Kindest Regards, everybody!
Sorry I missed out last night, but I'm glad to see a lively discussion!
... each person trying to tell me I can know has different criteria for knowing be it logic, reductionism, a sacred text or peak experiences.
Exactly Dauer!
I've been trying to think of an example to set up to help demonstrate this. So far the best I can do is this:
The sun rises in the morning.
We all know this, our grandparents know this, our ancestors a hundred thousand years ago knew this.
How many of our ancestors knew why the sun always rose in the east, and set in the west? Few? I would posit that all of them
believed they knew why, but those beliefs could be segregated into major subsets, like Dauer said, depending on the cultural emphasis on type of reasoning.
How many believed the sun was a flaming orb pulled across the sky by a god's chariot? Enough of them that this belief became merged or absorbed into the cultural psyche and outlook, and these people's view of reality was framed in a manner that included this "truth." It is not that their belief was a "lie," it certainly was sufficient and effective for them. It is that they did not have access to knowledge we hold as truth today.
There are probably a hundred other "beliefs" regarding the sun rising and setting across cultures and across history. And every one of these beliefs was an unchallengable truth at some point.
We want to believe (there's that word again) that our logical approach in combination with observational study and controlled recreation that we can answer all questions. But that too is a belief that can be challenged, intellectually. We now know the earth is "round" (pear shaped actually, if that doesn't threaten your beliefs), and that the rotation is why the sun rises and sets the way it does. That's fine, it is our current belief merged into our cultural psyche and outlook, and our view of reality includes this outlook. We want to believe it is an unchallengable truth.
But it is still a limited outlook on a limited truth.
The scientific, rational, logical purview still evades or otherwise cannot effectively deal with some issues that lie just outside of its reach.
You always know the right thing to say to a guy to make him feel wanted! <blush>
OK, enough of that!
I have to hold my hands up and say that I do not quite know how to tackle individual spirituality other than to maintain the position that it too is illusory, yet not necessarily detrimental.
That's fine, it is your belief.
...I was ascribing to some notion of a bigger purpose/ plan / intelligence. I know in myself this is what I wanted to find and so I sought it. I could never have found it in any of the established institutions... So I sought it where my deepest most profound feelings reside, my love of life, life forms and this beautiful universe. I sauntered down the Lovelock way and found Gaia theory so obviously truth, based on my own hands on interaction with the natural world, that I began to elevate it beyond that which it is. I still believe the super-organism referred to as Gaia is a fact. And I still believe that we, as a constituent part of it, get our sense of something "bigger" from our immersion in it. But the 'intelligence' of Gaia shows no sign of being anything godlike in nature.
"I sought it where my deepest most profound feelings reside, my love of life, life forms and this beautiful universe." -how is this any different than a person in a prehistoric tribal community looking to the stars and wondering "why?"
"But the 'intelligence' of Gaia shows no sign of being anything godlike in nature." Not to split hairs, and I do understand why you make this comment, but going by my definition I am obligated to disagree, except that I would replace godlike with G-d.
Artistic or aesthetic predispositions are a side effect of bigger brains that evolved because our species needed them to enable our omnivorous and nomadic way of life. But aesthetic appreciation of beauty is not confined to humans. ... my point is that nature produced such abilities, not a divine and unique gift to mankind.
I had a feeling I would get called on this. I would argue about bird plumage, that is simply a fortunate accident of evolution in combination with intraspecies breeding preferences. The point I was trying to make has to do with symapthetic magic. So many of the cave paintings and venus figures and many, many other *art*ifactual finds are overwhelmingly considered to be used to invoke the Divine. I haven't looked into your Bower bird, but I doubt the purpose of its sculpture is to invoke a mystical providence.
It is naive to think that life back at the dawn was all for one and one for all. Competition for often scarce resources would inevitably lead to power games. They would certainly manifest themselves in the oral tradition of the people.
I don't disagree, *outside* of the "clan." (since you invoked that term, it will suit) We are moral to those within our clan, not necessarily to those outside our clan, even among our own species. Nature and history demonstrate this time and again. Morality is something convenience, and we are not all predisposed to it by any means. So, that "competition" was on a clan scale when it tended to wander outside the realm of treating one's "neighbor" morally. Clans have warred probably as long as clans existed, but the nature of warfare in prehistoric times was different than it is now. Even historically, there are different kinds and types of warfare, but most of it is at the clan level or above.
Also we cannot dismiss the value of ignorance. We take our evolved science and education for granted but back when if a clan elder gave a supernatural explanation you believed it for there was no alternative. For every avenue of inquiry into the why and when of mankind's spiritual and intellectual sentiments we can with a little thought find an alternative to the divine gift bestowed on us. There are no mysteries. And there is no valid case to support belief in the supernatural.
There is always an alternative...of course you might get tied up and shipped to a funny pharm, but that is the option available to anyone who dares think for themself. I disagree that there are no mysteries, there are many mysteries that science and logic cannot explain, and I posit that they will not ever fully explain, because the nature of the mystery lies beyond the purview of the science.
perhaps belief came about because as we evolved we ‘tuned in’ to the greater aspect ~ the presence if you will of infinite being or just of something very great.
Good to see you back around Z!
I think this is saying in yet another way what Tao and I both have been saying, this is simply your spin on the matter, your "belief."
i am afraid belief is present in science too!
Amen!
This is what I'm getting at, we live in the conceptual rather than the actual. Notice the resistance you get when this is pointed out. Living in the actual is uncomfortable and unpredictable. Here the son of man has no place to rest his head.
I'm afraid I disagree with this Paladin. We live in the actual, we have to live in some reality that is concrete. Our *perceptions* of that reality are what create all the subjective truths we tend to "believe."
I think that there has to be some medium for all the parts and particles to clink around in. I'd call that belief. Fish need water to swim around in so they can do their fishy thing. Facts need something to swim around in so they can be rearranged into ever more concrete hypotheses.
I can go along with this. What are the dominating beliefs going to be in 100 years, 500 years, 2000 years? I would be very willing to guess that those predominant beliefs will be very different from those we hold today.
Dogma is the enemy of fact and reason. Since i have become evangelical i believe i have to say this
Agreed. Hence the value in the seeker attitude. But one must also guard against the dogma *of* fact and reason. Fact and reason do not provide us with ultimate truth, they only provide an alternate truth.
True no 2 individuals share a reality on a personal level. But we do share a collective reality that we must have a duty to be aware of.
Yeah, what he said.
Except I would insert "truth" where you wrote "reality on a personal level."
That makes a lot of sense, Z. I think that one has to embrace an open ended commitment to humility and patience, understanding that there is no final plateau to be reached. In other words, you have to remain philosophical throughout. I do think that it's responsible and reasonable to say that, in the absence of absolute proof, certain processes or things seem to be trending a certain way with enough stability to make solid assumptions. And the beauty of belief systems, when they work properly, is that the scaffolding can be easily broken down and reused on a variety of projects. There is a danger there of constructing a web of assumptions based on false conclusions, but the advantage is that one doesn't have to start all over at the beginning every time.
Awesome, Chris!
