An Invitation to TPM for Another Discussion of Faith
http://www.templesanjose.org/JudaismInfo/faq/Qetoret.pdf
http://web.ccsu.edu/astronomy/tibetan_cosmological_models.htm
http://bahai-library.com/unpubl.articles/sufi.bahai.cosmology.html
I wanted to begin with these three links that deal with western and eastern cosmological models. They are strictly primers and have zero scientific relevance. I am posting them first and foremost for the sheer joy in contemplating such diverse and profound ideas. I believe they represent a poetry composed of symbol and serve a psychological purpose, in much the same manner that a reading of Dante's Divine Comedy can deliver.
I will try and not incorporate too much of the political into this post, although the purpose behind it is political in nature. This weekend's post by Stillidealistic was a claryon call for those of who who hold liberal and progressive political values to reclaim their religion and faith from the reactionaries who use religion as an authoritarian tool of control and prejudice. That thread descended into farce because certain individuals used the reactionary purpose of religion to paint the entirety of religion as something to be destroyed for the good of humanity.
I hold that the church of reason is dangerous too. The reason is simple: science is effective, but science is inductive and has an evolving nature. Newtonian physics has given way to Einstein, although the first must be understood before delving into the other. And... quite frankly very few people understand either, but that doesn't stop them from resting on their authority. They also don't understand that Einstein's general and special theories of relativity were controversial in their time. The reason was that Einstein reached his conclusions through mathematics and thought experiment in which he contemplated the outcome of his hypotheses on abstract extensions of mind. The tools had to be developed after the fact to prove his theories, and the proof took decades of hard and ongoing work. In other words, Einstein thought outside the box and relied on reason and intuition to derive conclusions where proof was not immediately observable.
So, initially, Einstein's theories were a cosmology (and when it comes to his stated goal of a unified field theory, remains a cosmology) rooted in mathematics in much the same manner that Lebiniz' theory of monads was derived from his application of infinitessimal calculus.
What informed Einstein's theories? Mystical pantheism:
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm
In other words, Einstein reached his conclusions not just through hard math but a mystical appreciation of the universe that viewed the cosmos as an interconnected whole. While metaphysics without proof is no rational explanation, the metaphysics supplied the belief that aided Einstein in his scientific inquiry. Einstein found philosophical kinship in Baruch Spinoza, whose ideas challenged Einstein into a greater appreciation of the cosmos. I provide the first link because the strain of mystical Judaism (chadism) is very much present in both Spinoza and Einstein.
I believe that we are cutting off our nose to spite our face if we eschew faith and intuition as simply irrational. I do agree that believing in the unproveable isn't rational. That doesn't make the irrational an inherently bad thing. What makes irrationality a bad thing is to cling to an irrational belief in spite of sound evidence to the contrary. Thus, geocentric flat earth became irrational, outmoded, and dangerous when church authorities held to it and destroyed lives over the belief in spite of the evidence. What makes it worse is that there is nothing in the Bible outside of a command for the sun to stand still that provides backing for the assertion. In fact, a huge body of work existed thanks to Arab studies and mapmaking that put the lie to flat earth several centuries beforehand. A belief can not make a true thing untrue. But a belief can help discover the true, and in my opinion is essential to novel discoveries.
I would also like to add the psychological element to myth and cosmology:
http://www.sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/emerald.htm
When you discuss myth, it is impolite, ignorant, and rude to write it off as superstition. Myths serve a psychological purpose that is undeniable. The history of alchemy reveals, not only a pre-enlightenment approach to chemistry, but a systematic psychology rooted in self-determination and cognitive development. Their belief stemmed from the axiom, "As above, so below," which indicated that the behavior of base elements reflected the behavior of the human animal and the study of both would reveal the evolving nature of the soul. Thus, base dross elements such as evil and temptation could be removed through finding the symbolic correlation behind one's acts and chemical processes.
Much psychological theory reflects these original alchemical ideas. One need only look at Erickson's tension of opposites or Maslow's pyramid or Jung's collective archetypes to see ideas that were discussed and written about as early as the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
In conclusion, I want to defend faith, not only because I am a man of faith, but because faith is essential to human nature. Faith can be the cause of tremendous suffering. Hitler's faith in eugenics and antisemitic conspiracy theory fueled his violent monomania. The faith in the forgiveness of sin led to mass participation in the Holy Crusades. And, in my opinion, the faith in reason uber alles has led to unreasonable acts using spare and awful logical constructs. Bybee's torture memos are a case in point. The cold rationale of organ failure/death being the criterion for torture allowed a reasonable front for human rights abuses. The idea that "if it makes sense on paper, then it can be defended" has led to such acts as cost/benefit analytics which allow health insurers to deny converage because the cost of insuring is greater than the benefit of a potentially saved life. Plus, we are given the added and fun benefit of empathy being derided as a criterion for the dispensation of justice.
I am not saying that any of these things are remotely reasonable. They are irrational and dangerous acts using reason as a fig leaf. What others smarter than I have called the banality of evil. But... BUT... were we as a nation not so wedded to the belief in the divine power of reason, we would not be so easily suckered into clouding our judgment. We would instead (I hope), view reason and critical thinking as faculties to be developed along with other faculties like maturity into an individual (alchemically, perhaps)... we wouldn't belief off the cuff that we are inherently rational because we are part of a rational nation. And the religion of nationalism is a discussion for another day.
Thank you for reading this, and I hope to have a polite and enjoyable discussion!
Myth may often reflect history, so is worth unpacking, as in Noah's Flood likely being the filling of the Black Sea, ca 5600 B.C., from the Mediterranean. Noah's story matches well with Gilgamesh.
Intuition can of course be unconscious processes, not immaterial. What is repeatable can be studied in a certain way, and can yield sound predictive theory. That something can't be repeated reliably doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it does mean we can't draw firm conclusions about it.
BTW, neither Newton's nor Einstein's theories were controversial among those with expertise. Einstein's General relativity was confirmed quite thoroughly four years after it was published, not bad with a World War and having to wait for an eclipse.
The best argument against reason as a reason is that the purely rational calculation does not really exist. There are axioms or assumptions underlying political and moral choices that are beyond analysis. Why should our families live instead of those of another country? Only because we want it. Given that, we can employ reason where a mechanism is known, as in how to manage the electrical grid. But when the system is not understood, as in economics, we employ faith in free markets or in social control.
We should never be afraid of reason but never give it pride of place regarding purpose. That is always based on simple feeling or faith.
June 8, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your erudite reply. As far as controversy, there was and is still controversy regarding some aspects of general relativity... naked or concealed singularities for instance are still an area with heated discussions, and until Hawking radiation was discovered black holes were believed to have disproven thermodynamics.
"The best argument against reason as a reason is that the purely rational calculation does not really exist. There are axioms or assumptions underlying political and moral choices that are beyond analysis"
Yes... yes, and a big fat YES. Stanislaw Lem addresses this in his novel Fiasco. His supercomputer is able to calculate on a tremendous level but is unable to offer a solution to a problem that isn't human in nature. So the computer offers no aid in the understanding of an entirely foreign intelligence.
"We should never be afraid of reason but never give it pride of place regarding purpose. That is always based on simple feeling or faith."
Which is why a faith informed with a loving purpose and grand design is an aid to culture and science. It doesn't have to be rooted in God, either. Albert Camus handles atheist spirituality quite ably by holding to a faith in essential human dignity.
June 8, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Singularities were not immediately apparent as a problem, and even Newton had thought about objects with enough gravity to hold light inside.
There are remaining holdouts that want to exceed lightspeed and so on, but the earlier philosophical underpinnings of the general theory include Ernst Mach who asked deep questions about relative motion, and Minkowski, who had begun considering time a dimension. Curved spaces were familiar to mathematicians like Riemann.
There is a fondness for stories of the struggling iconoclast, as in Beethoven supposedly shocking audiences, ditto Stravinsky. Usually the fact is that one aspect or two might have felt some resistance, but nobody comes out of nowhere, artistically, scientifically, politically, or spiritually. And the iconoclast was only that in a very narrow sense. Beethoven was very popular early on, as was Stravinsky. Einstein had wowed the scientific communtiy with four important papers in one year, 1905, all of which were accepted thoroughly, barring wackos. He won his Nobel for the one on Brownian Motion, as I recall.
The thing to remember is that no theory ever answers "Why is there anything?", except perhaps with "Why not?"
June 8, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
He wan the Nobel for his explanation of photoelectric effect... but your point certainly stands.
I for one don't believe in the out of nowhere genius, although there is the occasional idiosyncratic outsider (John Kennedy Toole, Henry Darger) that seemed to have hatched from their own unique chrysalis.
I will, however, cede the point on controversy.
June 8, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know if you caught it Zip, but Josh Marshall rec'd your post...You should be proud!
June 9, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Myth may often reflect history, so is worth unpacking, as in Noah's Flood likely being the filling of the Black Sea, ca 5600 B.C., from the Mediterranean. Noah's story matches well with Gilgamesh."
There is also Cousteau's research into the cataclysm that destroyed the Minoan civilization as evidence behind the myth of the flood and Atlantis. I also like the flood myths as parables of pride as the truth that discovery can often exceed a culture's ability to assimilate it peacefully.
June 8, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to go be a professor somewhere, Zip. Your analysis is brilliant and your thoughts very well developed. I have not read this yet because it is going to take more time then I can devote to it just now, but I will be back in the evening, West Coast time. I am seriously intrigued.
June 8, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come for the discussion, my friend, but stay for the links. I wanted to post some material from Aryeh Kaplan, but I would need to transcribe it directly from his books... his material is under lock and key on the intertubes.
I look forward to anything you would add to the discussion.
June 8, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Zip you always write with such clarity. And without typos. And You put me to shame in that manner. But I continue anyway:
"Newtonian physics has given way to Einstein, although the first must be understood before delving into the other. And... quite frankly very few people understand either, but that doesn't stop them from resting on their authority"
Aint that the truth. Like the concept of the ubermench who must become adept at the old ways before making the leap. Which is Einstein of course.
The line, that imaginary one dimensional geometric concept as the 'shortest' distance between two points. And Einstein simply imagines that the 'shortest' distance might take into consideration curved space.
I get a kick out of Christopher Hitchens. I admit it. One of those characters from early 19th century British lore, an old sot with brilliance and sometimes even clarity of thought. Fun to listen to or read.
So many religious figures have become paradies of themselves. Bowing their heads in what I perceive as fake prayer. WHO THE HELL DO THEY THINK THEY ARE TALKING TO ANYWAY? Not just when they ask that Supreme Court Justices be taken by our Lord and Savior in order to make more room for fascist bastards or when they decry new taxes upon off shore corporations.
But when they pretend to 'see' an old lady with money in Cleveland about charity--contributions for the religious channels. Ha!!
I did my blog on Bishop Sheen and still enjoy a man born in Ohio with an Irish brogue who gives such fine speeches and who has written fine books.
I cannot spit upon the religious as a group. I would be spitting upon great abolitionists who ignited a Civil War that we needed to ignite. Or I would be abasing figures like Martin Luther King.
I cannot bring myself to do this.
I choose hope over despair or I would have ended it some time ago.
But I have no illusions about any importance to be given to the human race. I am not even so sure that there is a 'race' of Vulcans traveling space at 100 times the speed of light somewhere in some foreign galaxy.
I see us more as ants with some great architectural skills, ha.
I shall ruminate further and come back after others have had their say.
I can only state that I cannot bring myself to despise those who have loftier dreams of the human being than I do.
June 8, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate your humble vision of man in the universe. We need a dose of humility really badly. So much human misery comes from our artificially lofty sense of our place in the universe. I would think that the scope of the cosmos given to use by telescope and microscope would deflate our egos, but nah... much better to believe in an apocalypse where the suburban fish Christians get wafted away in the nude to the gated community in the sky. A Jerusalem with playgrounds for noisy toddlers.
June 8, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Belief in anything always includes faith, whether or not the believer can see it.
Why does society sanction certain acts that are considered immoral? Because of our collective faith in the goodness of human nature. We don't have proof that humans are good by nature. We have faith that we are.
Why do we continue space exploration (or why was there initially exploration of the earth)? Because we have faith that whatever we discover will be cool. Or in less flip terms, will bring us greater understanding of ourselves and our universe. We have faith that greater understanding is good.
You're right, Zip, that great ideas start with faith in a theory. But there is another side to the coin. Belief and faith can also lead to dogma, which is where the dark side of religion comes in.
I find it interesting (and sad) that so many people would limit themselves to such a strict definition of faith, and also then to allow it to turn into such certainty.
June 8, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am also equally saddened by those who have such a crystallised view of faith as being wholly negative.
That is why I said in Stilli's blog that faith is like fire... the Promethean gift of uncertainty can create the worst kind of human trait which is unflinching certainty (dogma).
You have managed to distill a very complicated discussion into a simple and wise observation.
I always hold to what I was taught in my Theory of Knowledge course:
Knoweldge is justified true belief. Something is always a belief before it is justified as true. Therefore, the kernel of all knowledge is theory.
June 8, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm interested in what leads to dogma. What is it about our nature that leads so many people to rigid conclusions and beliefs. I'm pretty sure nobody gets away free on this one, although there is certainly a range. Is it education? Fear and insecurity? Our constant need to sort and categorize everything?
I agree with you that "a crystallized view of faith as being wholly negative" is equally sad. Dogma is, after all, the refusal to make even the tiniest room for the possibility that you are wrong.
Where there are things that we do not know, we always have to decide which theory makes sense and then leave room to change our minds if another theory makes more sense at a later date.
June 8, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are a few ideas about the where and why of dogma. There is the coherent theory of knowledge, where someone accepts a few baseline ideas about the world and their place in it and reject all facts that do not "cohere" to those values.
There is also the external locus of control, where someone perceives events as occurring outside of their power and is thus prone to simple accepting ideas from authority out of reflex and then justifying it later if they are confronted.
There is also the "simple answer" theory, which is sorta kinda my own... where people who are conditioned to hold superficial values and are uncomfortable with analysing life outside of what satisfies those values will accept the simple answer even if it flies in the face of reason. The kind of individual who can analyse the statistics of a baseball slugger over the course of their career but just accepts 6000 year creation because that's what they got in church and it doesn't effect their values. Of course this doesn't explain reactionary dogma... which to me is largely built on a mythic golden age that is being corrupted by new and untested values. How consumer culture and the west is destroying Islam, or how gays are destroying families...
June 8, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your theory gets at the underlying motivation of dogma where the coherent theory of knowledge and/or the external locus of control might be the process by which it develops.
But it has to be more than rejecting what feels uncomfortable. Because that argument can be made against all of us. I reject ideas all the time because I'm uncomfortable with them. But I don't view myself as dogmatic, because I also accept new ideas all the time.
June 8, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, too, learned that definition of "knowledge". (Great class (Knowledge and Reality), by the way!)
The trouble, as I recall, with the definition is the "Justification" part.
How can one "KNOW" their Justification to be true.
One example: Time of Day
Belief: You BELIEVE it's 1:30PM Eastern Time
True: By some "Cosmic Coincidence" it IS 1:30PM Eastern time
Justification: You point to the clock on the wall...
What you don't know is that the clock was unplugged exactly 12 hours ago.
You believe it, it's true, and you justify it... But your justification is flawed... So, do you really know it?
Ad Infinitum
June 9, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You spend an awful lot of effort to try to justify the assumption that your invisible friend really exists, instead of accepting the basic assumption that that for which there is no proof is absent and spending your efforts working from that premise.
Furthermore, you are argumenting a logical fallacy if you hold that earlier people's tendency to explain the unexplained in spiritual terms and still managing to make advancements is proof in favour of religion.
It seems to be completely pointless to have a "discussion" about faith or religion. The belief is as deeply rooted as any other psychosis.
Consider this: if I told you I have an 8-foot-tall golden man standing next to me, giving me advice and granting favours, but that you could not perceive him in any way (unless you also believed), how would you expect me to prove it? From your justifications it logically follows that you must give this claim validity equal to your belief system or explain why it does not enjoy the same benefit.
June 8, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You spend an awful lot of effort to try to justify the assumption that your invisible friend really exists, instead of accepting the basic assumption that that for which there is no proof is absent and spending your efforts working from that premise."
Why should I? Seriously.
There is no proof of the need for individual liberty. I accept this need and seek to prove it through my actions and observations. In other words, you can accept un proveable assertion... it is possible. Try it sometime...
I happen to think that accepting what is proveable is a recipe for orthodoxy.
"Furthermore, you are argumenting a logical fallacy if you hold that earlier people's tendency to explain the unexplained in spiritual terms and still managing to make advancements is proof in favour of religion"
Not proof in favor of, sir, merely proof of its inherent existence in human thought.
"It seems to be completely pointless to have a "discussion" about faith or religion. The belief is as deeply rooted as any other psychosis."
And I think calling it a psychosis is a wholecloth condemnation of humanity and betrays a fundamental lack of awareness on how cognition works, especially on abstract planes.
"Consider this: if I told you I have an 8-foot-tall golden man standing next to me, giving me advice and granting favours, but that you could not perceive him in any way (unless you also believed), how would you expect me to prove it? From your justifications it logically follows that you must give this claim validity equal to your belief system or explain why it does not enjoy the same benefit."
How can you expect to prove a political theory that is untested?
Besides, I am not saying that I believe in an 8 foot tall golden man.
June 8, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems you have a somewhat more judgmental definition of the term "psychosis." I hope you are not trying to claim to understand the full range of human cognition because, well, no-one does, but broadly a concrete belief in something unperceivable and unprovable is called a delusion. Until you can satisfactorily explain why your delusion is not one, or in some other way differs from other people's delusions, it fits the criteria.
Did you really just misuse the the term "theory" that badly? What is commonly termed "political theory" has nothing to do with a scientific theory and even less with the topic at hand.How, exactly, do you plan to prove your theory of some supernatural being existing? What do you expect to gain from the proof? Are there any practical applications for the information? Do you think your proof will be reproducible?
You might as well be. I do not really care what you believe in, until you can give me the same evidence you would expect from me to believe in the Golden Man. That is my point.June 8, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You are confusing belief with an agreement."
Agreement: an expression of assent by two or more parties to the same object.
If the object in question is a belief, then would it not be a participatory delusion?
"It seems you have a somewhat more judgmental definition of the term "psychosis." I hope you are not trying to claim to understand the full range of human cognition because, well, no-one does, but broadly a concrete belief in something unperceivable and unprovable is called a delusion. Until you can satisfactorily explain why your delusion is not one, or in some other way differs from other people's delusions, it fits the criteria."
There is a whole world of difference between psychosis and delusion. Psychosis involves an impaired contact with reality. A delusion about the existence in God in no way impairs contact with reality unless other factors are present. Pyschosis is severe. You can call me deluded. That's cool. That doesn't ruffle my feathers.
"Did you really just misuse the the term "theory" that badly? What is commonly termed "political theory" has nothing to do with a scientific theory and even less with the topic at hand. "
I would agree that a political theory is a system of rules involving a particular conception of how things should be accomplished. I would also state that a political theory involves conjecture that is rooted in certain assumptions about human behavior. When Karl Marx stated that the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles, he made an intuitive judgment based on beliefs about class... class being a kind of 8 foot golden man.
"You might as well be. I do not really care what you believe in, until you can give me the same evidence you would expect from me to believe in the Golden Man. That is my point"
The fact that you make zero distinction between theology, myth, and schizophrenia is enough for me to know that your criterion is as simple as it is narrow. We can agree to disagree.
June 8, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, and that is the difference. Parties can agree on something for different reasons. Your definition, but yes, a delusion about the existence of a supernatural being can absolutely "impair contact with reality." It may, for example, cause someone to blindly think that a book written and compiled millennia ago is literal word of god and unconditionally base their decisions on it. Arguably any such religious faith would be detrimental, but there are certainly degrees of severity.
You can keep strawmanning, but I only invited you to explain what makes your belief different from a delusion. I am not, if you will, passing judgment on the matter (I know, I am so magnanimous), predicated on you -- or anyone, obviously -- being able to offer a satisfactory explanation for this.
Shall we use the term "model" rather than "theory" here? A political model may be affected by such assumptions, which in turn may be observable or simply articles of faith. Um, no. The concept of classes within a society most certainly is not an article of faith. I assume you meant the whole concept of "class struggle," which could be called a model or a theory, but even so it is rooted in certain actual data points and offers a degree of predictability (and falsifiability), be that it may the analysis based on those points is not really correct (in my opinion.) Complete misrepresentation of what I said. I never discussed myths (which do not fall under the topic of religion), I never mentioned schizophrenia, nor did I talk about theology except in terms of it being premised on something unprovable.You keep sidestepping. We can agree that you cannot answer, but I ask again:
How is your belief different from a delusion? How, exactly, do you plan to prove your theory of some supernatural being existing? What do you expect to gain from the proof? Are there any practical applications for the information? Do you think your proof will be reproducible?
June 8, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"How is your belief different from a delusion? How, exactly, do you plan to prove your theory of some supernatural being existing? What do you expect to gain from the proof? Are there any practical applications for the information? Do you think your proof will be reproducible?"
1. There isn't a difference between my belief and a delusion.
2. I don't plan to prove my theory.
3. I don't expect to gain anything from the proof because I don't plan on it. Smarter individuals than I have fallen into that ontological trap. Doesn't interest me.
4. No, because I don't plan on providing proof.
I'm not side-stepping any longer. I have no problem admitting to delusion and I have no problem admitting that I do not intend to prove what can not be proven.
June 8, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
However:
Delusion implies that one is resistant to proof contrary to the delusion.
So, for the purpose of edification:
Prove the lack of God.
Given the absence of proof in either direction, you can not test the validity of my delusion.
June 8, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I was wondering if you would get to that (a better definition of 'delusion'). Karl was clearly misusing the term up above. Delusion is the condition of illusion despite evidence normally sufficient to dispel the illusion. If God is an unknowable, not just an unknown, there can be no sufficient evidence. Believing that your team will win the football game when you're behind 51-0 in the last two minutes, that could qualify as a delusion, but being behind by 21-0 and then winning, while rare, is rationally arguable in some cases.
What the good scientist must do, in my view, is to have faith in her abilities, but not have faith that a hypothesis will be confirmed. Faith as a ground of action is different from faith in particular outcomes. The latter tends to lead to prejudiced scientific results (or strictly speaking, non-scientific results where scientific results were the nominal goal). It can blind one to other explanations, for instance.
June 8, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, eds, I was slow-playing. I am well aware of the meaning of delusion. I wanted to offer a handshake and take it away.
I offered to play chess against an atheist once with the bet being that if I won, he would admit that God exists, and if he won I would say that God doesn't exist. He refused the wager because it is absurd and I was the better player... I used to kid him that he knew that God was on my side, otherwise he would be the better player.
But all in all, I wanted to underline the absurdity of both of our respective positions. No matter how the game would have played, it would have had no impact on the existence or lack of existence of God.
June 8, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Foul
Extraordinary claims and all...
If you're going to make a claim, you have to back it up. One does not have to prove the Non-Existence of something... one does have to prove it's existence.
June 9, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Foul back:
One does not have to prove the unproveable, because the impossibility of proof is inherently proven.
June 9, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Foul 2:
Apply your same criterion to any ethical statement. Understand that your criterion does not apply to that which exists beyond the boundaries of epistemology.
June 9, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I can think of were Bush's claims (to keep the political nature of this board alive) of Iraq's WMD's...
It was up to everybody to prove Saddam DIDN'T have them.
Wrong.
If Bush was to make the claim that Saddam had the weapons, then it's up to Bush to prove it.
:)
June 9, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a chasm betweem the materially verifiable (in which the burden is to prove a thing exists), and the materially unverifiable (the existence of goodness, the existence of God, the difference between beauty and ugly).
I am making a claim that transcends material verification. There is literally no basis for proof. None. Since the impossibility of proof exists, and the impossibility of refutation exists, both demands are equally futile.
Plus, you are ignorning Karl Popper and his use of falsifiability.
June 9, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
So... people believe what they want to believe
...and this belief alone is enough to make it true.
Sorry, but I don't buy it.
I suppose it's true enough that (as far as I know) the entire universe exists inside my head... but I'm not sure that's what you're talking about... and I don't wanna jump tracks here.
June 9, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
So when I say, "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," you do or do not buy it? Honest question. If you do, prove it. If you don't, then refute it.
This is how we can arrive at core philosophical problems: the major premise. And that is why the easy way out, according to Aristotle, is to limit philosophical discussion to strictly physically observable facts. But in my mind, that:
A. Eliminates philosophy
B. Closes inquiry and allows authority figures to decide willy-nilly that physical results are a true determinate of things like morality (death or organ failure as criterion for torture, the preemptive war doctrine, etc.).
So there has to be room for unverifiable claims that be can be considered self-evident by agreement. Further, for those who hold that God exists, the agreement in this unverifiable major premise is necessary because the benevolent creator is their foundation for certain avenues of belief.
June 9, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're confusing terms... maybe on purpose.
"We hold these truths to be self evident" is a phrase used in the context of forming a contract or legal document.
I think this is the beginning of a remarkable document and I'm willing to accept it and give it a try... That doesn't mean it's true, no matter how much I believe it to be.
Apparently, (if I'm reading you correctly), if there were a document that said, "We think it's self evident that light travels at 100 miles per hour..." and a bunch of people agreed and signed their names... Then that makes it true!
It doesn't.
June 9, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to be looking for "Meaning" in all of it... the "Why" of it all... That's clearly faith/belief "stuff".
To that I'm inclined to offer something from Asimov:
It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong.
I know that everybody ultimately believes something... even scientists... but still, there's a difference.
June 9, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Dragon In My Garage
by
Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.
Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
June 9, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carl Sagan invested heavily in SETI and devoted much his life to the possibility of intelligent life that would somehow communicate using human inventions like radio.
He also had a fondness for the Hindu cosmology.
June 9, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of that may be true... but it doesn't affect the argument.
I posted his writing to illustrate a point...
I don't see the difference between whatever Invisible-Guy-In-The-Sky-By-And-By and the Dragon.
And I draw the same conclusion as Sagan on the matter.
June 9, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can choose to draw that, but I note that even Sagan was prone to thinking outside his own narrow CSICOP criterion.
That is why I really enjoy Robert Anron Wilson's CSICON refutation:
While CSICOP offers a generous cash reward for any verified instance of the paranormal, CSICON offers a generous cash reward for anyone verifying the existence of the normal.
That is why this post is more or less dedicated to moving outside the empirical bounds since it doesn't apply to much once you get beyond science and into the branches of philosophy. Prove the existence of the beautiful. That kind of stuff.
June 9, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Shall we use the term "model" rather than "theory" here? A political model may be affected by such assumptions, which in turn may be observable or simply articles of faith."
Yes, we can agree to that.
June 8, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
One other thing:
I am in now way trying to convince you or anyone else that I have an 8 foot tall Golden Man as an imaginary friend. I am trying (without putting my beliefs out there) to argue that there is a relevant and important context for faith, intuition, and conjecture in the search for knowledge. And not only is it relevant, but integral.
June 8, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You cannot, not without somehow demonstrating that specific faith or type of faith produces some reasonably predictable results, and that the same would not be possible without faith or with a different one, and that faith is not merely coincidental or perhaps just a manifestation or side-effect of some other aspect of cognition. I do not really think you have presented much to support your case thus far.
There is an immense difference between faith and conjecture/hypotheses/imagination.
And, as you know, Einstein was extremely leery, rejecting even, of quantum mechanics precisely because of the same concept of some kind of a universal interconnectedness and symmetry.
If you allow me to address one point, I would say that I am highly suspicious of your stated motive here (for this "discussion of faith.") It may just be my cynical nature.
Still, though, if you truly are interested in exploring how faith is supposedly integral to the search of knowledge (presumably you do not mean it in the vulgar sense like "faith in one's abilities"), I am all the more eager to hear some answers to the questions I posed here and above.
June 8, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And, as you know, Einstein was extremely leery, rejecting even, of quantum mechanics precisely because of the same concept of some kind of a universal interconnectedness and symmetry."
Um, no. Einstein was leery because the developers of quantum mechanics were demonstrably more interested in equation than application. His criticisms were delivered as thought experiments which allowed quantum mechanics to refine itself. Einstein dedicated the late part of his life towards developing a unified field theory, which is rooted in interconnectedness and symmetry.
"There is an immense difference between faith and conjecture/hypotheses/imagination."
I hold that they are all permutations of intuition.
"You cannot, not without somehow demonstrating that specific faith or type of faith produces some reasonably predictable results, and that the same would not be possible without faith or with a different one, and that faith is not merely coincidental or perhaps just a manifestation or side-effect of some other aspect of cognition."
Sorry, sir, but that is a self-negating statement... it eats its own tail. What aspect of cognition would result in the side effect of faith?
Besides, you tried to prove that faith has the demonstrably predictable result of textual fundamentalism.
To say that Einstein would have developed general relativity without his faith is absurd because it is unverifiable. He did develop it, and he regularly expressed his particular view of the universe which was based in faith. I say that his view of the universe helped him to perceive his work in such a manner that it allowed him to perform his particular kind of research.
Anyhow, please read the links I provided. They are of interest... see what they have in common, how they differ, and it what manner they reflect what has been observed about the universe and man's psychology.
June 8, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aside: Einstein also admitted that his "faith" had led him astray at least once (re the cosmological constant, IIRC).
I think you have a two-edged sword blade in your hand here! But good discussion...
To some extent questions/disagreements of faith turn out to be a matter of differences in language. That's part of why I offered my definitions, both to illustrate fine differences and to contain our discussion. There's a difference between 'belief without evidence' and 'believe despite some contrary evidence', yet both can be called "faith".
June 8, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think you have a two-edged sword blade in your hand here! But good discussion..."
Isn't that the truth! Misguided faith and even well-guided faith can be quite problematic. But, to throw another cliche into the mix, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... or worse, assume that you can even do that.
June 8, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really?
"You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the Quantum Theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility. No doubt the day will come when we will see whose instinctive attitude was the correct one."
(Albert Einstein to Max Born, 1944)
And, mind you, his attitude softened later on still as he gave the issue more thought. I do note, though, that you were the one remarking on Einstein's faith and how it informed him. I have not seen anything particularly valuable to your case here.
Yes, if you come up with your own definitions, things work out much better.
I am not sure which part is "self-negating," you will need to actually address my point rather than side-stepping for me to see that. As to your question, faith could be -- please note the term "could", it seems there has been a bit of difficulty in you misconstruing my statements -- could be considered to be a construct of the imagination and the fear of the unknown, for example.If we use Einstein here, there is no way for us to tell whether his "faith" made him try to solve the universe's problems, or whether his faith was merely a different manifestation or side-effect of whatever else caused it.
Where, exactly, did I do this?This "discussion" is without value. It is not, perhaps, worthless, but it adds nothing of value because your argument is undefined and utterly pointless. An argument about nothing in particular, and everything at the same time, supposedly justifying faith (which, apparently, can mean any of a dozen things whichever happens to suit the situation.)
Please do not try to ram down your faith thesis without giving some kind of a definition later on. If you want to argue in favour of imagination and positing and following hypotheses, I will agree with you on the spot. But they most certainly are not the same thing as religious/spiritual faith and to equate the two is absolutely incorrect.
June 8, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Yes, if you come up with your own definitions, things work out much better."
Actually, no:
The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes.
In what manner is a hypothesis derived if not from intuition. In what manner is imagination achieved if not through the mind's eye, i.e., senseing without rational (sensual) process?
I also suggest you re-read the quote. Quantum mechanics as dice game, he a law and order objectity-type. Plus, there is a hell of a lot more correspondence between Einstein and Bohr and others.
"Where, exactly, did I do this?"
Here:
"It may, for example, cause someone to blindly think that a book written and compiled millennia ago is literal word of god and unconditionally base their decisions on it."
"Please do not try to ram down your faith thesis without giving some kind of a definition later on. If you want to argue in favour of imagination and positing and following hypotheses, I will agree with you on the spot. But they most certainly are not the same thing as religious/spiritual faith and to equate the two is absolutely incorrect"
Equate is misleading. I am in no way equating the two... I am saying that certain things derive from the same source, that of intuition. I am also saying that faith can successfully inform scientific inquiry. You want to square the circle and make an argument about how we should stick to what is proveable... and I, in my own way, have shown that proveable is not a valid criterion and limits conjecture.
" (which, apparently, can mean any of a dozen things whichever happens to suit the situation.)"
I am not the one who conflated psychosis with delusion, and then misdefined delusion to suit your purposes. Pot. Kettle. Black.
But if you want to shadow box and walk away the winner, by all means. Congratulations.
June 8, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In what manner is a hypothesis derived if not from intuition."
Rational extrapolation, aka "brute force computing" might be one way. For a pedestrian version, consider crossword puzzles where you don't quite know the word, and it is missing at least the first letter. Run through the finite alphabet checking for possible fits. Bingo, if you're good at it.
Hypothesis development can work that way to some extent, even to the extent of paradigm shifting hypothesis. Of course if the system (universe of discourse) is "infinite" it's trickier.
June 9, 2009 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The author expends too much time replying to a commenter who refers to him directly as 'psychotic' and 'delusional.' Apparently, KarltheMarxist is one of those psychiatrists who specializes in long-distance analysis. You know, one of those characters with a 1-900 number.
In referring repeatedly to the author as delusional, it is the direct intention to communicate that he, KarltheMarxist, is necessarily the superior man and intellect because he is not 'deluded.'
The definition of 'delusion' is, according to Wikipedia, "... commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception. In psychiatry, the definition is necessarily more precise and implies that the belief is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). "
Thus, it is not up to the person of faith to demonstrate that he or she is not deluded. It is up to the contemptuous party to demonstrate that belief in God is a delusion -- i.e., a "fixed false belief." You claim the belief is false -- prove it. Until that proof is delivered, the claim that faith is a 'delusion' is merely a rhetorical device for expressing contempt with "plausible deniability" in hand.
Thanks.
mp
June 9, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know full well what the discussion was boiling down to... I engaged the poster out of a sense of dialogue with the realization that neither of us would move one iota from our respective position. What resulted were certain clarifications in terminology and a decent exchange of ideas. I don't appreciate being called psychotic or delusional, but I played along because I know the definition and kept it in my back pocket.
I really wanted to lay out that his criterion for proof of God is strictly material and in no way pertains to the abstract... and that certain beliefs he holds politically fall under the same abstract category and that he was demanding scientific criterion for what is a metaphysical discussion... much the same way as demanding that we play poker with a chess set.
June 9, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
First let me say I love this post and deeply appreciate the depth and breadth of your approach to the subject.
I like to take things to the simple notion that most people seek to understand life and their existence and there are a multitude of ways that we find to do this. I find a basic respect for every path realizing we share this impulse to know and understand.
I have had the great, great fortune of being exposed through my time working with Integral Institute to be exposed to psychological, scientific, political, and religious thinkers, leaders, and authors.
I appreciate the open acknowledgement of the value of intuition as it is regarded as a feminine aspect and is often dismissed as worthless by the rational.
Personally my best form of meditation is dance. It is a very integrating and purifying experience for me, very powerful and transcending. And I love to do it. I can do it for hours. It clears my mind, my emotions, seems to clear the slate. And dance is my favorite metaphor in life.
I was raised as a Christian Scientist which did not go so well for me but it gave me something to work with as a start and I appreciate it for that. I have walked many paths and met brilliant teachers from all over the world. I would say I hit the spiritual lottery in my life.
At present I would say I am a mystic and it seems best to leave it at that. I believe all paths offer great wisdom and gifts.
I really respect you for writing this brilliant post.
June 8, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I came to the belief that there is room at the table for everyone if they come in a spirit of cooperation and understanding.
"An absolute can only be given in an intuition, while all the rest has to do with analysis."
Henri Bergson
I can definitely grasp that. I give primacy to intuition because it grants the initial leap and visualisation necessary for progress that is proven and repeated via analytics.
June 8, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny line:
"the church of reason is dangerous too. The reason is simple"
Let's define the term 'faith', in two ways:
1 - belief in/despite the absence of sufficient proof
2 - belief despite the presence of contrary proof
"I believe that we are cutting off our nose to spite our face if we eschew faith and intuition as simply irrational."
Is your belief a faith or something else? Is it grounded in religion or in the "church of reason"? There's also 'arational' to consider. One can have faith in unknowns (but possibly knowable), and one can separately have faith in unknowables. The latter beliefs cannot be irrational because they transcend rationality. The former beliefs are arguable based on the level and quality of proof presented for or against them.
I think it's worth distinguishing the church of reason (Rationalism?) from the church of science (Scientism?) when discussing such deep waters.
"a mystical appreciation of the universe that viewed the cosmos as an interconnected whole"
Do you believe Einstein started with this, or found this along the way? The difference might be important.
"When you discuss myth, it is impolite, ignorant, and rude to write it off as superstition."
Yes, superstition is FEAR of the unknown. Myth attempts to explain the unexplainable, properly speaking. False myths do occur, sort of like virus, improper fragments which get propagated around and can distort the psyche to the point of neurosis or worse.
No question that rationality is not the final answer, but being irrational is clearly problematic in general even if it works out sometimes!
June 8, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like some of your points and refinements.
"Is your belief a faith or something else? Is it grounded in religion or in the "church of reason"? There's also 'arational' to consider. One can have faith in unknowns (but possibly knowable), and one can separately have faith in unknowables. The latter beliefs cannot be irrational because they transcend rationality. The former beliefs are arguable based on the level and quality of proof presented for or against them."
While you present these nuances, and have obviously put a tremendous amount of thought into them, I use irrational in this post in the strict sense of "unproven and unproveable assertions." Like the essential goodness of human nature. Whether that is unproven or unproveable depends on how broadly one defines their terms.
"I think it's worth distinguishing the church of reason (Rationalism?) from the church of science (Scientism?) when discussing such deep waters."
That would be worth distinguishing. I am the last person who would disparage science as I think that the scientific method is the most effective epistemological tool we have to oberve, understand and predict the natural world. I would only say that the "Pure Scientist" may miss the insight that a good dip in faith may bring to the inquiry, provided the inquiry follows established effective procedures.
"Do you believe Einstein started with this, or found this along the way? The difference might be important."
I would say a combination of both. The earliest recorded reference that Einstein makes to Spinoza (IIRC) was in 1920 as a poem... but Jewish mystical thought was an intrinsic part of his upbringing and childhood. He was certainly exposed to such thinkers as Spinoza and Maimonides, and he admittedly went through an intense religious phase as an adolescent.
"Yes, superstition is FEAR of the unknown. Myth attempts to explain the unexplainable, properly speaking. False myths do occur, sort of like virus, improper fragments which get propagated around and can distort the psyche to the point of neurosis or worse."
There is an element of myth dedicated to explaining the unknown or unknowable... there is another aspect that offers insight into human nature. To discount it as the former elminates the capacity to experience the latter.
"No question that rationality is not the final answer, but being irrational is clearly problematic in general even if it works out sometimes"
Absolutely. I truly appreciate your broadening of the discussion. Your choice of words is exceptional.
June 8, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey thanks for that, and for posting on the topic to give me a chance to "talk my book", so to speak. (this is indeed a pet topic of mine, it's partly the realm of epistemology)
Your use of 'irrational' that way is ironically irrational! That is, it's a poor choice of word to use to say "unproven/unprovable". That's why I raised the point about 'arational'. Rationality is about articulation of reasons/bases/causes. To be rational is to be articulate(d) as to those, and usually with the sense of coherence of argument. To be irrational is to go against those bases... while in effect relying on them as if one were going with them - it's self-contradictory. You're using 'irrational' as a synomym for 'faithful' (unproven/able), in my view. That is, it's conflation. A completely unprovable assertion isn't irrational, its without reason entirely. Anyway, that's my vocabulary... :-)
"There is an element of myth dedicated to explaining the unknown or unknowable... there is another aspect that offers insight into human nature. To discount it as the former elminates the capacity to experience the latter."
I don't see those as all that separate. Maybe you meant it that way, that those aren't really separate aspects but that insights into human nature have a kind of unexplainable aspect to them. I wasn't discounting myth with that remark, I was stating a generalized definition of the term which also applies to insights which are unprovable to another who's not at least on the same page as the one who had the self-insight.
A good scientist has to have an openness to mystery (in nature anyway), whether mystical thinking is present or not.
June 8, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
" A completely unprovable assertion isn't irrational, its without reason entirely. Anyway, that's my vocabulary... :-)"
I like it. I will do better to think outside the verbal box because definitions can muddy an otherwise decent discussion.
"I don't see those as all that separate. Maybe you meant it that way, that those aren't really separate aspects but that insights into human nature have a kind of unexplainable aspect to them."
I don't see them as separate, either. What I see is someone discounting myth because it doesn't hold up to physical scrutiny (the sun doesn't have an ankh-shaped phallus) while ignoring the relevance of the mythic symbol (the ankh-shaped phallus as the human view of the sun, and hence the male principle of life-giving, and a reinforcement of patriarchy in sun-worshipping societies).
June 8, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most religions were devoloped a long time ago by people who were very mis-informed or were looking for a way to justify some pretty terrible actions. Clinging to those beliefs out of tradition s silly.
Religion in a many ways seems to serve as the null hypothesis, which other than being easy to dissprove has very little value.
June 8, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
And your statement is nothing more than words strung togther to form sentences.
See how easy that was?
June 8, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinging to beliefs out of superstition is silly. I agree. But there are a hundred reasons why people cling to beliefs, silly and not, and there are a hundred reasons beyond that why people who have examined their beliefs, still find reason to have faith, regardless of what other people think.
Religion may have little value to you. It has little value to me. But it has great value to an awful lot of people and I'm willing to bet that many of them are smarter than I am. So, although I get angry at the dogma and the certainty and the preaching, in my better moments, I try not to discount wholesale the beliefs of others.
June 8, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Orlando...that's all I could ask for. Since neither side can "prove" their position, it makes sense for all of us to admit that there is a possibility the other side is "right."
June 8, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have an idea: Let's retire the term "cling" in the context of belief, as in "cling to beliefs" - which automatically puts belief in the category of drowning deperation, clutched by flailing fools unable to cope with sniffy, lonely nihilism. Maybe believers are right. Maybe there is something out there. Somehow, I think, if there is, it's a lot bigger and stranger than anything sketched out in any of our bibles. But we don't know. Inasmuch as a higher power can't be proved - it can't be disproved. One thing we do know: When when we substantiate God, when the creator or spirit - whatever - becomes something material, or exists coincident of the spirit, it is commidified. God is something we claim and own. Something we defend and kill for.
June 8, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bah, so much info and so little time. Thanks for the links, though, very interesting stuff.
June 8, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zip, that was fantastic.
As American's we have lost track of the fact that reason itself is dogma. Einstein also read Immanuel Kant. And it was Kant's Critique of Pure Reason that demonstrated reason's power, but also its limitations.
Thinking, Kant realized, is not something that goes on in our heads. The individual mind is not a subject and the rest of the world an object. In fact, the difference between subject and object is nothing more than a conventional way of looking at the world. In reality, it is joint attention, common experience, and shared meaning that are the foundations of everything that we know! In alchemical terms, as outside, so inside.
We tend to think of 'mind' as something that the brain does. But really, mind is to the brain what air is to the lungs! Mind is something in which we all participate. Every religion says this differently, but make no mistake: every religion says this! And so, to disagree with any religion is to deny the truth of this perspective. Philosophers believe that this perspective is to thought what the discovery that the earth rotates around the sun was to cosmology. Kant called his insight a "Copernican Revolution."
And so Zip is dead-on when he calls our attention to these facts. In Jewish Mysticism, what Zip has done is referred to as raising sparks. The more we raise from behind the curtains, the more likely people will see them.
June 8, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree that Kant's insight was enormous but as of yet not discussed. Of course, what Kant achieved through his intellectual power reaches a very similiar conclusion as reached by Krishna's conversation with Arjuna in the Bhaggavad-Gita regarding perception and Maya. But Krishna makes the intuitive leap of defining what reason alone can not grasp.
In fact, there is an element to religious text (they were spiritual before they became religious) that emphasizes questioning the nature of reality and especially questioning the results of reason.
Thank you for the kudos. This kind of writing is a hard slog, especially on a blog. I prefer to just present it artistically and let others duke out the technicalities.
June 8, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
My pleasure. Yeah, that's exactly what reason can't do: pierce the veil of Maya. That requires our empathy for one another and the desire to understand each other. These philosophers could never understand the technicalities were it not for their dialogue with others and their genuine pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. I'm of the belief that once it becomes about attaining self-interested ends, the thought is necessarily stale--what we could call mere reason. But when we do it for its own sake, then we move beyond reason and into a piercing perception.
June 8, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zipp, good post, I gotta find time to chase the links!
Anyway, Ive been meaning to hit this topic in my own way.
From a psychological and sociological point of view, discussing the utility of faith, God, myths and even religion is very rational and worthwhile (or at least useful).
What purpose they serve is of course user dependent but I love your case for "rational faith", if I understand you correctly.
We shall discuss this futher Im sure.
June 8, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zip, thanks for deepening the discussion...how fortunate you are that you got to keep the thread on point instead of spending most of it fending off ridiculous attacks.
I'm on a pretty tight schedule today and am unable to join in in any depth, but I didn't want you to think I was ignoring the post.
June 8, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post. I am quite glad to see more thoughtful discussion of religion at TPM. I only have time for a quick thought on religion and cosmology. How's this for a minimalist definition of faith that has more than a hint of cosmology in it -- faith is the felt conviction there is a purpose to the universe, and that purpose is ultimately defined by something beyond humanity? If this purpose exists, our lives are normatively bound by it. We should live for this purpose, and ultimately, all other purposes gain their importance from this one.
What is that purpose? My money is on -- wherever possible, include. Philosophers sometimes call this maximize unity and diversity. The point is to gather in diversity without destroying uniqueness. I think we find this purpose all over the place, including democracy, art, and even the periodic table of elements. Ultimately, I think this is my faith. I hope to blog on some of these ideas more in the near future.
June 8, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are onto something. I tend to avoid the discussion of life's purpose. I do know that if we are to achieve a stable and harmonious world we must accept and promote diversity. I know that we live in a world beset with dangers and surrounded by a vast and nigh impenetrable unknown... And we must rise to the occasion and learn to love and accept one another or we will never survive the rigors of space.
June 8, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now there is the rub. Do you know?
There are millions of people who believe if we are to achieve a stable and harmonious world, then we must all agree with their beliefs and perceptions of God/the gods, and how they understand Him/Her/Them. Then there are those Christians, and these are a particular brand of Christian that I fear, who do not seek stability and harmony, but an apocolypse. Are there any other religions who are so determined to destroy the world, or from a less responsible point of view, who are eager to see the world destroyed?
June 10, 2009 3:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have made a decision not to join in on these religious blogs, but I just have to ask:
Of those who have responded, how many of you have read multiple (100+) pages of links? The first one is 35 pages -- did you know that? I only ask because I haven't heard any discussion of the links. Why is that?
In other words, is this a discussion of new stuff or just a rehashing of what everyone already thinks?
June 8, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this is a deep discussion, where are the references to that which is deep? Zipper, does it bother you that no reference to your links seems to be a part of the "discussion" here?
June 8, 2009 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not going to lie, CVille, I think that the links are quite beautiful and profound. Underneath my post is the truth that for a long time, religion was presided over by priests but defined by the poets. And that poetical-mystical mindset is vital to the human spirit.
I am not scolding a lack of faith, but promoting an openness to possibility and an appreciation of the beauty and creativity that surrounds and fills us in spite of our flaws.
June 8, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but who read them? Or is this one more...oh never mind. I said what I said. I won't respond to any more of these "conversations," in which everyone repeats what they already think and don't read anything new.
Bye!
June 8, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are welcome. Ask away!
I know that the appearance of this post is just anotuer faith-based group hug. There is the risk of the same discussion being rehashed. What I tried to throw in was some cosmology and alchemy, and all of the links go out of their way to present these cosmologies with reverence and an explication of symbolism. There is also some discussion of what purpose these ideas serve.
It is a lot to chew on... But i really wanted to show the beauty of amcient and modern thought that transcends arguments over validity. Something that maybe everyone can appreciate without the usual rancor.
June 8, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Z, Thank you for this blog and discussion and esp. the links that I’ve been reading today. I marked them this morning and began reading the Qetoret. I was waiting to add but my garden called, and the nature of these blogs is that they fall into the past but link to the future. So I write this anyway. If too eccentric, my apologies.
I can only offer that light is the source for me. And light is understanding. And understanding is beamed through words. And the words contain meaning. And the meaning is the Multiverse. And the Multiverse is light.
Also Einstein: “All I want to do is learn the way God thinks. All the rest is details.”
Words do that for me. Especially poetry. It’s a vulnerable position when discussing the spirit of things but there it is. Do you see words that way?
Digging through the earth with my hands and staring at the sky wondering at the relationship, I’m just saying that the metaphoric brings me closer to my source. There is plenty of contrast everywhere I look to help me realize I can always see more and appreciate it.
June 8, 2009 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we are all connected - all of life. I think that the enforced dichotomies are a cultural failing. Reason and faith an belief, do not truly exist in isolation from each other. We live in a wholeness - whether we choose to admit it or not. And that existence is a "light" in a variety of ways. The light of life, of wholeness, of appreciation of the interlocking relationship of us all.
At least that is what I believe.
June 9, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cville - Ive seen your comments and you clearly are an intelligent person. Why then is it so hard to accept that other intelligent people would want to explore concepts like faith and God and reason and logic all in the same thought?
Religion has nothing to do with this...I see no references to the sabbath or eucharist or ramadan.
This is a spiritual discussion post and the links are only 'reccomended reading' for the interested.
June 8, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I made a mistake in showing up. I realize I am unwelcome in this "discussion" and I will not pollute it with questions. Good-bye.
June 8, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, CVille...come back.
This might be too personal a question, so if you don't respond, I won't hold it against you. :) But I was wondering if your recent loss has changed your view of religion or god or spirituality? I have very recently had exactly the same loss, and it's made me more convinced of my atheism, not in an angry way, like I am denying god because I am pissed off, but in a sort of calm way. When I think about it, I find it strange because I would think that this would be the time that I would want to turn to an idea of god for comfort. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
(Sorry, Zip, for going off the track a bit.)
June 8, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is personally just for Orlando. No. My mother's death has not changed the way I see the world, or my spiritual life in any way. I will share this with you, though; which is something I have not put into words until now:
During the time that my mother was dying (and she looked me in the eye and asked me if she WAS dying), several people came to see her. One of those was a young chaplain from HOSPICE -- he couldn't have been more than 25 years old -- he told me that even though he was supposed to visit once a month, he had promised my mother he would visit her that last week. I tried to comfort HIM -- letting him know that my mother was beyond recognizing people. When he bent over her and said who he was, she said, clearly "You're the chaplain?"
I took from that that she had a level of awareness we could not understand. Shortly after he left she asked me why she was dying. I didn't know what to say to that question, so I just said, "I'm sorry, Mom." Later she asked me if she WAS dying and I said it was soon.
I preface all this because the minister who did the funeral was such an interesting and intelligent man. He spent 2 hours with my sisters and me just getting everything straight about a family with a total of 14 siblings who had done everything from run the railroad to a printing press. I wanted to ask him:
WHAT IF YOU JUST DON'T -- CAN'T BELIEVE? WHAT IF IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO YOU, BECAUE BELIEF MEANS THAT IN YOUR HEART YOU TRUST THAT IT IS TRUE?
I confess I never had the conversation with him because I got from his sermon and his subsequent letters that this is the answer to those who simply don't believe:
IF I AM RIGHT I WILL GO TO HEAVEN! To me, that is not belief; that is hedging bets, and/or standing with fingers crossed behind one's back
June 8, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for responding CVille. Another thing I am finding very interesting is that some people who don't know me well tell me I'll be in their prayers or that my mom is in a better place now. Again, it's not something that makes me angry, but it is strange--the automatic assumption that I believe what they believe.
The hedging part is curious. But I bet that's not what that minister believes truly. Probably that is his opening salvo with non-believers or doubters, figuring if he can get them to agree with that premise, he can continue the discussion and eventually reach them.
June 8, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
O, I wondered after another comment you made a few days ago if your mom had died...Please accept my condolences. My mom died 13 years ago, and I still haven't really come to terms with it. Haven't grieved, barely even cried...It is a difficult thing.
June 8, 2009 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'Ville...Please don't ever feel unwelcome. You are VERY welcome. There are MANY atheists and agnostics here at TPM, and I would never want any of them to stay away, just because they have views other than mine, and I am sure Zip feels the same.
I know that as a Christian I am in the minority here. If all I wanted was a Jesus freak party on my blogs I would certainly go to another venue. I find contrary views to be stimulating, and they either make my beliefs deeper, or they make me rethink them. Either way, I'm better off for having had the discussion.
It sincerely hurts my heart that you feel unwelcome.
June 8, 2009 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said Stilli. I didnt mean to make CV feel unwelcome.
June 8, 2009 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am always afraid to put a voice to my fear of death. My religious life was perhaps best labeled as selfish. I attended church for one reason; I WANTED TO LIVE IN ETERNITY WITH MY FAMILY.
That I know. What scares me worse than a skinning, and being drawn and quartered--is that the people I love die, and then I die--and I never see them again, and I don't have any existence on any level--like a light switch off, or more like a fire extinguished.
I WANT to believe that there is more; therefore I "believe" though I have doubts due to my skepticism and worldly knowledge of fact vs. fiction. I WANT desperately to believe we even look like we did when alive, and somehow are dropped right in the right neighborhood in Heaven, where only the people we wanted to be there are there, and not complete strangers from another land or another age. What then?
If I let my faith guide me--my practical, rational side tends to hinder and undercut it. But, if I live on being practical and rational--I wouldn't have stayed with my wife, I wouldn't have had children, I would be in New York, showing my work. My love is not rational, nor practical, nor is it chemically sound.
I don't think that all there is to life are facts, figures, equivalents, or methods that always work, or theories that always can be proved every time.
I choose to believe in a God, and in Jesus, and in Heaven not because I have to, or because I am a feeble mind, or because I like going to church.
I do it honestly because everyone I love believes this, and is comforted. Therefore, I want to go wherever this leads them, to whatever end.
Without them, the moms and dads and babies and wives--heaven wouldn't be worth believing in, nor worth going to.
But since I am a stupid human being, an animal in the cave, a strange creature that is bound to roam the earth (if that's it's real name) I have no proof.
Oh well.
Great post. Great comments as well.
Joe
June 9, 2009 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting and well put post. Religion has never been a personal characteristic of mine but I have observed that everyone I have discussed the issue with has a conception of the issue that is at least slightly different. Let me illustrate by way of a few examples.
1 felt that her God was infinitely understanding. She was a strict Lutheran in public. She once said "I don't believe in the vengeful Old Testament God" therefore there is no real penalty for sin.
2 and 3 were both self professed good Catholics. 2 felt that his religion was something that he should incorporate into his everyday actions i.e. charity, humility, doing good. 2 lived his creed. 3 was an ardent demonstrationalist, ashes on the forehead and so on. 3 felt that transgressions were okay as long as he didn't get caught - they could be confessed away. Therefore he pretty much did what he wanted to and made a show of contrition. 3 paid lip service to his creed.
Of course there are many more, but I have brought them as a way of illustrating my point. Everyone has a different concept of what religion, God, good and evil are.
So I ask who is right? Many of the 'holy' books variously have some form of the position that there are those who are saved, favored or whatever and those who are outside of that circle. The message I see is that some, most or all are damned except for the true believers. Each religion and sect has claimed for itself this right or privilege, so who is correct? All of them, some of them or none of them. All offer redemption through the appropriate sacrifice.
Which brings me to my second point. Organized religions are exclusionist. Somebody must lose. In the extreme case, the believers move on to eternal happiness with God and everybody else is consigned to Hell or some other unpleasantness such as endless karmic cycles. Pretty distasteful and really just an outgrowth of the fact that religions are human institutions and thus bear human faults.
And finally my third point. Since none of can know what religious truth is (is there a God and others), and we obviously can't decide who is correct then perhaps religion should be an exclusively personal enterprise. Each person believes in their own way with no discussion of right and wrong. Much like sexual orientation which is to say 'whatever turns your crank'. What goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults is their business exclusively.
But it is clear that we do not have enough ground to decide who or what is right or wrong. And we certainly have no basis for advocating a particular belief system as superior.
I think that this is why the framers of our Constitution decide that the church and the state should be strictly separated. The churches, governments and citizens should all take this admonition seriously.
June 8, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you have an exclusionist faith become the state religion of a democracy? It makes no sense.
I don't have a particular religion. Catholocism informs my early youth, but the rigidity of the College of Cardinals and the conservative pushback against Vatican II, combined with the church's statements against liberation theology turned me off for good. Ths Catholic church sees a heresy around every corner, and it only lends credibility to heretics.
In the aftermath of my grandparents' deaths when I was 13, I had had enough of religion. I was an atheist for over a decade, but I did study other faiths of the world... But as a personal science, you know, practicing contemplation, meditation, and self work. The return to a more God-oriented mode came from an awakening I had while watching a honey bee at at the beach walk 20 feet from the shore to the ocean until it was swallowed by a wave. My separation from the world collapsed and I experienced an immediacy I had never felt. I was consumed by the present and there was no time. In that shapeless constant I experienced what I believe was the presence of God in that everything around me vibrated with life and that life was the logos, the Word made flesh.
Do I think religion is personal? Yes and no. It should be solitary with fellow travelers along the way. And no matter what you should share your experiences and findings in the spirit of openness without the urge to convert. Just cultivate your inner light and let it shine.
June 9, 2009 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exclusionist in the sense that their is a definition of the believer. Which implies that their is a non-believer. Believers get X, non- get not X.
There are too many examples in history and the present of exclusionist states that also wrap themselves in a religious creed to belabor the issue. Religion and civil government combine to ill effect. The 'christian' slaveholder Jefferson knew it.
Religion is properly a personal issue. Gathering with like minded individuals is to be encouraged. Such groups must however keep their collective personal beliefs separate from the mechanism of democracy.
June 9, 2009 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have heard some people observe that since jesus said, "where two or three are gathered in My name, I am with them" He was giving us the OSHA load limits, only two or three. Then there was this parish priest who thought no chuch shuld have more then 100. Go figure!
June 10, 2009 3:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have been an admirer of your thinking here at the Café for some time. It was the least I could do to print out this post and give it my best considered response. Unfortunately there is an arbitrary 24 hour clock that is ticking and which will cause this discussion to disappear into some archival oblivion. This does injustice to your effort to raise this subject but greater injustice to the subject itself. In the end it is a tease just to try to participate. But in the spirit of good humor I will play for a bit. I few thoughts of mine:
“God did not create man. Man created god.” This simple formulation of the atheist’s understanding of reality places “god’ in the category of artifact. Understood as such “god” and all that goes into the description of “god” or what we call “religion” is properly the subject of aesthetics, that is, art criticism. So it is for the atheist.
“Faith” is a way of knowing the world as it truly is.” This is the formulation of the believer’s understanding of reality. Science, which is merely the anglicized Latin “to know” is adjectival to the noun “Faith.” Faith is the science of god just as the empirical method is the science is nature, de rerum naturem. The mystics, the most compellingly committed believers of any culture, usually struggle with their “faith” because they understand to be their method, not some state of being. They don’t have faith so much as they use faith as a way of seeing. What they see then becomes the subject of their reflections, their meditations.
I don’t know why Einstein is quoted on this subject so often. He had the most pedestrian understanding of politics and culture and it shows in his writing on these subjects. Better to consider a man like Albert Schweitzer – an artistic giant, a master instrument builder, a humanitarian physician and someone of great intellectual capacity as reflected in his series of writings like “Civilization and Ethics.” I don’t happen to subscribe to his views but compared to him Einstein is Bart Simpson.
The opposition of “faith” and “reason” is a bifurcation in my opinion. Both occur within the human heart. A better term than ”reason” would be “analytical reasoning.” It is as much an arthifact as religion, having been invented by the pre-Socratic thinkers of Greece and Asia Minor. It does not occur historically anywhere else in the world although it has propagated everyone over time. To query the world of experience without resorting to one’s inherited religious beliefs is a moral act of an individual.
Finaly the idea of finding empirical scientific understanding in the theological materials of world religions is fraught with difficulty. A few years back it was suggested by archeologists that Middle Kingdom Egypt had a working knowledge of the concept of Pi as you might read in the Wikipedia article. In fact this is probably incorrect. The argument against is that the ancient Egyptians used wheels to measure lengths in their construction work. Thus Pi inherently functioned in their designs but in fact they never grasped the concept independently.
As I said above, in the end both religion and science occur within the heart of the individual and that heart is the ultimate arbiter of truth in every human life. If I could be allowed to steal from Nietzsche, the man of faith and the man of reason are one and the same. He is like Dionysius walking from India to the Greek peninsula, shedding fine rings and bracelets and silken garments until finally he stands on the shore of the Aegean Sea, naked.
June 8, 2009 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for sharing this:
"If I could be allowed to steal from Nietzsche, the man of faith and the man of reason are one and the same. He is like Dionysius walking from India to the Greek peninsula, shedding fine rings and bracelets and silken garments until finally he stands on the shore of the Aegean Sea, naked."
I love that.
It gave me the impulse to share this more crudely expressed idea, a guide by which I measure spiritual teachers, authors, etc. on the subject of spiritual understanding.
It took place in a Big Mind/Big Heart experience with Genpo Roshi a few years ago.
He stated 'the absolute and relative are two side of one coin'.
In that he expressed something I know that I had not put words to. I was introduced to absolute concepts early on reading at age 3 words that I did not know were absolute ideas. I was disillusioned when at 13 it was pointed out to me that there was such a thing as absolute and relative. Then I proceeded on my journey of freeing myself from the programming I had self inflicted in my early years to sort out who I am and what life is etc. I found many spiritual teachers and life always seemed to provide the perfect teacher for the particular learning I was next ready for.
I am not the most brilliant of thinkers so it eludes me exactly how the absolute/relative and faith/reason pairings interlink as my intuition knows they do. But this quote from Nietzshe made me think of this statement from Genpo Roshi. I never read Nietzshe but once had a partner who used to read him to me often.
Perhaps if what I am sharing makes any sense you might put words to it?
I felt the same way reading your quote from Nietzshe as I did sitting that day with Genpo. A feeling of relaxation, inner expansion, trust.
June 9, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
...it eludes me exactly how the absolute/relative and faith/reason pairings interlink as my intuition knows they do.
Synchronicity, let me try to explain the former. And hopefully, in so doing, it will indirectly explain the latter.
Nietzsche's perspective was framed by Schopenhauer's perspective. Schopenhauer took reason to its absolute limit and wrote extensively about what he saw there. He found that all of the material world was illusory, but that it was consistent in its illusion. In fact, all of the illusion comes from the exact same source: the Will. Philosophically speaking, the Will is outside of space, outside of time, and outside of causality. It just is, has always been, and always will be. When the Will experiences itself from its relative position, it strives to survive (as a cat drinks from a river, as a wolf devours a deer, as a human being kills in defense).
But if we look at the Will's activity from an absolute perspective, we see that--when it acts merely relatively--it is consuming itself--as a serpent swallows its own tail. And this activity is obviously self-defeating. So the answer can only be to take on a different kind of perspective: one that is immediately connected to the absolute Will while at the same time experiencing the relative will. In this way, the individual appreciates itself as a wave amongst a vast ocean--with the utmost amount of respect for the whole of the ocean (its real self), not just the movement of a singular wave.
This is what Schweitzer called the reverence for Life. The world is not something separate from us. It is alive in the exact same way as we are; in fact, we are experiencing its Life. If reason tells us that all is Will, then we are obligated to love every relative manifestation of Will--since every little bit contains the whole of the Will.
So, reality--in its universal form--is the Will expressing itself to itself (as you would dance to a song). Therefore, any form of violence is the misperception of the Will in its relative form as separate from the Will in its absolute form. They are, and always will remain, two sides of the same coin.
I hope that's coherent.
June 9, 2009 5:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
What you shared was beautifully said and understood.
I think what I am looking for though is the connection between these two paradoxes... a sort of reason is to the relative? and that is to the absolute? inquiry. the perception via will is gratefully understood and beautifully described. I just find this connection or how to articulate the connection of the these paradoxes elusive.
Thanks for the beautiful description of perception of relative/absolute as it relates to will, well done:)
June 9, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shoule read 'intuition' or 'faith' is to the absolute. Intuition probably makes more sense here.
June 9, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
There should be a rule that if someone quotes Schopenhauer that the whole post gets another 24 hours of life at the cafe.
I look at Schopenhauer the same way I look at Mt. Hood here in Portland - a majestic mountain that I will probably never be able to climb. Your comment is wonderful in several respects and I thank you for it. Most importantly you answered Sync's query as directly and clearly as I can imagine it being done.
June 9, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
48 hrs for Nietzsche.
144 hours if you throw in a reference to Norm Ullman, former center for the Leafs, and perhaps the greatest forechecker the game has ever seen.
June 9, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really wish Fischer-Price would come out with an internet for Canadians.
June 9, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beautiful comment Larry, from one who has literally stood naked on the shore of the Aegean Sea. Those were of course the days when I dared to stand naked before God and Science and the random Greek passersby alike.
June 9, 2009 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well god created you so he can answer for the way you look. Just remember, beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
June 9, 2009 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well what he shared certainly well stated and understood but it wasn't exactly what I was trying to put my finger on Larry. I do understand Absolute/Relative and Intuition/Reason. I guess I am looking for a cruder explanation of the function of intuition to absolute and relative to reason. It has something to do with domain like the primary comprehension of the absolute is intuition or faith and the primary comprehension of the relative being reason. That's not it but it's there somewhere. It will come...
Thanks for the discourse on chat last night:)
June 9, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops this was meant to be in response to the comment above where you mention me... sorry.
June 9, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry:
The reason why I quoted Einsten is because he is cultural lingua franca. He was rather open about his spiritual journey and is readily quotable and understood for those not immediately versed in history. He was by no means a mighty spiritual thinker, although I do consider him a mystic in much the same manner as Tesla.
"The opposition of “faith” and “reason” is a bifurcation in my opinion. Both occur within the human heart."
The problem is the outmoded dialectic persists as a rational method. What is ironic is that faith and reason are routinely opposed, but no synthesis is ever found... they are simply accepted as irreconcilable opposites.
What drives me crazy is how many people make bald assumptions about the nature of reality yet pretend that is only the religious that make assumptions. They don't understand that the mind is erasing as much as it is presenting and we consciously perceive a fraction of what our senses absorb. And this process extends to analytical reasoning, which regularly pares down complicated structures into bare abstractions in order to present a model for acceptance or refutation.
And what so much of these discussions are rooted in is modes of conception based on preconceived value judgments. For those who see God everywhere, their perception reinforces this notion and invites synchronicity that reflects this perception. This can lead to "magical thinking," and rote dogma. But there is also those who see God nowhere, and the same process applies, but in opposition. What Kant did is remove the a priori notions as much as possible and present a pure reason whereby he revealed that neither position is proveable because both rely on unproveable assertions.
And yes, Kant certainly laid down the problem of pure reason and the deeper problem of reason distorted by prejudice. That is why Bergson presented intuition where one can perceive absolutes and "reverse engineer" the structure that proposes the absolute. Bergson thereby gave primacy to philosophy as the true science.
June 9, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was composing something in response when MBH (above) did it better than I could. I'll just say that it is the advent of the "psychological" in philosophical thought, vis. Existentialism, that has empowered the discourse on the meaning of life to continue in a fruitful manner, much as Socrates left behind the disputations of the pre-Socratics and introduced some remarkable reflections on wisdom.
June 9, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again thank you for bringing up this whole topic.
June 9, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm really interested in your last couple of comments. Kant tried to minimize the amount of a priori judgments that could count as knowledge. He probably wasn't entirely successful in his own answers, but the question--which judgments are true a priori--has certainly lived on.
I'm not very familiar with Bergson, but I do like his approach. I especially like his distrust of concepts.
That said, I'm not entirely convinced that there are no synthetic a priori judgments that we cannot know. For instance: Walking is an exchange with the environment. I tend to think that is a synthetic a priori truth. Kant wanted things like space, time, and causality to be considered a priori truths. I'm not convinced that's possible. But I do think that Walking is an exchange with the environment is a synthetic a priori truth. What do you think?
June 9, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink