Some comments on Hinduism below as complementing Dawkins' interesting book. I was brought up as a Catholic but became interested in Indian philosophy and would lke to make a few points about the legitimacy of both the levels of impersonal and personal gods.
On p.40 of TGD Dawkins touches on different conceptions of god and notes that he'd be happy to see himself as religious in the way Einstein and some scientists do, in terms of acknowledging the natural world's characteristics such as splendour, complexity and unity. He then focusses in the rest of the book on god as a supernatural being who can be prayed to and intervenes in the world, and for the most part i agree strongly with his numerous interesting arguments.
Of the four great world relgions Hinduism is the least well understood, perhaps as it's focussed in one country, India- and has an extraodinary conception of god and the divine (though it's not ultimately a conception), perfectly and indeed actively compatible with science. It would have been good to see Dawkins discuss it's tremendous insights and strength a little, whereas he almost completely ignores it: turning to the index I already suspected sadly that Hinduism would be sidelined to the Christian/ Muslim (Abrahmic) religions and their foolish ideas the West is more familiar with.
Hinduism is atheistic, as is Buddhism the other great dharmic religion, the difference being it still believes in something rather than nothing (and is based on personal experience not belief). That's to say in Hinduism ultimate reality is beyond the level of its gods, and is called Brahman: this is the fundamental plane of existence and the same thing as the unified field or theory of everything being sought in contemporary physics. Hinduism though is also polytheistic and massively monotheistic (among other possible -theistics), all the gods just being expressions of Brahman: it is tremendously inclusive of different doctrines.
Now the reason Dawkins et al need to take the unified field as a spiritual rather than purely scientific matter is that even at the present level of its understanding it is clearly not just rationally defined: it and the deep stucture of the universe intimately involves consciousness and our subjectivity, and the varous thoroughly irrational processes of quantum mechanics.
The Vedic tradition or the body of ancient sanskrit texts at the basis of Hinduism and Indian thought argue that union with god is simply finding and realizing this level of being within ourselves: there is no disjunction between a fulfilled spiritual life and the fundamental laws of physical (or trans-physical) reality. How to be and what to do in life emerge and self-generate from a coordinated state of mind in tune with its own nature, where the personal self has found its identity in the universal Self or Brahman. Hinduism is not prescriptive or dogmatic and the complexities of ethics aren't funnelled though a narrow set of rules that can't cover for all eventualities.
God is simply what we are, our immense potential, and indeed we are Brahman, which is higher than God. God is nothing more than the extent of our potential and fullness of humanity- but it's still right to speak of God rather than just us because most of us feel less than fully reallized and sense we can be more, and also because that greater part of us is universal in character and goes beyond our individuality and physicality.
That aspect of us that transcends our material rational being is the divine in us, and gives indeed shape and grounding to ethical and aesthetical experience- and even to knowledge, as Kant for instance argues. The very nature of life and consciousness is divinity- we are in the world (physically and rationally) but not of it (in terms of right and wrong, perception of beauty and art, intuition, emotion, creativity- the functions associated with the right half of the brain instead of just the scientific left).
Diversity is encouraged in Hinduism in the understanding that there are many paths to god- there is no such thing as heresy and parents may bring up a child as a devotee not only of a different Hindu deity to the one they chose but as a Sikh; Christian and Islamic images and shrines may be found in Hindu temples, a statement of absolutely supreme tolerance and non-confrontation- Christ and Allah for instance are just two more gods you can chose to pray to, out of 330 million in scripture. A Hindu shrine in a church or a Christian family raising a child as a Hindu would be as unthinkable as it is a disgusting an indictment of Western society.
As a Hindu I can pray and have prayed very seriously in various places of worship in the world to God the Father, Mohammed, Buddha, Vishnu and Shiva gods, Shinto gods, anamist gods, deified people and many others. Hinduism is an immense force for peace and harmony across religions, the only problem being that other religions have one main difference in their core values with Hinduism: they think their path is the only one, and that their impudence in pronouncing to God how He or She should be manifest in the world isn't a problem.
The impersonal god is just Brahman or our fullness of being as given by the underlying logic of physical reality and the world we live in, but the impersonal dimension of god does exist also, and is insisted on by the greatest of the abstract thinking Indian gurus, while focussing their attention on Brahman. The personal god can even be prayed to and intervene in the world- to a limited extent: the idol in temple is again simply a representation of the fullness of our potential, but in slightly more concrete terms. The different Hindu deities embody values like courage (eg Hanuman), fortutide (Rama), depth of character (Vishnu), wisdom (Ganesh), patience (Venkateswara), learning (Lakshmi) etc: the deities' numerous arms hold artifacts embodying these various transcendent, spirited and often entirely irrational qualitites.
A visit to a temple just brings these things into focus.Hindu worship has the central concept of the darshan, or a momentary sighting of the idol in its enclosure in the temple, with it looing back at you: this provides a self-referential loop where the mind of the devotee is given back to itself and their wishes realigned within themselves for their realization, via their transcendent powerful qualities being better awakened.
We bring our wishes into reality by ourselves of course, but indeed through our spiritual, inward, passionate dimension as striving human beings. God is no more than us, but in this sense it can intervene in the material world through attention to a deity; also note that Brahman or the fundamental plane of reality is everywhere, and everywhere includes where the stone statue is, so Brahman is legitmately in that statue, it not just being a focus of attention.
There are also important notions of faith that have got very confused in the Abrahamic religions, where the ego or confused individual self is relinquished and we're in touch instead with those fundamental forces and aesthetic imperatives beyond rational account: once you think too much you've lost that contact and are out of the sphere of what faith really is. You're back in the rational, which of course means 'of ratios': self-realization by contrast is a matter of direct contact with reality, not relativistic relating of one thing with another and scientifically explaining things so that the explainer remains distinct from the explained (presently being undermined by physics).
Furthermore Hinduism unlike Buddhism doesn't preach reununciation of the world and human pleasures, only affected attachment to them where the mind confusedly loses itself in them, taking its self to be them rather than the Self: 200% of life is needed, fullness of absolute and relative realms.
Society in fact needs spiritualizing, not atheistizing. People on every spiritual and mental level need something to believe in that goes beyond them- postmodernism and the downgrading of the arts as the highest of achievements from their former position at the head of culture has produced horrendous cynicism and belief meaninglessness in the minds of the young. Reality isn't fundamentally rationality and relativity but something much richer which rationality can at most only reflect, and society needs shaping from this perspective.
I rather think the sort of thing I'm saying here is too much for most readers, being located in their Western-Christian thought paradigms. Indeed the Dharmic religions are too much for Dawkins as he so quickly moves on from them in TGD, and even from Islam to concentrate soley on Christianity. His book is a pleasant and interesing, and humorous read but it doesn't need writing from the academic point of view: of course the interventionist Christian God is a lot of nonesense, at least as superficially understood- and to write a whole book arguing for this is a bit strange for an academic, though indeed I understand the need for it. Dawkins, like many on the forum no doubt, are lost in a pattern of understanding that they need to widen. You need to understand Hinduism, the world's founder religion and where the truth is and thence how it becomes diluted elsewhere...
QuoteFurthermore Hinduism unlike Buddhism doesn't preach reununciation of the world and human pleasures, only affected attachment to them where the mind confusedly loses itself in them, taking its self to be them rather than the Self: 200% of life is needed, fullness of absolute and relative realms.
Which is why Buddhism rules!
Buddhism is an intriguingly relativistic religion and you can really feel the sense of disorientation in places like Thailand, but it's impossible even to walk across the room without experiencing desire- trying to eliminate this and place nothing as the goal of life is, well, misguided.
Quote from: Sean on June 17, 2009, 12:40:56 PM
Buddhism is an intriguingly relativistic religion and you can really feel the sense of disorientation in places like Thailand, but it's impossible even to walk across the room without experiencing desire- trying to eliminate this and place nothing as the goal of life is, well, misguided.
Not eliminate. Non-attachment.
And I don't think "nothing" is the goal.
Sean, that's all interesting but I don't think "fundamental plane of existence" is a name that refers to anything in the world. Things imagined as not in the world are in the head instead, rather than a non-world world. With Eastern religions (just like Western ones) there will be more names than real entities to assign them to. Since the principle that you stop using the names if you can't find the thing is not accepted by believers the mere existence of the name is taken as a sign that the thing exists anyway. It's a miracle!
You might be able to convince me that polytheism is more fun than monotheism. I don't know if I can stand much more fun than I'm having now, though. And my "fundamentals" don't require anything to exist other than what's really there, whatever that turns out to be. :)
MN Dave, well non-attachment is the Hindu goal too, but you still experience and enjoy life- both spiritual and material existence is possible, to the Buddhists' mystification: you just avoid affected attachment where you're lost in the experience...
drogulus, the fundamental plane of existence is just the physicists' Unified field, nothing more or less.
Yes, Hinduism is superficially polytheistic; it's also another nice -theistic I can't quite remember the name of right now where you just take whatever form of God is before you at that moment as the ultimate deity: Hinduism's just great.
Quote from: Sean on June 17, 2009, 01:19:14 PM
MN Dave, well non-attachment is the Hindu goal too, but you still experience and enjoy life- both spiritual and material existence is possible, to the Buddhists' mystification: you just avoid affected attachment where you're lost in the experience...
Buddhists don't enjoy life? :)
Guess you'll have to ask one.
Quote from: drogulus on June 17, 2009, 12:57:09 PM
Since the principle that you stop using the names if you can't find the thing is not accepted by believers the mere existence of the name is taken as a sign that the thing exists anyway.
But the believers do think they've found the thing behind the name, don't they? No one believes in gregorious spondulators just because I've invented a name for them. Even
I don't (and I should know, for I have yearned for a spondulatistic encounter for so long).
Nice post Sean. I am very unaware of Hindu religion, which is sad because I am the only non-Indian in my office. I should take the time to know more.
While reading your post, I was surprise to think a lot of this is completely compatible with Catholicism. But of course a lot of this isn't. I would imagine that there is room in all of the worlds most prominent religions for this relativism you crave, albeit in different amounts. There also being a limit in Hinduism, because you can't be an atheist and Hindu, am I right?
I also think you've gotten the cause and effect reversed in regards to Western culture. The culture is a response to Christianity, not the other way around. This rationalization you see as so revolting is already present in St. Paul's epistles and even Jesus Himself ventures quite close as he explains his parables. Adding to this the great (polytheist) Greek thinkers, e.g., Aristotle, and you are on your way to a culture thinking in terms of objective ideas, including God.
Altogether, though, I think you would find a great friend in Sam Harris rather than Dawkins. Harris is the only neo-atheist who takes spirituality seriously, and defends the spirituality of the human person as a real thing, capable of exploring reality every bit as well as science. Of course, what that means, I cannot be sure.
Quote from: MN Dave on June 17, 2009, 12:41:47 PM
Not eliminate. Non-attachment.
And I don't think "nothing" is the goal.
How about non-attachment to goals?
:P Quote from: Sean on June 17, 2009, 01:19:14 PM
drogulus, the fundamental plane of existence is just the physicists' Unified field, nothing more or less.
If so it's just as contingent on what's found.* Steven Weinberg wrote a book,
Dreams of a Final Theory, which goes into this. If you've been following what I've been posting
::) you can probably guess what I think of final theories. The optimism about final theories or final unifications is misplaced. There will never be any such thing IMO. All such theories are frame-dependent and the frame will continue to expand beyond the present theory. In a race between the Heat Death and a Final Theory the Heat Death wins.
* To say nothing about contingent on not being about anything, a serious objection in itself. :D
Let me get back to you tomorrow. (It's not really polished work though...)
...Moreover Dawkins' rational-reductive-Darwinian method is inhuman, and the stuff about reducing morality to evolutionary imperatives for instance I'm sure many people will find highly offensive.
The heart of religion, ethics and spiritual life has the same foundation as that of physical reality: religion and science are reconciled in the Veda/ Hinduism; try Roger Penrose and his discussions with Prabupada or Carl Sagan's Hindu enthusiasm, among many examples.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 17, 2009, 01:34:30 PM
But the believers do think they've found the thing behind the name, don't they? No one believes in gregorious spondulators just because I've invented a name for them. Even I don't (and I should know, for I have yearned for a spondulatistic encounter for so long).
Yes, they have a belief about beliefs, that they are true. And no, they don't apply that in a principled manner to gregorious spondulators* because that isn't their belief. That is the only reason they don't. Other than that, they have no reasons, only the motive to protect a particular belief. They are blind to the door they've left open because the belief they hold comes before everything and reason about reasons has been disabled.
Quote from: Sean on June 17, 2009, 02:11:39 PM
Let me get back to you tomorrow. (It's not really polished work though...)
...Moreover Dawkins' rational-reductive-Darwinian method is inhuman, and the stuff about reducing morality to evolutionary imperatives for instance I'm sure many people will find highly offensive.
The heart of religion, ethics and spiritual life has the same foundation as that of physical reality: religion and science are reconciled in the Veda/ Hinduism; try Roger Penrose and his discussions with Prabupada or Carl Sagan's Hindu enthusiasm, among many examples.
Oh no! I though they were the same! Now the one you don't like is
inhuman!
;D If as you say:
QuoteThe heart of religion, ethics and spiritual life has the same foundation as that of physical reality
Then you should be more willing to agree with me, since that is the core of my position. I just remove the inessentials.
:) * You've identified the logic by which the believer's arguments that there's a difference between superstition and supernaturalism fails. There can't be difference between one unverifiable proposition about the world and another one where evidence is completely subordinated to the belief process itself.
I have read the OP again and have decided Sean doesn't know much about Buddhism, so it's a good thing he's into Hinduism.
I don't see how religion could be good for anything if you had to know about it. It should be like driving a car, which you don't have to build from raw materials to get the benefit. Maybe Sean is like Edina in Absolutely Fabulous, one of the great spiritual aspirants of our fictional time.
(http://images1.fanpop.com/images/photos/1600000/Eddy-absolutely-fabulous-1626188-371-500.jpg)
Quote from: drogulus on June 17, 2009, 03:42:43 PM
I don't see how religion could be good for anything if you had to know about it. It should be like driving a car, which you don't have to build from raw materials to get the benefit. Maybe Sean is like Edina in Absolutely Fabulous, one of the great spiritual aspirants of our fictional time.
Though you should learn how to drive first.
drogulusQuoteOh no! I though they were the same! Now the one you don't like is inhuman!
The foundation of the material world is paradoxically the foundation of the spiritual. However, the material world is not Dawkins' foolish type of
rationality. He winds up his book by noting that quantum and other 20th century physics do seem to be irrational, but seeing that this is nudging his position, ends by stamping his foot to himself and saying in the future these pesky phenomenon that don't fit will fall under the same rational transparency. They won't.
CatisonQuoteI am very unaware of Hindu religion, which is sad because I am the only non-Indian in my office. I should take the time to know more.
It doesn't proselytise, it's a student led religion- if you don't want to know you can hardly learn or look within to find anything.
QuoteWhile reading your post, I was surprise to think a lot of this is completely compatible with Catholicism. But of course a lot of this isn't. I would imagine that there is room in all of the worlds most prominent religions for this relativism you crave, albeit in different amounts. There also being a limit in Hinduism, because you can't be an atheist and Hindu, am I right?
Yes Hinduism has obvious parallels with Catholicism in the smells and bells and also the pantheon, so-called monotheistic Catholicism emphasizing god the father, god the son, god the holy spirit, Mary, angles, arch angles, saints etc. However Hinduism is atheistic, yes: the level of God is not the ultimate reality, only Brahman.
QuoteI also think you've gotten the cause and effect reversed in regards to Western culture. The culture is a response to Christianity, not the other way around.
I don't think so: Christianity's proscriptions and dogma reflect wider Apollonian civilization and the desire to funnel the world through transparent principles.
QuoteAltogether, though, I think you would find a great friend in Sam Harris rather than Dawkins. Harris is the only neo-atheist who takes spirituality seriously, and defends the spirituality of the human person as a real thing, capable of exploring reality every bit as well as science. Of course, what that means, I cannot be sure.
Thanks, I'll look him up.
Widening the picture for you heathens, here's some notes I put together on my local temple and the deities there.
Abrahamic-Dharmic
There are four main world religions of about a billion followers each. Christianity and Islam can be called Abrahamic religions, being based on the bible and its prescriptions, traced back to Abraham. Hinduism and Buddhism by contrast are dharmic religions begun in India and more concerned with the idea of one's more personal duty and right action in life, whatever form it takes; morality is seen as infinitely complex and there's no set of commandments.
Of the four religions Hinduism is the least known in the West, partly because it's largely confined to one country whereas the others have spread much more, but also due to its nature radically outside of Western religious paradigms.
No principles
There's no founder and Hinduism is decentralized with no regulating institutions or overall leaders, though all sects accept the authority of the core Vedic texts, these also being the oldest textural record of any language, written down around 1500 BC but possibly much older. It's not based on principles and there's no set dogma or prescriptions on behaviour.
Hinduism's aim is only the unity of your own self with the universal Self, or atman with Brahman, leaving no duality or advaita: Brahman or God is within us, equivalent to consciousness, and forms the core of what we are. The Self is the subject or that which knows and experiences and is never-changing, while the ever-changing relative world revolves around it.
Dharma & caste
Samsara is the process of birth, life, death and reincarnation and moksha freedom from this- when all karma is worked out and one has unity with Brahman. You need to fulfil your dharma in life, the divinely necessary action in your particular circumstances, to find God and enlightenment: the path of the regular householder is as valid as that of the ascetic guru.
Though illegal there are four castes or varnas in Indian society of Brahmins or priests and scholars, Kshatriyas or rulers and warriors, Vaishyas or artisans and traders, Shudras or manual workers, and the Dalits or underclass: the Vedas define caste as based on merit not birth and sanction no underclass.
Indus valley
Hinduism is the world's oldest religion, dating at least from the Indus valley civilization of the early third millennium BC, contemporary with the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians: the Vedas may date much older still than these times, being passed down orally in various communities. The river Indus runs through central Pakistan and has the important archaeological sites of Mohenjo-daro and Harrapa (where I went in May 2009).
Myths
Hindu gods' involvement in the world is only mythological not literal, and there are endless versions of the myth- there's no fixed doctrine as in Christianity or Islam for instance. The myths are typically concerned with correction of misunderstanding, or the self-referential return of oneself to oneself, as indeed in the character of artworks generally.
Paths
Behind all the gods is Brahman, the fundamental plane of being and which is the same as the unified field in modern physics, behind all phenomena. There are any number of paths to Brahman and you're free to choose the god or gods you wish to focus on and the sect to belong to, the main four divisions being Shiva gods followers or Shaivites, Vishnu gods followers or Vaishnavities, female god followers or Shaktites, or Smartists who have a combination.
Hindu scripture speaks of 330 million gods, indicating there are any number of expressions of the divine, and would ask who is the Christian or Muslim to pronounce to God how it can reveal itself to humanity. Even people can be deified and temples and shrines erected to them, because of the divine element in them.
Hinduism is a mixture of sects and practices, it's only definition and function being to encompass definitions- it's profoundly inclusive and non-confrontational; a Hindu family may even choose to bring up one of its children as a Sikh or subscribing to another religion.
No heresy
Hence there's no heresy in Hinduism, there being endless gods, incarnations and forms of gods, mixtures of gods, names of gods, and versions of their myths and qualities they embody: the confusion is encouraged and delighted in because it's all valid: scriptural inconsistency is impossible.
All four of the major world religions have dual divisions but the Vaishnavism-Shaivism split in Hinduism causes no antagonism- the point is that relative dualities are to be transcended to the absolute: Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism is similar, but Catholics and Protestants and Sunnis and Shiites with their set intellectually transparent tenets both regard each other as heretical.
God is one
The subtle idea of God being one is widely understood in India: only things that are more than one in kind have characteristics, whereas God is singular and absolute and can't vary, howsoever it may be framed by religions- therefore there can only be one God as its singularity deprives it of distinguishing features. The God of the Bible or of the Koran are necessarily the same; Brahman is one without a second.
Theisms
Brahman or the absolute though is beyond the level of the pantheon of gods: they're only expressions of what's beyond them and aren't the ultimate reality, making Hinduism atheistic. Hinduism hence encompasses pantheism in Brahman being the foundation of all physical as well as ethical and spiritual reality as well as polytheism, monotheism and atheism, among other theisms.
(It's more Christianity that is polytheistic with God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary, the arch angels, angels, saints, regular souls, devil, fallen angels and other spiritual entities, all not regarded as versions of the same thing).
We are God
Brahman though isn't something other than us and doesn't intervene in the world per se, instead communion with God is just communion with the divine aspect of us- God is what we are and what we can be, and nothing distinct.
The essence of a person, the aspect of us going beyond materiality and giving us consciousness and ethical and aesthetical experience, is the level of God and beyond. It is the transcendent aspect of the human condition, and present in all life: humanity has infinite power and ability.
Indeed the priests treat the deities as persons and are bathed, offered food and put to rest at night.
Worship
Worship is about focusing the mind on realizing our transcendent aspect: we often feel unfulfilled, but God helps those who help themselves in that our desires are realigned within ourselves by the central experience of the darshan with the idol, where you look at it and it, or the transcendent element in you or God in you, looks back at you.
There's a self-referential subject-subject loop that develops, the essence of consciousness and the basis of all achievement and right and powerful thought and action: the mind finds its basis in the level of faith in dharma and proceeds from there, beyond rationality or the ratios of usual subject-object relations.
The enclosure, or garbha griha, for the idol, or murti, is hence rather narrow, providing the momentary sighting before you move off again; there are guardian deities on either side.
Circumamabulation around the deity, or temple, is clockwise and always done after the puja: the deity is to your right with the more lowly left hand at a distance. Moreover the Hindu symbol of the swastika always has clockwise arms, not as Nazi anticlockwise ones.
Hindu worship isn't congregational and attendance is a personal matter even with festival days; priests perform pujas, ceremonial offerings to the gods, for individuals or groups on request. The religion is student-led, teaching not being imposed from without.
Personal gods
The personified gods here though aren't just expressive of abstract Brahman but are real on more concrete levels in as far as they embody those transcendent qualities we live our lives by, such as wisdom, righteousness, steadfastness, courage or success, embodied in the gods' myths.
Also though the statue is a focus for Brahman beyond its materiality, Brahman or God is everywhere, and everywhere includes where the statue is- so God is in the statue; Brahman is both transcendent and immanent.
The Vedas
The Vedas are four collections of ritualistic hymns that include philosophy on the relation between humanity and God- rig, yajur, sama and atharva: they have four parts each- samhitas (main part), brahmanas, aranyakas and upanishads and written in Sanskrit, India's ancient sacred language.
They're seen as shruti or revealed texts that are heard in the mind, contrasting with other secondary texts, smriti or remembered. The Brahmin priests chant in Sanskrit while performing the puja.
Puranic & Vedic deities
Brahman has three expressive facets or major gods called the trimurti- Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.
Brahma- vehicle/ mount- swan, consorts Gayatri, Savitri & Saraswati
Vishnu- vehicle- Garuda, half man half eagle, consort Lakshmi
Shiva- vehicle- bull Nandi, consorts Sati & Parvati
Son of Shiva, Ganesh- vehicle- mouse, consorts Ridhi & Sidhi
Son of Shiva, Kartikeya/ Murugan/ Skanda- vehicle- peacock, consorts Valli & Devayani
The older Vedic deities include Hanuman and the weekly celestial bodies gods but lost some importance to later Puranic deities; all have been worshipped in various forms since the medieval or antiquity.
Trimurti/ trinity
There may be a parallel between Hindu and Christian trinities in God the creator being Brahma, Christ being a Shiva figure destroying himself and sins of the world for spiritual renewal, and the Holy Spirit in a Vishnu type preserving role; the three gods are also one, similar to the same Brahman being behind all gods. The word Brahman may also have links with the Old Testament name Abraham, being almost the same letters.
The Weekly deities
The seven major naked eye moving celestial objects known by the ancients, in the Navagraha building, are deified-
Ravi-var = Sunday, day of the sun
Som-var = Monday, day of the moon
Mangal-var = Tuesday, day of Mars
Budh-var = Wednesday, day of Mercury
Brihaspati-var = Thursday, day of Jupiter
Shukra-var = Friday, day of Venus
Shani-var = Saturday, day of Saturn
Brahma
Brahma is the creator god and is represented by both water and fire: Vishnu the preserver is water and Shiva the destroyer is fire.
Brahma's worship declined and hasn't been widespread since the 6th century: once creation is established the rest of the time he's in meditation- he's usually depicted with four heads with eyes closed reciting the four Vedas. He may be included with the minor gods in temples' sculptural decoration but not as presiding deity; two of the few small temples to Brahma include ones in Pushkar south of Delhi and Bangkok Thailand.
In Hindu cosmology a day of Brahma or the Kalpa period of 4.32 billion years almost exactly matches the age of the earth calculated by modern science.
Temple architecture
This temple's design is based on that on the hill of Tirumala near the town of Tirupathi in southern Andra Pradesh state, southeast India: there's an extensive set of buildings it's one of the world's richest temples with thousands of visitors daily (I visited in April 2009). The Tividale temple opened August 2006.
The tower on the roof is usually above the presiding deity but in south India may be above the temple entrance. The mandapa is the main pillared hall, the pillars displaying minor gods and goddesses or incidents from the deities' myths, or from the Indian epic stories; further carvings may extend over the exterior walls and tower. The entrance porch is the ardhamandapa.
Vishnu iconography
Vishnu, also known as Narayana among his hundreds of names, in his classic pose reclines on a bed of the coils of the serpent king Sheshanaga with Lakshmi seated near his feet, as here; his resting reflects God's nature as non-intervening in the world, God having no separation from us yet separate from our relative or material selves.
In creation myth the snake was used as a rope twisted around the world axis that rested on a tortoise, pulled either way by the Gods and demons and churning the primeval waters or milk: the Gods won despite the demons having equality with them, truth being beyond both good and evil.
Vishnu like many other gods sleeps from June/ July to October/ November, when fewer ceremonies are performed: marriages are more auspiciously dated after this time.
Vishnu is depicted the colour of water as in rivers, lakes and the ocean, blue or black, embodying Dionysian drowning of the intellect into spiritual awareness, along with depth of character and the ability to deal with difficult situations- the ocean's green and blue becoming black in deepest waters. Vishnu reflecting water hence has his statue in the fountain; the statue's original colour was green. Blue is also the colour of the limitless sky; Shiva statues are usually white, the colour of purity.
Vishnu arms
The upper left hand holds a conch shell, representing his power to maintain the universe, and especially through sound and the Aum syllable; the lower left hand holds a mace, representing mental and physical strength, and the power of the divine within us to rise above the ego.
In the upper right hand is a chakra or sharp discus-like spinning weapon, representing sharp and purified mind; in the lower right hand is lotus flower representing liberation and the unfolding of divine consciousness in the individual. Brahma the creator is sitting on a lotus emerging from Vishnu's navel, indicating the gods' interdependence.
Vishnu incarnations
A number of popular folk deities in different areas were absorbed into the Vishnu cult as mythical incarnations, with the Buddha likely being incorporated by Hindu priests due to unease felt over Buddhism's development.
There's a distilled group of 24 incarnations but of those ten main ones reflect humanity's evolution; whenever forces of evil begin to overtake the world, Vishnu descends to earth to rectify it-
#1 Matsya the fish is an invertebrate
#2 Kurma the tortoise is an amphibian
#3 Varaha the boar is a mammal
#4 Narasimha is a half man half lion
#5 Varmana is a dwarf, reflecting an early form of man
#6 Parashurama or 'Rama of the axe' is a man, reflecting the start of humans' use of metal
#7 Rama is a man, reflecting the human ability to have structured urban societies
#8 Krishna is a man fully embodying the level of god for humans to aspire to in life (Krishna is
sometimes seen Vishnu's son and has a brother, Balarama)
#9 Buddha is Siddhartha Gautama of the 6th century, founder of Buddhism
#10 Kalki is yet to be incarnated
Rama is the protagonist in the Ramayana epic and is usually depicted with his wife Sita to his right and brother Laksmana to his left, who holds a bow and arrow and is shorter than Rama; Rama expresses honour and righteous action in adversity and Sita devotion. Parashurama is a different figure; Rama may have been a historical king.
Multi-armed
Deities gained or lost popularity over time and were merged- in the 5th century for example attempts were made to make sense of the mass of myths and legends built up, though many new deities are still created today.
Merged deities were shown with extra sets of arms to hold objects symbolizing the progenitor deities' qualities; sometimes hands are empty though- fingers pointing toward the ground designates the god as of charitable disposition whereas pointing upward it's of protective disposition. Gods sometimes also have extra legs, such as Kuber, a god of wealth having three.
Sexualized
Hinduism is a sexualized religion with the links between sexuality and spirituality understood, for instance Vishnu's head in his creation pose being under the hood of the snake's heads has procreative reference to the genitals, with the snake also phallic.
Some temples are covered in erotic carvings and sexual depiction and the swung hip sculptural style is ubiquitous, very sensuous and ancient. Vishnu and water also reflects sexual fluid and the loss of self and intellectual mind's drowning in the divine.
Tantrism is a sect emphasizing the union of the female partner, especially Shiva's consort Parvati, an expression of Shakti. Also Shiva began as the ancient fertility God Rudra, becoming elevated to the highest ranks and many Shiva temples have phallic stone lingas on which water is constantly dripped.
Buddhism
Buddhism's relativism doesn't hold with Brahman the absolute but Hindus can still pray to the Buddha as they understand the presence of the absolute in the relative: Buddhists somehow pray to gods and look to a state of enlightenment without seeing these as beyond the relative plane of the ever changing experience of life's surface.
The Lotus
The Lotus flower reflects the irrelevance, at least in any direct sense, of a person's circumstances to their spiritual development- it grows in muddy water but unfolds by itself into a perfect flower regardless of the surrounding's impurities. Unfolding also symbolizes self-creation and self-generating knowledge, and the lotus is in water yet detached from it all as we are in the world but not of it. It's India's national flower.
Aum
The Aum symbol on the flag is Hinduism's greatest symbol, referring to the states of consciousness en route to enlightenment and unity with the divine- there are seven states with the 4th onwards being beyond regular experience.
The symbol's three curves express waking, dreaming and deep sleep states, separated by the dot of the unchanging absolute or Brahman, the dimensionless transcendent before the three dimensions of space or line, plane and solid; the letters of the word also relate to these states with the whole word being Brahman.
It also embodies many other sets of three to including the trimurti and the gunas or three states of the relative mental mind- sattva or serenity, rajas or work and tamas or rest.
The flag is saffron coloured, the colour of fire and the burning up the confused intellect in the quest of the divine's light.
Bells, smells, marks
A flame waved around the idol reflects God as light and illumination with incense reflecting God as all-pervasive; the melting of aromatic camphor reflects the need for the ego to melt and become one with the supreme.
A bell hanging down at the entrance may be rung by devotees to help concentrate their minds, moving the attention inward.
A tilak is a coloured paste mark put on the forehead by the priest: the point between the eyebrows is the third or spiritual eye, the goal being to open it and gain unity. This is distinct from the bindi mark Hindu women put higher up on forehead indicating marital status.
There are distinguishing sect forehead marks- Vaishnavites have vertical lines of various kinds, sometimes with the dot of Brahman between: Vishnu is water, having the property of always descending so the lines point down, as the mind descends deeper into itself.
The Shaivites are distinguished by two or more horizontal lines, often arches or triangles, again sometimes with a dot: Shiva is fire, having the property of always ascending so the lines point upwards, as the enlightened mind burns up impurity and confusion; Shaivite marks are white.
The Nataraja
The nataraja is also one of the greatest Hindu symbols, embodying immense psychological insight: Shiva as the lord of the dance on the demon of ignorance is self-referral consciousness as the basis of enlightenment, with a ring of fire circumscribing his movements: the mind needs to stay within reach of its intuitive base and not get lost in its intellect per se, creating groundless principles and the false understandings of castles in the sky, separated from reality.
The Female godhead
The female goddess is Shakti or Durga, the more personalized form, or Devi the more abstract and impersonal form: she is traceable to a great ancient mother goddess and has numerous manifestations, assuming benign and terrible forms. She may be invoked for assistance against disasters and demons.
Important groups of goddesses include the nine Nava-Durgas, the seven Septa-Matrikas and the ten Mahavidyas, all with their imagery and mythology: one for instance is seen having cut her own head off held in one hand, with blood spurting from her neck into the mouths of surrounding other deities and into her own head's mouth.
Venkateswara/ Balaji & Padmavarti/ Alamelu
There are numerous myths but the main one is of a sage coming to see Vishnu and not being received immediately, and then kicking him in annoyance: Vishnu's lack of response to this prompts his consort Lakshmi to leave him, and for him to make his way after her, Lakshmi being incarnated as Padmavati and Vishnu as Venkateswara.
There are subtle relations between the two, him having to act along an aesthetic line to reunite with her and her having to act dispassionately for him to show fulfilment of right action in the circumstances of his non-resistance to the sage; Ventakeswara statues may have the eyes covered due to the intensity of his gaze. Padmavati is a goddess of wealth and good fortune.
Hanuman
Hanuman has a monkey's head on a well-built human body, and sometimes depicted with five arms and ten heads. He features in the Ramayana epic where he helps find Rama's kidnapped wife Sita on Sri Lanka, held by the demon king Ravana and leads an army of monkeys to her rescue.
He embodies devoted service and loyalty, bhakti or devotion to God and the locked-on, doubtless mind of animals, aligned with nature: he's free of the confused distractions of the human intellect when lost touch with the intuitive mind or common sense. His worship removes evil.
Ganesh & the mouse
Ganesh is one of the most popular gods, with an elephant's head, a pot belly and his vehicle a mouse showing that even the mightiest, if indeed they are mighty, have respect for the smallest and least powerful- sometimes it's a rat, an even lower creature. Looking to the mouse also represents the overcoming of selfish grandiose desires.
Ganesh is the remover of obstacles, a mouse also being able to find unexpected routes around them. He's the lord of beginnings, offerings being made to him before an undertaking for an auspicious start; he's also a god of wisdom, letters and learning. He has a gentle nature and is often employed as a guardian deity, as here.
Ganesh iconography
The objects he holds include an axe that cuts off excessive attachment to worldly experience and a rope that pulls devotees closer to the divine.
There are numerous myths explaining the elephant head but a common one is that young Ganesh was asked to guard the door by his mother Pavarti while Shiva was away, but on Shiva's return he didn't recognize Ganesh and cut his head off for standing between him and Parvati: he replaced his head with that of the first animal he then encountered, an elephant.
Ganesh's broken tusk, one shorter than the other, symbolizes non-dualism, one-pointedness and focus of mind, while the foot on the floor with the other raised expresses the humanity being in the world but not of it, our essence going beyond the material world- his legs reflect the horizontal or relative and vertical or absolute aspects of mind. Similarly the elephant head plus god's body reflects human duality, worldly and divine.
Ganesh further personifies the Aum symbol, the shape of his body resembling it; some medieval depictions though have him with 14 and 20 arms.
Murugan/ Subrahmanya/ Kartikeya
He's a popular deity particularly among Tamil Hindus, a god of war and victory, another son of Shiva and Parvati; his vehicle is a peacock. He slew the demon Surapadman, only Shiva's offspring being sufficiently powerful for this.
He was six children who became one and often has six heads, also referring to the six Kartika gods or brightest stars or in the Pleiades star cluster in the constellation of Taurus that looked after them. There are many temples in south India marking the stages of his battles.
Thanks the post Sean. I'll come back to it again because it is so long.
However, you are quite wrong about Christianity being polytheistic. To suggest such is a horrible misunderstanding of Christian and Catholic theology.
Quote from: drogulus on June 17, 2009, 02:18:22 PM
Yes, they have a belief about beliefs, that they are true.
That's a different story. I'm talking about the story that goes like this: "I perceive something unknown. I believe what I have perceived is real. I will call it a spondulator." Now, you may or not see spondulators
yourself (for many possible reasons), and you may (as I know you will) question the original perception that gave rise to their naming; but the name has been attached to something that the believer believes to be real. The perceived reality comes before the naming.
Your story (as I understood it when you first proposed it) goes: "spondulators have been named, therefore they must be real; so I will believe in them". There may indeed be people who follow that trail, but neither of us would take them seriously. They can be set aside in the 'straw men' enclosure.
QuoteOther than that, they have no reasons, only the motive to protect a particular belief.
Some believers may indeed believe without reason, but for the moment let's put them also with the straw men, and consider the the more interesting case of the believers who do claim grounds for their belief, but they're grounds that don't (for whatever reason) satisfy the non-believers. That's where the real discussion has to take place.
Afterthought: I think I ought to add that the
motive issue isn't going to help us, because it doesn't discriminate between the two camps. For every believer whose primary motive is to protect his belief, you're going to find a non-believer whose primary motive is to protect his non-belief.
Elgarian,
Please continue writing because I am learning a lot from your posts. But please don't expect Ernie (drogulus) to appreciate the basics of philosophy. He is stuck in Philosophy 101 with a failing grade.
Quote from: Catison on June 18, 2009, 03:18:27 AM
Elgarian,
Please continue writing because I am learning a lot from your posts.
Ditto here.
Mike
It's kind of you to say so (Mike and Brett) but please don't assume that I know more than I do. (I said to DavidRoss the other day that my own understanding of this stuff is as full of holes as a sieve.) I have to feel my way, inch by inch, because the crucial thing is to try to unravel the multiple issues welded together in these discussions (and impossible to deal with meaningfully in that form) to find out what, if anything, can be discussed with some possibility of resolution.
I won't knock Ernie, though. He probably won't like my saying so, even though I mean it as a compliment, but he's a visionary; and his descriptions of the way he approaches the problems as he sees them are sometimes inspiring. I think he takes us on the wrong journey, but he shows us some interesting sights along the way.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 18, 2009, 12:25:19 AM
That's a different story. I'm talking about the story that goes like this: "I perceive something unknown. I believe what I have perceived is real. I will call it a spondulator." Now, you may or not see spondulators yourself (for many possible reasons), and you may (as I know you will) question the original perception that gave rise to their naming; but the name has been attached to something that the believer believes to be real. The perceived reality comes before the naming.
Your story (as I understood it when you first proposed it) goes: "spondulators have been named, therefore they must be real; so I will believe in them". There may indeed be people who follow that trail, but neither of us would take them seriously. They can be set aside in the 'straw men' enclosure.
Some believers may indeed believe without reason, but for the moment let's put them also with the straw men, and consider the the more interesting case of the believers who do claim grounds for their belief, but they're grounds that don't (for whatever reason) satisfy the non-believers. That's where the real discussion has to take place.
Afterthought: I think I ought to add that the motive issue isn't going to help us, because it doesn't discriminate between the two camps. For every believer whose primary motive is to protect his belief, you're going to find a non-believer whose primary motive is to protect his non-belief.
That isn't exactly how I would describe the distinction I'm making. I'm proposing that things that consist of names and nothing public that can be attached to them be considered as true reports of experience which stand in need of explanation of the cause for them. If the cause can't be found in the world then the efficient explanation is that the cause of the experience is internal to the person having it. Since there are many such cases where this is uncontroversially true about nonreligious subjects the only problem I see is the resistance the believer displays to the reallocation from supernatural to natural explanation.
Or are you saying that the normal procedure of imputing natural causes in preference to unnatural ones, universal in science and everyday life, and without which no causal investigation could ever proceed to a fruitful end, should be short-circuited because it's objected to?
Science and all methods for the finding of fact operate using natural assumptions because that's the only way they can work. I take the somewhat anomalous position that there is no real distinction to be made between the operational and the purportedly metaphysical. So, from the standpoint of the ontological/epistemological, science
is philosophy, and the negative view scientists frequently have towards philosophy as a discipline dovetails neatly with the common view among them that they have what they need and don't need to bother with it further. I reinterpret this a little as science precluding anti-scientific philosophical stances and making pro-science philosophy redundant.
Quote from: Catison on June 18, 2009, 03:18:27 AM
Elgarian,
Please continue writing because I am learning a lot from your posts. But please don't expect Ernie (drogulus) to appreciate the basics of philosophy. He is stuck in Philosophy 101 with a failing grade.
I never got that far.
:D
Elgarian, what procedure do you use to discriminate between reports of experience taken as veridical and those reassigned to more likely causes (UFOs? $5,000 speaker cables? Ghosts? Saviors?)? I don't imagine it differs much from mine. I'm merely reversing the usual habit of regarding ordinary verification as lesser truth subordinated to a higher metaphysical one, and instead making purported higher truths justify themselves or remain purely speculative. I don't privilege what is not known over what is. As a consequence my philosophical position, such as it is, holds no hostages against any procedure that proves itself at the practical level, and the highest truth is what is found as a matter of definition. So truth under this scheme is seen as relational, a tool, and not some unknown Other you propitiate.
Quote from: drogulus on June 19, 2009, 02:30:00 PM
Elgarian, what procedure do you use to discriminate between reports of experience taken as veridical and those reassigned to more likely causes (UFOs? $5,000 speaker cables? Ghosts? Saviors?)? I don't imagine it differs much from mine. I'm merely reversing the usual habit of regarding ordinary verification as lesser truth subordinated to a higher metaphysical one, and instead making purported higher truths justify themselves or remain purely speculative. I don't privilege what is not known over what is. As a consequence my philosophical position, such as it is, holds no hostages against any procedure that proves itself at the practical level, and the highest truth is what is found as a matter of definition. So truth under this scheme is seen as relational, a tool, and not some unknown Other you propitiate.
The wheels on the bus go...
Is there anything about "higher, deeper" truths that differs from the lower, shallow truths we live by? You know the answer. What's higher and deeper is that they remain unknown (a detail to remember the next time you're tempted to say that in addition to being unavailable to reason that they are known to you and Certain), and when they become known what's higher and deeper about them then? Nothing...this is just a case of the bird in the bush, possibly real, having ever so much brighter plumage. Yeah, right. But catch the bird and the higher deeper plumage turns into just more of the same as the bird in the hand, with different detail to be sure but not of a different essence. There are no essences, only details in endless permutation. Learning the rules the permutations observe is the highest truth available. Since higher truth is defined by it's inaccessibility I see no reason to object to the consequences I point out. >:D
How come nothing you know is higher and deeper than what you don't know? Could it be that our philosophy has taught us to prefer the uncaught bird, and endow it with magical powers that disappear on closer inspection? I think that's so. The imagination seeks an outlet in the unknown, and endows it with all the imagined properties evicted from the world we do know. What we know to be true is just as high and deep as the unknown on the other side of the fence.* The first turtle is just as wonderful as the one on the uh, bottom of the pile. :D We just know more and so are less prone to make up things about it.
* I agree with the scientists who wonder at a comprehensible material Universe as ardently as the mysterians do their....whatever. I prefer the real jewels to the paste jobs of the holy books. There's a real world out there! Save your reverence for something that's worth it! 0:)
Quote from: drogulus on June 19, 2009, 01:57:32 PM
That isn't exactly how I would describe the distinction I'm making. I'm proposing that things that consist of names and nothing public that can be attached to them be considered as true reports of experience which stand in need of explanation of the cause for them. If the cause can't be found in the world then the efficient explanation is that the cause of the experience is internal to the person having it.
Therein lies part of the problem. It's necessary to make those distinctions in order to find a question that can be meaningfully discussed. Otherwise we get into these eternal entanglements that can never be resolved. When you speak of things that 'consist of names and nothing public' and go on to discuss the consequences if they 'can't be found in the world' you've already sidestepped my questions by asserting that only the public is real, and that only your method of 'finding' is correct. There's no point in proceeding further until the question of the validity of that assumption is resolved. You may be right. I'm merely observing that your asserting it as the One True Way doesn't make it so.
QuoteScience and all methods for the finding of fact operate using natural assumptions because that's the only way they can work. I take the somewhat anomalous position that there is no real distinction to be made between the operational and the purportedly metaphysical. So, from the standpoint of the ontological/epistemological, science is philosophy, and the negative view scientists frequently have towards philosophy as a discipline dovetails neatly with the common view among them that they have what they need and don't need to bother with it further. I reinterpret this a little as science precluding anti-scientific philosophical stances and making pro-science philosophy redundant.
Well, I can see that's very neat. Very convenient. But it's a variant of an old, discarded philosophical standpoint. When you say 'science is philosophy' (thereby limiting the questions only to those that science declares to have meaning) - that's the position that Whitehead examined and so conclusively found wanting. There's some reinventing of a broken wheel being attempted here. Does it not trouble you that those scientists who say they 'don't need to bother with philosophy further' almost certainly have little knowledge or understanding of it? Or that by dismissing philosophy they lose the opportunity to discover not only how to think rationally, but also the limits of what can be achieved by rational thought?
Of course many scientists will say they have no need of philosophy. Scientific exactness is a fake, and because of its visible success at what it attempts, it's capable of deluding both the scientist and the non-scientist alike into a mistaken belief in the completeness of its system.
If one were to acknowledge this, and then choose the scientific/verificationist route along the lines of 'nevertheless this is the road I will take as the most dependable', then that would be an understandable response to a difficult existential situation (albeit one that's impossible to follow rigorously in one's normal daily life). But to maintain it to be the One True Way (and defend one's position by declaring science to be philosophy) is to be intellectually as vulnerable as a persistent believer in Santa Claus;* and incidentally, it doesn't provide a very secure platform from which to take potshots at those who choose an alternative route.
*I don't say this flippantly. To believe persistently in Santa Claus one would have to consistently ignore all methods of enquiry that would cast doubt on the belief. That is effectively the 'science is philosophy' standpoint, for it excludes any possibility of refutation.
Quote from: drogulus on June 19, 2009, 02:30:00 PM
Elgarian, what procedure do you use to discriminate between reports of experience taken as veridical and those reassigned to more likely causes (UFOs? $5,000 speaker cables? Ghosts? Saviors?)?
It depends on the nature of the experience reported, and on how much I want to be bothered with the trouble of discriminating. If you tell me that all values of electric charge are multiples of 'e', then there's a clear procedure for checking that out if I want to. (At least, up to a point. There's also a get-out clause for those one or two results that don't fit. I've seen those, and shrugged my shoulders like the best of them. The requirement for repeatability has its limitations, so the jury must remain out on 'all'.)
Ghosts, Saviours and the like? Well, if reported by others they would essentially remain unknown - though I don't attach any particular value to 'the unknown' in the way you describe. The unknown has no added value merely for being unknown. In fact it only becomes interesting once it becomes known, or at least
if it offers the promise of becoming known. This is I think another of the mistakes you make when you attack these straw men ('names' being mistaken for real things, 'the unknown' being revered for its unknowableness, etc). The unknown is not necessarily the numinous, and the numinous is not necessarily unknown. For instance, I revere works of art the more for knowing them better, not less.
The difficulty here concerns what we mean by 'knowing'. I 'know' my wife loves me, and I 'know' that 5x4=20, and I 'know' that there are 24 hours in a day, but they aren't the same kind of 'knowing'. You're right that we probably all adopt a pretty similar approach - a mixture of intuition, expectation, reasoning, testing, subconscious desire, and so on - all in different proportions. For any of us, what we 'know' about the world is arrived at from a whole series of different mappings, not merely from the result of scientific enquiry. What we might 'know' about a possible divine being is going to be similarly complicated, don't you think?
QuoteIs there anything about "higher, deeper" truths that differs from the lower, shallow truths we live by? You know the answer. What's higher and deeper is that they remain unknown (a detail to remember the next time you're tempted to say that in addition to being unavailable to reason that they are known to you and Certain)
As I've explained above I think this equating of higher and deeper with the unknown is mistaken, and contrary to experience in general. And the barbed comment about knowledge and certainty is unnecessary and misplaced, I think. I hope my own uncertainty (not to mention awareness of the limitations of my knowledge) is evident in my posts. I'm inclined to discuss these things with you not because
I'm certain of the path to follow (far from it), but because you seem to be and that puzzles me.
Sean - the original post is one of the most interesting and leucid that you have written here so cheers for that! I actually read all of it!
Quote from: Catison on June 18, 2009, 03:18:27 AM
Elgarian,
Please continue writing because I am learning a lot from your posts. But please don't expect Ernie (drogulus) to appreciate the basics of philosophy. He is stuck in Philosophy 101 with a failing grade.
As I'm sure you're aware, posts like these reflect far worse on the poster than on the person being denigrated.
Hi Guido, I bought a copy of the book while away travelling and managed to get through it- he makes some good points about American religious fundamentalism but doggedly misses the more interesting questions about spirituality. So I put the initial post here up on the forum on his website and got a few replies, but it's not quite my best English.
Quote from: Sean on June 20, 2009, 04:30:59 AM
Hi Guido, I bought a copy of the book while away travelling and managed to get through it- he makes some good points about American religious fundamentalism but doggedly misses the more interesting questions about spirituality. So I put the initial post here up on the forum on his website and got a few replies, but it's not quite my best English.
I wasn't being sarcastic - I actually meant it. Made me think, and made me want to find out about Hinduism too! I've never seen it explained in those terms before.
Quote from: Guido on June 20, 2009, 03:26:41 AM
As I'm sure you're aware, posts like these reflect far worse on the poster than on the person being denigrated.
Hey now. I don't have to be a philosophy teacher to recognize bad philosophy when I see it.
GuidoQuoteI've never seen it explained in those terms before.
I know you meant it, no prob. The philosophical foundations of Hinduism are the south Asian subcontinent's greatest contribution to humanity; indeed India is the world's cultural centre; I just had another six weeks there indeed. It's presuppositions, which in fact are more subtle and foundational than presuppositions, are so far outside the Western paradigm they're simply ignored, but many thinkers admire Hinduism and the Vedas.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hinduism
Quote from: Catison on June 20, 2009, 10:30:41 AM
Hey now. I don't have to be a philosophy teacher to recognize bad philosophy when I see it.
It's the nasty way your opinion was delivered. I'm sure that Ernie doesn't mind, because he's used to it and things like this don't seem to affect him, but it's just unpleasant to read. Maybe you could explain why you think Ernie is wrong? The whole reason that Elgarian is producing these posts that you are learning from is because he is doing exactly that. The issue is far from settled. :)
Not an attack, just didn't expect that from you is all!
Quote from: Sean on June 20, 2009, 01:29:11 PM
Guido
I know you meant it, no prob. The philosophical foundations of Hinduism are the south Asian subcontinent's greatest contribution to humanity; indeed India is the world's cultural centre; I just had another six weeks there indeed. It's presuppositions, which in fact are more subtle and foundational than presuppositions, are so far outside the Western paradigm they're simply ignored, but many thinkers admire Hinduism and the Vedas.
Cheers - I will certainly try and read some stuff.
Quote from: Guido on June 20, 2009, 03:41:37 PM
Cheers - I will certainly try and read some stuff.
A lot also depends on the translation, the original language being ancient Sanskrit. I bought an edition of the
Bhagavad Gita, which is the most important work, while I was abroad and it was Christianized so ludicrously it was past the point of being laughable and unreadable. The translation and commentary by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is highly recommendable though- it's a Penguin from about 1968.
Quote from: Guido on June 20, 2009, 03:40:19 PM
Maybe you could explain why you think Ernie is wrong?
Give me a break. What do you think I've been doing?
The problem with Ernie is not that he is stupid or ignorant. His problem is that after countless trials, he refuses to see some basic philosophical ideas, as if they don't exist. I have no problem with him being an atheist, but it would help if he were an atheist for the right reasons. Like I said, this is Philosophy 101 stuff that Ernie just doesn't get yet, and I've tried, countless others have tried, and Elgarian is trying. But so far....
Quote from: Guido on June 20, 2009, 03:40:19 PM
It's the nasty way your opinion was delivered. I'm sure that Ernie doesn't mind, because he's used to it and things like this don't seem to affect him, but it's just unpleasant to read. Maybe you could explain why you think Ernie is wrong?
In defence of Catison - there are a couple of things you may not be aware of. First, this discussion is (absurdly) going on in several threads all at the same time, and Brett has in fact been arguing his case cogently and at length elsewhere. It's possible you might have missed some of that. But also, in one of those threads, Ernie recently spoke of the necessity of
ridiculing alternative views (such as a religious one) that he considered misguided. I'm still hoping he'll retract that comment at some point; but it did rather invite a few bad-tempered responses, I think. Even the most rational among us aren't impervious to that sort of thing.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 21, 2009, 01:48:25 AM
In defence of Catison - there are a couple of things you may not be aware of. First, this discussion is (absurdly) going on in several threads all at the same time, and Brett has in fact been arguing his case cogently and at length elsewhere. It's possible you might have missed some of that. But also, in one of those threads, Ernie recently spoke of the necessity of ridiculing alternative views (such as a religious one) that he considered misguided. I'm still hoping he'll retract that comment at some point; but it did rather invite a few bad-tempered responses, I think. Even the most rational among us aren't impervious to that sort of thing.
Yes, I see the point now. I am sorry Guido for seeming rude, because I understand that my comments about Ernie seem that way. But, if I am not mistaken, Ernie actually prides himself on his ignorance of philosophy. If I may paraphrase, he says, "My philosophy is science." I have a friend who, as an atheist, proudly claims he has no need for philosophy, or "I don't have a philosophy". Philosophy is "worthless", as was quoted by Joe someplace else, because it is not based on evidence. When I was an atheist, I also flaunted my ignorance of philosophy, because, like a lot of the atheists here and elsewhere, I only let evidence-based theories be considered as true. No evidence, no enchilada.
Yet what I hope Ernie eventually understands is that picking
only evidence-based theories is a philosophical statement
itself. And from the point of view of someone who took the time to educate himself in the basics of philosophy (again I'm an amateur), this particular evidence-based philosophy is a poor one. Why? Because no philosophical statement is evidence-based in the way Ernie wants it to be, and to demand evidence for everything also requires you to demand evidence of your philosophy. But, of course, there isn't any evidence. So such a philosophy is hopelessly inadequate because it annihilates itself
a priori.
Elgarian, you don't like my approach because you don't think it's validity can be assumed. Something must tell you that what isn't known can be safely assumed to be just more detail as opposed to something more numinous or otherwise significant in a way beyond just more detail. I disagree.
Nothing must tell you that and no assumption need be made. If something is extraordinary about a new discovery it's the discovery that will tell us. Nothing need be assumed except that there's more to be known, and the details can't be pre-sorted like the believers claim. They add nothing by claiming to know what they also claim not to know. I think they just don't know. Let new discoveries just be, and let curiosity and speculation take us where it can.
Quote from: Catison on June 21, 2009, 04:03:11 AM
Yes, I see the point now. I am sorry Guido for seeming rude, because I understand that my comments about Ernie seem that way. But, if I am not mistaken, Ernie actually prides himself on his ignorance of philosophy. If I may paraphrase, he says, "My philosophy is science." I have a friend who, as an atheist, proudly claims he has no need for philosophy, or "I don't have a philosophy". Philosophy is "worthless", as was quoted by Joe someplace else, because it is not based on evidence. When I was an atheist, I also flaunted my ignorance of philosophy, because, like a lot of the atheists here and elsewhere, I only let evidence-based theories be considered as true. No evidence, no enchilada.
I understand the scientists position but I'm opposed to it. They are almost right, but wrong on an important point. They leave out too much that they need to explain themselves with. Science is philosophy, yes*, but philosophy must include the tools for making itself understood. This will take us far afield so I'd rather not pursue it in depth.
* My version is, that is. You have to go back and see just how qualified my reasoning is on this point, if you're interested.
Quote from: drogulus on June 21, 2009, 12:00:53 PM
Elgarian, you don't like my approach because you don't think it's validity can be assumed.
Whether I
like your approach is irrelevant. The vision you put forward is quite attractive in its way. Unfortunately I think it's demonstrably unsound. But the only way you'll discover its unsoundness is by considering the work of philosophers like Whitehead. But you refuse to consider that, and devise a position which excludes the need. There's nowhere to go after this, really. What can I say to a man with his hands over his ears?
Well, you could tell me what you think Whitehead gains by assuming something different. He may have a more interesting take on what he doesn't know than I do on what I don't know, depending on what you consider interesting. As for the part of philosophy concerned with what knowledge is, the part that interests me, nothing is affected. But if you want to tell me what you think these differences mean practically, go ahead. Maybe I've missed something. Since this concerns the unknown, maybe everyone has. However, assuming that the Unknown is a big fat something gives no advantage over not assuming that, or assuming nothing. This is the beef I have with believers generally, that their assumptions disguised as certainties give them only bogus advantages. Maybe bogus is better than none? I don't see that.
Working assumptions are only invalidated by not working. The metaphysical to and fro about how shortsighted it is to base a philosophical position around support for what works is besides the point. It should be obvious that you can't invalidate a "true because demonstrated and defined that way" with the same tired formula that it can't be demonstrated that something else isn't true instead. Of course something else might be true. And, it frequently is! And when the great hidden truth isn't hidden any more something else will be. As for which of these hidden truths validates the believers, it's probably over there behind that tree, or anywhere that's hidden from you and me. The only validation that you'll get from me is the derision properly reserved for ideas that are considered grand and earthshaking only for so long as they aren't known. :)
Quote from: Catison on June 20, 2009, 11:38:25 PM
Give me a break. What do you think I've been doing?
The problem with Ernie is not that he is stupid or ignorant. His problem is that after countless trials, he refuses to see some basic philosophical ideas, as if they don't exist.
It's worse than that. I refuse to see that any philosophical idea about the supposed greatness or importance of unknown things can have any merit without becoming an idea about something that
is known. Ideas about the unknown are useful as hypotheticals only, which is important if you're investigating something. But philosophers will often use the unknown alternative as a club to beat what's known, so materialism is not true unless it's perfectly true and no alternative is even conceivable. This is ridiculous from an operational standpoint, and a comparison of the different approaches would lead you to think that something is seriously wrong with a method that forces you to say one thing is true while you act with perfect confidence that the opposite is true, Shouldn't it be possible to bring philosophy just a wee bit closer to conformance with working models? Yes, if you think that is desirable. That explains what I ignore and what I value.
Hi Sean, and welcome back... :)
I'm a bit late but I just wanted to post this commentary by Noam Chomsky because it so nicely sums up how I feel about this topic:
"It should be obvious to everyone that by and large science reaches deep explanatory theories to the extent that it narrows its gaze. If a problem is too hard for physicists, they hand it over to chemists, and so on down the line until it ends with people who try to deal somehow with human affairs, where scientific understanding is very thin, and is likely to remain so, except in a few areas that can be abstracted for special studies.
On the ordinary problems of human life, science tells us very little, and scientists as people are surely no guide. In fact they are often the worst guide, because they often tend to focus, laser-like, on their professional interests and know very little about the world.
As for the various religions, there's no doubt that they are very meaningful to adherents, and allow them to delude themselves into thinking there is some meaning to their lives beyond what we agree is the case. I'd never try to talk them out of the delusions, which are necessary for them to live a life that makes some sense to them. These beliefs can provide a framework for deeds that are noble or savage, and anywhere in between, and there's every reason to focus attention on the deeds and the background for them, to the extent that we can grasp it. Doubtless more understanding can be gained, and is being gained (by anthropologist Scott Atran's work, for example). That's all to the good for trying to comprehend the strange animals we are — but I don't see any signs that such comprehension is likely to be very deep"
That last paragraph was a condescending load of shit. It's so comforting to know that atheists/agnostics/whatevers like this man understand everything about religion and religious people.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 27, 2009, 06:34:25 PM
I just wanted to post this commentary by Noam Chomsky because it so nicely sums up how I feel about this topic
Eric - I've abandoned this debate here, but I can't help suggesting a more critical reading of that passage. The degrees of muddle and misunderstanding in it are such that it would take many hours to unpack the confusion and expose it for the blather that I believe it mostly is.
Hi Eric. Well Chomsky seems to be saying neither science or religion are much use for morality, and indeed Hinduism prescribes no set of commandments. Best wishes.
Quote from: Sean on June 28, 2009, 12:32:01 AM
Hi Eric. Well Chomsky seems to be saying neither science or religion are much use for morality, and indeed Hinduism prescribes no set of commandments. Best wishes.
Do you think that's what he's saying? I got the opposite from it. The ethical value of religious systems has always stood in for a presumed truth of the underlying propositions. This is the familiar "good for us" justification. I gather what he meant was that the comfort and guidance religion might offer was
not a truth condition for the propositions. "Religion is good for you therefore a god exists" is what he rejects, and rightly so. It follows that the downstream argument that "
my religion is good for you so
my interpretation is valid" can't be an argument about anything. It only matters which god is right/true/good if there are gods. So we are left with the value of beliefs as they affect behavior which is certainly a legitimate subject, though we always have to guard against the tendency for the Undead "good for you" arguments to stagger out of their graves to plague us yet again. Keep your pointy sticks close by!
;D
Hi drogulus. I can see this sort of thing has your attention and I understand what you're saying, but Hinduism isn't a matter of doctrinal interpretation, nor does it worry in the least about which of its gods are right or true above others. Your position is a downstream argument (actually much further downstream of the pure source of the Ganges after hundreds of Hindu villages have washed in it) of the deep pervasive presupposition of principled Apollonian Western rationalization of the world. You need to soak your over-articulated brain in something stronger.
How many Hindus do we have on this board?
Elgarian,
Quote from: Elgarian on June 27, 2009, 11:47:32 PM
Eric - I've abandoned this debate here, but I can't help suggesting a more critical reading of that passage. The degrees of muddle and misunderstanding in it are such that it would take many hours to unpack the confusion and expose it for the blather that I believe it mostly is.
I don't agree but o.k...
By the way you have just dissed one of the great intellectuals of our day.
Anyway, other than Whitehead, who in your opinion is a model of philosophical maturity and insight when it comes to religion and the topic of God's existence ?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 30, 2009, 06:24:40 PM
By the way you have just dissed one of the great intellectuals of our day.
No, I dismissed one of his paragraphs, which is not the same thing.
QuoteAnyway, other than Whitehead, who in your opinion is a model of philosophical maturity and insight when it comes to religion and the topic of God's existence ?
The reason I've tended to quote Whitehead so much is because he's
particularly relevant when it comes to discussing the limitations of scientific enquiry. As for the rest - well I don't think a list of names is the point. The point is the experience of the philosophical journey itself: the retracing of that historical path through 2,500 years in order to discover how far rational thought can take us, and, more importantly, to discover where its limits lie. But I don't think there are any short cuts; and when one gets to the end of the philosophical road, one is likely to realise that the journey hasn't really started yet. In that sense - if you put a gun to my head and demand a name -then Wittgenstein becomes very important, I'd say - insofar as I understand him. I'm not an expert; just a traveller.
What always dismays me about discussions such as these is the slam-bang certainties that are kicked around the playing field right from the start: '
this is the one true way'; '
that way is ridiculous', and so on. We devise all these systems - science, philosophy, the arts, religions - as sticking plasters to cover the wounds of our existential uncertainties; then we fall into the trap of mistaking the sticking plaster for the truth.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 01, 2009, 01:03:19 AM
No, I dismissed one of his paragraphs, which is not the same thing.
The reason I've tended to quote Whitehead so much is because he's particularly relevant when it comes to discussing the limitations of scientific enquiry. As for the rest - well I don't think a list of names is the point. The point is the experience of the philosophical journey itself: the retracing of that historical path through 2,500 years in order to discover how far rational thought can take us, and, more importantly, to discover where its limits lie. But I don't think there are any short cuts; and when one gets to the end of the philosophical road, one is likely to realise that the journey hasn't really started yet. In that sense - if you put a gun to my head and demand a name -then Wittgenstein becomes very important, I'd say - insofar as I understand him. I'm not an expert; just a traveller.
What always dismays me about discussions such as these is the slam-bang certainties that are kicked around the playing field right from the start: 'this is the one true way'; 'that way is ridiculous', and so on. We devise all these systems - science, philosophy, the arts, religions - as sticking plasters to cover the wounds of our existential uncertainties; then we fall into the trap of mistaking the sticking plaster for the truth.
Having little patience with pompous sophomoric drivel, I rarely visit threads started by Sean (yes, there's a history), but was attracted to this one by notice of your recent post, quoted above. Let me say again how much I admire the clarity of your thought...and of your understanding, evinced by the direct and succinct manner of expression, and by the poetic playfulness you invest in it. Unfortunately, the simplicity of the profound makes it difficult to grasp for our intellectuals, who've a habit of holding their sticking plasters in place by pressing them down with the same fingers they've mistaken for the moon! ;)
Just yesterday in conversation with a new acquaintance, he said that he'd recently read something to the effect that the obscure is seldom as difficult to discover as the obvious.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 01, 2009, 09:14:57 AM
our intellectuals, who've a habit of holding their sticking plasters in place by pressing them down with the same fingers they've mistaken for the moon!
You knew I'd splutter into my coffee at this image, didn't you?
Tell you what, David - it's a considerable relief to be understood at all, so rare is it, in this particular arena. Thank you.
Science/rational thinking has it's limits???
Philisophy doesn't have limits???
What? ???
What else is philosophy than rational thinking??
These threads with God in their name are so weird!
Quote from: 71 dB on July 01, 2009, 09:42:14 AM
Science/rational thinking has it's limits??? Indeed.
Philisophy doesn't have limits??? Who suggested such a thing? Not Elgarian.
What? ??? When? Where? How? Who?
What else is philosophy than rational thinking?? One hopes "rational thinking" is the method. As for "what else?" -- you might visit the Continentals.
These threads with God in their name are so weird! Ain't life grand!?
Quote from: Elgarian on July 01, 2009, 09:35:13 AM
You knew I'd splutter into my coffee at this image, didn't you? One always hopes.... ;)
Tell you what, David - it's a considerable relief to be understood at all, so rare is it, in this particular arena. Thank you. And thank you. 8) Not least for your comments on the Pre-Raphaelite painters...though that bit of godawful "poetry" by Rossetti you posted damned near gave me heartburn! Still, it minded me of the likely models for Tolkien's songs in his otherwise remarkable books. I could well imagine Lewis and he and the other Inklings declaiming at The Eagle and Child while ensconced about a cheery little blaze, lamenting the lost honor of a world in decline.
Thanks DavidRoss for quoting me "unquotinable" way!
To bring some sense to this mess I'll say this:
1) I don't think science/rational thinking as a method has any limits. We might have human limits doing science/thinking rationally but that makes the limits only practical, not fundamental.
2) Even if science/rational thinking had fundamental limit, I think it's still the way to gain the best possible knowledge/understanding about everything. All non-scientific/irrational methods are pathetic in comparison.
3) Non-scientific/irrational methods may seem to offer excellent results but that's deceptive and even dangerous. Such methods may be used in order to have quick/easy answers but keeping the dangers in mind. Rational methods should be used to verify the "sanity" of the results.
4) Religions are sad examples of what happens when irrational thinking/intellectual dishonesty is not restricted enough by science/rational thinking.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 01, 2009, 10:56:58 AM
Thanks DavidRoss for quoting me "unquotinable" way!
To bring some sense to this mess I'll say this:
1) I don't think science/rational thinking as a method has any limits. We might have human limits doing science/thinking rationally but that makes the limits only practical, not fundamental.
2) Even if science/rational thinking had fundamental limit, I think it's still the way to gain the best possible knowledge/understanding about everything. All non-scientific/irrational methods are pathetic in comparison.
3) Non-scientific/irrational methods may seem to offer excellent results but that's deceptive and even dangerous. Such methods may be used in order to have quick/easy answers but keeping the dangers in mind. Rational methods should be used to verify the "sanity" of the results.
4) Religions are sad examples of what happens when irrational thinking/intellectual dishonesty is not restricted enough by science/rational thinking.
A hammer is a great tool for driving nails. It's not very useful, however, for interpreting poetry. (Well...most poetry! ;) )
Your thinking is a heartbreakingly commonplace example of what happens when people fail to recognize their limits...or worse, overestimate their own capacity. It closes off entire rooms--nay,
wings--in the mansion of experience and understanding. In the '60s one of our local counter-culture artists created a popular comic book character named "Mr. Natural" -- a peculiarly down-to-earth guru of common sense. One of his most oft-used expressions was: "Use the right tool for the job."
Huh? I thought that 71 dB and Elgarian were the same. ??? You know there is more than one person on this forum that's fanatic about Elgar!? Surprisingly enough that means that I've learned something from a navel gazing Sean thread. >:D
Quote from: DavidW on July 01, 2009, 11:38:44 AM
Huh? I thought that 71 dB and Elgarian were the same. ??? You know there is more than one person on this forum that's fanatic about Elgar!? Surprisingly enough that means that I've learned something from a navel gazing Sean thread. >:D
Ahh...an understandable mistake, given your recent return, perpetuated by an equally understandable disinterest in reading his posts.
(1) Elgarian is a new member with a mind as fine as Nigel's.
(2) 71dB (E L G A R) has turned over a new leaf and his posts are now more interesting than the old "Elgar rules, Beethoven drools--and if you don't think so it's because you're not a genius like me" staple of past years.
Hi DavidRoss, I must wind you up pretty well I guess. Have fun.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 01, 2009, 11:52:07 AM
Ahh...an understandable mistake, given your recent return, perpetuated by an equally understandable disinterest in reading his posts.
(1) Elgarian is a new member with a mind as fine as Nigel's.
(2) 71dB (E L G A R) has turned over a new leaf and his posts are now more interesting than the old "Elgar rules, Beethoven drools--and if you don't think so it's because you're not a genius like me" staple of past years.
Ah cool beans! 8)
Yes, and a nice leaf, too, Poju!
Quote from: DavidW on July 01, 2009, 11:38:44 AM
You know there is more than one person on this forum that's fanatic about Elgar!?
Ahem. If to love much of the man's music, and love walking in the Malvern Hills is to be fanatical, then I'd have to admit to being a fanatic. But on the same basis, you could then describe me as a William Morris fanatic, a Cezanne fanatic, a Monet fanatic, a Turner fanatic, a PreRaphaelite fanatic, a Handel fanatic, a Vaughan Williams fanatic, a Massenet fanatic, a Bob Dylan fanatic, etc etc etc. I try my best, but I don't think I can be all those fanatics all at once and still have time to breathe. So I think I might not be an Elgar fanatic after all. Phew.
Have I convinced you? ;)
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 01, 2009, 10:34:21 AM
though that bit of godawful "poetry" by Rossetti you posted damned near gave me heartburn!
So my scheme for selling you a wheelbarrow-full of secondhand Rossetti poetry books isn't going too well, then?
QuoteStill, it minded me of the likely models for Tolkien's songs in his otherwise remarkable books. I could well imagine Lewis and he and the other Inklings declaiming at The Eagle and Child while ensconced about a cheery little blaze, lamenting the lost honor of a world in decline.
Don't tell me you're an Inkling-lover too?
We were talking of Dragons, Tolkien and I
In a Berkshire Bar. The big workman
Who had sat silent and sucked his pipe
All the evening, from his emptying mug
With gleaming eye glanced towards us:
"I seen 'em myself," he said fiercely.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 01, 2009, 10:56:58 AM
1) I don't think science/rational thinking as a method has any limits. We might have human limits doing science/thinking rationally but that makes the limits only practical, not fundamental.
2) Even if science/rational thinking had fundamental limit, I think it's still the way to gain the best possible knowledge/understanding about everything. All non-scientific/irrational methods are pathetic in comparison.
3) Non-scientific/irrational methods may seem to offer excellent results but that's deceptive and even dangerous. Such methods may be used in order to have quick/easy answers but keeping the dangers in mind. Rational methods should be used to verify the "sanity" of the results.
4) Religions are sad examples of what happens when irrational thinking/intellectual dishonesty is not restricted enough by science/rational thinking.
I'm not sure if this was a response to my earlier post; but it is in any case exactly the sort of thing I was referring to when I said: "What always dismays me about discussions such as these are the slam-bang certainties that are kicked around the playing field right from the start: 'this is the one true way'; 'that way is ridiculous', and so on. We devise all these systems - science, philosophy, the arts, religions - as sticking plasters to cover the wounds of our existential uncertainties; then we fall into the trap of mistaking the sticking plaster for the truth."
71dB, I wonder what experience or knowledge you base these rigid statements on? Are you a scientist, perhaps? Have you engaged in scientific research yourself? Have you considered Whitehead's discussion of the philosophical implications raised by scientific enquiry? Have you tried to undertake any part of the philosophical journey I suggested in my post? Forgive me for quoting myself again, but I do believe it's important: "The point is the experience of the philosophical journey itself: the retracing of that historical path through 2,500 years in order to discover how far rational thought can take us, and, more importantly, to discover where its limits lie. But I don't think there are any short cuts; and when one gets to the end of the philosophical road, one is likely to realise that the journey hasn't really started yet."
I can't express the situation more clearly than that.
But before I stop, and even though I don't think anything I say will make the slightest difference, let's just pick out one of those statements and look at it:
Quote3) Non-scientific/irrational methods may seem to offer excellent results but that's deceptive and even dangerous. Such methods may be used in order to have quick/easy answers but keeping the dangers in mind. Rational methods should be used to verify the "sanity" of the results.
How do we choose our friends? Or our partner (if we have one)? How do we decide which music to listen to? What painting to hang on our wall? Where to go on holiday? Whom we can trust? Whom we can love? How to cope if we're sad? How to share the joy if we're happy? These are the kinds of questions we face every day. Big questions, some of them. How effective are rational/scientific methods in providing answers? And how would your friends respond if you announced that you were going to decide whether to continue with their friendship by carrying out a process of scientific enquiry in order to get a 'sane' result?
Quote from: Elgarian on July 01, 2009, 11:16:16 PM
I'm not sure if this was a response to my earlier post;
No. It's my personal statement triggered by this thread. To be honest, I don't really understand most of what has been talked about.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 01, 2009, 11:16:16 PMbut it is in any case exactly the sort of thing I was referring to when I said: "What always dismays me about discussions such as these are the slam-bang certainties that are kicked around the playing field right from the start: 'this is the one true way'; 'that way is ridiculous', and so on. We devise all these systems - science, philosophy, the arts, religions - as sticking plasters to cover the wounds of our existential uncertainties; then we fall into the trap of mistaking the sticking plaster for the truth."
Whenever mankind has learned something new, it has been through science and rational thinking. Why would it be any different from now on?
Quote from: Elgarian on July 01, 2009, 11:16:16 PM71dB, I wonder what experience or knowledge you base these rigid statements on? Are you a scientist, perhaps? Have you engaged in scientific research yourself?
I have done scientific research (acoustics). I'm an acoustics engineer with an university degree.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 01, 2009, 11:16:16 PMHave you considered Whitehead's discussion of the philosophical implications raised by scientific enquiry?
No. I don't even know who this Whitehead is but I have read Dawkins' The God Delusion.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 01, 2009, 11:16:16 PMHave you tried to undertake any part of the philosophical journey I suggested in my post?
Sorry, I haven't read this thread carefully enough to know about any suggestions by you. I might sound arrogant and ignorant but these philosophical issues can take much more spare time than a working man has. Maybe later. Maybe...
Quote from: Elgarian on July 01, 2009, 11:16:16 PMForgive me for quoting myself again, but I do believe it's important: "The point is the experience of the philosophical journey itself: the retracing of that historical path through 2,500 years in order to discover how far rational thought can take us, and, more importantly, to discover where its limits lie. But I don't think there are any short cuts; and when one gets to the end of the philosophical road, one is likely to realise that the journey hasn't really started yet."
Who says 2,500 years of rational thinking has taken us to the end of the journey? We have walked for long but we don't how long the journey is.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 01, 2009, 11:16:16 PM
How do we choose our friends? Or our partner (if we have one)? How do we decide which music to listen to? What painting to hang on our wall? Where to go on holiday? Whom we can trust? Whom we can love? How to cope if we're sad? How to share the joy if we're happy? These are the kinds of questions we face every day. Big questions, some of them. How effective are rational/scientific methods in providing answers? And how would your friends respond if you announced that you were going to decide whether to continue with their friendship by carrying out a process of scientific enquiry in order to get a 'sane' result?
Rational/scientific methods for these questions are EXTREMELY complex and beyond practical. However, those answers do exist even if we can't access them. Irrational methods are "easy" and practical but also dangerous. That's why we should use rational thinking as much as possible to limit cumulative errors of irrational methods. We use scientific methods deciding whether to continue with their friendship: This friendship makes us both unhappy so we better end it. That is rational thinking even if "happiness" seems something irrational.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 02, 2009, 05:02:11 AM
To be honest, I don't really understand most of what has been talked about.
That's an honest statement, but what concerns me is that if you don't understand most of what's been talked about, how can you be so sure that it can be dismissed?
QuoteWhenever mankind has learned something new, it has been through science and rational thinking. Why would it be any different from now on?
I believe what you're actually doing here is subconsciously redefining 'learning something new' in a particular way so as to make the sentence appear to be true; whereas actually it's a disguised tautology: 'Whenever mankind has learned something that can be found through science and rational thinking, it has been through science and rational thinking.' I would suggest that for example, the invention of the novel, the plays of Shakespeare, Elgar's
Enigma Variations, the poetry of Ted Hughes, the paintings of JMW Turner, and indeed my new friendship with that interesting chap John who lives in the next street, are all ways of 'learning something new' that are not achieved through science and rational thinking.
QuoteI have done scientific research (acoustics). I'm an acoustics engineer with an university degree.
Thanks - that's helpful to know. I'm a physicist, myself.
QuoteNo. I don't even know who this Whitehead is but I have read Dawkins' The God Delusion.
Whitehead was a mathematician and philosopher who worked with Bertrand Russell on the
Principia Mathematica - a 3-volume treatise on the foundations of mathematics, generally considered one of the most important works ever written on mathematical logic (so I understand - I'm not capable of verifying the claim myself). Dawkins is an excellent biologist with, as far as I can judge, very little understanding of philosophy, whose statements on these issues seem to be driven by a hatred of religion rather than by rational thought. If we're going to read Dawkins launching attacks on aspects of human belief that he understands inadequately, wouldn't you say it's worth a look at why a serious philosopher like Whitehead raises serious questions about the limitations of science? If we're going to elevate science to the level of 'The One True Way' - shouldn't we look at some of the arguments against doing so? (After all, part of the spirit of scientific enquiry is to attack the strongest scientific statements and try to disprove them.)
QuoteSorry, I haven't read this thread carefully enough to know about any suggestions by you. I might sound arrogant and ignorant but these philosophical issues can take much more spare time than a working man has.
I sympathise. I know very well what it's like, I promise you, and I'm not at all suggesting that everyone should study the history of Western philosophy. But if someone is going to make declarations about science as 'The One True Way' to acquire knowledge, then it must make sense to find out at least
something about where the development of rational thought has led us? At least insofar as it concerns the findings of science?
QuoteWho says 2,500 years of rational thinking has taken us to the end of the journey? We have walked for long but we don't how long the journey is.
You misunderstand me. Obviously we can only follow the history of philosophy as far as it's gone up to now. That's what I mean by the end of the journey – it's not that philosophy stops, but that for the moment there's no more road to follow. Even so, having said that, I do think that something pretty substantial happens when we reach Wittgenstein. At that point a significant decision has to be made about where we go from here, and for me, that marks an end of sorts of that particular kind of journey. But to get there, and recognise the importance of it –
you do have to travel the road. That's my point.
QuoteWe use scientific methods deciding whether to continue with their friendship.
I don't believe it. We use intuitive and emotional responses to decide on a course of action; then we try to rationalise whatever decision we've reached, and declare it to be logical. (We're all very good at this kind of self-delusion. We can rationalise pretty well anything by including the information we want, and ignoring the information we don't want.)
My aim in all my interventions in this thread and others is not to assert that one view is right and others wrong; my aim is to try to raise awareness of how very little we know about the world and our place in it; of the limitations of the systems of knowledge acquisition that we set up; and of how easily, whether atheist, Christian, or Cheese-worshipper, we fool ourselves into thinking that we've found the foolproof route to the truth.
Elgarian,
QuoteMy aim in all my interventions in this thread and others is not to assert that one view is right and others wrong; my aim is to try to raise awareness of how very little we know about the world and our place in it; of the limitations of the systems of knowledge acquisition that we set up; and of how easily, whether atheist, Christian, or Cheese-worshipper, we fool ourselves into thinking that we've found the foolproof route to the truth.
A question if I may...
Where is the flaw(s) with this position/outlook:
The problem with organized religion is that it is a system and every system is concerned with one thing - the survival of itself. Self-preservation is the foremost thought of any system, be it a religious system, a government, or an organism. What happens, then, is that survival often times replaces the search for truth.
Look at it this way: For the sake of argument, let's assume that a supernatural being exists (God) that created life, the universe, and everything. Now let's fast forward 2342323 years to present day and analyze our current situation. We have a myriad of different religions, all of which teach different things. Some believe in Christ, some in Buddah, some in ancient elven spirits, etc. The thing of it is, no matter what these religions teach, no matter which one you worship, the truth is simply the truth. Why is it that people feel a need to worship via religion.... Why not skip the middle man, and simply worship the truth without knowing what it is?
Simply say "I am here, and for whatever reason, I am thankful, and I will do what I can to make this place good and care for my fellow human."
Instead of this simple yet ultimately infallible way of worship, we worship via these systems of religions - systems that are only concerned with their own survival. These systems try to proclaim themselves as the Truth, they try and proclaim themselves as the sole heir of spiritual deliverence, when it is simply NOT the case. The tragedy of this is that men and women have lost their lives, have lived through life times of suffering, have shed blood and tears and leveled cities in the name of one system or another pretty much since the begining of time.
The truth is everyone, and I mean EVERYONE is a human first, and a Christian/Catholic/Buddhist/Muslim,etc..... second .
It's not ideology, it's just simply fact.
And the bitter irony of it all is that we seek out these religions as a way to be a member of some spiritual organization, as a way for guidance and reassurance, when in fact we all, each and every one of us, already belong to such an organization. Its called humanity.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on July 03, 2009, 06:06:59 PM
Simply say "I am here, and for whatever reason, I am thankful, and I will do what I can to make this place good and care for my fellow human."
Well, I'd be happy to buy a pint of beer for anyone who took that attitude, Eric.
I've said this before, but we all need
some kind of platform, however tentative, however provisional, from which to operate. If it seems to Jill that the existence of a divine being is highly probable (on whatever grounds), then her platform is going to reflect that in some way. I suppose the difficulty would arise if you extrapolated the notion of 'caring for my fellow human' to include attacking Jill's chosen platform with missionary zeal because it's not the same as yours.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 02, 2009, 08:52:50 AM
That's an honest statement, but what concerns me is that if you don't understand most of what's been talked about, how can you be so sure that it can be dismissed?
I don't believe I have dismissed anything. I wrote my personal statement. Reading responsies to it I hope to get an understanding of what this thread is about. The title of this thread is not explaining much. Dawkins isn't against Hinduism that much to my understanding, nor is he a supporter.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 02, 2009, 08:52:50 AMI believe what you're actually doing here is subconsciously redefining 'learning something new' in a particular way so as to make the sentence appear to be true; whereas actually it's a disguised tautology: 'Whenever mankind has learned something that can be found through science and rational thinking, it has been through science and rational thinking.' I would suggest that for example, the invention of the novel, the plays of Shakespeare, Elgar's Enigma Variations, the poetry of Ted Hughes, the paintings of JMW Turner, and indeed my new friendship with that interesting chap John who lives in the next street, are all ways of 'learning something new' that are not achieved through science and rational thinking.
To me art is about creating something new rather than learning something new. Science is about objective things, art is about subjective things.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 02, 2009, 08:52:50 AMThanks - that's helpful to know. I'm a physicist, myself.
Cool!
Quote from: Elgarian on July 02, 2009, 08:52:50 AMWhitehead was a mathematician and philosopher who worked with Bertrand Russell on the Principia Mathematica - a 3-volume treatise on the foundations of mathematics, generally considered one of the most important works ever written on mathematical logic (so I understand - I'm not capable of verifying the claim myself). Dawkins is an excellent biologist with, as far as I can judge, very little understanding of philosophy, whose statements on these issues seem to be driven by a hatred of religion rather than by rational thought. If we’re going to read Dawkins launching attacks on aspects of human belief that he understands inadequately, wouldn't you say it's worth a look at why a serious philosopher like Whitehead raises serious questions about the limitations of science? If we're going to elevate science to the level of 'The One True Way' - shouldn't we look at some of the arguments against doing so? (After all, part of the spirit of scientific enquiry is to attack the strongest scientific statements and try to disprove them.)
Who knows, maybe I have heard about Whitehead. I forget things so easily. I wish I could read about everything but there is time because I am busy trying to enjoy my life before it's over. Without reading Whitehead's books I don't believe irrational thinking could save us from possible limitations of science. That's a completely crazy suggestion!
Dawkins isn't that good as a writer but he knows what he is writing about. He
really justifies his thoughts. Dawkins is against harmful
religions, not art or other harmless irrational things.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 02, 2009, 08:52:50 AMI sympathise. I know very well what it's like, I promise you, and I'm not at all suggesting that everyone should study the history of Western philosophy. But if someone is going to make declarations about science as 'The One True Way' to acquire knowledge, then it must make sense to find out at least something about where the development of rational thought has led us? At least insofar as it concerns the findings of science?
I have always believed that philosophy is science based on logic. At least philosophy seems very logical to me.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 02, 2009, 08:52:50 AMYou misunderstand me. Obviously we can only follow the history of philosophy as far as it’s gone up to now. That’s what I mean by the end of the journey – it's not that philosophy stops, but that for the moment there’s no more road to follow. Even so, having said that, I do think that something pretty substantial happens when we reach Wittgenstein. At that point a significant decision has to be made about where we go from here, and for me, that marks an end of sorts of that particular kind of journey. But to get there, and recognise the importance of it – you do have to travel the road. That’s my point.
Yeah, but the next step is usually obvious and logical. It might take a great mind to see it put fortunately geniuses live among us. It took only one Einstein to get the theory of relativity.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 02, 2009, 08:52:50 AMI don’t believe it. We use intuitive and emotional responses to decide on a course of action; then we try to rationalise whatever decision we’ve reached, and declare it to be logical. (We’re all very good at this kind of self-delusion. We can rationalise pretty well anything by including the information we want, and ignoring the information we don’t want.)
Yes, but the decisions happen according to the laws of physics.
That's the rational side of it, not our rationalisation of decisions.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 02, 2009, 08:52:50 AMMy aim in all my interventions in this thread and others is not to assert that one view is right and others wrong; my aim is to try to raise awareness of how very little we know about the world and our place in it; of the limitations of the systems of knowledge acquisition that we set up; and of how easily, whether atheist, Christian, or Cheese-worshipper, we fool ourselves into thinking that we’ve found the foolproof route to the truth.
For me science isn't a "foolproof route" to the truth. Fools are too stupid to use science. Science is just superior candidate for the best (and probably the only) route to the truth, the best bet. It's stupidity not to choose the best.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on July 03, 2009, 06:06:59 PM
And the bitter irony of it all is that we seek out these religions as a way to be a member of some spiritual organization, as a way for guidance and reassurance, when in fact we all, each and every one of us, already belong to such an organization. Its called humanity.
Ain't it a rib tickler that Eric's all-too-common unreasoningly childish hatred of religion blinds him to the OBVIOUS: that religions are
precisely the institutions humanity has created to provide spiritual guidance? And the almost equally obvious: that although some of these institutions have at times been involved in all-too-human activities of the baser sort (slavery and wars of conquest, for instance), on the whole they have been
by far the most overwhelming force for good among all human endeavors?
One needn't own horses to recognize the virtue of horse shoes.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 04, 2009, 03:25:34 AM
To me art is about creating something new rather than learning something new.
I find that my experience of art is about both.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 04, 2009, 04:37:17 AM
the OBVIOUS: that religions are precisely the institutions humanity has created to provide spiritual guidance?
Some religions maybe but for example the monotheistic Abrahamic religions are
custom-talored to dominate people. They are psychologically so well camouflaged that even in the 21th century many are unable to see that.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 04, 2009, 04:52:12 AM
I find that my experience of art is about both.
Yes, of course we do learn too. What I mean is art is an "ineffective" method to learn new things.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 04, 2009, 05:28:18 AM
Some religions maybe but for example the monotheistic Abrahamic religions are custom-talored to dominate people. They are psychologically so well camouflaged that even in the 21th century many are unable to see that.
If you'll forgive me for pointing out the obvious (again!), you've just revealed (for the umpteenth time) quite a lot about your ignorance and the prejudices that reinforce it, but you've said nothing even slightly informative about anything else.
Take it from one who made all the same tired, sophomoric arguments against religion when I was a teenager: it's very easy to discover the vast beneficial influence of religion in the world if only you open your mind to seeing it. (Whoops! We're right back to people who are unable to see things--even when they're obvious and many kind souls help point them out!)
How bizarre that so many here take the blessings they enjoy as a consequence of the West's Christian heritage so much for granted that they are blind to their source! One hardly need be a Christian of any sort, or believe in the special divinity of Jesus, or even believe that Jesus ever even existed, to recognize the profound, penetrating influence of Christianity on Western (and now global) civilization.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 04, 2009, 05:41:57 AMIt's very easy to discover the vast beneficial influence of religion in the world if only you open your mind to seeing it.
When I open my eyes I see members of sexual minorities struggling for their rights. Yeah, real benefits... ::)
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 04, 2009, 05:41:57 AMHow bizarre that so many here take the blessings they enjoy as a consequence of the West's Christian heritage so much for granted that they are blind to their source! One hardly need be a Christian of any sort, or believe in the special divinity of Jesus, or even believe that Jesus ever even existed, to recognize the profound, penetrating influence of Christianity on Western (and now global) civilization.
How much is the "Christian" heritage responsible for what our civilization is today? I believe most beneficial progress has happened thanks to intelligent free-thinking individual often striggling against the conservative influence of the church and religion.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 04, 2009, 05:54:21 AM
When I open my eyes I see members of sexual minorities struggling for their rights. Yeah, real benefits... ::)
How much is the "Christian" heritage responsible for what our civilization is today? I believe most beneficial progress has happened thanks to intelligent free-thinking individual often striggling against the conservative influence of the church and religion.
Again, you are telling us very much about the severely restricted limits of your own knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom. Until you are willing to remove the blinders from your eyes, no one can help you to see anything other than the tiny sliver of reality you're willing to look at.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 04, 2009, 05:59:47 AM
Again, you are telling us very much about the severely restricted limits of your own knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom. Until you are willing to remove the blinders from your eyes, no one can help you to see anything other than the tiny sliver of reality you're willing to look at.
So, basically you are saying I am an atheist because I am so stupid and if I was smart I was religious? Richard Dawkins is limited and stupid too, is that right? ::)
Quote from: 71 dB on July 04, 2009, 03:25:34 AM
To me art is about creating something new rather than learning something new.
You think we don't learn anything by reading a great novel, or a great poem, or watching a Shakespeare play, contemplating a great painting, or listening to Elgar's music? I'm
astounded. The entire history of the reception of art is against you in this, I think.
QuoteI don't believe irrational thinking could save us from possible limitations of science. That's a completely crazy suggestion!
I didn't suggest it. That's a muddled misrepresentation of what I said. I pointed out that the philosophy of Whitehead (who was surely one of the great logical thinkers) addresses the question of the limitations of science, and must surely be worth considering if we're tempted to believe that science is the One True Way to knowledge. Please consider what you're saying here: you say you insist on an entirely logical approach to acquiring knowledge of the world, yet don't find it worthwhile to read a great logician's critical analysis of the method we use to acquire it? Is that logical? Or scientific?
QuoteDawkins isn't that good as a writer but he knows what he is writing about. He really justifies his thoughts.
When he talks about biology, he knows what he is talking about. When he draws philosophical or theological conclusions, he does not. He is a great attacker of the straw men of religious thought.
QuoteI have always believed that philosophy is science based on logic.
But philosophy is
not 'science based on logic'. Philosophy exists as a discipline quite distinct from that of science.
QuoteScience is just superior candidate for the best (and probably the only) route to the truth
This is where I came in, but I don't have the stamina to keep going round the same old circle yet again. I'll leave you with the quote from Whitehead in my signature:
"Much philosophic thought is based upon the faked adequacy of some account of various modes of human experience. The final outcome of philosophic thought cannot be based upon the exact statements which form the basis of special sciences.
The exactness is a fake."
Quote from: 71 dB on July 04, 2009, 06:04:32 AM
So, basically you are saying I am an atheist because I am so stupid and if I was smart I was religious? Richard Dawkins is limited and stupid too, is that right? ::)
No, that is not what I am saying. Although you clearly fail to appreciate your own intelligence, you are just as clearly bright enough to grasp virtually everything under discussion throughout this site if only you would apply yourself to learning rather than to applying your own prejudices in defense against learning.
As for Dawkins: yes, he is limited and stupid. We are all limited, Poju, and none of us are especially bright. Those who fail to realize this, like Dawkins, are therefore stupid--and by choice, at least to the extent that crippling arrogance is a choice and not organically pathological.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 04, 2009, 05:34:51 AM
art is an "ineffective" method to learn new things.
I see you repeat this incredible statement here in a slightly different form. Forgive me, but my goodness... what an impossibly restricted notion you must have of what constitutes 'new things'. When you first heard Elgar's 1st symphony,
The Spirit of England, or the violin concerto ... did you truly learn nothing? I just can't believe that you mean what you seem to be saying.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 04, 2009, 06:31:05 AM
I see you repeat this incredible statement here in a slightly different form. Forgive me, but my goodness... what an impossibly restricted notion you must have of what constitutes 'new things'. When you first heard Elgar's 1st symphony, The Spirit of England, or the violin concerto ... did you truly learn nothing? I just can't believe that you mean what you seem to be saying.
One thing of note that is not immediately evident from his posts is that Poju is not a native English speaker. He's a Finn. To some extent, his difficulty in grasping nice distinctions owes to that.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 04, 2009, 06:38:26 AM
One thing of note that is not immediately evident from his posts is that Poju is not a native English speaker. He's a Finn. To some extent, his difficulty in grasping nice distinctions owes to that.
Ah!!! Thanks David! A timely and most helpful intervention!
71dB - my apologies if I haven't made sufficient allowance for that. Your English is so good that I was completely unaware that it isn't your native language.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 04, 2009, 06:22:56 AM
You think we don't learn anything by reading a great novel, or a great poem, or watching a Shakespeare play, contemplating a great painting, or listening to Elgar's music? I'm astounded. The entire history of the reception of art is against you in this, I think.
I don't learn anything about the big bang while listening to Elgar or any other music. I need to read books of physics for that. That's what I mean. What I learn from Elgar has relevance for me
personally. Most people don't even care about Elgar.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 04, 2009, 06:22:56 AMI didn't suggest it. That's a muddled misrepresentation of what I said. I pointed out that the philosophy of Whitehead (who was surely one of the great logical thinkers) addresses the question of the limitations of science, and must surely be worth considering if we're tempted to believe that science is the One True Way to knowledge. Please consider what you're saying here: you say you insist on an entirely logical approach to acquiring knowledge of the world, yet don't find it worthwhile to read a great logician's critical analysis of the method we use to acquire it? Is that logical? Or scientific?
I did read about Whitehead in Wikipedia today for an hour or so. I got the impression he wasn't that right about things. For example he has weird (false) theories about gravity.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 04, 2009, 06:22:56 AMWhen he talks about biology, he knows what he is talking about. When he draws philosophical or theological conclusions, he does not. He is a great attacker of the straw men of religious thought.
Really? I disagree.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 04, 2009, 06:22:56 AMBut philosophy is not 'science based on logic'. Philosophy exists as a discipline quite distinct from that of science.
Ilkka Niiniluoto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilkka_Niiniluoto), the professor of theoretical philosophy at the University of Helsinki says philosophy is exact science based on logic. Perhaps he is wrong?
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 04, 2009, 06:38:26 AM
One thing of note that is not immediately evident from his posts is that Poju is not a native English speaker. He's a Finn. To some extent, his difficulty in grasping nice distinctions owes to that.
Actually I have difficulties to grasp whole ideas because of that. ;D That is one reason why I have been so lost in this thread.
Also, I think Finns in general are much less religious than for example British or American people. In Finland being an atheist and criticizing the church isn't a big deal.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 04, 2009, 06:41:29 AM
71dB - my apologies if I haven't made sufficient allowance for that. Your English is so good that I was completely unaware that it isn't your native language.
Wow, that is so flattering! Thanks! :)
My high-school English teacher should read this. I was a "hopeless" case back then. I learned my English in university.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 04, 2009, 06:54:26 AM
I don't learn anything about the big bang while listening to Elgar or any other music.
That doesn't surprise me. How could you possibly do so? But knowledge about the big bang is not the only kind of knowledge there is. The arts are enormously important vehicles for communication, and a great deal of learning is done through them. Really significant shifts in our perceptions of the world occur through the arts; that's not a matter of opinion, but a fact of cultural history. Maybe this is, as David suggests, a language problem - it seems so obvious that I can't believe there could be any disagreement on the matter.
QuoteI did read about Whitehead in Wikipedia today for an hour or so. I got the impression he wasn't that right about things. For example he has weird (false) theories about gravity.
Well, science moves on. Whitehead was a man of his time. But I've been talking about his philosophy, not his understanding of gravity, and his logic still has to be attended to.
QuoteReally? I disagree [about Dawkins].
You disagree about whether Dawkins understands philosophy? But to anyone who does have a little knowledge of philosophy, it's clear that he doesn't. You disagree that he sets up religious straw men in order to knock them down? But that is his standard tactic.
QuoteIlkka Niiniluoto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilkka_Niiniluoto), the professor of theoretical philosophy at the University of Helsinki says philosophy is exact science based on logic. Perhaps he is wrong?
Are we involved in some translational issue concerning the word 'science' here? I'm using the word as describing a specific process of observation, hypothesis-forming, prediction-making, then hypothesis testing, and so on - in other words, the 'scientific method'. But philosophy - and for convenience I extract a rough definition from Wikipedia - is "the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language." Now, we could quibble about that definition, but it certainly isn't 'science'. So I don't understand the statement made by Ilkka Niiniluoto, unless there's an ambiguity in translation. He is specifically interested in the philosophy of science, I see - so the problem may indeed be one of translation.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 04, 2009, 07:36:44 AM
That doesn't surprise me. How could you possibly do so? But knowledge about the big bang is not the only kind of knowledge there is. The arts are enormously important vehicles for communication, and a great deal of learning is done through them. Really significant shifts in our perceptions of the world occur through the arts; that's not a matter of opinion, but a fact of cultural history. Maybe this is, as David suggests, a language problem - it seems so obvious that I can't believe there could be any disagreement on the matter.
We see here that there is different kind of knowledge. The question is what kind of difference. Scientific knowledge is formulated. Not all knowledge is. In many cases knowledge is too complex for
us to formulate.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 04, 2009, 07:36:44 AMWell, science moves on. Whitehead was a man of his time. But I've been talking about his philosophy, not his understanding of gravity, and his logic still has to be attended to.
yes, science moves on. The world moves on too. In my opinion mankind has been ready to abandon religion for about 100 years now. We are behind the schedule (religion doesn't want to let go as it is created to dominate us). That's also Dawkins' message.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 04, 2009, 07:36:44 AMYou disagree about whether Dawkins understands philosophy? But to anyone who does have a little knowledge of philosophy, it's clear that he doesn't. You disagree that he sets up religious straw men in order to knock them down? But that is his standard tactic.
Give me a break, please. Dawkins is a highly educated and intelligent man who has spend decades of his life thinking about these issues while communicating with other smart, educated people like Dan Dennett (a philosopher!) Dawkins is right and religious people are pissed off because of that.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 04, 2009, 07:36:44 AMAre we involved in some translational issue concerning the word 'science' here? I'm using the word as describing a specific process of observation, hypothesis-forming, prediction-making, then hypothesis testing, and so on - in other words, the 'scientific method'. But philosophy - and for convenience I extract a rough definition from Wikipedia - is "the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language." Now, we could quibble about that definition, but it certainly isn't 'science'. So I don't understand the statement made by Ilkka Niiniluoto, unless there's an ambiguity in translation. He is specifically interested in the philosophy of science, I see - so the problem may indeed be one of translation.
Scientic methods vary. One does biological research differently from theoretical studies of Math. The fundamental idea is the same: You take the best possible knowledge (observations included) available and using that you try to
1) remove errors/inaccuracy of your knowledge.
2) deduct new knowledge
If philosophers aren't doing that (science) then what the hell are they doing with our tax money?
Quote from: 71 dB on July 04, 2009, 07:07:52 AM
Also, I think Finns in general are much less religious than for example British or American people. In Finland being an atheist and criticizing the church isn't a big deal.
I don't know how to compare religiosity of Finns with Brits or Yanks. Being an atheist and criticizing the church may be a trivially common in America and Britain (damn near
required for teenagers still, I suspect) but many of those who think they are atheists and enjoy criticizing the church make a very big deal out of it--witness these incessant threads at GMG alone, and the constant attention-seeking squawking of imbeciles like Maher and Dawkins. "The lady doth protest too much" in most such cases to make their claims of disinterest credible.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 04, 2009, 07:36:44 AMAre we involved in some translational issue concerning the word 'science' here? I'm using the word as describing a specific process of observation, hypothesis-forming, prediction-making, then hypothesis testing, and so on - in other words, the 'scientific method'. But philosophy - and for convenience I extract a rough definition from Wikipedia - is "the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language." Now, we could quibble about that definition, but it certainly isn't 'science'. So I don't understand the statement made by Ilkka Niiniluoto, unless there's an ambiguity in translation. He is specifically interested in the philosophy of science, I see - so the problem may indeed be one of translation.
Science, of course, both as method and as individual branches of study employing that method, is a subset of philosophy and no more defines that enterprise than harmony defines music.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 04, 2009, 08:13:13 AM
In my opinion mankind has been ready to abandon religion for about 100 years now.
At no stage in any of these discussions have I been arguing a case for religion of any kind. (We've never reached a point in these discussions at which that might be a feasible prospect, even if I were inclined to pursue it.) I merely raise philosophical objections to the view that science is capable of giving adequate answers to all the questions we ask. That is, I ask that science be as scientifically sceptical about its own process, as it is about the hypotheses that it generates.
But what's clear to me (and it must surely be clear to you too) is that we've reached a complete breakdown of communication over these matters, and there's no point in continuing further. We'd merely go round in an endless loop of misunderstanding.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 04, 2009, 08:25:50 AM
Science, of course, both as method and as individual branches of study employing that method, is a subset of philosophy and no more defines that enterprise than harmony defines music.
Thanks. While I reached for my sledgehammer, you cracked the nut.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 04, 2009, 08:29:16 AM
At no stage in any of these discussions have I been arguing a case for religion of any kind. (We've never reached a point in these discussions at which that might be a feasible prospect, even if I were inclined to pursue it.) I merely raise philosophical objections to the view that science is capable of giving adequate answers to all the questions we ask. That is, I ask that science be as scientifically sceptical about its own process, as it is about the hypotheses that it generates.
But what's clear to me (and it must surely be clear to you too) is that we've reached a complete breakdown of communication over these matters, and there's no point in continuing further. We'd merely go round in an endless loop of misunderstanding.
As I said, there are many kinds of knowledge depending on how much we can formulate our questions. Religious "knowledge" tends to force itself everywhere, in place where it doesn't belong. Scientific knowledge doesn't do that. It's passive. Scientist must work hard to get answers from science. Also, science is (or at least tries to be) about the truth but it is not sacret like religions are.
Why not give philosophy a try? What harm can it do if it fails? As if there were better tools. If we don't get answers then we just have to live with that.
Quote from: DavidRoss on July 04, 2009, 08:25:50 AM
I don't know how to compare religiosity of Finns with Brits or Yanks. Being an atheist and criticizing the church may be a trivially common in America and Britain (damn near required for teenagers still, I suspect) but many of those who think they are atheists and enjoy criticizing the church make a very big deal out of it--witness these incessant threads at GMG alone, and the constant attention-seeking squawking of imbeciles like Maher and Dawkins. "The lady doth protest too much" in most such cases to make their claims of disinterest credible.
"Imbecile" Dawkins does justify his war against religion very well. Just as we need to fight against harmful drugs in society, we must fight the harmful effects of religion.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 04, 2009, 08:46:00 AM
Why not give philosophy a try?
I said I wouldn't keep this debate going, and I won't. But at this point I must allow myself to splutter!
Guys you want to quit this thread. And Dawkins is really not that bright, he's just an Oxbridge club member who'd be seriously unsettled to meet half the people here.