Principia Discordia

The following are some of Albert Einstein's writings on Science & Religion.

Please note:  Some of his writings are what some may consider long.  Although who really gives a flying fuck about short attention spans?  Save your breath.

QuoteA child in the sixth grade in a Sunday School in New York City, with the encouragement of her teacher, wrote to Einstein in Princeton on 19 January I936 asking him whether scientists pray, and if so what they pray for. Einstein replied as follows on 24 January 1936:

I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is my answer.

Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being.

However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research.

But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

It is worth mentioning that this letter was written a decade after the advent of Heisenberg's principle of indeterminacy and the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics with its denial of strict determinism.

QuoteThe next excerpt is a letter written by Einstein in response to a 19-year-old Rutger's University student, who had written to Einstein of his despair at seeing no visible purpose to life and no help from religion.

In responding to this poignant cry for help, Einstein offered no easy solace, and this very fact must have heartened the student and lightened the lonely burden of his doubts. Here is Einstein's response. It was written in English and sent from Princeton on 3 December 1950, within days of receiving the letter:

I was impressed by the earnestness of your struggle to find a purpose for the life of the individual and of mankind as a whole. In my opinion there can be no reasonable answer if the question is put this way. If we speak of the purpose and goal of an action we mean simply the question: which kind of desire should we fulfill by the action or its consequences or which undesired consequences should be prevented? We can, of course, also speak in a clear way of the goal of an action from the standpoint of a community to which the individual belongs. In such cases the goal of the action has also to do at least indirectly with fulfillment of desires of the individuals which constitute a society.

If you ask for the purpose or goal of society as a whole or of an individual taken as a whole the question loses its meaning. This is, of course, even more so if you ask the purpose or meaning of nature in general. For in those cases it seems quite arbitrary if not unreasonable to assume somebody whose desires are connected with the happenings.

Nevertheless we all feel that it is indeed very reasonable and important to ask ourselves how we should try to conduct our lives. The answer is, in my opinion: satisfaction of the desires and needs of all, as far as this can be achieved, and achievement of harmony and beauty in the human relationships. This presupposes a good deal of conscious thought and of self-education. It is undeniable that the enlightened Greeks and the old Oriental sages had achieved a higher level in this all-important field than what is alive in our schools and universities.

Science and Religion

This article appears in Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, pp.41 - 49. The first section is taken from an address at Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939. It was published in Out of My Later Years, New York: Philosophical Library, 1950. The second section is from Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.

...One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values.

The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.

...If one were to take that goal out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind.

...If one looks at the substance rather than at the form, then one can take these words as expressing also the fundamental democratic position. The true democrat can worship his nation as little as can the man who is religious, in our sense of the term.

If one holds these high principles clearly before one's eyes, and compares them with the life and spirit of our times, then it appears glaringly that civilized mankind finds itself at present in grave danger, In the totalitarian states it is the rulers themselves who strive actually to destroy that spirit of humanity. In less threatened parts it is nationalism and intolerance, as well as the oppression of the individuals by economic means, which threaten to choke these most precious traditions.

A realization of how great is the danger is spreading, however, among thinking people, and there is much search for means with which to meet the danger--means in the field of national and international politics, of legislation, or organization in general.

Such efforts are, no doubt, greatly needed. Yet the ancients knew something- which we seem to have forgotten. All means prove but a blunt instrument, if they have not behind them a living spirit. But if the longing for the achievement of the goal is powerfully alive within us, then shall we not lack the strength to find the means for reaching the goal and for translating it into deeds.

...If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.

...The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required--not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishment in principle is only founded on partial successes. But hardly anyone could be found who would deny these partial successes and ascribe them to human self-deception.

To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless no one doubts that we are confronted with a causal connection whose causal components are in the main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature.

...The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself.

This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task. (This thought is convincingly presented in Herbert Samuel's book, Belief and Action.) After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge.

If it is one of the goals of religion to liberate mankind as far as possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and fears, scientific reasoning can aid religion in yet another sense. Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements.

It is in this striving after the rational unification of the manifold that it encounters its greatest successes, even though it is precisely this attempt which causes it to run the greatest risk of falling a prey to illusions. But whoever has undergone the intense experience of successful advances made in this domain is moved by profound reverence for the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man.

This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life.

...The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.

I'd just like to point out that Einstein hated quantum physics.  He spent much of the last half of his life doing his best to refute the indeterminacy found in it.

He failed to do so.

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/600/1241217203944.jpg (http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/600/1241217203944.jpg)

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9718/1241221359742.jpg (http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9718/1241221359742.jpg)

fairly large images so I don't want to post em here.

Quotes from Einstein on religion

Quote from: LMNO on May 26, 2009, 02:56:28 PM
I'd just like to point out that Einstein hated quantum physics.  He spent much of the last half of his life doing his best to refute the indeterminacy found in it.

He failed to do so.

Yup he did at that.  However at the same time (although not in the same space) I think he would be pleased with the results of people questioning his findings & evaluating his ideas.  (I'd like to add your Dad's speech here if I may?)

That guy with the crappy username?  Like those too!

If you like to think on different levels (& who doesn't?) here's another guy who (I think) has a rather interesting take on the subject of Religion & Science, or maybe more like Religion & Anthropology & Animism & ??

Our Religions: Are they the Religions of Humanity Itself?
Delivered October 18, 2000, as a Fleming Lecture in Religion, Southwestern University, Georgetown, Texas

Contrary to popular opinion, Charles Darwin did not originate the idea of evolution. By the middle of the 19th century, the mere fact of evolution had been around for a long time, and most thinkers of the time were perfectly content to leave it at that. The absence of a theory to explain evolutionary change didn't trouble them, wasn't experienced as a pressure, as it was by Darwin. He knew there had to be some intelligible mechanism or dynamic that would account for it, and this is what he went looking for--with well known results. In his Origin of Species, he wasn't announcing the fact of evolution, he was trying to make sense of the fact.

... One of the virtues of tribal law is that it presupposes that people are just the way we know they are: generally wise, kind, generous, and well-intentioned but perfectly capable of being foolish, unruly, moody, cantankerous, selfish, greedy, violent, stupid, bad-tempered, sneaky, lustful, treacherous, careless, vindictive, neglectful, petty, and all sorts of other unpleasant things. Tribal law doesn't punish people for their shortcomings, as our law does. Rather, it makes the management of their shortcomings an easy and ordinary part of life.

... When you gather up a hundred tribes and expect them to work and live together, tribal law becomes inapplicable and useless. But of course the people in this amalgam are the same as they always were: capable of being foolish, moody, cantankerous, selfish, greedy, violent, stupid, bad-tempered, and all the rest. In the tribal situation, this was no problem, because tribal law was designed for people like this. But all the tribal ways of handling these ordinary human tendencies had been expunged in our burgeoning civilization. A new way of handling them had to be invented--and I stress the word invented. There was no received, tested way of handling the mischief people were capable of. Our cultural ancestors had to make something up, and what they made up were lists of prohibited behavior.

... The appearance of religions based on prophetic revelations is unique to our culture. We alone in the history of all humanity needed such religions. We still need them (and new ones are being created every day), because we still profoundly feel that we don't know how to live. Our religions are the peculiar creation of a bereft people. Yet we don't doubt for a moment that they are the religions of humanity itself.

The religion I'm talking about is, of course, animism. This name was cut to fit the general missionary impression that these childlike savages believe that things like rocks, trees, and rivers have spirits in them, and it hasn't lost this coloration since the middle of the nineteenth century.

Needless to say, I wasn't prepared to settle for this trivialization of a religion that flourished for tens of thousands of years among people exactly as smart as we are. After decades of trying to understand what these people were telling us about their lives and their vision of humanity's place in the world, I concluded that a very simple (but far from trivial) worldview was at the foundation of what they were saying: The world is a sacred place, and humanity belongs in such a world.

It's simple but also deceptively simple. This can best be seen if we contrast it with the worldview at the foundation of our own religions. In the worldview of our religions, the world is anything but a sacred place. For Christians, it's merely a place of testing and has no intrinsic value. For Buddhists it's a place where suffering is inevitable. If I oversimplify, my object is not to misrepresent but only to clarify the general difference between these two worldviews in the few minutes that are left to me.

For Christians, the world is not where humans belong; it's not our true home, it's just a sort of waiting room where we pass the time before moving on to our true home, which is heaven. For Buddhists, the world is another kind of waiting room, which we visit again and again in a repeating cycle of death and rebirth until we finally attain liberation in nirvana.

Simple ideas are not always easy to understand. The very simplest idea I've articulated in my work is probably the least understood: There is no one right way for people to live--never has been and never will be. This idea was at the foundation of tribal life everywhere. The Navajo never imagined that they had the right way to live (and that all others were [/i]iwrong)[/i]. All they had was a way that suited them. With tribal peoples on all sides of them--all living in different ways--it would have been ridiculous for them to imagine that theirs was the one right way for people to live. It would be like us imagining that there is one right way to orchestrate a Cole Porter song or one right way to make a bicycle.

In the tribal world, because there was complete agreement that no one had the right way to live, there was a staggering glory of cultural diversity, which the people of our culture have been tirelessly eradicating for 10,000 years. For us, it will be paradise when everyone on earth lives exactly the same way.

Almost no one blinks at the statement that there is no one right way for people to live. In one of his denunciations of scribes and pharisees, Jesus said, "You gag on the gnat but swallow down the camel." People find many gnats in my books to gag on, but this great hairy camel goes down as easily as a teaspoon of honey.

http://www.ishmael.org/Education/Writings/southwestern.shtml

That sounds very much like Pete Carroll's essay on "Paradigm Shifts and Aeonics". In one of his classes he said to keep in mind he was writing from the position of someone who believed in Magic at the time. Pete likes to believe/not believe in whatever, whenever if it suits his purposes. Overall, I like it... but I have to keep reminding myself that some of the 'madjickal' talk is a bit of a muddled model ;-)

However, with the above essay, I think there are some very complementary concepts between them. I was also reminded about Bob's discussion in Prometheus Rising where he discusses the tribal basis of religion, the weirdness of so many tribes being thrown together today (The Catholic tribe and the Methodist tribe and the Baptist tribe and the Wiccan tribe and the Hindu tribe all tossed together like a salad).

Anyway, here's the essay, the only format I found it in was flaky so I reformatted it for here:

[quote author = Pete Carroll]
All the philosophies, creeds, dogmas and beliefs that humanity has evolved are variants of three great paradigms, the Transcendental, the Materialist and the Magical. In no human culture has any one of these paradigms been completely distinct from the others. For example in our own culture at the time of writing the Transcendental and Magical pradigms are frequently confused together.

Transcendental philosophies are basically religious and manifest in a spectrum stretching from the fringes of primitive spiritism through pagan polytheism to the monotheism of the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic traditions and the theoretical non-theistic systems of Buddhism and Taoism. In each case it is believed that some form of consciousness or spirit created and maintains the universe and that humans, other living organisms, contain some fragment of this consciousness or spirit which underlies the veil or illusion of matter. The essence of Transcendentalism is belief in spiritual beings greater than oneself or states of spiritual being superior to that which currently one enjoys. Earthly life is frequently seen merely as a form of dialoque between oneself and one's deity or deities, or perhaps some impersonal form of higher force. The material world is a theatre for the spirit or soul or consciousness that created it. Spirit is the ultimate reality to the transcendentalist.

In the Materialist paradigm the universe is believed to consist fundamentally and entirely of matter. Energy is but a form of matter and together they subtend space and time within which all change occurs strictly on the basis of cause and effect. Human behaviour is reducible to biology, biology is reducible to chemistry, chemistry is reducible to physics and physics is reducible to mathematics. Mind and consciousness are thus merely electrochemical events in the brain and spirit is a word without objective content. The causes of some events are likely to remain obscure perhaps indefinitely, but there is an underlying faith that sufficient material cause must exist for any event. All human acts can be categorized as serving some biological need or as expressions of previously applied conditioning or merely as malfunction. The goal of materialist who eschews suicide is the pursuit of personal satisfaction including altruistic satisfactions if desired.

The main difficulty in recognizing and describing the pure Magical Paradigm is that of insufficient vocabulary. Magical philosophy is only recently recovering from a heavy adulteration with transcendental theory. The word aether will be used to describe the fundamental reality of the magical paradigm. It is more or less equivalent to the idea of Mana used in oceanic shamanism. Aether in materialistic descriptions is information which structures matter and which all matter is capable of emitting and receiving. In transcendental terms aether is a sort of "life force" present in some degree in all things.  It carries both knowledge about events and the ability to influence similar or sympathetic vents. Events either arise sponataneously out of themselves or are encouraged to follow certain paths by influence of patterns in the aether. As all
things have an aetheric part they can be considered to be alive in some sense. Thus all things happen by magic, the large scale features of the universe have a very strong aetheric pattern which makes them fairly predictable but difficult to influence by the aetheric patterns created by thought. Magicians see themselves as participating in nature. Transcendentalists like to think they are somehow above it. Materialists like to try and manipulate it.

Now this universe has the peculiarly accomodating property of tending to provide evidence for, and confirmation of, whatever paradigm one chooses to believe in. Presumably at some deep level there is a hidden symmetry between those things we call Matter, Aether and Spirit. Indeed, it is rare to find an individual or culture operating exclusively on a single one of these paradigms and none is ever entirely absent. Non dominant paradigms are always present as superstitions and fears. A subsequent section on Aeonics will attempt to untangle the influences of each of these great world views throughout history, to see how they have interacted with each other and to predict future trends. In the meantime an analysis of the radically differing concepts of time and self in each paradigm is offered to more fully distinguish the basic ideas.

Transcendentalists conceive of time in millennial and apocalyptic terms. Time is regareded as having a definite beginning and ending, both initiated by the activities of spiritual beings or forces. The end of time on the personal and cosmic scale is regarded not so much as a cessation of being but as a change to a state of non material being. The beginning of personal and cosmic time is similarly regarded as a creative act by spiritual agencies. Thus reproductive activity usually becomes heavily controlled and hedged about with taboo and restriction in religious cultures, as it implies an usurpation of the powers of deities. Reproduction also implies that death has in some measure been overcome. How awesome the power of creation and how  final must earthly death subconsciously loom to a celibate and sterile priesthood.

All transcendentalisms embody elements of apocalyptism. Typically these are used to provoke revivals when business is slack or attention is drifting elsewhere. Thus it is suddenly revealed that the final days are at hand or that some earthly dispute is in fact a titanic battle against evil spiritual agencies.

Materialist time is linear but unbounded. Ideally it can be extended arbitrarily far in either direction from the present. To the strict materialist it is self-evidently futile to speculate about a beginning or an end to time. Similarly the materialist is contemptuous of any speculations about any forms of personal existence before birth or after death. The materialist may well fear painful or premature death but can have no fears about being dead.

The magical view is that time is cyclic and that all processes recur. Even cycles which appear to begin or end are actually parts of larger cycles. Thus all endings are beginnings and the end of time is synonymous with the beginning of time in another universe. The magical view that everything is recycled is reflected in the doctrine of reincarnation. The attractive idea of reincarnation has often persisted into the religious paradigm and many pagan and even some monotheist traditions have retained it. However religious theories invariably contaminate the original idea with beliefs about a personal soul. From a strictly magical viewpoint we are an accretion rather than an unfolded unity. The psyche has no particular centre, we are colonial beings, a rich collage of many selves. Thus as our bodies contain fragments from countless former beings, so does our psyche. However certain magical traditions retain techniques which allow the adept to transfer quite large amounts of his psyche in one piece should he consider this more useful than dispersing himself into humanity at large.

Each of the paradigms take a different view of the self. Transcendentalists view self as spirit inserted into matter. As a fragment or figment of deity the self regards itself as somehow placed in the world in a non arbitrary manner and endowed with free will. The transcendental view of self is relatively stable and non-problematic if shared as a consensus with all significant others. However, transcendental theories about the placement and purpose of self and its relationship to deities are mutually exclusive. Conflicting transcendentalisms can rarely co-exist for they threaten to disconform the images of self. Encounters which are not decisive tend to be mutually negatory in the long run.

Of the three views of self the purely materialistic one is the most problematical. If mind is an extension of matter it must obey material laws and the resulting deterministic view conflicts with the subjective experience of free will. On the other hand if mind and consciousness are assumed to be qualitatively different from matter then the self is incomprehensible to itself in material terms. Worse still perhaps, the materialist self must regard itself as a phenomenon of only temporary duration in contradiction of the subjective expectation of continuity of consciousness. Because a purely materialist view of self is so austere few are prepared to confront such naked existentialism. Consequently materialist cultures exhibit a frantic appetite for sensation, identification and more or less disposable irrational beliefs. Anything that will make the self seem less insubstantial.

The magical view of self is that it is based on the same random capricious chaos which makes the universe exist and do what it does.
The magical self has no centre, it is not a unity but an assemblage of parts, any number of which may temorarily club together and call
themselves "I". This accords with the observation that our subjective experience consists of our various selves experiencing each other. Free will arises either as an outcome of a dispute between our various selves or as a sudden random creation of a new idea or option. In the magical view of self there is no spirit/matter or mind/body split and the paradoxes of free will and determinism disappear. Some of our acts arise from random choices between conditioned options and some from conditional choices between randomly created options. In practice most of our acts are based on rather complex hierarchical sequences of all four of these mechanisms. As soon as we have acted one of our selves proclaims "I did that!" so loudly that most of the other selves think they did it too.

Each of the three views of self has something derogatory to say about the other two. From the standpoint of the transcendental self the materialist self has become prey to pride of intellect, the demon hubris, whilst the magical view of self is considered to be entirely demonic. The material self views the transcendentalist as obsessed with assumptions having no basis in fact, and the magical self as being childlike and incoherent. From the standpoint of the magical view, the assorted selves of the transcendendatilst have ascribed a grossly exaggerated importance to one or a few of the selves which they call God or gods, whilst the materialist has attempted to make all his selves subordinate to the self that does the rational thinking. Ultimately it's a matter of faith and taste. The transcedentalist has faith in his god self, the materialist has faith in his reasoning self and the selves of the magician have faith in each other. Naturally, all these forms of faith are subject to periods of doubt.[/quote]

I'm having trouble seeing where I fit in the above, Rat.

Quote from: Ratatosk on June 03, 2009, 04:44:52 PM
That sounds very much like Pete Carroll's essay on "Paradigm Shifts and Aeonics". In one of his classes he said to keep in mind he was writing from the position of someone who believed in Magic at the time.

well that's where I stopped reading

Quote from: Kai on June 04, 2009, 09:54:40 PM
I'm having trouble seeing where I fit in the above, Rat.

QuoteIn no human culture has any one of these paradigms been completely distinct from the others.

Myself, I would say that most of us fit in the Magical paradigm, that is we can perceive reality through our 'selves' in concert. Most of us don't see ONLY the materialist view, or ONLY the Transcendent or ONLY the magical... rather most people on PD seem (IMO) to:

QuoteThe magical view of self is that it is based on the same random capricious chaos which makes the universe exist and do what it does.
The magical self has no centre, it is not a unity but an assemblage of parts, any number of which may temorarily club together and call
themselves "I". This accords with the observation that our subjective experience consists of our various selves experiencing each other. Free will arises either as an outcome of a dispute between our various selves or as a sudden random creation of a new idea or option. In the magical view of self there is no spirit/matter or mind/body split and the paradoxes of free will and determinism disappear. Some of our acts arise from random choices between conditioned options and some from conditional choices between randomly created options. In practice most of our acts are based on rather complex hierarchical sequences of all four of these mechanisms..

The Magical Paradigm can assert the Materialist Self or Transcendental Self, but it is not stuck in those modes.

If we look at it from a BiP perspective...
The Materialist rearranges their cell, only when provided with material proof that X is True or False.
The Transcendentalist rearranges their cell only in response to direction from their Belief System or something like Unverifiable Personal Gnosis.
The Magican rearranges their cell at will, for whatever purpose suits them.

The Materialist thinks that Objective/Material things are ALL.
The Transcendentalist thinkgs that spiritual things are ALL.
The Magician thinks that ALL is a very big place.

The Materialist has a self and it is a biochemical processing system.
The Transcendentalist has a self and it is a spirit, stuck in some temporary material cage.
The Magician has selves which may have all sorts of ideas.

I doubt anyone would consider you transcendental, Kai ;-)
I used to think you were a Materialist, but my opinion has changed greatly as I've gotten to know you.

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 04, 2009, 09:57:16 PM

Quote from: Ratatosk on June 03, 2009, 04:44:52 PM
That sounds very much like Pete Carroll's essay on "Paradigm Shifts and Aeonics". In one of his classes he said to keep in mind he was writing from the position of someone who believed in Magic at the time.

well that's where I stopped reading

Yeah, the walls of a BiP can be tough when you run into them ;-)

Yeah, I'm not a trancendentalist by the definition above, and I'm certainly not a materialist, yet I still have aspects of both of those in my "emergence-based spirituality". I've got trouble identifying with the "magical paradigm" though -- some baggage on my part.

Materialism - Boring
Trancedentalism - Boring
Magick - Too much baggage

I am!

Anything else is putting me in a box I don't will not fit.

Don't mind me - I'm just hung up on the whole concept of labels tonight :D

Quote from: Kai on June 04, 2009, 10:31:03 PM
Yeah, I'm not a trancendentalist by the definition above, and I'm certainly not a materialist, yet I still have aspects of both of those in my "emergence-based spirituality". I've got trouble identifying with the "magical paradigm" though -- some baggage on my part.

Hehehe. Just remember "Magic" in the sense used here has nothing to do with throwing fireballs or seeing the future or levitating ;)

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 04, 2009, 10:59:51 PM
Materialism - Boring
Trancedentalism - Boring
Magick - Too much baggage

I am!

Anything else is putting me in a box I don't will not fit.

Don't mind me - I'm just hung up on the whole concept of labels tonight :D

You am... a Spagadentalist

Don't f'kin pidgeonhole me motherfucker :argh!:

Quote from: Ratatosk on June 04, 2009, 11:01:17 PM

Quote from: Kai on June 04, 2009, 10:31:03 PM
Yeah, I'm not a trancendentalist by the definition above, and I'm certainly not a materialist, yet I still have aspects of both of those in my "emergence-based spirituality". I've got trouble identifying with the "magical paradigm" though -- some baggage on my part.

Hehehe. Just remember "Magic" in the sense used here has nothing to do with throwing fireballs or seeing the future or levitating ;)

I don't think I've ever gotten a straightforward definition of magic without all the jargon.

Quote from: Kai on June 05, 2009, 05:48:05 AM

Quote from: Ratatosk on June 04, 2009, 11:01:17 PM

Quote from: Kai on June 04, 2009, 10:31:03 PM
Yeah, I'm not a trancendentalist by the definition above, and I'm certainly not a materialist, yet I still have aspects of both of those in my "emergence-based spirituality". I've got trouble identifying with the "magical paradigm" though -- some baggage on my part.

Hehehe. Just remember "Magic" in the sense used here has nothing to do with throwing fireballs or seeing the future or levitating ;)

I don't think I've ever gotten a straightforward definition of magic without all the jargon.

Magic: Wishing something and then it happens.

Magicians: People who think wishing will make everything they want to happen, happen.

Reality: When you wish that something goes away, it doesn't go away.

Quote from: Skieth on June 05, 2009, 06:22:42 AM

Quote from: Kai on June 05, 2009, 05:48:05 AM

Quote from: Ratatosk on June 04, 2009, 11:01:17 PM

Quote from: Kai on June 04, 2009, 10:31:03 PM
Yeah, I'm not a trancendentalist by the definition above, and I'm certainly not a materialist, yet I still have aspects of both of those in my "emergence-based spirituality". I've got trouble identifying with the "magical paradigm" though -- some baggage on my part.

Hehehe. Just remember "Magic" in the sense used here has nothing to do with throwing fireballs or seeing the future or levitating ;)

I don't think I've ever gotten a straightforward definition of magic without all the jargon.

Magic: Wishing something and then it happens.

Magicians: People who think wishing will make everything they want to happen, happen.

Reality: When you wish that something goes away, it doesn't go away.

This is so popular a view, especially amongst the majority of so called "adepts" that I'm pretty sure someone did it on purpose for great lulz.

The truth is much more straightforward - magic = systematic self-mindfucking for the purposes of proactively exploring your own brain and rearranging your BIP.

Like I said - fuck the term, it's too loaded with wiccan/chaos/d&d/fortune teller - baggage

I guess it's like pretty much any other human endeavour in history. One or two people came up with something cool and then 50-odd billion complete fucking idiots picked it up and ran with it. :lulz:

magic = religion = democracy = quantum physics = coffee = teevee = internets

Quote from: Ratatosk on June 03, 2009, 04:44:52 PM
That sounds very much like Pete Carroll's essay on "Paradigm Shifts and Aeonics". In one of his classes he said to keep in mind he was writing from the position of someone who believed in Magic at the time. Pete likes to believe/not believe in whatever, whenever if it suits his purposes. Overall, I like it... but I have to keep reminding myself that some of the 'madjickal' talk is a bit of a muddled model ;-)

However, with the above essay, I think there are some very complementary concepts between them. I was also reminded about Bob's discussion in Prometheus Rising where he discusses the tribal basis of religion, the weirdness of so many tribes being thrown together today (The Catholic tribe and the Methodist tribe and the Baptist tribe and the Wiccan tribe and the Hindu tribe all tossed together like a salad).

Anyway, here's the essay, the only format I found it in was flaky so I reformatted it for here:

Thanks & respect, I found this to be interesting although I wasn't attracted to the writing style or lingo.  imo he somehow managed to take a sensual subject & turn it into something dry & lifeless.  A few other thoughts? 

Quote... The main difficulty in recognizing and describing the pure Magical Paradigm is that of insufficient vocabulary. Magical philosophy is only recently recovering from a heavy adulteration with transcendental theory. The word aether will be used to describe the fundamental reality of the magical paradigm. It is more or less equivalent to the idea of Mana used in oceanic shamanism. Aether in materialistic descriptions is information which structures matter and which all matter is capable of emitting and receiving. In transcendental terms aether is a sort of "life force" present in some degree in all things.  It carries both knowledge about events and the ability to influence similar or sympathetic vents. Events either arise sponataneously out of themselves or are encouraged to follow certain paths by influence of patterns in the aether. As all things have an aetheric part they can be considered to be alive in some sense. Thus all things happen by magic, the large scale features of the universe have a very strong aetheric pattern which makes them fairly predictable but difficult to influence by the aetheric patterns created by thought. Magicians see themselves as participating in nature. Transcendentalists like to think they are somehow above it. Materialists like to try and manipulate it.

"The main difficulty in recognizing and describing the pure Magical Paradigm is that of insufficient vocabulary."??  This is where my bullshit detector starts to buzzzzzzzz.  Insufficient vocabulary?  Sorry no dice.  Sounds like more of the same o lame o elitist buuuuuuullshit where if you can't dazzle'em with the brilliance of creative & original thought (& not to toss any apples here (who me?) but whattabout the likes of Cain & Roger & Triple Zero to name just a few?) then one is instructed to "reel 'em in" with the canned clichés of "we are the enlightened^TM few."  & why is that any different?

Please note (esp literalists):  I have no problem with the notion of creating new words (I love it even) however I remain cynical when the rationale seems to be to create distance & not shorten.

Quote... Indeed, it is rare to find an individual or culture operating exclusively on a single one of these paradigms and none is ever entirely absent. Non dominant paradigms are always present as superstitions and fears. A subsequent section on Aeonics will attempt to untangle the influences of each of these great world views throughout history, to see how they have interacted with each other and to predict future trends. In the meantime an analysis of the radically differing concepts of time and self in each paradigm is offered to more fully distinguish the basic ideas.

... Materialist time is linear but unbounded. Ideally it can be extended arbitrarily far in either direction from the present. To the strict materialist it is self-evidently futile to speculate about a beginning or an end to time. Similarly the materialist is contemptuous of any speculations about any forms of personal existence before birth or after death. The materialist may well fear painful or premature death but can have no fears about being dead.

I like the boldened sentences.  However, it's been said before & much more simply & for me? lyrically.  Don't get me wrong here – I never think it's a mistake to re-state an idea in a different way.  Simple ideas are not always easy to understand.

Cause & effect are not closely related in time and space.  Now then!  & the world will continue to spin with me or without me. 

I've read some of Robert Anton Wilson's work (Prometheus Rising to name just one) & happen to like some of his ideas.  & he, just as Einstein, Darwin & so many others would be pleased as punch that we, as peoples, have moved on & learned new steps.  No sour grapes there! 

Thanks again for your reply!  I do appreciate & like some of it but I, again personally would "rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance."  (ee)

Also, I think you would enjoy reading the parts I haven't quoted from the complete speech, the bible stuff parts in particular.  I happen to like what he says about the Agricultural Revolution, makes sense to me & is written in a more sensual way (which, to me, is attractive & is much more likely to elicit a response).

Quote from: Kai on June 05, 2009, 05:48:05 AM

Quote from: Ratatosk on June 04, 2009, 11:01:17 PM

Quote from: Kai on June 04, 2009, 10:31:03 PM
Yeah, I'm not a trancendentalist by the definition above, and I'm certainly not a materialist, yet I still have aspects of both of those in my "emergence-based spirituality". I've got trouble identifying with the "magical paradigm" though -- some baggage on my part.

Hehehe. Just remember "Magic" in the sense used here has nothing to do with throwing fireballs or seeing the future or levitating ;)

I don't think I've ever gotten a straightforward definition of magic without all the jargon.

From what I've gathered from discussions about it here, it's the ability to think hard enough and change your own mind!
[cue eerie music]

So, basically I've been doing magic all this time, just without all the mumbo-jumbo language...

?

Quote from: Kai on June 05, 2009, 05:48:05 AM

Quote from: Ratatosk on June 04, 2009, 11:01:17 PM

Quote from: Kai on June 04, 2009, 10:31:03 PM
Yeah, I'm not a trancendentalist by the definition above, and I'm certainly not a materialist, yet I still have aspects of both of those in my "emergence-based spirituality". I've got trouble identifying with the "magical paradigm" though -- some baggage on my part.

Hehehe. Just remember "Magic" in the sense used here has nothing to do with throwing fireballs or seeing the future or levitating ;)

I don't think I've ever gotten a straightforward definition of magic without all the jargon.

Magic is the Art of Consciousness Change
Magic is a lockpicking set for your BiP.

Magic is a set of concepts and principles which interact with the psychology of the human mind. Magical systems are all based on similar memetic groups, a given system defines a set of specific practices, particularly how they're implemented, what dogma they use and the general aim of the practitioner.  So one magical system will use High Ritual with complex traditions and specific symbols that have been passed down for generations, while another system will use chaos rituals, or paratheatrics which is nothing like High ritual... but the underlying psychological mechanisms will likely be similar. It could be like a difference between classical art and modern art in some sense.

Magic is a set of tools that have instruction books with them, if you want to modify your BiP. Some of the tools are made in Taiwan out of pig iron and the instructions are translated by someone who learned Taiwanese by watching bad anime with the subtitles on. Some of the tools are very nice quality and have instructions that are less confusing. Some of the tools are like erector sets with instructions that read more like "General Principles of Erector Sets" and end with 'Good Luck'.  :lulz:

Magic is a broad and generic word that covers a number of different ways in which people have experienced changes in their consciousness. Here is an example:

Crowley points to the similarities between Buddha, Christ and Mohammad as well as Moses and Paul. They all were leading one life, then they all went away, something happened (often they see a bright shinning Angel/Deity and speak with it. It tells them what they will do, they came back and led a religious revolution... in most cases, something that would never have seemed likely given their former life.

If we compare those experiences with the experiences Abremlin the Mage had  (Conversing with the Holy Guardian Angel), it is very similar. If we compare that to Crowley's experiences after doing these rituals (His conversations with AWISS), it is again very similar. Just different masks, different labels, different dogmas.

In this day and age, we can further compare those experiences to RAW's "Cosmic Trigger". He figured out the above bit after reading Crowley and decided to try the rituals himself. He experienced communications from aliens on the planet Sirius for a year after getting involved with the rituals as an intentional experiment, as did Phillip K Dick.

The larger problem here, is that almost anyone can get results. If a person follows the directions from 'Magic System X', it is likely that they will get some result (assuming they can chain up disbelief for a little bit). Unfortunately, they often confuse the result with reality, that makes it easy for groups like the Mystic Wicks to pop up. There are enough books available that cover the necessary mechanics for various experiences, that lots of practitioners do experience something. However, often many of them believe whatever dogmatic crap was on top of the practice. Rather than experiencing a phenomena which took the mask of the goddess Kali/Aphrodite/whoever is cool in their head/ they think they experienced Kali/Aphrodite/whoever is cool in their head.

I was very glad that I had some basis of skepticism when I had my first experiences with Magic. Even today, I can't look you in the eye and say I 100% believe that I didn't have some interaction with something amazing. I think it is far more likely that I experienced an interaction within my head, but it felt amazing.

Fortunately, my second amazing experience was with Eris herself and since she acted like the hippy hottie and showed up in a carriage that looked like a bong... I felt far more comfortable with a "Oh this is obviously a set of labels/symbols/masks from my head" explanation.  :lulz:

Wow, that was a lot longer than I meant to write...

Quote from: Kai on June 05, 2009, 03:42:08 PM
So, basically I've been doing magic all this time, just without all the mumbo-jumbo language...

?

According to Crowley, any act of Will qualifies as magic because its all you consciously impacting the world around you.

Quote from: Risus on June 05, 2009, 03:39:51 PM
From what I've gathered from discussions about it here, it's the ability to think hard enough and change your own mind!
[cue eerie music]

Its a large group of tools which are helpful in making large changes in the way you behave/think/react/perceive. The ability is within any human, as far as I can tell... Magic just covers 'maps' and 'models' that other people have documented that make use of the ability.

You're making this up as you go, aren't you?

Sure.  Aren't you?

hummm...
what I got from that is
magic is a word for self exploration people use to try to sound cool and hip

Nope.  It's a bit more specific.

Magic seems to be a series of actions or behaviors designed to alter your current mental state; some tend to be more effective than others.

The words of the foolish and the words of the wise are not far apart in Discordian eyes.

:fnord:

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 05, 2009, 04:02:09 PM
hummm...
what I got from that is
magic is a word for self exploration people use to try to sound cool and hip

Magic is a word for some tools a person can use in self exploration that have been used by other people.

Self exploration can be done without a "cool esoteric system"... though other "uncool psychological systems" I've seen seem to use the same tools and just describe them more clinically. Like Mind Hacks, by O'Riley and Associates. Their homunculus experiments are very similar to the HGA stuff I just talked about... but they don't use the religiously loaded masks.

As P3nT points out, magic as a term has simply been abused to the point that there is a lot of baggage attached to it.

Quote from: LMNO on June 05, 2009, 04:05:36 PM
Nope.  It's a bit more specific.

Magic seems to be a series of actions or behaviors designed to alter your current mental state; some tend to be more effective than others.

THIS

Quote from: Risus on June 05, 2009, 03:57:16 PM
You're making this up as you go, aren't you?

I make my entire life up as I go along.

Was thinking about this all while mowing the lawn.

Initial conclusion: Primary Discordian documents such as the Principia Discordia and Black Iron Prison are invitations to operate under the Magical Paradigm.

Edit: Also, I can think of many actions or behaviors I do on a daily basis that would fall under the definition of magic, and I'm highly reminded of the What is Chi? thread from nearly a year ago.

Quote from: Kai on June 05, 2009, 08:57:33 PM
Was thinking about this all while mowing the lawn.

Initial conclusion: Primary Discordian documents such as the Principia Discordia and Black Iron Prison are invitations to operate under the Magical Paradigm.

Oh very nice...

Quote from: Kai on June 05, 2009, 08:57:33 PMWhat is Chi?

gesundheit.

Found a quote on my LJ from someone I consider to have a pretty good handle on the magical paradigm that really cuts down to the heart of the matter:

"NeuroLogically speaking, our nervous systems can't really tell the difference between external stimuli and internal representations of the outside world. This is equally true for both "remembered" and "creatively imagined" situations."

Quote from: Ratatosk on June 05, 2009, 03:50:31 PM

Quote from: Kai on June 05, 2009, 05:48:05 AM

Quote from: Ratatosk on June 04, 2009, 11:01:17 PM

Quote from: Kai on June 04, 2009, 10:31:03 PM
Yeah, I'm not a trancendentalist by the definition above, and I'm certainly not a materialist, yet I still have aspects of both of those in my "emergence-based spirituality". I've got trouble identifying with the "magical paradigm" though -- some baggage on my part.

Hehehe. Just remember "Magic" in the sense used here has nothing to do with throwing fireballs or seeing the future or levitating ;)

I don't think I've ever gotten a straightforward definition of magic without all the jargon.

Magic is the Art of Consciousness Change
Magic is a lockpicking set for your BiP.

Magic is a set of concepts and principles which interact with the psychology of the human mind. Magical systems are all based on similar memetic groups, a given system defines a set of specific practices, particularly how they're implemented, what dogma they use and the general aim of the practitioner.  So one magical system will use High Ritual with complex traditions and specific symbols that have been passed down for generations, while another system will use chaos rituals, or paratheatrics which is nothing like High ritual... but the underlying psychological mechanisms will likely be similar. It could be like a difference between classical art and modern art in some sense.

Magic is a set of tools that have instruction books with them, if you want to modify your BiP. Some of the tools are made in Taiwan out of pig iron and the instructions are translated by someone who learned Taiwanese by watching bad anime with the subtitles on. Some of the tools are very nice quality and have instructions that are less confusing. Some of the tools are like erector sets with instructions that read more like "General Principles of Erector Sets" and end with 'Good Luck'.  :lulz:

Magic is a broad and generic word that covers a number of different ways in which people have experienced changes in their consciousness. Here is an example:

Crowley points to the similarities between Buddha, Christ and Mohammad as well as Moses and Paul. They all were leading one life, then they all went away, something happened (often they see a bright shinning Angel/Deity and speak with it. It tells them what they will do, they came back and led a religious revolution... in most cases, something that would never have seemed likely given their former life.

If we compare those experiences with the experiences Abremlin the Mage had  (Conversing with the Holy Guardian Angel), it is very similar. If we compare that to Crowley's experiences after doing these rituals (His conversations with AWISS), it is again very similar. Just different masks, different labels, different dogmas.

In this day and age, we can further compare those experiences to RAW's "Cosmic Trigger". He figured out the above bit after reading Crowley and decided to try the rituals himself. He experienced communications from aliens on the planet Sirius for a year after getting involved with the rituals as an intentional experiment, as did Phillip K Dick.

The larger problem here, is that almost anyone can get results. If a person follows the directions from 'Magic System X', it is likely that they will get some result (assuming they can chain up disbelief for a little bit). Unfortunately, they often confuse the result with reality, that makes it easy for groups like the Mystic Wicks to pop up. There are enough books available that cover the necessary mechanics for various experiences, that lots of practitioners do experience something. However, often many of them believe whatever dogmatic crap was on top of the practice. Rather than experiencing a phenomena which took the mask of the goddess Kali/Aphrodite/whoever is cool in their head/ they think they experienced Kali/Aphrodite/whoever is cool in their head.

I was very glad that I had some basis of skepticism when I had my first experiences with Magic. Even today, I can't look you in the eye and say I 100% believe that I didn't have some interaction with something amazing. I think it is far more likely that I experienced an interaction within my head, but it felt amazing.

Fortunately, my second amazing experience was with Eris herself and since she acted like the hippy hottie and showed up in a carriage that looked like a bong... I felt far more comfortable with a "Oh this is obviously a set of labels/symbols/masks from my head" explanation.  :lulz:

Wow, that was a lot longer than I meant to write...

Quote from: Kai on June 05, 2009, 03:42:08 PM
So, basically I've been doing magic all this time, just without all the mumbo-jumbo language...

?

According to Crowley, any act of Will qualifies as magic because its all you consciously impacting the world around you.

Quote from: Risus on June 05, 2009, 03:39:51 PM
From what I've gathered from discussions about it here, it's the ability to think hard enough and change your own mind!
[cue eerie music]

Its a large group of tools which are helpful in making large changes in the way you behave/think/react/perceive. The ability is within any human, as far as I can tell... Magic just covers 'maps' and 'models' that other people have documented that make use of the ability.

According to Crowley, any act of Will qualifies as magic because its all you consciously impacting the world around you.

So all of Life is Magic?  ok I can deal with that.

& your own writing about this stuff?  Well now!  That is so much better than that other lifeless writing! 

& Kai has some of the best writings about Science both here & out there!  (Many thanks & much respect Kai!) 

What first attracted me to Discordian thought was the phrase "Think for yourself, Schmuck."  For me, that was the difference between Religion (as I understood it) & Science (as I understood it).  A Religion that encouraged one to think?  & experiment & listen to different views & observe & keep on moving?  People who weren't control freaks or OCD about their views?   

Out in the wild (& perhaps this is needless to say?) I was not overly impressed with those who appeared (to me) to want to transform Science into Religion.

The One True Path^TM & now it's Science?  If you clarify what that means – which (as I understand it) means to continue to question, experiment & observe the constantly changing world.  That also means (to me) to encourage people to question your findings, that is, not to be threatened when one is questioned – that is the part  where experiencing Science as Religion (still) ticks me off. 

oh & just to clarify:  my interchanging of the words people & peoples?

This goes back to when I got *snagged* into goin' to a Shinnecock celebration by a SNAG (= sensitive new age guy) who was tryin' (albeit feebly) to get in my pants.  Yeah well & I went with him & so what?  As soon as we got there I proceeded to mingle with the old folk & little kids (as is my way, iz more fun for me) while the SNAG proceeded to get into anthropological debates & so on.  One of the old guys saw me playing with the little kids & called me over.  We chatted for a bit & then he told me something that stuck with me.  He said, all those different tribal names?  Y'know how they are all translated?  THE PEOPLE.  We, the people.  Allows you to do whatever the fuck you want to those you don't consider people.  It stayed with me.

Honey, I do just fine with joining science and religion, just letting you know.

Newton was religious (apparently) I've also heard Einstein was similarly inclined. Strikes me a religious scientist is working out how god did it. No cause for conflict.

Literal interpretation of biblical allegory is another story. I'd say that and science are kinda mutually exclusive fields of exploration. Don't believe me? Just ask a creationist.  :lulz:

Yeah, science allows for god as long as you can fit god to science and not the other way around.

Quote from: Kai on June 08, 2009, 05:39:37 PM
Yeah, science allows for god as long as you can fit god to science and not the other way around.

:eek: WTF - surely science doesn't disallow god because he is an historical myth and therefore totally outside its field of interest and scope of competence?

No, it's a thirdish option - functionally meaningless because it doesn't fit the language.

Quote from: LMNO on June 08, 2009, 06:27:04 PM
No, it's a thirdish option - functionally meaningless because it doesn't fit the language.

/but/, if you can use the word god as a name for something in science (emergence, for me) /then/ it can fit the language

that's of course just my opinion; other scientists are more based in the materialist paradigm than I am, and would dissagree

Quote from: Kai on June 08, 2009, 06:45:29 PM

Quote from: LMNO on June 08, 2009, 06:27:04 PM
No, it's a thirdish option - functionally meaningless because it doesn't fit the language.

/but/, if you can use the word god as a name for something in science (emergence, for me) /then/ it can fit the language

that's of course just my opinion; other scientists are more based in the materialist paradigm than I am, and would dissagree

Kai gets 5 points for the correct use of models!

Quote from: Kai on June 08, 2009, 04:56:46 PM
Honey, I do just fine with joining science and religion, just letting you know.

I thought you did from your writings. 

I like what Albert Einstein said about Judaism.  People have described him as being more of a cultural Jew than a religious one.  He was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952 by Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion.  He had been friends & working with its first president (a mostly symbolic role), Chaim Weizmann when he died.  He declined.  People say it was because of his age but no one really knows. 

QuoteThere is, in my opinion, no Jewish view of life in the philosophic sense.  Judaism appears to me to be almost exclusively concerned with the moral attitude in and toward life.

. . . The essence of the Jewish concept of life seems to me to be the affirmation of life for all creatures.  For the life of the individual has meaning only in the service of enhancing and ennobling the life of every living thing.  Life is holy; it is the highest worth on which all other values depend . . .

Judaism is not a faith.  The Jewish God is but a negation of superstition and an imaginative result of its elimination.  He also represents an attempt to ground morality in fear-a deplorable, discreditable attempt.  Yet it seems to me that the powerful moral tradition in the Jewish people has, in great measure, released itself from this fear.  Moreover, it is clear that "to serve God" is equivalent to serving "every living thing."  It is for this that the best among the Jewish people, especially the Prophets including Jesus, ceaselessly battled.  Thus Judaism is not a transcendental religion.  It is concerned only with the tangible experiences of life, and with nothing else.  Therefore, it seems to me to be questionable whether it may termed a "religion" in the customary sense of the word, especially since no "creed" is demanded of Jews, but only the sanctification of life in its all-inclusive sense.

There remains, however, something more in the Jewish tradition, so gloriously revealed in certain of the psalms; namely a kind of drunken joy and surprise at the beauty and incomprehensibility of this world, of which man can attain but a faint intimation.  It is the feeling from which genuine research draws its intellectual strength, but which also seems to manifest itself in the song of birds. . . .

Is this, then, characteristic of Judaism?  And does it exist elsewhere under other names?  In pure form it exists nowhere, not even in Judaism where too much literalism obscures the pure doctrine.  But, nevertheless, I see in Judaism one of its most vital and pure realizations.  This is especially true of its fundamental principle of the sanctification of life.   

I also like the book of Ecclesiastes, its skepticism & pessimism speak to the breadth of the Jewish religious tradition, the wanderers & the wonderers.

Also, Baruch Spinoza, where all of nature is God.

I agree with Al's view on Judaism. It matches my research on the belief system as well. There was not really a Jewish belief for soul, outside of a living body, so it couldn't be a transcendental religion. The word translated as 'soul' in the Christian Bible's Hebrew scriptures more correctly translates to 'living being' or 'the full life of being'. God breathed into the man he created and Adam became nephesh, a living being. Ecclesiastes, as Honey points out furthers this Jewish view. Supposedly written by Solomon, the wisest man to ever live, Ecclesiastes 9 is a trip into nihilism.

QuoteSo I reflected on all this and concluded that the righteous and the wise and what they do are in God's hands, but no man knows whether love or hate awaits him. 2 All share a common destiny—the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad, [a] the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not.
       As it is with the good man,
       so with the sinner;
       as it is with those who take oaths,
       so with those who are afraid to take them.

3 This is the evil in everything that happens under the sun: The same destiny overtakes all. The hearts of men, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterward they join the dead. 4 Anyone who is among the living has hope —even a live dog is better off than a dead lion!

5 For the living know that they will die,
       but the dead know nothing;
       they have no further reward,
       and even the memory of them is forgotten.

Quote7 Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do. 8 Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. 9 Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun— all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. 10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, [c] where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.

QuoteI have seen something else under the sun:
       The race is not to the swift
       or the battle to the strong,
       nor does food come to the wise
       or wealth to the brilliant
       or favor to the learned;
       but time and chance happen to them all.

Of course, many Christians have all sorts of tortured ways to try to explain away these scriptures...  :lulz:

I charge Ratatosk with writing the Erissiastes.

Lots of parallels between what Spinoza said and what Einstein is talking about. Cool.

Bunch of talk of religious naturalism and naturalistic pantheism ITT; I like.  :)

Quote from: LMNO on June 11, 2009, 03:16:33 PM
I charge Ratatosk with writing the Erissiastes.

:lulz:

Oh what an IDEA!

EDIT: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=21125.0

Quote from: Telarus on June 07, 2009, 05:30:40 AM
Found a quote on my LJ from someone I consider to have a pretty good handle on the magical paradigm that really cuts down to the heart of the matter:

"NeuroLogically speaking, our nervous systems can't really tell the difference between external stimuli and internal representations of the outside world. This is equally true for both "remembered" and "creatively imagined" situations."

Psychologically speaking, this is not quite true.  While imagined or discussed events can influence memory, even forming false memories, the brain is by no means completely unable to tell the two apart.  Forming a false memory usually requires a great deal of repetition (less for modifying an existing memory, especially ambiguous ones), while one only has to experience an event once to remember it.  A person is almost always able to tell the difference between something he is imagining and something that is currently, actually happening.  The last bit is called "reality monitoring," and I'd point you to the wikipedia article except that it appears to have been deleted.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 05, 2009, 09:07:58 AM
magic = religion = democracy = quantum physics = coffee = teevee = internets

:lulz: don't know what exactly you meant, but i like it.

Quote from: Epimetheus on June 12, 2009, 04:52:42 AM

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 05, 2009, 09:07:58 AM
magic = religion = democracy = quantum physics = coffee = teevee = internets

:lulz: don't know what exactly you meant, but i like it.

Wasn't complicated or anything. What I meant was that all of the above were fucking brilliant ideas until mainstream humanity adopted them and turned them into a steaming pile-o-shit

Call me a cynic if ya like but IMO this is mainstream humanity's sole function in the universe - to convert anything it finds (including, ultimately, the universe itself) into a steaming pile-o-shit  :lulz:

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 12, 2009, 09:50:16 AM
Wasn't complicated or anything. What I meant was that all of the above were fucking brilliant ideas until mainstream humanity adopted them and turned them into a steaming pile-o-shit
Call me a cynic if ya like but IMO this is mainstream humanity's sole function in the universe - to convert anything it finds (including, ultimately, the universe itself) into a steaming pile-o-shit  :lulz:

Got it. But in my opinion, the ones that ever were brilliant ideas still are brilliant ideas, because the original concepts don't change - interpretations do, and in that context I agree that mainstream humanity's interpretations have been steaming piles-o-shit.
The way human civilization tends to organize itself and its society can get so frustrating and annoying sometimes - and then when one gets annoyed enough, it becomes clear that the whole thing is actually full of lulz.
The essence of  :horrormirth:.

Here's another guy I like:

QuoteThe Need for Religion in Our Present Lives.

One reason for the pursuit of religion is that material progress alone will not give lasting pleasure of satisfaction.  It seems, indeed, that the more we progress materially, the more we have to live under constant fear.  Scientific technology has made marvelous advances, and no doubt will continue to develop.  Man may reach the moon and try to exploit its resources for the advantage of human beings-the moon which some ancient believers regarded as the home of their god; and planets may also be conquered.  Perhaps in the end, this progress will reveal potential enemies outside our world.  But in any case, it cannot possibly bring ultimate and permanent pleasure to human beings, for material progress always stimulates desire for even further progress, so that such pleasure as it brings is only ephemeral.  But on the other hand, when the mind enjoys pleasure and satisfaction, mere material hardships are easy to bear; and if a pleasure is derived purely from the mind itself, it will be a real and lasting pleasure.

No other pleasure can be compared with that derived from spiritual practice.  This is the greatest pleasure, and it is ultimate in nature.  Different religions have each shown their way to attain it.

One of the Many Religions of the World: Buddhism and Its Founder
Just as a particular disease in the world is treated by various medical methods, so there are many religions to bring happiness to human beings and others.  Different doctrines have been introduced by different exponents at different periods and in different ways.  But I believe they all fundamentally aim at the same noble goal, in teaching moral precepts to mould the functions of mind, body, and speech.  They all teach us not to tell lies, or bear false witness, or steal, or take others' lives, and so on.  Therefore, it would be better if disunity among the followers of different religions could come to an end.  Unity among religions is not an impossible idea.  It is possible and in the present state of the world, it is especially important.  Mutual respect would be helpful to all believers; and unity between them would also bring benefit to unbelievers; for the unanimous flood of light would show them the way out of their ignorance.  I strongly emphasize the urgent need of flawless unity among all religions.  To this end, the followers of each religion should know something of other religions, and that is why I want to try to explain a little of the Buddhism of Tibet.  . . .
-Dalai Lama of Tibet

& Ramakrishna too:

QuoteMother, Mother, Mother!  Everyone foolishly assumes that his clock alone tells correct time.  Christians claim to possess exclusive truth. . . . . Countless varieties of Hindus insist that their sect, no matter how small and insignificant, expresses the ultimate position.  Devout Muslims maintain that Koranic revelation supersedes all others.  The entire world is being driven insane by this single phrase: "My religion alone is true."  O Mother, you have shown me that no clock is entirely accurate.  Only the transcendent sun of knowledge remains on time.  Who can make a system from Divine Mystery?  But if any sincere practitioner, within whatever culture or religion, prays and meditates with great devotion and commitment to Truth alone, your Grace will flood his mind and heart, O Mother.  His particular sacred tradition will be opened and illuminated.  He will reach the one goal of spiritual evolution.  Mother, Mother, Mother!  How I long to pray with sincere Christians in their churches and to bow and prostrate with devoted Muslims in their mosques!  All religions are glorious!
-Ramakrishna

A tad naïve maybe?  but then again, soami.

A little off topic, but the way my thinking is currently on the subject.

Science and Religion to me seem similar in only one fashion.
They guide themselves without a moral compass

In terms of Science this is easy to see. All science, when you get down to, is a means to solve specific questions using the method of analysis, problem solving, and peer review. It can be beneficial, as most of the time it is. We don't starve to death in times of poor harvest, we develop technology to add varies comforts, and not having tooth decay kill us after child hood owes a lot of thanks to the scientific method. Also almost everything we know about our environment, our universe and the make up of life is thanks in part at least to this method.
But science can also turn against both minority segments and larger segments of the population because it generates knowledge, which is enriching to most people, but can also be used by others who have little care for the well being of others.
A moral compass can generate through using this method when used, but only by those who are already predisposed for the betterment of others, and in the end it's a method where morality is irrelevant

Religion (and Im speaking about good old classic religion, not faith, or spiritual fuckfests, or hippie bullshit) seems to be also a way to solve specific questions, by a complete different method, by the generation of a spiritual narrative. Is aim is to make the individual feel special in some communal way.
I'm not even sure it's about adherence to a spiritual idea. For example look at the few rules that Jesus actually laid down for his followers and then ask yourself if any Christian actually follows them... Let me put it this way, Jesus wasn't too hot on owning possessions - especially owning, or even desiring a lot them.
Now I don't have to lay out the good and bad things religion has done socially, though I suspect socially there is more bad then good, but just think of the concept as a moral compass. It actually doesn't offer anything and like science the religious method can be beneficial for some people and detrimental for others

and I'm not surprised. Morality is a complex thing that is both ingrained and taught.. the whole nature, nurture argument. Biologically, and especially with primates, it seems to be a combination of both, with a long run weeded process where traits generally beneficial to a specific group are passed down genetically and through some communal teachings.

Thats my thoughts on the subject now, though like most people who have been even slightly interested in what seems to be an ever consuming topic my thoughts are ever evolving.

Quote"Thats my thoughts on the subject now, though like most people who have been even slightly interested in what seems to be an ever consuming topic my thoughts are ever evolving."
-Thurnez Isa

I like WHAT you said (the whole thing) & HOW you said it!

Brought to mind my long time obsession with the notion of Time & how that fits into all of this.  Also reminded me where I got the quote in my sig.

This is from Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:  An Inquiry into Values by Robert M. Pirsig:

QuoteAuthor's Note:  What follows is based on actual occurrences. Although much has been changed for rhetorical purposes, it must be regarded in its essence as fact. However, it should in no way be associated with that great body of factual information relating to orthodox Zen Buddhist practice. It's not very factual on motorcycles, either.

And what is good, Phædrus,
And what is not good...
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?

(^from beginning & then many pages later)

In the temple of science are many mansions -- and various indeed are they that dwell therein and the motives that have led them there.

Many take to science out of a joyful sense of superior intellectual power; science is their own special sport to which they look for vivid experience and the satisfaction of ambition; many others are to be found in the temple who have offered the products of their brains on this altar for purely utilitarian purposes. Were an angel of the Lord to come and drive all the people belonging to these two categories out of the temple, it would be noticeably emptier but there would still be some men of both present and past times left inside -- . If the types we have just expelled were the only types there were, the temple would never have existed any more than one can have a wood consisting of nothing but creepers -- those who have found favor with the angel -- are somewhat odd, uncommunicative, solitary fellows, really less like each other than the hosts of the rejected.

What has brought them to the temple -- no single answer will cover -- escape from everyday life, with its painful crudity and hopeless dreariness, from the fetters of one's own shifting desires. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from his noisy cramped surroundings into the silence of the high mountains where the eye ranges freely through the still pure air and fondly traces out the restful contours apparently built for eternity.

The passage is from a 1918 speech by a young German scientist named Albert Einstein.

Phædrus had finished his first year of University science at the age of fifteen. His field was already biochemistry, and he intended to specialize at the interface between the organic and inorganic worlds now known as molecular biology. He didn't think of this as a career for his own personal advancement. He was very young and it was a kind of noble idealistic goal.

The state of mind which enables a man to do work of this kind is akin to that of the religious worshipper or lover. The daily effort comes from no deliberate intention or program, but straight from the heart.
If Phædrus had entered science for ambitious or utilitarian purposes it might never have occurred to him to ask questions about the nature of a scientific hypothesis as an entity in itself. But he did ask them, and was unsatisfied with the answers.

The formation of hypotheses is the most mysterious of all the categories of scientific method. Where they come from, no one knows. A person is sitting somewhere, minding his own business, and suddenly...flash!...he understands something he didn't understand before. Until it's tested the hypothesis isn't truth. For the tests aren't its source. Its source is somewhere else.

Einstein had said:

Man tries to make for himself in the fashion that suits him best a simplified and intelligible picture of the world. He then tries to some extent to substitute this cosmos of his for the world of experience, and thus to overcome it -- He makes this cosmos and its construction the pivot of his emotional life in order to find in this way the peace and serenity which he cannot find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience -- .The supreme task -- is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them --.

Intuition? Sympathy? Strange words for the origin of scientific knowledge.

A lesser scientist than Einstein might have said, "But scientific knowledge comes from nature. Nature provides the hypotheses." But Einstein understood that nature does not. Nature provides only experimental data.
A lesser mind might then have said, "Well then, man provides the hypotheses." But Einstein denied this too. "Nobody," he said, "who has really gone into the matter will deny that in practice the world of phenomena uniquely determines the theoretical system, in spite of the fact that there is no theoretical bridge between phenomena and their theoretical principles."

Phædrus' break occurred when, as a result of laboratory experience, he became interested in hypotheses as entities in themselves. He had noticed again and again in his lab work that what might seem to be the hardest part of scientific work, thinking up the hypotheses, was invariably the easiest. The act of formally writing everything down precisely and clearly seemed to suggest them. As he was testing hypothesis number one by experimental method a flood of other hypotheses would come to mind, and as he was testing these, some more came to mind, and as he was testing these, still more came to mind until it became painfully evident that as he continued testing hypotheses and eliminating them or confirming them their number did not decrease. It actually increased as he went along.

At first he found it amusing. He coined a law intended to have the humor of a Parkinson's law that "The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite." It pleased him never to run out of hypotheses. Even when his experimental work seemed dead-end in every conceivable way, he knew that if he just sat down and muddled about it long enough, sure enough, another hypothesis would come along. And it always did. It was only months after he had coined the law that he began to have some doubts about the humor or benefits of it.

If true, that law is not a minor flaw in scientific reasoning. The law is completely nihilistic. It is a catastrophic logical disproof of the general validity of all scientific method!

If the purpose of scientific method is to select from among a multitude of hypotheses, and if the number of hypotheses grows faster than experimental method can handle, then it is clear that all hypotheses can never be tested. If all hypotheses cannot be tested, then the results of any experiment are inconclusive and the entire scientific method falls short of its goal of establishing proven knowledge.

About this Einstein had said, "Evolution has shown that at any given moment out of all conceivable constructions a single one has always proved itself absolutely superior to the rest," and let it go at that. But to Phædrus that was an incredibly weak answer. The phrase "at any given moment" really shook him. Did Einstein really mean to state that truth was a function of time? To state that would annihilate the most basic presumption of all science!

But there it was, the whole history of science, a clear story of continuously new and changing explanations of old facts. The time spans of permanence seemed completely random he could see no order in them. Some scientific truths seemed to last for centuries, others for less than a year. Scientific truth was not dogma, good for eternity, but a temporal quantitative entity that could be studied like anything else.

He studied scientific truths, then became upset even more by the apparent cause of their temporal condition. It looked as though the time spans of scientific truths are an inverse function of the intensity of scientific effort. Thus the scientific truths of the twentieth century seem to have a much shorter life-span than those of the last century because scientific activity is now much greater. If, in the next century, scientific activity increases tenfold, then the life expectancy of any scientific truth can be expected to drop to perhaps one-tenth as long as now. What shortens the life-span of the existing truth is the volume of hypotheses offered to replace it; the more the hypotheses, the shorter the time span of the truth. And what seems to be causing the number of hypotheses to grow in recent decades seems to be nothing other than scientific method itself. The more you look, the more you see. Instead of selecting one truth from a multitude you are increasing the multitude. What this means logically is that as you try to move toward unchanging truth through the application of scientific method, you actually do not move toward it at all. You move away from it! It is your application of scientific method that is causing it to change!

What Phædrus observed on a personal level was a phenomenon, profoundly characteristic of the history of science, which has been swept under the carpet for years. The predicted results of scientific enquiry and the actual results of scientific enquiry are diametrically opposed here, and no one seems to pay too much attention to the fact. The purpose of scientific method is to select a single truth from among many hypothetical truths. That, more than anything else, is what science is all about. But historically science has done exactly the opposite. Through multiplication upon multiplication of facts, information, theories and hypotheses, it is science itself that is leading mankind from single absolute truths to multiple, indeterminate, relative ones. The major producer of the social chaos, the indeterminacy of thought and values that rational knowledge is supposed to eliminate, is none other than science itself. And what Phædrus saw in the isolation of his own laboratory work years ago is now seen everywhere in the technological world today. Scientifically produced antiscience...chaos.
http://virtualschool.edu/mon/Quality/PirsigZen/part2.html

I'd dissagree with Einstein's bolded statement if it is indeed about biological evolution. There's no inferior or superior in evolutionary biology. Whatever works, is more the doctrine. Heh, "god plays dice".

keep in mind Einstein was working before punctured equilibrium became the more widely accepted mechanism for evolutionary change... he was probably still working under the assumption of gradualism

Quote from: Kai on June 18, 2009, 01:11:25 PM
I'd dissagree with Einstein's bolded statement if it is indeed about biological evolution. There's no inferior or superior in evolutionary biology. Whatever works, is more the doctrine. Heh, "god plays dice".

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 18, 2009, 06:24:11 PM
keep in mind Einstein was working before punctured equilibrium became the more widely accepted mechanism for evolutionary change... he was probably still working under the assumption of gradualism

Given the context of Einstein's statement, this exchange is amusing.

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 18, 2009, 06:24:11 PM
keep in mind Einstein was working before punctured equilibrium became the more widely accepted mechanism for evolutionary change... he was probably still working under the assumption of gradualism

Gradualism or not, the idea of one biological "answer" being uniquely superior to all others was discarded 150 years ago. This is why we have such a grand diversity of life, cause many "answers" work equally well.

Quote from: Arafelis on June 19, 2009, 10:46:27 AM

Quote from: Kai on June 18, 2009, 01:11:25 PM
I'd dissagree with Einstein's bolded statement if it is indeed about biological evolution. There's no inferior or superior in evolutionary biology. Whatever works, is more the doctrine. Heh, "god plays dice".

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 18, 2009, 06:24:11 PM
keep in mind Einstein was working before punctured equilibrium became the more widely accepted mechanism for evolutionary change... he was probably still working under the assumption of gradualism

Given the context of Einstein's statement, this exchange is amusing.

shut the fuck up

grown ups are talking now

Kai: I was agree with your original statement, but offering a little bit of a defense for a man who died in the 50's

Quote from: Kai on June 08, 2009, 04:56:46 PM
Honey, I do just fine with joining science and religionspirituality, just letting you know.

There is nothing at all saying they have to be mutually exclusive.

Quote from: Kai on June 19, 2009, 01:29:04 PM

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 18, 2009, 06:24:11 PM
keep in mind Einstein was working before punctured equilibrium became the more widely accepted mechanism for evolutionary change... he was probably still working under the assumption of gradualism

Gradualism or not, the idea of one biological "answer" being uniquely superior to all others was discarded 150 years ago. This is why we have such a grand diversity of life, cause many "answers" work equally well.

Stepping into an area where I'm an idiot... not at all uncommon for me :)

"Evolution has shown that at any given moment out of all conceivable constructions a single one has always proved itself absolutely superior to the rest."

It seems to me that we have to determine Einstein's context here. Is he saying that a single one (Lifeform) has always proven superior, or is he saying that a single one (configuration for a given species) has always proven superior for a given moment in space-time.

One configuration of species X is most fit for Y time at Z location. The current configuration of humans seems the most fit set of options for now, but we probably wouldn't be the most fit in Europe 30,000 years ago. Perhaps Cro-Magnon was the most fit configuration for that time, in that place... at least when compared to us.

I dunno if that's true or false, but that's how I read Einstein's comment there...

Quote from: Ratatosk on June 19, 2009, 06:17:42 PM

It seems to me that we have to determine Einstein's context here. Is he saying that a single one (Lifeform) has always proven superior, or is he saying that a single one (configuration for a given species) has always proven superior for a given moment in space-time.

One configuration of species X is most fit for Y time at Z location. The current configuration of humans seems the most fit set of options for now, but we probably wouldn't be the most fit in Europe 30,000 years ago. Perhaps Cro-Magnon was the most fit configuration for that time, in that place... at least when compared to us.

I dunno if that's true or false, but that's how I read Einstein's comment there...

your probably right rat
:argh!:

I still have a problem with the use of "superior" in this situation, as it seems the classic situation of evolving into new niches has more to do with extinction and inferiority then superiority... and even then I have problem with the terms cause the terms are subjective unless put in a specific situation, time and place as you so hinted

One of the situations I could think of currently where it superiority clearly won out against inferiority is when Central America collided into South America, introducing for the first time the big cats into South America. The Big Cats did what the local large predator did, the Terror Birds, but due to how they evolved, the Big Cats just did it better. How much this drove the big birds into extinction is debatable, but it definitely put enough stress on the populations to put it on the path of extinction

What happens, probably most often, is an environmental change puts stress on a population, and enough stress could break it, creating a niche, which given enough time is fulled by something else, which given enough time, evolves just slightly enough to give themselves an edge in their new environment. In other words, nothing is just better, something is, using a modern term, "obsolete"

If one wants to bring this to a religious outlook (which I would advise against, but lets do anyways) it would mean concluding things that are uncomfortable to most people. The idea of benevolence, fate, even possibly the singularity of a spiritual force would be called into question.
Bringing into a spiritual outlook would possibly be different, but to be honest I know nothing about spirituality and could only judge religious teachings and texts.

"Niche"



Sorry, it was bugging me.

corrected

DO I HAVE TO REMIND YOU I GOT AN "A" IN ENLGISH
:argh!:

Quote from: Hawk on June 19, 2009, 06:04:42 PM

Quote from: Kai on June 08, 2009, 04:56:46 PM
Honey, I do just fine with joining science and religionspirituality, just letting you know.

There is nothing at all saying they have to be mutually exclusive.

why did you cross out religion? I have no problem joining religion and science, much less spirituality.

Quote from: Kai on June 19, 2009, 08:27:43 PM

Quote from: Hawk on June 19, 2009, 06:04:42 PM

Quote from: Kai on June 08, 2009, 04:56:46 PM
Honey, I do just fine with joining science and religionspirituality, just letting you know.

There is nothing at all saying they have to be mutually exclusive.

why did you cross out religion? I have no problem joining religion and science, much less spirituality.

I think the word religion is far too often confused with spirituality and in this day religion is more about choosing sides. Religion in the true sense of religion is fine.

Quote from: Hawk on June 19, 2009, 08:49:57 PM

Quote from: Kai on June 19, 2009, 08:27:43 PM

Quote from: Hawk on June 19, 2009, 06:04:42 PM

Quote from: Kai on June 08, 2009, 04:56:46 PM
Honey, I do just fine with joining science and religionspirituality, just letting you know.

There is nothing at all saying they have to be mutually exclusive.

why did you cross out religion? I have no problem joining religion and science, much less spirituality.

I think the word religion is far too often confused with spirituality and in this day religion is more about choosing sides. Religion in the true sense of religion is fine.

Religion as the social-cultural aspect of spirituality is what I was getting at. A community of shared belief and/or ritual. When I use spirituality I'm referring more to the personal aspect.

Quote from: Kai on June 19, 2009, 09:03:04 PM

Quote from: Hawk on June 19, 2009, 08:49:57 PM

Quote from: Kai on June 19, 2009, 08:27:43 PM

Quote from: Hawk on June 19, 2009, 06:04:42 PM

Quote from: Kai on June 08, 2009, 04:56:46 PM
Honey, I do just fine with joining science and religionspirituality, just letting you know.

There is nothing at all saying they have to be mutually exclusive.

why did you cross out religion? I have no problem joining religion and science, much less spirituality.

I think the word religion is far too often confused with spirituality and in this day religion is more about choosing sides. Religion in the true sense of religion is fine.

Religion as the social-cultural aspect of spirituality is what I was getting at. A community of shared belief and/or ritual. When I use spirituality I'm referring more to the personal aspect.

That to me is the true sense of religion.

Quote from: Hawk on June 19, 2009, 09:05:56 PM

Quote from: Kai on June 19, 2009, 09:03:04 PM

Quote from: Hawk on June 19, 2009, 08:49:57 PM

Quote from: Kai on June 19, 2009, 08:27:43 PM

Quote from: Hawk on June 19, 2009, 06:04:42 PM

Quote from: Kai on June 08, 2009, 04:56:46 PM
Honey, I do just fine with joining science and religionspirituality, just letting you know.

There is nothing at all saying they have to be mutually exclusive.

why did you cross out religion? I have no problem joining religion and science, much less spirituality.

I think the word religion is far too often confused with spirituality and in this day religion is more about choosing sides. Religion in the true sense of religion is fine.

Religion as the social-cultural aspect of spirituality is what I was getting at. A community of shared belief and/or ritual. When I use spirituality I'm referring more to the personal aspect.

That to me is the true sense of religion.

I've been reading quite a bit about religion and culture recently, and I'm finding its important to not focus on what people say, but rather what they do. Theology focuses on beliefs and which one is right, while anthropology focuses more on ritual and what people do. I think the later is the more important one, since peoples actions are what effect us rather than beliefs. You get closer to the reality that way.

Actions always speak louder than words.

Quote from: Ratatosk on June 19, 2009, 06:17:42 PM

Quote from: Kai on June 19, 2009, 01:29:04 PM

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 18, 2009, 06:24:11 PM
keep in mind Einstein was working before punctured equilibrium became the more widely accepted mechanism for evolutionary change... he was probably still working under the assumption of gradualism

Gradualism or not, the idea of one biological "answer" being uniquely superior to all others was discarded 150 years ago. This is why we have such a grand diversity of life, cause many "answers" work equally well.

Stepping into an area where I'm an idiot... not at all uncommon for me :)

"Evolution has shown that at any given moment out of all conceivable constructions a single one has always proved itself absolutely superior to the rest."

It seems to me that we have to determine Einstein's context here. Is he saying that a single one (Lifeform) has always proven superior, or is he saying that a single one (configuration for a given species) has always proven superior for a given moment in space-time.

One configuration of species X is most fit for Y time at Z location. The current configuration of humans seems the most fit set of options for now, but we probably wouldn't be the most fit in Europe 30,000 years ago. Perhaps Cro-Magnon was the most fit configuration for that time, in that place... at least when compared to us.

I dunno if that's true or false, but that's how I read Einstein's comment there...

Except...due to the delay time between adaptation and environmental changes, species are constantly playing the catch-up game. Its better to say that something is adapted to the past condition rather than "most fit" to the present, closer to the truth anyway. Would you agree that humans are adapted to our current urban environment? I certainly wouldn't. Several hundred years isn't near enough time to catch up to dealing with the current conditions. Psychologically we aren't there, we're still pretty much set up for a state that requires a constant need for a fight or flight reaction, thus leaving us all stressed and in mortal fear over nonmortal issues.

But I digress. I'd argue that conclusion is false, that one single configuration is not the "superior" because A) I've got no idea what you mean by configuration and how you are limiting the range of variation in your definition, B) species are not reflections of  eidos that can be easily put into these little boxes and analyzed (boy is my research saying that to me) and C) variation within a species is required for the continuation of a species or it will perish; the world is not static, globally or locally.

What I'm getting at is that words like "superior" or "inferior" in reference to biological evolution are far too simplistic and morally loaded words that are often used and confuse the point, that there is no superior or inferior, that its just whatever can reproduce and survive to the next generation. At the same time, the environment is changing. Whats a good answer now might not be the good answer later, and there might be several good answers, several routes to continuity. Throw in random drift along side selection and it gets really messy. These several routes is how cladogenesis, the separation and distinction of lineages, comes about.

Heh, god does not play dice...god IS dice, among other things.

Sorry for the thread jack, Honey.

Quote from: Kai on June 19, 2009, 09:48:08 PM
Except...due to the delay time between adaptation and environmental changes, species are constantly playing the catch-up game. Its better to say that something is adapted to the past condition rather than "most fit" to the present, closer to the truth anyway. Would you agree that humans are adapted to our current urban environment? I certainly wouldn't.

I think Einstein may have meant, rather, that of all the configurations of human which have been demonstrated thus far, we are the ones best suited to live in a city.  In the future, some other configuration will be demonstrated which will be superior to that.

QuoteB) species are not reflections of  eidos that can be easily put into these little boxes and analyzed (boy is my research saying that to me)

Teleological implications are exactly why a "pure" scientist struggles with Einstein's comment (and others like it) and exactly why it's appropriate for a spiritual discussion of science.  Okay, I think we can probably agree that Einstein's comment wasn't useful as a paradigm for studying evolutionary changes -- what else can we get from it?

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 19, 2009, 05:47:34 PM

shut the fuck up

grown ups are talking now

Quote from: Arafelis on June 19, 2009, 11:04:07 PM
Teleological implications are exactly why a "pure" scientist struggles with Einstein's comment (and others like it) and exactly why it's appropriate for a spiritual discussion of science.  Okay, I think we can probably agree that Einstein's comment wasn't useful as a paradigm for studying evolutionary changes -- what else can we get from it?

Thanks for calling me a pure scientist, its not a slur in my mind, though you intended it to be that way. Thanks for revealing my small minded nature, so closed and stupid against your amazing mind of spectacular philosophical reasoning. I'm far too pure for your high arguments of teleology. Good luck with that.

Quote from: Kai on June 19, 2009, 11:57:15 PM
Thanks for calling me a pure scientist, its not a slur in my mind, though you intended it to be that way.

Why would you think being called a "pure" scientist would be a slur?

QuoteI'm far too pure for your high arguments of teleology.

You made an argument against teleology, or at least part of one.  I may have misinterpreted what you meant to say, but I'm not saying arguments from teleology are "good," and my interpretation of your counter-argument was "bad."  In fact, from a scientific standpoint, quite the opposite.

Quote from: Arafelis on June 20, 2009, 12:03:23 AM

Quote from: Kai on June 19, 2009, 11:57:15 PM
Thanks for calling me a pure scientist, its not a slur in my mind, though you intended it to be that way.

Why would you think being called a "pure" scientist would be a slur?

QuoteI'm far too pure for your high arguments of teleology.

You made an argument against teleology, or at least part of one.  I may have misinterpreted what you meant to say, but I'm not saying arguments from teleology are "good," and my interpretation of your counter-argument was "bad."  In fact, from a scientific standpoint, quite the opposite.

Why are you here?

Quote from: Hawk on June 20, 2009, 05:16:01 AM

Quote from: Arafelis on June 20, 2009, 12:03:23 AM

Quote from: Kai on June 19, 2009, 11:57:15 PM
Thanks for calling me a pure scientist, its not a slur in my mind, though you intended it to be that way.

Why would you think being called a "pure" scientist would be a slur?

QuoteI'm far too pure for your high arguments of teleology.

You made an argument against teleology, or at least part of one.  I may have misinterpreted what you meant to say, but I'm not saying arguments from teleology are "good," and my interpretation of your counter-argument was "bad."  In fact, from a scientific standpoint, quite the opposite.

Why are you here?

:genius:

Quote from: Hawk on June 20, 2009, 05:16:01 AM
Why are you here?

To spread the word. (http://www.timecube.com/)

Quote from: Thurnez Isa on June 19, 2009, 05:47:34 PM

shut the fuck up

grown ups are talking now

Quote from: Arafelis on June 20, 2009, 06:33:59 AM

Quote from: Hawk on June 20, 2009, 05:16:01 AM
Why are you here?

To spread the word. (http://www.timecube.com/)

Your fail is showing.

Quote from: Kai on June 18, 2009, 01:11:25 PM
I'd dissagree with Einstein's bolded statement if it is indeed about biological evolution. There's no inferior or superior in evolutionary biology. Whatever works, is more the doctrine. Heh, "god plays dice".

I dunno if he was speaking about biological evolution?  Where my mind went with it (in the context of the book) was that he was speaking about the evolution of ideas.  Karl Popper once said, "Life is not a clock, it is a cloud."  Chaos is everywhere.  Including here.  I also got (dunno if I read this somewhere or dreamt it) "To measure is not the same as understanding."