I listened to an exchange between Christopher Hitchens and some Episcopal minister on NPR this weekend. They didn't debate each other as much as talk about their respective positions.
The minister said the thing he liked about Hitchens was that you always knew where he stood. He was an atheist, and that was that.
The anti-dogma component of Hitchens' world view is certainly compelling. There's not a shred of evidence that any of the religious stuff has any foundation outside of faith. Now faith, as a quantum phenomenon, can be powerful, in a way. But as to the rest of the stories...well, let's just say I can't find anything in my experience that supports them.
On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence for the crystalline structure of matter. There's plenty of evidence for the natural outworking of forces that seem to bring an order out of apparent random physical forces. This evidence is intensely experiential. The way the rivulets of water carve sand at the beach looks exactly like the Grand Canyon as seen from 40,000 feet.
Maxwell's equations and the periodic table of the elements also demonstrate a remarkable order to things. This implies an ordering force, doesn't it? That is, a schema, or set of rules seem to imply a rules maker. Something that has made the rules would, by any other measure be called a god (or God if you wish).
It is the way it is and there are rules. This is another way to put it that does not imply a god. Although it does beg the question of why it is the way it is instead of some other way. I can't find the intent, necessarily, but I can find the rules. They are everywhere. If you don't see them, you are not looking at it in the right way. The rules inform everything in the physical world. So one question that arises is whether there is anything that is non-physical. Does it exist if it cannot be measured?
I think the answer is yes. I think the organizing schema exists as a precondition for the physical world. But again, this does not imply an organizer.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Erwin Schrödinger's Dog
We've all heard about Erwin Schrödinger and his famously indeterminate cat, right? If not, go check out the wiki link. I'll wait.
OK, you're back. (This is great! I'm talking to myself and imagining that someone is actually reading this.) Now the interesting thing about this is not the thought experiment itself. That was interesting back in the 40's and 50's. What's interesting about this is the man's dog.
What was the dog doing while the cat was in the box either dying or not dying? Stupid question, right? Maybe. Maybe not. Dogs are pack animals who become acclimated to humans as their pack. Cats, on the other hand, while they do belong in prides in the wild, are not as well integrated into the human circumstance--or at least that's how it appears to me. Go with me on this, OK?
Schrödinger also wrote about how consciousness was a function of learning. The things that were already "learned" did not have to be conscious, because they became less so through having been learned and therefore regularized. He points to so-called autonomic functions as a good example (breathing, heartbeats, etc). Having "learned" these physical actions in utero, we now did them without conscious thought.
But dogs have a dog consciousness, right (Question: Does a dog have a Buddha nature? Mu)?
So are dogs only conscious when they are learning?
And what about the autonomic functions taking place at the cellular level? Are these learned?
There's another meta explanation to all this. The meaning of life, (which is also the title of one of Schrödinger's simpler works) is anti-entropic. That's right, you heard me. That's the meaning of life. To be anti-entropic. Consciousness is a subset of anti-entropy, whether it is dog consciousness, or human.
Hello out there!
OK, you're back. (This is great! I'm talking to myself and imagining that someone is actually reading this.) Now the interesting thing about this is not the thought experiment itself. That was interesting back in the 40's and 50's. What's interesting about this is the man's dog.
What was the dog doing while the cat was in the box either dying or not dying? Stupid question, right? Maybe. Maybe not. Dogs are pack animals who become acclimated to humans as their pack. Cats, on the other hand, while they do belong in prides in the wild, are not as well integrated into the human circumstance--or at least that's how it appears to me. Go with me on this, OK?
Schrödinger also wrote about how consciousness was a function of learning. The things that were already "learned" did not have to be conscious, because they became less so through having been learned and therefore regularized. He points to so-called autonomic functions as a good example (breathing, heartbeats, etc). Having "learned" these physical actions in utero, we now did them without conscious thought.
But dogs have a dog consciousness, right (Question: Does a dog have a Buddha nature? Mu)?
So are dogs only conscious when they are learning?
And what about the autonomic functions taking place at the cellular level? Are these learned?
There's another meta explanation to all this. The meaning of life, (which is also the title of one of Schrödinger's simpler works) is anti-entropic. That's right, you heard me. That's the meaning of life. To be anti-entropic. Consciousness is a subset of anti-entropy, whether it is dog consciousness, or human.
Hello out there!
Monday, October 19, 2009
This is just like prayer...
except maybe at some point someone will actually read this blog. Maybe. Prayer, on the other hand, might make a person feel better, it might even "work" in some way. But prayers are not, in my experience, ever answered by a god. Am I doing it "wrong?" Is there a "right" way to pray. Oh, the religious types will say so, but I really have no idea.
It is interesting that the most reasonable (to me that is) and the least objectionable set of beliefs are held by the non-Manichean faiths. But they have a lot of dogma, too. I did zazen for a while, decided I was not Japanese. Believe me, the zen folks have as much dogma in their non-dogmatic approach.
Prayer is probably connected to brainwave states. At least that's one hypothesis of mine. And brainwave states are connected to the point at which our scale and the quantum scale intersect. That is, the consciousness waveforms are perhaps the only human interaction with the god-like set of rules by which the universe and everything in it is both manifested and not-manifested.
I once asked a vipassana master meditator what he thought about brainwave entrainment. He answered that "...he had tried it and it effected him about as much as a glass of wine." Interesting response, especially since this fellow produced a 13 CD set entitled "The Science of Enlightenment." If brainwave entrainment isn't included in the science of enlightenment, I don't klnow what is. It may or may not lead to enlightenment, but it is an interesting way to produce brainwave states identical to those of the vipassana master meditator, or for that matter, of the master sufi, the monastic christian, the master yogi, etc.
Anyone out there? Or is this just like my feeble attempts to have my prayers answered?
It is interesting that the most reasonable (to me that is) and the least objectionable set of beliefs are held by the non-Manichean faiths. But they have a lot of dogma, too. I did zazen for a while, decided I was not Japanese. Believe me, the zen folks have as much dogma in their non-dogmatic approach.
Prayer is probably connected to brainwave states. At least that's one hypothesis of mine. And brainwave states are connected to the point at which our scale and the quantum scale intersect. That is, the consciousness waveforms are perhaps the only human interaction with the god-like set of rules by which the universe and everything in it is both manifested and not-manifested.
I once asked a vipassana master meditator what he thought about brainwave entrainment. He answered that "...he had tried it and it effected him about as much as a glass of wine." Interesting response, especially since this fellow produced a 13 CD set entitled "The Science of Enlightenment." If brainwave entrainment isn't included in the science of enlightenment, I don't klnow what is. It may or may not lead to enlightenment, but it is an interesting way to produce brainwave states identical to those of the vipassana master meditator, or for that matter, of the master sufi, the monastic christian, the master yogi, etc.
Anyone out there? Or is this just like my feeble attempts to have my prayers answered?
Friday, October 16, 2009
A man convinced against his will
is of the same opinion still.
So what is this impulse to believe in an anthropocentric, anthropomorphic god, anyway?
I think is has to do with adversity, or at least the usual response to adversity. There are no atheists in a foxhole, the old saying goes, and that's true. I've never been in a foxhole, mind you, so I have no direct experience of war and its terrors. But I have had some pretty difficult experiences, many of them self-induced, in the sense that my actions brought on the consequences that I then had to suffer through.
Actions and consequences. When we feel as though our fate is out of our control, (we, being members of the human species, that is) we tend to seek comfort and assistance to reassure ourselves. When our actions seem futile, and the consequences dire, we get religion. It's not really much more complicated than that. Of course it IS more complicated, but the process of faith seems to stem from this feeling of being not in control of what's happening to us.
The reality of this proposition is highly questionable. That is to say, there are far too many instances where such faith is not rewarded with anything but making us feel better. Feeling better about giving up control and letting what will happen, happen. The "concrete" evidence of the efficacy of prayer (at least at our normal scale, more on that in later posts) is sorely lacking.
Far more erudite observers than me have noted that an omniscient and loving god "allows" many things to happen than such a god ought be allowing. Yet, there does seem to be some kind of a structure to the schema. And the intimation of structure implies a "structurer." So we are back to the old-time religion.
Especially when the bullets are flying.
So what is this impulse to believe in an anthropocentric, anthropomorphic god, anyway?
I think is has to do with adversity, or at least the usual response to adversity. There are no atheists in a foxhole, the old saying goes, and that's true. I've never been in a foxhole, mind you, so I have no direct experience of war and its terrors. But I have had some pretty difficult experiences, many of them self-induced, in the sense that my actions brought on the consequences that I then had to suffer through.
Actions and consequences. When we feel as though our fate is out of our control, (we, being members of the human species, that is) we tend to seek comfort and assistance to reassure ourselves. When our actions seem futile, and the consequences dire, we get religion. It's not really much more complicated than that. Of course it IS more complicated, but the process of faith seems to stem from this feeling of being not in control of what's happening to us.
The reality of this proposition is highly questionable. That is to say, there are far too many instances where such faith is not rewarded with anything but making us feel better. Feeling better about giving up control and letting what will happen, happen. The "concrete" evidence of the efficacy of prayer (at least at our normal scale, more on that in later posts) is sorely lacking.
Far more erudite observers than me have noted that an omniscient and loving god "allows" many things to happen than such a god ought be allowing. Yet, there does seem to be some kind of a structure to the schema. And the intimation of structure implies a "structurer." So we are back to the old-time religion.
Especially when the bullets are flying.
Is this just me, or what?
OK. So I have no idea if I will be able to blog for anything longer than a single post. But here goes.
This blog is not about me. Well, it is in the sense that I am the one who, at least right now, is doing the writing. So, let's get one thing out of the way first. This is about god (yes with a small "g" ) not because of any religious viewpoint, or dogmatic set of beliefs based on a bunch of stories. This is not to say that those stories might not point to the truth (there's a loaded word), or that the stories are right or wrong. And that's the whole point.
You see, when my perception of the facts changes, then I change my mind. What do you do? Do you simply continue to hand onto whatever set of beliefs you have come to cherish simply because you find them comfortable? Well, we all do that, of course, so it is a matter of degree, isn't it?
Politicians are regularly castigated for being "flip-floppers," as if that was one of the worst insults one could hurl. What other people call flip-flopping is what I might refer to as learning. So it is with the notion of god. Let's learn about this phenomenon--if that's what it is. Where oh where to start?
First, does god exist. I can't say, really. What I can say is that I don't get the concept the way others seem to. Let's look at the major traditions. I know this will offend many, but you have to deal with it if you are going to hang in here with me. Otherwise, just press the button and move on. The following characterizations will be exceedingly, very, completely overly simplistic. Perhaps they will even be wrong. If so, correct me. But do so in the spirit of me getting it right. Most likely I will not become a convert--but I do want to be as accurate as I can be.
Judaism. One of the first monotheistic belief systems, where there was posited a single god. Due to this flash of insight (there was, I think an Egyptian pharaoh, Akhenaton, who also came up with a cruder version of the concept, and no doubt others, but let's stick to the major existing religions, OK?). My guess is that this monotheistic insight was strong enough to unify the Jews around it, and a whole series of ancillary beliefs sprang up to define what various Jewish traditions today have come to believe. They are, I think, the self-designated "chosen people of God."
Christianity. The Jews had a series of guys who prophesied that a messiah would be born. A savior, that is, although what mankind needed saving from is an open question. Once this person (self-proclaimed at first, and then proclaimed by others) was born and began to preach he said, basically, have faith that I am not only man and god, but I am the savior of mankind, saving everyone from "sin.". If you believe in me as your savior, then you will go to heaven when you die. He then was crucified and claimed that this act of sacrifice cleansed the human species of "sin" and opened the way to heaven and "everlasting life." Lots of other, ancillary beliefs accompany this. But I think I have the essence, right?
Hinduism. Fundamentally, the Hindus believe in reincarnation and a supreme being of many forms and manifestations, all being aspects of one eternal truth. They also seem to believe that the physical universe the species exists in is somehow not conducive to eternal "salvation" and so desire liberation from earthly evils.
Islam. The Islamic concept is that there was this warrior, tribal leader, trader known as Muhammad who lived around 1,400 years ago on the Arabian penninsula and that he had a series of revelations and founded a religious system whose precepts are set forth in a holy book, every letter of which is true, complete, accurate and the final word of the creator of the universe and everything in it. The basic principle of Islam is absolute submission to this conception of god as set forth in the book.
Bhuddism. About 2,500 years ago, there was a guy who bcame known as the Buddha, who said that the purpose of life is to develop compassion for all living beings without discrimination and to work for their good, happiness, and peace; and to develop wisdom leading to the realization of ultimate truth.
That's enough for now about these belief systems. I will say this about all of them. They are all, to varying degrees, self-referential and anthropomorphic. That is, their belief systems refer primarily to themselves, and they are centered on the human species. The other interesting fact is that they all claim to be keepers of "the truth."
How about this for a concept in opposition to the tall tales told by the revelatory founders of these belief systems: the essence of god is an organizing set of principles that act on the world much like gravity or electromagnetism. The schema can be characterized by its effects on the empirical (and, perhaps the non-empirical, but that's a subject for another day), but cannot be organized self-referentially or anthropomorphically. We are of this schema, but we do not define it as such.
It has been said that growing numbers of people are "spiritual" but not "religious." This blog is for you, but without the conceit that my spirituality is particularly spiritual. Make sense?
This blog is not about me. Well, it is in the sense that I am the one who, at least right now, is doing the writing. So, let's get one thing out of the way first. This is about god (yes with a small "g" ) not because of any religious viewpoint, or dogmatic set of beliefs based on a bunch of stories. This is not to say that those stories might not point to the truth (there's a loaded word), or that the stories are right or wrong. And that's the whole point.
You see, when my perception of the facts changes, then I change my mind. What do you do? Do you simply continue to hand onto whatever set of beliefs you have come to cherish simply because you find them comfortable? Well, we all do that, of course, so it is a matter of degree, isn't it?
Politicians are regularly castigated for being "flip-floppers," as if that was one of the worst insults one could hurl. What other people call flip-flopping is what I might refer to as learning. So it is with the notion of god. Let's learn about this phenomenon--if that's what it is. Where oh where to start?
First, does god exist. I can't say, really. What I can say is that I don't get the concept the way others seem to. Let's look at the major traditions. I know this will offend many, but you have to deal with it if you are going to hang in here with me. Otherwise, just press the button and move on. The following characterizations will be exceedingly, very, completely overly simplistic. Perhaps they will even be wrong. If so, correct me. But do so in the spirit of me getting it right. Most likely I will not become a convert--but I do want to be as accurate as I can be.
Judaism. One of the first monotheistic belief systems, where there was posited a single god. Due to this flash of insight (there was, I think an Egyptian pharaoh, Akhenaton, who also came up with a cruder version of the concept, and no doubt others, but let's stick to the major existing religions, OK?). My guess is that this monotheistic insight was strong enough to unify the Jews around it, and a whole series of ancillary beliefs sprang up to define what various Jewish traditions today have come to believe. They are, I think, the self-designated "chosen people of God."
Christianity. The Jews had a series of guys who prophesied that a messiah would be born. A savior, that is, although what mankind needed saving from is an open question. Once this person (self-proclaimed at first, and then proclaimed by others) was born and began to preach he said, basically, have faith that I am not only man and god, but I am the savior of mankind, saving everyone from "sin.". If you believe in me as your savior, then you will go to heaven when you die. He then was crucified and claimed that this act of sacrifice cleansed the human species of "sin" and opened the way to heaven and "everlasting life." Lots of other, ancillary beliefs accompany this. But I think I have the essence, right?
Hinduism. Fundamentally, the Hindus believe in reincarnation and a supreme being of many forms and manifestations, all being aspects of one eternal truth. They also seem to believe that the physical universe the species exists in is somehow not conducive to eternal "salvation" and so desire liberation from earthly evils.
Islam. The Islamic concept is that there was this warrior, tribal leader, trader known as Muhammad who lived around 1,400 years ago on the Arabian penninsula and that he had a series of revelations and founded a religious system whose precepts are set forth in a holy book, every letter of which is true, complete, accurate and the final word of the creator of the universe and everything in it. The basic principle of Islam is absolute submission to this conception of god as set forth in the book.
Bhuddism. About 2,500 years ago, there was a guy who bcame known as the Buddha, who said that the purpose of life is to develop compassion for all living beings without discrimination and to work for their good, happiness, and peace; and to develop wisdom leading to the realization of ultimate truth.
That's enough for now about these belief systems. I will say this about all of them. They are all, to varying degrees, self-referential and anthropomorphic. That is, their belief systems refer primarily to themselves, and they are centered on the human species. The other interesting fact is that they all claim to be keepers of "the truth."
How about this for a concept in opposition to the tall tales told by the revelatory founders of these belief systems: the essence of god is an organizing set of principles that act on the world much like gravity or electromagnetism. The schema can be characterized by its effects on the empirical (and, perhaps the non-empirical, but that's a subject for another day), but cannot be organized self-referentially or anthropomorphically. We are of this schema, but we do not define it as such.
It has been said that growing numbers of people are "spiritual" but not "religious." This blog is for you, but without the conceit that my spirituality is particularly spiritual. Make sense?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)