Is an agnostic a cowardly atheist?

Interbane · Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:41 pm Post subject:

RT: "Thanks IB, it is not right to see karma like a residual for the parts of causality that we do not yet understand through science. I would define it as including both the things we understand and those we don't understand. If your karma is your fate, most of it is probably discernible through observable factors, but there is always something beyond our knowledge as well. The totality of causal influences, well beyond what we can understand, do provide the actual constraints within which freedom can operate. Saying an ecosystem has a character is not personifying it; rather it is recognising that human personality is an example of a quality seen throughout nature. "

We can move past this, I agree with everything except that there is freedom within the constraints. My problem with the total of all unknowns is that this is the territory of superstition and everything-goes. It’s the ultimate fallback point when making propositions that are doomed false. The word karma holds much of this mystique from how I view it. I’ve encountered many ideas grounded in what we do know, with critical premises based in what we don’t know. I can accept a word that crosses this boundary in an explanatory fashion as long as there’s no propositional agenda that relies too heavily on the “unknown” portion of the word’s definition.

RT: "I came across an interesting example in Islam, where many people do not wear seatbelts while driving because they think that their kismet is a ticket from Allah determining when their number is up, and that wearing a seatbelt indicates a lack of faith in the almighty."

If we wait a few centuries, will that mindset be slowly filtered out of our gene pool?

RT: "No, you misunderstand here. Jung is not defining God as what we don't know, but following Paul (Romans 1:19) in saying God is manifest in nature, defined as all in all. "

I still do not understand. Why not just call it nature? I can’t see how Jung would come to use the word god unless he took all of nature and added a dash of the unknown, much like how I view gaia or mother earth. I wouldn’t be against someone describing nature as god, but if you give them an inch, they take a mile. The use of the word would draw resistance whether there should be any or not. It isn’t necessary.

RT: "Again, following Paul's definition of God at 1 Corinthians 15:28 as all in all, Jung is claiming to see a unity in the totality of the cosmos."

Can you explain this unity? If unity references something other than the sum of the parts, it necessarily references an unknown. It is also a more obscure concept, thus the reference is overlooked. I understand there is stuff that is unknown, but it is folly to make propositions based on that, as I’m sure you’ll agree. If the word ‘unity’ references all things that are known but requires a different understanding of the universe, then please help me understand. I viscerally, emotionally understand where you’re coming from, but when critically examining it, there is no truth to there being a unity of the cosmos other than hope in an explanation for a worldview without explanation. The unity I perceive that strikes me on a deeper level I realize is a conceptualization of the whole of the universe, and isn’t grounded objectively. The cosmos is simply there, with or without the mental methods we use to understand it. Anything beyond that is unobservable, undetectable, and unknown, so shouldn’t be used to support an agenda.

RT: "The trouble with Dawkins' criticism is that he presents a continuum ranging from extreme belief, where he wrongly places Jung, across to extreme reason, where he humbly says even he has doubts, implying that this continuum illustrates the path from delusion to enlightenment. However, Dawkins' implicit argument that we cannot perceive a unity in the totality - because that would be religious - strikes me as far from enlightened. Jung sees this religious 'baggage' as useful for the development of morality and human identity."

I would be interested to see how this ‘baggage’ is used.

Yes, in the different context of Plato's divided line, where knowledge of God is placed at the opposite end of the spectrum from where Dawkins puts it in The God Delusion. If Dawkins is having a sly dig at Plato here I think it backfires.

This is the first I’ve read about Plato’s divided line. You’ll have to explain further what you mean with regards to this line. Where in this line is the distinction between objective and subjective references in a modern sense?

RT: "The point is that freedom is channelled within the boundaries of genetic adaptation. We are indeed free to behave randomly, but we choose not to because it is maladaptive."

I understand that, but you can certainly take it a step further than maladaptive behavior control. I challenge you to give me an example of truly random of free behavior. Not guided by past experience or environment. A glimpse at how much we don’t know of what factors influence our behavior are those interesting tests that have you do a series of math problems, then pick a random vegetable. The answer is almost always the same, no matter who takes the test. There are reasons for maladaptive behavior such as suicide, it isn’t a no-strings-attached choice.

Robert Tulip · Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject:

Interbane · Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 1:52 am Post subject:

Oops, didn't see your reply here Robert, sorry. I'll get back to you, perhaps tomorrow.

Interbane · Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:28 pm Post subject:

RT: "The total of unknowns is restricted to things that are scientifically possible, and does not include things that are not possible."

You mean to say, for what you're proposing, rather than in general. In general, use of the word "unknown" is subject to scrutiny as it references future knowledge, which should necessarily be true. On the other hand, it may reference what we "know" to be false. I understand what you're saying with what you're proposing however.

RT: "I am trying to strip the word karma of this mythic baggage by using it as a scientific term for destiny."

You'll strip the baggage according to who's definition? Your own alone, I'd wager, even though I understand what you mean and will agree with it. Why not use terminology with less baggage so you aren't misunderstood?

RT: "The difference between nature and God, as I see it, is that the idea of God is the way humans imbue nature with meaning and purpose."

So in this sense, god wouldn't be real at all. It would only be a lens through which we understand the world. A human construct perhaps, useless without a human brain.

RT: "Only the non-random few mutants which prove adaptive survive."

I believe even beneficial(thus controversial) mutations are random.

RT: "Whether or not there is an unknown determinism behind events, our feeling of freedom is part of our fate, and if we choose to act as though we can’t influence our destiny then that will produce a very different result from people who think they are free."

I agree, we should maintain the illusion of free will. I do believe that it is just an illusion, and the universe is deterministic.

Robert Tulip · Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2008 1:33 am Post subject:

Interbane · Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:38 am Post subject:

RT: "So the idea of God as Zeus tossing thunderbolts is not part of 'the totality of unknowns' even though Zeus continues to have all sorts of cultural resonance and meaning."

Speaking on scrutinizing the 'unknown'; I didn't have in mind the limitations you're speaking of when I wrote the word. Do we 'know' that Zeus does not exist, and does not toss thunderbolts? With how much rigidity do you hold the idea of unknowns, even given this response is a tangent? It is a tangent, I understand your earlier posts as I've said.

RT: "I accept the definition of karma at the wikipedia site: “that which causes the entire cycle of cause and effect.” I don't think we have another word that captures this meaning. Stripping baggage primarily involves skepticism about traditional folk beliefs in reincarnation."

The wikipedia site goes on a great deal further than what you've quoted. A majority of it is the baggage we're speaking of. If you strip the baggage, there's not much left to the word.

wiki: "Karma is also considered to be a spiritually originated law. Many Hindus see God's direct involvement in this process, while others consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma."

Natural laws of causation. I can't think of another word. On the other hand, I don't think it likely that you could strip the word karma down to that definition alone. There's simply too much baggage.

RT: "If we say God is love then we mean a divine energy is present in all instances of love"

Parsimony applies against such propositions. Love is love, why imbue it with more unnecessarily? What would god not be? Would he not be hate? Is there a limit to what he is?

RT: "I think you misunderstand evolution here. A mutation is adaptive (ie it survives) only when it is as suited to its niche as the non-mutant. The niche has specific non-random features to which the mutant must attune."

You must make the distinction here that the creature is different from it's environment. The environment may well have constants(what you call non-random), but the mutations from generation to generation of creature are still random. Offspring with mutations that lend it more survival capability are still offspring with random mutations. It is just that those random mutations are more suited to the environment than other random mutations. I'm using the word random here in a generic sense, not in a non-deterministic sense.

RT: "However, it is entirely wrong to say that because we cannot know the position and direction of a particle, that the particle does not actually have a unique position and momentum. It is just that we finite creatures cannot know it."

That would have been my reply.

RT: "However, Dawkins' implicit argument that we cannot perceive a unity in the totality - because that would be religious - strikes me as far from enlightened. Jung sees this religious 'baggage' as useful for the development of morality and human identity."

Too many tangents. This was along the same thread that I had a problem with originally, and now you've made yourself clearer. The 'unity in the totality'; is that referring to more than the whole of the cycle of cause and effect? Is this similar to an "in addition to" proposal that seeks to piggyback a non-disprovable concept on a virtue?

ZachSylvanus · Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:51 pm Post subject:


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT