Heavenly Father. Humanity may be likened unto the vari-colored flowers of one garden. There is unity in diversity. Each sets off and enhances the other's beauty." ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Divine Philosophy, p. 25-26

"For the bedrock of the Bahá’í administrative order is the principle of unity in diversity, which has been so strongly and so repeatedly emphasized in the writings of the Cause." Shoghi Effendi, The Compilation of Compilations vol II, p. 90

Regards Tony

 

[Ahanu]

Unity in Diversity is a listed Baha'i Principle.

"In reality all are members of one human family -- children of one Heavenly Father. Humanity may be likened unto the vari-colored flowers of one garden. There is unity in diversity. Each sets off and enhances the other's beauty." ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Divine Philosophy, p. 25-26

"For the bedrock of the Bahá’í administrative order is the principle of unity in diversity, which has been so strongly and so repeatedly emphasized in the writings of the Cause." Shoghi Effendi, The Compilation of Compilations vol II, p. 90

Regards Tony

Okay. But you did not answer the question @Thomas asked. Do you think that the concept existed before the appearance of the Baha'i Faith and Babi Faith?

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Do you not think that concept already exists?

Okay. But you did not answer the question @Thomas asked. Do you think that the concept existed before the appearance of the Baha'i Faith and Babi Faith?

I see the concept existed since the first message given by God, yet is full potential was not yet enabled. There were far to many barriers for Oneness to shine with its full potential. Barriers of race, gender, nations and religion.

The Holy Books promise, in one way or another, of a time when that Oneness would shine.

Jesus offered this in John 16

"....12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”..."

I understand some say this happened at Pentecost.

To me, that offers that many concepts given from God, still needed to be shown unto us.

It is an interesting result when you search Oneness of humanity on the Net, using many keyword variations in the search.

Regards Tony

 

[Ahanu]

D'you think so? Got evidence for that?

I'm not so sure. I would have though that if you ask a broad spectrum of the population what they think a miracle is, they'll give you the primary dictionary definition of the term, regardless of whether they believe in them or not.

Let's not conflate "the primary dictionary definition of the term" with the primary usage of the term today. The primary way people use a word should be considered more relevant than its historical definition.

Consider the word nice, which originally meant "silly," "ignorant," or "foolish" in the 13th century. It gradually shifted towards a positive meaning of being kind or polite.

I would assume that if you observed a broad spectrum of the population's use of the term "miracle," the primary dictionary definition would not reflect how it's commonly used since dictionary definitions might remain static and do not reflect the gradual semantic shift unfolding over time rather than all at once.

Google Trends does reveal search volumes for non-religious phrases like "medical miracle," "miracle cure," and "economic miracle" are higher than religious phrases like "Christian miracle" or "religious miracle." These non-religious phrases emphasize positive, unexpected outcomes rather than divine intervention.

This trend is likely driven by social changes like secularization, scientific advancements, and the interest in science in popular culture. Similarly, one theory of a semantic shift in the meaning of the word nice says a gradual change from harshness to politeness came from society becoming more refined.

 

[Thomas]

My approach is more descriptive than prescriptive. It's about how people are currently using the word, not about how people should use the word (e.g., in its original sense).

OK. But then that discussion bears little relevance on the original argument.

Languages shifts and changes all the time – 'Sick' is in common use today, and in certain circles means its opposite! Vut that doesn't mean nobody gets sick any more.

 

[Thomas]

Really, I think this is a rabbit-hole ...

We could be having a similar discussion about the 'religion'.

 

[Ahanu]

Languages shifts and changes all the time – 'Sick' is in common use today, and in certain circles means its opposite! Vut that doesn't mean nobody gets sick any more.

Logical error: False analogy.

Sick can mean "awesome" in certain subcultures, but the literal meaning of "unwell" is still the primary definition in most contexts. The historical meaning of miracle (a divine intervention defying natural laws), however, is weakening - and it is weakening quickly in secular contexts. The same is not true for the historical meaning of sick. The word miracle is used more and more for remarkable achievements or unexpected occurrences. This semantic shift is broader and more fundamental than the usage of "sick" to mean awesome or cool. The ironic usage of sick is usually used in a humorous or playful context, whereas the shift in meaning for miracle reflects a broader cultural change as a result of secularism.

OK. But then that discussion bears little relevance on the original argument.

How so?

 

[Thomas]

Logical error: False analogy.

Mea culpa.

How so?

Because I'm arguing the term in its traditional context.

The secular world disbelieves a lot of things I believe in ... that does not make them necessarily right, nor does it somehow invalidate my argument.

 

[Ahanu]

Because I'm arguing the term in its traditional context.

A term in its traditional context can lose its relevance in a modern context. This broadening of meaning can cause the traditional meaning to fade away.

Take the word lunatic, for example. It was once used to describe people displaying erratic behavior believed to be influenced by the phases of the moon. Should we discard modernity's take on the word and stick with the traditional context? In the modern world we both know good and well - regardless of whether or not we agree with secularism or not - that our mental health has nothing to do with the phases of the moon.

There are many examples of how traditional meanings can become outdated or inappropriate in new contexts.

 

[Thomas]

A term in its traditional context can lose its relevance in a modern context.

I think we're a long way off losing the original and primary context:

"According to recent surveys 72% of people in the USA and 59% of people in the UK believe that miracles take place. Why do so many people believe in miracles in the present age of advanced science and technology? Let us briefly consider three possible answers to this question."

(This abstract by Yujin Nagasawa, Professor of Philosophy and Co-Director of the John Hick Centre for Philosophy of Religion at the University of Birmingham. President of the British Society for the Philosophy of Religion. Philosophy of Religion Editor of Philosophy Compass and a member of the editorial board of Religious Studies, the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and the European Journal for Philosophy of Religion. He is also the author of Miracles: A Very Short Introduction, OUP, 2017.)

"The first possible answer is simply that miracles actually do take place all the time...

"The second possible answer is that belief in miracles is a projection of wishful thinking.

"The third answer is that belief in miracles has cognitive and developmental origins.

"The third answer, which appeals to the cognitive and developmental origins of belief in miracles, seems to be most compelling. It is important to note, however, that this answer does not imply that miracles can never take place ... even if psychologists can explain that there are cognitive and developmental origins of miracle beliefs, whether miracles can actually take place is a separate question. (emphasis mine)

On the face of it, believing in miracles seems to be incompatible with modern life. It seems unlikely, however, that they will disappear any time soon as they have deep cognitive roots in human psychology."

+++

A survey from the Pew Forum on Religion (Feb. 2010) showed that a vast majority of Americans, nearly 80%, believe in miracles. The results are from a wider study, "Religion Among the Millennials."

+++

According to an item on BBC News, Three in five British adults say miracles are possible (30 September 2018)

 

[Ahanu]

I think we're a long way off losing the original and primary context:

"According to recent surveys 72% of people in the USA and 59% of people in the UK believe that miracles take place. Why do so many people believe in miracles in the present age of advanced science and technology? Let us briefly consider three possible answers to this question."

(This abstract by Yujin Nagasawa, Professor of Philosophy and Co-Director of the John Hick Centre for Philosophy of Religion at the University of Birmingham. President of the British Society for the Philosophy of Religion. Philosophy of Religion Editor of Philosophy Compass and a member of the editorial board of Religious Studies, the International Journal for Philosophy of Religion and the European Journal for Philosophy of Religion. He is also the author of Miracles: A Very Short Introduction, OUP, 2017.)

"The first possible answer is simply that miracles actually do take place all the time...

"The second possible answer is that belief in miracles is a projection of wishful thinking.

"The third answer is that belief in miracles has cognitive and developmental origins.

"The third answer, which appeals to the cognitive and developmental origins of belief in miracles, seems to be most compelling. It is important to note, however, that this answer does not imply that miracles can never take place ... even if psychologists can explain that there are cognitive and developmental origins of miracle beliefs, whether miracles can actually take place is a separate question. (emphasis mine)

On the face of it, believing in miracles seems to be incompatible with modern life. It seems unlikely, however, that they will disappear any time soon as they have deep cognitive roots in human psychology."

+++

A survey from the Pew Forum on Religion (Feb. 2010) showed that a vast majority of Americans, nearly 80%, believe in miracles. The results are from a wider study, "Religion Among the Millennials."

+++

According to an item on BBC News, Three in five British adults say miracles are possible (30 September 2018)

Logical error: Cherry picking.

You concluded that two countries (the UK and the US) somehow show that "we're a long way off losing the original and primary context" rather than in the midst of the term's gradual semantic shift.

Consider other regions of Europe, where you'll find much lower percentages:

 

[Ahanu]

59% of people in the UK believe that miracles take place.

Not far from half. Imagine finding a percentage like that in Jesus' day.

 

[Thomas]

Well now we're comparing belief v disbelief, but that still points to a revelance of the term, doesn't it?

You have to understand the primary meaning of miracle to express an opinion about it.

I wonder what percentage believed in miracles in Jesus' day? Clearly not everyone ...

But all this is a rabbit-hole with regard to the OP.