romansh

Not really - in that I don't think so - I can't find too many scientists who would argue against reductionism. There is a caveat though. Ultimately I cannot explain why I prefer a shiraz to say most merlots using quantum mechanics (or similar), at least not yet. But we can deduce the cause of my preferences, perhaps the social sciences, psychology, sciences related to flavours addiction etc. This is reductionism. To deny reductionism is to deny cause. Are you claiming there is no cause to my shiraz preference? The moment we try to identify a cause we are participating in reductionism (science). So what are the other scientists arguments against science being reductionism?

Jen I reread your OP, I must admit I did not read into it that there were only certain qualifications or viewpoints that would be acceptable in reply. Again this seems strange for a site that claims to be progressive and Christian. Nevertheless I will respectfully withdraw.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery puts a positive spin on this. Also what is more important the message or "the commentary"?

This is from a different thread, but there were some issues cited with reductionism on the thread and it I noticed Dutch's observation. Firstly - are there any practicing scientists knocking around who care to post their Progressive Christian views on this comment? It is OK, non scientists can also pitch in. Here's my two cents worth. My first point is science is reductionism! If anyone says reductionism is a 'bad' idea they are also decrying science. Secondly, science can give us spiritual insights as well. eg the immensity and complexity of the universe and the various bits pieces around us. It fills me with shear awe and wonder. So a comment that suggests that a reductionist approach to science is child abuse us neither progressive nor Christian. This sort of view requires some discussion and clarification.

This George I do find an unsatisfactory definition of evil. Take a sociopath who has no concept of malevolence in the sense that he (usually he) no conscience. And then the answer to who is the arbiter of intent, agency, malevolence as "it depends". Is this a satisfactory definition?

Who is the the arbiter of what has and does not have agency, and who decides what is malovent? Is malovent something fixed, does our concept evolve with time or is it as simple as do no harm? This brings to mind a quote from Campbell. “You yourself are participating in evil, or you are not alive. Whatever you do is evil to someone. This is one of the ironies of creation.”

My apologies George, I did try and make it a general statement by using 'if" and "we". Also my comment was not solely restricted to people. It also included things and acts. My point remains George, it is not the label that is the problem, but the thought and emotion behind the word. For example, is a tsunami that kills ten of thousands people from a certain region evil? Is a debilitating disease that targets a certain gender evil? I think you would answer "No". And yet when man does the same thing we are tempted to call it evil? I suspect when we do these things we are separating man from nature, philosophically speaking. Yes and our perceptions are all based on chemical reactions, which in turn are based on inputs from our nerve-endings. Everything we perceive is a chemical reaction or a physical (in the sense of physics) response to our nerve endings being stimulated. I'm not saying we should not label our perceptions, we should just be careful not to concretize these perceptions into a reality like evil. When we say "I think genocide is evil" are we not really saying "I don't like genocide" or that "I think genocide will have some negative consequences". Some might argue we should have compassion for its own sake. Regardless of this beautiful thought, I think evolutionary psychology and physics will have a different point of view.

Neon Part of me agrees with you, but even here we are putting a judgement label on to a concept. I would advise against this. For me, the concept you describe is a product a particular societal view. The societal view is analogous to the sun falling on the Earth. And indeed, without the sun we would not have this peculiar societal view.

Meister Eckhart You may call God love, you may call God goodness. But the best name for God is compassion

Free will is not about making choices. It is about whether our driver (will) for our choices is free. If we think our wills are somehow intrinsically free then I am predicated to ask free from what?

I'm not sure I am being understood here George. If we believe that a thing, an act or people are intrinsically evil, then I really do think we have a problem for understanding. If some evil is caused by outside causes then how can it considered evil. The sun shining on the Atlantic causes a hurricane off Florida: how can this be considered a "natural evil"? I am not saying everything is black or white. Quite the opposite, but to have shades of grey we conceptually have black and white. What I am saying that black and white are an illusion, or in this case good and evil. Yes we can parse the universe. Any boundary we draw is totally artificial. Sure some boundaries are useful models, but that is all they are. rom

George While I agree words in of themselves are not good or evil, the underlying thought and emotions involved can be a hindrance to gaining understanding. trust mentioned the holocaust - while I agree it can be viewed as "evil", this view in no ways helps our understanding of the causes and remedies so we can avoid this so called evil in the future. Regarding scalar - I don't think so. We still hang on to a dualistic view of the universe but with shades of grey. This is OK, in some senses. We could also look at good and evil from a post modern relativistic vantage point: good and evil are purely in the eye of the beholder. I don't think so; again a dualistic view. I suppose I am advocating for a monistic interpretation of the universe (and the Bible). John 10:30 applies to all of us, not just the mythical Christ. This is the antithesis of the more traditional Christian traditions and heresy for the fundamental traditions. In the GoE metaphorical story, do you agree that Adam and Eve got kicked out for gaining a knowledge of good and evil? While we might never be able to get the genie back in the bottle or the evils in Pandora's box - at least we can be aware of the thought process.

trust Personally I think it will be difficult for us to find understanding while we continue to commit the original sin of parsing the world into evil (natural or otherwise) and not. Evil is essentially what we want not to happen and good is what we want to happen. The terms natural, unnatural and supernatural are an aberration (in my opinion). Thinking in these 'opposites' is another extension of our original sin.

Hi trust ... I'll repeat my original post at this forum. Adam and Eve were not kicked out of the Garden of Eden for becoming good/evil, but for learning of good and evil (starting to think in terms of good and evil). So metaphorically speaking if we want to get back back into the Garden of Eden, We have to stop thinking in terms of good and evil. Good and evil are concepts that are meaningless in the natural world! So that brings me to my thread and question is man part of nature? The rest of the Bible (especially the NT) tries to point us away from thinking in tems of good and evil - ie giving up judgement. And yet western society is entrenched in judgement and the parsing of this natural world into good and evil.

I must admit Campbell has become one of my favourite authors. Here's a quote (from PoM) that for me sums up religion in a nutshell.

Not a description of Whitehead's but of my own which arose out of his ideas and others that followed to the extent I have found them useful and within my understanding. See also post #27. Thanks Dutch, I am more than happy to hear your interpretation rather than some thirdparty's The progression of my thinking probably visited Emergent Materialism, if I had known the words. In evolution the mind arose out of the brain but the mind is not wholly determined by the brain and has influence on the brain's processes. For me this is a more satisfactory description and explanation of the mind/body relationship. I don't fully understand what you are saying here. But the word emergent in my book has always lead to an abdication of an explanation. I look forward to a clarification of your position. All entities are externally and internally related; they influence each other. A complete description of the universe requires observations of both relationships. I think I understand and I partially agree. But a possible 'error' here (or the original sin) is to think internal and external are somehow fundamentally different and/or separate. Materialism only observes the external relationships and processes. That may be your perception but it is certainly not mine. Consciousness, ideas, experiences of beauty and transcendence are within the scope of internal relationships. Again this could be a restatement of the original sin. Thinking that the external and internal are somehow separate. This is the relationship between the One that became two bringing about God becoming and Universe, so that there might be relationship. There is mutual influence A panentheism. I think it is useful to say that God evolved as the universe evolved and that many qualities and values we see as eternal are projections on the past. Love as a quality of relationship may not have existed when One became two. A Christian view might say that the One making room for the Other was the first and continuing sacrifice of love. Panentheism is a continued embodiment of the separateness. It goes back to whether cause affects God. If it does then it is literally one with me. If not you can keep it. To speak of two, perhaps, is not to say that there is a separation that can be spoken of meaningfully. Then perhaps you truly do mean pantheism? The self is observable between birth and death but after death it can be said that I return to the one self (the internal relationship) and to the elements, popularly star dust, from which the body arose (the external relationship). Dutch metaphorically speaking when we go we will have left footprints, before we were born we were caused by footprints, We are leaving footprints as we speak. We are footprints.

Universe

I did not cast consciousness aside Dutch, I set it aside till to be considered later. Some people like have consciousness in their definition of free will; but for me that excludes my unconscious will. So from my point of view I cannot conflate consciosness and free will. By the way I did not say that limits of the self is my skin. I question that definition very hard.

Rom, I used labels as short hand for more complex ideas as you did. I just didn't always understand when those words applied to you or someone else. I 'know' you were Dutch. I was just ribbing you - a bad habit of mine. I don't understand how many of the statements can be held the restrictive scientific materialistic frame work, even given the complexity of the brain. How can nature have an imagination? How can the Cosmos have consciousness? How can we know where we came from? How can we long to return? Sagan makes clear that this idea for him is more than the physical "from stardust". The brain also has a habit of anthropomorphizing various things, from ships and cars, to animals, to a kilo or so slightly sloppy proteins that reside in our skulls. You have have a sincere and strong belief in your experience, which is fair enough. I do not. Did you read Blackmore's Am I Conscious Now? My take on it either everything is conscious (to varying degrees or nothing is, it is all a wonderful illusion. As opposed to delusion). These seem to fit the category mysticism for me. To me it seems obvious that a scientific materialism falls short in providing an explanation of these feelings and intuitions. Personally I think that you confuse that Sagan is comfortable in speaking in metaphor with being a mystic. I suspect Sagan fully understood where he was treading. His wikipedia page describes him as having a naturalistic view. For me naturalism and materialism overlap. What does it mean to say "we long to return" scientifically? How can we say "the Cosmos comes to know itself"? without referring to something other than a materialist world many scientists say is the boundary of nature. I think Alfred North whitehead's ideas about all entities being related externally and internally offers a more complete explanation. Dutch Dutch - can you, in your own words, using a few bullet points describe Whitehead's position means for you. Thanks - rom

I can't speak for compatibilists in general, but yes I would describe compatibilists like Dennett as materialists. Am I a materialist? For a forum where labels are not important .... But to answer your question - materialism and physicalism I find to be better descriptions of my perceptions than some of the alternatives. And disproving materialism you will have to provide a better example than me asking questions. This as a disproof is a complete non sequitur for me.

Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff Christopher Moore Also Fool is a great read And if you have not read them already Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Restaurant at the End of the Universe Douglas Adams

There are many flavours of compatibilism - I suppose as there are for many worldviews. I'm hesitant to speak for compatibilists, so I will just give my impressions: 1) To all intents and purposes determinism is true 2) Free will is still possible 3) Whether the mind and body a separate is irrelevant for some compatibilists, the mind is still determined by the brain. To my mind compatibilists somehow redefine freewill; Dennett the most eloquent of the modern compatibilists gives an example of golfer who missed a short put, proved he could otherwise be repeating the put ten times and sinking it nine times. Does not work for me, but what the heck. I never said being a compatibilst makes one a pluralist. I just said the pluralists I have spoken to were compatibilists. here is a compatibilist view It's long but not everyone's cup of tea.

Hi Stephen Speaking as a transient devout agnostic here - I feel drawn spiritually to the universe. have fun rom

I'm not sure this is true. I can't speak for your brother, but I see when I set up a complex spreadsheet, my computer produces all sorts of choices based on its inputs. Depends on the pluralist. Most that I have spoken to are compatibilists (a none answer for me) and a hint of libertarianism.

Dutch this is not my argument but Schopehauer"s. So you can will what you will? I think not. Here is Strawson's take on this: http://www.naturalis...n_interview.htm My empathy goes out to you Dutch. free will is not about making choices - we all clearly do that. Then again so does my computer. It is about can we freely will what we want to to want - so to speak. There are many ways to have a worldview. Pluralism in all its forms. Various forms of monism, physicalism come to mind. I tend to lean to a flavour of monsim. And regarding our expereinces - here is an interesting take http://www.susanblac...n/question1.htm