Well, I guess so, but you’re in a very remote location, yet you’ve still got a connection, how good is that?

Regarding the ‘laws of the Universe ‘ - important to recognise that science has no explanation for why there are such laws, or why the universe is lawful. But a lot of people seem to think that science can take credit for them, which is like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise. ‘The whole modern conception of the world is founded on the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are the explanations of natural phenomena’ ~ Wittgenstein.

//and I’m not saying that as a preamble to saying that ‘God did it’, only to highlight how superficial our knowledge might be.//

like a rooster taking credit for the sunrise — Wayfarer

:rofl: :up: :clap:

highlight how superficial our knowledge might be. — Wayfarer

:up:

I want to run something by you if you don't mind. I've always been fascinated by science and math, not so much by religion except maybe Buddhism and the fringes of faith proper viz. esotericism and mysticism. What kind of a mindset does that reveal? The obvious conclusion seems that, to people who share a similar outlook, science, math, esotericism, and mysticism are connected in some way or another but then there are many mathematicians and scientists who think nothing of mystics and vice versa.

//and I’m not saying that as a preamble to saying that ‘God did it’, only to highlight how superficial our knowledge might be.// — Wayfarer

I don’t see how anyone could doubt that, and that this ignorance extends to all human endeavors, including the sacred ones.

I don’t see how anyone could doubt that, and that this ignorance extends to all human endeavors, including the sacred ones. — praxis

No, I don't agree with that. I've come to accept that there is such a thing as religious revelation. When Buddha said that he 'saw through the house-builder', I don't think that is either mythical or mythological but a statement of fact. I'm not a cultural relativist when it comes down to it.

The obvious conclusion seems that, to people who share a similar outlook, science, math, esotericism, and mysticism are connected in some way or another but then there are many mathematicians and scientists who think nothing of mystics and vice versa. — TheMadFool

Had gnosticism been more accomodated in Western religion, what 'religion' means today might be something completely different. The main stream of Western religion was detemindely 'pistic' in orientation - where 'pistis' means defined in terms of belief, of ortho-doxa, right worship. As distinct from gnostic, which is defined in terms of insight. Which is not to say the ancient gnostics were all benign or rays of sunshine.

There is a kind of 'religious underground' in Western thought - Descartes secretly a Rosicrucian, Newton with interests in alchemy and occult, Hegel an hermetic. But that kind of material borders on conspiracy-theory territory so I've never gone that far into it - but i know it's there. You might find some of the books of Gary Lachman interesting.

Regarding the ‘laws of the Universe ‘ - important to recognise that science has no explanation for why there are such laws, or why the universe is lawful. — Wayfarer

I know that we should better agree to disagree. But I am a curious person. I try to understand or provoke different arguments and have always failed to fathom the essence of the perceived need for explanation. Not that I don't feel it. I do. But I think that it may not be what it appears to the person themselves. That I just need permanence and am grasping at air for immutable objective.Explanation for science means to simplify and harmonize, not to assume that something is foundational. Atoms are not more fundamental to chairs and stones, but they offer terms of understanding of the complex interactions that sometimes occur, such as burning and chemistry, without making every encounter with those phenomena a case by case study.

Obviously, the goal of the explanation for a theist is something else. I am critical of the idea, because I fear that is rather antropocentric, meaning that it is not a search for explanation in the same sense as physics (to simplify and harmonize), but loaded with preconceived expectation for personal satisfaction, for peace of mind. And if I have to be honest, expecting a peace of mind is something towards which I am very critical when it comes to philosophy. I may be opinionated for saying so, but I severely oppose the idea that knowledge should bring the person's mind rest. Awareness of the hidden complexity and adversity, yes, but rest, I cannot say.

I defend the plausibility of intuitive/innate belief, because science uses the same. But I cannot understand what we mean by "explanation". Let's suppose that we find a deity in some sense, but it is not humanistic - like the ultimate triangle or square or something such, and that is our deity. And suppose that we explain everything, but without giving purpose to life. We make everything fit together, but in an undignified inhumane way. Would that offer adequate answer, having your perspective?

P.S.: Obviously, the question is, about the nature of the explanation expected. Whether a triangle or square can actually explain the universe is not the subject of discussion, but we need to understand what we think an explanation should answer as a question, and why we think that it should.

Why do people need crutches, dram and/or drugs? Same reason they need "religious beliefs and ideas": because thinking hurts a lot more than just making shit up.

There is a kind of 'religious underground' in Western thought - Descartes secretly a Rosicrucian, Newton with interests in alchemy and occult, Hegel an hermetic. — Wayfarer

:up: You brought back memories of my fairly recent and very superficial encounter with 15th, 16th natural philosophers (scientists) and mathematicians who had delved into the occult. I dislike the word "occult" though, wish there was a better word without the negative connotations the word has acquired over its history. I suppose it's got to do with our rather unhealthy and thus unwise fascination with the unknown - both the occult and natural philosophy, not to mention mathematics, were uncharted territories, at least in Europe, back then. Yet, I can't shake off the feeling that there's, not to toot my own horn, a hidden and deep relationship between these subjects. Look at how it all panned out - the nexus between math and science in the modern world is as clear as crystal and the occult, at least alchemy, has transformed into chemistry, chemistry itself built upon a bedrock of rigorous math. A penny for your thoughts...

meaning that it is not a search for explanation in the same sense as physics (to simplify and harmonize), — simeonz

In light of the current state of physics, that is quite an ironic statement. Physical theories produce many practical consequences, not least of which the one you’re looking at right now, but saying that modern physics has ‘simplified and harmonised’ is almost hilarious, considering.

I mean, the idea of the atom used to be a very simple idea. The atom was uncuttable - that’s literally what the word means. Atom=1, void = 0. Nothing could be simpler. Now ‘the atom’ is ‘the standard model’, also known as ‘the particle zoo’. Of course it is a brilliant discovery but it also has many loose ends, many of which terminate in insoluble conundrums or point out towards what Plato would term aporia, unanswerable questions.

We are today well-adapted barbarians, that is all. We’ve managed through technical ingenuity to squeeze many resources out of our long-suffering planet, but for how long?

I dislike the word "occult" — TheMadFool

Try googling ‘dark matter occult’.

Try googling ‘dark matter occult’. — Wayfarer

Yeah, science and even math, in certain respects, seems to have come full circle. Both had origins in occult practices (grain of salt recommended), along the way, they discarded this filial association, and now, they're back into doing business in the gray zone between science as we know it and, for lack of a better word, religion. The child has returned home.

Physical theories produce many practical consequences, not least of which the one you’re looking at right now, but saying that modern physics has ‘simplified and harmonised’ is almost hilarious, considering. — Wayfarer

By simplified, I mean that distinct in appearance phenomena were consequently accounted for by interrelated causes, which reduced the number of cases that had to be dealt with conceptually (even if not so much practically). By harmonized, I meant that theories were unified, that is, explanations were reconciled.

You criticized science, but I was inquiring about something else. You said that 'science has no explanation why there are such laws'. What do you mean by "why". This question has various interpretations, some of which are empiricist. Empiricism does answer this question empirically, which is not expected to exceed a certain scope of relational material investigations. It may not be able to provide a foundational ethical framework for humanity, but it doesn't attempt to either. Apparently this is not enough for you, theologically speaking. What do you mean by 'why'? Could you elaborate what an answer to such a question should provide, to be considered meaningful, and what are your reasons to expect that the answer exists and thus the question is well posed?

Edit: That is, empiricism explains facts through constrained relations to facts, which I understand to be your concern here. If you want explanation for facts independent of any facts, how do you define the quality of such explanation and why you insist on its existence? For example, we can claim that there is a certain fact that needs no explanation, and call it deity. First, aside from the use of new nomenclature, what does such a hypothesis provide qualitatively? What does it describe? Is there some use for it, does it have any implications, does it foster new ethical considerations? In itself, saying that a fact is found without the need for explanation means nothing more.

You said that 'science has no explanation why there are such laws'. What do you mean by "why" — simeonz

Very simple. Science has discovered fundamental principles from which we benefit - no question. But it doesn’t say why f=ma. Nor does it need to. You want to lob a missile or a shell, that’s what you need to know (obviously elaborated considerably.)

The origin of modern science was to concentrate on a particular type of causal explanation - what Aristotle would call material and efficient causation. What cause gives rise to what effect? But the two other kinds of causes were left out. They are the ‘why is this thing the way it is?’ And ‘what purpose does this thing serve?’ That was all rejected as part of Aristotle’s ‘teleological physics’. So now you have a universe in which things act for no reason. They act because other things act on them, according to the laws of physics. But why it is this way is outside the picture. I have put this in very simple terms, but it is nevertheless the case.

You can see this as a result of interacting historical factors unfolding over many generations. But the vision it culminates in, is one of a universe comprising dumb matter obeying physical forces. They are the only ‘principles’ which scientific materialism understands. And that is fine, as far as mechanics goes, but it leaves out the greater sense of ‘reason’ which animates the philosophical tradition of Western culture.

Could you elaborate what an answer to such a question should provide, to be considered meaningful, and what are your reasons to expect that the answer exists and thus the question is well posed? — simeonz

That we are here for a reason. It’s not ‘a reason’ as in what, if you’re an actor, is given to you as a script. It may not be obvious or even meaningful to some other person. But there’s a reason why the universe gave rise to beings such as us, and even you in particular, and a large part of philosophy is in discerning that and responding to it. This is what the East calls your ‘Dharma’.

That we are here for a reason. It’s not ‘a reason’ as in what, if you’re an actor, is given to you as a script. It may not be obvious or even meaningful to some other person. But there’s a reason why the universe gave rise to beings such as us, and even you in particular, and a large part of philosophy is in discerning that and responding to it. This is what the East calls your ‘Dharma’. — Wayfarer

Don't get me wrong. I relate to your suggestion as a feeling, but I believe that we are making projection of our ethical considerations into the world.

I am not just attacking you, but what 'reason' means for me, abstractly speaking, when I am trying to be detached from emotion and bias as much as possible, appears to be just a relationship that people explore while pursuing their goals. We have developed ethical considerations when evaluating the cause and effect connection in our surroundings, because we act as a community and protect our social fabric. We need to have ethical considerations, because we are pursuing ethical goals. But when we try to project them into the greater structure of the world, wouldn't that then appear to be, as such, a cognitive bias. Wouldn't that be merely trying to achieve intellectual consistency?

What do you mean by 'reason'? Is it something ethically immersed? What is your abstract definition of reason, or do you consider it a notion that need not be explained?

We know life is 'self-organising' - right? That principle is what is called homeostasis or autopoesis (after Maturana).

But from the perspective of Christian philosophy, perhaps that 'principle of self-organisation' is what has been 'bestowed' by 'the Creator'. That is what it means to say that beings 'borrow' their being from God. Hence, the freedom of will that is an essential part of the theistic model. All sentient beings are, as it were, recapitulations of being, within their capacity. In man, this capacity can come to full realisation, which is what Eastern religions call 'realisation'.

what 'reason' means for me, abstractly speaking, when I am trying to be detached from emotion and bias as much as possible, appears to be just a relationship that people explore while pursuing their goals. ...What do you mean by 'reason'? Is it something ethically immersed? What is your abstract definition of reason, or do you consider it a notion that need not be explained? — simeonz

I am harking back to the pre-modern vision of reason as 'animating principle', not simply a subjective or internal faculty. Reason, in Greek philosophy, was the underlying principle of the universe, which the human, as the rational animal, is able to discern by virtue of the faculty of reason (or nous, which is a key term.)

So, in a sense, you can't 'explain' reason, because reason is 'that which explains'. The mistake of modern philosophy is to reduce reason to a Darwinian faculty. Reason, in modern philosophy, has become 'instrumentalised' - it only has value insofar as it serves ends, and those ends are determined by survival. 'Whatever works', as moderns like to say. This is the subject of Max Horkheimer's book, The Eclipse of Reason. But it subordinates reason to survival, and so, sells it short, it undermines reason. That is the sense in which modern philosophy is fundamentally irrational.

The origin of modern science was to concentrate on a particular type of causal explanation - what Aristotle would call material and efficient causation. What cause gives rise to what effect? But the two other kinds of causes were left out. — Wayfarer

:up: :clap: It's true that science, in its present form, seems to be only half the story if we look at it from an Aristotelian perspective on causality.

As I remember, Aristotle on causes and how science has dealt with them:

1. Material cause. Check
2. Efficient cause: Check
3. Formal cause: Check but only descriptively
4. Final cause: Ignored

It must be then that were Aristotle alive, science would be exactly half the picture in his eyes. The way I see it, Aristotle's take on causality seems to provide, intended or not, a good place to start the reunification process of science and religion given, as it appears to me, the first two causes as listed above is what current science is about and the last two causes seem to have a religious dimension.

It must be then that were Aristotle alive, science would be exactly half the picture in his eyes. — TheMadFool

Splendid, sir. Exactly what it would mean.

Splendid, sir. Exactly what it would mean. — Wayfarer

I'm in your debt. G'day

But from the perspective of Christian philosophy, perhaps that 'principle of self-organisation' is what has been 'bestowed' by 'the Creator'. That is what it means to say that beings 'borrow' their being from God. Hence, the freedom of will that is an essential part of the theistic model. All sentient beings are, as it were, recapitulations of being, within their capacity. In man, this capacity can come to full realisation, which is what Eastern religions call 'realisation'. — Wayfarer

I have to be honest. If I start to respond with inquiries on that paragraph, I will first ask what "freedom" is and how is it different from having your agency in the world physically present. I understand that there are physical laws that govern human beings, but that does not change the fact that they are separable as state. That is, what is the difference between having a mind of your own, and a physical state of your own. Do we need anything else that we get from transcendence - non-determinism, sense of investment, sense of involvement. Also, why is a deity needed, such that we can justify the existence of external factors, other then through intuition. I think that I am too skeptical, and I know that we differ in opinion in this regard.

So, in a sense, you can't 'explain' reason, because reason is 'that which explains'. The mistake of modern philosophy is to reduce reason to a Darwinian faculty. Reason, in modern philosophy, has become 'instrumentalised' - it only has value insofar as it serves ends, and those ends are determined by survival. — Wayfarer

If reason is how things are, then why look for it beyond the things themselves? I don't oppose the idea that the world is divine, as in beyond our personal agency, but why look beyond it? We have to have some, apparently presently unmet, criteria for "ultimate reason", or otherwise we wouldn't be talking about this. Can you elaborate on what such "ultimate reason" would provide for us - fairness, peace, vindication of effort?

Can you elaborate on what such "ultimate reason" would provide for us - fairness, peace, vindication of effort? — simeonz

Those would be a great starting point. I’m commenting more on the widespread idea that science ‘knows’ or ‘proves’ or ‘shows’ that the Universe is purposeless. It almost amounts to folk wisdom nowadays, but it has no basis in philosophy.

What you are saying does make sense. I do believe that on a general people are similar. It does appear that most developing societies have developed some kind of spiritual beliefs, such as exemplified in religious beliefs of the Aboriginal people.Perhaps, this does show that there is some kind of innate need for some religious or spiritual belief system. It is also interesting to see how there are parallels and recurrence of themes in the various traditions of beliefs.

One relevant area for considering is the idea within Frazer's book, ' The Golden Bough', is the development from systems of magic, religion and science. It appears that we have reached all these stages of thinking. Perhaps science has more to offer. However, as long as human civilisation continues to exist, which is contentious in it's own right, we could ask, where do we go from here, what comes next in the evolution of consciousness?

I do think that myths can resonate on an archetypal level. However, I do see the danger you speak of about how charismatic leaders can use mythic constructs for their own ends. It is extremely dangerous when myths or religious ideas become 'the opium for the masses'. In that sense, it is extremely important that we hold on to our ability to think for ourselves. Of course, it is easy to retreat into forms of religious thinking to obliterate painful awareness. I prefer to think that rather than being brainwashed we can enter into our own symbolic quests, the journey of the shaman. Of course, that does come with perils but it is about discovering our own mythic truths.

I think this describes one of the pitfalls of modern culture well - it caters to these lower needs in a cycle of neverending non-satisfaction. — Pantagruel

Absolutely and I do not believe this was so before changing education and then removing legal motives to be better human beings, such as divorce laws that discouraged divorce and censorship policies and speaking of the duties that go with rights.

Last night I listened to a show about prisoners and how unjust our justice system is. At one time I thought I would be a probation officer so I studied our prisons and visited prisoners and wrote those further away. I was impressed by the youth and the fact that they were not prepared for life. One clearer said he looked forward to the rehabilitation that he thought our criminal justice was. One of the Netherland countries has an excellent rehabilitation system, so it is possible. Some of our prisons do educate prisoners and this key. In one prison the prisoners have a class and access to the classics and learning the concepts in the classics has been transformational.

My favorite word is "concept". We can only be as good as we know how to be and we should not take that for granted! We used to use the Conceptual Method for education that teaches children progressively more complex concepts, and we used literature to help them understand life.

But the whole idea of stoicism is that one consciously trains oneself to learn to master and control exactly what constitutes satisfaction of these lower motivations. — Pantagruel

Yes and no. I love your explanation and with it, it is a yes! But you are speaking of complex concepts and we need to know the simpler concepts that go with the complex concept, as you did by explaining D and B.

When Jefferson wrote of the pursuit of happiness, he meant the pursuit of knowledge with the unquestioned concept that knowledge keeps us out of trouble and leads to fulfilling our higher-order desires. This goes with literacy in Greek and Roman classics and Cicero. And having self-control, as William James, explained, gives us freedom! Freedom! from being controlled by our lower urges that can make us as puppets on strings, and prevent us from actualizing ourselves as thinking human beings. Undeveloped people are not the masters of their lives that we become. Some may find happiness as you said, but many do not.

Why do people need crutches, dram and/or drugs? Same reason they need "religious beliefs and ideas": because thinking hurts a lot more than just making shit up. — 180 Proof

That thought does not lead to freedom and it does not support liberty and leads to authoritarianism. It leads to suffering, not happiness.

I prefer to think that rather than being brainwashed we can enter into our own symbolic quests, the journey of the shaman. Of course, that does come with perils but it is about discovering our own mythic truths. — Jack Cummins

We can pursue spirituality without religion, I agree, but the reason I was asking about the value of myths is because I believe that the value is in reenforcing social truths, and social truths are necessarily social, so what role would they play in a individual pursuit? Perhaps it’s like art, where we can both discover and express ‘truths’ with others?

I don’t see how anyone could doubt that, and that this ignorance extends to all human endeavors, including the sacred ones.
— praxis

No, I don't agree with that. — Wayfarer

Of course you don’t, human knowledge is superficial, except for the human knowledge that we subscribe to. :lol:

Yeah, science and even math, in certain respects, seems to have come full circle. Both had origins in occult practices (grain of salt recommended), along the way, they discarded this filial association, and now, they're back into doing business in the gray zone between science as we know it and, for lack of a better word, religion. The child has returned home. — TheMadFool

I think we assume science and technology are the same thing. They are not. Human beings have always had technology but we did not always have science. Learning a technology does not improve our understanding of life and does not lead to wisdom as science greatly improves our understanding of life, moral judgment, and makes democracy as rule by reason possible. Technology does not lead to wisdom as science does. Education for technology has always been the education of slaves. It is not the education of men.

We can pursue spirituality without religion, I agree, but the reason I was asking about the value of myths is because I believe that the value is in reenforcing social truths, and social truths are necessarily social, so what role would they play in a individual pursuit? Perhaps it’s like art, where we can both discover and express ‘truths’ with others? — praxis

Democracy with liberty and justice for all.

Which social truths are you thinking about? The reason I ask about that is because there are ones which are just about conformity. I definitely believe in communicating with others, and you say it's a bit like art, but I see art and the arts as one of highest forms of communication.

↪Gregory
Nor is there any mention of the word 'soul'. I did an MA thesis on this topic, if you like I'll PM you a hyperlink. Your thinking is muddled. — Wayfarer

Trinity of the soul. The first part of that trinity dies when our bodies die. We are judged and may or may not enter the good life (heaven) and the third part of the soul trinity returns to the source, no matter what.

Spirit, how we feel. Our spirit can be up or down, angry or peaceful. The Spirit of America is a high morale, the feeling we get when we believe we are doing the right thing.

It may be that philosophy can make use of blending as a concept for putting ideas together, rather than being just about refuting arguments. — Jack Cummins

If that is not the result of philosophy it is not worth doing. :grin: What you said speaks of complex concepts, and truth often is this and that. I hate arguing with an argumentive person who treats the act of communication as a war to win rather than the path to enlightenment. Being put on the defensive is a sure way to end developing thought.

//and I’m not saying that as a preamble to saying that ‘God did it’, only to highlight how superficial our knowledge might be.// — Wayfarer

How do you justify that statement? It seems a little sour and dour to me? I really don't think my love of discovery and science is superficial, but rather what makes being alive so much fun. How much fun would the game of life be if we knew everything and there was nothing left to discover? I mean like, you just pissed in the wonderful hamburger and now no one wants to eat it. :vomit:

It isn't just about facts, but every much about our spirit.