romansh

My problem Thomas with things like imagination and love, we as human beings are pretty much oblivious to the "chemistry" that makes these things perceptible. I must admit I find the immaterial TM an unnecessary concept which in of itself explains nada. When we conjure up the immaterial we swap one I don't know for another.

Personally I would phrase the question differently Paul But for those interested I would suggest Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature To be open, I have not read the book, but Pinker starts to cover the material in an earlier book The Blank Slate. The evidence points to violence on a per capita basis decreasing on a world wide basis. If this is what we mean by better?

Thomas Is there a thought or a bit of imagination that you have had in the absence of "chemistry"?

Let me rephrase an authority is someone or a collection of someones, usually in a book, who can explain a difficult concept simply in a way that makes sense and can be reconciled with the universe. The Bible I am afraid is not an authority.

This I think is a totally accurate statement Burl. The second part is also true. But as to you first phrase ... if it cannot be observed it may as well not exist.

Bill ... here is my take on reality, just ignoring the religious aspects for the moment. We are made up of stardust ,,, this appears to be almost an unassailable fact (well the hydrogen mostly appears to a product of a big bang like event) For most of our theories of "life" we don't have to assume supernatural causes. We don't know how life started (have a theory that is verifiable), But we have some interesting ideas. Evolution is as close to a verified fact as we can get, having said that we are continuing to learn and modify the theory, but at its core it's solid. Being stardust we, as individuals, bring in other stardust in the shape of meat, potatoes and veggies ... some gravy does not go amiss and a nice shiraz is a must. We shed energy giving and growth giving materials through the chemical processes we call life. Our daily visit to the bathroom is a testament to what is going on. There is little to debate here ... a few unknowns but nothing serious ... being agnostic by nature I seem to cope with uncertainty. We seem to be similar to other life forms on this planet, we can see where we fit in, in the great evolutionary unfolding. We share the basic building blocks with all life. Here it gets a bit tricky: We have amazing capabilities in some ways compared to other life forms ... we can have complex plans, we can articulate them, and we can review and choose from several options. But as far as we can tell all this is in the confines of the chemistry we by and large understand. Having said that the options for the complexity are almost beyond imagination. This chemistry is the stuff or our thought and experience. The interesting thing is, in our daily lives we are totally oblivious to the underlying immensely complex chemistry that goes into a thought or an experience. We feel we somehow make these decisions/choices and are intrinsically responsible for them, again oblivious of the underlying processes that go into them. Similarly we hold others responsible for their chemistry. That is morally responsible. We think of ourselves unwittingly as first causes or as little gods, simply because we are unaware of the reality that props our choices. When I discuss this with others they live and argue very simply from the easily available chemistry we call awareness or consciousness. Your wife is right, you are not god, you are not a first cause generator, you don't get something for nothing when you make decisions etc. This is fair enough. But then I think this is more of a reflection of modern Christian thinking. I don't think this is pantheism. Pantheism is more of a realization that you are one with the universe that it took a whole universe to shape you and in turn you are shaping that universe. Panentheism I have not got my head around. For me it is sticking in an unnecessary "en" simply on faith despite the complete lack of evidence for this god in things. It is, I think, the last duality. There is no shame in being one with god. It is where the word atonement comes from. It is not about having sins forgiven ... it is about being at one. Sorry that was a lot longer than I expected ...

Hi Joseph, Bill and Thomas I get what you are saying here ... and agree to varying degrees with your various points. I too would say we cannot truly know or be absolutely certain. Now I have sufficient certainty I some things that I bet my life on them. Like going through a traffic light on green. Having said that there are places I would not take that bet so casually ... like Tehran. We don't live in a Newtonian universe, but it is such a good approximation for most things that we generally take it for granted. Our GPSs are a living demonstration of the falsification of a Newtonian world. But in my everyday life I can successfully use Newtonian simplifications even though I have enough evidence to demonstrate they are fundamentally false. The universe is not an illusion, I definitely agree. But our perception of it is appears to be illusory. As I type, I have my red kitchen chair in front of me as a reminder. Anyone with a smattering of physics will understand that to think of the chair actually being "red" is likely nonsense. Another classical example look at the yellow smileys .... .... there is no yellow there ... it is all in our minds. Having said all this ... by and large for most things where action is required I am forced take sides. Comedown on theism or non theism? Also I think we really should be skeptical of our experience ... I would recommend Leonard Mlodinow's book ... "Subliminal". Our experience is only so powerful in that for the most part we are so unaware of the workings of our mind.

For me a lot of the debate and how we discuss Progressive Christianity (and its relatives) to me seems to be missing something. As a self described agnostic, I find I sometimes go hopelessly to solipsistic thought processes to maintain that agnosticism. Just recently Burl implied I should maintain an open mind on the supernatural. And I responded do I have sit on the fulcrum of this particular teeter-totter. The issue I think is not whether I am conflicted about the supernatural, but the fact that end of the day I and others will come down on one side or the other. Do I believe in telekinesis, clairvoyance, ghosts, the afterlife and supernatural stuff in general? The answer here is no. The reasons (why)? Realistically I suspect it is my indoctrination. The people I have lived my life with have not been believers in these things and I suppose I have not experienced events that would have convinced me otherwise. Plus my training has given me a great respect for thermodynamics. But notice I did not say I disbelieve. We don't get something for nothing Here is how I approach life in general ... what can we determine from existence by observation. For me the scientific method is a helpful predictor of determining outcomes. I find the model I develop for myself overlaps at least with certain interpretations of various religious texts. .. While interesting I can't help thinking so what? While some interpretation of ancient texts might give us some insights into our existence today, there is a huge amount of modern day texts that do so as well. And here I don't mean modern religious interpretations.

An authority for me? Some one who can explain aspects of existence in a way that make sense without a lot hand waving with respect to the supernatural. Especially at times a simple I or we don't know is the most accurate statement. Some examples: Charles Darwin Susan Blackmore Joseph Campbell Stephen Hawking/Leonard Mlodinow Bruce Hood Douglas Adams That does not mean I agree with every word they have said/written but I have to think carefully where I might disagree rom

So Christians with this viewpoint think Christ's words are somehow inapplicable to humanity ... ie far from being inclusive? And here I mean John 10:30. This implies to me this Christian viewpoint cannot believe Christ was truly a man.

Burl The problem here is, if an event is analysable through cause and effect then it is truly part of the natural world. If we can't find the causal trail then fair enough. But I don't think the default position should be it is supernatural. In your own words, it should not be confused with We could end up on wild goose chases etc. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Your wife does not believe (likely when later scribes suggest) Jesus said I and my father are one? Or that it is only true for select individuals? We are reborn or resurrected when come to understand this is true for all of us. At least in my opinion. ps ... my wife is a goddess -

She started off with an experience ... studied the phenomena for twenty years and became skeptical of her beliefs. I can't help but think of this as logical. I find your assertion, just that an assertion. While I take your point on black swans not existing and I will excuse those living on the same continent as the Black Swan River, but if you were to claim that we should keep an open mind regarding black swans being indigenous to the Columbia River, I would have to go to a deeply solipsistic frame of mind to agree with you here Again, here I think you mistake logic and science. I find I have to keep reminding people science does not deal in proof. And just because science does not provide proof does not mean we have to sit on some fulcrum of a teeter-totter (see-saw) of our beliefs. While we might wish to believe in the possibility some luminiferous aether, the Michelson Morley experiment (and subsequent physics) has put paid to that belief. If I were to write: I think anyone who is not a consummate egoist must be open minded to the possibility that they are completely a product of the universe unfolding. This sentence would go down about as well as yours. There is evidence that the universe is "unfolding", but the supernatural seems to be events that we have not had the ability or chance to explain. Yes ... completely natural. Not just faces or just vision. And here you confuse we don't have an explanation with supernaturalism. I would argue supernaturalism is an abandonment of an explanation. I don't know how it was done, therefore supernatural, is not a logical proposition. A God of the gaps argument.

Joseph I will refer to again to Susan Blackmore ... she was a devout believer in the paranormal, after a personal experience; but after studying the pseudo-science and believing it (for twenty years if I remember correctly) she became a skeptic ... the evidence was just not there, at least for her. We can change our beliefs with critical study apparently ... the wrong way in Susan's case it would seem. Note the difference between we don't know how to explain and inexplicable or unexplainable. .

Am I there yet? I don't know. Though I find I am here ... it is where the universe has unfolded.

Just remember Steve, we don't really choose our wants. And speaking personally ... I am comfortable, though I have some, though incomplete, understanding of other people's discomfort.

Evolution of course involves change ... no problem here. It seems humans evolved from fish; but to still call ourselves evolving fish, while I think accurate I suppose, does seem a touch incongruous to me.

Our emotions are writ large in our biochemistry, as are our thoughts or at least the experience thereof. Despite the nonsense we come across, I am not aware of any reputable report of telekinesis, or clairvoyance and never mind the other pseudo-sciences you mentioned. Either way they are all written in the physical at least as far as I can tell. I linked to Susan Blackmore, she believed passionately in this nonsense. She even did a PhD on the subject but after twenty years of study and promoting the subject she realized there is no real evidence for these pseudo-sciences.

Here I extremely skeptical of your position Bill. First what exactly are these non material things? (in opposition to nature or otherwise). An exactly which laws are violated? bearing in mind these laws are descriptions of what we observe.

Bill I was going to give a long reply ... point by point. But I think this will be more effective. You are right science won't give us an answer as to whether we "should". It will though point to the underlying mechanisms and influences as to how we come to the "should" or not. And depending on our dispositions this will be very scary or incredibly amazing.

I can remember walking back from James' grave and thinking that evolution has imbued me (and most other people) for the capacity to feel grief. It was at that point I 'understood' it was pointless to fight the feeling of grief. I decided to experience it to the best of my ability. I also understand that the vast majority of people who mourned with me were not experiencing grief. That is OK too. Evolution gives us the capacity to feel grief, our immediate environment directs us what to grieve about should we lose that person. I learned very quickly what is the difference between grieving and mourning.

Bill and Joseph I generally agree with what you guys are saying, my emphases might be in different places, but that is fine. I certainly take a Campbellian view on these things. in that religion, and certainly much that surrounds Jesus and the Bible in general can be described by the word religion, describes four aspects of our lives. And these are (my paraphrase) awe, society, science and psyche. ... assp for short. Religion can give some of us: a sense of awe; for me I might get it when I visit a great cathedral or listen to a piece of Bach. science - an explanation of how the universe came into being and how it ticks. Plainly this aspect of religion has been superseded by the less dogmatic science of the last few hundred years. (note, I think people might be dogmatic but the process of science itself is quite agnostic). society, religion has been historically guidelines and to some degree how society works. Again with a nod to Norm's oath, we have had many hard-won gains (at least in my opinion) from our traditional views. and psyche ... a guideline how as individuals we may pass through life from babyhood to old age. What I do have a general lack of understanding of is why as individuals some of us are tied (to some degree) to our ancient religions and have a need to interpret these texts in a modern light. While I think it is intellectually challenging and perhaps fun to see how we need to interpret ancient texts with a modern understanding, why not go to our modern scientific understanding in the first place?

Soma The other thing the first law of thermodynamics tells us is we don't get something for nothing. So all our thoughts and stuff are a result of something ... and for us this proximate energy is the sun and these thoughts etc are written in stardust. A sort of scary thought is fundamentally quantum phenomena point to a probabilistic existence.

Burl I can't tell if this is meant to be tongue in cheek, but taking it at face value, science of this century would beg to differ. Also genetics (nature) is just a historical aspect of the environment (nurture). They are one.

The question is not whether a physical self exists or not. The question is it what it seems to be? Physically you do not hang on to the various parts that make up you. Your pattern of behaviour changes with time. There is nothing that is essentially Burl. Burl is simply a reflection of the environment that Burl finds himself in. This I think is what the metaphor of Indra's net points to.