Steve Ruis writes a blog called “Uncommon Sense.” In one of his recent posts, he explains why he is starting to hate religion, all religions. I think he is on to something. I was born Jewish. My children are Jewish, as are my grandchildren. But I am non-practicing. I am secular. I am sick of religious hatred, as Steve is. Yet I know that there seems to be something in human nature that causes people to hate others. I remember many years ago reading a book called “Idols of the Tribe: Group Identity and Political Change” by political scientist Harold R. Isaac. Isaac wrote about “the psychology of minor differences.” He gave example after example of groups that fought each other to the death, because “the other” was different. It might be religious or racial or ethnic or something else. One young person must kill another, drop bombs, for reasons long forgotten. Because.
Ruis writes:
I don’t want to hate anything . . . but . . . I was recently watching a rather nice three-part BBC documentary on Persia and Iran. In college I took a course in ancient near eastern history but I only learned a smidgeon about Persia, so this was an opportunity to fill in the gaps in my understanding of history. Persia, one the first major empires, became over time a doormat for invaders, many, many invaders.
About 500 years ago an Islamic general decided to conquer Persia and made war and accomplished that goal. He was not conquering Persia to convert that country to Islam. Persia had been conquered by Arab invaders centuries before who had converted the entire country to Islam, essentially relegating Persia’s native religion, Zoroastrianism, to the dustbins of history. (As religions go, Zoroastrianism, to my tastes, was a superior religion, but . . . it still conferred the “divine rights of kings” onto their rulers, etc. There are an estimated 110,000–120,000 Zoroastrians left in the world from the millions previously.)
Back to the invasion of 500 years ago. The general, who made himself King of Persia, wasn’t converting the country to Islam, he was converting it from Sunni Islam to Shia Islam. For this many, many people died, economies were disrupted, buildings destroyed, etc. Then the people were forcefully converted from Sunni Islam to Shia Islam. Yes, that Islam, the religion of peace, whose holy book clearly states that no one is to come to Islam by force.
Never judge a religion based upon what they say, always look to what they do. Religions represent a terrible cost to human beings. Instead of focusing on things that make people’s lives better, wars are fought over imaginary differences. Religions make people stupid.
Obviously this is not the only case I base my conclusion upon. Currently Palestinians and Israelis are fighting a religious war. And the “Troubles” in Ireland are not that far in the past, the Nazi efforts to exterminate Jews and Gypsies, and then, the Croats and Serbs went at it . . . and then . . . there are myriad examples of religion being at the heart of wars and human misery.
The current actions of Christian nationalists here in the USA are part of the same picture.
Yes, I am an a-theist, and now I am an anti-religionist. If you are requesting special privileges because of your religion, I am against it. If you do not want your churches to pay taxes, I am against you.
A pox on all religions and their imaginary solaces and real damage they offer. If you are one who wants to convert the USA into a “Christian Nation,” fuck you and the horse you rode in on. You are just paving the way for turning us into an Islamic nation.

As a Christian this saddens me on many levels.
Primarily because there is a dual inherent failure.
Firstly to dissociate a person’s private deeply held belief; from the complexity of the myriad factors which turn beliefs be they religious, political or social into a movement of strategy which is essentially political or class-riven. To suggest religion is the root cause of troubles is to deny the fundamental flaws within Humanity to turn any disagreement or inequality into violence.
Secondly to take this stance is assume that within all folk who subscribe to a religion there is a deeply held latent idea that if all else fails they will take a violent option. This is unfair upon those who died for their faith, or died in the cause of social justice through their face without resorting to violence.
To make a statement of being anti-religion is one which ultimately leads to a fracturing of dialogue and a labelling of vast numbers of people who wish only to live a quiet untroubled life
PS: On an historical note- Using the example of Nazi’s exterminating Jews and blaming religion is a skewed logic since religion did not enter into the Nazi Patheon of basic core beliefs. As for the Croats and Serbs, anything to do with Balkan history cannot be so easily analysed by one thread. Northern Ireland is one example where religion plays a pivotal role. However since the history of the USSR’s tenure of rule, Communist China , and Pol Pot’s Cambodia (to name but a few) have not be included the examples are somewhat selective.
LikeLike
“Secondly to take this stance is assume that within all folk who subscribe to a religion there is a deeply held latent idea that if all else fails they will take a violent option.”
First, this is literally false. Ruis makes no such claim about ALL religious people.
Second, the assertion that religion has been a major source of unnecessary bloodshed throughout history is also simply true. Nowhere does Ruis make the claim that there weren’t other major sources of unnecessary bloodshed, such as so-called Communism under Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot. So, the implications that Ruis makes such a claim is also false.
LikeLiked by 1 person
:. . . is to deny the fundamental flaws within Humanity. . . . “
Horse manure.
There are no “fundamental flaws.”
Please elaborate on those supposed flaws.
LikeLike
Certainly: Our predilection to violence.
I cite the evidence of Wars over several millennia. The causes being myriad. By now we should have evolved out of that cycle.
There are schools of thought in International Relations which feel they are inevitable. A kind of evidence in itself for a flaw
I could also go into the tendency to exploit Human beings Financial or Societal Exploitation such as Slavery in its many forms. However some would argue that is a type of war in itself.
Political systems are also an area filled with potential for discussion.
We essentially have the gifts and intellects to have advanced beyond our conflicts. We have not. Therein lies the flaw.
LikeLike
Something’s definitely off. Yesterday I hit a trifecta. I saw a group of masked people with a Hamas flag. I waited in an hour-long line to get into the courthouse where a former president of is on trial. (I’m too lazy to get an attorney’s pass.) And when I left the courthouse I learned a man had set himself on fire right outside. Three things I never expected encountering ever, let alone in a single day.
LikeLike
Shocking!
LikeLike
Weird, weird stuff.
LikeLike
What do you mean “Hamas flags”? You mean Palestinian flags? Come on, FLERP!, you’re better than that.
LikeLike
The flag of the Palestinian Sunni Islamist militant organization Hamas consists of a green background (a traditionally respected color in Islam) and in the middle it features the writing of the Shahada, an Islamic statement of faith, in white calligraphic script: “There is no god but Allah” and “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah”.[1][2]
Fatah (Arabic: فتح, romanized: Fatḥ), formerly the Palestinian National Liberation Movement (حركة التحرير الوطني الفلسطيني, Ḥarakat al-Taḥrīr al-Waṭanī l-Filasṭīnī),[20] is a Palestinian nationalist and social democratic political party. It is the largest faction of the confederated multi-party Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the second-largest party in the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC). Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority, is the chairman of Fatah.
Fatah
فتح
LikeLike
I’m seriously doubting those are the flags FLERP! saw. I’ve been to dozens of protests and have seen pictures and videos from hundreds of others. I’ve only ever seen the Palestinian flag.
LikeLike
Look it up.
Hamas has its own flag.
The Palestinian Authority has a different flag.
You probably don’t know this, but there was a pitched battle between Hamas and The PA (Fatah) almost 20 years ago. Hamas drove Fatah out of Gaza.
LikeLike
I think there may have been a Hezbollah flag, too, although at the time I didn’t know what it was. Looks like those have popped up in NYC lately too.
https://x.com/efischberger/status/1780062137588535504?s=46&t=vV_4bJ7GuABaalzetJofQA
https://x.com/jcandersonnyc/status/1779963775568761195?s=46&t=vV_4bJ7GuABaalzetJofQA
LikeLike
Hezbollah, another terrorist group, has its own flag, like Hamas and Fatah. You can find all three on Wikipedia.
LikeLike
It should be noted that when Iran sent scores of drones and missiles raining down on Israel, 99% were destroyed—not only by Israel, but by the U.S., UK, France, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.
LikeLike
https://x.com/sahar_tartak/status/1782083841001402558
Imagine being a Jewish student at Yale amidst this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Disgusting.
LikeLike
Actual Hamas flags.
LikeLike
There were Palestinian flags, too, but also Hamas flags. The white on green.
LikeLike
Wow. Quite a day there!!!!
LikeLike
All cultures have some belief that attempts to explain the unexplainable. Perhaps this need has something to do with the way our brains are wired. Religion, while not rational, is not evil by itself as long as the belief system does not cause harm to others. Fanatics and those that pervert religion to manipulate others are what give religion a bad name. This appears to be true whether the religion is Muslim, Christian, or Judaism or other non-western religions.
LikeLike
While I completely understand Steve’s increasing dissatisfaction with religion, I must suggest that the influence of religion on political thought is complex. It is a hen and egg question. Does politics shape religion, or does religion shape politics?
It is hard to deny that the African-American Church was the overwhelming force behind the American Civil Rights movement. A huge majority of the people who were beaten on the Edmund Pettus bridge carried with them lessons from Ghandi and Jesus. Still, the Civil Rights movement was about power and its concentration in the hands of White Supremacists, most of whom justified their holding of that power by referring to their religion.
Things were not nearly so violent where I grew up, but there was White Supremacy to be seen. One church split over the issue, and a new church was constructed, prompting my brother and I to call it the bigot church and to delight when a thunderstorm struck the plastic steeple, sort of melting it into a thing that looked like drippng icing on a cake. Long about that same time, our preacher got into trouble for colaborating with the African Methodist Episcopal Church (which sat across the tracks where the Black folks lived and whom we all knew and loved).
I wander. When religion gets mixed up with power, it’s hard to tell where one begins and the other ends. Because of that, people in power want to use religion to solidify power. Hitler had the most support from rural Lutherans in Germany, and the Roman Catholic Church looked to him and to other fascists in the mid-Twentieth Century to bolster their political position. When Charlemagne gave the Saxons the choice of converting to his religion or being put to the sword, it was obviously less about Jesus and more about him. When African American pastors organized their churches to fight White Supremacy, it was because they were denied other places in the power structure of society.
Any time religion gets steeped into the tea of power struggle, both lose. The society is less free and the religion becomes less about its beliefs and more about how it dovetails with power. Corruption to both is the order of the day. Jesus Wept (the shortest verse in the New Testament) but I bet all the other gurus in history did that too, every time some two-bit tyrant co-opted the faithful for a power push.
LikeLike
Religion has often been a source of strength and comfort for myself and our extended family, but I recognize how faith can be corrupted and misused as people choose to believe that their personal belief system is THE only way to salvation, grace, whatever term you choose.
The separation of church and state has been badly damaged in the U.S., and is in desperate need of rebuilding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also, American churches are seeing an historic decline at this time. Looks like they would get the message. Jerry Falwell, you messed up.
LikeLike
First: Thank you!
Second: I was raised in the ’50s and ’60s as a Catholic. When I left the church, at age 15, it was a real blow to my mother (not helped by the fact my sister had converted to Judaism a couple of years before).
I had a history teacher in high school who said something I was also affected by. My teacher said, “Religion is a very effective way to control a population by making rules everyone must follow. Handy for a leader.” I was surprised, but also pleased by his statement: This was still the late ’60s in suburban America!
I wrote this not to offend anyone. I certainly know many quite religious people who are way smarter than me.
But the country, indeed the world, has been discarding religion for some time. If for no other reason than no religion can be squared with with what we now know. A decent account of this point of view can be found in Sam Harris’ The End of Faith. Harris has moved on to believing some very stupid, albeit non-religious, ideas.
LikeLike
I started to withdraw from organized religion when G.W. Bush would not allow stem cells to be used in medical research. Mixing religion with public policy is ignorant, biased policy. When religion is used to control a population, you can count me out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thankfully, Iran is the only true theocracy on Earth. For now.
LikeLike
Saudi Arabia comes pretty damned close.
LikeLike
They don’t let it get in the way of money.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL. Right. Or of trips to Europe and Dubai to drink and do drugs and party with prostitutes.
LikeLike
Religion is close to over in Europe. It persists in the US, but in a weird form. According to the Pew studies on religion in America, Americans cling to religion but reject a lot of traditional ideas. For example, they don’t buy hell, for the most part, or original sin. They are skeptical about virgin births and resurrection. They almost totally don’t believe in the actual transubstantiation of the water and wine. And they are more likely to believe in Reincarnation and Astrology than in the Devil.
LikeLike
I remember years ago (don’t ask how many) there was a TV story on the bridge that carries the Chicago Skyway into Indiana. Basically, the story said that it needed so many repairs that driving over it was dangerous.
They reporter asked why it was still standing. The bridge guy answered “Force of habit.”
That sums up, to me, why many people who have not examined the logic and evidence of their lifelong religious beliefs, continue to believe. It’s an unexamined practice they incorporated long ago, with the vague conviction that it’s true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That bridge was scary AF. I used to drive over it all the time.
LikeLike
Fortunately, I was intellectually unwilling to go to Indiana any more than necessary.
I will say I never drove over it after the news story.
LikeLike
jsr: interesting thing about the bridge is that bridges are trusted in so many places, and they often fail, catastrophically on occasion. We trust lots of things, not the least of which is each other.
LikeLike
And that tells me what, exactly?
And more to the point, so what? As I recall, we were talking about religion.
LikeLike
Islam is growing in Europe, though.
LikeLike
barely
LikeLike
So, Americans persist to claim to be religious (many prefer the term “spiritual”) while rejecting most of the core beliefs of the dominate religion. They say things like, “I believe that there’s something.” LOL. I call this American religion Vaguism.
LikeLike
cx: dominant, ofc
LikeLike
Freudian slip?
LikeLike
Not a fan of Harris. I’m surprised that he is considered some sort of public intellectual. He is not a careful thinker.
LikeLike
Did you read his book on faith?
LikeLike
Yes. And the one on free will. NOT IMPRESSED.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Th book seemed to me a recitation of pretty obvious and well-known stuff. Elementary. No new ideas. https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2022/07/16/honesty-about-religion/
LikeLike
It’s not just over-zealous religious belief, but blind faith in anything in service of power acquisition, maintenance, and control that results in all manner of hatred, uncontrolled mob behavior, massacres, denial of human and democratic rights, discrimination, and genocide.
LikeLike
yes
LikeLike
Palestinians are not fighting a religious war. They are fighting the Zionist (not Jewish) invaders who are trying to take over their country. Read THE GENERAL’S SON by Miko Peled (Israeli), GOLIATH by Max Blumenthal (American Jew), PALESTINE by Joe Sacco (American), THE HUNDRED YEARS WAR ON PALESTINE by Rashid Khalidi (Palestinian) or literally anything by Ilan Pappe (Israeli).
A religious ethostate is problematic enough, as you yourself acknowledge when it’s about white Christian nationalism. But when you try to park your religious ethnostate on top of an existing peoples with their own land and culture, it’s going to spark backlash because you cannot have one “chosen” people with rights colonizing a dispossessed people with no rights without violence. If you insist that “Israel is for Jews” and you try to eliminate or subjugate all the non-Jews what do you expect the non-Jews already living there to do?
LikeLike
Hamas has one overriding goal: the extinction of the state of Israel.
LikeLike
David Bentley Hart Atheist Delusions, for another reasonable perspective.
LikeLike
It’s ironic, I think, that Atheism is as unsupportable as is Religiosity. The foremost cosmologist on planet earth today is probably Alan Guth. Guth is not a religious wacko. He’s a hard-core scientist know for his explication of Inflation Theory, which is now the standard model in cosmology. In his book Inflation, he writes that it is theoretically possible for a sufficiently advanced civilization to creat a universe from scratch.
A creator. Interesting.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link. I am interested. I am NOT a conventionally religious person. I am also not an Atheist–I think that position not rationally supportable–without sufficient warrant. And I think the so-called “new Atheists”–Dennett, Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens–pretty much a joke. It’s hilarious to me how much utterly unsupported assertion they do in their attempt to fight utterly unsupported assertions. ROFL. As I told my local Humanist Organization as I was quitting: Your skepticism is not skeptical enough. Atheism is, I think, just another religion. LOL
LikeLike
People find it so freaking difficult to say about anything, I don’t know.
Philosophical Zombies with Chairs in Philosophy of Mind | Bob Shepherd | Praxis (wordpress.com)
LikeLike
Those who are not philosophically inclined can be divided, roughly, into two groups:
There are the Naïve Realists who think that what is available to the senses or potentially available to the senses is all that there is.
And then there are those who think that alongside or in addition to all that empirically available stuff, there is another world (or other worlds) of the unseen.
Let’s call the first group the nonbelievers and the second the believers.
The believers come in immense variety. From the time of the origins of the first archaeological remains of human civilizations down to the present day, there have been, literally, many hundreds of thousands of belief systems regarding the ordinarily unseen—systems involving spirits that live within things in the natural world, disembodied spirits of ancestors existing alongside us, and a rich phantasmagoria of gods and demigods and demons and other magical beings–Tiamat and Marduk, Isis and Hecate and Bastet, YHWH and the Nephilim, the Aeons and the Rex Mundi, Ananzi and White Buffalo Woman, Cernunnos and Brigid, ogres and trolls and fairies in the garden, the machine elves of Terrence McKenna’s psychonautic excursions on dimethyltriptamine.
Go back far enough in any culture, and you will find people believing that rivers, mountains, oceans, plants, people, and nonhuman animals, as well as more abstract things like love and friendship, are both physical entities and have this spiritual aspect or visage that you can experience if you get into a state of vision by undergoing an austerity such as sleep deprivation and fasting or by taking a drug, an entheogen. Fairly early on, but later, generally, you also find them imagining (?) ordinarily unseen worlds that are separate parts of this one world (universe) that we live in. The Anglo-Saxons talked of the middengeard (the “middle Earth”) between heaven above and hell below. Mayhayana (Great Vehicle) Buddhists and some of the Greek Gnostics imagined vast numbers of heavens “up there.” The early animism that saw the spiritual and the natural as one eventually gave way to anthropomorphizing, and the unvisited worlds became god realms. Many peoples placed their realms of the gods atop high mountains or in the clouds or across the sea on some island. Many cultures had their chthonian deities, ones who inhabited realms under the ground—the world of the Hindu Nagas, for example, or the realm of Hades, or the cave beneath the bog of Grendel’s mother, who may have been the ancient British goddess Nerthus made demonic in a Christian retelling. These abodes of the gods were unseen but potentially seeable, if only you got there, to that place. (For a couple spectacularly entertaining but rarely, now, read accounts of travels to such god places, see Lucian of Samosata’s True History, 2nd century CE and The Book of Enoch, 300-100 BCE .)
Increasingly, as we have plumbed the whole of the Earth, from the summits to the depths, and have come to understand, better, what is in the heavens above us and under the ground beneath our feet, those who believe in the unseen have retreated to the less physical instantiations of their other worlds. These modern believers are of the “spirit within” camp. Their unseen worlds are invisible universes, spirit worlds, that exist—somewhere else—in parallel to our own or in some other dimension or within things, somehow. The entities who live in that spirit world, they say, might be all around us right now. You might, for example, hold a séance or take a drug or pray and talk to them.
Now, the nonbelievers like to point out that despite the certainties that believers tend to have about their unseen worlds, their views are innumerable and mutually inconsistent and can’t all be right, and it’s not exactly easy to produce EVIDENCE about any of these unseen worlds, and so no compelling reason to believe in any one of them, at least no reason that an impartial observer would have to accept. And the nonbelievers are frankly astonished, by and large, that at this late date in human history, there are still large numbers of people who believe in unseen worlds and unseen entities, who talk to them regularly, for example, and take guidance from them. In short, the nonbelievers think it really peculiar that so many people continue, in a scientific age, to hold fantastic ideas involving the unseen. And they are horrified that folks whom they consider so gullible and superstitious, people who sometimes talk to invisible friends, are nonetheless trusted with positions of power and authority. Looking at you, Mike Johnson, boy Christian.
I do understand that point of view. I even sympathize with it, for in doing so, I am sympathizing with the view held by my own younger self. But here’s a problem for it, a really big problem, it seems to me:
While it seems reasonable not to accept as true propositions for which there is little or no evidence, it is also entirely unreasonable to imagine that what we have access to via our senses is the whole of the universe. We have a particular set of senses and a particular cognitive apparatus, a particular operating system, if you like. Our sensory and cognitive equipment, our operating system, differs enormously from that of other creatures on the planet. Consider the “lowly” bugs known as ticks. We know that there are vast parts of the universe that we perceive that simply are not available to ticks. Stars do not exist to a tick. Neither do temperatures above or below a narrow range around 30-40 degrees Centigrade (the temperatures of the blood of mammals). There is no smell of roses in the universe that the tick perceives; there is no sound of laughter. The tick does not have any perceptual or cognitive access to these things. They are UNSEEN by the tick, but WE know that they exist.
In other words, the tick teaches us that it is inevitable that, given the particular sensory apparatus and cognitive makeup that a creature has, given a particular creature’s operating system, some of what is, of what actually exists, will be available to that creature, and SOME WILL NOT. That bit of the universe that is available to a given creature is the creature’s Umwelt (to use the term popularized by Jakob von Uexküll, whose ideas about ticks I have shared here).
So, how are we any different from ticks in this regard? Well, we aren’t. We’re not some sort of special case. What is true of ticks is doubtless true of us—that we have access to only a small part of what is really going on. This is an inductive conclusion strongly warranted by our knowledge of comparative neural and perceptual physiology, so strongly warranted, in fact, that I think that we are compelled to accept it on purely inductive, empirical, scientific grounds. And it’s a truly mind-blowing conclusion, I think. Kant came to the same conclusion. We do not have access to noumena, to ultimate realities, to things as they are in themselves. We have access only to our limited perceptions of them (to phenomena) and to what we can puzzle out about the innate structures of our own experiencing (what Kant calls Categories). The differing perceptual and cognitive setups of creatures different from us teach us that we don’t have the full access pass, lol. (For my brief introduction to Kant, go here: https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2023/03/25/kant-finding-a-way-in/)
It therefore seems highly likely that Hamlet was right when he said, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio. / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” In other words, the believers are almost certainly right about this much, that there is a VAST UNSEEN. A vast unseeable, in fact. And nonbelievers have to accept that much. I do.
Before I proceed, let me deal with a predictable objection to this line of reasoning: Evolution designs creatures to exploit whatever realities there are, and over time, they exploit them more fully, and so we reach this pinnacle in humans at which we have cognitive and perceptual access to the way things are. Now, here’s where I think that that argument is wrong (Anthropocentric arguments tend to be downright silly; they are kin to the old ideas that the Earth and humans are at the center of the universe): Evolution is nothing if not parsimonious. It reaches for what works in a niche, and it ignores everything else. Exhibit 1 for my rebuttal: cyanobacteria, unchanged for nearly four billion years. Exhibit 2: Beetles that attempt to mate with female-looking beer bottles so persistently that they allow ants to eat them alive. Exhibit 3: humans and their well-documented cognitive limitations more suited to life on the savannah than to life in, say, New York City. Phenotypes (body plans, including the plans for our perceptual and cognitive apparatuses) tend to be local maxima on the larger fitness landscape.
Where do we go from this conclusion, for conclusions are beginnings, aren’t they? Clearly, there will be situations in which what can be experienced by a given creature is affected causally by that which the creature cannot experience, and this may be the situation that obtains with regard to many conundrums, great and small–the mind/body question, the question of free will, the irreducibility of simple arithmetic to logic, the incompatibility of relativity and quantum mechanics, the elusive proofs of the Goldbach or Polignac conjectures, the seeming violation by plankton of the competitive exclusion principle, experimental proof of the existence of more than four dimensions, the explanation of nonlocal consequences of entanglement in physics, the appearance and disappearance of virtual particles, the solution to the paradox of disappearance of the present, the violation by certain quantum-mechanical phenomena of the law of the excluded middle, the development of an optimally nonviolent social structure given the conflict between minimal liberalism and Pareto optimality, and, of course, the questions of questions: 1. What is the nature of the noumenon? and 2. What the hell is consciousness, and why does it DIFFER IN KIND FROM EVERYTHING ELSE? (The fact that consciousness differs IN KIND from everything else is, I think, the stake in the heart of the vampire of deterministic materialist reductionism, which has emerged, again, from the dead from time to time ever since Lucretius’s De rerum natura, but that’s a subject for another essay.)
Years ago, AI pioneer and Nobel Prize-winning economist Herbert Simon argued that many of the problems faced in everyday life admit, as a practical matter, of no optimal solution because of limitations of time and resources, forcing us to rely, instead, upon satisfactory solutions, or heuristics. Similarly, the philosopher Alan Watts argued that while the universe might, at bottom, be deterministic, as a practical matter, we haven’t the resources to do the Laplacian calculations, and so we are stuck with acting as if from free will. (Most physicists, today, would say that some processes are deterministic and some are random or probabilistic but that none of these cases allows for free will–a conclusion without, I think, sufficient warrant.) And in the same vein, the philosopher Daniel Dennett has argued that combinatorial explosion makes the project of simulating a virtual reality indistinguishable from the universe impossible, for doing so would require computational resources greater than those provided by the universe. (It’s a matter of debate whether a self-computing universe is possible.) The point I am making goes further, however, for the claim is that we have every reason to believe that there are aspects of reality that are not only not accessible as a practical matter but that are not accessible AT ALL at present. There’s no reason to think that we apes currently have the cognitive and perceptual apparatus to arrive at complete solutions to such problems because the mechanisms involved may well be beyond our ken.
But this realization is in itself a boon. It should give us pause. It should make us humble. As a result of it, we should recognize that our many of our most cherished, most fundamental assumptions might well be misconceptions based on our limitations. We must face squarely the fact that we are like savages, familiar with fire and with chariots, claiming that the nature of the sun is quite obvious: it is a fiery chariot being driven across the sky. Or we are like the square in Abbott’s Flatland who thinks of a cone passing through its world in three-dimensional space as an expanding or contracting circle.
Let’s consider one such a cherished assumption, one of the latest in a long, sad series of scientific predictions that proved to be false because unknown unknowns were not taken into account. Richard Dawkins famously argued in The Blind Watchmaker that we can be certain that wherever we might go in the universe, the laws of evolution apply. But certain is a big word. Scientific laws are not tautologies.And it seems not only possible but probable that, in fact, evolution itself is ultimately a self-defeating mechanism, not in the sense that life inevitably consumes all resources until it dies out but in the sense that at some point, sufficiently evolved creatures begin to control their own evolution, at which time there is a decisive break, a disjunction, a stochastic leap, for evolution becomes no longer blind but teleological, at which point, all bets are off. We might well choose the ultimate in self-preservation, substituting the preservation and growth of the phenotype, to which we are each of us committed, for the reproduction of the genotype,for there is a fundamentalnon-concurrence of interestbetween selfish genes and selfish phenotype, especially in creatures that reproduce sexually.We are already at a point where, very soon, evolution will be definitively divorced from mate selection and sexual reproduction, its being highly doubtful that future reproduction strategies will depend upon these. And it is altogether possible that resources are not a limiting factor, for many cosmologists now believe that the universe itself is “the ultimate free lunch,” that it arose ex nihilo from the quantum foam, which is, in theory, harvestable. So, is evolution by natural selection a universal law? It’s highly doubtful that this is so. In fact, it is more likely that this is yet another example of a spatio-temporal local maximum. The Earth is a relatively young planet circling a relatively young star. We now know that there are many, many billions of other such planets in the universe, most of them far older, and it is altogether reasonable, given the similarity of conditions elsewhere, to assume that life has evolved on these and long since passed through our present infancy, for we know that recursive systems like minds are positive feedback mechanisms leading to exponential change, and we speculate with much warrant that such a process will lead to a singularity. And what happens then? By definition, we do not know. But it is highly probable, to a point approaching certainty, that this has, in fact, happened in the universe already, and we are not the entities to which it has happened. Philosopher and transhumanist Nick Bostrom believes that what we think of as reality is not reality at all but, rather, a simulation being run by such entities.
Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis is an example of warranted speculation, and that such speculation can be highly warranted—one of many possibilities unlike those that we typically entertain—suggests, at the very least, that we should check our hubris. Things may not be at all as they appear to be.
Which brings me back to the question of belief versus nonbelief. It certainly makes sense to suppose that the notions about ultimate realities entertained by stone-age savages bear little relation to actual ultimate realities. Ditto for the many New Religions (what people used to call, more plainly, cults). However, what is in fact the case is probably equally bizarre and, given our current limitations, beyond imagining. It is quite possible, probable even, given what we currently know, that there are entities in the universe with attributes traditionally ascribed to the gods, including the power to bring universes into being (a potential technology for doing just that and a series of steps toward development of such a technology are outlined in cosmologist Alan Guth’s The Inflationary Universe). And, of course, it is possible, for the reasons described here, that our universe was the creation by such an entity. We should admit, however, I think, that when we speculate about these matters, we are in the position of the Neolithic farmer venturing opinions on the causes of epileptic seizures and that we should do so in a spirit of play, of speculation, of creation, of frumsceaft.
The phrase current limitations, above, was chosen with care. Creatures with technologies, however rudimentary, have already crossed a Rubicon, for technologies are prostheses that give access to further aspects of reality. The long-standing question of whether there are noumenal realities separable from perceptual reality has long been answered (though, oddly, some professional philosophers seem not to have gotten the memo), for as we have built new technologies to extend our access—mathematics, thought experiments, Galileo’s telescope, spectrometers, superconducting supercolliders, FMRI machines, and so on—more and more of the universe has been revealed, as surely as the contents of a gift-wrapped package are revealed when we remove the packaging, but with a couple of important caveats: 1. the packaging of reality appears to be so many Matryoshka dolls, how many, we do not know. Perhaps it is turtles all the way down. And 2. those prostheses simply become part of a new, extended, but also limited perceptual and conceptual repertoire. As we continue, at an exponential rate, to develop prostheses for extending our access to the universe, we shall doubtless encounter many surprises, many of which will be as disjunctive as was, say, the atomic hypothesis. We have already learned, or think we have learned, that the macroscopic world of solid objects with which we are familiar on a quotidian basis is illusory, that it is, on a deeper plane, a whir of elementary particles and, on a deeper plane yet, interacting fields. Such conceptions would have seemed utterly preposterous to most of our ancestors. (The atomic hypothesis was still highly controversial at the turn of the twentieth century.) Given this history, assuming that we have reached the bottom of the rabbit hole is ludicrous, and there is nothing in our current knowledge that precludes quite fantastic possibilities, including the possibility that the current physical reductionists have it exactly backward and that
Numbers 1 and 2 and 3 are, I think, as incontrovertible as the best of our scientific inferences. Number 4 is another matter. It’s a highly speculative proposition but one that is not inconsistent with anything that we think we know via scientific inference and is weakly warranted by speculations such as Bostrom’s involving highly developed nonhuman intelligence or intelligences in the universe. There are other reasons, based in warranted speculation, for holding a Panentheistic or Henotheistic view, but I’m not going to go into those here. Together, these propositions, advanced by cognitive psychologist and expert on perception Donald Hoffman, show a marked similarity to what Aldous Huxley refers to as “the perennial philosophy,” arrived at via convergent cultural evolution in various religious traditions worldwide—in the thought of persons as diverse as the authors of the Bhagavad-Gita and the Chandogya Upanishad, the Sufi mystic Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi, Chuang Tzu, Meister Eckhart, Black Elk, and Terence McKenna. (Note: I had independently arrived at conclusions 1, 2, and 3 before having encountered Hoffman. I am intrigued by his reasons for embracing conclusion 4.)
Believers in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) often totally misinterpret indigenous religions because the Abrahamic sects are committed to the idea (cribbed by Christians and Muslims and later Jews from Plato) of a spiritual reality SEPARATE FROM ordinary reality. What they don’t understand, and what falsifies most of their accounts of indigenous religions, including their retellings of indigenous “myths,” is that many indigenous peoples did not think of the spiritual world as separate from the world but, rather, conceived of the world as viewable either through our ordinary lenses or through the lens of vision. Such an account is in keeping with my argument here. See this: https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/poetry/history-lesson-or-on-the-hinterweltlern/ and this: https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2019/03/17/three-meanings-of-meaning/ and this: https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2019/03/17/the-theology-of-materialism/
Ancient accounts of ultimate realities are suspect, ofc. It’s no accident that the historically situated ancient scriptures, of which there are so many, were often supposedly dictated by the creator of everything but make no mention of spiral galaxies or autoimmune reactions but do instantiate the abhorrent moral positions of primitive peoples–a penchant for stoning homosexuals and not “suffer[ing] a witch to live,” for example. But suspect as well are our limited current perceptions and scientific models of reality. One cannot make the leap from speculation to knowledge, for knowledge is by definition dependent upon the prosthesis that discloses. The mystics claim to have developed such prostheses, though many certainly simply encountered the currently inexplicable and then rushed to explanation in the inadequate terms available to them. However, even if this were true, that fact should give physical reductionists no comfort, for theirs is a metaphysics as incoherent and unsupportable as any witch doctor’s tale of his own understanding and control of all that is in the heavens and the earth, as I hope I have made abundantly clear above. And on the basis of an argument such as that which I have proposed here, I think that those with scientific and with spiritual orientations can find common ground and engage in fruitful dialogue. But to get there, both sides must recognize that they don’t at present know as much as they think that they do. In other words, what is required of us is that rare thing, informed humility.
Copyright 2012. Robert D. Shepherd. All rights reserved. This note may be distributed freely as long as this copyright notice is retained and the text is unchanged.
LikeLike
Bob,
With all respect, and I mean it, that is intellectual onanism taken to its most useless degree.
Human thinking, watching, studying, and examining in the actual world has discovered many things that explain many other things, things that explain physical causation and results in, you know, the world the rest of us live in.
That is information, such as how stars form and how many different phenomena have appeared and taken shape as life, and what that teaches us about where we are heading, to the extent anything can.
And there is more wonder in that than in all the intellectual circle jerks of the academy’s best exemplars.
It’s news we can use.
LikeLike
LOL. Glad you liked it.
LikeLike
So, do you think that my basic thesis is wrong, JSR? It seems to me OBVIOUS from comparative zoology that all animals, INCLUDING US, have particular and SEVERELY LIMITED access to what is actually going on because our perceptual apparatuses and our cognitive processing have, together, the ability to grok only a tiny sliver of it. The key takeaway is that we must be humble about our ideas about ultimate realities. As we continue to build prostheses to see more and more of the universe (spectrographs that reveal more of the electromagnetic spectrum, for example), that access will expand (and has expanded). Where, in your view, is the flaw in my argument? Yes, we understand what we understand, sort of. And ancients understood the motions of the sun. It was a fiery chariot being driven across the sky. ROFL.
LikeLike
I don’t buy it as an operating principle. It’s a perspective through which Iittle can be accomplished, and no questions actually answered.
And it’s time wasting.
LikeLike
LOL. But the logic of the argument is impeccable. I think that Atheism, like almost all religion, is not defensible. It pretends to knowledge that we do not have. There is a difference in saying, “There was no creator” or “There is no God” or “There are no Gods,” and saying, “We have no actual evidence that there was a creator” or “We have no actual evidence that there is a God or Gods.” The latter statements are true. The former statements go beyond the evidence.
LikeLike
Atheism, for me, is an evidence-based conclusion.
And I prefer to decide things on evidence, not the imaginings of hopelessly ignorant (by necessity) sheep.
LikeLike
Evidence that there is no god is equivalent to evidence that there are no other intelligent life forms in the galaxy. Both are lacking. Do not confuse speculation and evidence.
LikeLike
But yes, there are billions of sheep.
LikeLike
Homework: Figure out what questions are answered by the perspective I have shared, list those, and see if they are useless or of no importance. Try to imagine what kinds of uses that perspective has. Naive realism is just that, naive.
LikeLike
Endless speculations are simply a form of masturbation.
LikeLike
Endless speculations GAVE US modern science.
LikeLike
And you will really love this, which provides a counterexample, completely compatible with our contemporary science, to the unwarranted speculation that no god, or godlike entity, could possibly exist:
A Brief Explanation of Everything. You’re Welcome. | Bob Shepherd | Praxis (wordpress.com)
LikeLike
Is that supposed to be negative?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s an argument against time-wasting.
LikeLike
Stop knocking my hobbies
LikeLike
Haaaaa!
LikeLike
ROFL
LikeLike
I really do not want to have to spell out the myriad ways in which the perspective I’ve shared in that essay is practically and theoretically useful. You are smart enough to figure these out yourself. You clearly haven’t thought much about this. You simply dismissed it out of hand. That often happens when people are confronted with what are for them new perspectives. They don’t initially grok their application.
LikeLike
I am quite impressed by your ability to divine my thoughts and motivations.
LikeLike
And I present my argument as a foil for the stuff that Harris does. Harris simply restates, and not terribly well, the arguments typically made by people who reject religion. I could have written the book he wrote about religion when I was freaking 15 years old, and I would not have thought it publishable because it is so received and derivative and obvious to lots of folks who are open to criticism of religion.
LikeLike
Show me ONE–ONE–original idea in Harris’s book. And his book on Free Will is even worse. It’s pure assertion, and it simply rehashes what others have said. And it offers no solid philosophical critiques of the many free will positions held by professional philosophers. He clearly does not read much philosophy. It’s better than reading a book on, say, astrophysics or poetics by Donald Trump, but not much better.
LikeLike
A hint: People in Congress who deny funding for something like a new supercollider or a device for capturing gravitational waves do not grok that these are attempts to further extend our access to parts of the universe to which we currently have no access. Is that kind of thing valuable? Well, thiink about what happened when we gained access to radio waves and microwaves and X-rays. LOL.
LikeLike
to these things that we could not, formerly, perceive
LikeLike
The universe that we can sense is not THE ACTUAL UNIVERSE. LOL. It’s a tiny bit of it, because of our cognitive and perceptual limitations. We can’t see dark matter. We perceive certain wavelengths as certain colors. Not because they ARE those colors, but because we are set up to perceive them in that way. And we are set up not to see any but that tiny sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible light. The rest of it, for almost all of human history, was COMPLETELY UNKNOWN TO US BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE PERCEPTUAL ACCESS TO IT. There’s much, much more where that came from. LOL.
LikeLike
In fact, a lot of our current science involves denying our intuitions and what we ordinarily perceive. Quantum entanglement across vast distances, where a change in the spin of an electron instantaneously changes that of a sister electron light years ago. Time dilation of clocks on craft orbiting the Earth. That kind of thing.
LikeLike
Much of the “wonder” of science has been precisely about figuring out the mechanisms that we cannot directly sense, that are not in any “actual world” in that sense. For example, the fact that gravity bends time and space and that that’s why objects orbit around one another in space. NO ONE CAN SEE THAT BENDING DIRECTLY. It was figured out as a possibility, and then and only then was evidence found to cooperate it (the bending of light around the sun measured during an eclipse).
LikeLike
cx: that access has and will expand
LikeLike
Together, dark matter and dark energy make up almost 95% of our entire universe. And we cannot directly sense either one of these. No notion what they are. We just posit them because of measured expansion and gravitational effects.
LikeLike
cx: light years away, ofc. LOL.
LikeLike
jrstheta– I don’t understand your criticism. As you say, “Human thinking, watching, studying and examining in the actual world has discovered many things that explain many other things, things that explain physical causation… That is information, such as how stars form…”
Yes, indeed. But our watching, studying etc is useless unless we accept the idea that there are realities beyond what our senses can perceive. The scientist says, I need to be able to perceive more than what I can see, in order to explain the physical causation of a phenomenon I can observe but cannot explain. So he knows some sort of instrument needs to be developed in order to perceive more. &/ or, he needs to develop a hypothesis– perhaps many hypotheses, and test out each one, to find one that works every time, that leads him to what sort of thing he cannot see is causing this, then develop instruments that allow him to observe either that thing directly, or its effects on everything around it, etc etc. Learning how stars form could never have happened without many iterations of such thought processes, and the development of technology to observe further, and so on. It all starts from assuming there is more out there than I can perceive with my senses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Ginny. Exactly.
LikeLike
You are missing the point ENTIRELY.
LikeLike
Your point is that speculation about matters that we are currently ignorant of or currently cannot know is “mental masturbation.” That’s simply false. I have encouraged you to think about the practical and theoretical uses of such speculation, including its roles in science and philosophy. I’ve given you examples. Ginny has given you examples. Doubtless our AIs will also soon be put to this task. Please note as well that an important part of military intelligence operations is running scenarios based upon various levels of unknowns. Our science strives to understand how the universe works. Part of doing that is understanding the limits of knowledge and the open design space for explanations.
LikeLike
Not even close.
LikeLike
You say, “It’s news we can use,” which suggests that you approve of “useful” perspectives. Ginny and I just described to you several ways in which my perspective in that essay is useful. And I invited you to think of others.
You say that such a perspective is “time wasting,” but if it leads to scientific discovery and preparedness, as I have shown above, it is hardly time wasting.
You say that your perspective is “evidence-based,” but I provided the evidence supporting my view (limitations and comparison of the cognitive and perceptual abilities of various creatures).
Speculation is intellectual masturbation. I explained that an enormous part of doing philosophy and science is speculation. One considers unproven but possible hypotheses to explain phenomena.
You say that the perspective I have advanced “answers not questions,” but in fact, it provides an answer to the question, can we prove that there are no entities in the universe with powers that we would call godlike. The answer is an emphatic no. It also provides a rational basis for an epistemology, which goes a long way toward answering such questions as, how much do we know and is there a design space for expanding our knowledge worth exploring?
You have mentioned the dependencies of what we know (“things that explain many other things”). I do not see how this is an argument against my perspective as outlined in that essay. Yes, many of our scientific observations and theories are mutually supporting. That’s part of any reasonable definition of “scientific theory,” that it is made up of mutually supporting ideas, and of course that’s true of science as a whole. Our understanding of fundamental physics supports our understanding of astronomy. Our understanding of chemistry supports our understanding of biology. And so on.
You say that Ginny and I are “not even close” to understanding your point. Have I not described your various points above? If there is some argument you have presented that I have not addressed, please share this with me because I am quite interested. I care about this topic a lot. I have long read and thought about epistemology and the foundations of science.
LikeLike
Our new large-language-model AIs. Our old ones have been at this since AI was invented.
LikeLike
I always found it amusing, in a very darkly humorous way, that Ronald Reagan professed to hate the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalism generally but a) armed Iran and b) held exactly the same core beliefs as did (and do) the Taliban, but with different names attached.
Mike Johnson, Tommy Tuberville, Marjory Taylor Greene? Moms for Liberty [sic]? DeSantid? American Taliban.
LikeLike
These things I know:
1. The religions that originated thousands of years ago were gropings by superstitious, primitive peoples toward understanding their lives and the universe around them. They were reacting to but misunderstood very real, inescapable, totally weird, and totally not understood phenomena like consciousness–phenomena that they understood so poorly that they didn’t even have names for them.
2. Those religions are wrong about almost everything. Of course they are. And given that, it’s astonishing that they persist into the modern era. That in itself should give us pause. They are fulfilling needs.
3. Modern scientific materialist determinism, derived from Lucretius and Laplace, is also wrong. Those who still hold such a view need to learn more science.
LikeLike
I wish that Americans knew and understood more about Buddhism and Shinto.
LikeLike
I wish fundamentalists knew something about Christianity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
IKR? They totally don’t grok JC. And they rarely know their own sacred text very well because most of them can barely read.
LikeLike
So, what purposes do religions serve? Well, here is an overview of many of the major theories about that:
Theories of the Origins of Religion | Bob Shepherd | Praxis (wordpress.com)
LikeLike
I lost one friend to a cult. I have a friend who was involved with the infamous Children of God. I was recently involved in rescuing yet another friend from a cult. I have some experience of this.
The EZ Guide to Becoming a Cult Leader | Bob Shepherd | Praxis (wordpress.com)
LikeLike
Do you know why the Children of God, aka the Family International, was infamous?
LikeLike
was and is infamous
LikeLike
I had a good friend who described himself as a part of the group for a time in the early 70s. He thought they were frightening.
LikeLike
My friend was brought up in various cult homes around the world. At the age of 14, in one of their homes in Tokyo, she was engaged in “Flirty Fishing” for the group–which is the term they gave to attracting donors to the group by coming onto them on the street and then sleeping with them. Before that she was sexually abused as a child by many members of the cult in keeping with the teachings of the founder, David Berg, who called himself “Moses.”
LikeLike
As annoyed as I am by the non stop requests for donations from politicians and 501Cs. The one organization I never forget to donate to is Americans United Against Church and State.
LikeLike
Noble Prize winner José Saramago, a Portuguese novelist, wrote Baltasar and Blimunda. It takes place early in the 18th century, during the Inquisition. Reading it clarified for me how potent – and how absurd – organized religion is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Vast Unseen and the Vast Unseeable: Reconciling Belief and Nonbelief | Bob Shepherd | Praxis (wordpress.com)
LikeLike
Hi Bob: Just a quick note having enjoyed your long (self-citation) here regarding:
“ . . . the functional structures of the mind are, in part, an operating system enabling the creation of that interface based upon incoming data; are, in part, processors of data; and are, in part, storage systems for temporal states of that data. (NB: These are probably not so easily separable, for brains are not constructed like computers.)“
The “functional structure” is a set of four generalized but concretely operating question-types through which one processes all “data,” and all of which are identifiable and verifiable knowable.
The missing pieces in most if not all philosophical discourses are (1) the concrete source of your idea of humility–we do not know what we do not know, though we keep striving to do so, which is a clue in itself.
(2) The dynamism of reality (in the far larger question of being) and from insiders to being, one’s dynamic knowing relationship with the real . . . as incrementally comprehensive of (I suppose one could use Kant’s term noumenon here, but the rest is way off course–as you also suggest, how does anyone know that there is something we cannot know on principle?)
(3) That the imagination, percepts, concepts, even artistic expressions, are at the service of one’s inborn intelligent functions and one’s also-inborn desire to understand and know correctly. Insights-to-understanding (not Kant-like “intuitions” as a technical but also real difference) that actually occur are the catalysts of the unseen/intelligible-meaningful, and empirical critical evidence-gathering is our coming to know reality aka real being. And,
(4) The correlate in the object to one’s intelligent intentions, activities, and functions, none of which are sensible, is the object’s intelligibility that “means” to us through our intelligent functions.
The fundamental key to understand has to do with a corrected cognitional theory (based on identified functions). It is that all sensible objects are also intelligible (as are all data) and, if so, then one understands nothing by merely sensing it; and data are not sensible but are already distinguished and isolated forms/intelligibilities by one’s correlate intelligent functions. If so, then, one understands and comes to know the intelligible-meaningful through one’s intelligent functions; and sensing the sensible, though its own I-M is a part of metaphysical reality, is (as you suggest i.n your note) but a thin strip of what’s actually going on.
I wasn’t going to respond, but I wanted you to know how enamoured I was with your note. (I have plenty of citations and much writing also–a main source again is Bernard Lonergan’s work on “Insight: A Study of Human Understanding” (2000) and his other works and collections, but also my own: “Finding the Mind: Pedagogy for Verifying Cognitional Theory” (2011) (overwritten, but solid). CBK
LikeLike
I’m sorry, CBK, but I am having a difficult time following much of your note. First, in his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant uses the term “pure” in the sense of “not related to the senses.” He asserts, contra Hume and Locke, and correctly, I think, that there are things we can infer about the mind’s functions that are not entirely and absolutely derivable from sensory experience, and in doing so, he anticipated a lot of contemporary (to us) cognitive science. So, by observing that kids of, say, five or six, have an astonishing number (millions?) of rules that their brains unconsciously apply when producing and understanding language and by observing that these rules are not all explicitly taught to the child, we can infer, as Chomsky did, that a lot of language is hard-wired in the head. We cannot directly sense that hard-wired language, but we can definitely infer its existence. The conclusion is not derived directly from sensory experience but is warranted as explanation of phenomena that are sensed. Second, many of our “functions” and “activities” are in fact observable by our senses. Third, you say that you are not using “intelligible” in the Kantian sense of “pure reason” (i.e., capabilities of the mind (e.g., the Kantian “categories”) that we can infer from its actions but that are not directly observable), but I cannot for the life of me figure out what you mean by that if it is not these Kantian inferences about the mind that are transcendental in Kant’s unique sense of being inferable though not directly sensed.
LikeLike
Bob: I need to put this aside and come back to it later. I probably should have just said I enjoyed reading your note. Thanks for responding, however. CBK
LikeLike
To clarify, Kant argued at length in The Critique of Pure Reason that we can infer certain characteristics of the mind that we cannot directly observe from observing how it operates. Oh, it does this, so it must have this characteristic.
LikeLike
Bob: Oh, well I got drawn in, but I’m turning off my computer after I send this note. And this is the wrong place to be discussing anything more than cursory or “commonsense” philosophical concerns anyway.
“Second, many of our ‘functions’ and ‘activities’ are in fact observable by our senses.”
The point here is that nothing is “observable by our senses” alone. Observation is already intelligence on the move, on the directly sensible (or not), inquiring about the intelligibility of the sensible. Or as Lonergan puts it below,
“To speak of an act of seeing involves a violent abstraction. Seeing occurs within a context of other conscious acts. There is an emotional context, a conative context, an intellectual context, an imaginative context, as well as the total context of the movement of the body. . . Correlative with the seeing there occurs a whole number of other movements in the body, and in the eyes especially–focusing the eyes. . . . And there are other more recondite things such as . . . desires and purely intellectual and volitional elements. Consequently, instead of speaking of single acts, one has to consider the flow of consciousness, the orientation of consciousness. (Collected Works/ Lonergan 18, p. 285)
The metaphysical “missing pieces” are (1) a confusion of reality with being (they are intimate but not the same); and (2) in the imaginative context where one imagines oneself in relationship to reality (at the core of our self-other understanding), there is a displacement of oneself (and all human beings) as somehow standing outside of the real (confused with being) “looking” in and so AT it (as merely sensible).
If you want to take this offline, we can do that, but I think we should be done here. We are dealing with some very basic issues that are, for most of us, existentially felt. This is not the place for it. CBK
LikeLike
Agree entirely with all of this.
LikeLike
And this is the wrong place to be discussing anything more than cursory or “commonsense” philosophical concerns anyway.
I know of no such place.
LikeLike
Jonathan Swift nailed the religious folk and their freaking holy wars (and raids on school boards and legislation in the US today) in this gloriously funny passage of Gulliver’s Travels:
It is allowed on all hands, that the primitive way of breaking eggs before we eat them, was upon the larger end; but his present Majesty’s grandfather, while he was a boy, going to eat an egg, and breaking it according to the ancient practice, happened to cut one of his fingers. Whereupon the Emperor his father published an edict, commanding all his subjects, upon great penalties, to break the smaller end of their eggs.
It is computed, that eleven thousand Persons have, at several times, suffered Death, rather than submit to break their Eggs at the smaller End. Many hundred large Volumes have been published upon this Controversy: But the books of the Big-Endians hav long been forbidden, and the whole Party rendered incapable by Law of holding Employments.
The Emperor, to prevent any further discord, issued an edict, enjoining all his subjects, upon great penalties, to break the smaller end of their eggs. The people so highly resented this law, that our histories tell us, there have been six rebellions raised on that account; wherein one Emperor lost his life, and another his crown. These civil commotions were constantly fomented by the monarchs of Blefuscu; and when they were quelled, the exiles always fled for refuge to that Empire. It was computed that eleven thousand persons have at several times suffered death, rather than submit to break their eggs at the smaller end. Many hundred large volumes have been published upon this controversy: but the books of the Big-Endians have been long forbidden, and the whole party rendered incapable by law of holding employments. During the course of these troubles, the Emperors of Blefuscu did frequently expostulate by their ambassadors, accusing us of making a schism in religion, by offending against a fundamental doctrine of our great prophet Lustrog, in the fifty-fourth chapter of the Blunderal (which is their Alcoran). This, however, is thought to be a mere strain upon the text; for the words are these: ‘That all true believers break their eggs at the convenient end.’
LikeLike
you cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs on the wrong end
LikeLike
Speaking of religious experiences,
The cicadas are coming. Some will be infected with a fungus called Massospora that flood the insects with amphetamines and psilocybin. This is not painful to them, but it does make them want to party.
I’m seriously not making this up. See this:
MSN.COM
LikeLike
Lots of thought provoking content, Bob, including bracing for the psychedelic cicadas!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fascinating, huh?
LikeLike
I was 12 when I came to the same conclusion and divorced all religions.
There may be a few tiny sects that are not destructive but the big ones, the ones with most of the power, are always destructive one way or another.
Starting in 1999 after my first trip to China, I deep dived into China’s history and culture for more than a decade. Anyone is free to correct me, but I learned that China has had a continuous unbroken civilization for more than 3,000 years. Powerful organized religions have never managed to gain political power in China like what we see throughout the rest of the world
Dynasties changed names, there were famines, rebellions, wars, but never a total collapse like what happened after Rome fell. The Chinese managed to hang on to the culture no matter who ruled them.
There was one emperor, the only woman who was proclaimed emperor in her own right with her own dynasty, who was a devout buddhist and buddhism gained political power because of her, but when she died, so did whatever political power some buddhists that she favored held.
The Taiping Rebellion in the middle of China’s 18th century, maybe the bloodiest rebellion in human history, was an attempt to turn China into a Christian nation. That rebellion failed and some estimates say a hundred million may have died to eradicate the Taipings. At one point, Jesus Christ’s younger Chinese brother (that’s what the failed Confucian scholar and converted Chinese Christian claimed) ruled over a large section of China. There’s a book about that. It’s called God’s Chinese Son.
LikeLike
Good morning Diane and everyone,
Funny. I’m coming to LOVE all religions. When I hold them all lightly (meaning not attaching to any of them AND attaching to all of them), I can walk peacefully among them all. At their very core they all point to the truth of who we are in our very deepest nature. Myth, metaphor and symbol are some of the ways I’ve come to know myself in a deep way. And letting go of myth, metaphor and symbol is another way I’ve come to know myself deeply. 🙂
LikeLike
Mamie,
I don’t dislike religion as such. I respect the right of everyone to their beliefs. What I find objectionable is the orthodox element in most religions. They are rigid and believe they are right and everyone else is wrong.
LikeLike
Of course, Diane, I understand. I think people can become one-sided and believe their absolute certainty in any area. Religion is one of those areas. Science is another. Nationalism, materialism, capitalism – almost every -ism is a place to attach one’s ego and inflate one’s certainty. 🙂
LikeLike
bingo
LikeLike
Diane: “. . . rigid and believe they are right and everyone else is wrong.”
I think Bob’s idea of humility is relevant here (in his long note above) speaking about scientists, but certainly (ahem) not ONLY scientists.
But when I hear such “attitudes” coming through, I tend to think it is evidence that, instead of seeking God, the speaker thinks they are God, though they would deny it in a heartbeat. But then, if the shoe fits . . .
And when one’s relationship with God (however one thinks) gets muddled, it usually means that one’s relationship with oneself and with others also becomes muddled.
I have resorted to telling my “family member,” who cannot help but try to “convert” me no matter what, that she is spiritually deformed. . . . not well-received, however, as you might imagine. CBK
LikeLike
Omnitheism based on the idea that these do not make actual claims about the universe, that they are all simply poetry, is one oasis. Been there. Enjoyed it.
LikeLike
But here’s the problem with that approach: religions make actual claims about the physical world that are NOT symbolic or metaphorical. For example, the opening of Gensis invokes the “firmament” above us. That’s because cultures in the Middle East at the time LITERALLY believed that the sky was a dome held up by pillars and that the stars were stuck in it like raisins in a pudding and that behind the dome was water. When the Bible speaks of Joshua commanding the sun to stand still, it’s because people believed that the sun was an object that traveled across the sky. Not symbolic.
LikeLike
And we know that these were not symbolic notions but literal ones because they were common among people in those times and places. That’s what people thought to be the case, literally.
LikeLike
Hi Bob,
Yes, in some religions they know their gods and symbols to be metaphors for the transcendent. They did not take them literally.
LikeLike
Here’s what happens. People DESPERATELY want to hold onto their superstitions, so they take what was believed literally by the people who cooked up their scriptures and rationalize it by calling it poetry when it wasn’t. That’s the usual shtick. The earliest Buddhist scriptures, however, are devoid of discussion of the miraculous. Perhaps that’s what you mean by “in some religions.”
LikeLike
THIS: Every -ism is a place to attach one’s ego and inflate one’s certainty. Man gave names to all the animals, in the beginning, a long time ago. Was he right? Was he wrong? A bull by any other name would shit, just the same. Godly and ungodly. Worshipers and infidels. Saved and unsaved. Redeemed and rejected. Resurrected and damned. Sacred versus secular. Pious versus profane. Godliness versus worldliness. Agape versus Eros. Heaven versus hell. Man gave names to all the beliefs, in the beginning, a long time ago. Was he right? was he wrong? Man concocted the words. Man concocted the word rules. Man concocted the word police. Was he right? Was he wrong?
LikeLike
Sigh.
The war in Gaza is about power, and control of land. Just as Netanyahu’s party politics are about national policy, not about “being Jewish,” or “Jews vs Muslims.” There’s a long history in the region of land grabs, with folks seen from one side as “settlers” and the other as “invaders,” just as everywhere throughout history.
This is even clearer in the case of N Ireland, dating from massive early 17thC influx of N English and Scots– and another bunch in the late 17thC– to the old, native Catholic Ulster province. Even today, the descendants of those “Ulster Protestants” [a 2:1 majority by the time N Ireland was established as such] constitute 43% of the population. To call their wars and skirmishes “religious” is just wrong.
And now for a deep dive into Safavid Iran, 1501-1736. There’s plenty of economics and politics underpinning Ismail I’s choosing to force his new & quickly growing empire to convert to Shia. The Safavid order itself descended in 1301 from Kurdish Sufi Sunnis in NW Iran– timing more or less halfway between the conquest/ massacres by Genghis Khan from their West and the economic devastation wrought by Timur from their East. No surprise the Safavid order became more militant and economically/ politically motivated than its traditional Sufi roots would imply. But the sharp modern Sunni-Shia politics of today do not backfit well to 14th-early 15thC Iran. There were close ties between them in the NW Iran back then, & sufficient common religious strands for Safavids to eventually transit to Shia. And Shia a mighty handy choice for Ismail I, establishing a unique and separate national identity for an Iran just beginning to be controlled by Iranians again– lying right between the Ottoman & Uzbec Sunni empires on either flank.
LikeLike
Goodbye Daniel Dennett, who is with Kurt in heaven now, lol. I loved arguing the Dan.
Philosophical Zombies with Chairs in Philosophy of Mind | Bob Shepherd | Praxis (wordpress.com)
LikeLike
Sorry to harp on this, but I continue to see crazier and crazier stuff on video coming from Columbia. Here’s a chant exhorting the Al-Qassam Brigades (Hamas’s military) to “burn Tel Aviv to the ground,” and “Hamas, we love you / we support your rockets, too.”
https://x.com/jcandersonnyc/status/1782395925815538079?s=46&t=vV_4bJ7GuABaalzetJofQA
LikeLike
Disgusting
LikeLike
Although it was quite popular (initially) in Congress, the second Iraq war was always opposed by a substantial chunk of the public (which grew significantly after the war started), and universally among those on the far left. A war that killed perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians, led directly by the U.S., against international law. But there were no sustained demonstrations in NYC with the intensity and frankly deranged animosity that I’ve seen at “free Palestine” rallies over the last six months in NYC. Anti-semitism isn’t the whole story but it is definitely part of it.
LikeLike
This is surely the case, Flerp, and it’s horrific.
LikeLike
As you say, the Second Iraq War violated the most fundamental international law–violation of the territorial integrity of a sovereign UN state, and a slew of other international laws, such as those preventing the targeting of civilians, of civilian infrastructure, and of cultural monuments. It was illegal, and those who ordered–Shrub and his crew–and oversaw it are war criminals. If there were any justice, they would be in the dock at the International Court of Criminal Justice. And yes, it was horrifying that there was not more protest against it. It was pure evil and based upon entirely faked, cooked up, phony intel.
LikeLike
The civilian death tolls were higher, the international law violation was clearer, and the U.S. wasn’t just funding it, it was actually doing it!
LikeLike
Exactly, FLERP!
LikeLike