Tcpc: An Atheist's Perspective

[Mike]

Hi Chris,

 

I think that naturalism is essentially the view that reality is exhausted by nature. In this light, I don't think that a karmic theory would count as a naturalistic theory.

 

I think that within the metaphysical framework that karmic theories were developed, they would qualify as naturalistic in that they do not invoke anything beyond its own conception of the way things naturally are. Karmic theories simply suppose a strict, real cause and effect relationship on the level of the psyche and intention. One could argue that it is naive, but it seems to be a bona fide naturalistic framework. I suppose one could also cite Aristotelian metaphysics as well in its conception of the 'final' or teleological cause in things. How one takes reality to be at base can have drastic implications for how one sees the natural world, even if nothing is admitted save the natural world. If naturalism teaches that nature is exhausted by nature, then it seems to me that it is up to the particular philosophical framework to fill in the content of what 'natural' and 'nature' means.

 

 

Lastly, I sure hope you're right that metaphysical materialism is not the proper definition of naturalism! Otherwise, it turns out I'm not a naturalist after all since I don't buy into metaphysical materialism, a theory which I believe oversimplifies reality (Boo, I say, to reductionism of things like minds, theoretical concepts, etc).

 

I'm glad you see it this way.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

[JosephM]

I've also been very pleased with the discussion thus far. I'm still looking forward to hear what everyone else thinks about my assertions in #22. Thanks, Mike, for your useful input already. Chris

 

Just to chime in.Enjoyed the read but no thoughts about your assertions at all in that post. Glad you are pleased with the discussion so far and hoping the new year brings you peace and that which you are seeking.

 

Joseph

[themoreilearnthelessiknow]

"I think that naturalism is essentially the view that reality is exhausted by nature".

 

Really?!?

 

I'm not so sure. When I reflect on those 3 moments when I stood by my wife's side as she gave birth to my children, nature just didn't explain it enough it for me. And I'm sure I'm not alone in saying birth (perhaps like death) is one of those moments when we come face to face with the supernatural. I mean yes, the physical process of birth and the physical bodies of my children as they came naked and cold into this world can and perhaps should be explained away by mother-nature but it was those other intangibles that could not be explained away.

 

The first cry of communication belted out by my child connected to me in an unexplainable way.

The inquisitive look my child gave me as she looked for the first time into my eyes.

The firm hold she had on my hand as if to say, "I'm with you."

 

But more than all of these was that transcendental "aha" moment when I realized for the first time that I played a small role in bringing a child into this world.

 

I believe in the overused quote that "the study of the natural world brings us closer to our Creator".

 

But I also believe that it is within the actual creation process that we finally come face to face with God.

[Spiker439]

"I think that naturalism is essentially the view that reality is exhausted by nature".

 

Really?!?

 

I'm not so sure. When I reflect on those 3 moments when I stood by my wife's side as she gave birth to my children, nature just didn't explain it enough it for me. And I'm sure I'm not alone in saying birth (perhaps like death) is one of those moments when we come face to face with the supernatural.

 

The first cry of communication belted out by my child connected to me in an unexplainable way.

The inquisitive look my child gave me as she looked for the first time into my eyes.

The firm hold she had on my hand as if to say, "I'm with you."

 

Just to be sure, and since we have had a bit of debate about what exactly naturalism is, I went and checked on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I think it supports both the definition I've used and also the resistance I've encountered to this definition, which seems to be relatively common. Here's an excerpt:

"The term ‘naturalism’ has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century.... these philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing ‘supernatural’,and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the ‘human spirit’"

 

No one has to buy into this definition, especially considering it's admittedly imprecise, but at least I know I'm not totally out to lunch.

 

With respect to the comment above: While childbirth is, I'm sure, a wonderful and perhaps ineffable thing, everything you mentioned above is easily explained by science, which is to say, naturally explainable. Of course, if you choose to believe otherwise, more power to you; but science does offer a full explanation of such experiences.

 

I think this is getting a little bit off topic. One reason is that I don't know exactly where to take this inquiry; perhaps a few days thoughts will give me some insight. It seems that views within this community are so varied that it's been difficult for me to get any serious philosophy going, since I feel I'd be making a straw man of this community no matter how I construe it. Of course, this is no criticism of your community at all; actually, I think this is a wonderful fact. It may be that this inquiry has already given all the fruit it had to bear, and I feel I've a much better understanding of the diversity that, in a sense, defines your community. My only issue is that, for now, I've essentially run out of meaningful questions.

[JenellYB]

Chris, might I suggest a direction in your thoughts....consider, you've found both consistencies between our positions and ideas, and differences. But, in reading back over all these posts, I think what you might focus on is the idea that there IS a single common thread that runs through it all, that strings even the differences together along with the simultudes together, that is itself perhaps ineffable, cannot be directly described, can only be circumscribed in a sort of dialectic way..to see all our ideas and positions, not only as stated here in this thread, but as emerge within other discussions here, that I think you've missed thus far. Some clues, I think, to where you've gone off track looking for that common thread, I find in such as you comment about no static concept of God, that seemed to me to lead to our simply reshaping our God concept as convenient to each different situation or idea...I am most drawn to your use of words like "useful" and "tool", in referring to our concept of God in that sense. As in, making it up as we go along? As needed in each matter? That is hitting an off key with me, not in a sense of feeling criticized by it, but as a snag on the flow of your own analysis here. Something that might be interesting for you...consider, just for youself, not to argue here, but just in evaluating your own processing related to this...when you thought and wrote that paragraph where you used those words, did/do you "feel" something different in yourself, from other parts of your discussions here? Perhaps, something like a vague annoyance? Anything negative? Something emotional, even if slight? And if you do, proceed, to yourself, to consider upon what triggered that and why. Just a little psychological experiment of my own here, if you're game.

 

Jenell

[BillM]

When I reflect on those 3 moments when I stood by my wife's side as she gave birth to my children, nature just didn't explain it enough it for me. And I'm sure I'm not alone in saying birth (perhaps like death) is one of those moments when we come face to face with the supernatural. But more than all of these was that transcendental "aha" moment when I realized for the first time that I played a small role in bringing a child into this world.

 

These were powerful experiences in my life as well, even, to me, divine moments. I was well aware that I had a small role in forming the seed from which these little lives came, but to hold these brand new "perfect" (to me) people in my arms were transcendant, "aha" moments. I hadn't personally formed those tiny fingers and toes, or those cute little nose, or those beautiful eyes that completely captivated my own. I hadn't personally taught them how to hold so tightly to my finger as to never let go or how to calm down once they were in the warm embrace of my arms. And I certainly hadn't taught them how to completely steal my heart so that I would spend the rest of my life caring, sacrificing, praying, hurting, and rejoicing for them.

 

Is it flawed human perception, or pride, or even ignorant superstition that makes me think that when I looked down into those beautiful eyes, I was looking straight into something of God himself?

 

Is it ludicrous for me to think, even today, that when I see pictures of starving children or children in cancer wards, children of people whom I don't know, that I am somehow still connected and should do what I can to help because I see even them as icons of the divine?

 

It would be fairly easy to simply embrace naturalism and attribute all of this to the "Nothing Buttery" syndrome: "This is nothing but evolution at work. This is nothing but how DNA replicates our species. This is nothing but how life as reproduced itself over billions of years. This is nothing but how the world works."

 

But such a stance just doesn't work FOR ME. It starts out with the value judgment that everything essentially amounts to nothing. I studied biology in school, I know in my head somewhat how it works. And I certainly appreciate the mechanism of it. But the *experience* of the results of that biology is, for me, transcendant. It can cause my spirit to soar when holding my children (even as grown adults) or it can break my heart to see them and others suffer when we certainly have the collective means to do something about it.

 

Naturalism is fine as far as it goes. But, for me, it doesn't quite go far enough. It does admonish us to admire the beauty of our world. And I suppose, for some, it might admonish them to do what they can about the things in our world that are "less than" the beauty that we aspire to. But I'm not impressed with the "Nothing Buttery" syndrome that usually accompanies it that tries to tell us, on a grand scale, that reality or creation is basically a throw-away item because it has no intrinsic value other than being a collection of atoms and molecules.

 

I see and experience a More going on. I call that More "God" or the Sacred or the Divine for lack of better terms. And, granted, being a subjective human, I may be self-deceived. I have to admit that. But my own experiences have led me to even reject the naturalist's understanding that God as just another "Nothing Buttery" manifestation - that God is nothing but my own ego, or nothing but ancient superstition, or nothing but collective consciousness. I still feel and experience Something that seems to be THERE, Something that seems to be REAL, even though I know my experience is subjective and biased. But to try to describe that Something accurately or rate that Something on a scale, it is like describing the weather versus feeling the breeze. Or like describing reproduction versus holding a new-born baby. Naturalism, to me, describes the world around us quite well. But the experience of that world is, again to me, More than what naturalism alone offers. There is knowing about, and then there is KNOWING i.e. experiencing. Imo, when we begin to see all of our KNOWING as tied together, as part of the same reality, then we begin to experience God.

[minsocal]

Growing up I was never exposed to any pressure to accept a natural-supernatural dichotomy, and I never have. Awe, wonder, and gratitude all fit within one system. Parsimonious, to say the least. Later I would realize that the idea of nature being an inferior and corrupt reality traces (in Western thought) to Plato. So I realized that an atheist can can still be a supernaturalist by accepting Western philosphical tradition.

 

Myron

[Spiker439]

Jennell: I'm honestly still looking for that common thread you describe. My only candidates thus far are extremely broad, and not exclusive or descriptive enough even for this community (I don't think); perhaps the common thread of being curious humans, looking for answers to the big questions of life. I'm not sure why you thought I might have experienced negative emotions with respect to the "useful tool" explanation of PC views; I still think that this construal is perhaps the best I've come up with, despite the fact that it may be at odds with your own conceptions. In fact I think that it's much better to use the idea of God or Jesus as a "tool" to accomplish or aid in, well, anything, than to be used as a tool by an organized religious body which advocates only faith. I think that you folks are doing Christianity well, because you're able to use your religious views to your advantage to help enjoy and explain the world, rather than having your religious views close you off to science and reason.

 

Wayseeker: The "Nothing buttery" to which you refer does not preclude my seeing the universe (or the human body, or the love of a child, etc.) as an incredible, complex machine, full of intricacies and mysteries waiting to be discovered and explained. The beauty of naturalism is that it is all within our grasp, at least theoretically. Doesn't that make the universe an infinitely more interesting place? An infinite playground in which we can continually discover and broaden our horizons. For me, throwing God in there doesn't add anything; if anything it detracts from the beauty of it all.

 

Minsocal: Interesting. Like all dichotomies I would say that the supernatural-natural dichotomy exists only in the sense that it is or can be a useful one. As you suggest, it is not as though there is a distinct line around all natural things, beyond which anything we find is considered supernatural. In fact, as was mentioned earlier in this thread, the particular point at which we draw this distinction is not static, at least not historically speaking. Indeed there are many ways in which one might embrace the existence of supernatural entities without positing God(s), but I do not believe that merely by accepting Western Philosophical tradition we are forced to do such a thing. Perhaps your point was rather that it is possible to be a supernaturalist atheist by accepting transcendental views (Plato, Kant, etc.); in this I agree wholeheartedly, though I do not personally subscribe to such a view, as you would already have guessed.

 

Thank you all again for your comments. I'm still trying to figure out exactly where I want to take this thread; hopefully it will take itself somewhere while I'm not looking.

 

Chris

[JenellYB]

Chris, thank you so much for your thoughtful response...I had begun to worry I had offended you, put you off, with my last post, and, honestly, could see hou it could be taken that way. So, now...to proceed...

 

The reason I suspected some possible emotional reaction was, 1, as I noted, I felt something of a 'snag', a ',missing link', in your thinking process as you've articulated it. 2, the very underlying common thread I have in mind both addresses where I think, from my attempt to understand your thinking process, your attempt to understand and comprehend the thinking of those here, and PC thought in general, is hitting a rough spot, is one that is not specifically 'religious' at all, but a basic psychological human need in all of us.

 

In one word, it is "relationship." Now, "relationship" has been mentioned by others in this thread, and you will find it a theme in many other discussions here. And because it IS a basic psychological human need, touching upon it in any sense that causes us to feel "out of relationship" in any way, whether within ourselves, between ourself and others, or with our very place within the natural and social order of the cosmos itself naturally tends to trigger negative emotion and thought, even if it is sublte and we don't recognize it. It has been observed that mere biology make us homo sapiens, but it is "relationship" that makes us human.

 

Realizing this has helped my toward trying to better understand when otherwise inexplicable negative elements arise within relationships with others, recognizing the discomfort and source of discord can be from within myself, the other(s), or both.

 

In saying that the common thread is "relationship", presented entirely in and of its own meaning, without addending it to any "with or to" anything, I am hoping to provide the ground upon which you can continue forward in understanding what you are seeking to understand here. The basic human need for relationship is rooted in the reality that none of us, in any way, exist or function in isolation, entirely self-contained and self-sufficient. The sense of being in relationship with and understanding what we are in relationship with/to is essential to even the most basic and elementary efforts to survive and get our needs met. Any time we feel "out of relationship", for lack of understanding something in our environment, or, someone we are trying to relate to, there's an instinctive response to 'danger', risk, for not feeling secure in know what to do next or how.

 

I posit this common thread in PC thought as that of a recognition of, and active seeking toward, relationship, as a state of being, toward being "in relationship" to all in our environment. And that environment includes not only other people, the natural and social environment, but also the very "ground of being" out of which each of us and everything else arises. In you study of philosopical thought, this idea of relationship, within yourself, of yourself in the grander scheme of reality, how reality "works", as it realtes to your own efforts at functioning within the environment in which you exist. Logic and reasoning, for example, are nothing more than attempts to make sense of, understand the order and arrangment of, elements of reality, toward being more well equipped for succesful functioning within that reality. Without that order, and at least some working understand of that order, we would be drowning in chaos.

 

In PC thought, a crucial divergence from tradtional Christian thought (and that of many, perhaps most religions) is that the unit of interest, unit of focus, unit of study, is not "God", but our "relationship with/in God." It recognizes that it is impossible to even attempt to understand, describe, define "God", the whole of everything within which we exist.....each of us can only seek to understand our own point of contact and relationship with/in God. Which, since all is encompassed within God, including ourselves, understadning and comprehending that relationship neccesarily involved concern for understanding and relationship between ourself and all other elements encompassed within the whole of "God."

 

In my previous analogy to any other person that might know me trying to describe me, to form for themselves or share with others any "concept of Jenell", as this person i am, that simply isn't possible. All anyone can hold or attempt to describe is what is relevant to their relationship with/to me, and nothing beyond or aprt from that.

 

Another concept that might demonstrate this concept of "relationship" as I refer to here, and that in addition to the example above of my personal identity as anyone else can know it, adds the interactive nature of realtionship to the idea, is the the social/psycholigical/philosphical pardigm of "symbolic interactionism." The 'unit of study' in that pardigm is the point of contact between the individual and society. Society influences individual, and individual influences society. Translating that idea into PC perspective, the whole of God, the ground of being and all encompassed within it, influences the individual, and the individual influences the whole of God, the ground of being, and all encompassed within it.

 

Jenell

[Mike]

Hi Chris,

 

The "Nothing buttery" to which you refer does not preclude my seeing the universe (or the human body, or the love of a child, etc.) as an incredible, complex machine, full of intricacies and mysteries waiting to be discovered and explained. The beauty of naturalism is that it is all within our grasp, at least theoretically. Doesn't that make the universe an infinitely more interesting place? An infinite playground in which we can continually discover and broaden our horizons. For me, throwing God in there doesn't add anything; if anything it detracts from the beauty of it all.

 

As always thanks for explaining your views. Your words stir up a few questions in my mind. I think this is probably where our sensibilities diverge rather starkly here...so what follows is my own reaction to 'universe as machine' as you have stated above. In short, my response to the questions as you have framed them would be in the negative. If everything is merely a machine (complex or otherwise, it makes no ontological difference), fully explainable, then I don't see how 'infinity' comes into the picture at all, whether 'infinitely interesting' or 'infinite playground' or otherwise. I also don't see where 'mystery' comes in, for there is in actuality no mystery, since all is a fully explainable machine, and mystery means mere ignorance. I would find that state of affairs quite worthy of despair. I'm not sure I want 'everything in my grasp'. That would hurl me towards nihilism. Personally, I'm not awed at the thought that everything is intricate and complex (in terms of machine), any more than I'm awed by my computer. I'm infinitely more awed by the fact that I'm here to experience this, that I'm aware of complexity or simplicity, and by the thought that reality has qualities that surpass any rationalistic attempt at objectification.

 

Peace,

Mike

[JenellYB]

One definition or explanation I've encountered as shades of meaning within the Greek word from which we derive "mystery" is that "mysterium" is a kind of knowledge, a way of knowing, that is beyond either knowing through physical examination or reason, being rather, experiential knowing, what can only be known experientially. For all that we might be able to explain through scientific knowledge and rational theories about what some here have mentioned in connection to the experiencing of the extraordinary at times such as the birth of one's child, or even what some have described in connection to transcendant states of spiritual ecstasy, there is much in thay kind of knowing, what those experiences are and are like, that simply cannot be conveyed in termsof those kinds of knowledge or ways of knowing.

 

As demonstration of mysterium as another way of knowing, another dimension of knowledge beyond what can be materially qualified and quantified, as science addresses, and beyond reasoning, cognitive knowledge, involves the essential element of shared experience in our communications with one another. That it is only when parties attempting to communicate can find common ground in shared experiential knowledge that we can talk about whatever it is in meaningful ways.

 

Consider, there are rare births of infants that are lacking the capacity for feeling, experiencing, pain. Most of us take the capacity tofeel pain, the normal experience of pain, for granted, even wishing at sometimes we could turn it off. But being ableto experience pain is crititcal to suvivial...pain lets us know when our body is in material danger. Experiencing pain teaches us to learn to keep our balance, pick our feet up higher, so that we do not stub our toe or stumble and fall. All the reasonable explanations in the world about why a toddler shouldn't stick one's hand into a flame, or walk through the pretty glowing coals of a campfire, all the graphic descriptions of the physical consequence of such an action, or reasoned explanations for why there would be those consequences, are quite meaningless to the toddler until they've touched or come near enough to touching fire to experience the pain of being burnt. Any of us can only talk to one another about pain and things that cause pain, becasue we have this shared experiential knowledge of pain, what pain 'feels' like. That experiential knowledge is the 'mysterium of pain,' a level of knowledge about pain, a way of knowing about pain, that most of us have been initiated into, that those unfortunate infants mentioned will never be able to experience,or 'know'.

 

Another demonstration of mysterium as another kind,or way of knowing, is in the psychological/cognitive "realization (real-iizing) of an abstract," a relatively advanced level of cognitive/pyscholoical development in which what is a non-material abstract for most of us becomes "real-ized" to an individual. I understand that there are certain mathmatically gift individuals that can "comprehend number" as "real". That's something few of us can do...I certainly can't. I can't comprehend, say "three". I can know a symbol used to represent three in practical applications, I and comprehend three objects, vs say four objects or two objects. But I cannot comprehend "three," the threeness of three...or any other number, for that matter. Even one, the one of oneness, is beyond my grasp. Those few people have the rare gift of having been initiated into the mysterium of number, they comprehend the mysterium of the threeness of three, the twoness of two, as most of us don't.

 

 

Jenell

[Spiker439]

Hi Chris, As always thanks for explaining your views. Your words stir up a few questions in my mind. I think this is probably where our sensibilities diverge rather starkly here...so what follows is my own reaction to 'universe as machine' as you have stated above. In short, my response to the questions as you have framed them would be in the negative. If everything is merely a machine (complex or otherwise, it makes no ontological difference), fully explainable, then I don't see how 'infinity' comes into the picture at all, whether 'infinitely interesting' or 'infinite playground' or otherwise

 

Given a hubble constant of more than 1, and our general inability to travel faster than the speed of light, the universe is as infinite as you can imagine. It is infinitely interesting in that there will always be more to discover; there's no end to science, at least no practical end.

 

I also don't see where 'mystery' comes in, for there is in actuality no mystery, since all is a fully explainable machine, and mystery means mere ignorance.

 

Explainable is of course not the same thing as will be explained, and in this context the two are quite different. The universe is explainable in theory, which is to say that theoretically all events things etc. can be explained without having to resort to positing anything supernatural. "Mystery means mere ignorance", well, if you think that one human mind could hold all of the answers, or that human beings ever will actually uncover all there is to nature, then I suppose you're right. But this seems a pretty untenable position to me. When I refer to mystery here I simply mean that there is so much work to do in understanding nature/the universe, it's mindboggling. I'm perfectly happy with "mere" ignorance, but I don't see why you assert that "mystery" doesn't apply to things we have yet to and might never discover, but are nonetheless discoverable.

 

I would find that state of affairs quite worthy of despair.

 

Why? I certainly don't despair about it.

 

I'm not sure I want 'everything in my grasp'. That would hurl me towards nihilism. Personally, I'm not awed at the thought that everything is intricate and complex (in terms of machine), any more than I'm awed by my computer.

 

First, I'm certainly not married to the term "machine" here. Simply replace "system" or even "thing" if you prefer. A genuine question: You are not awed by quantum mechanics, cosmological physics, string theory, natural selection, biology? Why wouldn't you want everything theoretically in your grasp? Certainly this is the wonderful thing about living in the current era; we are beginning to discover just how much we don't know, and how much scientific work is to be done and how many fantastic discoveries are to be made if we are to gain even a rudamentary understanding the universe.

 

I'm infinitely more awed by the fact that I'm here to experience this, that I'm aware of complexity or simplicity, and by the thought that reality has qualities that surpass any rationalistic attempt at objectification. Peace, Mike

 

Genuine question: What are these qualities you speak of, which surpass any rationalistic attempt at objectification?

 

I agree that consciousness is a truly amazing thing, but again, within the scientific realm of explanation. Our consciousness is not some supernaturally (or naturally) hightened level of existence; in humans our special conscious ability is to "look" inward and examine/overrule a small portion of the myriad processes that our brain/mind undertake every second of every day (this point will be contentious I'm sure, but this is the predominant contemporary psychological viewpoint. I'm happy to elaborate at your wishes, and I would suggest "Thinking, fast and slow" by Daniel Kahneman for an accessible overview). We are essentially just like other mammals, but with this one extra ability. In the end, I suppose that you're right; we just have clashing intuitions on this matter. Still, I would be interested in your response to a few of my criticisms here.

 

This point brings me to Jennell's post: Jennell, you said that "It has been observed that mere biology make us homo sapiens, but it is "relationship" that makes us human." I take exception to this statement in two ways. First, "mere" biology is perhaps much more explanatory and powerful a force than you might think. Second, I would not say that relationship is what makes us human. Plenty other animals have relationships, are monogamous and mate for life, travel and hunt in packs, rear children and live in communities (nomadic or otherwise). If I had to pick one single distinctive feature of the human being I would say it's the fact that we are perpetually bipedal, which is unique (as far as I can tell) among mammals and at least uncommon among all other land animals.

 

Having said that, I see your point, in that humans are a social species and require the presence and contribution of other humans in order to excel. I think that there's also a real tendency for human beings to posit entities which are greater than themselves, even in modern times. This may be the result of the combination of an inward looking consciousness with our natural desire to engage in social behaviour, but whatever the reason, humans do tend to posit the supernatural (in various forms) to explain the world around them. Or, alternatively, Dawkins would argue that as social animals we are always looking from consolation from fear. But, when other humans cannot offer this consolation in certain situations (what happens after we die, what are we here for, etc.), we look elsewhere, and find consolation in made-up entities; he likens this process to a child and their comfort blanket. I realize that this analogy is somewhat derisive, but I think Dawkins has spent most of his career battling against fundamentalists, and has made some bold statements in that service. Had I a better analogy, I would use it instead; I do not intend to offend anyone by its use here, but I hope the point is expressed.

 

I like your idea of PC thought being about the relationship with God as opposed to being occupied with the nature of God. While having a relationship with God does presuppose some basic properties about a supernatural being, I can see that focusing on the relationship itself would lend itself to inclusive PC thought (or perhaps underpins the inclusivity in PC thought).

 

With regards to your latest post:

For all that we might be able to explain through scientific knowledge and rational theories about what some here have mentioned in connection to the experiencing of the extraordinary at times such as the birth of one's child, or even what some have described in connection to transcendant states of spiritual ecstasy, there is much in thay kind of knowing, what those experiences are and are like, that simply cannot be conveyed in termsof those kinds of knowledge or ways of knowing.

 

Aren't you just describing "feelings" or "emotions" here? And why would one believe that ineffability precludes scientific explanation? For instance, it seems downright impossible to describe to someone what cinnamon tastes like, and I would agree that the taste of cinnamon is something that must be experienced in order to be understood, but this does not preclude a scientific explanation for either the taste of cinnamon or for our inability to convey this sensation to others. Perhaps your point was that feelings at childbirth would not be reducible to the physical, or are best explained by reference to the supernatural. But does the same go for the taste of cinnamon? And if not, why not? In fact, even if the taste of cinnamon is not reducible to scientific inquiry, this does not preclude a scientific explanation.

 

This is a common point with respect to the brain/mind connection. One might believe (as I do) that the mind is not reducible to the brain, but also believe that the mind has a particular mereological relationship with the brain (supervenience, for example), and that the brain can explain the mind, even though it is still prudent and useful (or in fact necessary) to talk in terms of the mind. To respond directly to your assertion: Even if these experiences are not reducible to science, they are still explainable by science in other ways (for example through supervenience, as mentioned). To assume that science is an attempt to explain by reducing is to misconstrue science. There are many other ways to explain. For a good exposition of this point I might suggest "The Intentional stance" by Daniel Dennett, though it's a bit of a beast.

 

Thanks both for your entries; they've been very helpful and informative. I'm looking forward to your responses.

[Mike]

Hi Chris,

 

Thanks for your response.

 

Given a hubble constant of more than 1, and our general inability to travel faster than the speed of light, the universe is as infinite as you can imagine. It is infinitely interesting in that there will always be more to discover; there's no end to science, at least no practical end.

 

If the universe is a mechanism that is entirely explainable (presumably as conforming to the objective methods of scientific materialism), then while there may be no predictable end to practical science, there is, as you already implied, a theoretical end, at which the universe is reduced to a pointless, meaningless, mindless machine/system.

 

Explainable is of course not the same thing as will be explained, and in this context the two are quite different. The universe is explainable in theory, which is to say that theoretically all events things etc. can be explained without having to resort to positing anything supernatural. "Mystery means mere ignorance", well, if you think that one human mind could hold all of the answers, or that human beings ever will actually uncover all there is to nature, then I suppose you're right. But this seems a pretty untenable position to me.

 

If one argues that the universe is ultimately explainable according to a certain method, then one has already enfolded what will be explained within that method. The ontology has already been laid out and certain conclusions will naturally follow; all of the metaphysically interesting questions have already been included.

 

When I refer to mystery here I simply mean that there is so much work to do in understanding nature/the universe, it's mindboggling. I'm perfectly happy with "mere" ignorance, but I don't see why you assert that "mystery" doesn't apply to things we have yet to and might never discover, but are nonetheless discoverable.

 

Mystery in the context of religious philosophy has never referred to what we are ignorant of, but what is in its essence ineffable and unknowable, what is intrinsically beyond our attempts to objectify and control. What you are referring to is not mystery in the religious sense, but simply a collection of facts about which we are at this point ignorant. Objective facts are by definition meaningless and distant; it is only within the dimension of subjective existence -- which I would argue to be the real thing as opposed to the former as abstraction -- that life takes on living energy, color, meaning.

 

A genuine question: You are not awed by quantum mechanics, cosmological physics, string theory, natural selection, biology? Why wouldn't you want everything theoretically in your grasp? Certainly this is the wonderful thing about living in the current era; we are beginning to discover just how much we don't know, and how much scientific work is to be done and how many fantastic discoveries are to be made if we are to gain even a rudamentary understanding the universe.

 

The universe is mind-bogglingly complex. There are things we haven’t explained yet. I’m not sure why it follows that I should be rapt in awe, or why such should have any deep implications for my life. I’m more interested in establishing a substantive worldview that is constitutive of a meaningful way of being. Again, I’m not sure why I would want everything theoretically in my grasp. I’d like to have a sense of reality, of having touched something real; after that, theory will take care of itself. I’m more interested in developing a meaningful epistemology than developing an objective theory about things. I have nothing against theory, but I am ever-cautious about drawing unwarranted ontological conclusions from it.

 

Genuine question: What are these qualities you speak of, which surpass any rationalistic attempt at objectification?

 

Broadly speaking, I would think, life itself. Subjectivity. The empirical immanence of the world. I think to the degree that we objectify, we lose actuality.

 

I agree that consciousness is a truly amazing thing, but again, within the scientific realm of explanation. Our consciousness is not some supernaturally (or naturally) hightened level of existence; in humans our special conscious ability is to "look" inward and examine/overrule a small portion of the myriad processes that our brain/mind undertake every second of every day

 

This may be true, but nothing of consciousness as such is thereby explained. And by asserting that subjectivity is within the realm of scientific objectification, you have admitted an ontology in full accordance with the aims and strictures of metaphysical materialism. I don't accept such an ontology at base; I see no problem with the existence of mind as mind, subjectivity as subjectivity, and have not bought into the modern scientific urge to reduce everything to the metaphysical construct of 'object'. However useful such methods might be in describing and analyzing the functions and processes within the structure of mind, it does not in any way follow that mind is eliminated as an ontologically significant level of description. Explained away for the sake of other metaphysical commitments, but not explained as such.

 

Whether mind is monad or myriad, mind is not gone. Mind as myriad was seen by Dogen Zenji, who certainly was no materialist. He wrote, 'To carry the self forward and illuminate myriad dharmas [actualities, elements of existence] is delusion. That myriad dharmas come forth and illuminate the self is enlightenment.'

 

Why? I certainly don't despair about it.

 

I suppose because my disposition is different. I look at the world of scientific materialism and say, 'So what?' Literally...so what? What's next? It's all meaningless and vacant to me unless I can make a deeper affirmation about the nature of existence. This affirmation naturally comes from a place that is pre-objectified, prerational, unconstructed, immanent. Without that, talk of scientific discovery and progress rings eternally hollow to me.

 

Peace,

Mike

[JosephM]

Just wanted to say this is a wonderful and civil discussion that i am enjoying reading and following. Thanks for the thread Chris and to all participants . May it continue with such meaningful dialog and questions as it has.

Joseph

[BillM]

I look at the world of scientific materialism and say, 'So what?' Literally...so what? What's next? It's all meaningless and vacant to me unless I can make a deeper affirmation about the nature of existence.

 

That's been somewhat my experience also, Mike. I am quite literally amazed at both the macrocosm and the microcosm. Given the astounding diversity that we find in just what we do see and understand, I'm flatout floored that any of it "works" in any sort of repeatable and semi-predictable way. And that we are able, even in our limited senses, to experience this cosmos and understand it to the degree that we do, I find that to be, imo, against the odds of simple natural selection (not that natural selection is simple, but that the theory of it is).

 

But as wonderful as it is to experience and know to some degree all of this amazing diversity and the way in which it "works", there is still this question in me of, "What does it mean?" Is there a meaning to it all?

 

Where does this question come from? Why do we look for a meaning or various meanings behind the complexities of life and existence? Most of us agree that we are meaning-seeking creatures, but why is this so? Why would we search for something that isn't really there? Are we, as a species, that deluded? All of us?

 

From my point-of-view, the naturalist says that it is *we* who assign meanings to life. There is no inherent or higher meaning to our universe other than what *we* give it. Because we can't (or feel that we can't) exist without meaning, *we* inventively give things the meanings that *we* need them to have. If we weren't here, there would be no meaning, only existence. From this point-of-view, while everything may have relative meaning, nothing inherently has meaning in and of itself and is, therefore, really of no more worth than what our five pounds of brain ascribe to it. There is no "higher" or transcendent meaning.

 

The (I'm groping for a word of sufficient description that doesn't sound either too pious/sanctimonious or too derogatory) "more spiritual" might say that there is inherently a meaning to life and what is, and that we are in a search to discover that meaning. In other words, the reason that we search for a meaning is because there really is a Meaning(s) to life and existence. Because there is a Meaning, we are here to discover it. From this point-of-view, while everything still has relative meaning (because we are subjective creatures), there is still a transcendent Meaning behind all of our little meanings that we might call "God." Therefore, our notions of God, limited though they are, act as a lense whereby we try to understand and live according to all the other meanings that we find in life.

 

Now, I'll have to grant that the "more spiritual" perception of Meaning could all be delusional. It could be, in an odd way, a sort of rationalization for trying to discover meaning in a universe that really doesn't have any. Could be. But, if so, there are an awful lot of us that are deluded. Numbers doesn't make us right, of course. But I don't think the numbers should be ignored, especially if the numbers have led to wisdom and progress.

 

Finally (for now), who is to say who is right? If, as the naturalist might assert, there is no higher Meaning, then there is also no "right", for even being right is essentially meaningless (other than whatever value we might give it in order to win a meaningless argument). But if there is a higher Meaning (and many say that there is), then it is wise and beneficial to seek that out and align our lives in such a way as to live in relative harmony with that Meaning.

 

Of course, after my 256k of volatile RAM dumps tonight, I will start all of this meaning-searching fresh tomorrow morning!

[JenellYB]

I sometimes feel as if my own journey into understanding and seeking meaning took a leap through the looking glass and a fall down the rabbit hole at some point in my life. Like Alice wandering through Wonderland, my perspective of so many things in life seems to have been turned upside down and inside out, as things that once seemed normal to me, just the way things were, began to appear as something very different that lay concealed beneath a cloak of absurdities. What once looked, seemed, very real, in so many things, no longer do. At the same time, removing the cloak reveals something far more real. But I don't always know what to do with it, what to make of it, how to integrate the 'new real' (new reality?) into my ordinary life and even more so, interactions within my human community, where most around me are still living in the common delusions. I so often feel it neccesary to continue acting in ways consistent with those common delusions in order to effectively function within the world of my daily life as it relates to others, society. To try to emerge from existence within this world of common delusion is to risk having your head chopped off. And, in a very real sense, that is exactly what society does with people that try to point out the delusion, present a truer reality...if they don't phycially chop off their heads, nail them to a cross, or burn them at a literal stake, they do so by discrediting their sanity and intelligence. Whatever psychological, social, or other reasons there may be for that, it is still the reality of our world.

 

This venture through Wonderland is to me the journey of seeking understanding, true understandiing, of whatever it is I don't understand. Whatever impells me through that process seems to me no different from that which impells me or anyone else through the process of scientific discovery in an attempt to understand, comprehend, the true and actual nature of material reality. It has always seemed normal to me, thought it often seems not always to others, that I should by my nature be passionate about both understanding the material reality through the discovery of science, and at once, of the immaterial reality from a perspective of a mystic. In truth, I see no conflict or contradtion...the one is to seek understanding of the material reality, the other, to seek to comprehend the underlying reality out of which the whole of the material reality arises. I suppose it could be stated, to seek to understand and comprehend both "being", and "the ground of being" out of which "being" arises.

 

Just as I so often fiind that the clearing of delusions to see truths concealed behind them in my venture through Wonderland results in knowledge that seems of limited use in my relationship with the majority of society around me, so, too, so it is with much I may learn about discoveries in science. While I have read superficially something about such things as what is going on in the science of physics, and find some of it quite fascinating, unless and until I can find some way of incorporating that knowledge and understanding into functions useful in my daily life in the common world, something i can actually "do" with them, they remain much as some of the insights gained in Wonderland, curiousities that are not always very practically useful.

 

From within all of that, what I mights discover in my ventures through Wonderland, or awareness of dicoveries in the sciences, I am ever seeking, finding, examining, evaluating, and seeking to put to some useful purpose things I can hope to translate into a better, fuller relationship in my point of contact with being and the ground of being...ie, God, and all contained within God.

 

Comprehending the material reality through the discovery of science definitely coordinates with, helps me toward comprehending the non-material reality as well. For example, comprehending the nature of the material reality as not at all the distinct material arrangements, states, of discrete solid material objects vs voids they had seemed, but actually representative of one "thing." one common energy, differing only in frequency of vibrations, contributed signficantly to the dissolition of my concept of duality of reality. Whitehead's theories underlying his idea of process theology pretty much sealed it. Understanding myself as not separate from God, but existant within God, part of God, even co-creator with God in the ground of being, the ever-emerging process within the ground of being, transformed my perception of both the material and non-material elements of the overall reality.

 

Jenell

[Yvonne]

I've been re-reading these posts and have a few thoughts (finally). I may miss the mark, but what the heck, I'll throw in my 2 cents FWIW:

 

For me, personally, I don't think its nature/science OR God, its science AND God. I don't use science/nature to prove (or disprove) God nor do I use God to prove science/nature. I also don't use God to find meaning, so in that sense I may be different from other believers.

 

I am in awe of the mystery of life and the human brain and what little I know of quantum physics throws me into something almost beyond awe. I don't look for God in any of this.

 

I recall Bill Maher saying that people who believe in God think they (we?) can pick up some signal that he can't. Well, maybe. But perhaps that's neither good nor bad, perhaps it just is.

 

I'm obviously not a theologian or philosopher, I'm just someone for whom, as Marcus Borg would say, God is an experiential reality.

[Mike]

Hi Bill,

 

That's been somewhat my experience also, Mike. I am quite literally amazed at both the macrocosm and the microcosm. Given the astounding diversity that we find in just what we do see and understand, I'm flatout floored that any of it "works" in any sort of repeatable and semi-predictable way. And that we are able, even in our limited senses, to experience this cosmos and understand it to the degree that we do, I find that to be, imo, against the odds of simple natural selection (not that natural selection is simple, but that the theory of it is).

 

But as wonderful as it is to experience and know to some degree all of this amazing diversity and the way in which it "works", there is still this question in me of, "What does it mean?" Is there a meaning to it all?

 

Where does this question come from? Why do we look for a meaning or various meanings behind the complexities of life and existence? Most of us agree that we are meaning-seeking creatures, but why is this so? Why would we search for something that isn't really there? Are we, as a species, that deluded? All of us?

 

From my point-of-view, the naturalist says that it is *we* who assign meanings to life. There is no inherent or higher meaning to our universe other than what *we* give it. Because we can't (or feel that we can't) exist without meaning, *we* inventively give things the meanings that *we* need them to have. If we weren't here, there would be no meaning, only existence. From this point-of-view, while everything may have relative meaning, nothing inherently has meaning in and of itself and is, therefore, really of no more worth than what our five pounds of brain ascribe to it. There is no "higher" or transcendent meaning.

 

I agree with your sentiments here. At base I think 'existence' implies 'meaning', and vice-versa. I don't think of meaning as something we somehow invented and project upon a meaningless world, but rather that meaning finds its root in reality itself. Moreover, that the world gives us meaning as much as we give it meaning. Reality can be seen as a vast ocean of meaning and wisdom, the world as constructed from the ground up with meaning. Not, as in popular imagination, meaning as an alien thing that finds no true home in reality. To me, if reality weren't already ontologically and intrinsically meaningful, then we should never come to the discovery (or even the illusion, as some might think) of meaning at all. That's my take on it at the present moment, anyway.

 

Thanks,

Mike

[minsocal]

But the infinitely little is the least obvious. Philosophers have much oftener claimed to have reached it, and it is here they have all stumbled. This has given rise to such common titles a First Principles, Principles of Philosophy, and the like, as ostentatious in fact, though not in appearance, as that one which blinds us, De omni scibili (Concerning everything that can be known).

 

Blaise Pascal, Thoughts

 

In other words ... beware of abstractions that are unwarranted reductions.

 

Myron

[JosephM]

Concerning the meaning of Life.......

 

Perhaps Life itself is its own meaning and the question is flawed in the asking. While it is obvious to me that each can and does assigns his/her own meaning to things in life, Life itself seems to me to be its own meaning making it neither meaningful nor meaningless. It is to me a conundrum that can't be answered but can be as Yvonne said an experiential reality.

 

Who or what is it that is seeking the answer to what is the meaning of Life? When that question is answered, it seems to me the question disappears. At least that is my own experiential reality. Where does such a view leave one? It seems to me it leaves one simply living ones life. Where is God in all of this? Perhaps, everywhere and in everything yet without location.

 

Joseph

[Mike]

Hi Joseph,

 

I think ultimately I find 'reality is meaning' very agreeable. I don't think there is any essential difference between the two: they mirror one another, fully interpenetrating. By this I mean that neither reality nor meaning are pre-existing 'on their own side' apart from each other. I like to take some liberties in language when discussing meaning, however, because I like to emphasize how this view contrasts with the prevalent view within some circles, of life as a collection of meaningless objects. Objects are only objects when approached from without. Reality takes on a very different character when a different epistemology (or way of knowing) is undertaken. Perhaps the 'object-mode' of relating to our existence tends to be much too clumsy, unable to handle the subtle ways in which truth expresses and actualizes itself in life.

 

Peace,

Mike

[Mike]

Jenell,

 

I really like the concept of mysterium -- which, to gloss on your words -- would to my mind mean a 'unit' of reality (I also like how you phrased 'unit of relationship' as a focus in progressive faith). Perhaps I may be awed at the 'universe as mysterium' -- the mysterium of identity and that of difference -- their vibrant, animate interplay (well, to get picky, I'm not very convinced that by talking about 'the universe' there's anything properly corresponding to that concept, but I digress). I'm not awed at the universe as passive, "inanimate" matter -- a particular mythos owing strongly to our Cartesian past. Unfortunately, it often goes unacknowledged as mythos.The metaphysical construct called materialism, to my mind, can only lead me to nihilism.

 

But I think there's a tendency nowadays to equate religious intuition and epistemology with 'awe'. Awe is certainly a powerful emotion that can be constructive, but to my knowledge it is not the aim or content of any religious philosophy (though Heschel would be a candidate if any). Unless something psychologically abnormal is going on (not necessarily bad), awe is a fleeting feeling. By itself it affords no substantive worldview. If I had to rely on a vague feeling of awe to get me through life, I don't think I'd last a day. Though awe, I think, does play a role in my life -- for I truly do get excited and wonder about such matters as we discuss here -- it seems to not be divorced from a substantive vision of reality. In other words, 'awe' for me does not simply hang there with nothing to prop it up, and in itself it is not efficacious.

 

Peace,

Mike

[minsocal]

Jenell,

 

I really like the concept of mysterium -- which, to gloss on your words -- would to my mind mean a 'unit' of reality (I also like how you phrased 'unit of relationship' as a focus in progressive faith). Perhaps I may be awed at the 'universe as mysterium' -- the mysterium of identity and that of difference -- their vibrant, animate interplay (well, to get picky, I'm not very convinced that by talking about 'the universe' there's anything properly corresponding to that concept, but I digress). I'm not awed at the universe as passive, "inanimate" matter -- a particular mythos owing strongly to our Cartesian past. Unfortunately, it often goes unacknowledged as mythos.The metaphysical construct called materialism, to my mind, can only lead me to nihilism.

 

But I think there's a tendency nowadays to equate religious intuition and epistemology with 'awe'. Awe is certainly a powerful emotion that can be constructive, but to my knowledge it is not the aim or content of any religious philosophy (though Heschel would be a candidate if any). Unless something psychologically abnormal is going on (not necessarily bad), awe is a fleeting feeling. By itself it affords no substantive worldview. If I had to rely on a vague feeling of awe to get me through life, I don't think I'd last a day. Though awe, I think, does play a role in my life -- for I truly do get excited and wonder about such matters as we discuss here -- it seems to not be divorced from a substantive vision of reality. In other words, 'awe' for me does not simply hang there with nothing to prop it up, and in itself it is not efficacious.

 

Peace,

Mike

 

So where is this 'tendancy nowadays'? Reference please.

 

Myron

[BillM]

Perhaps Life itself is its own meaning and the question is flawed in the asking. While it is obvious to me that each can and does assigns his/her own meaning to things in life, Life itself seems to me to be its own meaning making it neither meaningful nor meaningless. It is to me a conundrum that can't be answered but can be as Yvonne said an experiential reality.

 

I'm going to agreeably disagree with you about this, Joseph. Yes, I already know that it doesn't matter to you whether I agree with you or not. (ha ha!) But your understanding, if I understand it correctly, is much the same as the naturalist, that it is *we* who bring meaning to life and existence and there is nothing higher (or deeper or More) than us which has or gives any meaning. I don't disagree with you that we each can and do discover and find our own "little" meanings to things in life. But, using absurdity to illustrate, if you found meaning and purpose in killing people (some do) and I found meaning and purpose in becoming a doctor so as to save and heal people, I would not find those two experiences of meaning to be compatible, to have equal value.

 

You may find much meaning in family. So do I. You may find good meaning in good relationships. So do I. You may find little to no meaning in Star Trek. I, on the other hand, do. You may find no meaning in studying Mayan predictions of the end of the world. I certainly don't. So I'll grant you that meanings have scale and are, to some degree, biased and relative. But if you found meaning in killing people, I would seriously question your sanity and humanity. Why? Because I do believe there is a higher Meaning which serves as a fairly reliable guide to our lives. This is where, as you have probably guessed, I found that I needed to move a little more to the right in my God-concepts than in the far left view (as Spong and others hold to) that God is totally a figment of our very inventive human imaginations.

 

Who or what is it that is seeking the answer to what is the meaning of Life? When that question is answered, it seems to me the question disappears. At least that is my own experiential reality.

 

That is where, again, I have to agreeably disagree, but only for myself. I find deep meaning in experiencing all the good in all I can, in loving others, and in encouraging others to do the same. This does not, however, make the question disappear for me, because then I get the fun and exciting part of figuring out HOW to do what I think gives my life meaning, how to do what makes a difference around me.

 

Where does such a view leave one? It seems to me it leaves one simply living ones life.

 

Yes, I suppose so, my friend. Some people (not me) are content to simply live day to day with either an Alfred E. Newman "What, me worry?" approach or a "Don't worry, be happy!" life-style. After all, if life truly is neither meaningful nor meaningless, if it "just is", then it doesn't make any sense to try to change things, does it? If there is no real meaning, there is nothing to be concerned about. Just "to be." Que sera, sera. There is, imo, some value in that, to be in the moment, to not be caught up in the anxiety that seems to rule the world.

 

But I'm also concerned that if we insist that there is no meaning to life than what we puny humans bring to it, with all of our varied desires, wants, cravings, and lusts to try to fill the philosophical hole of meaning, we might end up with a world filled with people who find meaning in the most horrendous things that humans can do to each other and to our planet. We've done it before. So, for me, I don't find it wise or helpful to long-term surival to either say that there is no meaning to life than what we give it or that the search for meaning is itself meaningless.

 

BTW, I'm not saying that MY meaning must be the meaning of others. Such an assertion would be foolish! But I would think that many would sympathize with my meaning and might share it, even if described differently. If this is so, then this is why I say that there is a Higher Meaning.

 

As always, just my opinion. I hope I haven't been too disagreeable.

[Mike]

So where is this 'tendancy nowadays'? Reference please.

 

Myron

 

It is a sentiment I see a lot. Not amongst philosophers of religion. But especially among secularists or rationalists, when commenting on spirituality (or asked if they are at all spiritual or have 'religious feelings'), often equate spirituality with a sense of awe at the universe. This seems to simplify what actual religious/spiritual disciplines and philosophies have tried to accomplish, as well as limit the vocabulary they have developed to accomplish it.

 

Peace,

Mike