Mar 12, 2017 08:08 PM
Do Miracles Really Violate the Laws of Science?
EXCERPT: [...] The great skeptic David Hume presented the world with a false dilemma when he tried to pit reported miracles against the laws of nature. Science tells us what nature does when left to itself; miracles, if they occur at all, occur precisely because nature is not left to itself. Believers and skeptics agree that there is a stable causal order, a normal course of events in which virgins do not become pregnant and dead men stay dead. And precisely because they are agreed on this point, it cannot be a significant piece of evidence against the occurrence of miracles. A river must flow, as one of Hume’s contemporaries pointed out, before its stream can be diverted. Some conception of the ordinary course of nature is required for us even to make sense of the notion of a miracle, which otherwise could not be recognized for what it is.
Science itself places no limits on what may happen when nature is not left to itself. It can neither demonstrate that nature is always left to itself—that the physical universe is “causally closed”—nor legislate what might occur if it is not. Scientists may have their personal opinions on these matters; in fact, they often do, and sometimes they count on their scientific expertise to give weight to those opinions. But that involves stepping out of their own fields of specialization and into the realm of philosophy. And in that arena, one’s having a degree in zoology or microbiology does not, per se, entitle one’s opinions to any particular deference.
[...] Still, life is short, and miracle claims abound. It is all very well to speak of being open to evidence, but no sensible person goes haring off after every supernatural claim to inquire into it in detail. Even thoughtful religious believers rarely bother to look into miracle claims in any tradition other than their own. Why should the irreligious be expected to do more? And if they were, then why, it may be asked, should they begin with one religion rather than another?
The question is reasonable, and it may be as reasonably answered in terms that make no appeal to any particular religious tradition. In some circumstances, we have prima facie reason to doubt a miracle claim: when it is reported only long after the alleged event happened or at a great distance from the place where it happened, or when the report would have been permitted to pass without examination, either because such examination would have been impossible in the nature of the case (say, with regard to an event that would leave no public traces) or because the local population would have had no motive to inquire into its truth or falsehood (because, for instance, it fell in with their own prevailing religious prejudices). And it is also reasonable to doubt a miracle claim when no remotely worthy end could have been served if it had really happened—no deep questions about our origin and destiny answered, no striking teachings confirmed, no divine commission endorsed. “Let not a god intervene,” as Horace wrote, “unless there be a knot worthy of a god’s untying.”
MORE: http://www.slate.com/bigideas/are-miracl...ew-opinion
How Culture Influences Religion
EXCERPT: We generally think of religion as something that pertains to transcendence beyond the current material existence. The reality, however, is that the day-to-day practice of religion involves societies whose cultural norms must be compatible with the tenets of the religion. If there is a misfit between culture and religion, then most likely the religion would be changed rather than the culture. This fact has important implications for the understanding of religion, namely, that the vision of transcendence we create is often determined by the vision of material existence we currently want to lead. Similarly, those serious about the long-term viability of religion must pay close attention to its cultural fit. This post examines these ideas through examples of historical and current religious affairs....
MORE: https://www.ashishdalela.com/2017/03/04/...-religion/
Why God is a "Scientific" Construct
EXCERPT: [...] In Sāńkhya the mind represents ideas, but not just any type of idea; specifically, the mind stands for object concepts—e.g. “table”, “chair”, “house”, “watch” etc. From these object concepts, other concepts are derived. For example, to describe a “table” we have to employ some senses such as “sight”, which will then employ some observable properties such as “shape” and “color”, which will be converted into some values such as “redness” and “blueness” for “color”, “square” and “circular” for “shape”, etc. The object concept “table” is more subtle than the concept “sight”, which is more subtle than the property “color”, which is more subtle than the sense object “redness”. In Sāńkhya, this hierarchy is described as manas → indriya → tanmātra → sthūla-tattva. All these four tiers are “concepts”: object concept, sensation concept, property concept, and value concept.
At present, science has evolved its own object concepts (e.g. particle and wave), indriya (measuring instruments), tanmātra (properties such as mass and charge), and values (quantities). Modern science believes that nature was not designed for perception. Nature just exists, and our perception is an accident. Since our senses and the world are not meant for each other, some of the properties of the world can never be known by our senses, and some of the capabilities in the senses can never be fulfilled in the world. This now becomes the source of our scientific frustration: we try to know the world and control it, but sometimes we can, and sometimes we can’t. Science becomes incomplete because nature (according to science) is not “designed” for our knowledge and control.
The problems in science arise not due to these specific concepts, but due to the belief that nature wasn’t designed for perception and control. This belief is further expanded into other beliefs such as “nature is uniform everywhere”, “nature has no subjective properties”, “nature is material objects”, “matter moves by physical forces”, etc. Sāńkhya is that shift in which everything in nature can potentially be known, and every capability in our senses can potentially be used. Without this belief, nature is not completely knowable and controllable. Current science stands at a juncture where conceptual revision (i.e. new object concepts, new properties, new instruments, and new mathematics) isn’t adequate. We have to instead change our beliefs, which are deeper than scientific concepts.
These beliefs exist in the intellect which is used to perform judgments of truth and false. For example, if I believe that you are a liar, then no matter what you say it would be considered a lie. Since we have some beliefs, we only listen to those people who agree with those beliefs, and we avoid those who disagree with us. Even if we encounter those oppositions, we ignore them, take them lightly, or find fault in their views.
Further up the hierarchy of subtlety, beliefs can be changed only when our intents or goals are changed (at the level of the ego). If we want to achieve something different, then we would be inclined to believe differently. For example, I might believe that science can never be used to prove the existence of God. No matter what anyone says, I will use my belief to judge someone’s claim, and no matter how convincing the argument, I can still reject it based on the premise that this might all be a very elaborate illusion. Until, of course, I change my goal: namely, I might develop a desire to use science to prove the existence of God. Once I develop that desire, my belief automatically undergoes an important change: I start believing that it should be possible to achieve this goal, and then contrary and favorable evidence is evaluated with the aim to achieve the goal—e.g. the contrary evidence becomes how I should not try to fulfill the goal, while the favorable evidence becomes the method by which I can fulfill the goal. In short, if I already have a belief, only a change in goals can bring about a difference.
If we have a goal, then no amount of external evidence may be sufficient to change it. For example, someone might think that she has been unsuccessful a hundred times, but might succeed the next time. No matter how many times you fail, your conviction can keep getting stronger, and your determination to achieve the goal can fly in the face of all failure. The only way to wean someone off a futile goal is to make a change in their value system where they consider the goal to no longer be valuable. For example, you might feel that your time is better spent on other worthy goals. If your values have changed, then your goals can be changed. Therefore, you have to seek happiness in another way, and that quest will in turn change your goals.
This intuitive description of human psychology underlies the Sāńkhya model of mind, intellect, ego, and mahattattva. The mahattattva is our moral values, which are chosen by consciousness. Once these values are changed, our goals are altered automatically. Once the goals are altered, the beliefs are automatically modified. As the beliefs are modified, the concepts in the mind are automatically revised. The revision of concepts in the mind leads to a shift in sensations, which then leads to different sense objects. In other words, change happens from inside-out, not outside-in. To bring about a change in our experiences, we have to change ourselves, rather than the world.
The Four Forms of God
Vedic texts also describe how these four subtle elements are “ruled” by four forms of God, namely, Vasudeva (mahattattva – the moral values sense), Saṅkarṣaṇa (ego – the intentions and goals), Pradyumna (intellect – beliefs and judgments), and Aniruddha (mind – concepts).
[...]
This leads to the question: How is God connected to matter? How is He “ruling” a material element? This question is problematic because matter is considered an illusion in Sāńkhya. If God is connected to an illusion, does it mean that God is also an illusion? If God is connected to matter, then by the old mind-body interaction problem, God too must be material?
This problem requires a shift in understanding matter and spirit....
MORE: https://www.ashishdalela.com/2017/03/07/...construct/
EXCERPT: [...] The great skeptic David Hume presented the world with a false dilemma when he tried to pit reported miracles against the laws of nature. Science tells us what nature does when left to itself; miracles, if they occur at all, occur precisely because nature is not left to itself. Believers and skeptics agree that there is a stable causal order, a normal course of events in which virgins do not become pregnant and dead men stay dead. And precisely because they are agreed on this point, it cannot be a significant piece of evidence against the occurrence of miracles. A river must flow, as one of Hume’s contemporaries pointed out, before its stream can be diverted. Some conception of the ordinary course of nature is required for us even to make sense of the notion of a miracle, which otherwise could not be recognized for what it is.
Science itself places no limits on what may happen when nature is not left to itself. It can neither demonstrate that nature is always left to itself—that the physical universe is “causally closed”—nor legislate what might occur if it is not. Scientists may have their personal opinions on these matters; in fact, they often do, and sometimes they count on their scientific expertise to give weight to those opinions. But that involves stepping out of their own fields of specialization and into the realm of philosophy. And in that arena, one’s having a degree in zoology or microbiology does not, per se, entitle one’s opinions to any particular deference.
[...] Still, life is short, and miracle claims abound. It is all very well to speak of being open to evidence, but no sensible person goes haring off after every supernatural claim to inquire into it in detail. Even thoughtful religious believers rarely bother to look into miracle claims in any tradition other than their own. Why should the irreligious be expected to do more? And if they were, then why, it may be asked, should they begin with one religion rather than another?
The question is reasonable, and it may be as reasonably answered in terms that make no appeal to any particular religious tradition. In some circumstances, we have prima facie reason to doubt a miracle claim: when it is reported only long after the alleged event happened or at a great distance from the place where it happened, or when the report would have been permitted to pass without examination, either because such examination would have been impossible in the nature of the case (say, with regard to an event that would leave no public traces) or because the local population would have had no motive to inquire into its truth or falsehood (because, for instance, it fell in with their own prevailing religious prejudices). And it is also reasonable to doubt a miracle claim when no remotely worthy end could have been served if it had really happened—no deep questions about our origin and destiny answered, no striking teachings confirmed, no divine commission endorsed. “Let not a god intervene,” as Horace wrote, “unless there be a knot worthy of a god’s untying.”
MORE: http://www.slate.com/bigideas/are-miracl...ew-opinion
How Culture Influences Religion
EXCERPT: We generally think of religion as something that pertains to transcendence beyond the current material existence. The reality, however, is that the day-to-day practice of religion involves societies whose cultural norms must be compatible with the tenets of the religion. If there is a misfit between culture and religion, then most likely the religion would be changed rather than the culture. This fact has important implications for the understanding of religion, namely, that the vision of transcendence we create is often determined by the vision of material existence we currently want to lead. Similarly, those serious about the long-term viability of religion must pay close attention to its cultural fit. This post examines these ideas through examples of historical and current religious affairs....
MORE: https://www.ashishdalela.com/2017/03/04/...-religion/
Why God is a "Scientific" Construct
EXCERPT: [...] In Sāńkhya the mind represents ideas, but not just any type of idea; specifically, the mind stands for object concepts—e.g. “table”, “chair”, “house”, “watch” etc. From these object concepts, other concepts are derived. For example, to describe a “table” we have to employ some senses such as “sight”, which will then employ some observable properties such as “shape” and “color”, which will be converted into some values such as “redness” and “blueness” for “color”, “square” and “circular” for “shape”, etc. The object concept “table” is more subtle than the concept “sight”, which is more subtle than the property “color”, which is more subtle than the sense object “redness”. In Sāńkhya, this hierarchy is described as manas → indriya → tanmātra → sthūla-tattva. All these four tiers are “concepts”: object concept, sensation concept, property concept, and value concept.
At present, science has evolved its own object concepts (e.g. particle and wave), indriya (measuring instruments), tanmātra (properties such as mass and charge), and values (quantities). Modern science believes that nature was not designed for perception. Nature just exists, and our perception is an accident. Since our senses and the world are not meant for each other, some of the properties of the world can never be known by our senses, and some of the capabilities in the senses can never be fulfilled in the world. This now becomes the source of our scientific frustration: we try to know the world and control it, but sometimes we can, and sometimes we can’t. Science becomes incomplete because nature (according to science) is not “designed” for our knowledge and control.
The problems in science arise not due to these specific concepts, but due to the belief that nature wasn’t designed for perception and control. This belief is further expanded into other beliefs such as “nature is uniform everywhere”, “nature has no subjective properties”, “nature is material objects”, “matter moves by physical forces”, etc. Sāńkhya is that shift in which everything in nature can potentially be known, and every capability in our senses can potentially be used. Without this belief, nature is not completely knowable and controllable. Current science stands at a juncture where conceptual revision (i.e. new object concepts, new properties, new instruments, and new mathematics) isn’t adequate. We have to instead change our beliefs, which are deeper than scientific concepts.
These beliefs exist in the intellect which is used to perform judgments of truth and false. For example, if I believe that you are a liar, then no matter what you say it would be considered a lie. Since we have some beliefs, we only listen to those people who agree with those beliefs, and we avoid those who disagree with us. Even if we encounter those oppositions, we ignore them, take them lightly, or find fault in their views.
Further up the hierarchy of subtlety, beliefs can be changed only when our intents or goals are changed (at the level of the ego). If we want to achieve something different, then we would be inclined to believe differently. For example, I might believe that science can never be used to prove the existence of God. No matter what anyone says, I will use my belief to judge someone’s claim, and no matter how convincing the argument, I can still reject it based on the premise that this might all be a very elaborate illusion. Until, of course, I change my goal: namely, I might develop a desire to use science to prove the existence of God. Once I develop that desire, my belief automatically undergoes an important change: I start believing that it should be possible to achieve this goal, and then contrary and favorable evidence is evaluated with the aim to achieve the goal—e.g. the contrary evidence becomes how I should not try to fulfill the goal, while the favorable evidence becomes the method by which I can fulfill the goal. In short, if I already have a belief, only a change in goals can bring about a difference.
If we have a goal, then no amount of external evidence may be sufficient to change it. For example, someone might think that she has been unsuccessful a hundred times, but might succeed the next time. No matter how many times you fail, your conviction can keep getting stronger, and your determination to achieve the goal can fly in the face of all failure. The only way to wean someone off a futile goal is to make a change in their value system where they consider the goal to no longer be valuable. For example, you might feel that your time is better spent on other worthy goals. If your values have changed, then your goals can be changed. Therefore, you have to seek happiness in another way, and that quest will in turn change your goals.
This intuitive description of human psychology underlies the Sāńkhya model of mind, intellect, ego, and mahattattva. The mahattattva is our moral values, which are chosen by consciousness. Once these values are changed, our goals are altered automatically. Once the goals are altered, the beliefs are automatically modified. As the beliefs are modified, the concepts in the mind are automatically revised. The revision of concepts in the mind leads to a shift in sensations, which then leads to different sense objects. In other words, change happens from inside-out, not outside-in. To bring about a change in our experiences, we have to change ourselves, rather than the world.
The Four Forms of God
Vedic texts also describe how these four subtle elements are “ruled” by four forms of God, namely, Vasudeva (mahattattva – the moral values sense), Saṅkarṣaṇa (ego – the intentions and goals), Pradyumna (intellect – beliefs and judgments), and Aniruddha (mind – concepts).
[...]
This leads to the question: How is God connected to matter? How is He “ruling” a material element? This question is problematic because matter is considered an illusion in Sāńkhya. If God is connected to an illusion, does it mean that God is also an illusion? If God is connected to matter, then by the old mind-body interaction problem, God too must be material?
This problem requires a shift in understanding matter and spirit....
MORE: https://www.ashishdalela.com/2017/03/07/...construct/