romansh

I am not an expert on this topic, so I need to tread with care - here is a Campbellian interpretation (not necessarily Campbell's).

²¹ The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

²² And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

²³ So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

Verse 22 states (clearly to me) that Adam and Eve got kicked out of the Garden of Eden for gaining the knowledge of good and evil.

If we take up a monistic line of thought then we do realize several things. There is no separation from god. There is no good or evil other than our arbitrary definitions. We live in the now. Campbell's translation for eternity is now.

This might come as a shock to you, but many psychologists doing therapy are trained to avoid the "why" question. It only leads in the direction of the theory one might be trained in, but not always the experience of the client. That is the real point. There are many theories, reductionist or not. They all compete for the grand prize of being "right". The causal connection sought by many therapists is "what helps my client." I think Jesus had a similar view.

Can you give an example of a non-reductionist theory? This concept is illuding me.

Thanks

Why is a daft question especially if we are asking for the purpose behind the question.

Or, do you have another meaning to message? Maybe I am misunderstanding your question.

 

NORM

I think we are almost on the same page.

when Hillel says:

That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary.

The golden rule or at least a form of it I take as the message.

You point to the same thing as you said it is about our lives lived - so to speak.

Do you deny there are such things as human desires? What is the difference in causation between a belief and a desire?

Hmmn ... interesting question. The short answer for the purposes of this discussion is "no". Different parts of my body have responded using different chemical pathways. That is for me what is the difference between belief and desire. Though I would suggest that wise agnostics should remain sceptical of beliefs. Therein lies a knot of circularity. Take sexual desires; certain coloured splodges on pages on certain kinds of magazine will elicit certain autonomic reponses (at least in my case ). A philosophical statement will elicit a different autonomic response.

I have to be very careful here. I don't mean to imply a separation of the self and the cosmos. 'Me' (the boundaries it implies) and the rest of the universe is an arbitrary convention (albeit a useful one).

A great deal depends on which branch of science enters into the hall of fame.

This reply does not leave me a lot to go on minsocal.

Taking psychology one of the most nebulous of our arbitrary boundaries we draw. Does not a clinical psychologist try to understand the antecedents (causes) of a patient's behaviour; more importantly for the patient to be aware of those causes. Of course this is daunting task.

I absolutely LOVE the commentary! Nothing is more stimulating than watching a group of worldly-wise, elder Rebbes have at it over a parcel of Tanakh! The Jewish faith is definitely NOT a spectator sport.

 

NORM

That someone can love the commentary is not surprising (whether Jewish, Christian, or Islamic). But you did not answer my question - which is more important? Surely "living" the message is more important or do you disagree?

This I think is the whole point of Karen Armstrong's Charter for Compassion. I disagree with some of her arguments that she used to get to her end point, but I think her end point is more or less right.

http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/2957-charter-for-compassion/

If you wish to say that science is reductionism, then you must first deal with scientists that say it is not.

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?

Norm,

 

I started this thread for people who believe in a theistic God (you say you don't), for people who believe in the historical Jesus (you say you're not really sure and don't care), and for people who believe the soul is perhaps part of the Divine mystery (I'm not clear what your thoughts are about the mystery of the soul).

...

 

Jen

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.

(continued from previous post)

 

Which is precisely how I countered those Rabbis who whined about Jesus copying Hillel

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery puts a positive spin on this.

Also what is more important the message or "the commentary"?

...

-indoctrinating children in religion is child abuse,

 

So is the reductionist approach of science. I know that many atheists on the speakers tour will deny this. The point is that some are. Some religious practices toward children are abusive. ...

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.

Malevolent would be the intention to do harm to another living being. Who determines? It depends.

 

George

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?

"I don't think there can be evil without agency and malevolent intent. Natural disasters, IMO, lack agency. Therefore, 'natural evil' cannot exist.

 

George

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.”
  

Rom, I don't think I am being understood as well. I have neither said, nor intended to imply, that anyone is "intrinsically evil."

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.

However, there are, IMO, certain acts of extreme cruelty that I would describe as 'evil.' I think, as a classic example, the Holocaust was evil. Actually, I think that any form of ethnic cleansing is evil.

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.

We perceive extremes of color, of behavior, of whatever. It is within our perception that we see blacks, whites and greys. The only way we understand the world is through our perceptions. If we were to exclude everything that is perceptual from description, we would be unable to communicate.

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.

We could argue all day about whether my black shoes are really truly black. But, for purposes of communication, it is useful just to operate on the basis that they are black.

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.

As I've already said several times in this thread which seems to keep getting ignored, it's not the natural act itself which is evil but the concept of a god that chooses to intervene for some people but chooses not to intervene to others.

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
  

The mere ability to choose between good and evil is the lowest limit of freedom, and the only thing that is free about it is the fact that we can still choose good.

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 don't think identifying something as evil precludes, or even interferes with, ascertaining "causes and remedies."

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 also don't agree that we see everything in black or whites (polar opposites). Most of us recognize gradations (scalar). A verbal insult, while not considered a good thing to do, is not on the same as a brutal slaying. (The former can draw a warning from Joseph, the later permanently banned from this forum. )

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.

For what it is worth, Islam divides acts into five categories. If I recall correctly, there are things a Muslim must do, things they should do, things that are neutral, things that are ill advised and things that are prohibited.

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

While I would not neatly divide every action we take as 'good' or 'evil,' I think the word evil is a useful term to describe particularly egregious acts intentionally committed by a human for the purpose of harming another living being.

 

George

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.

I am not looking to place blame or judgment. I am looking for understanding. For the same measure I use to judge God, God will also use to judge me.

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.

... Therefore, Adam and Eve could not have created natural evil. (Although it might be argued that Adam and Eve were the first to experience moral evil). We know that natural evil is basically a precursor to moral evil. But why did God allow natural evil? ...

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.

We must be willing to let go of the life we have planned so as to have the life that is waiting for us - Joseph Campbell

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.

... But the ultimate mystical goal is to be united with one's god. With that, duality is transcended and forms disappear. There is nobody there, no god, no you. Your mind, going past all concepts. has dissolved in identification with ground of your own being, because that to which the metaphorical image of your god refers to the ultimate mystery of your own being, which is the mystery of the being of the world as well.

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 think the limitation is that one believes that the consciousness has to be cast aside to examine the problem. Yes, the mind is a difficult for materialist to explain and so it is often eliminated.

 

I agree that the limits of my physical self, evidence of which is provided by my physical senses, is the skin. But I don't think the mind experiences the world that way. Jill Bolte Taylor experienced a loss of that sense of boundary when she had a severe left brain stroke. When her left brain went silent she experienced the boundarylessness, transcendent experience that seems based in the right brain. Before and during she had a consciousness of self, not limited, it seems to me, by the physical events in her brain.

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

So are compatiblists materialists and see the mind is determined by the brain or are you the materialist?

We disprove a materialistic view every day. even by considering the question.

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.