Religion in a Scientific Age?

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:

quote:

Originally posted by Chillkram:
Could this be the record for the longest ever post?!!

Fredrik? Can you answer this?

Dear Deane,

Yes I can definately state it is the second longest paste, sorry post, ... sorry about that but I chuckled so will leave it, after my record library post that Mark refers to. It was roughly four times as long as this, and every bit as interesting!

As for answering the post, not, I fear, this evening!

Kindest regards from Fredrik!

Sources of quotes:

Dangerous Idea p27
Ramachandran and Blakeslee – Phantoms in the Brain p228
Oxford Philosophy p192
Ornament p194
Ornament p204
Ornament p206
Ornament p205
Ornament p206
Emptiness Yoga p172
ibid
The Mystery of Consciousness p 112
Buddhism and Science p345
p99
p209
p134
Wholeness p220
Wholeness p220
Almost Everything p91
Although Goswami does draw deserved criticism by making absurd claims which go far beyond reasonable limits.
Shadows p309
Perplexed p138
Self Aware Universe p91
Conversations on Consciousness p1
beyond measure p249
Blackmore - Consciousness – An Intro p7
Blackmore - Consciousness – An Intro p13
Conversations on Consciousness p234
p38
p199
Phantoms?
Conversations p92
Review of Cairns-Smith, Evolving the Mind
Consciousness Explained
Review of Cairns-Smith, Evolving the Mind – and Consciousness Explained.
Radio interview ….
philosophy of mind – Chalmers p227
p227
Consciousness –an introduction p3
p7
p33
p7
Choosing Reality p178
Mind in Tibetan Buddhism p45
Heart of Wisdom
Searle p112
Choosing Reality p76
Quantum Reality p xii
Science and Ultimate Reality p451
Conversations p86
Balancing the Mind p17
p174
Matter and Consciousness p178
p179
p180
Intro to Middle Way p83
Intro to Middle Way p?
p269
p275
Distinguishing Consciousness p22
Blumenthal p 82
Thrangu Rinpoche – Transcending Ego p23
Refer to Dennett’s ‘Consciousness Explained’ here?
Ibid p35
Quantum Evolution p296
Shadows
MMQM
MMQM p44
Enigma p179
Essential D. Bohm p160

Dear Droo,

I thank you, because I understood your post straight off. I did not plug into the links however, but tomorrow...! I shall definitely attempt to understand Acad's, but make no guarantee of succeeding. The great thing about philosophy as opposed to religion is that it is in flux, subject to new ideas and not stuck in entrenched orthodoxies.

I would never claim to be able to join in on the same level as the great philosophers [or even the not great at all philosophers!], but there are times when I have read some of their works and they chimed with me. Bertrand Russell makes me laugh out loud in agreement from time to time, but maybe he is not a great philosopher!

I start from the point of view that there is no such thing as the super-natural, beyond the imaginings of humans!

The mystical I characterise as things that cannot ever be fully understood, such as the music of Bach. It can be partially understood, but in some ways remains always an enigma. I accept you citing of this impossiblility of total comprehension as a good analogy with the impossiblility of understanding the Universe, or even the nature of consciousness.

The great thing about a Thread like this, is that one can examine what one does think, test it, test to destruction perhaps...

But there is a point where trying to understand the incomprehensible suffers from the law of diminishing returns! Lots of brain ache, and not much more concrete to show for it, at which point I revert to the materialist and empirical, as a lead!

Interesting about the sweetness of a sugar lump! Unless it is not a suger lump, then like a horse I would assume it is sweet, and not worry over much beyond that in general, though I shall have to give the reality of its sweetness much more thought now!!!

Kindest regards from Fredrik

Dear Acad,

I shall try to digest your post, but there is a serious chance that I shall not even be able to analyse it well enough to formulate any sensible questions to clarify my failure to grasp it. I am sorry to be such a dullard if this is indeed the case, and I suspect it really may very well be.

Hopefully I shall be up to understanding some of it... The remains of my hair is falling out fast!!!

Thanks from Fredrik

To paraphrase King Lear, "Sweetness is all!"

At least as far as the philosophy of consciousness is concerned.

I've been away for a couple of days and have been trying to catch up with this thread - not a small task! Thank you to those who have contributed, particularly Acad, Droo and Fredrik.

One thought that does come to mind as I struggle to assimilate the views is that in my opinion there is a false demarcation between philosophy and science, and that these two disciplines should be merged as they once were.

Best wishes from Ears

This is a fascinating thread and a topic that I have of great interest in.

There are perennial questions I always ask that cannot be put down to rational logic. Please follow my example...

I recently worked in a home for the mentally infirm and saw many residents with Alzheimer's, of varying severity. This is sad, granted, but I questioned where and what is the soul? This may have been touched upon in this thread, but hypothetically, you could have 3 people:

Person A has very quick thinking, i.e. his brain is highly efficient and transmits signals at a very quick speed.

Person B has Alzheimer's and does not know who he or what he is, doesn't recognise anyone around him and his memory lasts 4 minutes.

Person C has what we collectively term as paranoid schizophrenia and is continually under the delusion that females want to kill him.

Now, ignoring issues such as e.g. does mental illness really exist or does intelligence really exist, these people's brains are acting according to how I described above. Period.

Taking 'eternal life' as the hypothesis, when these three people die, what is it that lives for eternity? If the soul is what the description says (it has to be otherwise it would not be 'them' that dies), these three people will be in their respective states for eternity. The intelligent soul will always be sharp and intelligent, the person with Alzheimer's will never be aware what is going on around him, the person with paranoid schizophrenia will always be in a state of distress.

It could not be any other way, otherwise our souls are not us.

This I guess is kind of using the reductio ad absurdum method to conclude that having an everlasting soul is farcical.

Any thoughts?

Jon

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Acad,

I shall try to digest your post, but there is a serious chance that I shall not even be able to analyse it well enough to formulate any sensible questions to clarify my failure to grasp it. I am sorry to be such a dullard if this is indeed the case, and I suspect it really may very well be.

Hopefully I shall be up to understanding some of it... The remains of my hair is falling out fast!!!

Thanks from Fredrik

Fredrik,

Don't blow a fuse old chop - all this stuff is difficult enough having read the first 5 chapters but jumping in at chapter 6 is damn near impossible - I only posted it to show you there is more to this area of study than you might have thought and how important it is to establish terms of reference and accurate definitions. Save your hair!

quote:

Originally posted by Ears:

One thought that does come to mind as I struggle to assimilate the views is that in my opinion there is a false demarcation between philosophy and science, and that these two disciplines should be merged as they once were.

Best wishes from Ears

Dear ears,

Excellent. I agree entirely. Buddhist meditation is in fact a science of the mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Consciousmess:

Any thoughts?

Jon

Yes. Will post later.

quote:

Taking 'eternal life' as the hypothesis, when these three people die, what is it that lives for eternity? If the soul is what the description says (it has to be otherwise it would not be 'them' that dies), these three people will be in their respective states for eternity. The intelligent soul will always be sharp and intelligent, the person with Alzheimer's will never be aware what is going on around him, the person with paranoid schizophrenia will always be in a state of distress.

It could not be any other way, otherwise our souls are not us.

This I guess is kind of using the reductio ad absurdum method to conclude that having an everlasting soul is farcical.

Fairly argued - I see a few potential gaps, but as I don't believe in souls (except in a highly attenuated metaphorical sense, perhaps), I'm going to keep schtum!

I like what Wittgenstein says about the idea of eternal life, in the closing pages of the Tractatus:

quote:

Not only is there no guarantee of the temporal immortality of the human soul, that is to say of its eternal survival after death; but, in any case, this assumption completely fails to accomplish the purpose for which it has always been intended. Or is some riddle solved by my surviving for ever? Is not this eternal life itself as much of a riddle as our present life? The solution of the riddle of life in space and time lies outside space and time. (It is certainly not the solution of any problems of natural science that is required.)

The end of the Tractatus contains many such gems, some of which have a bearing on this thread. If anyone's interested, the complete text is available online at:

Tractatus Logico Philosophicus

The remarks I referred to above may be found from proposition 6.4 onwards.

Caveat - Wittgenstein occasionally refers to God, but his position was by no means that of a conventional believer, resembling more the position I set out in my first post (hardly surprising as Wittgenstein has been a big influence on me).

Acad me old Quantum theorist,

I don’t understand all this quantum malarkey, but do remember that science doesn’t deal in absolutes… now I hope you don’t mind a brief diversion from the scientific religious discussion on Yahweh …

Does a particle have a precise position and momentum, or is the reality as uncertain as our perceptions?

A Classical epistemological answer in Latin will do, wink!

Beano the uncertain reckons it’s a maze without a centre!

quote:

Originally posted by Consciousmess:

Taking 'eternal life' as the hypothesis, when these three people die, what is it that lives for eternity? If the soul is what the description says (it has to be otherwise it would not be 'them' that dies), these three people will be in their respective states for eternity. The intelligent soul will always be sharp and intelligent, the person with Alzheimer's will never be aware what is going on around him, the person with paranoid schizophrenia will always be in a state of distress.

It could not be any other way, otherwise our souls are not us.

This I guess is kind of using the reductio ad absurdum method to conclude that having an everlasting soul is farcical.

Any thoughts?

Jon

This is exactly what I meant when I mentioned physical illness affecting the thought process es, affecting the mind, affecting the personality even what might be characterised as the soul] in my post on the previous page.

How indeed?

More tomorrow if not later today in all prbaility! Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Acad,

I shall try to digest your post, ...

Fredrik,

Don't blow a fuse old chop - all this stuff is difficult enough having read the first 5 chapters but jumping in at chapter 6 is damn near impossible - I only posted it to show you there is more to this area of study than you might have thought and how important it is to establish terms of reference and accurate definitions. Save your hair!

Dear Acad,

One thing it shows without a shadoow of doubt is that there are writers who can write at immense length and split hair many many times!

What you post, which is a very big quotation, does is show that one can "define" realities, perceptions, consciousness in this form or that. I am not at all sure it shows what is defined actually is!

I still have not digested it, but was feeling a bit ghastly when I came in from work, and it will have to wait till tomorrow now I would think. I may have nothing to say, if I cannot grasp the writer's point, beyond admitting that fact!

Kindest regards from Fredrik

quote:

p7
p33
p7
Choosing Reality p178
Mind in Tibetan Buddhism p45
Heart of Wisdom
Searle p112
Choosing Reality p76
Quantum Reality p xii
Science and Ultimate Reality p451
Conversations p86
Balancing the Mind p17
p174
Matter and Consciousness p178
p179
p180

They must line up around the block to meet you at parties, A.T!

And before you say it, yes, I agree, if I don't like or agree with what's written on this particular Post, why do I bother reading it?

To be honest, the answer is I find the mental masturbation some of you are indulging in hilarious.

Here's one for you, Droodzilla.

Religion in a Scientific Age? When does the Scientific Age you are referring to start? The invention of the wheel, Windows for Workgroups 3.11 or something inbetween? Or later even, say pre iPod?!

Ian

quote:

Originally posted by ianmacd:

Religion in a Scientific Age? When does the Scientific Age you are referring to start? The invention of the wheel, Windows for Workgroups 3.11 or something inbetween? Or later even, say pre iPod?!

This scientific age started around 1600 with Francis Bacon's exclamation that "Knowledge is Power".

However, for public masturbation, nothing really beats (pun intended) the Hifi Room - "I've just bought new DBLs/a CD555/a NAP500 and they're OH SO GOOD!!! Come and join me, in a circle!"

Which is why you hardly ever post here, Ian, I presume.

Ian - Deane F's is as good an answer as any. To which I would add...

Central to the scientific worldview is the idea that the source of knowledge is our experience of the world. This may sound trivial to modern readers, but before Bacon, Galileo and the like, attempts to settle arguments would often hinge on appeals to authority - typically that of the Bible, or the works of Aristotle. The emergence of the scientific worldview in the 17th Century was a massive intellectual shift, which it is easy to take for granted. It brought with it increased scepticism about established religion - Dawkins' book is a recent example of this trend.

So what is the theist response to the argument that our brain activity is our 'soul'??

Fredrik, Im glad that you posed a similar issue in an earlier post, because it honestly doesnt make rational sense having a soul. The state of someone's consciousness (soul) is so easily altered by psychotropic drugs, hormones, nutrition, and sadly brain trauma. This alters the person, their personality and of course their soul by inference.

What is the theist response? This is without using silly analogies like 'we are a violin and a violin player, the violin player is our soul and the violin is our mortal manifestation' - that analogy explains nothing!!!

I look forward to a response!!

Jon

Jon

What is your experience with psychotropic drugs? Did they alter your experience of consciousness - or your entire consciousness?

Because with any mind altering experience I've had (many years ago now), there was always a part of me that was entirely unaffected by the drug - the part of me that was watching the experience. Different theories and philosophies have different names for this "watcher".

Deane

Hi Deane,

I understand what you are saying. Ive read that consciousness can be split into 'core consciousness' and 'autobiographical consciousness' and what you refer to is core consciousness remaining the same and being the 'watcher'. Obviously other scholars have split consciousness in other ways and I am personally a mere amateur - I know some people have split consciousness into such things as 'access consciousness' and 'epiphenomenal consciousness' not to mention many others.

Definitions of consciousness abound, granted. I can also relate to you in the sense that I have dabbled in psychotropic drugs, myself and experienced a bad trip with LSD and associated flashbacks. I remember that experience was sheer insanity, I could not piece together a singular entity in me and my 'consciousness' was fragmented into a 'consciousmess'. Excuse the joke.

I see youre point though about being a 'watcher', as surely there was a something in me that felt I was fragmented, as by definition I have memories of feeling as though there was no core consciousness, but that feeling had to be felt by something. Unless my autobiographical memories of it have done the making sense and thus given this illusion!! Hmmm.

That aside, what about people who have had brain trauma and thus been totally changed in persona? Is the 'soul' the same person before or after the brain damage? In fact, is the person with schizophrenia their 'soul' with or without medication?

Jon

Dear Acad,

I have read your chapter six post, and honestly I don't understand it in any sensible way. To me it speaks of concepts, which are defined in words, which does not make them real, beyond being nicely argued ideas.

In one respect I can see what Deane is saying when he states that even in the deepest state of say inebriation it is remarkable how one can grip one's self - keep control - observe that one is teetering on the edge of making a fool of one's self, and therefore avoid it. I know this from one or two experiences where in spite of all I had to keep a grip when all round me had clearly lost it! I also remember when I was once very badly affected by the local anaesthetic when I had a tooth pulled. I collapsed half an hour after I left the dentist's, and simply knew that I had to keep awake, keep still and wait. Twenty minutes later I was fine if groggy. I literally observed these things from a point of detachment. I don't put this down to anything other than grim determination to keep a grip in my thought processes however.

On the issue of drugs and their long term effects as well as short, then I suspect certain things take people outside their normal selves, but I know one person who is no longer a good friend, who certainly wrecked his brain with cannabis, speed and other really sad things. He is no cabbage even now, but certainly his personality has been altered beyond recognition. He was repeatedly asked by myself and other friends to desist, but nothing would alter him. Now he has rejected all those who once cared the most for him.

I am tending to think that his character has been completely transformed. This is very sad, but there is nothing anyone could have done more. He went from a very quick witted, serious, but fun to be with person, to being utterly hateful even to his parents, and sadly paranoid and unaware of his surroundings or the implications of his actions on a continuous basis...

That was serious and fails to answer your post, but for all the differing subdivisions put on consciousness, reality, and the soul/character/personality, I still see absolutely no evidence that any of this is the result of anything beyond brain activity.

I have enjoyed reading some philosophy, though really admit that there are times when, like Quantum theory or Relativity, it seems a nice concept, but not real at all beyond the brilliant imagining, and argumentative skills of the author. I don't say it is not real, but that it is simply not something that chimes with anything I can ever test, evidentially. At least in the Scientific case there is a fair concensus on the main features, but with religions there are as many shades and different explanations as there are religions. They cannot all be right, and as soon as the suopernatural comes into it, I cannot take any remaining part seriously. And as soon as one religion starts to proclaim its inherent superiority we are into a train of thought that eventually breeds persectution, which history tells us comes about from religious zelotry, before the liberal elements tone down the interpretation os the original concepts, writings and earlier interpretations of the concerned religion.

Surely it is as Droodzila said earlier, "There are no Supernatural Facts."

Kindest regards from Fredrik

Interesting comments made!

Here is a very good site to download videos from:

http://beyondbelief2006.org/watch/

Many esteemed authors are here along with giants in neuroscience...

Kind regards

Jon

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
Sorry I missed your post and skipped straight to Deane! Yes, my comment was aimed at Capra, and his ilk, so apologies if it came across as dismissive. I have a book on Nagarjuna - a commentary on his work on emptiness, published by OUP. It's clearly a work of great philosophical rigour, though I suspect that it's conclusions are accessible only to someone with experience of meditative practice. It's not a light read, and I fear that I will never be able to give it the attention it deserves. I'm still a little sceptical of the prospects for marrying the two notions of emptiness, as they seem to occur at two different, incompatible levels - macro & phenomenological in the case of meditative experience, micro and non-phenomenological in the case of quantum mechanics.

Hello Droo

There is an interesting paper by Jonah Winters, available to all, covering "Nagarjuna's Middle Way":

http://www.bahai-library.org/personal/jw/other.pubs/nagarjuna/

Hope it is of some use. Best wishes from Ears

quote:

There is an interesting paper by Jonah Winters, available to all, covering "Nagarjuna's Middle Way":

Thanks Ears, much appreciated

quote:

Surely it is as Droodzila said earlier, "There are no Supernatural Facts."

Fredrik, thanks for underscoring this point. The statement was designed to be deliberately provocative. It acts as an acid test to detect the lingering presence of bad old religion, based on superstition. This strain of religion *ought* to die out, as our scientific understanding of the world increases, although, as a matter of fact it hasn't, and appears to be on the increase.

In a way, the statement is almost true by definition, since as soon as anything becomes a fact, that can be studied by science, it comes to be seen as just another part of the natural world. I'm sure that this would happen should there ever be incontrovertible evidence for the existence of telepathy - though it would require major revisions to our physical theories.

Having said all that, I hope it's clear that I believe there is something salvageable, and valuable, in the religious attitude, which is grounded in a way of experiencing certain aspects of the world - akin to disinterested aesthetic appreciation. This *attitude* is immune to advances in science, since it makes no factual claims about this, or any other, world. It's more like a personal subjective response to a painting, or a piece of music. I may post on this separately, as it underpins my take on what's valuable about the religious attitude.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:

To me it speaks of concepts, which are defined in words, which does not make them real, beyond being nicely argued ideas.

What do you think science is - beyond nicely argued ideas?

The nicely argued ideas might have a highly consistent relationship to observed phenomenon - but that's all they've got - a relationship.

Language is a way of symbolising concepts by using a common set of rules for those symbols. But it doesn't define the concepts - any more than an expression mark on a score defines the composition.