Many Christians, when asking themselves how to deal with a particular ethical or moral issue ask themselves "What would Jesus do?" And then try to reason a solution that applies to the Christian moral teachings. Such a process should bring us to identify the morally correct solution to a problem. Whether it does or not is another question, one that we won't tackle here.
This is an exploration of how an incarnation of evil - Satan - might create an organization designed to capture souls. Like any other supernatural being, the existence or non-existence of Satan can be neither proven nor disproven. For purposes of this essay, we will assume that such a personification of evil does exist, and ask the question, "What would Satan do to capture the greatest amount of souls? What would Satan do to reap the most evil in the world?" Our purpose is to see if we can identify things that would alert us to things that would lead to an incorrect moral solution to a particular problem.
The word 'satan' in Hebrew means 'adversary' and, except for the Books of Job and Zecariah and possibly 1 Chronicles in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, is not a supernatural being. There are, however other references to an incarnation of evil in the Old Testament, as well as in the books of the Hebrew canon that are not part of the Christian canon. Christian theology also equates the "Morning Star" or Lucifer as it was translated from the Latin Vulgate into the King James Version of the Christian Bible referenced in Isiah to Satan. There are, of course, other references to an incarnation of evil.
The idea of Shayṭān - an evil Jinn - or Iblis - the devil - is used in Islam, as the personification of evil. Jinn are a collection of what can be equated to the concept of fallen angels. They are the source of the western idea of "genii."
Satan, by whatever name, is known as the "father of lies," and the "tempter of men" and other titles and names. There is dispute as to what his characteristics are, but they are not relevant to the subject of this essay. It is only necessary to assume that a personification of evil exists and that his purpose is to seduce men into commiting evil. For our purposes here, we will leave "sin" undefined, and instead concentrate on outcomes that can be considered evil.
To truly accomplish this task, it will be eventually be necessary to establish a definition of evil. This is a topic for another essay. For now, we can just use the idea that the result of evil is unnecessary harm to the self, other human beings, other living things or the world in general caused by the intentional or negligent actions, or inaction, of humans. This is an imperfect definition, but it will do for now.
This is an exploration of how an incarnation of evil - Satan - might create an organization designed to capture souls. I am using the word organization here because it encompasses more than a church or religion. It is probable that political parties, national governments, even fraternal organizations may have an ultimate evil outcome that we need to watch for. But for our purposes here, I will focus more on religious groups than others
The first thing we must acknowledge is that Satan is not limited to a single effort or organization. It is very possible, even probable that there would be multiple different organizations, each targeting a different audience. These organizations may have similarities, or they may be very different in their superficial appearances.
These organizations would have to be plausible to their target audience as something good. As someone once told me, the best lies contain mostly truth, so we can expect that the father of lies would create an organization that contains a lot of things that are true, and even good.
Another aspect of a good lie is to appeal to the pre-existing prejudices of the target audience. Especially if these prejudices can be learned and are not frequently examined, but merely accepted as conventional wisdom.
Perhaps only a small portion of what they do or produce would be directed toward the evil end, and that carefully concealed or masked, perhaps packaged and presented to make it look like supreme goodness.
If this organization can have leaders or doctrines that are not questioned; that are taught by rote and never examined critically. Such an organization might even teach that its members have free will, but that the only true course it that set by the leadership. If this organization can shut down its members critical thinking, or even discipline, ostracize or remove members that ask too many questions, it becomes much easier to conceal the evil. Even better would be a situation where the leaders themselves don't question and doctrines, but simply teach the prejudices and falsehoods handed to them by their predecessors.
Lastly, such an organization would attempt to remove the focus from itself and strive to instill in its members that other organizations or groups are the evil ones - in some cases, perhaps correctly so, to further deflect critical inquiry into the organization itself
While we might view a Satanic cult that openly worships the incarnation of evil as such an organization, its appeal would be limited to rebellious youth and would not be an effective tool for Satan.
No, our false religion would do everything in its power to convince us that it is the one true religion, and that no other religion could possibly be true. It would teach many true and correct principles, it would publicly espouse righteousness and virtue, while condemning and excluding others for minor and insignificant differences, and it would lead its members to evil in small, imperceptible steps aimed at convincing the members that the evil it does is good and the good done by others is evil.
The only ways we have of identifying these organizations is to refuse to surrender our duty to question and to examine critically; to actively look for internal inconsistencies in doctrine and practices; and to examine the product the organization produces to see what kind of fruit it produces.
We'll look at more specific tools and guides in future essays, and perhaps we may examine specific organizations, but the critical element to watch for is any organization that asks for or requires blind obedience or loyalty, that excludes groups or people based on personal characteristics they don't have control over, or that focuses much of its energy in finding fault with other groups or individuals..
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
The Role of "Faith"
Now that we've examined the role and purpose of intellect, it it time to turn our attention to the role of faith under each of the three hypotheses.
In order to do so, we must first define what me mean by "faith." There are several definitions to choose from. The dictionary has two definitions: 1.) complete trust or confidence in someone or something; 2.) strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Clearly the second definition will work for the theist hypothesis, but, just as clearly, it will not work for the cosmic consciousness or atheist hypotheses. The first definition works for, oh, say faith in the government or in a bank, but it doesn't really capture what we are looking for here. There is something more to it. The Christian Bible defines it as "confidence in what we hope for..." (Hebrews 11:1)
Is there more than one kind of faith? Consider the difference between the "faith" of the Biblical Abram when he was commanded to sacrifice his son Isaac and the faith invoked in a religious faith healing or healing blessing. Are these the same? Or are they different? The first involves sacrifice where the second doesn't necessarily. The second requires the mind to be open to the idea that healing can and will occur, where the first requires believing that either God will intervene to stay the sacrifice or will make the reward worth the cost. The first involves taking action; the second may not require anything more than sitting in a chair with a priest or minister's hands on your head while he/they pray.
From the theist view, both involve a mutual promise and expected gift. Abraham promised to be faithful to God and expected God to reward that faith by stopping the sacrifice; God promised to make Abram the father of many nations (which required his son to survive) and gifted Abram with the ram in the thicket and a new name, Abraham. For the healing blessing the promise is again to be faithful and believe that God will gift the healing; God promises to take the petitioner's burdens and gifts healing in some manner - not necessarily the one petitioned for.
Well, we are certainly not going to conduct any experiments with human sacrifice. But there are other similar situations. Consider those religions that practice "tithing" or donating one tenth of ones income or increase to charity. I think we will use that as the basis of our thought experiment. Here the gift is the sacrifice of the worldly wealth with the promise being an increase in abundance.
The common thread in both the healing blessing and the paying of tithes centers on belief that the process will produce the result on the part of the practitioner. Perhaps we can define what we mean in this context by the term "faith" as an opening of the mind to the idea that a ritual action will produce a desired result, with the concomitant setting aside of skepticism in the process.
From the theist perspective, the gift of faith is to whatever deity is being worshiped, and the promise comes from that deity. It is well within the assumed powers of a supernatural deity to grant the gift/promise in return for the faith and sacrifice.
But does the process require the existence of deity to work? I knew a man once, his name was Dean, who regularly paid 10% of his earnings in tithes. Not to a church, but to a non-profit educational organization. Dean credited his success, in part, to paying his tithe. When I knew him, Dean reportedly had net worth of over $100,000,000. I think we can consider that to be anecdotal evidence.
In my travels round and about I have had several experiences that seem to point to the external connection to something outside of myself that can affect the outcomes in my day-to-day life; things that can't be explained by any internal process. I have also had experiences that seem to point to internal processes with the same capability. I will probably relate some of these experiences in future essays.
I have also observed that there is a sort of universality of the processes of faith. Although western religion tends to arrogantly claim that their way is the only way, it would seem that this just isn't so. Many faiths, philosophies, and mystery schools proclaim that their technique works, while others just as quickly denounce the claims as false. As we have seen with Dean and hypno-birthing, these processes are not associated directly with any one system of theology or philosophy, but are somewhat ubiquitous in there scope, if differing in some of their particulars. It would seem that the mechanism of faith depends on the individual and what he can accept more than it depends on the name of any particular deity or membership in any particular church. We will explore this concept more in the future, but for now it is sufficient to note that some practices work for some people and not for others, while another practice may work for the others, and so on.
In pondering this, I came to realize that there is no exclusivity here. It is entirely possible under our very broadly accepting metaphysics that all three hypotheses are correct.
We still cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god, but if one does exist, and he/she/it/they are similar to the father-god paradigm, the it would not be surprising to find that this deity created the internal and external natural mechanisms that produce the results I've experienced. Nor would it be surprising to find that the individual mind is a smaller microcosm of the larger cosmic mind to which it connects.
One last item to cover: faith and the afterlife. For many religious people, their faith in their god and his promise of eternal life or equivalent system provides comfort in times of the death of a loved one or when the individual's own death is immanent. I think this believed connection to the divine is somehow important, but I'm not sure how to examine it within our framework. It seems that the atheist hypothesis would hit a dead end here, while there are some possibilities with the cosmic consciousness hypothesis. We don't have any way to evaluate the actual outcomes, but perhaps we can explore how such beliefs affect day-to-day choices.
In order to do so, we must first define what me mean by "faith." There are several definitions to choose from. The dictionary has two definitions: 1.) complete trust or confidence in someone or something; 2.) strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Clearly the second definition will work for the theist hypothesis, but, just as clearly, it will not work for the cosmic consciousness or atheist hypotheses. The first definition works for, oh, say faith in the government or in a bank, but it doesn't really capture what we are looking for here. There is something more to it. The Christian Bible defines it as "confidence in what we hope for..." (Hebrews 11:1)
Is there more than one kind of faith? Consider the difference between the "faith" of the Biblical Abram when he was commanded to sacrifice his son Isaac and the faith invoked in a religious faith healing or healing blessing. Are these the same? Or are they different? The first involves sacrifice where the second doesn't necessarily. The second requires the mind to be open to the idea that healing can and will occur, where the first requires believing that either God will intervene to stay the sacrifice or will make the reward worth the cost. The first involves taking action; the second may not require anything more than sitting in a chair with a priest or minister's hands on your head while he/they pray.
From the theist view, both involve a mutual promise and expected gift. Abraham promised to be faithful to God and expected God to reward that faith by stopping the sacrifice; God promised to make Abram the father of many nations (which required his son to survive) and gifted Abram with the ram in the thicket and a new name, Abraham. For the healing blessing the promise is again to be faithful and believe that God will gift the healing; God promises to take the petitioner's burdens and gifts healing in some manner - not necessarily the one petitioned for.
Well, we are certainly not going to conduct any experiments with human sacrifice. But there are other similar situations. Consider those religions that practice "tithing" or donating one tenth of ones income or increase to charity. I think we will use that as the basis of our thought experiment. Here the gift is the sacrifice of the worldly wealth with the promise being an increase in abundance.
The common thread in both the healing blessing and the paying of tithes centers on belief that the process will produce the result on the part of the practitioner. Perhaps we can define what we mean in this context by the term "faith" as an opening of the mind to the idea that a ritual action will produce a desired result, with the concomitant setting aside of skepticism in the process.
From the theist perspective, the gift of faith is to whatever deity is being worshiped, and the promise comes from that deity. It is well within the assumed powers of a supernatural deity to grant the gift/promise in return for the faith and sacrifice.
But does the process require the existence of deity to work? I knew a man once, his name was Dean, who regularly paid 10% of his earnings in tithes. Not to a church, but to a non-profit educational organization. Dean credited his success, in part, to paying his tithe. When I knew him, Dean reportedly had net worth of over $100,000,000. I think we can consider that to be anecdotal evidence.
Faith and the Cosmic Consciousness Hypothesis
As you will recall, our "Cosmic Consciousness" hypothesis considers the possibility that there is a completely natural phenomenon that exists external to the self, or the body, but which we are, or can be, connected to via some as yet undiscovered mechanism. Within the constraints of the natural laws that govern it, this cosmic consciousness is able to manifest positive or negative results based on our communication with it. Essentially controlling what we might otherwise call "luck."
About 20 years ago, I went through a four day educational program put on by the same folks that Dean paid his tithe to. The program was called the PSI Basic, and it was a self actualization workshop designed to help participants become more effective in their daily lives. (I found this program to be excellent and later volunteered to help staff several other basic courses, but in order to get the full benefit of the program it is necessary to be open to the concepts they teach. I will be discussing the Basic more in later essays.)
Brian, the instructor, taught us that our conscious mind serves as a sort of sentry or sentinel to protect our sub-conscious mind from what can best be described as "bad input." It does this quite well, but we humans have a tendency to internalize certain beliefs about ourselves and the world around us - he called them "programs" - that create a sort of filter that skews all of our input and blocks our ability to communicate with what he called "super consciousness." As part of the program we were taught to identify these programs, evaluate whether they were helpful or harmful, and eliminate the harmful ones. In doing so, we could open communication with this super consciousness, which in turn could provide us with whatever it was we needed.
That sounds a bit weird, but it produced results for almost every participant in the program. Chalk it up to my lack of skill in describing it. The main point I am trying to make here is that Brian taught us techniques for opening a channel of communication to an external, higher consciousness. These techniques were a combination of meditation and visualization very similar in some respects to prayer. They certainly fell within the definition of "faith" we are using; opening of the mind, ritual visualization, and setting aside skepticism.
I have since found similar practices among the Rosicrucians (The AMORC variety) and a couple of Pagan groups that I have encountered.
One Pagan priestess I know says that she does not believe that the elemental "gods" she invokes in her rituals are real beings, but merely representations of elements of nature that she wishes to call upon; the anthropomorphic gods are just focal points that help to channel her mind and the minds of the other participants in the ritual. When I asked her if she felt that what she was invoking appeared to be internal to herself or external, she didn't hesitate to say that "it feels external."
Faith and the Atheist Hypothesis
When my wife was pregnant with our last child the doctor who had delivered our other children had retired and moved away. In the course of deciding who would provide her prenatal care, we decided to explore "hypno-birthing." Hypno-birthing uses hypnosis and relaxation techniques instead of the standard medical analgesics and anesthesia to control the pain of child birth. Amy had tried Stadol and Demerol as well as epidural anesthesia. None of there was truly satisfactory. As her birthing coach, I was to learn the techniques of hypnotic induction so that when the time came I could induce a hypnotic state that would help Amy control the pain.
At the time, Amy and I were active Mormons. I had been ordained as an Elder in that church's Melchizedek Priesthood. In that role I had performed many "healing blessings." The general procedure is for two Elders to perform the ritual. First the person to receive the blessing is anointed with oil by one of the Elders. Following this, the Elders again place their hands on the recipient's head, and the other Elder invokes a blessing prayer for whatever healing or other blessing is desired, and any other blessing the Elder feels to pronounce. The blessing prayer starts with an invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, and names the priesthood power by which it is being performed, and it usually ends with a statement that the blessing is conditioned on the faith of the recipient, another invocation of Jesus' name and the ritual "amen."
As I learned the techniques of hypnotic induction, I couldn't help but notice how similar some of them are to the LDS healing blessing. For someone who has been conditioned to accept these blessings and to believe in the power of the LDS Priesthood, the "anointing" and "laying on of hands" are hypnotic anchors, the invocation of Jesus and the naming of the priesthood establish the trust - faith - in the hypnotist and process that are required to allow one to be hypnotized, and are a short "deepening" of the hypnotic state, and the prayer is classic hypnotic suggestion. The "amen" is the trigger to end the hypnotic state.
To make a long story short, the hypno-birthing worked better than we could ever have expected. Amy was practically able to turn her labor on at will, and proceeded through the entire delivery without any medication at all. Her labor was short (about 2 hours) and painless (she says that the highest her pain level ever got was a 3 on the ten point scale, and that was after the delivery was all done and she was nursing on baby. She was incomplete control the entire time, and able to feel everything that was going on with the delivery - which was an almost miraculous thing as the baby had his umbilical cord around his neck three times and it was tied in a know. The midwife that did the delivery said that the only other time she had seen a birth where the baby had that much cord trouble the baby hadn't made it. Amy and I both believe we would have lost our little boy if we had not used the hypnosis techniques.
Part of hypnosis is setting aside skepticism and allowing the mind to accept things that it would not normally accept in a full conscious state. The mind is opened to suggestions that it would otherwise reject as preposterous. If you've ever seen a stage hypnotist you know what I'm talking about. Beyond being able to make people think they're chickens and such, hypnosis enables the mind to overrule pain and other normal body functions and to marshal the body's resources in ways that would not normally occur. Hypnosis can help a person stop smoking or help them succeed in reaching goals. I believe it can also speed healing, and who knows what else. The opening of the mind and setting aside of skepticism in the process of hypnosis - especially when one considers that hypnosis generally does not occur if the subject does not trust (have faith in) the hypnotist or does not believe in his or her skill - fits well within our definition of "faith" and it apparently works on the internal workings of the mind. In the hands of a well trained hypnotist, it works much, much more effectively than and LDS healing blessing or other similar religious ritual.
Final Thoughts
In this essay we've done little other than develop a working idea of what faith is under our three hypotheses. For our purposes, faith is setting aside our skepticism and opening the mind to believing that a process will work. We still need to examine in more detail how faith impacts other practices and determine if there is any usefulness to it. We've seen that there is a plausible function for faith under each of the three hypotheses.In my travels round and about I have had several experiences that seem to point to the external connection to something outside of myself that can affect the outcomes in my day-to-day life; things that can't be explained by any internal process. I have also had experiences that seem to point to internal processes with the same capability. I will probably relate some of these experiences in future essays.
I have also observed that there is a sort of universality of the processes of faith. Although western religion tends to arrogantly claim that their way is the only way, it would seem that this just isn't so. Many faiths, philosophies, and mystery schools proclaim that their technique works, while others just as quickly denounce the claims as false. As we have seen with Dean and hypno-birthing, these processes are not associated directly with any one system of theology or philosophy, but are somewhat ubiquitous in there scope, if differing in some of their particulars. It would seem that the mechanism of faith depends on the individual and what he can accept more than it depends on the name of any particular deity or membership in any particular church. We will explore this concept more in the future, but for now it is sufficient to note that some practices work for some people and not for others, while another practice may work for the others, and so on.
In pondering this, I came to realize that there is no exclusivity here. It is entirely possible under our very broadly accepting metaphysics that all three hypotheses are correct.
We still cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god, but if one does exist, and he/she/it/they are similar to the father-god paradigm, the it would not be surprising to find that this deity created the internal and external natural mechanisms that produce the results I've experienced. Nor would it be surprising to find that the individual mind is a smaller microcosm of the larger cosmic mind to which it connects.
One last item to cover: faith and the afterlife. For many religious people, their faith in their god and his promise of eternal life or equivalent system provides comfort in times of the death of a loved one or when the individual's own death is immanent. I think this believed connection to the divine is somehow important, but I'm not sure how to examine it within our framework. It seems that the atheist hypothesis would hit a dead end here, while there are some possibilities with the cosmic consciousness hypothesis. We don't have any way to evaluate the actual outcomes, but perhaps we can explore how such beliefs affect day-to-day choices.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
The Role of Intelligence, Part 3 = The Atheist Hypothesis
Many of the professed atheists I know would probably reduce this essay to a single sentence. "There is no god, therefor religious practices have no value." But our purpose here is to ask the "what if..." questions. In this case, that questions is: what if there is no deity or cosmic consciousness but there is still some usefulness or value in the practices of religion. So my task here is to ask haw can we take the atheist point of view and still consider how to apply reason and logic to the practices of religion. What role does religion play here?
The atheist point of view does not allow for the existence of any deities, nor does it admit of any external natural phenomenon that science has not yet discovered. This leaves us with only internal mental processes that can be affected by religious practice. Here then, we must turn to psychology and the other cognitive sciences.
So much for the internal processes of the individual, but we should also consider whether or not religion or religious practices have benefit to the overall functioning of society. Scott Atran & Joseph Henrich argue in their paper "The Evolution of Religion: How Cognitive By-Products, Adaptive Learning Heuristics, Ritual Display, and Group Competition Generate Deep Commitments to Prosocial Religions," that the rise of large-scale civilizations comes from the same by-products of adaptive cognitive mechanism that resulted in the evolution of religion. Would human kind be as advanced as we are today if religion had not also evolved?
When considering theism and the idea of a cosmic consciousness, skepticism is a helpful tool, though as we will see in a future essay, one that needs to be used judiciously. From the atheist point of view our skepticism gets in the way. We must be willing to allow that religious practices have some effect on the individual, rather than just toss all ideas of religious practice in the dustbin and superstition. If we start with the idea that we already know the answers, the journey is over before it's begun.
Curt Raney, an associate professor at St. Mary's College in Maryland, has an unattributed Acrobat file on the web that defines eight elements of religion. This list, with a minor modification, provides an excellent starting point for examining how the practices of religion affect the inner, mental and cognitive function of its practitioners. Each of these elements makes an excellent area of inquiry. Raney also includes a list of positive and negative functions in religion that very much bear scrutiny. Here are the lists:
The atheist point of view does not allow for the existence of any deities, nor does it admit of any external natural phenomenon that science has not yet discovered. This leaves us with only internal mental processes that can be affected by religious practice. Here then, we must turn to psychology and the other cognitive sciences.
So much for the internal processes of the individual, but we should also consider whether or not religion or religious practices have benefit to the overall functioning of society. Scott Atran & Joseph Henrich argue in their paper "The Evolution of Religion: How Cognitive By-Products, Adaptive Learning Heuristics, Ritual Display, and Group Competition Generate Deep Commitments to Prosocial Religions," that the rise of large-scale civilizations comes from the same by-products of adaptive cognitive mechanism that resulted in the evolution of religion. Would human kind be as advanced as we are today if religion had not also evolved?
When considering theism and the idea of a cosmic consciousness, skepticism is a helpful tool, though as we will see in a future essay, one that needs to be used judiciously. From the atheist point of view our skepticism gets in the way. We must be willing to allow that religious practices have some effect on the individual, rather than just toss all ideas of religious practice in the dustbin and superstition. If we start with the idea that we already know the answers, the journey is over before it's begun.
Curt Raney, an associate professor at St. Mary's College in Maryland, has an unattributed Acrobat file on the web that defines eight elements of religion. This list, with a minor modification, provides an excellent starting point for examining how the practices of religion affect the inner, mental and cognitive function of its practitioners. Each of these elements makes an excellent area of inquiry. Raney also includes a list of positive and negative functions in religion that very much bear scrutiny. Here are the lists:
Elements of Religion
- Soteriological (having to do with salvation)
- Theological (rationalization of religion)
- Anthropological (nature and possibilities of human being)
- Epistemology (How do we know?)
- Ethics (Raney calls this "relations between human beings," but it more properly should concern the questions of values. For our purposes, we will include Morality in this element)
- Rituals/Cultic Practices (symbolic behavior)
- Temporal (having to do with the meaning of time.)
- Cosmology (having to do with the meaning of the universe.)
Persistent Functions of Religion
Positive Functions
- Close the gap between hope and reality
- Make virtue out of social necessity
- Support and console individuals & groups
- Enhance social stability through projecting sacredness upon social norms, etc.
- Promote social change through social criticism and prophesy.
- Provide a source of personal identity in pluralist societies
- Facilitate personal growth and maturation, as they are conceptualized by the relition.
- Adjust individuals to the life cycle of changing social status.
- Rationalize social, political and economic inequality, reducing conflict in stratified societies
Negative Functions
- Excessive guilt and repression
- Authoritarianism
- Self-mortification
- Ethnocentrism
- Rationalize social, political and economic inequality, preventing social change necessary to reduce social conflict.
So, the question we must pursue here is, if there is no deity, how does all of this stuff work?
Monday, February 2, 2015
Core Values and Key Beliefs
of the Esoteric Eclectic
This page is a list of conclusions drawn that define the core values and key beliefs of the Esoteric Eclectic, (at the time of this writing this is a set of one element, me). My intention is to consolidate conclusions reached that can be shown to have practical value or general utility for life in the "mortal realm." Each of these values and beliefs will generally be described in more detail in other essays. Check back frequently for updates.
1. Intelligence and the ability to reason are man to use. Intelligence in humans is either the result of the natural selection of evolution as a trait that enhances human existence, or it is the result of divine intention. In either case, it stands to reason that humans should use the intelligence they have to explore and understand their existence.
2. The answer to the core question of metaphysics, "What is Real?" cannot be determined, only assumed. Consequently, it is important that we examine and understand our preconceived assumptions about reality as well as those of others as we explore, for these assumptions will shape and color the conclusions we can draw.
3 It is not possible for science, philosophy, or logic to prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of any deity. There is no conceivable experiment that projects a possible result that can be exclusively attributed to the existence of deity, nor is there any possible experiment that can be conceived that would compel a supernatural intelligent being to respond, making it impossible to prove that a deity exists; conversely it is impossible to eliminate all possible positive proofs of the existence of a deity, as well as eliminating the possibility that such a deity has simply chosen not to respond, making proof of the negative impossible.
4. Faith is not blind acceptance of an idea as incontrovertible, but a willingness to open the mind to the possibility that the idea is, or may be, true, in whole or in part.
1. Intelligence and the ability to reason are man to use. Intelligence in humans is either the result of the natural selection of evolution as a trait that enhances human existence, or it is the result of divine intention. In either case, it stands to reason that humans should use the intelligence they have to explore and understand their existence.
2. The answer to the core question of metaphysics, "What is Real?" cannot be determined, only assumed. Consequently, it is important that we examine and understand our preconceived assumptions about reality as well as those of others as we explore, for these assumptions will shape and color the conclusions we can draw.
3 It is not possible for science, philosophy, or logic to prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of any deity. There is no conceivable experiment that projects a possible result that can be exclusively attributed to the existence of deity, nor is there any possible experiment that can be conceived that would compel a supernatural intelligent being to respond, making it impossible to prove that a deity exists; conversely it is impossible to eliminate all possible positive proofs of the existence of a deity, as well as eliminating the possibility that such a deity has simply chosen not to respond, making proof of the negative impossible.
4. Faith is not blind acceptance of an idea as incontrovertible, but a willingness to open the mind to the possibility that the idea is, or may be, true, in whole or in part.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
The Role of Intelligence & Faith Part 2 - The purpose of intelligence under the cosmic consciousness hypothesis
The cosmic consciousness hypothesis in some ways represents a synthesis of the hypothesis that admits of a god or gods and the atheist hypothesis that denies the existence of any god. It does not require the existence of a god, which will probably make the devout believing Christian scoff. At the same time it allows that some of the anecdotal claims made by religion may have some basis in reality, which will probably make the convinced atheist scoff.
The idea of a cosmic consciousness appears in many earth-based religions, mystical societies like the Rosicrucians, and most eastern religions, such as Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism in one form or another.
The core idea with this hypothesis is that the effects of religious practice occur because of an external connection between the individual performing the religious ritual and some external aspect of nature. (The key terms are "external" and "natural." The external and supernatural defines the hypothesis of deity; where the internal and natural will be considered as the atheist hypothesis.)
The Analogy of Magnetism
In order to more fully explain the idea of an natural external effect of religious practice, I will present an analogy to the history of magnetism.
In the ancient world, some men were aware that certain stones - lodestone - would point to the north star when suspended from a string. Other stones that appeared almost identical to the lodestone would not. There was no obvious difference to the senses between those that did and those that did not, nor was there any thing detectable to the sense that could explain why the stones that pointed north did so.
As men tried to explain the phenomenon, which appeared to be magic to them, the invented mythologies and stories about the stones falling from Polaris, and so on. Surely it was the work of the gods that such stones could always find north, even in the day when the star wasn't visible.
If we were to go back in time to this age, and attempt, using only the tools and resources available to the ancients, and attempt to verify claims of magic stones that could always find north, even in a fog, we might be a bit skeptical. Since only 1-2% of the Earth's hematite is magnetic lodestone, conducting a scientific experiment in an attempt to verify that the stones actually did exist could very easily fail to produce a result that would support the idea that the stones existed. Yet the anecdotal stories and mythologies of these magic stones would persist, because the stones really did exist.
Fast forward about 2500 years to today. Thanks to Gauss, Maxwell, Tesla, and others, we now have a rather complete theory of electro-magnetism. Not only do we know that magnetic hematite exists naturally as lodestone, but we are able to magnetize hematite that is not naturally magnetic. We can create many varieties of magnet, both permanent (using iron) and temporary (passing an electrical current through a coil of wire), we can measure the strength of a magnetic field, we can concentrate it through cores in a transformer, or dampen its effects by enclosing it in a metal box, and we can use a magnetic field to generate electricity in generators, or conversely, we can use electricity to generate magnetic fields that make motors turn . In fact, a very large portion of the technology we use everyday is in some way related to our knowledge of magnetism. Magnetism is no longer a magical, mythological anecdotal story, but a very solid reality.
Among the things we have learned about magnetism is that the Earth is magnetic. It is the Earth's magnetic field that the lodestone on a string aligned with - that just happened to align fairly closely to the direction of Polaris in Europe and western Asia.
While we humans may not be able to detect a magnetic field with our 5 senses, there is plenty of evidence that migratory birds and homing pigeons can. Science has found that some species of birds have special cells in their brains that map the Earth's magnetic field, some have magnetic sensors in the beaks, and some might even be able to "see" the Earth's magnetic field. These birds have ready access to a sense that we humans don't seem to have.
Perhaps we once had this sense and it atrophied from non-use because it wasn't very useful for human survival, or perhaps it developed to a far less accessible and obvious level in humans. Perhaps some of us have this magnetic sense more developed than others. Some people just seem to have a natural sense of direction where others don't.
The Theory of Everything
In the past few hundred years, since Galileo and Newton started it, science has discovered a lot about the universe we live in. But it hasn't yet discovered everything there is to discover. Along the way there have been some pretty interesting side trips.
In the tail end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the 20th, physicists were puzzled when they added up all of the atomic weights of the components of an atoms nucleus and discovered that the sum of the parts didn't equal the measured weight of the nucleus. Where, they asked, did the missing mass go? Enter Albert Einstein and the Special Theory or Relativity's e=mc2 - - The mass had been converted to energy being used to hold the nucleus together.
But the numbers still didn't add up perfectly. Physicists have been working ever since to track down one defect after another ever since. And I suspect they will be at it for a long time yet.
In the meantime, physicists like Fritjof Capra (The Tao of Physics) have started to notice that physics is starting to look a lot like some of the concepts in Eastern religious traditions...
Is it possible that there is some force or energy that, like magnetism to the ancients, causes phenomenon for some people in a very limited way - enough to create the anecdotal stories and mythologies surrounding religious experience, that we are not able to detect with our five main senses or measure with our current instrumentation? A far reaching force that connects with perhaps the entire universe and which is able to subtly nudge the laws of probability? A form of energy that some people are more naturally sensitive to than others, like the sense of direction in some people?
The Role of Intelligence with Cosmic Consciousness
Assuming that this is indeed the case, then the role of intelligence is the same as it was with magnetism. Our intellect is the primary tool we can use to explore the concept and discover whatr makes it work, just as the pioneers of electro-magnetic theory did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
And the first thing to consider is, "What questions should we be asking?"
The idea of a cosmic consciousness appears in many earth-based religions, mystical societies like the Rosicrucians, and most eastern religions, such as Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism in one form or another.
The core idea with this hypothesis is that the effects of religious practice occur because of an external connection between the individual performing the religious ritual and some external aspect of nature. (The key terms are "external" and "natural." The external and supernatural defines the hypothesis of deity; where the internal and natural will be considered as the atheist hypothesis.)
The Analogy of Magnetism
In order to more fully explain the idea of an natural external effect of religious practice, I will present an analogy to the history of magnetism.
In the ancient world, some men were aware that certain stones - lodestone - would point to the north star when suspended from a string. Other stones that appeared almost identical to the lodestone would not. There was no obvious difference to the senses between those that did and those that did not, nor was there any thing detectable to the sense that could explain why the stones that pointed north did so.
As men tried to explain the phenomenon, which appeared to be magic to them, the invented mythologies and stories about the stones falling from Polaris, and so on. Surely it was the work of the gods that such stones could always find north, even in the day when the star wasn't visible.
If we were to go back in time to this age, and attempt, using only the tools and resources available to the ancients, and attempt to verify claims of magic stones that could always find north, even in a fog, we might be a bit skeptical. Since only 1-2% of the Earth's hematite is magnetic lodestone, conducting a scientific experiment in an attempt to verify that the stones actually did exist could very easily fail to produce a result that would support the idea that the stones existed. Yet the anecdotal stories and mythologies of these magic stones would persist, because the stones really did exist.
Fast forward about 2500 years to today. Thanks to Gauss, Maxwell, Tesla, and others, we now have a rather complete theory of electro-magnetism. Not only do we know that magnetic hematite exists naturally as lodestone, but we are able to magnetize hematite that is not naturally magnetic. We can create many varieties of magnet, both permanent (using iron) and temporary (passing an electrical current through a coil of wire), we can measure the strength of a magnetic field, we can concentrate it through cores in a transformer, or dampen its effects by enclosing it in a metal box, and we can use a magnetic field to generate electricity in generators, or conversely, we can use electricity to generate magnetic fields that make motors turn . In fact, a very large portion of the technology we use everyday is in some way related to our knowledge of magnetism. Magnetism is no longer a magical, mythological anecdotal story, but a very solid reality.
Among the things we have learned about magnetism is that the Earth is magnetic. It is the Earth's magnetic field that the lodestone on a string aligned with - that just happened to align fairly closely to the direction of Polaris in Europe and western Asia.
While we humans may not be able to detect a magnetic field with our 5 senses, there is plenty of evidence that migratory birds and homing pigeons can. Science has found that some species of birds have special cells in their brains that map the Earth's magnetic field, some have magnetic sensors in the beaks, and some might even be able to "see" the Earth's magnetic field. These birds have ready access to a sense that we humans don't seem to have.
Perhaps we once had this sense and it atrophied from non-use because it wasn't very useful for human survival, or perhaps it developed to a far less accessible and obvious level in humans. Perhaps some of us have this magnetic sense more developed than others. Some people just seem to have a natural sense of direction where others don't.
The Theory of Everything
In the past few hundred years, since Galileo and Newton started it, science has discovered a lot about the universe we live in. But it hasn't yet discovered everything there is to discover. Along the way there have been some pretty interesting side trips.
In the tail end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the 20th, physicists were puzzled when they added up all of the atomic weights of the components of an atoms nucleus and discovered that the sum of the parts didn't equal the measured weight of the nucleus. Where, they asked, did the missing mass go? Enter Albert Einstein and the Special Theory or Relativity's e=mc2 - - The mass had been converted to energy being used to hold the nucleus together.
But the numbers still didn't add up perfectly. Physicists have been working ever since to track down one defect after another ever since. And I suspect they will be at it for a long time yet.
In the meantime, physicists like Fritjof Capra (The Tao of Physics) have started to notice that physics is starting to look a lot like some of the concepts in Eastern religious traditions...
Is it possible that there is some force or energy that, like magnetism to the ancients, causes phenomenon for some people in a very limited way - enough to create the anecdotal stories and mythologies surrounding religious experience, that we are not able to detect with our five main senses or measure with our current instrumentation? A far reaching force that connects with perhaps the entire universe and which is able to subtly nudge the laws of probability? A form of energy that some people are more naturally sensitive to than others, like the sense of direction in some people?
The Role of Intelligence with Cosmic Consciousness
Assuming that this is indeed the case, then the role of intelligence is the same as it was with magnetism. Our intellect is the primary tool we can use to explore the concept and discover whatr makes it work, just as the pioneers of electro-magnetic theory did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
And the first thing to consider is, "What questions should we be asking?"
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Faith vs Intellect:
The function of human intelligence
The function of faith
Many religious practices are premised on the faith of the practitioner. The practitioner must believe unquestioningly that deity will respond to his efforts in a way that will ultimately benefit the practitioner. Yet we humans are somewhat of a curious lot. It is central to our nature to question and to reason; to ask "why?" Why does the effect follow the cause?
If faith is the predicate, what then is the purpose of intelligence?
Thousands of years ago, humans observed the position of the sun within the constellations of the Zodiac and noticed that when the sun traveled in the constellation of Taurus*, that calves would be born to the cattle they tended and that the length of the day was the same as the length of the night; that when the sun traveled in Leo, the length of the day was at its longest, the sun was at it northern most, and summer was at its hottest; when the sun traveled in Virgo that the harvest time had arrived. The early Egyptians noticed that shortly after the helical rising of the star we now call Sirius that the Nile river would flood. As men discovered the predictive ability of observing the sun, the moon, the planets and the stars, the field of astrology was born. Stories were told, perhaps to help remember or to teach others, about how the seasons and the stars aligned. Perhaps these stories were believed at first; perhaps they were not, but eventually they developed into the mythologies of solar astrology.
Humans noticed that seed planted in the ground would return with plants that could be harvested, and realized that planting and cultivating crops produced a better food supply than hunting and gathering, and humans became farmers. Intelligence allowed humans to tame fire and invent the wheel; to build houses and cities, and all of the other things that humans have invented.
Through intelligence men and women can distinguish between the concepts of good and evil. We can see our own nakedness and that of others. Only through intelligence can there be a sense of morals and scruples. Only through intelligence can we conceive of owning or possessing a thing. Perhaps it is only because of our intelligence that we are able to conceive of gods or question the belief in them.
Why? And why does it appear that humans are the only species gifted with intelligence?
_______________
*The astute observer will note that I have placed the equinox and solstice one house later that they are currently. This is due to the precession of the equinox, or the tendency of the equinox to move through the zodiac on an approximately 24,000 year cycle. Existing astrological records date to classical Greece, about 400 BC. The equinox and solstice would have been in the houses noted at that time. it is possible, even likely, that Hindu astrology goes back even farther; perhaps as much as 8500 BC.
If faith is the predicate, what then is the purpose of intelligence?
Intelligence
Intelligence - the ability to reason, to use language, mathematics, to extrapolate from the general to the specific and from the specific to the general; to be aware of our own existence in the universe and our our effect on our environment and its effect on us, is a hallmark of what it is to be human. It may not be arrogance to say that this trait is uniquely human. We can remember the past. We can forecast future events from current circumstances. We can draw inferences and reach conclusions.Thousands of years ago, humans observed the position of the sun within the constellations of the Zodiac and noticed that when the sun traveled in the constellation of Taurus*, that calves would be born to the cattle they tended and that the length of the day was the same as the length of the night; that when the sun traveled in Leo, the length of the day was at its longest, the sun was at it northern most, and summer was at its hottest; when the sun traveled in Virgo that the harvest time had arrived. The early Egyptians noticed that shortly after the helical rising of the star we now call Sirius that the Nile river would flood. As men discovered the predictive ability of observing the sun, the moon, the planets and the stars, the field of astrology was born. Stories were told, perhaps to help remember or to teach others, about how the seasons and the stars aligned. Perhaps these stories were believed at first; perhaps they were not, but eventually they developed into the mythologies of solar astrology.
Humans noticed that seed planted in the ground would return with plants that could be harvested, and realized that planting and cultivating crops produced a better food supply than hunting and gathering, and humans became farmers. Intelligence allowed humans to tame fire and invent the wheel; to build houses and cities, and all of the other things that humans have invented.
Through intelligence men and women can distinguish between the concepts of good and evil. We can see our own nakedness and that of others. Only through intelligence can there be a sense of morals and scruples. Only through intelligence can we conceive of owning or possessing a thing. Perhaps it is only because of our intelligence that we are able to conceive of gods or question the belief in them.
Why? And why does it appear that humans are the only species gifted with intelligence?
Faith
Faith, in some ways, appears to be the opposite of intelligence. An Evangelical Christian who believes the Christian Bible to be the inerrant word of God will take the contents of the book of Genesis as literal and indisputable truth, and will hold to the notion of creationism despite any evidence that may be presented to the contrary. Some put so much faith into a religious or even secular leader that they will follow such a leader without questioning where he or she leads, even to the point of ritual suicide. Some of the greatest atrocities in human history have arisen from such faith.
Another aspect of faith is the belief an individual has in a ritual practice to produce a desired outcome despite the lack of any visible connection between the ritual practiced and the desired outcome. We need to distinguish this type of faith from that where there is a visible - no matter how tenuous - connection between the practice and the desired outcome, though it can be said that they may be related by the apparent consistency of result. Putting money in a bank is an act of faith in the bank's ability to protect and grow the money, which is different than making an investment decision based on a consultation of the I Ching or the Tarot, or choosing a mate based on the astrological alignment of stars, planets, sun and moon at the time they were born.
Or is it? The decision to use a bank is based - in theory at least - on the inductive reasoning that the bank is a sound place to put money, but do the majority of bank customers actually do the due diligence of examining the probabilities of bank failures and weigh them against the potential return from other investments? This has not been my experience. Most people that I know simply believe that banks are good and safe without ever checking - or for that matter, even knowing what to check - to determine whether or not a bank is safe.
On the other hand, if a person, or a group of them, have found that there is a correlation between the alignment of the stars and other events, making an inductive conclusion that the alignment of the stars is likely to be indicative of the other event, then the reasoning may be sound. Others, who follow later, may not be aware of the correlation or the observation, they have simply inherited the conclusion, have faith in it and follow it. If the correlation is really there, then they will have the desired result and their faith is justified.
We must also examine the rituals of faith. Things that faithful people do in the practice of their faith for which they expect some sort of result. Here we are examining activities such as prayer, healing blessings, tithes and offerings, and other such practices, Many of these practices are ubiquitous, present in almost all religions and faiths; some are even present in practices of the non-religious in some form. The anecdotes of miraculously answered prayers are legion, but the conventional wisdom among those of faith is that if a prayer is unanswered the fault lies in the lack faith, not in the lack of mechanism.
We must ask the question: are the probabilities of the desired outcome better for those of faith than for those who lack faith. And if they are, what is the mechanism that makes it so. We must also examine whether the necessity for unquestioning faith provides a breeding ground for false prophets and others seeking to take advantage of the faithful and of course, how to detect such fraud. These are questions for another day, however.
The role of intelligence
Lets look at intelligence and see if we can puzzle out a reason for it to exist in humans under each of the three hypotheses>
Intelligence and the existence of deity
I have not included the creation of humanity by deity in our hypothesis, but I will adopt it here. If intelligence evolved from some other source, irregardless of the existence of deity, it is best covered in the other two hypothesis. I will also make a few a priori assumptions about our deity: first, that we are dealing with a rational deity or group of them working toward a reasoned purpose. We do not know, and perhaps do not need to know, what that purpose is. We merely assume that there is an objective. If we are dealing with a mad god or a group of gods at cross purposes it is unlikely that we will divine anything but insanity in out quest, so I will ignore those scenarios. I am tempted here to include an assumption that there is an afterlife, but I don't think we can consider that axiomatic at this point. We must also consider that there may not be anything beyond this mortal coil.
It seems rather obvious to conclude that, if there is a deity or group of deities that created the universe and that created us, that it or they included intelligence in man for a reason. It seems equally reasonable to conclude that it is intended to be used.
Yet as humans have explored our existence and developed the great philosophies and sciences, intelligence - the ability to reason - draws us farther and farther from a belief in deity. (At least this is the case when the intelligence leads to the a priori assumption of Realism. Intelligence and reason inform the skeptic, not the devoutly faithful. It is the intellect that intrudes on faith. It is intellect that is capable of finding the fraud, but it is also intellect that dampens the working of fatih, and thereby may miss the truth.
Why would a reasonable deity hardwire the human brain to believe in him/het/it/they and then give us intelligence that works the opposite direction?
Some possibilities:
It seems rather obvious to conclude that, if there is a deity or group of deities that created the universe and that created us, that it or they included intelligence in man for a reason. It seems equally reasonable to conclude that it is intended to be used.
Yet as humans have explored our existence and developed the great philosophies and sciences, intelligence - the ability to reason - draws us farther and farther from a belief in deity. (At least this is the case when the intelligence leads to the a priori assumption of Realism. Intelligence and reason inform the skeptic, not the devoutly faithful. It is the intellect that intrudes on faith. It is intellect that is capable of finding the fraud, but it is also intellect that dampens the working of fatih, and thereby may miss the truth.
Why would a reasonable deity hardwire the human brain to believe in him/het/it/they and then give us intelligence that works the opposite direction?
Some possibilities:
- Ambivilence: our deity doesn't care if we believe in him/her/it/them; faith and intelligence exist for some purpose other than for us to believe or not believe.
- Entertainment: our deity or deities enjoys watching us struggle with the seeming contradiction.
- Education: our deity wants us to learn something by resolving the paradox.
The first two possibilities are dead ends. The third provides us with a very interesting puzzle. What if the purpose of our intelligence is to discover the mechanism(s) that make faith work? What if our current state of knowledge is similar to what men knew about magnetism or how migratory birds navigate a few centuries ago, and our deity wants us to figure out how to invoke the effects of faith without having to be blind to it, and perhaps even to invoke those effects in a much stronger way that we can by simple faith alone, and in so doing, become closer to our deity?
In future posts, I will examine the purpose of intelligence using the assumptions of "cosmic consciousness" and the atheist hypothesis. For now however, I invite your comments. Using the a priori assumption that a god or gods exist, what do you think the purpose of human intelligence is?
_______________
*The astute observer will note that I have placed the equinox and solstice one house later that they are currently. This is due to the precession of the equinox, or the tendency of the equinox to move through the zodiac on an approximately 24,000 year cycle. Existing astrological records date to classical Greece, about 400 BC. The equinox and solstice would have been in the houses noted at that time. it is possible, even likely, that Hindu astrology goes back even farther; perhaps as much as 8500 BC.
A Priori Assumptions
One of the principal questions of philosophy is the question "What is real?" This branch of philosophy is called Ontology or Metaphysics. A second branch of philosophy, Epistemology, is the question of "How do we know?" or "Where does knowledge come from?" The third branch of philosophy, Ethics, concerns the question of "What has value." Religion concerns itself with all three branches of philosophy.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804), in his treatise A Critique of Pure Reason attempted to establish a system of metaphysics based on what he called a priori knowledge. A Priori knowledge is knowledge available without the need for experience. Knowledge that develops based on experience he called a posteriori. Kant was able to identify only two concepts other than the self that could be called a priori, space and time. Kant reasoned that space could be known a priori because if we remove all things that we can experience from space, we cannot eliminate the idea of space. His reasoning for including time followed a similar logic. Time, he further reasoned was internal to the observer and could not be an illusion, whereas space, being external to the observer could be illusion. His predecessor Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650) reduced what he could say was true was the Latin cogito ergo sum - I think therefore I am.
These guys were a lot smarter than I am, so I'm not going to try to develop a system of Metaphysics or Epistemology of religion. But if that is all that we have as a priori knowledge, we have a problem. In order to function in the world, we need to be able to decide what is real and what is not real, what knowledge to trust and what to not trust. So each of us has to make assumptions. For example, a "Realist" assumes that the things he can see, taste, smell, hear, and touch, as well as those things that he can measure with instruments, or that cause an effect he can detect with his senses, are real. In general, we go through our lives without even thinking about what our assumptions are. since these assumptions are based on experience - generally - we can think of them as a posteriori.
But when it comes to the ideas of religion, things are not so easy. Our religions require us to make assumptions a priori - without an experience to ground them on, or at best, without a shared - or even share-able - experience. For example, for someone to believe in Jesus, there must be an a priori assumption that the Judeo-Christian god is real, that all the stories in the Christian Bible are true, and that the creeds that describe His divinity are correct. An atheist with an a priori assumption that there is no god cannot possibly accept Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, who was a deist had an a priori assumption that there was a god that created the universe, set the spheres to spinning, then sat back and watched without interacting with our world. To Jefferson, Jesus was a great philosopher, but not deity. The a priori assumptions of the Jew about what the Messiah will be like, and the a priori assumptions of the Muslim about the nature of Allah make it impossible for them to accept Jesus as God; they see him as a great rabbi (teacher) or prophet but cannot go beyond that.
The great religious arguments all stem from differences in our a priori assumptions:
- Creationism vs Evolution - The Evangelical creationist assumes that the Bible is the inerrant, immutable, and literal word of God, and further assumes that anything that contradicts the Bible or conflicts with it is illusion. The realist makes the assumption that what he sees, touches, etc. is real and is unwilling to entertain the assumption that the Bible is inerrant.
- Catholicism vs Protestantism - The Catholic assumes that the Bible is the word of God, but that it needs a priest to interpret it, and assumes that the Pope is God's representative on Earth, and is infallible with regard to faith and morals. The Protestant assumes that the Pope, and indeed all men, is fallible, but that the Bible is inerrant.
- Islam vs Christianity - Islam assumes that Mohammed (p.b.o.h.) was the supreme prophet and that the Quran contains Allah's direct revelations to Mohammed, and that Allah has not been to Earth in a mortal state. Christianity assumes that the G-d of Israel is real, and that Jesus was his incarnation on Earth.
The important thing to keep in mind is that these assumptions are exactly that, assumptions. Assumptions that we use to make our life decisions. Since, as Descartes tells us, the senses can be fooled, we can no more "prove" that what we perceive in the world is "real" than we can "prove" that there is a god or gods. Although a certain practice may work with a particular set of assumptions, we should not expect it to work the same way given a different set of assumptions.
Having reached this conclusion, there are two more things I must do. The first is that I must apologize to anyone that I've offended because I tried to impose my a priori assumptions on their beliefs.
The second is to identify a principle that I should follow in moving forward with this journey; that in evaluating any religious practice or philosophical/theological framework, I should try to identify the underlying assumptions as part of the process. In effect, I need to ask "what do I need to accept as real in order to accept this concept?" And to also ask, "What happens to this concept if I apply a different set of assumptions?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)