Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

implicate order

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    Tom, don t forget about the agnostics who aren t at all curious or the atheists who are :) Tolerance aside, I can t (and I really mean can not) believe that a
    Message 1 of 50 , Feb 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Tom, don't forget about the agnostics who aren't at all curious or the atheists who are :) Tolerance aside, I can't (and I really mean can not) believe that a type of being known as gods created the universe. However it is possible that some other kind of being could have created humans by tinkering with other animal life forms. That weird idea confessed, I am curious about synchronicity and the paranormal but find even my own experiences unverifiable and random. Like emotions, I find them impractical, but I'm reclaiming these phenomena for my own edification. I don't know how I can attribute my curiosity to the gods, but I'd sure have a question or two for the tinkerers. Translation is always tricky. Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
      >
      > Jim,
      >
      > Thomas Jefferson embraced the idea that at least in terms of ther relations between state and citizens, the pertinent thing was that the state not play a role promoting or opposing belief systems. He had a major part in overturning the state of Virginia's"Heresy Law".Jefferson said, "Whither your neighbor believes in one God or twelve Gods, what does it matter if he is a good neighbor."
      >
      > Again, in my own judgement, agnosticism leaves the door open to all possibilities. Agnosticism is not the denial of atheism,theism, or polytheism. If evidence supporting any of them later came up,agnosticism could easily transform into whichever one was supported by the new evidence.
      >
      > Einstein said both of the following:
      >
      > The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books--a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.
      >
      > The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity
      >
      > To me agnosticism is not closing the door prematurely on this questioning. Atheism like theism presumes that the nature of ultimate reality is known. Theisms usually trace their certainty to revelations from God to their founders; whereas atheists can only say that what can not be readily measured is not only uncertain, but certainly nonexistent.
      > Of all the creation myths, to me atheism is the least probable. With the amount of things that are known regarding the numerous factors in the cosmos, ecology, and the development of the human mind ,evidenced by our current communication online, that would be necesary for this to have occured ,the odds against it occuring randomly would probably be trillions to one. And 10 years from now, as science has found many more intricacies that are essential for the sustaining of the human being to exist at all as we do in world and cosmos we live in, the probabilities of it having occured by chance would have to even more immense. In my own life, I have experienced many of what the theoretical physicist, Wolfgang Pauli would call syncronicities. I have also talked to numerous others who likewise have had experiences that can't be reconciled with a universe put together by totally random forces. I think the term,"superstition" was a term used to discount any occurences that didn't readily fit into their reductionist paradigms.I share the view that nothing is supernatural. Whatever exists is natural;however, what is described as paranormal are natural occurences that do not readily fit into reductionist paradigms..
      >
      > Peace,
      > Tom
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Jim
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 11:42 AM
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Extopical tutorial
      >
      >
      >
      > Trinidad,
      >
      > You write:
      >
      > "I have begun to embrace some new political choices as well. Foremost among these; I no
      > longer consider political atheism a valid choice for an activist western man. Protestant Christianity is so tightly bundled together with capitalism now, that I highly doubt atheism will be able to resist the temptation to fall in line, much as science already has, while presenting altogether unscientific arguments for atheism. There is no such thing, Dawkins or not, as scientific atheism, at least not from valid scientific argument. Atheism is a purely political choice. Socialism needs to keep a distance from any affiliation other than agnosticism. Just as there are capitalists in all walks of life there are socialists."
      >
      > This is very interesting. Wil and Tom have already made significant comments, but I want to add my thoughts as well.
      >
      > I agree with you that for practical reasons it is a good idea to keep one's socialist hat and one's atheist hat for different occasions and different struggles.
      >
      > As you say today there are capitalists who are Christians, agnostics and atheists. The same with socialism.
      >
      > When campaigning and demonstrating for socialism, I have stood alongside Christians, agnostics and atheists, and in those situations religious differences were not relevant. In this country the Quakers have consistently been on the front line in the fight for socialism and peace. I have known a number of radical socialists in the Church of England. Further afield, in the 1980s and 1990s a lot of Christians embraced "liberation theology" particularly in South America.
      >
      > Unlike Tom, who seems to want to embrace a quietist agnosticism, I think the fight for atheism is well worth fighting, as a separate struggle to that for socialism.
      >
      > You write "Atheism is a purely political choice.". I wonder if this is what you meant to write, as earlier you wrote "I no longer consider political atheism a valid choice for an activist western man."
      >
      > I would rather say "Atheism is an existential choice." A sceptic would be correct to say that a person cannot be certain atheism is true, just as a person cannot be certain theism is true. Existentialism invites us to make commitments on the basis of uncertainty. I think the commitment to atheism is worth making, but I think it worthwhile to confront Christianity with rational arguments when the situation arrives.
      >
      > So, unlike you, I support Dawkins and Hutchins in their aggressive challenge to theism and dogma.
      >
      > I think the atheist does have science on his side, although I personally do not go along with Dawkins' reductive materialism or scientism.
      >
      > I aim for rationality and humanity, and, as such, I would hope the more progressive societies of the future will be both socialist and predominantly atheistic.
      >
      > Jim
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • hb3g@ymail.com
      Beautifully stated. The rationality of existence does not require that there be a creator of existence. The only thing I might take issue with is using the
      Message 50 of 50 , Feb 3, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Beautifully stated. The rationality of existence does not require that there be a creator of existence.

        The only thing I might take issue with is using the term "Copenhagen solution". It is not really a solution. It is more like an interpretation. But the fact does remain that we run into that brick wall of indeterminacy.

        How we interpret that fact was the issue. Neils Bohr concluded that the indeterminacy was an intrinsic feature of physical reality. Einstein was more Kantian about it. He viewed it as a limitation of human intellect.

        Where the truth lies is hard to say.

        Maybe they are both half right and half wrong.

        For, even if it is a characteristically "human" phenomenon to have this brick wall there, the human being is still a natural phenomenon that has come into existence through natural evolutionary processes. The human being is a form of life. And a configuration of matter and energy.

        That "indeterminacy" is, in some sense, ontologically intrinsic. Maybe, without it, there could be no freedom or knowledge.

        I don't know.

        Hb3g

        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
        >
        >
        > Tom,
        >
        > I would still have to say that there is no actual 'product' here, and hence no producer, designer or creator. When pressed on the matter, Einstein explicitly cites Spinoza. In Spinoza (regarded always as an atheist, until certain post-War Jews have tried to make him -- and Einstein -- Jewish again), the cosmos is coeval and identical with "God", which is the one and only substance, and as such is not 'made' -- or else it would not be substance but a mode among other modes. Making God as essentially everything, makes of that concept an ontology-in-itself, one without a transcendent Mind that thinks temporally. As in Aristotle, all that this supreme concept can think is thought without thoughts (pure Nous, but in Spinoza without any Ideal reserve or 'realm'), which thereby is apparent in the rationality of truth and the eternality of physical laws.
        >
        > Using "God" in this way, as Spinoza's contemporaries knew, takes everything Godlike out of the concept, except for necessary existence. Einstein sees this as the underlying 'beauty' of physics, of the rational cohesion of a total systematicity gleanable by rational methods. Within this context, nothing can be an accident -- Einstein only begrudgingly accepted the Copenhagen solution of indeterminacy, But the cosmos itself is inexplicable. It seems just to be, but NOT designed.
        >
        > Wil
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Mon, Feb 1, 2010 6:36 pm
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: implicate order
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Wil,
        >
        > I have read those quotes also, and certainly wasn't implying that Einstein was in anyway inline with Jesuits or other theists. He did believe that the universe was the product of some great intelligence, rather than a trillion to one accident.
        >
        > Peace,
        > 'Tom
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: eupraxis@...
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 5:17 PM
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: implicate order
        >
        > Tom,
        >
        > The rest of that first quote reads, " ... If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
        > The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the morecertain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does notlie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith,but through striving after rational knowledge.
        > Immortality? Thereare two kinds. The first lives in the imagination of the people, and isthus an illusion. There is a relative immortality which may conservethe memory of an individual for some generations. But there is only onetrue immortality, on a cosmic scale, and that is the immortality of thecosmos itself. There is no other."
        >
        > The second quote begins with this, "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist ...
        >
        > Wil
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: tom <tsmith17_midsouth1@...>
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Mon, Feb 1, 2010 5:07 pm
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: implicate order
        >
        > Wil,
        >
        > I think Einstein's views were somewhat akin to those in Eastern religions.
        >
        > The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)
        >
        > I also found this quote, which I also relate to. What I was attempting to convey to Mary is that I believe we live within a mystery.
        >
        > I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. (Albert Einstein)
        >
        > As for as I am concerned though, nothing would suprise me. I have stated I am doubtful that existence is totally a product of random forces;however, I am not insisting that the random assumption or even the theistic ones are not possibilities,however remote.Like Knot used to say, he wasn't sure if he existed or if everything he was experiencing was an illusion. I also see that as a possibility, or maybe it is none of the above.
        >
        > Peace,
        > Tom
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: eupraxis@...
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 12:37 PM
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: implicate order
        >
        > Tom,
        >
        > Let us remember that Einstein believed in an eternal universe without beginning and end, like Hoyle. His "god" was math, or in any case Spinoza's singular "substance" as a totality of rational order. He did not believe in a creator, nor creation. In his more candid moods, he said that his "god" talk was for the sake of us stupid Americans who had assailed relativity as immoral.
        >
        > Wil
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Mary <josephson45r@...>
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Mon, Feb 1, 2010 11:36 am
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: implicate order
        >
        > Tom, I'm still struggling to understand how randomness can create, or conversely, how creation doesn't happen without creators. Einstein couldn't help but see what he saw, anymore than we can help how we see differently. Myths are anthropomorphic projections about the unknown, and what* do atheists assume is nonexistent?? Mary
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@> wrote:
        > Fundamentalists project anthromorphic identities on the unknown; and I think atheists assume it is nonexistent.
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > =
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.