Science And Religion Aren't Friends

[Ouroboros]

We agree that science need not be reductionistic to be science.

I think I disagree on that one. It's kind of the idea of science to reduce the complexity of nature to simplistic models, even if those models might not be 100%. It's hard to make science from opinion, feelings, experience, or values. Right?

Are you defining science as Hard Science, and ignoring the soft sciences?

So, you're saying that science already does contain non-reductionist attitudes? Then why is it an issue to argue that science doesn't?

 

BTW, there is a difference between using reductionist methodologies in examining nature, and reductionism in a philosophical sense. Reductionism philosophically doesn't allow for any other methodologies. They philosophically assume everything can be reduced to its components. It's a conclusion before the facts. And that is the point of the complaints you hear, and rightly so.

So, for the world to be a better world, science should refrain as much as possible from trying to find answers through reductionism and instead try to assume and posit unexplainable theories?

 

I'm not sure I follow what the problem is.

 

I do understand the idea of that we (as people, human beings) can't just understand our world through reductionism. I'm all for that. I get that part.

 

But I raised my eyebrows to the idea that science should be changed because of this. Why? Why should science be changed to something else just to satisfy this problem? I think we, as human beings, and in our experience, already are using other methods, and why should we somehow define these ways of experiencing the world, and put terms on them, and even put them under the umbrella of the word "Science"? That's the part I don't follow.

 

Is poetry reductionistic? Why not? Is that a lack in poetry or is it just the fact that poetry is a different genre of our tools to understanding the world? So would science be a better science if poetry is part of the world of "science"? How about religious experience? Should it be added to the world of science as a subdomain of scientific understanding?

 

I'm a bit lost here.

[Legion]

What would be the added tool for science? What is it that is missing? Why do we need it?

Rosen says that his mentor Rashevsky coined the phrase "relational approach" and this is contrasted with reductionism. What's missing is that reductionism throws away the organization of natural systems and primarily examines their matter, whereas a relational approach examines the organization and throws away the matter. It's needed because we will never understand organisms via reductionism.

[Deva]

I don't believe she, or anyone suggested that the collection of images we store in our brains, the actual thoughts themselves about ourselves and others, or the very processes of thinking themselves, in other words all those things that go into making up what we call our personality - which so many and you included no doubt define as consciousness, is what survives death - any more than we would say our bodies survive death.

 

To keep it super simple, you could think of it in terms of the atoms and molecules of our physical bodies surviving death. Consciousness in the human is what is exposed through the abilities of our brains and the development of our minds, but it no more creates consciousness than our bodies create matter. What we conventionally call consciousness is really a form of it, rather than it itself.

 

You want scientific evidence? First, you produce scientific evidence that matter exists. Show me "matter". And handing me a rock won't do, nor will pointing to an some atom or particle. That is not matter apart from form. Those are forms of matter, but there is no "matter" as such that you can point to and identify as matter. Only forms of something that in all reality 'doesn't exist". But yet you would never argue otherwise - despite have no scientific evidence of it.

 

The human mind is no more the definition of consciousness than a rock is what defines matter. Do you presume to be the only form of awareness in the universe? Are humans the only thing in the world that processes consciousness? And you speak of the fantasy of talking donkeys? Are you sure you're applying that to the correct party in this discussion?

 

I agree with much you have written here and in the remainder of this thread, Antler. I strongly believe there is some kind of continuity between one body and the next -- possibly patterns of thinking that persist - and even some memories persist for a short time after incarnating in the next body. But there may not be any real substantial memories, either. How much of our present life have we forgotten already? I still maintain that consciousness continues. I always, even when a Christian, thought reincarnation was a good possibility. You know that many early Christians did believe it before the orthodox Catholic Church condemned it.

[Ouroboros]

Reductionism has it's place. It is very good at understanding machines.

So then why does "science" as such need to change?

 

And as Antlerman points out, what about soft science? There's a lot of assumptions and inductive arguments in soft science, so if it's there already, why does it need to be added more? In what field of science does it need to be added? Would biology benefit from being a soft science instead of a hard science? Would astrophysics be a better science if we added Shakespearean phrases to the mathematical formulas? Don't you agree that we have conveniently divided different fields of study depending on how they can be studied? Some sciences are hard and reductive, while others are not, so why do we need to mix that up?

[Ouroboros]

What would be the added tool for science? What is it that is missing? Why do we need it?

Rosen says that his mentor Rashevsky coined the phrase "relational approach" and this is contrasted with reductionism.

And that is used a lot in soft sciences like psychology, sociology, economics, and more.

 

Even astrophysics does look at the coherence of all things to get an understanding of how the universe works.

 

So perhaps my argument is that science is already doing this, and there's no need to change anything.

 

What's missing is that reductionism throws away the organization of natural systems and primarily examines their matter, whereas a relational approach examines the organization and throws away the matter. It's needed because we will never understand organisms via reductionism.

So we're specifically talking about a certain sub-domain of scientific study, not science in general? Are we talking about biology and how some use that to explain psychological phenomenon?

 

Well, today many scientists use the term biopsychosocial as the term to explain the interconnectedness between all these sciences, soft and hard.

 

I thin Rosen was before his time, but I have a strong feeling that time has caught up, and his ideas are not as foreign. Many of the classes I have taken over the years overlap into other fields of study. They don't just look into one specific and disregard or discredit the other.

 

The only subject I know that discredited all other sciences was philosophy, strangely enough. He talked down to sociology and psychology. But after taken those classes, I can't see what his criticism is about because it's a matter of understanding the overreaching concepts of analyzing the data. Economics for instance does not deal with absolutes. It's more an art than math, even though it utilizes math to achieve its end.

[foolish girl]

The sense I get is that prayer can't have that calming effect for many (most?) who don't have some supernatural belief. It certainly doesn't work for me, and I don't know of any atheists for whom it works. (I'd love to hear from atheists who can successfully get that benefit from prayer, though, because I would love to get in on it!) So, in that sense, supernatural belief is rewarded in the natural functioning of their brains simply by focusing an action around an extraordinary belief.

 

Well P. I can't speak for Christian prayers, but I don't believe in Amida or in any after death Pure Land, yet the nembutsu- namu amida butsu roughly translated: "homage to Amida Buddha"- works very well for calming and centering. There again, I adopted the practice as a non-supernatural means from the onset.

 

If I recall what I read correctly, it is the highly ritualized prayers (ie, Hail Mary or Our Father) that have the soothing effect.

 

I used to, and still do, say the Lord's prayer in my head over and over as a centering/calming thing before I had ever heard of centering.....fwiw.

SPEAKING OF SCIENCE VERSUS RELIGION!

This brings up a very important point. Christians droning on with the "Lord's Prayer" when the verse that DIRECTLY PROCEEDS IT in the Bible says:

" But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. "

IRONICALLY ...bad advice from God, as chanting/droning/meditative states have been scientifically proven to be beneficial to our health and happiness.

[Deva]

There aren't very many possible responses to the fact of our mortality:

 

1) Decide (or pretend) that it doesn't matter

 

2) Make peace with the idea.

 

3) Accept some concept of afterlife so you don't have to make peace with the idea.

 

4) Completely avoid thinking about it or anything in life that makes you think about it. Act strangely around people who have lost a loved one. Speak of serious illness or accident only in stage whispers. That sort of thing.

 

Most people use 3, 4 or some combination of the two. Vixentrox presents as a resounding "1", but would be a "4" if s/he is using all this high dudgeon as a smokescreen for the terror of death, as opposed to just objecting to the perceived stupidity of others in believing differently than s/he.

 

I'm a "2", which doesn't preclude openness to information on the subject, the admission of a possibility that I or some aspect of me could be in a sense immortal, however unlikely. Personally I've come to not value immortality that much, because I no longer think of it in the popular sense of "more life, only minus the bullshit". It would probably actually be more of the same, and the idea of a nice restful oblivion actually appeals to me more than the alternatives these days. To me the biggest argument in favor of an afterlife is that oblivion would be too easy. An afterlife, particularly some hellish cyclic afterlife along the lines of reincarnation, would continue the pattern of life being an obtuse, ineffable treadmill; there's a certain symmetry to the idea, little as it appeals to me. But thankfully, that particular explanation seems pretty unlikely.

 

Yes you are partly right, Bob, I do think some aspect of our personality must continue. Otherwise - how would it be different from complete nonexistence?

 

How do you think the motivation of "accepting some concept of afterlife" is "so you don't have to make peace with the idea?" That seems like a strange statement.

 

Don't assume that I think that reincarnation is a great thing. That life is all so fabulous I would love to continue forever. You know that the prime motivation of a Buddhist is to get out of it. You already have a "get out of jail free" card if you believe that death is oblivion.

[Legion]

Hans I want to comment on that last post of yours. But it may not be tonight. I may be out of time.

[Galien]

Ya know, one of the reasons I feel so free after leaving Christianity, is that not only do I no longer have to have an answer for everything, I don"t even need to have an answer for anything. Very freeing.

[Ouroboros]

Hans I want to comment on that last post of yours. But it may not be tonight. I may be out of time.

Okay.

 

But to give you something more to think about, I just looked at some random chapter in Rosen's book where he argued that evolutionists tend to look too much at the genetic influence and very little at causality or connectivity to the world, but I must disagree with his assessment. I suspect that some (perhaps there are many, but I doubt it) evolution scientists (like geneticists) tend to do this, but since I'm studying this topic at the moment, and I had to learn quite a bit about the environmental influences to development and growth of organisms. As far as I can see, I haven't see any genetic-trap thinking in the theory of evolution. What I'm saying is, don't judge science based on the misbehavior of some scientists.

 

Furthermore, from what I can briefly see in Rosen's book is that he's using a lot of math, arguments, logic, reasoning, and reductive thinking to argue his point. To explain his thoughts and views, he had to reduce it to words and sentences. He's using a very scientific approach to criticize science. At least that's my first impression.

 

And at last, here's a book I suspect is a direct response to Rosen's criticism: "The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography," by Stephen P. Hubbell.

 

So I don't believe that what Rosen said 10 years ago fell for deaf ears and nothing changed since then. On the contrary, I believe it has changed.

[Antlerman]

I think I disagree on that one. It's kind of the idea of science to reduce the complexity of nature to simplistic models, even if those models might not be 100%. It's hard to make science from opinion, feelings, experience, or values. Right?

Are you defining science as Hard Science, and ignoring the soft sciences?

So, you're saying that science already does contain non-reductionist attitudes? Then why is it an issue to argue that science doesn't?

Because contextually whenever this issue comes up, the ones speaking of Science with the capital S are speaking of the hard sciences. I was just checking if you were forgetting about the soft sciences which don't. But again, I have no issue with the hard sciences either, quite the contrary. It's philosophical reductionism that I find fault with. Again, there is a distinction to be made.

 

BTW, there is a difference between using reductionist methodologies in examining nature, and reductionism in a philosophical sense. Reductionism philosophically doesn't allow for any other methodologies. They philosophically assume everything can be reduced to its components. It's a conclusion before the facts. And that is the point of the complaints you hear, and rightly so.

So, for the world to be a better world, science should refrain as much as possible from trying to find answers through reductionism and instead try to assume and posit unexplainable theories?

No. The empirical sciences should also recognize the value of other means of knowing and not assume they alone can have the Answers, or necessary the Key to Answers, the Way, Truth, and Life, as it were. That is the major complaint. The world is way too nuanced, and non-reducible in areas beyond the physical alone. And then... when you step off into the spiritual, that goes it another layer more beyond the non-reducible...

 

You saw my post of areas and means of knowing a few posts back? If not, you should go look at that. I could add a number 4 and 5 to that list, but I chose not to to avoid distraction.

 

I do understand the idea of that we (as people, human beings) can't just understand our world through reductionism. I'm all for that. I get that part.

 

But I raised my eyebrows to the idea that science should be changed because of this.

Again, I'm noticing you defining science as the hard sciences. That was my initial point to help flesh this out. I would not change the methods of the hard sciences. I would say we should not reduces all of life to that one approach. To do that, defines Philosophical Reductionism, which is beyond doing science.

 

Just listen to Vix, and so many other's who say "Where's the proof!!!", ad nausem. Yikes. It's irrational, actually. It's religious in actuality. Not scientific.

 

Why? Why should science be changed to something else just to satisfy this problem?

I think we, as human beings, and in our experience, already are using other methods, and why should we somehow define these ways of experiencing the world, and put terms on them, and even put them under the umbrella of the word "Science"? That's the part I don't follow.

Complexity sciences, for instance, dynamic systems theory, etc, which LR's Rosen would fit into, are looking at the world in a non-reductionist way, which is entirely valid, and proper, and helpful, and useful, to understanding the nature of what is. These are non-reductionist, critical analysis that recognize that emergent properties cannot be reduced to the underlying components in order to be understood!

 

What is called for is not to eliminate reductionism as a method of the empirical sciences, but for a recognition of the partialness, the incompleteness of having a solo approach to understanding. Use the tools for the investigation, yet recognize that there is more, much, much more beyond an understanding derived from one, and one method only. That is the complaint of philosophical reductionism.

 

I'm a bit lost here.

Did this help?

[Ouroboros]

Because contextually whenever this issue comes up, the ones speaking of Science with the capital S are speaking of the hard sciences. I was just checking if you were forgetting about the soft sciences which don't. But again, I have no issue with the hard sciences either, quite the contrary. It's philosophical reductionism that I find fault with. Again, there is a distinction to be made.

Do you seriously always find it at fault, or is it just for particular issues that you find it to be at fault?

 

Philosophical reductionism has its place, but as a freethinking individual, we can look beyond that and see that it only has one specific function and does not always provide the answer.

 

The answer is not to change philosophical reductionism to be a non-reductionism. That would be like adding gardening to a math class. They have their individual and specific use and usefulness.

 

The question is, how do you come to the conclusion that reductionism is always wrong? Wouldn't it require some form of a reduction analysis and logical process to get there? Or should a person arrive to this conclusion only on experience and non-analytic process?

 

 

BTW, there is a difference between using reductionist methodologies in examining nature, and reductionism in a philosophical sense. Reductionism philosophically doesn't allow for any other methodologies. They philosophically assume everything can be reduced to its components. It's a conclusion before the facts. And that is the point of the complaints you hear, and rightly so.

But that wasn't the thing or argument that I brought up and argued against.

 

Go back and look at what specific sentence I reacted to. Was it about reductionist methodologies in general or even philosophical sense? No. I got the impression that science, or Science, should change to be less reductionistic. And my counter question is, why? Why make science, or Science, into something else just to benefit the opinion that it's not useful in all kinds of debate or understanding of the world? Is "understanding of the world" only a concept own by science? My impression is that you don't think so. So why do we have to conform science to satisfy the need of seeing the world through other eyes than just science? It just doesn't make sense.

 

Why not change religion to be scientific too? Or child care to be car mechanics? Or geology to also be weapons manufacturing? Each study has its own tools and methods. No need to change them or mix them up.

 

After all, it's up to us, the human beings, you and me, to invoke different methods, sciences, experiences, or whatnots, to understand the world. It's not on the should on "Science" to be able to explain it all.

 

Don't you agree to that?

 

No. The empirical sciences should also recognize the value of other means of knowing and not assume they alone can have the Answers, or necessary the Key to Answers, the Way, Truth, and Life, as it were. That is the major complaint. The world is way to nuanced, and non-reducible in areas beyond the physical alone. And then... when you step off into the spiritual, that goes it another layer more beyond the non-reducible...

I think the problem isn't the science, or Science, but the individuals within science. It's the attitude of the humans within the scientific field to need to understand this. There is no dogmatic holy bible that all scientists follow. There is no specific constitution written that demands that they must have the attitude that "science is the key to all." It's the individuals that are at fault. Not the method. Don't blame the scissors when the gardener cut the wrong rose.

 

You saw my post of areas and means of knowing a few posts back? If not, you should go look at that. I could add a number 4 and 5 to that list, but I chose not to to avoid distraction.

I think you're missing my point. Well. Whatever.

 

Again, I'm noticing you defining science as the hard sciences. That was my initial point to help flesh this out. I would not change the methods of the hard sciences. I would say we should not reduces all of life to that one approach. To do that, defines Philosophical Reductionism, which is beyond doing science.

 

Just listen to Vix, and so many other's who say "Where's the proof!!!", ad nausem. Yikes. It's irrational, actually. It's religious in actuality. Not scientific.

I'm not with them, and I have at least two or three times explained that I do not consider science to answer all questions. So I'm not one of those hard-nosed, hard-core scientific reductionists. Even though I do believe in the function of reductionism in science. And I don't find it useful to change science as such to fit the sentiment of people. Not all scientist are this way as I hear them described here. I feel it's a hasty generalization of a group of people who take both life and science seriously.

 

My reaction was to Legion's comment that Science should change. At least, that was my impression of his statement. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

So do you really believe that this personified entity "Science" should be talked to and convinced to change? Should this being "Science" be forced to understand that it is too obnoxious and arrogant and should learn to be more lenient towards people with softer views of the world? How would you go about doing this?

 

Complexity sciences, for instance, dynamic systems theory, etc, which LR's Rosen would fit into, are looking at the world in a non-reductionist way, which is entirely valid, and proper, and helpful, and useful, to understanding the nature of what is. These are non-reductionist, critical analysis that recognize that emergent properties cannot be reduced to the underlying components in order to be understood! What is called for is not to eliminate reductionism as a method of the empirical sciences, but for a recognition of the partialness, the incompleteness of having a solo approach to understanding. Use the tools for the investigation, yet recognize that there is more, much, much more beyond an understanding derived from one, and one method only. That is the complaint of philosophical reductionism.

I'm not arguing "philosophical reductionism." Each time you bring that up, you are arguing YOUR point, not the point I brought up.

 

And furthermore, are you now stating that these kinds of sciences DO exist? Then why should science add these things to science if that kind of science already exist? Do you see the problem here? What should change if the change is already there?

 

In the end, I feel that your and Legion's critique in the last posts has nothing to do with "science" at all, but how people treat science as a new religion. But that's another point. Don't blame the derivative of a function for the nuclear blast a scientist managed to create from it. Science is science. It is what it is. Blame the people using it. Don't blame the tools of the trade.

 

Did this help?

Not really, because I think you are arguing against something different than I was.

 

Put it this way, if you don't like a certain kind of music, would you demand that this kind of music would have to change in order for you to be satisfied? Why not listen to some other music if it doesn't fit you?

 

Don't demand that rap music start using violins, cellos, and traverse flutes, just because you don't like that particular style. Listen to the music you like instead. If one science doesn't answer your questions, don't demand that it changes to fit your sentiment.

 

---

 

Perhaps I just misunderstood Legion. Looking back at his post, I can see that he just meant that there could be science which doesn't apply any kind of reductionist method and still be a science. Well. I'm not so sure about that. You can't build a whole science on inductive reasoning alone. At some point you need to use axioms from which you build your theories, and they are the reductive elements regardless if you like it or not.

 

Maybe it would be easier if one of you could give me an example of a non-reductionist science? Soft sciences, like psychology, sociology, economics invoke a lot of reductionist thinking, but not only, but it's in the mix. Without it, it would be nothing. So how about it? Some examples, please? That would probably help me understand better.

 

(And you know, what is really funny here. In the little discussion we've had here, we've used the methods of reducing the concepts to components to argue the individual parts. So how would we have discussed this without it? After all, words themselves are essentially a reduction of ideas. Just by saying something about what we think, we have reduced the idea. Is it possible to go as far to say that language is the trademark of reductionism?)

[Ouroboros]

Let me give an example to why I don't think the "reductionist" scientist is as common today as it used to be. In our textbook for biological anthropology, we have a chapter dedicated to adaptation. But not the genetic adaption as you would think a book about evolution would have, but instead it's about ontogenic adaptation (developmental, childhood etc), physiological (acclimatization) adaptation, and cultural (behavioral) adaptation. Why, if the charge here is that science is all about reductionism only (and in anthropology it would be genetics and DNA), do they talk about things that are fluent and continuous instead? For the simple reason that they know it can't be just explained with DNA. So what does culture have to do with evolution? Quite a lot actually. It can't be discarded. Attitudes, lifestyles, choices, and much more are just as big part of evolution as mutations. (But that's for another topic.)

 

My professor teaches not only biological anthropology, but also cultural anthropology, and witchcraft and magic. He also participates in native American rituals. But he's an communist atheist on top of all that.

[DesertBob]

5) Become consciously aware that all that is, is Life, and to apprehend Life Itself into our conscious mind and to experience that state of being, is to transcend the form, to transcend the self and negate any requirement to imagine some human-like existence in some mythical world after the human body. This is eternity. We are Life. There is no such thing as afterlife, just as there is no such thing as tomorrow.

I presume it would it be a fair characterization to say that your objective is to awaken to your true Self. Judging from your description of this state of awareness, I'm guessing that very few people achieve it prior to death. The logical question is, why all that waste?

 

I can see where notions of reincarnation come from. If enlightenment is such a desirable state, and so few are enlightened, then that is the fundamental failure of Eastern thought -- and as with Christianity's failure to produce its version of enlightenment, this tension must be displaced into an afterlife for its resolution. The main difference is that the Christian afterlife is linear and the Eastern afterlife is cyclic.

 

Another possible explanation is that nature is extravagant (or, depending on your perspective, wasteful). Billions of seeds or spores are produced in some cases even though only a handful, or just one, will actually give birth to anything. Mutations occur, and most are failures. And so forth.

 

You speak of oneness a lot, so I presume you see your "true Self" as everyone's "true Self", a superset at least of AntlerMan but probably, a universal consciousness of which you are but an expression. In other words your true Self is my true Self is End3's true Self is Vixentrox's true Self. Perhaps it is irrelevant how far any of those individuals get in their enlightenment because the goal is for the One to experience duality through us all (evidently, the One is rather masochistic) and we all are subsumed back into the One anyway.

 

I am not sure what the motivation is to struggle toward awareness. Dissolution will occur with or without the effort. AntlerMan will cease to exist as AntlerMan regardless, so what's in it for him? It's true that enlightenment is supposed to free one from suffering, but so few are enlightened that it's a little like buying lottery tickets: there's a theoretical motivation, but not if you understand the true odds and the true probable cost for all those tickets.

 

I doubt I'm that different from most people. At bottom what I want is to freely and reliably give and receive love and compassion and have it just flow and be uncomplicated and therefore without artifice, insecurity or other flakiness. As you're so fond of saying, I can only conceive of that in terms of what I know myself to be and in terms of my experience and whatever I can manage to extrapolate from that.

 

What drives an adept such as AntlerMan? My guess is, pretty much the same thing, but presumably at a higher level of awareness. Given that you can't assume that higher level is the highest level or that there even is a highest level, it's hard to say whether the risks and expenditures to "take it to the next level" is going to be that rewarding in whatever Great Scheme of Things there may be. Yet, at the same time, everything I've read about people on this path is that it leads to existential crises, the danger of madness and abject despair as well as the hope of wholeness and joy. For anyone who has had a less that satisfactory life experience, that's not much to look forward to.

 

Well ... I'm off to the east coast manana and it's time to pack. I may be scarce until Monday but appreciate your patience with my questions just the same.

[DesertBob]

How do you think the motivation of "accepting some concept of afterlife" is "so you don't have to make peace with the idea?" That seems like a strange statement.

I'm referring to making peace with the fact of your mortality. An afterlife by definition contemplates immortality, thus circumventing the need to deal with the finality of death. That is not a criticism; each of us must do what we have to in order to maintain the will to live. I simply feel it is my task as a human being to deal in reality in this area. I'm a great fan of Ernest Becker's book, Denial of Death. If you can ignore the chapters that contain his annoying, exhaustive, scholarly postmortem psychoanalysis on his hero, Freud, I think he pretty much nails the human condition. And the book is informed by his own reality -- he was dying of cancer when he wrote it. I always like a guy who puts his money where his mouth is.

[DesertBob]

Ya know, one of the reasons I feel so free after leaving Christianity, is that not only do I no longer have to have an answer for everything, I don't even need to have an answer for anything. Very freeing.

I despair of having answers for even the basics, much less everything. But I would prefer clear knowledge any day. I don't need to be "right" but I do need to be informed. Life can be too much like a "fun"house of mirrors otherwise.

[Antlerman]

Hans, to keep my response as brief as possible, I believe we are talking past each other. What you keep saying you see me doing, I am not. I thought I had articulated that clearly in my response, but for some reason I must not have. I can't take the time to cover the same ground again, so I suggest you maybe look it over again. I agree with you, you go after me for not.

[Ouroboros]

Hans, to keep my response as brief as possible, I believe we are talking past each other. What you keep saying you see me doing, I am not. I thought I had articulated that clearly in my response, but for some reason I must not have. I can't take the time to cover the same ground again, so I suggest you maybe look it over again. I agree with you, you go after me for not.

Yeah. I guess we are talking past each other.

 

My argument was really only with Legion, so I'm not sure how you got involved in this...

[Vixentrox]

I have never been able to accept that death is the end of consciousness.

Why? Have you seen some peer reviewed science article that says consciosness continues after worms are eating your rotting brain? Or is it "faith" like a Christian, believing in absurd stuff? How is thinking that death isn't the end of consciousness any less absurd than talking donkeys, Jesus coming back from the dead, talking flaming bushes, and the like? Why would you stop beleiving in that ridiculous stuff but stick with this fanciful belief?

 

Perhaps your God -"peer reviewed science"- doesn't have the answer for everything. It doesn't have the answers for the mystery of living. Just because I left Christianity does not automatically mean that none of it had any truth or value. Have you ever heard of the mythic or the metaphorical?

 

You call it "fanciful" if you like. I really don't care.

The mystery of living? Bio-chemical reactions, cellular activities, electrical impulses. It doesn't seem a huge mystery. Certainly I have heard of "mythic" and metaphorical. Saying you think consciousness goes on after death is a metaphor to you? And mythic:

 

Adj. 1. mythic - relating to or having the nature of myth; "a novel of almost mythic consequence"

2. mythic - based on or told of in traditional stories; lacking factual basis or historical validity; "mythical centaurs"; "the fabulous unicorn"

mythical, mythologic, mythological, fabulous

unreal - lacking in reality or substance or genuineness; not corresponding to acknowledged facts or criteria; "ghosts and other unreal entities"; "unreal propaganda serving as news"

 

Underpants gnomes fit into that category.

 

I mentioned the mythic with reference to your "talking donkeys, Jesus coming back from the dead, etc..." line. NOT with reference to consciousness surviving death. You have lumped them all together as if its all the same thing. I don't regard it that way.

 

I can see from your idea of myth that you haven't read any Joseph Campbell or Jung -- pity.

 

In regard to your "underpants gnomes" comment. You just resort to ridicule instead of discussion.

They DESERVE to be lumped together. There is no proof for talking donkeys and coming back from the dead. There is no proof for consciousness surviving death.

[Vixentrox]

Ya know, one of the reasons I feel so free after leaving Christianity, is that not only do I no longer have to have an answer for everything, I don"t even need to have an answer for anything. Very freeing.

Indeed. I don't need some mystical stuff to try to define my life. I have no use for it. I know who I am without such things. Also this whole "oneness" with everything and consciousness existing after death and other similar things are on the same level as the fairy-tales Christianity pushed to me

[Deva]

They DESERVE to be lumped together. There is no proof for talking donkeys and coming back from the dead. There is no proof for consciousness surviving death.

 

"Deserve" a judgment in your mind only. Your opinion only. An unthoughtful one, at that.

[Deva]

Ya know, one of the reasons I feel so free after leaving Christianity, is that not only do I no longer have to have an answer for everything, I don"t even need to have an answer for anything. Very freeing.

Indeed. I don't need some mystical stuff to try to define my life. I have no use for it. I know who I am without such things. Also this whole "oneness" with everything and consciousness existing after death and other similar things are on the same level as the fairy-tales Christianity pushed to me

 

So we see the difference between Galien and yourself. Galien says "no longer have to have an answer for everything." Yes, that is freeing. I don't see Galien ridiculing people here that may think differently.

 

You, on the other hand, are not anywhere near the same position, Vix. You MUST have an answer for everything -- your new God (assuming you were ever a Christian)-- Science. And just because you have no use for positions that are not "peer reviewed science", you must ridicule others who do. You are a black and white thinker.

[Vixentrox]

So are you suggesting that your consciousness is some magical form of atom?

Why yes! It's magic fairy dust controlled by special gnomes. Why do you ask?

 

Let's talk evidence. Give me one single shred of evidence, since you claim that is so important to you, where anything I have ever said would support such an absurd question being asked of me? Don't have any evidence for that? Then why do you persist in asking such nonsensical questions of me? Evidence. Present yours.

 

 

I'll try to explain to you but you need to do one thing, one request from me in these discussions if you wish to actually be respected as a participant with valid points of view to be considered and responded to. You must stop lacing your verbiage with all sorts of editorializing, utterly superfluous value attacks such as "idiotic", "stupid", "rubbish" etc in talking with others about their views. You seem incapable of not throwing these in, and in reality, 99.9% of the time you in fact have no idea what they actually mean or believe.

 

Secondly it serves absolutely no value to anyone but you and your emotional raging. That is not a discussion at that point. And I might start considering that a deliberate disruption of others actual discussion if it continues, and view it as pretty much being Troll behavior and respond accordingly to that. I don't want to think that or go to that at this point, but that could happen. I would prefer not to go there.

 

No one is saying you don't have valid views to discussion, just you need to stop being so insulting even if you feel everyone else but you are ignorant of the facts as you see them. Let's get past that, and then we can have a real discussion. That's all.

 

I'll address your points momentarily...

 

I already said we are already connected at a molecular level. The atoms from Roman slave feces may very well exist in each of our brains. So what? Atoms are constantly reused in new forms. And matter is something occupies a space and has mass; things that are measurable.

And values, and thoughts, and ideas, and perceptions, and truths, and meaning - are not things that occupy space and have mass, nor are measurable empirically. Yet they are real. These are things that we interact with and influence with the physical world, yet we never seem to question them as real.

 

Give me you empirical evidence of the meaning of Hamlet. Give me your empirical evidence of the meaning of life. Where is your proofs? My point is you are completely missing the majority of what reality is and how we understand it by saying you need empirical evidence. And for evidence, you yourself don't live consistently with that. You live using other means than science to tell you how to live.

 

Do I presume to be the only form of awareness in the universe, no, animals have awareness of a sort. What does that have to do with anything? Not a damn thing.

It has everything to do with all of this. That consciousness that they exhibit is not a product of the human brain. That consciousness, like matter itself, is not a product of the body. That consciousness runs through the interior of all forms, and is seen in all forms to one degree or another, just as matter is in all forms to one degree or another of complexity and depth. Your empirical world looks at only one aspect of everything - the material, physical forms. It does not, nor can look at the interior realm.

 

Here's something for your rational mind to process and consider in you claims of science and evidence as the all important measure of reality:

 

How do we actually understand things? How do we gain knowledge? Based on Jürgen Habermas' model:

 

1. The physical, or body world understands the physical world in a horizontal relationship through instinctual, sensorimotor input and response;

 

2. The mental world, or mind, understands the physical world through empirical-analytic thought, a technical evaluation of mind observing the material (using systems of symbols to translate it to the mind, whether those are mathematical or mythological).

 

3. The mental world, or mind, understands the mental world in descending relationship though

historic-hermeneutics

; a practical interpretation. This is always going to occur in a context of social/cultural spheres - and as such its truths are in that context.

 

You are trying to say that the interior world either does not exist, or that somehow, magically as you like say, can be understood and processes relationally between minds in the exact same way you can measure the dimensions of a rock, to prove it's dimensions and call it that one thing only. This is not how you live your life.

 

To quote briefly from someone I greatly respect,

 

I, along with Habermas, Gadamer, Taylor, Ogilvy, etc., consider exclusive empiricism to be radically and violently reductionistic, no matter how cleverly concealed; the demand for "empirical proof" is really a demand to strip the higher levels of being of their meaning and value and present them only in their aspects that can be reduced to objective, sensory, value-free, univalent dimensions. While we will not shun empirical data (that would miss the point), neither will we confine ourselves to empirical data (that would miss the point completely).

 

(Wilber, Up from Eden, pg 37)

 

You are missing the point completely in ignoring, dismissing the entire interior world of mind and consciousness, which is not created by matter, but is inextricably bound in all things. It is not a "magic atom", any more than the human mind is a magic body.

 

You are inconsistent in your approach, and your insistence that all must follow and obey this new paradigm you claim as authoritative, is invalidated by the fact that you yourself in fact do not follow it either. I just recognize the difference, and pursue developing in these area you deny to yourself, for some internal reason.

We are free to attack Christians for their faith mercilessly. I see no reason why any other faith should get a pass. This is not the "spirituality" forum where everyone has to be nice and choke on the equally absurd (though usually benign) beliefs.

 

"Give me you empirical evidence of the meaning of Hamlet. Give me your empirical evidence of the meaning of life. Where is your proofs? My point is you are completely missing the majority of what reality is and how we understand it by saying you need empirical evidence. And for evidence, you yourself don't live consistently with that. You live using other means than science to tell you how to live."

 

There is no "meaning of life." You eat, you crap, you screw, you die. It's just a biological process. If there is any purpose it's to procreate. That is what all animals are geared for. Reproduction and survival/propagation of the species. That's it. Hamlet means whatever you want it to mean. I never found it all that engaging. I'll give you that not everything in life can easily be fit into the domain of empirical science. Having said that, the things like being connected to everything in some way beyond the molecular, claims of consciousness continuing after death are totally absurd to me.

 

"And values, and thoughts, and ideas, and perceptions, and truths, and meaning - are not things that occupy space and have mass, nor are measurable empirically. Yet they are real. These are things that we interact with and influence with the physical world, yet we never seem to question them as real."

 

Yes they are real. Again, so what? They are measurable. They are produced by electrical impulses in the brain. They show an end result.

 

"It has everything to do with all of this. That consciousness that they exhibit is not a product of the human brain. That consciousness, like matter itself, is not a product of the body. That consciousness runs through the interior of all forms, and is seen in all forms to one degree or another, just as matter is in all forms to one degree or another of complexity and depth. Your empirical world looks at only one aspect of everything - the material, physical forms. It does not, nor can look at the interior realm."

It is product of the body. It doesn't exist without a body. Without a collection of atoms, cells, and electrical impulses there is no consciousness.

 

"I, along with Habermas, Gadamer, Taylor, Ogilvy, etc., consider exclusive empiricism to be radically and violently reductionistic, no matter how cleverly concealed; the demand for "empirical proof" is really a demand to strip the higher levels of being of their meaning and value and present them only in their aspects that can be reduced to objective, sensory, value-free, univalent dimensions. While we will not shun empirical data (that would miss the point), neither will we confine ourselves to empirical data (that would miss the point completely). "

 

Reductionism seems logical to me. All of life has no real meaning or value in the grand scheme of things. It all boils down to what certain processes in the brain caused an animal to do. A comet could hit Earth an wipe out all life. Where does your connectedness do then? Where does consciousness existing after death land when all life is wiped out?

 

"You are missing the point completely in ignoring, dismissing the entire interior world of mind and consciousness, which is not created by matter, but is inextricably bound in all things. It is not a "magic atom", any more than the human mind is a magic body."

It is created by matter. It doesn't exist where there is no brain. It is a result of chemical reactions in the brain, electrical impulses.

[Vixentrox]

Ya know, one of the reasons I feel so free after leaving Christianity, is that not only do I no longer have to have an answer for everything, I don"t even need to have an answer for anything. Very freeing.

Indeed. I don't need some mystical stuff to try to define my life. I have no use for it. I know who I am without such things. Also this whole "oneness" with everything and consciousness existing after death and other similar things are on the same level as the fairy-tales Christianity pushed to me

 

So we see the difference between Galien and yourself. Galien says "no longer have to have an answer for everything." Yes, that is freeing. I don't see Galien ridiculing people here that may think differently.

 

You, on the other hand, are not anywhere near the same position, Vix. You MUST have an answer for everything -- your new God (assuming you were ever a Christian)-- Science. And just because you have no use for positions that are not "peer reviewed science", you must ridicule others who do. You are a black and white thinker.

Science is not a god. Very Christian of you to make it so though. The same argument that we laugh at Christians for using cannot be used to defend your equally unprovable belief.

[Guest end3]

She was, Buddah-like, willing to let it be as it was. Did this allow me to be myself and facilitate honest exploration? Given the relationship, yes. Absent the relationship, it's irrelevant.

 

If she was a Christian, it was grace. Absent the relationship, it only is irrelevant based on your ability to practice such my friend. Don't fool yourself.

It was grace whether or not she was a Christian. She was a gracious person, and would have been one anyway. I do not want to take away from her character by attributing the fruit of her own ethics and self discipline to some external force, or by attributing her motivation for doing the right thing to the usual Christian suspects -- fear and guilt. She loved and respected me, and acted accordingly. That's all.

 

My wife's willingness to not interfere in my processes was relevant while she was alive in that I was not held back by a need to keep the peace or constantly explain or justify or debate. Now that she is dead, I also do not need to keep the peace or explain or justify. In that sense her forbearance is no longer relevant in the present, other than that I appreciate the memory of it.

 

Slow down when you read things, end, and do not jump to conclusions, okay? I don't know what you feel I'm fooling myself about, but I frequently feel that you respond to something other than what I actually said. In any case it's impertinent to suggest that I don't know my own mind. You haven't earned the right to say things like that to me.

 

Thanks.

 

I read you as saying you weren't effected/affected by the relationship as defined by your belief.....taking special effort to deny the definitions: relationship, love, respect. I think that is where you were fooling yourself. I don't see it happening for her then, nor you then, nor you now, through your memories. Even from a physiological standpoint, I would bet my gonads that changes occur through attractions, relationships, intercourse. But please press on, maybe I can learn something. I will curtain the other. Thank you for your patience.