minsocal

I don't understand - are you agreeing with me, disagreeing with me or simply making a statement? I have to agree completely that some human experiences have transcended these categories. IMHO, it is only some who have transcended these categories - those who choose to learn and grow. Stagnation, imo, is the breeding ground for intolerance, misunderstanding, and an "us-vs-them" mentality; that includes theists vs. atheists.

In agreement, yes. I do not think there is only one formula for a healthy, thriving human being.

Myron, good point. This is a much more nuanced issue than it may have been in the past although Spinoza in the 17th century, may have been close to a 'modern' Ground of Being idea (if I understand either one correctly).

 

George

George,

Yes.

Spinoza admired the teaching of Jesus, as a person of Jewish ancestry.

Spinoza wrote the basic outline of what would become the explanation of Darwinian evolution.

A. N. Whitehead made that very clear in Process and Reality.

Myron

I hope that "a belief in the supernatural deity as an a priori position" isn't necessary to being a Christian or I'm in big trouble. I was a non-theist long before I ever heard of progressive Christianity, yet I always managed to follow the teaching ascribed to Jesus in the gospels. It definitely causes raised eyebrows and more than a bit of ostricism among my theistic friends, though.

 

I definitely believe in "Something Other" , whether we this "Other" God, Allah, Nirvana, Higher Power, Love, Mind of the Universe, or Ground of all Being. I believe, not because I can prove it, measure it, or touch it, but becauses I have experienced this "Something Other" when I behave in the way I think the words and actions of Jesus in the gospels suggests I should. Does that make sense? I don't know about A-theists being Christian, but I suppose one could easily enough. I don't think that the experience of this "Other" is a requirement. IMO its the following the way of compassion, acceptance, and inclusion that makes Christians. After all, "they'll know we are Christians by our love". (Funny how that one kind of slipped through the cracks.)

I believe in G-d, but have grown weary of the theist versus anti-theist arguments. It is an old and now useless battle. It fails to connect with anything I FEEL. It assumes that philosophical categories made thousands of years ago are immutable and no human since has transcended those categories.

 

We've danced around this issue throughout many of the threads in the Debate and Dialogue Forum.

 

Time to call the question!

 

It is possible to be a Jew and not believe in a deity. I know several. This is not something that is widely advertised, of course, but it is no secret that Judaism is about what one does, not what one believes, the Hasidim notwithstanding (they do not represent the majority).

 

NORM

Norm,

As a long time progressive, I agree with your stance that is about what on does. You are talking about what many consider to be one of the greatest ethical systems ever devised, despite bad press from some circles.

Myron

Can mind evolve from no-mind? Yes, that is what happened, according to Darwin. We are finite beings. We are heroes in our birth, and heroes in our death.

From PoM

 

“That is to say, put yourself back in the position of paradise before you thought in terms of good and evil. You don’t hear that much from the pulpits.”

 

To be fair, Campbell then goes on to say:

 

“Why was the knowledge of good and evil forbidden to Adam and Eve? Without that knowledge we would still be a bunch of babies in Eden, without any participation in life.”

Thank you. That is exactly the view of Jung and Campbell. Both take a developmental or constructive view of what it takes to be human.

Thanks minsocal

 

I'm not terribly familiar with these concepts and psychology in general.

 

But choosing Bowen at 'random':

Here is a description of particular aspect of Bowen therapy:

Bowen's multigenerational model goes beyond the view that the past influences the present, to the view that patterns of relating in the past continue in the present family system (Herz Brown, 1991). Hence the therapist uses questions to encourage clients to think about the connection between their present problem and the ways previous generations have dealt with similar relationship issues.

http://www.familysys...d-critique.html

 

This to me reads as past patterns do affect the way individuals in families handle relationships. The therapist does get the individuals to be aware of past causes. Reads like reductionism to me.

 

Reductionism I think has been given a bad rap. It is a fundamental way of understanding how the universe ticks. There may be others - eg meditation. But if we ever want to communicate the logic of an idea, it has to be based in some form of reductionism.

 

Even your act of countering my position is a form of reductionism - I would argue.

Thank you. I am trained in Bowen Theory and it is based on the Gestalt Doctrine. Murray Bowan uses the phrase "non summatization of parts." That is the theory.

In your quote, Bowan is saying that we often mimic the only model available to us, the family system. That fits better into learning theory. The goal is to learn more adaptive responses appropriate to the individual. Sure, you could say it reduces to the only option the person had to learn. So what?

Another Campbellian thought (the late Campbell must be rolling over in his grave today).

 

As a broad western generalization (and therefore not completely accurate):

 

Many atheists and theists have one thing in common - they interpret the Bible in a literal fashion to varying degrees.

 

I don't think most atheists would have a problem with the many wonderful metaphorical interpretations that we (ignoring balking psychologists ) have.

 

It is when we concretize our religious texts the problems start. I suppose the same could be said of our scientific texts. But our science texts are in a constant flux. No scientist wants the textbook to remain fixed.

Where does Campbell say this? Just curious.Campbell often talks about more than one interpretation of a myth, and that it is often the case that case that the authors of a myth intended more than one interpretation.

It is in PoM - page 2XX - unfortunately I have lent out my copy - it is towards the end.

 

Try here

In The Mythic Image (p. 194), Campbell expounds on the full story found in Genesis. He states:

"Now it is the essence of the axial point or pole that it should symbolize the way or place of passage from motion to rest, time to eternity, seperation to union; but then also, conversely, rest to motion, eternity to time, unity to multiplicity. Hence in the Biblical Eden the image is of two trees: "the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledsge of good and evil." (Genesis 2:9) ... Adam and Eve were expelled forn the garden lest they should "take also of the the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" (Genesis 3:22)."

For those familiar with A. N. Whitehead and C. G Jung, this is a familiar concept. Whitehead called it "the method of adjusted contrasts" and Jung called it "complementarity".

then we can ask that the said psychologists take reponsibility for their balking

 

Quite simple really, the original sin was thinking in terms of sin. Thinking in terms of separation.

 

... and with respect to separation this Campbell quote just about nails it for me:

 

... 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.

Please note the source, I have most of Campbell's work in my library. His wiriting on the subject in Mythic Image does not seem to relate to your interpretation.

Joseph Campbell was

Yep and we can be responsible without good and evil. In exactly the same way the sun is responsible for a good portion of our weather patterns on earth, life on Earth and melanomas.

 

We don't need morality to be responsible. We don't need the guilt trip. Another Cambell quote:

 

If all you think of are your sins then you are sinner.

As a student of C. G. Jung and his editor Joseph Campbell, this will take some explanation on your part.

Yep and we can be responsible without good and evil. In exactly the same way the sun is responsible for a good portion of our weather patterns on earth, life on Earth and melanomas.

 

We don't need morality to be responsible. We don't need the guilt trip. Another Cambell quote:

 

If all you think of are your sins then you are sinner.

Psychologists almost always balk at the word "we".

Myron, I personally would make a distinction between negligence or irresponsibility and 'evil.'

 

George

Myron,

 

Do you mean to argue that when one avoids responsibility, even if it is out of ignorance or misunderstanding, that 'evil' is being committed or that such can lead to evil being committed?

 

Paul

Paul,

Sorry for the delays here. Responsibilty is a difficult topic. It is often associated with the term "intentionality" (in the technical sense). Much of human behavior is over-determined. That is, any specific behavior might have more than one cause behind it. When pressure is placed upon people to be accountable for the conscious and uncounscious causes of their behavior, they sometimes become avoidant simply because they do not know the answer themselves.

Myron

Campbell stated that to follow your bliss means "The experience of life as a self responsible individual."

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.

In cognitive science the entire body of work presented by Dr. John Searle.

In psychology, take your pick. C. G. Jung, Gestalt, Bowen Family Sytems Theory.

Any theory that subscribes to one of the many forms of holism.

Life is what it is and not something else. If we could live as long as we wished, there would be little need to procreate. We can cooperate and help each other through the transition from birth to death, or compete to live as long as possible at the expense of the other. That's about it. The Jesus I grew up with saw the need to move to cooperation, the movement towards compassion as a proper goal of evolution.

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).

 

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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

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.

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

The idea of a "fall" is avoidance of responsibility.

Myron, I personally would make a distinction between negligence or irresponsibility and 'evil.'

 

George

George,

That seems to be where we divide.

Myron

To the extent we may be responsible (say through global warming), we should focus attention on that. But, even then, I would not consider these to be evil because there is no intent to do harm. There may be ignorance and there may be knowledge but with other priorities.

 

George

George,

We have the cognitive capacities to evaluate processes. Avoidance or neglect is important to the teachings of Jesus, or not?

Myron

Myron, I don't disagree with this except for many instances of 'natural evil' (which, again, I don't consider to be evil). Human responsibility for tornadoes is highly indirect (if there is any at all) and difficult to ascertain. I do consider ethnic cleansing to be evil and responsibility can be determined.

 

In discussing evil, I think we should define what we consider to be evil (which I have done earlier). Otherwise the conversation keeps going in circles.

 

George

George,

It is possible that a tornadoe is the result of collective human neglect. Humans struggle with the concepts of self and collective responsibilty. In my opinion, this is where we need to focus attention.

Myron

With the introduction of consciousness, we have the possibility of error (Whitehead, 1929). Without consciousness, evil is not intrinsic to nature. Instead of talking in terms of "good" or "evil", we migh talk about self-responsibilty (Campbell).