Evolution, Science & Religion

The "Evolution in Schools" thread has become extremely messy, and so I'm starting a new one in order to keep this particular discussion focused.-Dhw (to Tony): The two articles you have linked us to come under "scienceagainstevolution", offering us a woeful distortion of the theory of evolution, which the author clearly thinks incorporates abiogenesis. It does not. Since you agree with him, let's forget about his website and concentrate on what you believe! If you reject the notion that all living organisms are descended from earlier living organisms (whether through chance processes or by means of a designed mechanism, perhaps with occasional interference from the designer), and you regard as silly the idea that God created every organ and species separately, what alternative hypothesis can you offer us?-TONY: The idea that God created everything in 6 days and that the world is only 6k years old IS silly, just as silly as claiming that with all our complexity we were able to go from a single cell (ignoring abiogenesis for the moment) to the complex organisms we are today by pure chance. Agreed. So do you subscribe to the version of evolution I have presented above: all living organisms are descended from earlier living organisms by means of a designed mechanism, perhaps with occasional interference from the designer? This is precisely what David has described in his post of 15 June at 01.20: "...when you have old Earth Creationism and feel God designed and guided evolution." This is crucial to the debate on whether science and religion can overlap ... see later.-TONY: I have no issue with evolution as adaptation within a given family of creatures. I also have no issue with the creationist belief of 'God created them according to their kind'. One describes variation, which is a well known and well observed fact. The other describes the physiological differences that can not be explained by random chance, mutation, or epigenics. I share your scepticism concerning the atheist explanations of innovation, but the differences are there! So do you believe that God created them one by one (the biblical quote is too ambiguous for me), or do you believe he created a mechanism that would enable them to take place via the process of evolution?-TONY: In other words, there was no reason for a UI to create a Jersey, a buffalo, and a ox. Creating a single breedable bovine species with the ability to adapt would have been sufficient. The question for me is, why does it have to be one way or the other?-I'm not sure which two ways you are referring to. Ultimately, the choice is between chance and design, but the theory of evolution can live with both, once you accept that there is a mechanism that allows for adaptation and innovation. So do you or don't you believe ... as David does ... that evolution actually happened, regardless of whether the process was governed by chance or divine planning?-On the subject of religion and science "overlapping", I regard morals (see Matt's post of 14 June at 22.59) as irrelevant. Religion and philosophy overlap in this field. The controversy is over whether science and religion can come to terms in their explanations of the universe we live in. The question always arises as to the extent to which we can/cannot trust science, and our discussion on epistemology has made it clear that we can never be 100% certain of "the truth". However, if there is a general consensus on scientific matters: e.g. that the Earth goes round the sun, that it is vastly more than 6000 years old, that living organisms have never been known to emerge from anything other than earlier living organisms, it seems to me that religious people are on very unsafe ground if they dispute these findings. Especially if their only evidence is ancient texts written by unknown authors with little of our scientific knowledge, and passed onto us in versions which themselves are subject to dispute (see your own Walrus post). But in my view, there is NO scientific explanation that excludes the possibility of what David calls a Universal Intelligence. Evolution certainly doesn't, nor does the Big Bang. The religious can ALWAYS argue that what we have is too complex to have arisen by chance, and that is the end of the discussion. Where religion falls apart under the scrutiny of science is in its adherence to the pronouncements of its all-too-human advocates, who insist on imposing their own dogmatic theories and interpretations on - or against - the known (as far as anything can be known) scientific facts. Precisely the same criticism applies to the anti-religious!

TONY: The idea that God created everything in 6 days and that the world is only 6k years old IS silly, just as silly as claiming that with all our complexity we were able to go from a single cell (ignoring abiogenesis for the moment) to the complex organisms we are today by pure chance. > > DHW Agreed. So do you subscribe to the version of evolution I have presented above: all living organisms are descended from earlier living organisms by means of a designed mechanism, perhaps with occasional interference from the designer? This is precisely what David has described in his post of 15 June at 01.20: "...when you have old Earth Creationism and feel God designed and guided evolution." This is crucial to the debate on whether science and religion can overlap ... see later. > -A designed mechanism within direction and interference, yes. The book I am currently reading, and the foundation of my I am the Walrus post, points to some interesting misunderstandings resulting from the shift in cultural paradigms as well as language when translating the early Bible. One of the misconceptions is that it categorically denies evolution, which it doesn't. Another is that it uses the term day, or a specified time frame, which it doesn't. More importantly it implies that not only was there an initial design, but that 'powers' were set in place to make that design grow, fatten, or to fill up. In other words, the mechanical translation actually lends support, on some levels, to the concept of Evolution. However, it also describes some fundamental differences between different families of creatures. Plants are in one category, fish in another, mammals in another, birds in another, etc etc, implying that no matter how hard science looks, it will never ever find a direct causal link between them. In short, fish didn't evolve from fungi, and mankind didn't evolve from fish. That is a testable hypothesis, and one of those overlap areas that I mentioned between Science and Religion. -> > On the subject of religion and science "overlapping", I regard morals (see Matt's post of 14 June at 22.59) as irrelevant. -Agreed. ->DHW: The controversy is over whether science and religion can come to terms in their explanations of the universe we live in. The question always arises as to the extent to which we can/cannot trust science, and our discussion on epistemology has made it clear that we can never be 100% certain of "the truth". -Ironically, this translation of Genesis says the same thing. Humanity is a agency of chaos, and chaos is something that is needed in order for anything creative to happen in a perfectly harmonious and ordered world. -Where I differ from Matt's view is this. As I said in my previous post, science and religion must be in harmony or one of them is wrong. he disagreed saying that they were not related. I disagree because if we suppose that some form of creative agency, regardless of how we identify it, is responsible for existence, science would be studying the what and how while religion studies the who, why, and what for. Philosophy tries to piece it all together into a cohesive harmonious explanation while trying to decipher meaning that is relevant to us. Incongruities in any of these fundamentally handicaps the other, and inconsistencies between them lead to misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and dysfunction. In other words, they must be harmonious. The fundamental basis of science is that the explanation MUST fit the observations, while the fundamental basis of religion is that the who, why, and what for must fit the observations. How can you answer the why or what for if your understanding of the what is incorrect? (or vice versa) >DHW: .. it seems to me that religious people are on very unsafe ground if they dispute these findings. Especially if their only evidence is ancient texts written by unknown authors with little of our scientific knowledge, and passed onto us in versions which themselves are subject to dispute (see your own Walrus post). -The evidence should not only be found in the text. It should also match the observations. Even the bible blatantly states that. - >DHW: But in my view, there is NO scientific explanation that excludes the possibility of what David calls a Universal Intelligence. Evolution certainly doesn't, nor does the Big Bang. The religious can ALWAYS argue that what we have is too complex to have arisen by chance, and that is the end of the discussion. Where religion falls apart under the scrutiny of science is in its adherence to the pronouncements of its all-too-human advocates, who insist on imposing their own dogmatic theories and interpretations on - or against - the known (as far as anything can be known) scientific facts. Precisely the same criticism applies to the anti-religious!-Agreed. That is why I do not ascribe to a particular religion. Religions are man made constructs. My belief system is comprised of experience, research, and intuition, and is subject to change on a whim if one of the three is not in harmony with the others. I have no place for tradition or dogma. -Yes, you could generically say that I agree with the basic premise that David proposes.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Agreed. That is why I do not ascribe to a particular religion. Religions are man made constructs. My belief system is comprised of experience, research, and intuition, and is subject to change on a whim if one of the three is not in harmony with the others. I have no place for tradition or dogma. > > Yes, you could generically say that I agree with the basic premise that David proposes.-I'm with you on religion. I don't care what the Bible says for my own thinking. It is a human construct. Science gives me all I need. My own thinking gives me the rest.

I'm with you on religion. I don't care what the Bible says for my own thinking. It is a human construct. Science gives me all I need. My own thinking gives me the rest.-You criticize bible for being a human construct, but don't even acknowledge that science is exactly the same? We are all working with imperfect data sets and imperfect interpretations of them. I just am choosing not to exclude any before I am certain that they do not fit.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

You criticize bible for being a human construct, but don't even acknowledge that science is exactly the same? We are all working with imperfect data sets and imperfect interpretations of them. I just am choosing not to exclude any before I am certain that they do not fit.-At least science gives the appearance of delivering reasonaable falsifiable facts. It is some of the wacky theories that are developed that have to be culled and ignored. My favorite is still multiverses.

A number of interesting points have been raised, so this post will be rather bitty.-TONY (re evolution): A designed mechanism within direction and interference, yes.-This is an important agreement, as it removes many areas of misunderstanding, not to say distortion created by the anti-evolutionist lobby.-TONY: In short, fish didn't evolve from fungi, and mankind didn't evolve from fish. That is a testable hypothesis, and one of those overlap areas that I mentioned between Science and Religion. -I don't know of anyone who argues a direct line from fungi to fish to humans. The essence of the argument is that all living things are descended ultimately from a form (or forms) which contained the all-important mechanisms for reproduction, adaptation and innovation. The observable manner in which cells are able to assemble in different combinations with different functions gives us a degree of insight into how evolution may have proceeded. But I don't agree that this is an overlap area between science and religion. Exploring those mechanisms is the province of science. The moment a scientist begins to speculate on their origins, on purpose or lack of purpose, design or chance, he leaves the realm of science and enters that of philosophy (of which I would regard religion as a branch). See the next quote:-TONY: [...] Science would be studying the what and how while religion studies the who, why, and what for.-That is why Matt and others regard them as "Non-Overlapping Magisteria". I agree with you that "the explanation MUST fit the observation", which you have correctly applied to both science and religion, but science can (try to) explain the material workings of the universe WITHOUT delving into whys and wherefores. Those are not its province. Therefore, in my view, science by its very nature is restricted by the material bounds of observation, whereas much of religion is not and, again by its very nature, cannot be. Gods are not observable and testable. And so I would say that philosophy (including religion) should not run counter to science, but science has to be independent of philosophy.-TONY (to David): You criticize the bible for being a human construct, but don't even acknowledge that science is exactly the same?-I don't think it is exactly the same. While I share all your reservations about the "truths" that may emerge from science, its observations and experiments within the material world do provide many facts that are objectively testable and authenticated. Technology time and again proves the accuracy of its findings. You and I share a belief that the Earth goes round the sun, is more than 6000 years old, and that there are such things as radio signals and electricity. The bible is full of wonderful stories, wise insights into human conduct, and even some useful moral codes, but I really don't know why anyone should bother to consult it over matters of science. The only possible reason for doing so, it seems to me, is when religious people want to believe that the bible is the word of God and therefore either try to reconcile its (often vague) pronouncements with the findings of science, or in some cases simply refuse to accept the latter. (That of course is their prerogative. I'm only pointing out that what you call the "imperfect data sets and imperfect interpretations of them" are of a very different nature.)-TONY: My belief system is comprised of experience, research and intuition, and is subject to change on a whim if one of the three is not in harmony with the others. I have no place for tradition or dogma." And in your Walrus post you referred to "concepts that seem contradictory", and you say Matt and I "are quite fond of pointing these out."-I would much prefer to think that Matt's motives and mine are to obtain clarification rather than to enjoy picking holes! I would say our exchange concerning evolution has done just that. I get the impression that all of us regular contributors share the basis of your belief system ... even if we come up with different conclusions ... but also that all of us do undergo subtle changes in our thinking. They may not be fundamental, but I know I have been forced to refine my approach to some areas of our subject and to sharpen my own thinking. People like yourself, David, Matt and BBella have introduced me to fields I would never even have entered. That was actually what I'd hoped for when I set up this website, and it would be nice to think that others have had the same experience. None of us can ever know the "truth", but I do find it heart-warming to share the quest with folk like you.

DHW: I don't know of anyone who argues a direct line from fungi to fish to humans. -I do: In his critique of 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on evolution' -"If you think of it as the product of design, the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a disgrace. Helmholz would have had even more cause to send it back than the eye. But, like the eye, it makes perfect sense the moment you forget design and think history instead." (p. 356)-Dawkins then argues that it makes better sense if we evolved from fish, and touching on something akin to Haeckel's discredited embryonic recapitulation theory,1 concludes:-"All that we need to know, to understand the history of our recurrent laryngeal nerve, is that in the fish the vagus nerve has branches that supply the last three of the six gills, and it is natural for them, therefore, to pass behind the appropriate gill arteries. There is nothing recurrent about these branches: they seek out their end organs, the gills, by the most direct and logical route.- >DHW: But I don't agree that this is an overlap area between science and religion. Exploring those mechanisms is the province of science. The moment a scientist begins to speculate on their origins, on purpose or lack of purpose, design or chance, he leaves the realm of science and enters that of philosophy (of which I would regard religion as a branch). ... science can (try to) explain the material workings of the universe WITHOUT delving into whys and wherefores. Those are not its province.Therefore, in my view, science by its very nature is restricted by the material bounds of observation, whereas much of religion is not and, again by its very nature, cannot be. Gods are not observable and testable. And so I would say that philosophy (including religion) should not run counter to science, but science has to be independent of philosophy. > > TONY (to David): You criticize the bible for being a human construct, but don't even acknowledge that science is exactly the same? > > I don't think it is exactly the same. While I share all your reservations about the "truths" that may emerge from science, its observations and experiments within the material world do provide many facts that are objectively testable and authenticated. Technology time and again proves the accuracy of its findings. You and I share a belief that the Earth goes round the sun, is more than 6000 years old, and that there are such things as radio signals and electricity. The bible is full of wonderful stories, wise insights into human conduct, and even some useful moral codes, but I really don't know why anyone should bother to consult it over matters of science. The only possible reason for doing so, it seems to me, is when religious people want to believe that the bible is the word of God and therefore either try to reconcile its (often vague) pronouncements with the findings of science, or in some cases simply refuse to accept the latter. (That of course is their prerogative. I'm only pointing out that what you call the "imperfect data sets and imperfect interpretations of them" are of a very different nature.)-This is a very Western approach to the subject. To understand something implies more than just knowledge of its constituent parts (what/how), it also implies understanding the who, why, and what for, as well as it's place in existence. It implies that knowledge at every level. Epigenetics is sure fire proof that we can not separate form, function, and purpose. Medicine has demonstrated repeatedly that we can not separate them. To understand a thing means to know its every facet. -What the Western mind has done is to separate things. We separate form from function, function from impact, impact from purpose, purpose from meaning. To each of these we give a different school of thought. We separate our knowledge and experience of a thing to the point were it becomes lost in the minutia. -That is why, in my opinion, there must be overlap and agreement. There must be unity between the various schools of thought, or, by definition, one of them is wrong. If a meaning can not be found for the purpose of an impact that follows from the function of something that is defined by its form, then there is a breakdown somewhere in the system. Moreover, that is an iterative process! It will happen again and again at successively higher or lower levels of examination.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

What the Western mind has done is to separate things. We separate form from function, function from impact, impact from purpose, purpose from meaning. To each of these we give a different school of thought. We separate our knowledge and experience of a thing to the point were it becomes lost in the minutia. -And yet when I use my western mind I can see an accuracy and value in monistic concepts.-If someone cannot see a truth in science, it does not mean it is not there. Ditto for a spiritual or perhaps intuitive insight.-It's when these things point in different directions, then we have a problem. I don't know if evolution is true, but for me it is by far the best description of the phenomena we observe. Ditto for quantum mechanics, even if I am skeptical of the QM description. But I understand what you are saying we compartmentalize science to try and understand; but science does eventually put things back together again.-Our western religions are very dualistic, separating god from the universe, even in David's panentheism god is separate. Mind and body are separate, good and evil are separate.

One of the things that my studies in game system design have helped me realize is that the separation is an illusion built upon compartmentalized knowledge. To use an example from my world, a game has interactions at the hardware level, software level, the in-game system level, the interface level, and at the user level (which is completely separate physically from the game itself). Common modes of thinking says to let the hardware guys handle the hardware, the software guys handle the software, the game designers handle the in-game system, the level designers build the levels, the art guys build all the artwork, the sound guys build all the sound, etc etc etc. But the truth is, none of these exist in a vacuum. They are separate working in unity, a unity that is not complete without an active agency, the player. -It is only when the game is played, that the system becomes complete. And, when all of the separate elements are in unity, something amazing happens. In the game industry it is referred to as flow, or immersion. Perhaps you have experienced it when you read a book and at some unknown point the words quit being words and you find yourself witnessing the events in real time in the landscape of your mind. -This unity, is almost Zen-like in definition. It is a Oneness of all of the inter-related elements in which the mental fictions of time, past and future, and the unfounded concerns and fears that we build within that framework disappears. You exist in the moment, as part of something larger than yourself. -I think this is the natural state of mankind. I think this is what was referred to in the Biblical fall brought on by the tree of knowledge. It was a separation from that sense of unity brought on by mankind imposing what he 'knows' on what his experience tells him 'is'. That is only possible when you are living outside the moment and you view yourself as outside the system.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

I don't have a problem with what you say. In very broad terms I agree with you.-It is just that with the all is one view we are not independent actors, western view points are not independent of eastern viewpoints (and vice versa)-My western world view (as do all of ours) have eastern influences. Take one of Christ's most monistic statements I and my father are one. Yet our dualistic interpretation of Christianity sets us apart from god.

My western world view (as do all of ours) have eastern influences. Take one of Christ's most monistic statements I and my father are one. Yet our dualistic interpretation of Christianity sets us apart from god.-And that is where my ideas fit in. Our intelligence is simply a part of the universal intelligence even though we feel we are independent

Romansh: My western world view (as do all of ours) have eastern influences. Take one of Christ's most monistic statements I and my father are one. Yet our dualistic interpretation of Christianity sets us apart from god. > > My western world view (as do all of ours) have eastern influences. Take one of Christ's most monistic statements I and my father are one. Yet our dualistic interpretation of Christianity sets us apart from god. > > David: And that is where my ideas fit in. Our intelligence is simply a part of the universal intelligence even though we feel we are independent-That is exactly the point. The designer in me understands the concept of separate but unified. They are not mutually exclusive. From the Cristian perspective, the son and the father were united in purpose, though they each had a unique persona. Just like in a well designed game, all of the hardware, software, and agents within the game create a unified whole. -The interesting parallel with this analogy is how the player, or humans, fit in to the picture. In both cases it is exactly the same, surprisingly enough. Humans represent not only the disorder that is needed to make the system come alive, but also the order that the system needs to achieve its fullest potential. A game with no players isn't any fun. A game without a player does not create any meaningful experience. -The other interesting thing, which also parallels, is what happens when the player works in unity with the game. They enter a state that we call flow. Eastern religions might call it Zen, or some transcendental experience. It is the experience of living in exactly one moment. Not the past, not the not the future. We become part of the chaos and the order and the system all at the same time. We do not lose who we are, but who we are takes a back seat to our purpose within the system. That is why games are so addictive. Our brains actually offer up huge rewards for entering that state. We perform better. We make better decisions. We stop worrying. We feel no fear. We ENJOY it. We have fun. -It is only when players are jolted out of that zone that the game loses its appeal. They try to KNOW the game instead of living in the moment of it. They analyze the statistics, the paths, the conversation, the design. They start to question everything. Then they start to moan and complain because they think that they are underpowered or overpowered, or because the game isn't the way that THEY wanted it. They worry about things like player ranking or whether their achievements are being recognized and rewarded appropriately. Their ego takes over, their knowing brain. -Game Design history offers us a third interesting parallel, this time to the course of human history, in time lapse. In the last 40 years of actual video game design, through roughly three generations of gamers, the games have gone from challenging, groundbreaking, creative works that pushed the boundaries and inspired growth to easy, from content driven to rewards driven. Now it must be shiny and new and appealing. It must have what other games don't and no one is allowed to fail. Meaningless rewards and superficial platitudes are handed out to everyone for the most pedestrian of accomplishments in order to appease their ego and make them feel special. (Sounds a lot like the evolution of humanity to me.)

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

It must have what other games don't and no one is allowed to fail. Meaningless rewards and superficial platitudes are handed out to everyone for the most pedestrian of accomplishments in order to appease their ego and make them feel special. (Sounds a lot like the evolution of humanity to me.)-Today , all kids get rewards. No one can lose or fail. Poor for their self-esteem. We have created a nation of wimps. Success is never final, failure never fatal. And the nation goes down the tubes.

My western world view (as do all of ours) have eastern influences. Take one of Christ's most monistic statements I and my father are one. Yet our dualistic interpretation of Christianity sets us apart from god. > > And that is where my ideas fit in. Our intelligence is simply a part of the universal intelligence even though we feel we are independent-Beg to differ here David. From my understanding, your universal intelligence remains separate from the universe. (It is still a reflection of man's dualistic perception).-Hence the panentheism

My western world view (as do all of ours) have eastern influences. Take one of Christ's most monistic statements I and my father are one. Yet our dualistic interpretation of Christianity sets us apart from god. > > > > And that is where my ideas fit in. Our intelligence is simply a part of the universal intelligence even though we feel we are independent > > Beg to differ here David. From my understanding, your universal intelligence remains separate from the universe. (It is still a reflection of man's dualistic perception). > > Hence the panentheism-Then you misunderstand. Separation in the context I(and I think David, as well) am using it doesn't mean apart from in the sense that we tend to think of it. God CAN NOT be separate from creation, because all of creation is part of the substance of the UI.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Then you misunderstand. Separation in the context I(and I think David, as well) am using it doesn't mean apart from in the sense that we tend to think of it. God CAN NOT be separate from creation, because all of creation is part of the substance of the UI.-Then what is the difference between pantheism and panentheism?

"Panentheism" is a constructed word composed of the English equivalents of the Greek terms "pan", meaning all, "en", meaning in, and "theism", meaning God. Panentheism understands God and the world to be inter-related with the world being in God and God being in the world. It offers an increasingly popular alternative to traditional theism and pantheism. Panentheism seeks to avoid both isolating God from the world as traditional theism often does and identifying God with the world as pantheism does. Traditional theistic systems emphasize the difference between God and the world while panentheism stresses God's active presence in the world. Pantheism emphasizes God's presence in the world but panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine. Anticipations of panentheistic understandings of God have occurred in both philosophical and theological writings throughout history (Hartshorne and Reese 1953; Cooper, 2006). However, a rich diversity of panentheistic understandings has developed in the past two centuries primarily in Christian traditions responding to scientific thought (Clayton and Peacocke 2004).- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

So in which sense is a panentheistic god not separate bearing in mind your quote here: >However, a rich diversity of panentheistic understandings has developed in the past two centuries primarily in Christian traditions responding to scientific thought.-In what way are the various Christian gods not separate from man?

There was a book I referrenced in my I am the Walrus post called Genesis, Zen, and Quantum Physics. Read it. It's quite good and it will do a better job of explaining it than I can. -Available here for free

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

I don't have a problem with what you say. In very broad terms I agree with you. > > It is just that with the all is one view we are not independent actors, western view points are not independent of eastern viewpoints (and vice versa) > -Not exactly. Sort of true.-It's not that eastern thought rejects free will, but it rejects the notion that the actor is in itself, a dependent, non-contingent thing. Our ego binds us and tricks us into thoughts of true independence.- > My western world view (as do all of ours) have eastern influences. Take one of Christ's most monistic statements I and my father are one. Yet our dualistic interpretation of Christianity sets us apart from god.-Christianity was influenced very heavily by Greek philosophy in that it tried to go and MAKE all of these distinctions. This necessarily creates holes, which the early church waxed over with Dogma.-An old sig of mine warned "An idea formed into a word is at best, a half-truth." The eastern influence on Christianity was purged with the destruction of the Gnostics. It resurfaced in a few isolated places, with books such as "The Cloud of Unknowing," and anything written by St. John of the Cross.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Not exactly. Sort of true. > > It's not that eastern thought rejects free will, but it rejects the notion that the actor is in itself, a dependent, non-contingent thing. Our ego binds us and tricks us into thoughts of true independence. > Matt I carefully avoided using the term Free Will. I am aware that buddhism does not reject free will, though it does give a certain cognitive dissonance. -> Christianity was influenced very heavily by Greek philosophy in that it tried to go and MAKE all of these distinctions. This necessarily creates holes, which the early church waxed over with Dogma. > > An old sig of mine warned "An idea formed into a word is at best, a half-truth." The eastern influence on Christianity was purged with the destruction of the Gnostics. It resurfaced in a few isolated places, with books such as "The Cloud of Unknowing," and anything written by St. John of the Cross.-From my point of view the words have not been purged (at least not all) just the interpretations that have been corrupted.

Not exactly. Sort of true. > > > > It's not that eastern thought rejects free will, but it rejects the notion that the actor is in itself, a dependent, non-contingent thing. Our ego binds us and tricks us into thoughts of true independence. > > > Matt I carefully avoided using the term Free Will. I am aware that buddhism does not reject free will, though it does give a certain cognitive dissonance. > -I've practiced Zen over the last 8-9 years, with a couple of small breaks. What parts are dissonant? I might be able to muddy the water a little more for you.-> > Christianity was influenced very heavily by Greek philosophy in that it tried to go and MAKE all of these distinctions. This necessarily creates holes, which the early church waxed over with Dogma. > > > > An old sig of mine warned "An idea formed into a word is at best, a half-truth." The eastern influence on Christianity was purged with the destruction of the Gnostics. It resurfaced in a few isolated places, with books such as "The Cloud of Unknowing," and anything written by St. John of the Cross. > > From my point of view the words have not been purged (at least not all) just the interpretations that have been corrupted.-I've been a student of esotericism for some time. I have a completely different view. Compare the Upanishads or "The Cloud of Unknowing" to what you find in the NT. There's the barest hints of eastern mysticism in there, and when you move away from the synoptic gospels, it spirals into Paul, Paul, Paul, Paul....-It's pretty clear that (the canonical) NT books are much more "command and control" vs the ideal of independent discovery that is the hallmark distinction of "eastern religion/gnosticism." Contrast Ezekiel (very Kabbalistic) with the book of John. -Then compare those with the Gospel of Judas.-The amouun of work that Judas requires the reader to do is much more involved than what you are expected to do with Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John. That's because there is no "mystery" in those books. -I'm very interested to hear your take.

I've practiced Zen over the last 8-9 years, with a couple of small breaks. What parts are dissonant? I might be able to muddy the water a little more for you-The self that does not exist has free will? > The amouun of work that Judas requires the reader to do is much more involved than what you are expected to do with Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John. That's because there is no "mystery" in those books. > > I'm very interested to hear your take.-I certainly am not an expert on the apocrypha. So I better stay silent on the subject. Have you read anything of Joseph Campbell? I think he has a grain of truth in his interpretations of our mythic sacred stories. -For example the vedic poem of two birds in a tree is (for me) a retelling of the garden of Eden story.

I've practiced Zen over the last 8-9 years, with a couple of small breaks. What parts are dissonant? I might be able to muddy the water a little more for you > > The self that does not exist has free will? -What is your definition of free will? -Buddhism rejects the idea that we have unfettered free will. Specifically, more often than not we're not exercising it, even when we think we are. -Have you ever entered a room and then wondered why? Have you ever tried to break a habit? Buddhism's "rejection" of free will is really the psychological observation that our animal will exerts more influence on our daily lives than we want to admit. -Why did I pick computer science? Because I get really excited when I think about it. Why do I get excited? It isn't through conscious, or conditioned effort. Unless you want to say, my drive to solve puzzles. But why do I have a drive to solve puzzles and not to be an Attacking midfielder? -Our egos tend to wrap all this up into discrete, concrete things, and it is Buddhism's perspective that these things are precisely--not concrete. -What are you passionate about? Why? The answer to Buddhism's half-rejection to free will lies within the honest answers to those questions. -When you realize exactly how much unconscious will drives you, it is scary. At least it was for me. > > > The amouun of work that Judas requires the reader to do is much more involved than what you are expected to do with Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John. That's because there is no "mystery" in those books. > > > > I'm very interested to hear your take. > > I certainly am not an expert on the apocrypha. So I better stay silent on the subject. Have you read anything of Joseph Campbell? I think he has a grain of truth in his interpretations of our mythic sacred stories. > > For example the vedic poem of two birds in a tree is (for me) a retelling of the garden of Eden story.-Campbell is hard to read because you have to be familiar with ALL mythology (and THAT is difficult.) His thinking though is embedded in the ideas of Carl Jung and that consciousness is literally a shared object. -The similarities in myths as the one you pointed out is most easily described by similarly limited peoples arriving at similar conclusions. And probably a liberal dosing of pyschotropics. (See Mayan, Azteca)-Its no different than the near simultaneous invention of Chinese and arabic algebras. -Though his roots were in... murky waters, Campbell's analysis is quite thought provoking... but to me it seems more a generalization of story archetypes than necessarily, a single, common story.

Matt, you would absolutely dig that book. It basically agrees with what you are saying here 100%, but its arguments are taken from the bible itself. It becomes incredibly easy to argue with a fundamentalist when you are taking the arguments direct from their source.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Matt, you would absolutely dig that book. It basically agrees with what you are saying here 100%, but its arguments are taken from the bible itself. It becomes incredibly easy to argue with a fundamentalist when you are taking the arguments direct from their source.-What was it called, again?

Genesis, Zen and Quantum Physics By Jeff A. Benner and Michael Calpino-Scroll down to the bottom and you can get the ebook for free.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

What is your definition of free will? It is sufficiently broad as to eliminate such things.-> Buddhism rejects the idea that we have unfettered free will. Specifically, more often than not we're not exercising it, even when we think we are. -Unfettered free will, so we have fettered free will? Is that like being a little bit pregnant?-You said here >> Not exactly. Sort of true. >> >> It's not that eastern thought rejects free will, but it rejects the notion that the actor is in itself, a dependent, non-contingent thing. Our ego binds us and tricks us into thoughts of true independence. I read this as eastern thought accepting free will at least to some degree.- > Have you ever entered a room and then wondered why? Have you ever tried to break a habit? Buddhism's "rejection" of free will is really the psychological observation that our animal will exerts more influence on our daily lives than we want to admit. It comes with old age, not that it did not happen when I was young. I suspect we are far more unconscious than we give ourselves credit. It is not even clear our conscious thought comes first with respect to us making choices etc. > Why did I pick computer science? Because I get really excited when I think about it. Why do I get excited? It isn't through conscious, or conditioned effort. Unless you want to say, my drive to solve puzzles. But why do I have a drive to solve puzzles and not to be an Attacking midfielder? I think we can only pick a handful of influences that shape our life's choices. We also cannot be sure we are rationalizing after the fact. But essentially I agree with your point.-> Our egos tend to wrap all this up into discrete, concrete things, and it is Buddhism's perspective that these things are precisely--not concrete.-There is nothing wrong with my ego Matt. It is big and active. > What are you passionate about? Why? The answer to Buddhism's half-rejection to free will lies within the honest answers to those questions. -It is the half acceptance where I find the dissonance Matt.-> When you realize exactly how much unconscious will drives you, it is scary. At least it was for me. -I agree that some find this scary - but when we understand it can be no otherway, then that becomes interesting for me. -> The similarities in myths as the one you pointed out is most easily described by similarly limited peoples arriving at similar conclusions. And probably a liberal dosing of pyschotropics. (See Mayan, Azteca)-I have read three of Campbell's books Power of Myth, Pathways to Bliss and Myths to Live By. The first two were his last (Bliss is a collection of lectures published posthumously). I found them an easy read - essentially a summary of his views. -> Its no different than the near simultaneous invention of Chinese and arabic algebras. -Are you sure there are not some as yet unrecognized common seeds? > Though his roots were in... murky waters, Campbell's analysis is quite thought provoking... but to me it seems more a generalization of story archetypes than necessarily, a single, common story.-Yes - I think we all take away a reflection of ourselves in Campbell's works/

Have you ever entered a room and then wondered why? Have you ever tried to break a habit? Buddhism's "rejection" of free will is really the psychological observation that our animal will exerts more influence on our daily lives than we want to admit. > It comes with old age, not that it did not happen when I was young. I suspect we are far more unconscious than we give ourselves credit. It is not even clear our conscious thought comes first with respect to us making choices etc.-I've never worried much about my animal will. As a first-born I tried too much for perfection (thanks to my Jewish mother), but when I retired because of that habitual attitude, I pretty much broke the habit. My psychiatrst friend helped me recognize my controlling approach. I stopped trying to control my adult children, suprisingly much to their dismay. I know that part of the way we look at ourselves is from the reaction of others. > > > Why did I pick computer science? Because I get really excited when I think about it. Why do I get excited? It isn't through conscious, or conditioned effort. Unless you want to say, my drive to solve puzzles. But why do I have a drive to solve puzzles and not to be an Attacking midfielder? > I think we can only pick a handful of influences that shape our life's choices. We also cannot be sure we are rationalizing after the fact. But essentially I agree with your point. -I had to be a doctor from age 3 and never changed. It is probably why I retired so young. Too many other things to experience before leaving this place. I've never done the wondering about consciousness or free will like you two have. Itis probcably why I have the religious feelings I have, even though I came to them in my late 40's > > > Our egos tend to wrap all this up into discrete, concrete things, and it is Buddhism's perspective that these things are precisely--not concrete. > > There is nothing wrong with my ego Matt. It is big and active. -So is mine. > > > What are you passionate about? Why? The answer to Buddhism's half-rejection to free will lies within the honest answers to those questions. > > It is the half acceptance where I find the dissonance Matt. > > > When you realize exactly how much unconscious will drives you, it is scary. At least it was for me. -I didn't think about it much earlier or now. It is not scary. > > I agree that some find this scary - but when we understand it can be no otherway, then that becomes interesting for me. - Wanted to drop in to present a different point of view about life. I've had a great ride and don't want it to stop, although I know it has to.

What is your definition of free will? > It is sufficiently broad as to eliminate such things. > > > Buddhism rejects the idea that we have unfettered free will. Specifically, more often than not we're not exercising it, even when we think we are. > > Unfettered free will, so we have fettered free will? Is that like being a little bit pregnant? > -The common notion in western thought, a myth in fact, is that we're free to do as we please. This is the notion of free will that Buddhism rejects.-Consider someone with an IQ of 80. How likely is it, that this person is going to be a famous physicist? She might want to be, but no amount of will is going to make you push beyond a handicap like that. -That's a good analogy for what Buddhism is trying to say. -> You said here > >> Not exactly. Sort of true. > >> > >> It's not that eastern thought rejects free will, but it rejects the notion that the actor is in itself, a dependent, non-contingent thing. Our ego binds us and tricks us into thoughts of true independence. > I read this as eastern thought accepting free will at least to some degree. >-It accepts free will, but not, as I said above, in the western sense. A small quote from Nietzsche: "A thought comes when IT wills!"-Buddhist training teaches you to become an observer of your own mind. It trains your volition.-Free will is a muscle in Buddhism, meditation is how you learn to exercise it. > > Our egos tend to wrap all this up into discrete, concrete things, and it is Buddhism's perspective that these things are precisely--not concrete. > > There is nothing wrong with my ego Matt. It is big and active. -I'm using ego in a more technical sense. I think the ego in Buddhism more closely maps to Freud's "id." At any rate, as I said above, when I learned exactly how little of what I did was volitional, when I learned how much I was ruled by my passions, it was THAT that I found scary. I felt less in control of myself. I'm still not, but I'm getting better. -> > > What are you passionate about? Why? The answer to Buddhism's half-rejection to free will lies within the honest answers to those questions. > > It is the half acceptance where I find the dissonance Matt.-Maybye... hopefully... hammered home?-> > > When you realize exactly how much unconscious will drives you, it is scary. At least it was for me. > > I agree that some find this scary - but when we understand it can be no otherway, then that becomes interesting for me. -Obviously I share your interest, but the only thing I can probably relate to you is that meditation feels like waking yourself up while in a dream within a dream. You become aware that you're dreaming, try to wake up, but perhaps barely realize that you're still not awake. There's techniques though to help mitigate this inevitability, and supposedly there was a man who accomplished it 2500 years ago... > I have read three of Campbell's books Power of Myth, Pathways to Bliss and Myths to Live By. The first two were his last (Bliss is a collection of lectures published posthumously). I found them an easy read - essentially a summary of his views. > -I started reading "The hero with 1000 faces," and had to set it down. It is a DENSE read. I needed to learn more mythology. -> > Its no different than the near simultaneous invention of Chinese and arabic algebras. > > Are you sure there are not some as yet unrecognized common seeds? I'm agnostic. I'm not sure of anything! -> > > Though his roots were in... murky waters, Campbell's analysis is quite thought provoking... but to me it seems more a generalization of story archetypes than necessarily, a single, common story. > > Yes - I think we all take away a reflection of ourselves in Campbell's works/-I own the "Power of Myth". Maybe I should tackle that before "1000 faces."

The common notion in western thought, a myth in fact, is that we're free to do as we please. This is the notion of free will that Buddhism rejects.-> Consider someone with an IQ of 80. How likely is it, that this person is going to be a famous physicist? She might want to be, but no amount of will is going to make you push beyond a handicap like that. > Plainly Tabula Rasa is false or at least only partially true. No arguments here Matt. > It accepts free will, but not, as I said above, in the western sense. A small quote from Nietzsche: "A thought comes when IT wills!" > > Buddhist training teaches you to become an observer of your own mind. It trains your volition. > > Free will is a muscle in Buddhism, meditation is how you learn to exercise it. This rings of dissonance again for me. No self versus free will however partial. My will is dependent on its environment (I would include my body in this sense as environment). -> I'm using ego in a more technical sense. I think the ego in Buddhism more closely maps to Freud's "id." At any rate, as I said above, when I learned exactly how little of what I did was volitional, when I learned how much I was ruled by my passions, it was THAT that I found scary. I felt less in control of myself. I'm still not, but I'm getting better. -I understand Matt, I find it's not just passions but everyday events that control me. I'm not saying there is no feedback to the environment, but any line I draw between my 'self' and its environment is purely arbitrary. > Obviously I share your interest, but the only thing I can probably relate to you is that meditation feels like waking yourself up while in a dream within a dream. You become aware that you're dreaming, try to wake up, but perhaps barely realize that you're still not awake. There's techniques though to help mitigate this inevitability, and supposedly there was a man who accomplished it 2500 years ago...-This reminds me of the much maligned Blackmore and her first of the Ten Zen Questions, Am I conscious now? After much meditating on her part the conclusion she came to was the answer is No.-Even without any meditating, just simply interrogating my experience, I can see why she would say this.-> I started reading "The hero with 1000 faces," and had to set it down. It is a DENSE read. I needed to learn more mythology. > Yep, I got to about page 30, and decided this was something I didn't need. Read the last page though, albeit somewhat later. > > I own the "Power of Myth". Maybe I should tackle that before "1000 faces." I found it a great book. I have read it three times now and dip into it as the occasion arises. Each time I have read it I have found something new that touched me. It's much easier than "Hero". Let me know what you think.

Buddhist training teaches you to become an observer of your own mind. It trains your volition. > > > > Free will is a muscle in Buddhism, meditation is how you learn to exercise it. > This rings of dissonance again for me. No self versus free will however partial. My will is dependent on its environment ... > ... It is, and it isn't. It's a classic Zen Koan. -The more you sit down and exercise your will--insanely--by doing absolutely nothing at all, you learn to watch all of these impulses. But as dependent your will is upon its environment, lets not forget that an observer by necessity is separate from its object. If you sit still and "observe" your thoughts and impulses as they arrive in your mind, if you prevent yourself from entering into the flow of thoughts as they waft by your eyes, you are making a stunning observation:-Something is separate from these thoughts, something that can choose to be enveloped by them, can just watch them go by. It's Dennett's version of free will: You don't choose what bubbles up from below, but something allows you to say yes or no. And that something can choose for example, to simply sit, do nothing, and observe. THAT is the conscious agent.-> > I'm using ego in a more technical sense. I think the ego in Buddhism more closely maps to Freud's "id." At any rate, as I said above, when I learned exactly how little of what I did was volitional, when I learned how much I was ruled by my passions, it was THAT that I found scary. I felt less in control of myself. I'm still not, but I'm getting better. > > I understand Matt, I find it's not just passions but everyday events that control me. I'm not saying there is no feedback to the environment, but any line I draw between my 'self' and its environment is purely arbitrary. > -It is until you realize something like what I stated above: something exists that allows you to reflect on your mind and not be an active participant. What would you call this thing, if not free will? -As a side note, after about 15 minutes, something kind of miraculous happens->The mind under the surface usually stops bubbling things up to the "observer" function, or at least begins to quiet. (How much caffeine did I have that day?) -You can slow your mind down, through conscious will. What is that, if not free will?-> > Obviously I share your interest, but the only thing I can probably relate to you is that meditation feels like waking yourself up while in a dream within a dream. You become aware that you're dreaming, try to wake up, but perhaps barely realize that you're still not awake. There's techniques though to help mitigate this inevitability, and supposedly there was a man who accomplished it 2500 years ago... > > This reminds me of the much maligned Blackmore and her first of the Ten Zen Questions, Am I conscious now? After much meditating on her part the conclusion she came to was the answer is No. > > Even without any meditating, just simply interrogating my experience, I can see why she would say this. > -Blakemore's quintessential flaw however is that the Buddhist idea of "observing the mind" *REQUIRES* one to be able to in some way, cognitively separate the observer from the experience. She's tied (by logic) to the thought that even the act of observation must be from the unconscious will, but this isn't so: -Even the act of engaging in meditation is an act of conscious volition. You're forcing yourself to "stop acting" and just observe. By realizing that there is a flow, and that you are caught up in it, you are realizing free will. This is extremely resonant with Dennett's idea of a "fettered" or "limited" free will. [It is also the exact idea of free will and its relationship with Zen.] -For an observer to exist in the first place, it is necessary to be able to remove yourself from the raging river of consciousness. THAT is free will, consciously exercised. Buddhism's underlying goal (though it traditionally denies goals) is to exercise our ability to be an observer. In Hindu tradition, this "observer" is the soul itself.-[EDITED]

My will is dependent on its environment ... >>... >It is, and it isn't. Which bit is not? Which bit is independent of my education, the food it has eaten, chemistry, physics. Simply saying it is a koan does not quite cut it for me. Unless we assume a compatibilist's view then I just don't see it.->...lets not forget that an observer by necessity is separate from its object.-Hmmn? What exactly do you mean by "separate"? I would argue the the observed and observer are connected by an energy exchange. Without an exchange of energy there is no observation.-> It's Dennett's version of free will: You don't choose what bubbles up from below, but something allows you to say yes or no. And that something can choose for example, to simply sit, do nothing, and observe. THAT is the conscious agent.-Dennett I really like. He is a compatibilist. James much earlier had described compatibilism as a "quagmire of evasion". I think there is a grain of truth in this observation. -Here's a great lecture from Dennett on free will. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E I have a great deal of sympathy for the gentleman who asked the last question. For me Dennett does not answer the gentleman's question.-> Blakemore's quintessential flaw however is that the Buddhist idea of "observing the mind" *REQUIRES* one to be able to in some way, cognitively separate the observer from the experience. She's tied (by logic) to the thought that even the act of observation must be from the unconscious will, but this isn't so:-Blackmore does not claim to be a Buddhist. I suspect she is as every bit as dilligent in her meditation as you are Matt. So my question to you is: how come your interpretation of her meditations is so different and how come you seem so certain in your own meditative perception? It is completely at odds with hers.-> For an observer to exist in the first place, it is necessary to be able to remove yourself from the raging river of consciousness. -To continue with your metaphor. The river is the universe. We can't remove ourselves from the river, all we can do is find some calmer shallows. That we think ourconsciousness is a product of the brain is grandest illusion of free will. the brain is simply a drop of river water that focuses the universe's inputs.-My two cents worth

My will is dependent on its environment ... > >>... > >It is, and it isn't. > Which bit is not? Which bit is independent of my education, the food it has eaten, chemistry, physics. Simply saying it is a koan does not quite cut it for me. Unless we assume a compatibilist's view then I just don't see it. > > >...lets not forget that an observer by necessity is separate from its object. > > Hmmn? What exactly do you mean by "separate"? I would argue the the observed and observer are connected by an energy exchange. Without an exchange of energy there is no observation. > -This is trivially true. -At the same time, equally trivially true, is that by definition you cannot be both observer and the object being observed. (Yes, if we say there's two people in the room.) -Even if you look into a mirror, you're not observing *you* technically speaking you're observing light reflecting off of you, and bouncing back. The light just happens to give you information about yourself. - > > It's Dennett's version of free will: You don't choose what bubbles up from below, but something allows you to say yes or no. And that something can choose for example, to simply sit, do nothing, and observe. THAT is the conscious agent. > > Dennett I really like. He is a compatibilist. James much earlier had described compatibilism as a "quagmire of evasion". I think there is a grain of truth in this observation. > -James? Compatibilism is tricky, I admit. Still, I think because of its internal "evasions" and possible contradictions it serves a better model for reality than any of the normal -isms we get when discussing free will. - > Here's a great lecture from Dennett on free will. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E > I have a great deal of sympathy for the gentleman who asked the last question. For me Dennett does not answer the gentleman's question. > > > Blakemore's quintessential flaw however is that the Buddhist idea of "observing the mind" *REQUIRES* one to be able to in some way, cognitively separate the observer from the experience. She's tied (by logic) to the thought that even the act of observation must be from the unconscious will, but this isn't so: > > Blackmore does not claim to be a Buddhist. I suspect she is as every bit as dilligent in her meditation as you are Matt. So my question to you is: how come your interpretation of her meditations is so different and how come you seem so certain in your own meditative perception? It is completely at odds with hers. > -Maybe I'm guilty of wearing masks: My words were precisely to point out that she's not looking at it from a Buddhist perspective. Strictly speaking, neither am I, I have to state: When I talk of cognitive separation and the like, I'm trying to use language against something that language doesn't really describe. It's totally "un-Buddhist." [But if she uses words like "zen" than at a minimum she should at least consider what the "zen" perspective actually IS.]-As for why I seem so certain, that should be obvious. Our lives are a sum of our experiences. I don't have access to Blackmore's *actual* experience, and it really wouldn't be fair for me to comment that hers are purely wrong--yet as you pointed out, mine are different. -Compared to what I've received under instruction, Blackmore is too far to one side. There are parts of will that are deterministic, and parts of will that are choice. -Let me be clear: Buddhism lacks a single, coherent analysis of free will. You might say it deflects free will in exercises in analysis: Think more of Derrida and Nietzsche than say, Plato or Chomsky. It'll tell you what it isn't. And what it isn't, is wholly deterministic (Blackmore) or wholly illusory. (Schopenhauer)-> > For an observer to exist in the first place, it is necessary to be able to remove yourself from the raging river of consciousness. > > To continue with your metaphor. The river is the universe. We can't remove ourselves from the river, all we can do is find some calmer shallows. That we think ourconsciousness is a product of the brain is grandest illusion of free will. the brain is simply a drop of river water that focuses the universe's inputs. > -Focus is an interesting description for that. I suppose that's apt however... rejecting most of reality seems to be a primary role of the brain. You could extend that to "looking at only one part." -At the same time, we're fooled that we see things "as they are." We couldn't really handle, "as they are." The view that I've always taken, is that our brain deliberately limits us. It reminds me that there ARE things that I cannot perceive at all. Focus implies I see things more clearly. Much of the time, this is false.-> My two cents worth -Multiply that by 100, from what I got out of it.-[EDITED]

Discuses computing, free will, life:-http://theeuropean-magazine.com/729-wolfram-stephen/730-technology-and-human-nature

Even if you look into a mirror, you're not observing *you* technically speaking you're observing light reflecting off of you, and bouncing back. The light just happens to give you information about yourself.-Just going back to your river metaphor. A water molecule is affected by ("aware of") a nearby water molecule through hydrogen bonding. Yet that same water molecule is affected by the original 'observing' molecule. > It's Dennett's version of free will: You don't choose what bubbles up from below, but something allows you to say yes or no. And that something can choose for example, to simply sit, do nothing, and observe. THAT is the conscious agent.-While I think I understand this is an attractive proposition. I am not convinced that either state (conscious or unconscious) can be described as consciousness. My computer, plants in my garden sit and do nothing - is this consciousness?-The problem of compatibilism, it helps us to turn a blind eye to dependent origination (the Buddhist concept) and the concept of causa sui. > Maybe I'm guilty of wearing masks: My words were precisely to point out that she's not looking at it from a Buddhist perspective. Strictly speaking, neither am I, I have to state: When I talk of cognitive separation and the like, I'm trying to use language against something that language doesn't really describe.-We all have our masks Matt. Blackmore she too has her Buddhist Zen master, though I suspect he is more in a western tradition. Though this is probably OK. her zen master actually critiques her book. -> It's totally "un-Buddhist." [But if she uses words like "zen" than at a minimum she should at least consider what the "zen" perspective actually IS.]-To be honest, I would argue that you are not the sole beholder of zen and its meaning. As Buddha pundits point out, Buddha points to the way, but it has to be 'your' way. As far as I am concerned Blackmore is on a parallel path to you. And I am on mine.-> As for why I seem so certain, that should be obvious. Our lives are a sum of our experiences. I don't have access to Blackmore's *actual* experience, and it really wouldn't be fair for me to comment that hers are purely wrong--yet as you pointed out, mine are different. -I was teasing you Matt - when I last asked are you certain, you implied you were agnostic. Perhaps your agnosticism is for specific subject matter. I do understand that we have assume things as true in our lives or at least go about things as though our truths have use.-> Compared to what I've received under instruction, Blackmore is too far to one side. There are parts of will that are deterministic, and parts of will that are choice.-Can I suggest you read her book, Ten Zen Questions (if you have not already). It is short and an easy read. > Let me be clear: Buddhism lacks a single, coherent analysis of free will. You might say it deflects free will in exercises in analysis: Think more of Derrida and Nietzsche than say, Plato or Chomsky. It'll tell you what it isn't. And what it isn't, is wholly deterministic (Blackmore) or wholly illusory. (Schopenhauer)-Her analysis of free will is deterministic, I agree. But indeterminism also leads to a no self, and my will is not independent of indeterminism either.-I tend to anthropomorphize my 86 kg on water and bodily proteins, sugars, etc. Should I? if so why not other elements and compounds? (Just an aside).-> Focus is an interesting description for that. I suppose that's apt however... rejecting most of reality seems to be a primary role of the brain. You could extend that to "looking at only one part." -It is only a small fraction of our brain activity that we think we are aware of. The same way our brain activity is only in immediate energy exchange with a small fraction of the universe. -> At the same time, we're fooled that we see things "as they are." We couldn't really handle, "as they are." The view that I've always taken, is that our brain deliberately limits us. It reminds me that there ARE things that I cannot perceive at all. Focus implies I see things more clearly. Much of the time, this is false.- Essentially I agree, caution is warranted. And yet ultimately a path we must choose, even if it to stay on the current one.

romansh, > > It's Dennett's version of free will: You don't choose what bubbles up from below, but something allows you to say yes or no. And that something can choose for example, to simply sit, do nothing, and observe. THAT is the conscious agent. > > While I think I understand this is an attractive proposition. I am not convinced that either state (conscious or unconscious) can be described as consciousness. My computer, plants in my garden sit and do nothing - is this consciousness? > -Don't know. What I do know, is that I can say no to an impulse. -> The problem of compatibilism, it helps us to turn a blind eye to dependent origination (the Buddhist concept) and the concept of causa sui. > -I don't think it turns a blind eye at all. I'm living proof of that. Remember what I said earlier--just because I can *at times* sit still and ignore impulses, doesn't mean that the majority of the time I'm fully "in control" either. The "goal" again, of meditation, is to get beyond the point where our minds are constantly firing off flak, and reach that state of "here and now." That's the first step. -As for "Causa sui..."-"The causa sui is the best self-contradiction that has been conceived so far, it is a sort of rape and perversion of logic; but the extravagant pride of man has managed to entangle itself profoundly and frightfully with just this nonsense. ... Suppose someone were thus to see through the boorish simplicity of this celebrated concept of "free will" and put it out of his head altogther, I beg of him to carry his "enlightenment" a step further, and also put out of his head the contrary of this monstrous conception of "free will": I mean "unfree will," which amounts to a misuse of cause and effect. One should not wrongly reify "cause" and "effect," as the natural scientists do ... according to the prevailing mechanical doltishness which makes the cause press and push until it "effects" its end; one should use "cause" and "effect" only as pure concepts, that is to say, as conventional fictions for the purpose of designation and communication--not for explanation. In the "in-itself" there is nothing of "causal connections" of "necessity" or of "psychological non-freedom"; there the effect does not follow the cause, there is no rule of "law." ... The "unfree will" is mythology; in real life it is only a matter of strong and weak wills. " --Nietzsche, BGE, section 21--... > To be honest, I would argue that you are not the sole beholder of zen and its meaning. As Buddha pundits point out, Buddha points to the way, but it has to be 'your' way. As far as I am concerned Blackmore is on a parallel path to you. And I am on mine. > -Absolutely. Again, I base my views on her from watching perhaps 2 online lectures. I fully accept that this by no means can encompass even a simple person's philosophy. - > > Compared to what I've received under instruction, Blackmore is too far to one side. There are parts of will that are deterministic, and parts of will that are choice. > > Can I suggest you read her book, Ten Zen Questions (if you have not already). It is short and an easy read. > -My book list certainly grows with age! ;-) -> Her analysis of free will is deterministic, I agree. But indeterminism also leads to a no self, and my will is not independent of indeterminism either. > The core Buddhist truth here is that free-will cannot be an absolute thing. That was what I attempted to communicate earlier. It seems we're more alike than I thought, but I *am* used to defensive thinking. Forgive me!

Hi Matt > Don't know. What I do know, is that I can say no to an impulse. Yep I agree - but is the act of saying "no" a result of another (albeit perhaps a different kind of) impulse?-> I don't think it turns a blind eye at all. I'm living proof of that. Remember what I said earlier--just because I can *at times* sit still and ignore impulses, doesn't mean that the majority of the time I'm fully "in control" either. The "goal" again, of meditation, is to get beyond the point where our minds are constantly firing off flak, and reach that state of "here and now." That's the first step. -I don't see how we are not avoiding the concept of dependent origination here.-> As for "Causa sui..." > > "The causa sui is the best self-contradiction that has been conceived so far, it is a sort of rape and perversion of logic; but the extravagant pride of man has managed to entangle itself profoundly and frightfully with just this nonsense. > ... No argument here.-> Suppose someone were thus to see through the boorish simplicity of this celebrated concept of "free will" and put it out of his head altogther, I beg of him to carry his "enlightenment" a step further, and also put out of his head the contrary of this monstrous conception of "free will": I mean "unfree will," which amounts to a misuse of cause and effect. One should not wrongly reify "cause" and "effect," as the natural scientists do ... according to the prevailing mechanical doltishness which makes the cause press and push until it "effects" its end; one should use "cause" and "effect" only as pure concepts, that is to say, as conventional fictions for the purpose of designation and communication--not for explanation. In the "in-itself" there is nothing of "causal connections" of "necessity" or of "psychological non-freedom"; there the effect does not follow the cause, there is no rule of "law." -I don't thnk reifying cause and effect is a problem in that its opposite does not allow for freedom either. It is the very word free (intrinsically independent) that is the problem. In a scientific sense we should be careful of this word. -If we are using the free in the vernacular, then who cares? My will is not intrinsically free, in shape or form. It is shaped by the universe and it shapes the universe. The two are one - so to speak.-> > My book list certainly grows with age! ;-) Have fun Matt :-) -> The core Buddhist truth here is that free-will cannot be an absolute thing. That was what I attempted to communicate earlier. It seems we're more alike than I thought, but I *am* used to defensive thinking. Forgive me!-We are defined by our definitions?-Back to the regularly scheduled programming? ;-)

Hi Matt > > Don't know. What I do know, is that I can say no to an impulse. > Yep I agree - but is the act of saying "no" a result of another (albeit perhaps a different kind of) impulse? > -Here we might be playing games with ourselves: What's the definition of an impulse? Is something that can last 8+ hours an impulse? -> > I don't think it turns a blind eye at all. I'm living proof of that. Remember what I said earlier--just because I can *at times* sit still and ignore impulses, doesn't mean that the majority of the time I'm fully "in control" either. The "goal" again, of meditation, is to get beyond the point where our minds are constantly firing off flak, and reach that state of "here and now." That's the first step. > > I don't see how we are not avoiding the concept of dependent origination here. > -We're not. It's part of it. Remember: No absolutes in Zen. "All teachings are but a raft." -> > > Suppose someone were thus to see through the boorish simplicity of this celebrated concept of "free will" and put it out of his head altogther, I beg of him to carry his "enlightenment" a step further, and also put out of his head the contrary of this monstrous conception of "free will": I mean "unfree will," which amounts to a misuse of cause and effect. One should not wrongly reify "cause" and "effect," as the natural scientists do ... according to the prevailing mechanical doltishness which makes the cause press and push until it "effects" its end; one should use "cause" and "effect" only as pure concepts, that is to say, as conventional fictions for the purpose of designation and communication--not for explanation. In the "in-itself" there is nothing of "causal connections" of "necessity" or of "psychological non-freedom"; there the effect does not follow the cause, there is no rule of "law." > > I don't thnk reifying cause and effect is a problem in that its opposite does not allow for freedom either. It is the very word free (intrinsically independent) that is the problem. In a scientific sense we should be careful of this word. > -I think you pegged his point exactly: Nietzsche was a student of Schopenhauer, who (as YOU probably know) was famous for positing determinism in free will, because we can only ever will one thing at a time. But, as I just argued recently to a humanist group I belong to--Nietzsche's position is that the question of "free will" isn't correct at all. It's we humans getting lost into a game of words: Since the only thing that matters is "the strongest will," than that means whether or not we have control over our will, the consequences are irrelevant: If we're completely free, it is clearly the conscious agent that has the strongest will, and if we're completely deterministic, again, we're dominated by the strongest will. -It's a zero-sum question. This is where N diverted from his mentor.-> If we are using the free in the vernacular, then who cares? My will is not intrinsically free, in shape or form. It is shaped by the universe and it shapes the universe. The two are one - so to speak. > -A "process theology" of the mind? (sans theology, of course.)

"If you think of it as the product of design, the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a disgrace. Helmholz would have had even more cause to send it back than the eye. But, like the eye, it makes perfect sense the moment you forget design and think history instead." (p. 356) > > Dawkins then argues that it makes better sense if we evolved from fish, -We did evolve from fish. they were the first vertebrates. And the recurrent laryngeal nerve has purposeful branches that go into the chest. As for the eye which the atheists love to complain about, you know, the octopus eye is designed better.B.S. It is an issue of design. Our retina has the best nutrient supply of all tested. We can pick up one photon.

dhw: I don't know of anyone who argues a direct line from fungi to fish to humans.-DAVID: We did evolve from fish, they were the first vertebrates.-I stand/swim half corrected. How about the fungi?

dhw: I don't know of anyone who argues a direct line from fungi to fish to humans. > > DAVID: We did evolve from fish, they were the first vertebrates. > > I stand/swim half corrected. How about the fungi?-What, I'm still here!

TONY (to David): You criticize the bible for being a human construct, but don't even acknowledge that science is exactly the same?-Dhw: I don't think it is exactly the same. While I share all your reservations about the "truths" that may emerge from science, its observations and experiments within the material world do provide many facts that are objectively testable and authenticated. [...] The bible is full of wonderful stories, wise insights into human conduct, and even some useful moral codes, but I really don't know why anyone should bother to consult it over matters of science. TONY: This is a very Western approach to the subject. To understand something implies more than just knowledge of its constituent parts (what/how), it also implies understanding the who, why, and what for, as well as its place in existence. It implies that knowledge at every level. -I think there's a misunderstanding here between us. If I want my car to be repaired, I don't go to the doctor. If I have a pain in the chest, I don't go to the mechanic. There is no escaping separation, West or East. To understand life and the universe, I agree that we need to understand the constituent parts AND the whys and the wherefores AND their place in existence. And the overall quest for so-called "truth" does not entail one branch of knowledge excluding others, or even taking precedence over others. But if I want to know how the material universe works, I will turn to science for the answers. This is as close to objectivity as we can get, and sometimes there is even a consensus. If I want to know about whys and wherefores, I will turn to philosophy (including religion), where there is no consensus, no objectivity, but where if I'm lucky I may find whos, whys and wherefores that suit me personally. What you refer to as the onenesss of all the interrelated elements, and as existing in the moment, as part of something larger than yourself, can be experienced by someone totally ignorant of big bangs, evolution and quantum mechanics. Similarly, some people are convinced that there is nothing beyond the material world, and so they see no need for the bible or any other instrument of religion. -You say "there must be overlap and agreement. There must be unity between the various schools of thought, or, by definition, one of them is wrong." It may be that we are talking at cross purposes. In my view, there will never be unity between the schools of thought. There are many forms of understanding ... intuitive, spiritual, purely materialistic, theistic ... and while some may overlap, some cannot possibly agree. How, for instance, can the purely materialistic (atheistic) and the theistic ever be unified? Yes indeed, by definition one of them is wrong ... but no-one can ever know for sure which one. That's why the debate is never ending!

You say "there must be overlap and agreement. There must be unity between the various schools of thought, or, by definition, one of them is wrong." It may be that we are talking at cross purposes. In my view, there will never be unity between the schools of thought. There are many forms of understanding ... intuitive, spiritual, purely materialistic, theistic ... and while some may overlap, some cannot possible agree. How, for instance, can the purely materialistic (atheistic) and the theistic ever be unified? Yes indeed, by definition one of them is wrong ... but no-one can ever know for sure which one. That's why the debate is never ending!-I understand what Tony is saying here. >>"there must be overlap and agreement. There must be unity between the various schools of thought, or, by definition, one of them is wrong." I would phrase it slightly differently. If the various schools of thought don't point in the same direction then one, the other or both are inaccurate. Even if they both point in the same direction both could be inaccurate. -Having said that if we can't use reason (fallible as it is) to adjudicate the degree of accuracy of different world views, then we have taken a step away from agnosticism to the very bowels of solipsism.

TONY: "there must be overlap and agreement. There must be unity between the various schools of thought, or, by definition, one of them is wrong."-ROMANSH: I would phrase it slightly differently. If the various schools of thought don't point in the same direction then one, the other or both are inaccurate. Even if they both point in the same direction both could be inaccurate. Having said that if we can't use reason (fallible as it is) to adjudicate the degree of accuracy of different world views, then we have taken a step away from agnosticism to the very bowels of solipsism.-I'm sure sensible folk like us would agree that reason sets limits on what we ourselves consider credible, but none of us can adjudicate the accuracy of different world views, unless God himself (if he exists) pops in to tell us. We do not have an objective yardstick! But I don't see why this is a step away from agnosticism towards solipsism. We've had this conversation before. So long as there is a consensus among us, we can ignore the absolute scepticism of the solipsists and carry on in what we agree to be a real world. You can't have a world view unless you accept that there is a world to view!

TONY (to David): You criticize the bible for being a human construct, but don't even acknowledge that science is exactly the same? > > Dhw: I don't think it is exactly the same. While I share all your reservations about the "truths" that may emerge from science, its observations and experiments within the material world do provide many facts that are objectively testable and authenticated. [...] The bible is full of wonderful stories, wise insights into human conduct, and even some useful moral codes, but I really don't know why anyone should bother to consult it over matters of science. > > TONY: This is a very Western approach to the subject. To understand something implies more than just knowledge of its constituent parts (what/how), it also implies understanding the who, why, and what for, as well as its place in existence. It implies that knowledge at every level. > > I think there's a misunderstanding here between us. If I want my car to be repaired, I don't go to the doctor. If I have a pain in the chest, I don't go to the mechanic. There is no escaping separation, West or East. To understand life and the universe, I agree that we need to understand the constituent parts AND the whys and the wherefores AND their place in existence. And the overall quest for so-called "truth" does not entail one branch of knowledge excluding others, or even taking precedence over others. But if I want to know how the material universe works, I will turn to science for the answers. This is as close to objectivity as we can get, and sometimes there is even a consensus. If I want to know about whys and wherefores, I will turn to philosophy (including religion), where there is no consensus, no objectivity, but where if I'm lucky I may find whos, whys and wherefores that suit me personally. What you refer to as the onenesss of all the interrelated elements, and as existing in the moment, as part of something larger than yourself, can be experienced by someone totally ignorant of big bangs, evolution and quantum mechanics. Similarly, some people are convinced that there is nothing beyond the material world, and so they see no need for the bible or any other instrument of religion. > > You say "there must be overlap and agreement. There must be unity between the various schools of thought, or, by definition, one of them is wrong." It may be that we are talking at cross purposes. In my view, there will never be unity between the schools of thought. There are many forms of understanding ... intuitive, spiritual, purely materialistic, theistic ... and while some may overlap, some cannot possible agree. How, for instance, can the purely materialistic (atheistic) and the theistic ever be unified? Yes indeed, by definition one of them is wrong ... but no-one can ever know for sure which one. That's why the debate is never ending!-That's what I tried to impart with the talk of science and religion not *truly* being able to meet. Well said.

TONY: This is a very Western approach to the subject. To understand something implies more than just knowledge of its constituent parts (what/how), it also implies understanding the who, why, and what for, as well as its place in existence. It implies that knowledge at every level. > > I think there's a misunderstanding here between us. If I want my car to be repaired, I don't go to the doctor. If I have a pain in the chest, I don't go to the mechanic. There is no escaping separation, West or East. To understand life and the universe, I agree that we need to understand the constituent parts AND the whys and the wherefores AND their place in existence. And the overall quest for so-called "truth" does not entail one branch of knowledge excluding others, or even taking precedence over others. But if I want to know how the material universe works, I will turn to science for the answers. This is as close to objectivity as we can get, and sometimes there is even a consensus. If I want to know about whys and wherefores, I will turn to philosophy (including religion), where there is no consensus, no objectivity, but where if I'm lucky I may find whos, whys and wherefores that suit me personally. What you refer to as the onenesss of all the interrelated elements, and as existing in the moment, as part of something larger than yourself, can be experienced by someone totally ignorant of big bangs, evolution and quantum mechanics. Similarly, some people are convinced that there is nothing beyond the material world, and so they see no need for the bible or any other instrument of religion. >-This is the point where the conversation could spin off into a hundred different directions, but instead, I will ask a couple of questions and see if we can clear some things up.-Has a separative materialist framework ever produced something that is an improvement on the natural system? (In order to qualify, it must work in harmony with the material world, and cause no adverse side effects)-If we had not previously interfered with the natural order, would you even have a car that needs to be repaired, or a cause to see a heart surgeon? (i.e. Your car and your poor ticker would both constitute poor human design. Your car is actually directly responsible for your poor ticker (ironically). That and your artificial diet which is also poorly designed by humans.)- > DHW: You say "there must be overlap and agreement. There must be unity between the various schools of thought, or, by definition, one of them is wrong." It may be that we are talking at cross purposes. In my view, there will never be unity between the schools of thought. There are many forms of understanding ... intuitive, spiritual, purely materialistic, theistic ... and while some may overlap, some cannot possible agree. -If you do not KNOW it from all of those angles then you do not UNDERSTAND it. ->DHW: How, for instance, can the purely materialistic (atheistic) and the theistic ever be unified? Yes indeed, by definition one of them is wrong ... but no-one can ever know for sure which one. That's why the debate is never ending!-You are absolutely correct. When two ideologies are antithetical and mutually exclusive one of them MUST be wrong. In my humble opinion, materialism has proved to be an epic fail. So, why not give the other a shot.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

You are absolutely correct. When two ideologies are antithetical and mutually exclusive one of them MUST be wrong. In my humble opinion, materialism has proved to be an epic fail. So, why not give the other a shot.-I think your materialistic thinking has led you to an epic false conclusion.

You are absolutely correct. When two ideologies are antithetical and mutually exclusive one of them MUST be wrong. In my humble opinion, materialism has proved to be an epic fail. So, why not give the other a shot. > > I think your materialistic thinking has led you to an epic false conclusion.-So you think that natural mutually exclusive contradictions can occur? Would you care to give an example?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

So you think that natural mutually exclusive contradictions can occur? Would you care to give an example?-Tony please reread my first reply to dhw in this thread.

I never said that both couldn't be wrong, only that at least one of them must be. I personally believe that the current Christian teachings are wrong as well, particularly since they are not based on teachings from the bible (ironically). The simplest answer to the dilemma about knowing which path is right is actually exceedingly simple. If we are doing the right thing, the right way, our actions would be functional in every way, and would not cause dysfunction in other systems. (I.e. such as how using geothermal energy triggers earth quakes, pesticides poison the water, and our unnatural diet leads to poor health

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

I never said that both couldn't be wrong, only that at least one of them must be. -I never said that you did. Infact I agreed with you that if one was right the other is wrong.-Where I do disagree is that materialism/physicalism/naturalism are epic failures. This is a huge overstatement from my view.

Back it up with evidence. I've got reams of literature and research showing how badly we have messed up ourselves, our planet, our psychology, heck, even space. Show me where materialism's big success is. Even the things that we call successes are failures. Computers, for all their wonders are toxic both to our health and to our environment. Our food has become poisonous to us, even if we can feed the world. Our governments are utter failures. Our economy is in utter chaos and on the verge of collapse(and beyond in some places). So, please enlighten me as to how the materialistic world view has been 'functional' as I defined it to DHW. (This is a serious request, by the way. I am not being snarky.)-**edit**-And so there is no ambiguity and to give you a fair shake, I am defining functional as:-Something that does not cause dysfunction with in the overall system. - In other words, you can use examples that are destructive, as long as that destruction does not cause dysfunction or imbalance within the system. For example, a volcano is very destructive, but from its destruction it creates new land and provides nourishment that aid in the continuation of life without negatively affecting the balance of nature in a manner that nature does not already have a corrective function in place for. The same could be said for any natural disaster. (I do not view human death as a result of natural disasters as dysfunction. If they ignore the warnings and die, that is tantamount to suicide in my book.)

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Try: http://agnosticsinternational.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=1256 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk-When the first photosynthesizers started producing oxygen, it was a disaster for life on earth.

Try: > http://agnosticsinternational.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=1256 > and > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk > > When the first photosynthesizers started producing oxygen, it was a disaster for life on earth.-First, your example of photosynthesizers is speculation firstly, and secondly, it falls under the same categorical function as volcanism. It was initially (possibly) destructive, but actually worked to give rise to life. See this article: http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/fall08/scalo/secure/309l_oct30_oxygen.pdf Abstract: The atmosphere has apparently been oxygenated since the 'Great Oxidation Event' ca 2.4 Ga ago, but when the photosynthetic oxygen production began is debatable. However, geological and geochemical evidence from older sedimentary rocks indicates that oxygenic photosynthesis evolved well before this oxygenation event.-Secondly, from your link(I can not watch the videos because I am on a boat with limited bandwidth):-From what I can find about them though, nothing he says does anything to negate the negative impact we are having on ourselves and our biosphere.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Try: > > http://agnosticsinternational.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=1256 > > and > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk > > > > When the first photosynthesizers started producing oxygen, it was a disaster for life on earth.-Uncontrolled metabolism with oxygen is nasty. Think simply of fire, or rust. Why is it that antioxidants are advised in our diets? When oxygen first arrived living systems had to be developed to handle it. From a logic standpoint photosynthesis is the better way to go if you are alive. But oxygen allows for a better energy production, which mobile life needs.

When oxygen first arrived living systems had to be developed to handle it. From a logic standpoint photosynthesis is the better way to go if you are alive. But oxygen allows for a better energy production, which mobile life needs.-For a photsynthesizer oxygen is an excrement and a oxidant. Better is not the right word here. Photsynthesis allows plants to store energy in the form of sugars and allows those sugars to be used as building blocks for structures. Luckily for us plants generate more elemental oxygen than they consume.-For an anaerobic sulphur reducing bacterium sulphate will be a 'better' source of oxidant than oxygen ever will be. In water sulphate concentrations can be much higher and it is not highly poisonous.-So living systems had to evolve to cope with trace quantities of this poison. The same way flora and fauna will evolve to cope with Tony's mess long after mankind has gone.

Try: > > > http://agnosticsinternational.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=1256 > > > and > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk > > > > > > When the first photosynthesizers started producing oxygen, it was a disaster for life on earth. > > Uncontrolled metabolism with oxygen is nasty. Think simply of fire, or rust. Why is it that antioxidants are advised in our diets? When oxygen first arrived living systems had to be developed to handle it. From a logic standpoint photosynthesis is the better way to go if you are alive. But oxygen allows for a better energy production, which mobile life needs.-Research in methanogens, anaerobic bacteria that avoid oxygen:-http://phys.org/news/2012-06-oxygen-sensor-dna-transcription.html

Try: > > > > http://agnosticsinternational.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=1256 > > > > and > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk > > > > > > > > When the first photosynthesizers started producing oxygen, it was a disaster for life on earth. > > > > Uncontrolled metabolism with oxygen is nasty. Think simply of fire, or rust. Why is it that antioxidants are advised in our diets? When oxygen first arrived living systems had to be developed to handle it. From a logic standpoint photosynthesis is the better way to go if you are alive. But oxygen allows for a better energy production, which mobile life needs. > > Research in methanogens, anaerobic bacteria that avoid oxygen: > > http://phys.org/news/2012-06-oxygen-sensor-dna-transcription.html-More on the problem oxygen created when it appeared:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-rat/2012/07/29/the-origin-of-breathing-how-bacteria-learnt-to-use-oxygen/?WT_mc_id=SA_DD_20120730

First, your example of photosynthesizers is speculation firstly, and secondly, it falls under the same categorical function as volcanism. It was initially (possibly) destructive, but actually worked to give rise to life. See this article: ...-What are you smoking? Life caused the great oxygenation event!-> Abstract: The atmosphere has apparently been oxygenated since the 'Great Oxidation Event' ca 2.4 Ga ago, but when the photosynthetic oxygen production began is debatable. However, geological and geochemical evidence from older > sedimentary rocks indicates that oxygenic photosynthesis evolved well before this oxygenation event.[/i] > > Secondly, from your link(I can not watch the videos because I am on a boat with limited bandwidth): > > From what I can find about them though, nothing he says does anything to negate the negative impact we are having on ourselves and our biosphere.-But how do we know we're making a negative impact until we do something that impacts the environment negatively?

Making a mistake is human, and I don't fault people for doing something only to find out it was damaging. What I fault them for is for continuing the action once they DO know. You make an antibiotic, fine. You find out it is causing bacterial mutations, then it is time to stop, not produce more.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Making a mistake is human, and I don't fault people for doing something only to find out it was damaging. What I fault them for is for continuing the action once they DO know. You make an antibiotic, fine. You find out it is causing bacterial mutations, then it is time to stop, not produce more.-I don't know if you realize what you're saying, you're aguing that we should terminate *ALL* antibiotics. -They *ALL* cause resistance, and they directly give rise to new strains. It's as unavoidable as the sun rising tommorrow. All we're doing is entering an arms race. So again, it's:-1. Have the power and do nothing.-2. Use the power wisely.

Back it up with evidence. I've got reams of literature and research showing how badly ...- 1. Antibiotics. Without which, common infections would result in millions of more deaths in a year. -2. Cardiac Surgery. Without which, heart failure (even not caused by bad diets) would be automatic failure. -3. Democratic Government. Without which, we would never be able to replace leaders when and if they went astray. (American Democracy was an enlightenment (materialist) invention.) -4. Electricity, without which, millions of people would die without proper heating or air conditioning. -5. Computers, without which, you would be unable to communicate with a huge majority of the world. -Most of the flaws you've found in "materialism" are due to the fact that things we didn't know before hand came back to bite us in some way. Countering my claims above:-1. Antibiotic resistance, which is causing extra-virulent strains to evolve and kills us. -2. High-fat, low-fiber diets, which cause the majority of heart disease we see in the first place. -3. Facism, something that couldn't exist without a democratic majority. -4. Sulphur dioxide emissions--caused by burning coal. -5. Blinders here. Can't find a single *real* negative to computers. -Point being: You're blaming "materialists" for being unable to predict the future... something no prophet of antiquity was actually able to do. -So what's your real argument, then, Tony?

Back it up with evidence. I've got reams of literature and research showing how badly ... > > > 1. Antibiotics. Without which, common infections would result in millions of more deaths in a year. >-Which are also responsible for creating antibiotic resistant mutations that make them even worse than the original. > 2. Cardiac Surgery. Without which, heart failure (even not caused by bad diets) would be automatic failure. > -See the article by the Heart Surgeon that I posted sometime back.-> 3. Democratic Government. Without which, we would never be able to replace leaders when and if they went astray. (American Democracy was an enlightenment (materialist) invention.) > > 4. Electricity, without which, millions of people would die without proper heating or air conditioning. > -No. They would become acclimated to their environment. The reason people die is BECAUSE air conditioning de-acclimates them by separating them from their environment. I have lived in 150Â°F heat with no AC for months on end. No big drama. There are other ways to stay warm. People managed for millions of years without it.-> 5. Computers, without which, you would be unable to communicate with a huge majority of the world. > -And we would be forced to communicate with people sitting in the same room as us instead of having our attention constantly diverted into a realm of cyber reality. I love the internet, but even I am not blind to its harmful impact on society.-> Most of the flaws you've found in "materialism" are due to the fact that things we didn't know before hand came back to bite us in some way. Countering my claims above: > > > Point being: You're blaming "materialists" for being unable to predict the future... something no prophet of antiquity was actually able to do. > -Not at all. I blame materialists for the mindset that leads to the sense of entitlement that leads to the promotion of the ID/EGO above all else, which in turn leads to gratifying the desires of the ego to be more important than anything else. -Has knowledge that Antibiotics create super strains stopped them from being used? NO-Has knowledge that the vast majority of super market food, or fast foods, are the prime cause of our heart failures caused us to stop making or consuming the garbage? No-Has knowledge that our hunger for energy is destroying the world(literally) caused us to let go of what is obviously a broken, non-sustainable system? No-Has the failure of every single type of government ever created taught us that humans are capable of wielding power properly? No (In democracies case we simply move from one bad leader to another)-Has our understanding of biology, the ecosystem, and how small changes can decimate entire species caused us to stop our rape of the world for her natural resources? No-Even in the presence of things that threaten our entire species, like AIDs or cancer, we do not change.- I don't fault materialist for not being clairvoyant, but all of these are things that we KNOW and still do nothing about.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

I don't fault materialist for not being clairvoyant, but all of these are things that we KNOW and still do nothing about.-Again, that has NOTHING to do with materialism. That has everything to do with the human fear of death, and a selfish "fuck it" viewpoint. -Have you never heard of Secular Humanism?

Back it up with evidence. I've got reams of literature and research showing how badly ... > > > > > > 1. Antibiotics. Without which, common infections would result in millions of more deaths in a year. > > > > Which are also responsible for creating antibiotic resistant mutations that make them even worse than the original. > -Caught ya... you didn't read my whole post before responding. (Do that.)-This is a conversation worth having, because I just had a morality discussion with a Christian friend of mine who espoused a similar view as you here. -When we invented antibiotics... we had no idea that bacteria were capable of evolution, we certainly didn't even know about DNA. -To me, your argument against antibiotics here is precisely what you just said you didn't believe: That because we don't know everything, we shouldn't do anything. -You and I are very different on this point. If we have the power to do something, we are obligated to do it. Especially when we're talking about an area of pure unknowns--we have no choice but to fly blind. -Now, we know that bacteria evolve. -So to me, your argument is: "We should stop creating new antibiotics." -We have. Unfortunately, because drug companies no longer think they're profitable. (And when you consider that 85% of Americans are Christian, the same goes for the drug companies, underlining my point that spirituality has nothing to do with morality.) Off my soapbox...-We didn't create the problem of resistant bacteria. Nature created it. You can argue until you're blue in the face that antibiotic resistance is our fault, but to me, unless you demonstrate that MAN created bacteria, WE had nothing to do with how bacteria evolved to counteract our poisons. -So... do we stop working to save human lives?

When we invented antibiotics... we had no idea that bacteria were capable of evolution, we certainly didn't even know about DNA. > Matt I too was incredulous of Tony's logic on bacteria and antibiotics. Having said that, we were aware of evolution in the forties, but perhaps we were unaware of the rapidity of evolution that can occur.-And like you (sort of) point to at the end of your post. Even if knew beforehand of the possibility antibiotic strains we would have developed the very same antibiotics to help save people's lives. We would have been a lot more cautious of their widespread use though.

And like you (sort of) point to at the end of your post. Even if knew beforehand of the possibility antibiotic strains we would have developed the very same antibiotics to help save people's lives. We would have been a lot more cautious of their widespread use though.-The really horrible bugs and the resistence are in the hospitals, where surgeons routinely gave antibiotics just to make sure everything stayed sterile. That was in my time. I hope they are not doing that now. How about the Tetracycline given to cattle to help them grow faster into the butcher shop faster? Some of this stuff involved dollar signs. The companies are running out of bacteria- lethal fungi to find new antibiotics. Things like penicillin, Streptomycin were naturally occurring antibiotics, but there are othr ways to screw up a bacterium. Mess up their outer membrane for example. That kind of research will always go on, and with folks like Shapiro around there will be great success.

And like you (sort of) point to at the end of your post. Even if knew beforehand of the possibility antibiotic strains we would have developed the very same antibiotics to help save people's lives. We would have been a lot more cautious of their widespread use though. > > The really horrible bugs and the resistence are in the hospitals, where surgeons routinely gave antibiotics just to make sure everything stayed sterile. That was in my time. I hope they are not doing that now. How about the Tetracycline given to cattle to help them grow faster into the butcher shop faster? Some of this stuff involved dollar signs. The companies are running out of bacteria- lethal fungi to find new antibiotics. Things like penicillin, Streptomycin were naturally occurring antibiotics, but there are othr ways to screw up a bacterium. Mess up their outer membrane for example. That kind of research will always go on, and with folks like Shapiro around there will be great success.-Man.. feel like I am taking a beating here LOL. Look, what I am trying to get through to you guys is that even when we KNOW something is wrong, even when we KNOW for a fact that it is going to cause more heartache down the road, we continue to do it. If that is not a sure sign of being dysfunctional then I don't know what is. We knew about adaptation before we developed antibiotics, as has already been pointed out. We also knew about the body's immune system, though not in as great of detail as we do today. Our bodies have been naturally dealing with harmful bacteria for hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of years, and instead of choosing to assist the natural function, we chose to poison ourselves in the hopes of artificially killing the bug. At the end of the day, it comes down to money. There is no money in health, only health care. -I am not arguing against attempting to save lives. I am not arguing against knowledge of the natural world. I am not even arguing that in some really rare special cases that an antibiotic could possibly be used to save someones life in a manner that doesn't cause further damage down the road. Contrary to what Matt believes, I am not even saying that we should do nothing. I am simply saying that we should align our efforts to work in harmony with the natural system which we are part of instead of trying to impose our poorly designed rules on it.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Man.. feel like I am taking a beating here LOL. Look, what I am trying to get through to you guys is that even when we KNOW something is wrong, even when we KNOW for a fact that it is going to cause more heartache down the road, we continue to do it. -I don't think I was beating on you, Tony. My comment was agreeing. We have now reached the point in understanding cellular structure that we can work with the natural flow of life to screw it up in the bacteria we need to fight. We have just catalogued the bacteria, mainly friendly, or at least not harmful, that live with us, on us. We are getting away from trying to kill them with poisons and kill them by interference with their natural processes. Admittedly penicillin is a natural substance used in an unnatural way medically. After all most of us like blue cheese, but those of us allergic to penicillin stay away from it. Tony, all you are asking is that we go with the flow of nature, and we ar beginnng to do that. It was easier to jump start anti-bacterial therapy with sulfa drugs and penicillin in the 1930-40's than to wait for the cellular research we have reached now. Murphy's law still applies. Every jump forward will have unintended consequences, but I saved some lives with the early antibiotics, and undoubtedly harmed others. Logic and thinking folks like you are causing the current switch to using life's processes in more beneficial ways.

Not meaning to "beat you up" ;-) but I AM trying to drive home the point that materialism has nothing to do with imposing our will on nature. -Calvinism is far more dangerous in my view, but both are capable of rationalizations to support short-term decision making as opposed to the long-term good.-I agree, that we should use our knowledge wisely, but you live in the USA, the home of free-market capitalism. Cheap always wins.

Matt and I agree that if you want to study the material world, you turn to science, and if you want to study the whos and whys and wherefores you turn to philosophy (which includes religion). Tony says "there must be overlap and agreement", and I say that will never happen.-TONY: Has a separative materialist framework ever produced something that is an improvement on the natural system? (In order to qualify, it must work in harmony with the material [don't you mean natural?] world, and cause no adverse side effects) If we had not previously interfered with the natural order, would you even have a car that needs to be repaired, or a cause to see a heart surgeon? (i.e. Your car and your poor ticker would both constitute poor human design. Your car is actually directly responsible for your poor ticker (ironically). That and your artificial diet which is also poorly designed by humans.)-Here and in your latest response to Romansh you are arguing against materialism, but that is not the subject you and I are discussing! I stated explicitly in the post to which you are replying: "the overall quest for so-called "truth" does not entail one branch of knowledge excluding others, or even taking precedence over others" ... see also my next quote :-D HW: There are many forms of understanding ... intuitive, spiritual, purely materialistic, theistic ... and while some may overlap, some cannot possibly agree. -TONY: If you do not KNOW it from all of those angles then you do not UNDERSTAND it.-As far as we are aware, nobody UNDERSTANDS it, from no matter which angle or how many angles. Only blinkered fundamentalists (religious and anti-religious) even CLAIM to understand it. Every single world view is subjective, and unless there really is a God and he decides to tell us the whole story, we shall never know the objective truth. DHW: How, for instance, can the purely materialistic (atheistic) and the theistic ever be unified? Yes indeed, by definition one of them is wrong ... but no-one can ever know for sure which one. That's why the debate is never ending!-TONY: You are absolutely correct. When two ideologies are antithetical and mutually exclusive one of them MUST be wrong. In my humble opinion, materialism has proved to be an epic fail. So, why not give the other a shot.-And that is the source of most of our misunderstandings in this discussion. You have an anti-materialist agenda, but I am not defending or attacking materialism any more than I am defending or attacking the study of ancient texts. I am merely saying that if I want to study the material world, I'll turn to science, and if I want to study the non-material aspects of the world, I'll turn to philosophy. Neither will give me the objective truth, but perhaps I'll find a subjective world view that satisfies me. We will never ever be able to unify all world views, i.e. there can never ever be "unity between the various schools of thought". That can only happen if there is a God who chooses to enlighten us.

Here and in your latest response to Romansh you are arguing against materialism, but that is not the subject you and I are discussing! I stated explicitly in the post to which you are replying: "the overall quest for so-called "truth" does not entail one branch of knowledge excluding others, or even taking precedence over others" ... see also my next quote:-Agreed. They are equal. They all are different perspectives. They are not mutually exclusive or inclusive. -> > DHW: There are many forms of understanding ... intuitive, spiritual, purely materialistic, theistic ... and while some may overlap, some cannot possibly agree. > > TONY: If you do not KNOW it from all of those angles then you do not UNDERSTAND it. > > As far as we are aware, nobody UNDERSTANDS it, from no matter which angle or how many angles. Only blinkered fundamentalists (religious and anti-religious) even CLAIM to understand it. Every single world view is subjective, and unless there really is a God and he decides to tell us the whole story, we shall never know the objective truth. -Agreed. No one currently understands it, from any angle. I do not claim to understand it myself. I only posit that understanding can only come from the application of all of the disciplines in a unified manner. - > And that is the source of most of our misunderstandings in this discussion. You have an anti-materialist agenda, but I am not defending or attacking materialism any more than I am defending or attacking the study of ancient texts. I am merely saying that if I want to study the material world, I'll turn to science, and if I want to study the non-material aspects of the world, I'll turn to philosophy. Neither will give me the objective truth, but perhaps I'll find a subjective world view that satisfies me. We will never ever be able to unify all world views, i.e. there can never ever be "unity between the various schools of thought". That can only happen if there is a God who chooses to enlighten us.-Surpisingly enough, my agenda is not actually anti-materialist, though I know it seems that way. I am not even certain I would call it an agenda, as I have absolutely nothing to lose or gain from anyone sharing my worldview. My perspective, though, is that a unilateral world view based solely on materialism or naturalism is dysfunctional, and that the evidence of that dysfunction is all around us. This same argument could be applied to any of the disciplines; theology, philosophy etc. A unilateral materialistic world view is precisely the mentality that the militant atheist like Dawkins are proposing, and is also the prevailing mindset of the world today. Hence the reason that it has been the focus of my discussion. If the dominant philosophy was religion and it was being applied unilaterally to our destruction, I would be arguing against it just as hard. There is a very very good reason that I chose the screen name Balance_Maintained. I think that sums up my position.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Surpisingly enough, my agenda is not actually anti-materialist, though I know it seems that way. I am not even certain I would call it an agenda, as I have absolutely nothing to lose or gain from anyone sharing my worldview. Which worldviews are you suggesting Tony. Surely not any old one?-> My perspective, though, is that a unilateral world view based solely on materialism or naturalism is dysfunctional, and that the evidence of that dysfunction is all around us. Here I would have some sympathy, a materialistic world view in the hands of the uniniated is worrisome. For example interpreting an event as speculative simply because we can't date it accurately when it happened.-> This same argument could be applied to any of the disciplines; theology, philosophy etc. A unilateral materialistic world view is precisely the mentality that the militant atheist like Dawkins are proposing, and is also the prevailing mindset of the world today. -I don't think Dawkins is promoting rape and pillage of the environment do you? Invoking the devil incarnate does little to promote your argument, at least very little for me.-> Hence the reason that it has been the focus of my discussion. If the dominant philosophy was religion and it was being applied unilaterally to our destruction, I would be arguing against it just as hard. There is a very very good reason that I chose the screen name Balance_Maintained. I think that sums up my position.-Here you put mankind its actions very firmly separate from nature. This is of course a reflection of a dualistic mindset. That you think you have a balanced view of course is a matter opinion. Of course we all know that my opinions can be found at the origin (0,0).

Which worldviews are you suggesting Tony. Surely not any old one? > -A world view based on the balanced application of all disciplines to form a unified frame work that is functional and harmonizes with the environment. While the biosphere is implicit in that, it is not the sum total of what I mean by environment, which must also include humanity as well. This is a gross oversimplification, but I truly do not have to words to explain it. - > > My perspective, though, is that a unilateral world view based solely on materialism or naturalism is dysfunctional, and that the evidence of that dysfunction is all around us. > Here I would have some sympathy, a materialistic world view in the hands of the uniniated is worrisome. For example interpreting an event as speculative simply because we can't date it accurately when it happened.-When you do something that is supposed to make life better, and it creates problems that must be countered by the application of even greater forces, you are not working in harmony with the system. Consider a performer trying to maintain balance one a tight rope. The easiest method is to find a point of equilibrium that can be maintained with little effort. However, when that performer makes a movement that disrupts the equilibrium, they must make stronger and stronger corrections in the effort to maintain balance, each of which actually serves to throw them even further out of balance. These types of over corrective changes are the essence of dysfunction. They SEEM correct in the moment, but they ultimately disrupt the system further until it collapses. This is the same scenario that humanity has been playing out for thousands of years. - > I don't think Dawkins is promoting rape and pillage of the environment do you? Invoking the devil incarnate does little to promote your argument, at least very little for me. > -Devil incarnate? I don't know about all of that. I was simply referring to his propaganda that the physical is all there is and that it exist in isolation, devoid of meaning or reason. -> > Hence the reason that it has been the focus of my discussion. If the dominant philosophy was religion and it was being applied unilaterally to our destruction, I would be arguing against it just as hard. There is a very very good reason that I chose the screen name Balance_Maintained. I think that sums up my position. > > Here you put mankind its actions very firmly separate from nature. This is of course a reflection of a dualistic mindset. That you think you have a balanced view of course is a matter opinion. Of course we all know that my opinions can be found at the origin (0,0).-Mankind's actions, and the worldview/mindset that produce those actions, are dysfunctional because we TRY to separate ourselves from nature. In general, people view nature as something here for us to exploit. So in that sense, our actions ARE separate from nature, they are not in unity with it. Let's look at a few examples. We destroy vast swatches of the natural world to produce things that we could live without, for example, the rain forest. We destroy entire populations of animals for non-essential items, luxury items(Whales, seals, rhino's, elephants, etc). We create non-essential items that we will at some point have to dispose of that are toxic to our environment. We genetically and chemically alter our foods so that we can produce more and more. This is actually one of my favorites because not only does it poison our environment, it poisons our bodies, and the feather in the cap is that we end up WASTING a very large percentage of it.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

We genetically and chemically alter our foods so that we can produce more and more. This is actually one of my favorites because not only does it poison our environment, it poisons our bodies, and the feather in the cap is that we end up WASTING a very large percentage of it.-I don't think it is genetic alteration (frankenfoods) as chemical. When I was young and in Medical School the world did not have very much autism or Altzheimers. I think cooking with aluminum is one of the sources. Aluminum in dailysis units has caused trouble. We are built for a hunter-gatherer diet, and are nowhere close to it now.

We genetically and chemically alter our foods so that we can produce more and more. This is actually one of my favorites because not only does it poison our environment, it poisons our bodies, and the feather in the cap is that we end up WASTING a very large percentage of it. > > I don't think it is genetic alteration (frankenfoods) as chemical. When I was young and in Medical School the world did not have very much autism or Altzheimers. I think cooking with aluminum is one of the sources. Aluminum in dailysis units has caused trouble. We are built for a hunter-gatherer diet, and are nowhere close to it now.- I absolutely agree about the hunter-gatherer diet and our departure for it. That is what I was talking about with our foods. Genetic alteration could work out ok if we understood it, but we don't. The chemicals I was referring to are pesticides, herbicides, growth hormones, steroids, and other ways that we 'enhance' our foods without fully understanding the impact it has on us.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

We genetically and chemically alter our foods so that we can produce more and more. This is actually one of my favorites because not only does it poison our environment, it poisons our bodies, and the feather in the cap is that we end up WASTING a very large percentage of it. > > > > I don't think it is genetic alteration (frankenfoods) as chemical. When I was young and in Medical School the world did not have very much autism or Altzheimers. I think cooking with aluminum is one of the sources. Aluminum in dailysis units has caused trouble. We are built for a hunter-gatherer diet, and are nowhere close to it now. > > > I absolutely agree about the hunter-gatherer diet and our departure for it. That is what I was talking about with our foods. Genetic alteration could work out ok if we understood it, but we don't. The chemicals I was referring to are pesticides, herbicides, growth hormones, steroids, and other ways that we 'enhance' our foods without fully understanding the impact it has on us.-I've asked you this before, but how do you know what the impact is without implementing it? It really isn't possible to plan for everything!

Here you put mankind its actions very firmly separate from nature. This is of course a reflection of a dualistic mindset. That you think you have a balanced view of course is a matter opinion. Of course we all know that my opinions can be found at the origin (0,0). > > Mankind's actions, and the worldview/mindset that produce those actions, are dysfunctional because we TRY to separate ourselves from nature. In general, people view nature as something here for us to exploit. So in that sense, our actions ARE separate from nature, they are not in unity with it. Let's look at a few examples. We destroy vast swatches of the natural world to produce things that we could live without, for example, the rain forest. We destroy entire populations of animals for non-essential items, luxury items(Whales, seals, rhino's, elephants, etc). We create non-essential items that we will at some point have to dispose of that are toxic to our environment. We genetically and chemically alter our foods so that we can produce more and more. This is actually one of my favorites because not only does it poison our environment, it poisons our bodies, and the feather in the cap is that we end up WASTING a very large percentage of it.-By this argument... you have more in common with Dawkins & Co. than anyone else. Have you ever read humanist literature? It's 60's environmentalism reborn! Most of the arguments you're making here are the arguments you'll see when listening to NPR or watching PBS... -You need to check yourself before you wreck yourself... (!)

There is nothing wrong with being environmentally conscious, and if that is a message that Dawkins & Co are touting then at least there is one thing I can agree with them on. That doesn't mean that I agree with his rabid denunciation of everything except what he believes, though. Nor does it mean that I agree with all of his faith based speculation on evolution.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

There is nothing wrong with being environmentally conscious, and if that is a message that Dawkins & Co are touting then at least there is one thing I can agree with them on. That doesn't mean that I agree with his rabid denunciation of everything except what he believes, though. Nor does it mean that I agree with all of his faith based speculation on evolution.-Not really speculation: Evolution happened. Was it incremental? Yes. And no. David's book has done a pretty good job of discussing the whys on that one. (Epigenetics.) -Dawkins having a heavy hand? Hell... even I have a hard time keeping the TV on when he's on, mainly because I disagree with a great number of his points. -Except of course when he turns it against Biblical fundamentalists.

Here and in your latest response to Romansh you are arguing against materialism, but that is not the subject you and I are discussing! I stated explicitly in the post to which you are replying: "the overall quest for so-called "truth" does not entail one branch of knowledge excluding others, or even taking precedence over others" ... see also my next quote: > > Agreed. They are equal. They all are different perspectives. They are not mutually exclusive or inclusive. > > > > > DHW: There are many forms of understanding ... intuitive, spiritual, purely materialistic, theistic ... and while some may overlap, some cannot possibly agree. > > > > TONY: If you do not KNOW it from all of those angles then you do not UNDERSTAND it. > > > > As far as we are aware, nobody UNDERSTANDS it, from no matter which angle or how many angles. Only blinkered fundamentalists (religious and anti-religious) even CLAIM to understand it. Every single world view is subjective, and unless there really is a God and he decides to tell us the whole story, we shall never know the objective truth. > > Agreed. No one currently understands it, from any angle. I do not claim to understand it myself. I only posit that understanding can only come from the application of all of the disciplines in a unified manner. > -My argument, and indeed dhw's argument as I interpret it, is that it is precisely this "unified" that doesn't exist. There are places where no matter how hard you try... a square peg won't fit in a round hole. It is these gaps that will always require HUGE jumps of faith to bridge. If you haven't met me, I'm the guy that is generally anti-faith. Not anti-faith as in anti-religion, but anti-faith in that I don't believe that faith is an appropriate strategy to deal with the universe. -> > > And that is the source of most of our misunderstandings in this discussion. You have an anti-materialist agenda, but I am not defending or attacking materialism any more than I am defending or attacking the study of ancient texts. I am merely saying that if I want to study the material world, I'll turn to science, and if I want to study the non-material aspects of the world, I'll turn to philosophy. Neither will give me the objective truth, but perhaps I'll find a subjective world view that satisfies me. We will never ever be able to unify all world views, i.e. there can never ever be "unity between the various schools of thought". That can only happen if there is a God who chooses to enlighten us. > > Surpisingly enough, my agenda is not actually anti-materialist, though I know it seems that way. I am not even certain I would call it an agenda, as I have absolutely nothing to lose or gain from anyone sharing my worldview. My perspective, though, is that a unilateral world view based solely on materialism or naturalism is dysfunctional, and that the evidence of that dysfunction is all around us. This same argument could be applied to any of the disciplines; theology, philosophy etc. A unilateral materialistic world view is precisely the mentality that the militant atheist like Dawkins are proposing, and is also the prevailing mindset of the world today. Hence the reason that it has been the focus of my discussion. If the dominant philosophy was religion and it was being applied unilaterally to our destruction, I would be arguing against it just as hard. There is a very very good reason that I chose the screen name Balance_Maintained. I think that sums up my position.-You're either becoming as mercurial as myself, or you always were. This is a Nietzschean statement of profound entanglement. -I don't believe at all that science is destroying us. In the worst case--global warming. But both yourself and David don't agree that it is occurring. What else does that leave?-There have been less wars in the 20th century than in the first half of the 19th alone. -We're not about to come unglued from the hinges and destroy each other. The crime rate in the US over the least 20 years demonstrates that we're on a massive "pacification" of our violent tendencies. -So what then, is it... that you seem to be fighting against, Tony?

My argument, and indeed dhw's argument as I interpret it, is that it is precisely this "unified" that doesn't exist. There are places where no matter how hard you try... a square peg won't fit in a round hole. It is these gaps that will always require HUGE jumps of faith to bridge. If you haven't met me, I'm the guy that is generally anti-faith. Not anti-faith as in anti-religion, but anti-faith in that I don't believe that faith is an appropriate strategy to deal with the universe. > And I would argue that if you have a square peg and nature presents a round hole, your peg is incorrect so you need to throw it out and find one that fits. If the scientific method(materialist method, if you will) is all about observing and building models that fit the observations, then square pegs should be discarded dispassionately. Yet, I have seen numerous articles of scientist trying to force their square pegs in natures round holes. Materialism has it's place, but that place MUST fit in with the bigger picture or it is just another excuse to create dysfunction within the system. - -> > You're either becoming as mercurial as myself, or you always were. This is a Nietzschean statement of profound entanglement. > -I've always been mercurial, and never stated otherwise.-> I don't believe at all that science is destroying us. In the worst case--global warming. But both yourself and David don't agree that it is occurring. What else does that leave?-Then you should study medicine. Or the 70% energy waste of automobiles. Or the waste produced by our power consumption. Etc etc etc. The reason ecological preservation groups have become so prevalent today is not because more or less people care about the environment, it is because it has become impossible not to see what we are doing to our home. -> > There have been less wars in the 20th century than in the first half of the 19th alone. > -LOL We are only a decade in. Give it time. -> We're not about to come unglued from the hinges and destroy each other. The crime rate in the US over the least 20 years demonstrates that we're on a massive "pacification" of our violent tendencies. > -Massive pacification of our violent tendencies? Where are you getting that from?-> So what then, is it... that you seem to be fighting against, Tony?-People thinking that they are above the natural order. People thinking that because "this is all there is", that they must get absolutely everything out of this life and damn the consequences of their actions. I will admit that my experiences have given me a very negative view of humanity as a whole. I have been around the world and I have seen nothing to make me as optimistic as you are. In nearly every country I have been too I have witnessed violence, starvation, deprivation, poverty, and death first hand. With the exception of Iraq, I didn't even stay that long in most of them. A 'feel-good' book about how great we are is not reflected in reality. Take a trip to Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Africa, China, North Korea, or even just down to Mexico and tell me how great humanity is.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

People thinking that they are above the natural order. People thinking that because "this is all there is", that they must get absolutely everything out of this life and damn the consequences of their actions. I will admit that my experiences have given me a very negative view of humanity as a whole. I have been around the world and I have seen nothing to make me as optimistic as you are. In nearly every country I have been too I have witnessed violence, starvation, deprivation, poverty, and death first hand. With the exception of Iraq, I didn't even stay that long in most of them. A 'feel-good' book about how great we are is not reflected in reality. Take a trip to Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Africa, China, North Korea, or even just down to Mexico and tell me how great humanity is.-You are describing those parts of the world that have never accepted, or have the background for accepting, a form of moral capitalism. Not that unbridled capitalism doesn't need some regulation, but the Western philosophic background of the USA made us very successful, notwithstanding the current Washington idiocy. That is why simply imposing democracy on Iraq is crazy. Or trying it in Afganistan, which is even worse. The US is inundated by those who want to come here, rather than try to change it at home.

People thinking that they are above the natural order. People thinking that because "this is all there is", that they must get absolutely everything out of this life and damn the consequences of their actions. I will admit that my experiences have given me a very negative view of humanity as a whole. I have been around the world and I have seen nothing to make me as optimistic as you are. In nearly every country I have been too I have witnessed violence, starvation, deprivation, poverty, and death first hand. With the exception of Iraq, I didn't even stay that long in most of them. A 'feel-good' book about how great we are is not reflected in reality. Take a trip to Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Africa, China, North Korea, or even just down to Mexico and tell me how great humanity is. > > You are describing those parts of the world that have never accepted, or have the background for accepting, a form of moral capitalism. Not that unbridled capitalism doesn't need some regulation, but the Western philosophic background of the USA made us very successful, notwithstanding the current Washington idiocy. That is why simply imposing democracy on Iraq is crazy. Or trying it in Afganistan, which is even worse. The US is inundated by those who want to come here, rather than try to change it at home.-I'm responding to this only to emphatically endorse your statement here.

Tony,-> > > I don't believe at all that science is destroying us. In the worst case--global warming. But both yourself and David don't agree that it is occurring. What else does that leave? > > Then you should study medicine. Or the 70% energy waste of automobiles. Or the waste produced by our power consumption. Etc etc etc. The reason ecological preservation groups have become so prevalent today is not because more or less people care about the environment, it is because it has become impossible not to see what we are doing to our home. > -Medicine? 200m lives were saved by penicillin alone. 2.3x the number of people killed in WWI and WWII combined. -Ball's in your court. - > > LOL We are only a decade in. Give it time. -We're in the 21st now, Tony. When you look at those statistics, we're in a period of peace never seen in all of recorded history. There are two trends in war discussed in the book: -1. Violent conflict is on a downward trend. -2. Wars are more damaging. -It is largely because of #2, that conflict has been decreasing overall. Pinker (nor myself) is making an argument that this will persist forever, but he does make serious claims about what it is that has created this long trend of a low death-rate. -> > > We're not about to come unglued from the hinges and destroy each other. The crime rate in the US over the least 20 years demonstrates that we're on a massive "pacification" of our violent tendencies. > > > > Massive pacification of our violent tendencies? Where are you getting that from? > -It's the numbers. I'll amend that our tendencies aren't any different, but it is definite that our strategies to manage our tendencies have been improving. -> > So what then, is it... that you seem to be fighting against, Tony? > > People thinking that they are above the natural order. People thinking that because "this is all there is", that they must get absolutely everything out of this life and damn the consequences of their actions. I will admit that my experiences have given me a very negative view of humanity as a whole. I have been around the world and I have seen nothing to make me as optimistic as you are. In nearly every country I have been too I have witnessed violence, starvation, deprivation, poverty, and death first hand. With the exception of Iraq, I didn't even stay that long in most of them. A 'feel-good' book about how great we are is not reflected in reality. Take a trip to Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Africa, China, North Korea, or even just down to Mexico and tell me how great humanity is.-This statement needs to be evaluated:-It isn't materialism to blame for this. Fact of the matter, is that this kind of view is equally present in spiritual thinking. The difference is that the claim is that the afterlife is all that matters. -The problem you state here has absolutely nothing to do with materialism OR spiritualism. It has everything to do training in empathy, which I will argue, is easier and more straightforward in a materialist framework because you can repeatedly demonstrate what is harmful, why it is harmful, and why you shouldn't do (it) to another being. -Belief in an afterlife has every much a chance at producing a nasty, virulent, evil kind of person as a belief where "this is all there is." -I'll take my own views: 1. This is the only life I'll ever have. Therefore I should live my life making the most humane and gentle choices for myself, my family, and the world around me. -2. The foundation for this morality is the irrefutable fact that humans are interdependent. We rely on everyone else, and in turn, we rely on our world and our environment. -So far, everything that I'm saying is 100% what you're saying. -So what the hell difference does it make if we invoke the supernatural in defending any of this, when especially--it has no better chance of producing a better human being? -As for the rest of your post, Pinker's book, and my point do not exclude the rest of the world. Pinker is very careful in arguing that the direct result of this "long peace" as he calls it, is due to the proliferation of democratic republics over the last 150 years. As republics have increased, violence has decreased. This is because we've been finding out that trade is more profitable than war, and trade is more likely when we allow the middle class of different countries to trade with each other, and less likely with dictatorships. -The most important technology in decreasing violence in the world has been government, specifically the government based upon a system of checks and balances... (though in our system, those checks are essentially gone.) -David's response to you here nails it home however: You can't just "hand" people a democracy. The culture needs to support the idea to begin with.

Tony, > This is the point where the conversation could spin off into a hundred different directions, but instead, I will ask a couple of questions and see if we can clear some things up. > > Has a separative materialist framework ever produced something that is an improvement on the natural system? (In order to qualify, it must work in harmony with the material world, and cause no adverse side effects) > > If we had not previously interfered with the natural order, would you even have a car that needs to be repaired, or a cause to see a heart surgeon? (i.e. Your car and your poor ticker would both constitute poor human design. Your car is actually directly responsible for your poor ticker (ironically). That and your artificial diet which is also poorly designed by humans.) > -What is a "natural diet?" I would argue that until the last 30 years, no *real* planning ever happened to the human diet... and yes, the best diets seem to be diets that we witness "primitive" man eat, you're mistaken in that we had any planning whatsoever that led to the Hamburger/Fries/Shake combo as the best dietary item available. -Actually, the healthiest diet, is a diabetic's diet. A diet that would never have existed if science hadn't discovered diabetes. -> > > DHW: You say "there must be overlap and agreement. There must be unity between the various schools of thought, or, by definition, one of them is wrong." It may be that we are talking at cross purposes. In my view, there will never be unity between the schools of thought. There are many forms of understanding ... intuitive, spiritual, purely materialistic, theistic ... and while some may overlap, some cannot possible agree. > > If you do not KNOW it from all of those angles then you do not UNDERSTAND it. > > >DHW: How, for instance, can the purely materialistic (atheistic) and the theistic ever be unified? Yes indeed, by definition one of them is wrong ... but no-one can ever know for sure which one. That's why the debate is never ending! > > You are absolutely correct. When two ideologies are antithetical and mutually exclusive one of them MUST be wrong. In my humble opinion, materialism has proved to be an epic fail. So, why not give the other a shot.-The easiest, most flippant, but also most correct argument: -Is that we have tried the "other" (exclusively) for over 10,000 years with at best, indeterminate results. At least with the materialist approach, we *know* when something doesn't work, and can correct for it.-[EDIT]-My actual view is that we must be informed by both--philosophy and science. (Materialism and religion, if you must.) -Read my sig if you don't understand...

RSS Feed of thread