Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, point taken - "childish" was not a good word to use there. It would have been better to leave is at ... a philosophically bad move.

[Stoppelmann]

As a former Christian, which I had been for about twenty years, I had a growing understanding of how much of what I had initially believed was a sphere of human society and culture. In a German environment I discovered how the study of language was also part of the arts and literature, and gradually the study of religious beliefs, practices, and traditions, as well as their cultural, historical, and social contexts, interested me more than church services. I accepted the deep moral influence in society and continued my own spiritual practice of contemplation and meditation, but varied the scriptural sources I worked with, expanding into the various mystical traditions of the world, and looking at comparative religion and perennial wisdom. Additionally, working with elderly terminally ill patients from different cultural backgrounds, I also became interested in the commonalities in rituals and beliefs surrounding death.

I came to realise that the bottom line of forty years of enquiry was that the paradox of our existence, being sentient and able to fathom the material world in which we live, while at the same time being inherently driven by carnal needs, required a discipline of balance. Both aspects of our existence need to be addressed to remain healthy, and the connection between these opposites has been widely referred to as spirit or soul, or some other term. It is the experience of the "in-between", the fleeting awareness of a "higher" order, which are all semantic attempts to pin it down. But finally, when I read Iain McGilchrist's books, I realised that it is something that our brain organises, and what he calls the left and right hemisphere functions of the brain, working in a balanced way. It seems to me that the 'spiritual' is inherent in all of us, but that we tend to use a particular way of attending to life and lose the balance that is required.

In addition, the enquiry into the nature of existence, of what exists, the fundamental nature of reality, and the relationship between the physical world, consciousness, and existence, provide a number of contradicting theories, which we need to approach. Materialism for example, which posits that only physical matter and its properties truly exist, and argues that everything, including mental phenomena, can ultimately be reduced to physical processes, seems to be a reductionist approach to understanding the world. In a way, Idealism is an opposing view, and argues that reality is fundamentally mental or immaterial in nature. It suggests that the physical world is a product of consciousness and that the mind is the primary reality. Sir Julian Huxley wrote that the relation between mind and matter is so close that “mind or something of the nature as mind must exist throughout the entire universe. This is, I believe, the truth. We may never be able to prove it, but it is the most economical hypothesis: it fits the facts much more simply … than one-sided idealism or one-sided materialism.”

This encourages the idea of some kind of 'intention' and consequently that there is a purpose, which curiously we find in Eastern traditions that suggest consciousness as primary in our universe, and the vibrational organisation of matter as a work of that consciousness. What I am suggesting in this rather long post is that the point at which we find ourselves in history needs a “new” or “rediscovered” lodestar to give direction, that this represents an inherent need for balance in our lives to provide physical and mental health, and that we still have theories of the reality of existence that point to intention and purpose. This suggests that the religions of the past, however we see them today, were probably attempts to find exactly the same basis for existence that we need today.

[Lagayascienza]

You make some good points here, Stoppelman. One of the perennial mysteries of our existence is this dichotomy between the physical universe outside our minds and the seemingly non-physical universe inside. It prompts questions such as: Are both these universes real? Are they the same universe, or at least parts of the same universe? Are they each real in the same sense? Does it make any sense to ask whether one can exist without the other? It's hard for me to see how such questions can be answered by rational empirical means alone, or by religious concepts and mystical practice alone. Both types of practice have their place and, as you say, it's about finding a balance.

I was raised in a Christian religious environment but began questioning religion in my teenage years. A lot of the religious doctrine and dogma I had drummed into me just didn't' make sense to me and I soon came to regard the whole business as mumbo jumbo. Science on the other hand seemed to make perfect sense to me. But only with respect to the physical universe about which, at that age, I was intensely curious, to the exclusion of almost everything else. However, as I approached middle age, I began to have some curious questions about my interior universe, about subjective experience, and these questions led to me reading about eastern mystical traditions. I found some of these traditions (one in particular) did not lead to all the of contradictions and conflicts with science that I found in the Abrahamic traditions. And so I began practicing a form of meditation from which I have greatly benefitted.

So, I agree that each type of practice has a role to play in keeping us on an even keel. The one provides satisfying answers to questions about the physical universe of which we are a part but about which we can never know the full story. The other makes us feel ok about this incompleteness. The only caveat I have is that if a conflict arises between what science tells me about the physical universe on the one hand, and what the doctrines underpinning my form of eastern meditation practice say on the other, then science carries the day. But I rarely find such conflict because, by and large they deal with different aspects of reality.

[Stoppelmann]

It is the combination of medical and cultural that is particularly appealing to me in Iain McGilchrist’s book, and his description of the current “spiritual” dilemma in which the West finds itself seems spot on:

We are witnessing the triumph of black and white judgments, especially in the ‘culture wars’, where there is no vestige of subtlety in our thinking, no patience for the complex, and often little or no empathy, but rather anger and self-righteousness. We are newly beset by a tyranny of literal-mindedness – affecting our capacity to understand metaphors, humour, and irony, which increasingly are being driven out of public converse and out of our lives. We have replaced the living and unique by simple categories everywhere: a tick-box mentality.
McGilchrist, Iain. The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (p. 2026). Perspectiva Press. Kindle Edition.

The problem is that this literalism isn't reduced to religion, but the fact that nowadays when we see something either printed or posted, it elicits a binary response reduced to yes or no, is where we're going wrong. It means that public discourse is no longer discourse, but a contest of partisan viewpoints. The responsibility of leaders to look after the welfare of their electorate has been self-centred and everyone is encouraged to engage in the sport of "opinion shouting" until one wins.

It should be the role of leaders to promote, and even model, the kind of society that helps achieve the necessary balance between sentience and carnality, but instead society is moving in the opposite direction:

Indeed, if you had set out to destroy the happiness and stability of a people, it would have been hard to improve on our current formula: remove yourself as far as possible from the natural world; repudiate the continuity of your culture; believe you are wise enough to do whatever you happen to want and not only get away with it, but have a right to it – and a right to silence those who disagree; minimise the role played by a common body of belief; actively attack and dismantle every social structure as a potential source of oppression; and reject the idea of a transcendent set of values …

Our public expressions in art, in films, and in the stories and myths we espouse showcase conflict, self-assertion, violence, aggression, torture and horror – or alternatively a sentimental and unremitting positivity – but little in the spectrum of sorrow, or tenderness, certainly when compared with other times and other cultures.
McGilchrist, Iain. The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (pp. 2040-2041). Perspectiva Press. Kindle Edition.

The influence of entertainment characters has always had an influence on the audience, which is why advertising in films is so popular, even if it is just product placement, and we have seen in the past how people have increasingly started to drink in the afternoon simply because their soap characters do. I remember buying a carafe in my twenties, like many of my friends, because it was the thing to do.

What politicians, celebrities, and the characters they play present in the media is what many people copy. It is quite clear that the characters are very rarely meditative types, or that the depth of character portrayed would suggest a contemplative style, even though many actors and actresses profess meditative practices to help them cope with stressful lifestyles. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant, but there are many thousands of people who take Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction courses, for example, but they seem to be out of the mainstream and do not serve as role models.

In a society where city dwellers often don't even have a kitchen, engaging with the natural world is a luxury. The "don't get caught" mentality even extends to medicine, where the majority of staff were responsible people, but they had a cultural influence that emphasised responsibility. Today, without it, people think they can get away with murder - as long as they are not caught. We may shy away from it now, but the idea that at the end of your life you will have to answer for what you have done had an effect on people.

[Pattern-chaser]

How did you read "All is one indivisible Whole", and understand "separate"/"separation"? There is no separation, but only one thing, whether we call it the universe, the world, God, or just "everything".

"God is part of that Whole"

Surely you realise that the words of our English language incorporate/embody a heady and intrinsic mixture of reductionist division and dualistic separatism? All things are considered to be distinct and independent, assemblies of smaller things that are also distinct and independent, and so it continues, fractally.

And so it is difficult to express the sentiment that God is part of reality without it sounding as though God is separate from reality. My apologies for being unclear; I tried my best.

God is part of reality, i.e. God is not all of reality, but God is not separate from reality.

[Pattern-chaser]

You make it sound as though I've said that logic, reason and empiricism are all there is to life. But that is not what I have said, nor what I think.

Then I'm sorry for my misunderstanding, for that is exactly what your words seem to say:

For me, reality is what I can arrive at through logic and what I can apprehend through my sensorium and extensions thereof.

I want to know what is objectively real, which for me is what is logically possible and can be empirically tested.

[FrankSophia]

Surely you realise that the words of our English language incorporate/embody a heady and intrinsic mixture of reductionist division and dualistic separatism? All things are considered to be distinct and independent, assemblies of smaller things that are also distinct and independent, and so it continues, fractally.

This doesn't cover your error, it rather suggests you probably come from an Abrahamic background and still have hang ups about it.

You actually contradicted yourself, and if you were speaking from direct experience you wouldn't have.

And so it is difficult to express the sentiment that God is part of reality without it sounding as though God is separate from reality. My apologies for being unclear; I tried my best.

God is not part of reality, now you're insisting on your error.

There is what philosophers call the nous, the divine intellect... this is not the absolute though, it's just a form it takes to interact and seems to take on whatever aspects the seeker will be receptive to.

God is part of reality, i.e. God is not all of reality, but God is not separate from reality.

Again, what part of reality is God not?

The very basis of spiritual practice is that you're already God, and thus can uncover this about your form.

If you were not already God there would be no basis for experiencing it, you'd have no access.

Evil arises from ignorance not lack of God... which actually makes it worse because they're doing evil with divine power without realizing.

[Pattern-chaser]

I find it strange how some people think that it's up to those who dispute a claim to disprove a negative. For example, I don't believe claims such as "there is a pink teapot in orbit around Mars". I believe for many sound reasons that this claim is vanishingly unlikely to be true. And if someone then turns around and says, but you cannot prove it's not true, I don't feel it's up to me to prove it's not true. It's up to the person making the extraordinary claim to provide evidence for it. Saying simply that nobody cannot prove it is not true, is no argument in favor of the claim, and no reason for agnosticism on the issue. As I see it, it's the same for claims about gods, fairies, ESP, astrology, etcetera. If people want to convince others of the likely truth of such extraordinary claims the best way to do so is to provide evidence for them. They are never able to do so because there is no such evidence, and just saying, well, you cannot prove fairies are not true, is no argument at all. It's just a philosophically bad move. And it's childish.

There's a lot to unravel here, but there are several strands that can be identified and discussed. Perhaps the most fundamental one is binary thinking? You seem to think that if you do not "believe" (i.e. accept) something, you must reject it, or vice versa. Not so.

You claim a commitment to logic, but seem unwilling to follow it. If you would like to determine whether something is true or false, but have no logically-sufficient reason to justify either conclusion — perhaps because of a lack of evidence? That's the usual reason — then you must accept a third possibility: "maybe"/"unresolved"/"don't know".

And so, if we apply logic — and let's apply no other tool but logic, for simplicity and clarity — to "there is a pink teapot in orbit around Mars", we discover that we have no logically-sufficient reason to dismiss it. But that does not mean that we must accept it. The third option now comes into play: the matter is unresolved, maybe even unresolvable. To accept would be illogical (i.e. not in accord with the rules of logic). To reject would be illogical (i.e. not in accord with the rules of logic). If we accept and abide by the rules of logic, we are compelled not to reach a conclusion, because there is no logically-sufficient reason to do so.

The practical way to deal with all this is to accept the above, but not to feel compelled to deal with a problem that holds less interest for us than other problems do. There are a near-infinite number of 'maybes' that we could choose to consider, and only a few philosophers or scientists to consider them, it doesn't really matter which of them we choose to examine. We have to apply 'common sense'.

So I agree with you, that the pink teapot idea doesn't interest me. And so I choose to set it aside, in favour of ideas that interest me more. But, if I am to remain in accordance with logic, I may not reject it, but only set it aside, and put it back on the Maybe pile, where it should probably remain, gathering dust.



Another strand we could consider is likelihood, or probability, if we formalise our use of a statistical vocabulary. You happily claim that some things are unlikely/improbable — "vanishingly unlikely" — when you have no means or technique that might justify such a conclusion. And again, we return to conclusions reached without logical justification. Without evidence, logic tells us there is no valid argument that could lead to a logically-valid conclusion. And statistics can't work in the absence of data (evidence).

Saying simply that nobody cannot prove it is not true, is no argument in favor of the claim, and no reason for agnosticism on the issue.

The first part is correct; the latter part is not. Agnosticism is the Maybe option, it neither accepts nor rejects. It is the only conclusion that is in accord with logic, when there is no valid argument that would allow a firmer conclusion. And so, in the final words of your sentence, "there is *every* reason for agnosticism on the issue"

[Pattern-chaser]

But never mind logic, and its primitive demands.

This topic hopes to investigate non-religious spirituality. Is there such a thing? My answer is yes, there is. But the distinction between spirituality and the more-specific 'religiosity', is not as clear as some would prefer. The two are not distinct, in the sense of existing independently; they are intimate associates.

But spirituality refers to most/all things that are immaterial, while religion is more specific and constrained. Not all religions centre on God, but many do, and the others loiter in that general neighbourhood. Spirituality is much more open than that, I think, and embraces much more. But I don't think it possible to take spirituality, remove all traces of religion, and still retain a coherent whole.

So, for a deeply-committed atheist, perhaps spirituality is unacceptable? For those who are atheists, but not as committed, perhaps "non-religious spirituality" is possible, practical, and even useful?

In sharp, binary, terms, I don't think it is viable for "true" atheists. But if we relax our standards of judgement a little, it might be possible. That's my opinion.

[Pattern-chaser]

Surely you realise that the words of our English language incorporate/embody a heady and intrinsic mixture of reductionist division and dualistic separatism? All things are considered to be distinct and independent, assemblies of smaller things that are also distinct and independent, and so it continues, fractally.

This doesn't cover your error, it rather suggests you probably come from an Abrahamic background and still have hang ups about it.

You actually contradicted yourself, and if you were speaking from direct experience you wouldn't have.

And so it is difficult to express the sentiment that God is part of reality without it sounding as though God is separate from reality. My apologies for being unclear; I tried my best.

God is not part of reality, now you're insisting on your error.

There is what philosophers call the nous, the divine intellect... this is not the absolute though, it's just a form it takes to interact and seems to take on whatever aspects the seeker will be receptive to.

God is part of reality, i.e. God is not all of reality, but God is not separate from reality.

Again, what part of reality is God not?

The very basis of spiritual practice is that you're already God, and thus can uncover this about your form.

If you were not already God there would be no basis for experiencing it, you'd have no access.

Evil arises from ignorance not lack of God... which actually makes it worse because they're doing evil with divine power without realizing.

You appear incapable of seeing any viewpoint other than your own. I respect your position and your opinions, but I don't accept them and I don't agree with them. So it seems pointless to continue with this discussion. You already know The Truth. Enjoy it. Take care.

[FrankSophia]

But never mind logic, and its primitive demands.

The sage uses logic to transcend logic...

All spiritual insights require the normal perceptions and projections of the mind to drop...

This topic hopes to investigate non-religious spirituality. Is there such a thing? My answer is yes, there is. But the distinction between spirituality and the more-specific 'religiosity', is not as clear as some would prefer. The two are not distinct, in the sense of existing independently; they are intimate associates.

People laugh when I say that philosophy is the Hellenistic religion, but looking at men like Plotinus makes it obviously clear if you actually know what religion means - literally translated "to re-bind" its connotations are the same as henosis.

But spirituality refers to most/all things that are immaterial, while religion is more specific and constrained. Not all religions centre on God, but many do, and the others loiter in that general neighbourhood. Spirituality is much more open than that, I think, and embraces much more. But I don't think it possible to take spirituality, remove all traces of religion, and still retain a coherent whole.

This is a common misunderstanding, spirituality refers to that which relates to the spirit... which is the same as nous or logos, paramatma, ruh allah, sambhogakaya, etc...

It references how the mind changes when it realizes the one.

So, for a deeply-committed atheist, perhaps spirituality is unacceptable? For those who are atheists, but not as committed, perhaps "non-religious spirituality" is possible, practical, and even useful?

Just call it something else if you don't like God but you can't seek the truth and not find what is intended.

In sharp, binary, terms, I don't think it is viable for "true" atheists. But if we relax our standards of judgement a little, it might be possible. That's my opinion.

Such thinking is a mistake of abstraction, reality is a spectrum not a binary.

If you're an absolutist of any sort you will never find truth.

[Pattern-chaser]

You are essentially saying you have no basis for defending your positions so you want me to stop attacking them.

No, I'm saying that with you, discussion is impossible, for you will consider only your personal One and Only Truth. Without discussion, there is nothing worthwhile here on this forum, and you do not discuss, you assert. So I ask you once again, courteously, to allow me to withdraw from this pointless exchange. Thanks.

[FrankSophia]

You are essentially saying you have no basis for defending your positions so you want me to stop attacking them.

No, I'm saying that with you, discussion is impossible, for you will consider only your personal One and Only Truth. Without discussion, there is nothing worthwhile here on this forum, and you do not discuss, you assert. So I ask you once again, courteously, to allow me to withdraw from this pointless exchange. Thanks.

Quite the contrary, you are offended because I disagree...

Prove that free will is a valid conclusion, for me truth is as impersonal as it gets...

You have to break down everything you take yourself to be to realize you're the whole.

[FrankSophia]

What it you that brought up Advaita Vedanta?

Every Seguna has particular attributes, transcending this reveals Nirguna Brahman... this coincides with the same inquiry into the self through neti neti, and thus there is only nirguna.

This is jivanmukti... liberation from maya, matter.

[FrankSophia]

Scientifically this is just energy and its vibratory frequencies...

God is the pure potential of a quantum vacuum.