Reason rules with God's will, karma, and laws of nature

Having written about reason and rationality recently, here's some thoughts that came to mind (weird phrase, since where else would thoughts appear?) as I was musing about how people believe in God's will and karma as other-worldly explanations for why things happen as they do.

It struck me that God's will and karma are appealing notions for many because they provide reasons for happenings that often aren't pleasant. Or are surprising.

For example, I know someone who got stage 4 lung cancer even though she never smoked. Thankfully, she's doing quite well, even after several years have passed since the diagnosis. She isn't at all religious. But if she was, probably the idea that her cancer is in accord with God's will would comfort her.

"Will" implies a reason behind it.

Otherwise we'd speak of "God's caprice" or "God's random choice." When someone wills that something happen, even if that someone is a supernatural being, seemingly there's a purpose that will is intended to achieve -- even if that purpose is unknown to us.

Likewise, karma definitely entails reason. Typically karma is viewed as encompassing more than one lifetime, though the word also can be limited to causes and effects occurring within a single life. Good karma is the result of positive actions; bad karma is the result of negative actions. 

You know, the whole as you sow, so shall you reap thing. 

Thus karma is nothing but reasons. Those reasons for why something is happening to us may be lost in deep time, if we believe in rebirth/reincarnation, but they exist nonetheless. At least, that's the way karma is conceptualized. 

( I wrote a book about karma, "Life is Fair," so I'm familiar with the term.)

Obviously there's another way to look upon the reason something is happening: as being in accord with the laws of nature. The benefit of this perspective is that it is scientific, not religious; factual, not fantasized; coherent, not confusing.

As with God's will and karma, often it is very difficult, if not impossible, to discern the precise reasons that produce a happening. In part this is because chaos theory, though deterministic, says that initial conditions can play a big role in an event.

Often this is called the "butterfly effect." A butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can theoretically create an atmospheric instability that, over time, is magnified into a hurricane striking the United States.

Even so, the beauty of embracing laws of nature as the reason things happen as they do is that no outside concepts are required. No need to believe in the unseen will of an unseen God. No need to believe in the unseen force of karma extending across multiple unseen lifetimes.

We know about the laws of nature through science and everyday life. They are the manifestation of nature's reason. Sometimes they even can be described in mathematical terms. 

So if you're looking for a way to understand why life here on Earth is as it is, there's no need to look beyond three simple words: laws of nature.

Comments

[Spence Tepper]

Unseen forces are part of nature.
Unknown forces are what science is in the business of uncovering.

Without the mystery of the unknown the practice of science would cease to exist.

So belief in the existence of unseen and Unknown forces is scientifically accurate, though conjectured claims about the details of the unknown are not.

However, conjecturing about the unknown is also part of science. But it isn't real science unless there is some plan to experience those things through scientific detection and measurement, and where possible, experimentation.

Conjecture about what does or doesn't exist outside of known science without a plan for scientific observation and experimentation isn't science.

[Spence Tepper]

As for Robbespiere, he rejected all beliefs and simply created his own religion for political purposes. That would hardly constitue submission to a higher power.

In short, when someone does not believe in the existence of a power or intellect greater than their own, when there is nothing and no one they love more than themselves, I suggest that this could be considered a defines atheism.

[Spence Tepper]

Oops, wrong thread..

[Tendzin]

There is no "law of nature" that forbids stealing, or murder, or incest, or torture, or lying, or any other socially deviant behavior. There is no Golden Rule that material science can discern. Science is totally amoral. Science provides no reason for why infanticide shouldn't be frowned upon or euthanasia shouldn't be enforced by the State. In fact, those who champion such moral methods often invoke science, finding nothing in natural law for why weaker individuals shouldn't be sacrificed for the sake of the ideology or the "greater good."

I think the more apt question is whether the East's concept of karma is always useful in human affairs.

[Brian Hines]

Tendzin, you're wrong. The behavior of we humans, in every respect, is fully in accord with the laws of nature. Evolution is part of the laws of nature. Evolution rewards cooperative behavior through group selection. Our brains function in accord with the laws of nature. So our views of morality also are in total accord with the laws of nature. Point to something we humans do or are that is outside of the laws of nature. You can't,

[Tendzin]

“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”

― G. K. Chesterton

[Appreciative Reader]

"...nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served..."

..........That sounds reasonable.

So, what is the point you're trying to make, with this lengthy quote? Would you like to initiate a discussion around that, as it might relate to something specific, theism for instance, or maybe some other subject? Or was that simply a general throw-away observation (albeit not in itself an unreasonable one)?

[Uchit]

We have free will choice given our circumstances of our birth, ie previdges , DNA, abilities, ...etc . We can achieve our greatest potential in life. There are also consequences to your choices - it's as simple as that.

However , moranic low life gurus like gurinder singh dhillon and its road show, RSSB, heavily emphasize your karma and karmic dept , create unacheivable moral codes ( which they can't even keep). Why? Simply to manipulate you, to keep you blinded and asleep. They make you feel guilty, of judgment , of sin that you will be punished forever. Who needs these fake @ass gurus like dustbin dhillon when in reality your heart / intuition are your greatest guide. These fake gurus talk about the rebirth cycles to destroy your very hearts. Instead of freeing and empowering you, they empower themselves and their own interests. Whats more there remedies lead you even deeper and more entangled in the spiders web. Why else would GSD as you to repeat the name of Kaal in meditation. GSD you and RSSB are totally exposed for crimes of deception, lies, and hypocrisy.

[JS]

The thing with karma is, your debts will never be settled. It’s a never ending game of ping pong.

Without some form of forgiveness or simple realization that two wrongs don’t make a right, you’ll continue to suffer lifetime after lifetime. Your suffering cannot take away the pain you caused someone else. And another person’s suffering won’t bring you peace. But you can learn a lesson from it.