Here's a typically thoughtful comment from Appreciative Reader on a recent post. I made it into a blog post of its own for a couple of reasons.
Most importantly, the comment explains in a clear, persuasive fashion why science is just a great way of learning about the world and our place in it.
Secondly, Appreciative Reader's comment went into the spam filter of Typepad, my blogging service, and it took me several days to notice that this had happened, because I've been so obsessed with keeping track of what's going on with Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
So it's Putin's fault that the comment wasn't immediately available. At least, that's my spin on the situation. It could be also be argued, quite reasonably, that I simply forgot to check the spam filter. But I prefer the Putin hypothesis, since it puts me in a better light.
Enjoy...
"Science has its place .. no doubt about that but it has nothing to attribute as far as living life is concerned, it cannot offer an vision on life.
Trying to do that turns science into a religion."
-------------------------------------
Sorry, um, but I'm afraid I disagree, squarely.
(With just that much, that I've quoted above, and the thrust of your last two comments addressed to me; I continue to agree, broadly that is, with your larger point that you keep making here, about the primacy of one's own experiences vis-a-vis someone elses's --- the whole restaurant thing, that we've discussed at length. But this last, I find this POV less than persuasive.)
You seem to see science as some kind of a tool that simply answers specific questions of a technical nature, and assists in developing technology that keeps us comfortable and happy.
I'm sorry, but that's seeing science as some kind of magic; you know, like how the king in the fairy tale orders the mage to rustle up some magick to help repel those invaders from overseas, or quickly rustle up a cure for the dying prince and heir, even as the royal household keeps sacrificing to the gods for rain and a good harvest.
You may have read my rather lengthy exchange with Spence, where Spence started out in disagreement with me but finally ended up seeing things my way. Without revisiting the detailed argument, and in short, what the rational-scientific worldview does is to open up for us a way of viewing the world, a sane clean world that isn't "demon-haunted" (to quote Carl Sagan).
It's a world where every time you see a storm you don't dance around wearing beads in an effort to propitiate Odin and Thor and Indra, until such time as every part of the mechanism of storms has been sussed out by those science boffins.
It's a world where you look at the things that you don't know as something you don't know, and something that, if you're so inclined, you try to find out more about, but don't immediately rush to fantastic supernatural explanations just because you still don't know all about it.
(Needless to say you remain open to accepting even the supernatural and the miraculous, should such be evidenced, but that isn't the default --- unlike in manjit's worldview, for instance, at least as he discusses it here in this thread.)
The kind of strictly skeptical spiritual approach that, for instance, Dungeness advocates, and sometimes Spence as well, is not what religions are normally like. Your garden variety religion that your garden variety theist follows basically offers people a lens through which to view the world.
(And in as much as that lense is entirely faulty, it presents a distorted upside-down view of the world, that occasionally by happenstance rings true, kind of like a stopped watch giving you the right time twice a day.)
Well, science, or more correctly a scientific worldview, also offers you a lens to view the world, a sane rational view of the world. To that very limited extent, yes, you may indeed liken science with religion, and that is a comparison I'm happy to embrace, in that very limited sense.
So is the lens that science provides to us perfect? No, obviously not. Clearly it is a work-in-process, clearly it is constantly being updated and improved. But it is the best we've got. It's the only one we've got that's reliable. It's head and shoulders above the craziness of religion in terms of both accuracy and precision, and utility as well.
But I suggest that it is also better than a personal idiosyncratic worldview, most times at least, in as much such a worldview is susceptible to a hundred and one biases.
Science, collectively done, isn't exactly entirely free of bias; but those biases are glitches, bugs, that are sought to be corrected. Correcting those biases is the whole point of science, even if it doesn't always succeed 100%. While personal biases generally stay on unaddressed, distorting one' view of the world.
Sure, if one takes the effort to rid oneself of one's personal biases when arriving at one's personal point of view, then I agree that it might be possible, at least in theory, to arrive at a personal worldview that is 'better' than an impersonal scientific one --- in the sense that such a worldview might embrace the best of both worlds.
But very few actually conceive of such, and far less actually execute it. So that my default remains the impersonal scientific worldview, while not discounting the carefully curated personal worldview provided the latter is very carefully curated and nurtured and weeded.
@AR
Just have some tea and reflect on what is science all about,
Then it, no doubt, if you are honest to yourself, you will see, that science can not offer an worldview. At best the outcome of scientific research can be incorporated into and already existent worldview.
To bring it down to the simplest level. The outcome of the scientific research is as good as its mental capacities of its researchers, the instruments they have at their disposal and the amount of variables they manage to incorporate in their hypotheses, theory.
That makes science a restricted, reductive lens to see the world through.
This brings us to all those things of human interest, that are not as jet be brought within the domain of scientific research, because they cannor be measured or for which the researchers have no interest and or no funding.
So they research an restricted part of reality in a restricted way .....
That is alright, it has brought humanity many useful things and opened many venues for humanity to go. but as jet it has not come up with a worldview and it will never do so unless it wants to be seen as a religion that has brewed itself an worldview, intelectual so complicated, that only a few can understand it with the reult that the general public can made to believe everything they say in name of science.
You see, religion has turned its back towards its divine origin and now science is doing the same by turning its back upon the visible world and is creating an abstract golden beast to be worshiped.
Posted by: um | February 28, 2022 at 02:11 AM
@ AR
Whatever critics of art use to describe a painting and the painter are ATTRIBUTIONS that are no part of the painting nor the painter. In fact they are describing what they first put over the painting and the painter as a kind of abstract veil. The process speaks of THEM, their interests, their tools etc.
The same is with science. The concepts they have developed to study reality are by themselves no part of that reality they study.
These concepts are kind of tools to manipulate something.in a particular way.
In fact science does create things that have no existence of themselves.
The possibility to "grab" reality is endless but that does not mean that these grabbings are part of that reality ... if a person scoops water from the sea, he can do that in endless ways and use endless forms but no scoop is in reality part of that whole. It becomes in existence by the process of "scooping"
In that way we came to know about electricity and how to use it to the benefit?? of humanity but electricity does not exist by itself.. It is like using a lens that kids use to bundle light of the sun in order to burn holes in a piece of wood.
Posted by: um | February 28, 2022 at 04:06 AM
Science is many things. A set of rules for weighing evidence, a set of rules for conducting scientific investigation, the practice and the results, a set of rules for reporting findings, and a set of rules for critiquing the findings of others.
Is it a way of knowing, that can be contrasted with pure philosophy or religion, or spirituality?
Religious historians and scholars use scientific principles to evaluate ancient texts and current interpretation of those texts.
Systems of ancient beliefs are studied by scientists all the time.
But which of these are actual science? Even the community of scientists argue about that, whether they are arguing about a physics experiment or an ancient scroll uncovered in a cave.
What actually happened? What do the results really mean?
Here is where the materialist is lost and wants no part of it. They want the beautiful black and white of hard scientific results substantiated over many decades of hard scientific work. They want the cream without doing the work to get it. And they want up apply that hard conclusion to things science has not actually investigated.
It is when the materialist makes claims about things science hasn't actually investigated that the materialist is just as wrong as any dogmatic preacher insisting her faith is self - evident.
The materialist believes that lack of scientific enquiry is proof that something doesn't exist.
They then falsely pretend that lack of evidence is the result of scientific enquiry when it is actually lack of scientific enquiry. Nothing can be scientifically concluded lacking scientific enquiry.
Then the materialist hides behind the label rationalist instead. But it isn't rational to claim something is the truth, on scientific grounds, when the scientific enquiry hasn't been conducted.
Nothing could be further from science or the truth than this false thinking.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | February 28, 2022 at 09:59 AM
The more we practice pure science the more respect we have for the limited range of current scientific practices, and a glimpse into the greater mystery, the unknown, that true science explores every day.
All that science has generated results from not only acknowldging what we don't know, but exploring that true, full throated scientific enquiry.
Science never shys away from matters that offend religion or atheism.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | February 28, 2022 at 10:04 AM
“@AR … Just have some tea and reflect on what is science all about…”
Hi, um. Coffee for me, please! :---)
Seriously, though, this is a discussion that I think might be important, so let’s do this, and in some detail. I continue to disagree squarely with you about this; and if perchance I happen to be seeing this at all awry then I’d like to be made aware of it, and to change my view accordingly if that seems at all called for.
----------
“…science can not offer an worldview. At best the outcome of scientific research can be incorporated into and already existent worldview … it has brought humanity many useful things and opened many venues for humanity to go. but as jet it has not come up with a worldview and it will never do so unless it wants to be seen as a religion that has brewed itself an worldview”
Well, that was precisely what I was arguing for, in my comment. That science can indeed offer a worldview, a lens with which to view the world (much like religion tries to do), and further that that is the ‘best’ worldview --- at least the best baseline worldview, because like I said I’m not ruling out that being bettered in some individual cases, and for a while, by deliberately and carefully curated individual worldviews that may differ in some measure from such. But those latter would be the exception, not the rule; and in any case the the best *baseline* to riff your own curated personal wordview off of would most certainly be a worldview based on science.
I’d tried to discuss why exactly in that comment of mine, and I kind of think I did explain why in there; but let’s see if we can’t cover the same ground one more time, this time basing this discussion off of the specific points you yourself raise here, in your two comments.
----------
“The outcome of the scientific research is as good as its mental capacities of its researchers, the instruments they have at their disposal and the amount of variables they manage to incorporate in their hypotheses, theory …That makes science a restricted, reductive lens to see the world through.”
You’re pointing out --- and pointing out very rightly --- two separate “restrictions”, lacks, shortcomings, within the scope of where science is applied, in practice. The first would be the limitation of what is possible at this time; and the second would be the limitation of where out interests point us towards at this time.
Fair enough. I agree, to both. While also pointing out that these are not fundamental flaws, but only de facto shortcomings; but sure, since we live in the real world and not some ideal world, I agree with you that those are indeed flaws.
But what I don’t see is how this can be seen as an argument against a worldview that is based on science. I mean, what is the alternative, then? In those areas that science hasn’t reached, or reached fully, what do you propose that we base our worldview on? I personally don’t see any alternative to science; but go ahead and tell me if you can think of anything that might be better suited for this.
Religion? That’s nonsensical bullshit. Simply whatever happens to appeal to an individual? That’s far too random, and far too beset with bias. So what, then?
In fact, let’s take the example of consciousness, which after all is what we’d started out discussing when we arrived at this particular disagreement, you and I, in how we find it reasonable to view the world. Consciousness is a great example actually, and covers both your points. Interest has been lacking in research on consciousness, and only recently has started gathering some momentum. And further, we still aren’t equipped to research most things about consciousness. So, given that, what are we to base our worldview on, when it comes to (something like) consciousness?
I say we still use science. We admit the full extent of what we don’t know. We stay open to finding all kinds of unexpected things in future. We try to increase the pace as well as the extent of research into consciousness. But meanwhile? I say, meanwhile we continue to go with what science has already uncovered, at least as baseline. Which would be the material world, the only world that we actually know about objectively, the only world that actually exists as far as we really know.
I mean, what is the alternative? Go with the random bullshit of religions? Go with whatever random things occur to us personally? Go with some random “mystic” claims --- someone who may well be a charlatan or maybe crazy for all we know, or if neither of those things then perhaps simply someone suffering from some undiagnosed neural disorder; and in any case while we may believe and accept their experiences, let’s remember that what we’re discussing now is not so much their experiences as the *worldview* they espouse.
By all means tell me if you can think of any other reasonable baseline that one might use, other than science.
----------
“…That is alright, it has brought humanity many useful things and opened many venues for humanity to go. but as jet it has not come up with a worldview and it will never do so unless it wants to be seen as a religion…”
Again, this is part of what I directly addressed in my last comment, that Brian’s put up in his post proper, so I won’t revisit what I’d said in detail. But to recap briefly, in as much as religion offers a broad worldview, or a broad lens with which to view the world, to that extent (and to that limited extent only) I am perfectly happy to liken science to religion, in the very limited sense of using a scientific worldview and seeing the world through a lens of science, at least one’s baseline. I don’t see why you say “it has not come up with a worldview and it will never do so”, because it already has, and without a shadow of a doubt.
And further, I don’t see why you should object to science being used as religion IN THE VERY LIMITED SENSE OF VIEWING THE WORLD THROUGH THE LENS OF SCIENCE , kind of like the religious tend to view the world through the prism of their faith. You may want to clearly spell out what exactly your objection is. (I repeat, I’m likening science to religion only in the very limited sense that I’ve spelt out above.) Perhaps you could clearly explain why exactly you think science cannot and/or should not be used as the broad baseline basis for our worldview, as the baseline lens through which to view and interpret our world.
----------
“an worldview, intelectual so complicated, that only a few can understand it with the reult that the general public can made to believe everything they say in name of science.”
Fair point. Especially with our scientific knowledge so very highly specialized these days, very few of even the well-educated can personally understand anything other than a very limited portion of the total knowledge humanity has access to. And that can give rise to both accidental misunderstandings, as well as deliberate manipulation, absolutely.
But the answer to that would be try to work towards ensuring such doesn’t happen, and by trying to work towards educating the public at large, and by trying to properly systematize the spread of scientific knowledge to the people at large. I mean, you rightly identify areas that need work, perhaps a great deal of work; but I don’t see, at all, how this can be a reason to jettison a larger broader scientific worldview, or what (better) alternative you’re suggesting in its stead. You rightly identify that the bathwater isn’t as clean as it should be, but then instead of suggesting means of rectifying that specific issue you do the equivalent of wanting to throw the baby out with the water!
Go ahead, then, tell me what alternatives you believe might be better (than a science-based worldview), and then we’ll explore them further and see if any of them might hold up to scrutiny.
----------
“…science is doing the same by turning its back upon the visible world and is creating an abstract golden beast to be worshiped…”
I don’t see that, at all. Why “worshipped”? A scientific worldview is above all a rational worldview. There can be no place for cargo cult science in a truly scientific worldview.
In practice if you see that some people are adopting that kind of blind faith in what some scientist happens to be saying, well then certainly let’s try to set that right. In the real world anything at all would be beset with problems and difficulties, that we must ourselves try to set right. I don’t see how and why that should be a reason to reject the scientific worldview itself, and I don’t see what better alternative we have to put in its stead.
----------
“@ AR … Whatever critics of art use to describe a painting and the painter are ATTRIBUTIONS that are no part of the painting nor the painter. In fact they are describing what they first put over the painting and the painter as a kind of abstract veil. The process speaks of THEM, their interests, their tools etc. … The same is with science. The concepts they have developed to study reality are by themselves no part of that reality they study. … These concepts are kind of tools to manipulate something.in a particular way...”
Perhaps you could clarify this part a bit, it's not very clear to me. You’re rejecting the role of the art critic, and want to directly take from a painting what you can. Personally I sympathize with that attitude, to an extent, while also cognizant of the pitfalls in taking such an approach too far. But in any case I don’t see what this has to do with a scientific worldview. A scientific worldview gives us a lens with which to view the world; if you throw away this lens you’ll still need *something*, some lens, some prism, through which to see the world. I ask again, what alternative are you advocating for, then? Religion? Whatever happens to directly and spontaneously occur to one? Spell it out, then, and let’s see if we can suss out the pros and cons of your particular recommendation.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | March 01, 2022 at 05:07 AM
Hi, Spence.
I’m afraid I’m not very clear what exactly you’re arguing for or against here. Could you just summarize, briefly in one or two sentences, the essence of the POV you’re advocating for here? Not the arguments, those can come later; just the core essence of what position you’re trying to put forward here, and in what context.
For example, in my case, my position in this discussion, stated briefly in one or two sentences, would be: Science is more than just a tool for addressing specific technical issues, it offers us a lens through which to view the world and arrive at a rational-scientific worldview that is sane and not “demon-haunted”. (And the context for my saying that is um’s taking up a position that’s diametrically opposed to this, which I found unreasonable and wanted to argue against.) Like that.
----------
Some months back we’d had a long-drawn discussion over this scientific worldview thing, and at the end you’d finally gotten around to agreeing with me. I’ll take it that we’re still in agreement? (Correct me, please, if you’ve changed your mind again since then.) If we’re still agreed on that much, then we’ll take the reasonableness of a scientific worldview as given, and make that the starting point for any further discussion on this.
----------
Also, it isn’t very clear to me why you keep on putting up strawmen left and right and center, and then go around slaughtering them. And it isn’t at all clear to me why you’re flat-out lying about what materialists do and say. Makes no sense to put up arguments that no one but you is advocating, and then trying to find holes in them, does it?
For instance (and I’m quoting directly from those two comments of yours here):
(1) “Here is where the materialist is lost and wants no part of it. They want the beautiful black and white of hard scientific results substantiated over many decades of hard scientific work. They want the cream without doing the work to get it. And they want up apply that hard conclusion to things science has not actually investigated.”
That’s a flat-out lie. Not every materialist is a scientist, obviously, just as not every theist is a scientist. But a scientific worldview --- as we’d very clearly discussed some months back, and conclusively so --- is open to everyone that values rationality and sanity, and not merely to scientists.
Your implication that materialists in general do not do science is a flat-out lie, that I’m calling out straight; and your observation that (some) materialists are not scientists is a blatant red herring.
(2) “It is when the materialist makes claims about things science hasn't actually investigated that the materialist is just as wrong as any dogmatic preacher insisting her faith is self - evident.”
And it is when the theist is an altar-boy fiddling pedophile that the theist is a pervert and a criminal, and that theist should be publicly shamed and strung up, or at the very least castrated and locked away for life.
See what I did there? I did to theists exactly what you did to materialists there. And I did that in order to clearly focus on the sleight of hand you were attempting there.
Anyone who makes claims about things that science hasn’t actually investigated is wrong, be that a materialist, or a dogmatic preacher, or a mystic, or a father, or an amateur philatelist. That much is self-evident. What you’re cunningly trying to do there is to somehow make out that materialists in general do that, which is a bare-faced lie, and I have no compunction in calling it out as such.
Again, we’d clearly agreed about the scientific worldview thing in our past discussion, and I don’t see any point in repeating those arguments again here. A scientific worldview is very different from “making claims about things science hasn’t actually investigated”. I’m going ask you to clearly explain your reasons for trotting out that particular strawman here.
(3) “The materialist believes that lack of scientific enquiry is proof that something doesn't exist.”
Yet another straight-out bare-faced lie.
(4) “(Meterialists) then falsely pretend that lack of evidence is the result of scientific enquiry when it is actually lack of scientific enquiry. Nothing can be scientifically concluded lacking scientific enquiry.”
One more bare-faced lie. Materialists in general do nothing of the sort.
As far as the part where you state that “nothing can be scientifically concluded lacking scientific enquiry”, I point you back to Shadowfax. So far there hasn’t been any enquiry, scientific or otherwise, in and around my garage; are we to then understand that nothing can be concluded about the existence of an invisible dragon in my garage? Remember, you’d already answered the Shadowfax question in the negative in our past discussion, that is, agreed that it is unreasonable to remain ambivalent about that fantastic creature; and further agreed to the reasonableness of a scientific worldview. We’re not doing that dance all over again. But I’m holding you, now, to that agreement and acquiescence then expressed.
(5) “Science never shys away from matters that offend religion or atheism.”
Science never shies away from anything, and goes boldly wherever the evidence might lead, sure. But once again your attempt to present an equivalence between religion on one hand and atheism on the other is disingenuousness plain and simple. Absolutely, should the evidence ever actually point toward a God, then the rationalist-empiricist would happily cease being an atheist. But that’s in hypothesis-land. I mean, if the scientific evidence ever clearly pointed to the presence of an invisible dragon in my garage, then every rationalist-empiricist would happily acknowledge Shadowfax. But in the real world, and as things stand, how might science actually offend atheism, and more importantly, what exactly is the context for you to make a statement like that here?
----------
Pardon me, Spence, I know I’ve used uncharacteristically strong language in this comment, which I regret all the much more because of the general esteem in which I hold you, and given what I hope and believe is our mutual regard for each other. But I’m afraid you’ve been resorting to flat-out disingenuousness and misrepresentation in these two comments of yours, God knows for what reason; and I thought it right that that should be called out in clear unambiguous terms. Absolutely no offense intended to you personally, and I sincerely hope you’ll not see this as some kind of personal slight or insult.
----------
On a more general note: I can see this whole materialism business is somehow getting your hackles up. I mean, why else that slew of blatant strawmen and misrepresentations? Let me try this approach to see if I can’t get you around to seeing things clearly. Remember our past discussions about soft and hard atheism? I fully agree that old-school atheism, or hard atheism as we might say today, is not a reasonable position to take. And we’d agreed, back then, that soft atheism is a reasonable stance.
Well, I’ve never seen anyone apply these terms to materialism, but let’s think of ‘soft materialism’ and ‘hard materialism’, along the lines of “soft atheism” and “hard atheism”. As with hard atheism, I’m very clear that “hard materialism” would be an irrational position. Someone who claims that the nature of reality cannot possibly ever under any circumstances and no matter what be anything other than material, and who therefore will not even stand for investigation that might test the materialism idea --- in other words, a hard materialist --- is very clearly in the wrong. But a “soft materialist” --- someone who, basis such evidence as is available at this time, concludes that the nature of reality is material, while remaining open to changing their mind should the evidence indicate otherwise --- is entirely fully wholly rational. Can we agree to that much?
And if what I’ve expressed in the preceding paragraph was what you’d meant to express in your two comments, then clearly we don't disagree on this. Do please clarify it if that is the case, because then that explains everything, leaves no point of disagreement between you and I, and indeed brings this particular discussion here between you and I to an end. However in that case I have to say that how you'd expressed yourself had been singularly misleading, even if perhaps inadvertently so, in as much as you were very clearly equating all materialists with this “hard materialist”.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | March 01, 2022 at 05:34 AM
@ AR
While eating some sweet puff pastry with a cup of coffe4. I went through the whole of your answer.
You would deserve an even detailed answer but I can not offer you anything beyond what I wrote and was answered upon by you.
You started out writing that you do not agree with my point of view and there was noting to be found to change your mind. I consider what I write as the food offered for free in a free kitchen ... nobody is asked to eat it.
AR at this moment in time you cannot and should not change your mind and certainly not because of what others write.
You have to walk the path of rationality you have chosen to the {bitter] end and find out at the end for of that walk for yourself what there is to see. You have not consumed it fully.
When you manage to walk that path to the end and if you still remember you might again read what I wrote about religion, science and the use humanity makes of it. It is far to simple what I wrote to be acceptable for highly evolved minds ... hahahaha... like the commonsense of a farmer with little more education than the elementary school
Just now enjoyed my coffee and pastry and managed to do so without a worldview.
What is the need of a concept of a worldview anyway?
If you answer that question for yourself you will see that it is at best a restricted, selective light on reality. No doubt very useful for those that need such a view to guide their activities.
However beautiful etc a jaguar might be it is only of restricted use and available for the happy few. What use has it for the farmer?
And ... most scholars and scientist, I know of, hardly ever leave their institutes, appear on TV in talk shows or take part in disputes on worldviews. The can be compared to those that hide themselves in mountain caves where they can work without being disturbed. They have nothing to say to the masses.
They are the painters
Posted by: um | March 01, 2022 at 07:18 AM
Spence,
The other day in the thread "A Sant Mat follower returns to Jesus (and wants to hear from others who have done this)" you brought in a new concept, Enlightened Atheism. In essence, you argued against blind acceptance of religious dogma and blind obedience to religious authority.
"I tell you John, unless you are willing to acknowledge what is before you, and pass through an enlightened Atheism, it is impossible to find Truth, Spirit, and the Master within."
It really caught my attention, because I'd come to expect the opposite in your comments - Bible quotes and prodding to submit to Master and Faith!
Anyway, I get it now. You stand against dogmatism, scientific AND religious.
"It is when the materialist makes claims about things science hasn't actually investigated that the materialist is just as wrong as any dogmatic preacher insisting her faith is self-evident."
However, true religious experience takes the rigor, dedication and open mindedness of the truest science.
"Vivek, combined with a willingness to search and move, has brought many to their true Teacher...But we get the Master we deserve at the time. Yes it's Gods will, and our job to keep moving until we meet our true Master, whom we find within. Gurus are a bridge, not a destination."
https://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2015/12/a-sant-mat-follower-returns-to-jesus-and-wants-to-hear-from-others-who-have-done-this.html?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e20278806d96f7200d#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e20278806d96f7200d
Do I have it right?
Posted by: umami | March 01, 2022 at 10:13 AM
@ Ar
What might help to bring acroos what I wanted to put on the table is what happens with reality as a painter or fotographer represents a multidimensional activity into a two dimensional flat surface.
Science by nature has to downgrade reality to its level in order to use its mathematics, research etc ...the multidimensional reality has to be downgraded to the world of the senses.
If you are with friends and a video is made from the conversation, information is lost that was available in the life situation. If only the audio part is used, information is lost that was in the video, Again if that audio tape is transcribed more information is lost and again more when English is translated into another language.
How would it be possible to create a "reality" view based upon such a translated transcript .
Science by necessity has to downgrade reality in order to describe reality so it is impossible to create a wordview.
Posted by: um | March 01, 2022 at 10:14 AM
"What is the need of a concept of a worldview anyway?
If you answer that question for yourself you will see that it is at best a restricted, selective light on reality. "
----------
Hm, that's actually a very surprising take on the question, and entirely unexpected I must say.
I think I'm going to let that approach --- of operating without a worldview per se --- kind of percolate within me. Digest it, if you will.
(Although my kneejerk gut reaction would be to wonder if that is even possible. I mean, if you don't deliberately curate your worldview, then what will end up becoming your worldview, entirely unawares, is whatever happens to spontaneously occur to you. And in as much as that might well be something kind of random, I'm not sure that's a great idea.
-----But, that said, I'm not going to go to town analyzing this thing to death. I'll be honest, the idea of living without a worldview per se is something that had honestly not even occured to me. Like I said I'm going to let that thought sit with me for a while, and see what I make of it in a while. Thanks for sharing that rather remarkable POV, um! Cheers.)
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | March 01, 2022 at 10:26 AM
@ Ar.
Forget about it ... you asked me about the "alternative" and pointed at science as an alternative for the religious world view.
Just think for a moment. BOTH views are heard and shared in the street outside your own door.
Both views are not YOURS and you are not born and alive to porve this or that view to be true.
You are a brave person ... forget about it and enjoy comming spring.
Posted by: um | March 01, 2022 at 10:47 AM
Hi AR
You wrote
"Well, I’ve never seen anyone apply these terms to materialism, but let’s think of ‘soft materialism’ and ‘hard materialism’, along the lines of “soft atheism” and “hard atheism”. As with hard atheism, I’m very clear that “hard materialism” would be an irrational position. Someone who claims that the nature of reality cannot possibly ever under any circumstances and no matter what be anything other than material, and who therefore will not even stand for investigation that might test the materialism idea --- in other words, a hard materialist --- is very clearly in the wrong. But a “soft materialist” --- someone who, basis such evidence as is available at this time, concludes that the nature of reality is material, while remaining open to changing their mind should the evidence indicate otherwise --- is entirely fully wholly rational. Can we agree to that much?"
Yes, I think you've caught my intention beautifully. It has to do with dogma
Umami summarized it nicely too
" Anyway, I get it now. You stand against dogmatism, scientific AND religious."
And so did Um
" Science by nature has to downgrade reality to its level in order to use its mathematics, research etc ...the multidimensional reality has to be downgraded to the world of the senses."
Elegant.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | March 01, 2022 at 05:53 PM
I find it somewhat tragic that people interested in critical Radhasoami viewpoints have to be exposed to such biased, vacuous, disingenuous, hackneyed and plainly motivated posts as these.
Well, I suppose if you're inclined to believe in the RS cosmology in the first place, high standards isn't really your thing anyway....;)
Posted by: manjit | March 02, 2022 at 06:36 AM
Hi, um.
Hadn't wanted to rush into a response, before thinking through your POV a bit.
You know, while I can understand your disillusionment with intellectualizing, as far as abstractions like this, I continue to remain a bit ambivalent about whether it is even possible to not have worldview at all. What I'm saying is, if you don't deliberately go around fashioning your opinions, then you'll end up with opinions anyway, except in as much as they'll remain random and unexamined, to that extent, I don't know, you might be vulnerable to swinging wherever externals happen to swing you. Which may not matter with inconsequential things, but might with more important matters. (On the gripping hand, though, what is "important" is ultimately subjective, so there's that.) Anyway, not to beat this to death!
One last follow-on, if I may, um. You've spoken, more than once, of following the path of rationality to the bitter end. Why "bitter"? Is that just a random figure of speech that doesn't really signify anything, or did you mean that literally? I'm curious about that, would you expand a bit on that part?
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | March 02, 2022 at 06:36 AM
I find it somewhat tragic that people interested in critical Radhasoami viewpoints have to be exposed to such biased, vacuous, disingenuous, hackneyed and plainly motivated posts as these.
Well, I suppose if you're inclined to believe in the RS cosmology in the first place, high standards isn't really your thing anyway....;)
Posted by: manjit | March 02, 2022 at 06:36 AM
--------------------------------
"Critical RS viewpoints" my ass. That's simply shooting fish in a barrel, and there's no need at all to make such a song and dance about it, you know?
But hey, clearly that's your thing. As opposed to engaging with reality?
I mean, you're the guy who claims telepathy is proven; and who claims that the God explanation is simpler than a sane materialist POV; and when the flaws in that kind of absurd reasoning is pointed out, throw out blank unsupported BS that goes "I am 7 feet tall, and my dick is 20 inches long, and my reason is so sharp that I could eviscerate your vacuous arguments in the blink of an eye, and I dive into rivers naked with my hands tied and kill alligators and eat them for breakfast, and all of the mystical visions that humanity has ever seen are like child's play to me, and so on and so forth", without a shred of actual substantiation, and without even the realization that substantiation is called for, at least when attempting a rational logical discussion.
I don't know, maybe just stick to shooting fish in a barrel, and doing the "critical RS viewpoints thing"? Keep arguing with people who think they're Napoleon Bonaparte that they are taller than Napoleon had been, and that they don't speak French with the right accent, so no, they can't possibly be Napoleon, but sure, they may be Cleopatra instead?
TLDR: Yeah, calling your BS.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | March 02, 2022 at 06:55 AM
Hehe.....so cute, so predictable, so transparent.
:)
Posted by: manjit | March 02, 2022 at 06:59 AM
Ditto?
PS: He he, Bwahahaha, :--), ;--), XXXXX, etc.
PPS: You forgot to tell me you could easily show everything I'm saying is vacuous and a non sequitur and vacuous and irrational and vacuous and closed, if only you wanted to, but that you can't be bothered. That's okay, we'll both take that as said.
:----)
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | March 02, 2022 at 07:06 AM
Fuck. That's exactly the kind of asinine empty-of-substance bickering that's so common online, and that I so detest, and exactly what I've myself gotten down to doing here.
Apologies, manjit. Don't know why I got triggered like that.
Perhaps a short break form commenting here might be called for. Short enough, but enough of a cooling off that I don't jump to compulsive knee-jerk reactions like this.
Peace.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | March 02, 2022 at 07:16 AM
Hi Appreciative Reader,
No need to apologise.......I have a knack for getting to the heart of a matter, or more precisely, the Achilles heal of people who would be warriors and heroes.......
;)
Posted by: manjit | March 02, 2022 at 07:20 AM
@ AR
No ...it is not a matter of disillusionment.
It is all related to stepping out of the caravan, come to one's self and making up one's own mind as to where to go and what to do.
You are forced to satisfy your mind to the bitter end before it will let you go free and have it your way.
The stronger the mind, the more evolved, the more educated, the more people you meet with all sorts of intriguing ideas, the longer it takes and the more difficult it will be
Posted by: um | March 02, 2022 at 08:07 AM
Whoooooosh! Way to miss my point, manjit.
Hint: If you don't want to come across as completely clueless, then don't announce grandly to people that you always get to the heart of matter; instead, actually get to the heart of the matter, if you can. When people present clear-cut but polite arguments about how your claim that the God hypothesis is a simpler one than materialism are wanting, then don't tell people "I could easily show those arguments to be empty and silly and fallacious and half-witted, but hey, I couldn't be bothered"; instead, actually show those arguments to be fallacious, if you are able to. When you claim that telepathy is a thing, and when people clearly show you, very clearly, how your defense of your position is wanting, then don't just turn tail and disappear; instead, clearly present your defense, or else have the grace to walk back your claim. Otherwise you come across like a complete jackass.
Which is a pity, really. It's very clear, basis what I've seen and heard of and from you, that you have great depth and knowledge, and experience as well, both about things mystical and religious, as well as in general; and you can reason very well indeed when you actually apply yourself; so that there's no need at all to make a fool of yourself like this by reaching beyond your capacity and trying to make up for the shortfall with bluster. In short, put up, or shut up.
But regardless of what you say or don't, my kneejerk compulsive responses and my part in collaborating in this empty bickering, those are no one's fault but my own, and they are my lookout and mine alone; and I regret littering this place with these nonsensical substance-free exchanges. I'm going to be taking a short break from here, so that I am able to get over this compulsiveness to immediately respond every time "someone's wrong on the Internet".
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | March 02, 2022 at 09:15 AM
Hi, um.
Okay, I'd misunderstood you. I think I get you, now.
Although, to be frank, and although spiritual literature is rife with references to this sort of thing, but I don't think I really know what it actually really means for "(the mind to) let you free", at least in this context of working out a worldview (as opposed to in the context of actually meditating or watching your thoughts and the rest of it); but let me not belabor the issue overly much.
Thanks for this exchange, and your views, um. Ciao, old friend, for a while.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | March 02, 2022 at 09:22 AM
@ AR
You are most welcome. It is a pleasure AR to converse with you.
After I woke up in the movie and left RSSB behind, I had to find out what to do with meditation etc. Facing the question whether it was possible to continue with a meditation outside the context [ wordld view] it had been in from the start. In the beginning it was funny to say the least and gradual over time I came to realize that one can chose to do a rthing well without an ulterior purpose and goal.
That remind me of an Svedisch?? many many years ago, in which a man on his way to the village would put some ten stones one upon one another and on his way home to lay the all on the ground again. He did it for years and years, every day anew, with great focus and intend. Something like that.
There is no reason to form an opinion upon making choices, as to with what to interact with the world or not. These opinions do bind one to the world and restricts one's mental freedom.
Posted by: um | March 02, 2022 at 10:19 AM
"Well, I suppose if you're inclined to believe in the RS cosmology in the first place, high standards isn't really your thing anyway....;)"
Hey, Manjit.
Can you recommend a better cosmology accessible to us regular folk? Just curious.
I remember a professor in college explain that Soma, something celebrated in the Rigveda, was a hallucinogen. The common scholarly interpretation is that it was taken as a beverage.
Here are some references to it.
https://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/rig_veda_book_9.asp
There are passages like this:
"2 As mother kine low to their calves, to Indra have the sages called,
Called him to drink the Soma juice.
3 In the stream's wave wise Soma dwells, distilling rapture, in his seat,
Resting upon a wiId-cow's hide.
4 Far-sighted Soma, Sage and Seer, is worshipped in the central point
Of heaven, the straining-cloth of wool.
5 In close embraces Indu holds Soma when poured within the jars.
And on the purifying sieve."
And this:
"5 Fair is the God-loved juice; the plant is washed in waters, pressed by men
The milch-kine sweeten it with milk.
6 As drivers deck a courser, so have they adorned the meath's juice for
Ambrosia, for the festival."
It's easy to conclude that Soma was the juice of a plant, pressed out, filtered through wool, collected in jars, mixed with milk and consumed en masse, but what if the authors were talking about Shabd? They lived in a very different society and would've used metaphors drawn from life in the Bronze Age or much earlier, where festivals must've been the height of existence. Royals! Warriors! Priests! Splendors! Good vibes! What better literary stand-in for the inner worlds? We can't relate to such descriptions very well now. Nature is less abundant and society less bawdy, so our mystics compare Shabd to meager nectar, also a liquid but something rather scarce.
I'm speculating very broadly, of course, but what I'm trying to say is that cosmology is a blunt instrument. What the heck were they actually going on about in those verses? Modern cosmology is no help, and even scholars of religion could make ludicrous deductions. My professor went so far as to suggest Soma was the urine of a high priest who'd eaten psilocybin! Juice of a plant is a better guess, but I'm still skeptical given the deep history of yogic practices in Vedic civilization.
Posted by: umami | March 02, 2022 at 02:02 PM
* "bawdy," wrong word. Change to "heroic."
Posted by: umami | March 02, 2022 at 09:08 PM
More on Soma:
Could it have been ephedra?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2686395/
"The original species of Ephedra or Soma proper would be Ephedra sinica, the Chinese plant. It is the one species with yellow stalks. This has been illustrated so that it confirms Rigveda speaking of Soma as 'golden yellow.' The name Soma is also a loan word from Chinese meaning "fire-yellow fibers of hemp." The plant Soma is described as "thousand boughs" and photographic evidence has been offered in support. Each stalk is rod-like resembling an arrow as Rigveda speaks of it."
Golden yellow? Maybe it really was urine! Hmmmm...
https://www.jstor.org/stable/600096
"In his paper Mr. Wasson summarizes his argument in favor of a mushroom, the flyagaric called by mycologists Amanita muscaria, as the Soma of the Rig Veda. This mushroom was still being used as an inebriant by the shamans of remote tribes in Siberia only a few years ago. Mr. Wasson quotes from the Rig Veda to show how apposite are the poets' words to the fly-agaric, in most cases illustrating his points with colored plates. The Siberian tribesmen drink the urine of one who has taken the fly-agaric and find it as inebriating as the fly-agaric itself."
I'm on a roll here, so I'll propose a completely different explanation.
"Stalks" are a big clue.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/soma
"The stalks were pounded between these stones within the sacrificial area. Such pounding created what Vedic seers called tapas (literally "heat," later referring to "spiritual excitement" in particular). The juice produced was then purified by the presiding priest by filtering it through sheep's wool and collecting it in tubs. The resulting extract, a sweet brown liquid, was then mixed with other ingredients such as beer, milk, water, curds, ghee, barley and/or honey and then offered to the gods."
Okay, so we have a sweet, golden yellow juice crushed out of the stalks of plants, filtered and put into jars.
How about sugar cane juice? Sugar cane made it to India by 4000 BCE.
Today India is the second largest sugar producer and Pakistan the sixth. Sugar cane juice is a sweet liquid that starts out green to brown, but put it in jars to ferment it, and out comes sugar cane wine, which is golden in color!
https://flavoursofthepast.com/products/sugar-cane-wine
People being people, there must've been a festival every year at harvest time. Everyone would make sugar cane wine and throw huge parties, especially in the cities. They must've partied for days, which explains the addition of milk. It would've made the stuff go down easier, protected the stomach and provided some stamina.
But again, that was a metaphor. What comes with drunken revelry? Music and song! Listen for the music, and follow your feet straight to the party! Shabd is musical too, right? Catch the sound in meditation to the party in the inner regions, where the music resounds all the time everywhere, and mortal cares cease!
From the previous link:
"We have drunk Soma and become immortal; we have attained the light, the Gods discovered.
Now what may foeman's malice do to harm us? What, O Immortal, mortal man's deception?
Therefore, soma bridged the gap between human beings and gods. Soma was guarded and distributed by the Gandharvas, part-man, part-animal nature spirits who have superb musical skills and act as messengers between humanity and the gods."
The authors of the Rigveda likened Shabd to something familiar, the intoxicating sugar cane wine that all of Vedic civilization partied on once a year! Where does it come from? Well, Indra makes in it the divine realm with divine plants, divine stones, divine fleece and divine jars. It flows to Earth for collection in a special jar, the human head!
Soma was their name for Shabd!
Hypothetically.
Hymns from the Rigveda again...
https://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/rig_veda_book_9.asp
Posted by: umami | March 03, 2022 at 08:41 AM