PeterJ

Wise discovery? Even the Buddha says that logic alone is not enough. This does not mean we should abandon thinking for poking things with sticks. Okay. It's a science of logic but not a natural science. Do you not see what Zeno was trying to show, or that he succeeded?

Hi immortal. Running inteference again I see. Yes. Metaphysics is a science of logic that is concerned with falsifying self-contradictory theories. Your turn. It doesn't necessarily have to address scientific problems either. In fact it can be complete rubbish. Yes, and the consequences are tragic. Fortunately they don't go away just because we dismiss them as meaningless. Of course. This is why it is not called metaphysics. Yes. Lucky we do have such a method then. It's called the dialectic and it works fine. Yes. He said rather a lot of pointless things. Why quote Wittgenstein when he never solved any problems? Why not choose a philosopher who did better? These objections are just restated dogmas. Thanks for the links. I'm not really a big fan either. I tried to read the NYT article but gave up after reading this nonsense below. When I said I found Paul Davies to be good on these topics, I meant good for a physicist. I'm not a real fan, but one must make do with what one can get. At least Davies does not run away from the topic. "SCIENCE, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term "doubting Thomas" well illustrates the difference. In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue." In my religion holding a belief without evidence would be a very foolish thing to do indeed, which proves that Davies over-generalises based on a narrow view of religion. Most physicists do this. Few bother to study religion because they believe stuff like the above. I'm quite surprised that Davies wrote this, since it contradicts what he says elsewhere. I don't mean to be offensive with these remarks, but the situation is madly frustrating. I have no respect at all for physcists when it comes to the way they refuse to study what they so casually dismiss, preferring to talk rubbish about the subject. This, of course, is another over-generalisation, but true to a close approximation. It means they tend to believe any old rubbish about religion, and regularly propose metaphysically naive theories that can be refuted. Bradley characterises metaphysics as 'an antidote to dogmatic superstition'. Perhaps this explains the widespread lack of interest in its implications for science and religion.

Yes. On these boards and in the sciences it is difficult to find anbody doing it effectively, and I can see that this must lead to the idea that physics must go it alone. It's quite easy to find them elsewhere though. and I would not like to think I was unable to do it effectively. Whether we do it effectively seems to me more a choice than a skill, as long as we can think reasonably well. Physics is defined in such a way that it cannot go it alone. Theoretical physics becomes metaphysics at the limit and we have to start testing theories by logic alone. Paul Davies is very good on this stuff, actually quite effective, and his view of the relationship between physics and metaphysics seems correct to me.

This is odd. Has nobody heard of metaphysics? For a science to be fundamental it would have to address first principles.

Not me. Now we have the claim that Adviata Vedanta is theism. It's a hopeless muddle.

It's a good journal and I'm glad I subscribed to it for a while, to catch up with current thinking. But when was the last time the subject made any progress? After a while I found myself reading the same article over and over again with just the author's name changed. I would point to the endless repetition of discredited philosophical ideas. I would point to the many utterly naive 'scientific' articles, those that take no account of philosophy and logic. I would point to the failure to imagine even a tentative satisfactory solution for the problem of consciousness. I would point to the dishonesty of so many articles, (what Chalmers calls the 'sleights of hand'), and lastly to the failure of research and imagination that leaves the problem of consciousness a bewildering mystery. I have never once heard it mentioned that it is not a bewildering mystery according to the Upanishads. To be fair, many contributors do not claim to be philosophers, and some claim that philosophy has nothing to say about consciousness so don't bother with it. But this does not reduce the amount of bad philosophy appearing in the journal. I would say that bad philosophy is the only cause of the problem of consciousness. Yes, it's an extreme view. But any subscriber can vouch for the pointlessness of most of the articles. They may be useful if one wants to review the state of play in the field, but they are usually useless in the search for solutions to any important problems. I have only ever seen one article in JCS offering a systematic solution for consciousness, a beautifully written piece by Edward Barkin explaining the doctrine of dependent origination. It sank without trace. I haven't read it for a few years but I don't imagine it's changed in the meantime. If it has I take all this back. If not, then JCS is for beginners. This is not arrogance, it is infuriation that professional philosophy is in such a sorry state. I admire physicists for their boldness of thought, albeit it is forced on them by the data, but feel that they are being badly let down by the philosophers, leaving theoretical physics with nowhere to go for a fundamental theory.

Why do western academic thinkers always conclude that philosophy produces no well-defined outputs when it is so blindingly obvious that it does? It completely baffles me. Its result is that all positve metaphysical positions are logically indefensible. This result is well-defined and is well-known to almost everyone who studies philosophy. It is only that western thinkers will insist on seeing this as a failure rather than a success. They don't know what to make of this result, so would rather say that it is not a result. But it is the result that philosophy always produces, always has and always will. It's not going to go away. How can anyone say that this is not a well-defined result? Why would anyone say this? By saying this we reduce philosophy to (as forufes says) a useless, formless discipline with no impact on our lives. Why would anyone want to do that? The Blackwell Guide to Metaphysics actually begins by stating that metaphysics is useless. Why? Because the alternative would be to take religion seriously. Can't have that. I despair of the idiocy of our current western philosophy, with its insistence that philosophy is useless. It is only if we refuse to accept its result that philosophy is rendered useless. If we treat it as mathematics and practice it with honesty then it could not possible be more useful or have a greater impact on our lives. Lack of courage seems to be the main problem, that and entrenched preconceptions and a lack of interest in the literature of the wisdom traditions. You won't find this depressing view of philosophy in Buddhism, where it is used to logically prove the truth of the doctrine. It can do this because it produces a well-defined mathematical/dialectical result, a result that many people dislike so much they prefer to say is not a result and thus render philosophy useless. One day western academia will learn how to do philosophy, presumably, but for now we must be content with footnotes to Plato and people who are so misled about it they have to ask whether philosophy is c..p or not. Yes it is, if you mean modern professional philosophy in the west. Try reading the Journal of Consciousness Studies for a few years for the evidence. But this is just philosophy badly practiced. Badly practiced physics is c..p as well. It makes me mad that we still teach kids such discredited rubbish about philosophy. Physics had the guts to bite the bullet and move on when its results began to become incomprehensible a century ago. What happened in philosophy as a result of this paradigmatic change of scientific worldview? Absolutely nothing at all. It sleeps on gathering cobwebs in odd corners of universities, eating up the budget while claiming that its problems are intractable, its results ill-defined, its purpose uncertain and its progress indiscernable. Ridiculous. Rant over.

It was a good point, and a fascinating one, and I'm not sure why anyone would be so scornful.

I'm not sure I understand your point, but will stick to the idea that we should use the usual meanings of words, as outlined in dictionaries, whether we believe in God or not. Are you suggesting that religious people aren't allowed to use the same definition as anyone else? Can we not all agree that we do not have the right to re-define words on some whim or other and move on?

I see I was wrong to refer to the dictionary, and that pmb wasted all his effort citing them. Completely pointless. Apparently they are all wrong. Now we can only have faith in something we cannot know, but only if we claim we do know. Someone better phone the OED to inform them of the change. Is there a purpose to this discussion or are we all just lonely?

Yes. This'll do for me. Just the usual meanings. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow. You have faith in your definition of faith. Someone else has faith in their piano teacher. etc etc. I'm not sure why it would be necessary to repeat the definition for such a well known word. The main thing is that it is not knowledge, and that's proabably the main issue. The thing is, faith may be derived from knowledge to some extent, and this is important. My faith in the sunrise is based on a lot of previous instances of regular sunrises. Faith is a vital issue for sportsmen, who must believe in themselves, and who find that such a faith gives them strength and has a measurable impact on their performance. Humanists ask us to have faith in ourselves. So does the Buddha. We have lost our faith in the banks etc. These are subtlely different situations and make it difficult to criticise faith per se, only particular instances of it. Seems to be a side issue.

Nope. Don't feel like doing your work for you. Try a dictionary.

I do not know. But I would imagine that he is not very good at it, like so many scientists these days, so prefers to rubbish it. But then I am not a fan of his approach, which seems to involve the worst kind of futile scientism. The idea that physics can solve big problems while avoiding philosophy is so absurd that it does not need discussing. Mind you, the way philosophy presents itself these days I can sympathise with anyone who thinks it is dead. I would agree with Hawkings as far as western academic philosophy goes. Fortunately this is not all of philosophy, just the collected footnotes to Plato.

Interesting question. But it would take me a very long time to come up with a decent answer.

Sorry. This forum is so frustrating I throw my hands up in the air sometimes. I meant to stay away but, oh well... My view is that Shankara has the correct view of God. I do not like calling myself an atheist (although sometimes I do, since it's a quick way of putting people's mind's at rest on that point, especially on science forums.) Advaita, the nondual philosophy, does not require that we dispense with God, just that we see Him as a reflection of a more profound underlying truth. That is, God would be an interpretation of the data, if you like, very close to the truth, and close enough to be an effective idea for guiding our thoughts, behaviour and practice, and as an object through which we may gain the benefits of worship, love and devotion, but vanishes for an ultimate understanding. "Shankaracharya delivered the message of the sages as found in the Vedas and the Upanishads. He emphasized knowledge, but he also maintained a harmonious balance between karma (action) and bhakti (love and devotion). On the one hand, he taught us how to go beyond the realm of maya and attain the pure non-dual knowledge of the absolute Brahman. On the other hand, he showed us how to adjust to the idea of a personal, or personified, God as a stepping-stone to the realization of the absolute Brahman that is nameless and formless." (Pandit Raimana Tigunait - The Himalayan Masters. Himalayan Institute Press, 2002) This would be directly relevant to the previous quote from Evagrios the Solitary, the Christian monk, regarding the avoidance of forms and shapes while praying. It also might shed some light on the gnostic and Kabbalistic idea that God is a created being. No need to agree with me. Just explaining where I'm coming from. The reason I tend to be a bit outspoken about His non-existence is that I come at this as a philosopher. Shankara view is defensible in 'rational' philosophy, but God, if we take Him to be the ultimate origin of existence, is not. I therefore would not expect anyone with a scientific mind to accept His existence, since this would require faith from someone who will (quite rightly imho) demand argument and evidence. He is, however, defensible as an approximation to the truth, and may often, as Shankara and others have suggested, be indespensible for reaching it. On this basis I would defend the idea of the grace of God, the love of God, the infinite compassion of God and so forth, not as an ultimate view, but as a close approximation to it and vastly useful and important for that reason. Does that help clarify our differences?

I said that if you think they say different things then your reaction is rational. What is there to misunderstand in that sentence? Yes. Ergo you did not read my words carefully. Fair enough. I would roughly agree. But there are three or four different meanings of 'faith', and they do not all mean believing in any old nonsense. What? I can't even think of a reply to this. What? I didn't even mention the plemora of God. Most of religion is contingent muddle, and I see no reason that Gnosticism should be exempt. Perhaps so. It has no bearing on anything I said. Quite easily. But it's a subtle point, and it seems that subtlety is a no no on this forum.

Hi Immortal I'm afraid that I don't see any disagreement between this professor and the gnostics. I view the professors book as an explanation of gnosticism, or gnosticism as it is once the contingent muddle is cleared away. I feel that Nagarjuna, Radhkrishnan, Shankara, Kapleau, the Dalai Lama, Lao tsu, Chung tsu and all the others of like mind are authoritative on truth, while Elaine Pagels, Stephen Hoeller, Karen Armstrong, Sean Martin and their like are authoritative on gnosticism, but of course it is possible to doubt this and hold a different view. How so? Looks like a rational response from here.

I agree with this. I also like your static state idea.

Fair point, but they both say the same thing in one interpretation. As you quite rightly say, to interpret them as offering conflicting advice would render their religion utterly implausible. I would rather say that an interpretation that has them offering conflicting advice is utterly implausible. The question is, which interpretation is the correct one. This is not something we can be told. Well, we can be told, but there will be no reason to believe what we're told. A lot of investigation and some practice is usually thought to be required before we can make sensible decisions about these things for ourself. At any rate, Krishna can easily be read as supporting Shankara's advaita Vedanta, usually taught by reference to the Gita, and with some effort so can Jesus. THis would be consistent with the gnostic flavour of the OPs ideas, since for this view God would not require our worship. Indeed, even Mohammed is not too enthusiastic about worship, saying that it is a far less valuable use of our time than contemplation. Churches tend to promote worship, prophets tend to promote the acquisition of knowledge. If you think they say different things then you are responding very rationally to their teachings, I would say. But I do not think they say different things.

I see what you mean qp and agree completely. It took me a long time to sort this one out. I believe you have adopted the correct mathematical approach, and it coincides with the correct metaphysical or logical approach. The problem may be only that you not taken into account Russell's Paradox. Or was it Cantor's? Backwards-engineering the universe means examining the foundations of mathematics, and also exactly what we mean by 'Something' and 'Nothing'. For a logic that describes existence there is the calculus of indications proposed by George Spencer-Brown in his Laws of Form. The maths is quite simple. According to this calculus the distinction we make between 'Something' and 'Nothing' is ultimately conceptual. Accordingly, it is axiomatised on what is prior to this distinction, a phenomenon that is undefined, unmanifest, a formless form, neither exactly existent nor non-existent. He uses complex logic, imaginary numbers etc, to solve Rusell's Paradox, and to solve your problem of how to use mathematics to describe the universe. For his view it would be taking this conceptual distinction to be real that causes us such a problem when we try to explain existence, whether in physics, mathematics or metaphysics. Kant shows us how to overcome the problem in metaphysics and psychology. For him, both the intellect and the world (or what Rucker and Davies call the 'Mindscape') would have their origin in a phenomenen that is not an instance of a category. Not Something or Nothing or in any case this as opposed to that. A perfect symmetry or unity. Your equations are capable of reaching backwards only as far as the start of your fall, but they imply the prior existence of you.

Oh okay. No point in discussing it then. Still, I would be interested to know if you could name any philosophers who share your view. I only know the bad ones, those who conclude that a beginning implies an end.

They are in the opinion of most philosophers, and I would say in the light of common sense. Nor can something that was once finite become infinite. As to the 'existence of Nothing', my view would be that 'Nothing' is not a location in the possibility space of the universe. So, we can say that the possibility of Nothing does not exist, which gets around the language problem.

Is not the OP simply referring to negative entropy?

First you have to find evidence that the extraordinary claims were made in the first place. Don't assume that they were made by Jesus just because someone interprets the scriptures in a certain way. Look at how many Muslims believe they will go to Heaven as a person, with virgins on-tap and flowing rivers of milk, rather than see that this is simply metaphor and poetry. Human beings are so simple-minded sometimes it's ridiculous. Inow says "Prayer can sometimes have calming effects, but is not really different than any form of meditation or intentional relaxation." It may be exactly the same thing as meditation, at least for people who aren't asking for a new bicycle for Christmas. A good source for prayer would be the Philokalia. There we read Evagrios, 'Try not to see a shape or form when praying, then you will understand'. This indicates a close equivalence between Zen sitting, say, and the prayer of the Christian desert fathers. There is no difference in intent between the Jesus prayer and chanting Hari Krishna. It's all about control of the mind, or seeing beyond the ordinary mind, or contacting the 'supramundane'. It's not about raising people from the dead, rotting hair maggots n'all. Remember that much of the teachings of the Churches is aimed at ordinary folk who like to be reassured and comforted with simple ideas. We do not have to be one of them but can dig deeper. The idea that meditation does no more than have a calming effect is absurd, and only plausible for someone who has hardly tried it. In meditation one can travel beyond life and death. One can do this driving down the motorway but it's easier to follow the usual practices. What is so often missed is that meditation is a skill, such that it is not immediately obvious what the point of it is. I was lucky enough to have a profound learning experience the first time I tried it, but usually it takes a while before its benefits begin to become apparent. To begin with it may seem to do no more than have a claming effect. Then it becomes awesome, shocking, frightening, inspiring, revitalising, life-affirming, confidence-giving and knowledge-inducing, depending on where you start and how you get on. Yes, Jesus the person is dead. But he is not dead in you. He is there if you go looking. Not as a person, of course, but as an intrinsic part of your own being. A very good recent book by Freke and Gandy proposes that Jesus is a spiritual archetype created for the Jewish people to stand in for Osiris/Dionysius. It is possible to believe that this might be true and yet still pray to Jesus, chant the Jesus prayer, emulate his life and learn from or follow his teachings. You and I will never know if he ever actually lived, or even if the Bible contains his sayings or was made up later. It does not matter. What matters is whether those sayings are true. I don't care who said that F=MV, it is true whoever said it. What a pity the Gospel of Thomas never made it into the New Testament. It might have been more obvious that there is more to Jesus' life and teachings than meets the eye.

Amazing. All my efforts and not a glimmer of understanding. Ho hum. Even a decent objection to my successful fundamental theory would have been something. I must accept defeat. There is no way to convince someone that philosophy is useful if they think it's all a matter of opinion. Over and out.