Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree by focusing on suffering.
I think I would only be "barking up the wrong tree" if I didn't care about suffering. But I do care about it. I think it is safe to say that suffering - the possibility of it, the nature of it, and the meaning of it - is foundational to the concept of morality. If suffering were not a possibility, would we need morality? Maybe...but I suspect not. It's debatable. In any case, some very bad psychopathologies are associated with human minds that don't properly comprehend suffering.
Quote:
The concept of suffering is really an invention of man's mind and has no objective definition.
I'm not convinced that suffering is an invention of the human mind, but even if it is: Just because something is an invention of the human mind, it does not follow that it has no objective reality. (Or, if you want to get picky: just because something has no objective definition, it does not follow that it has no objective reality.) I'd say that subjective experiences are objective facts of reality, even if we can't define them, or prove their existence in purely objective terms.
In any case, I think that my central question is important for humans, even if it is not important to goldfish, gardenias, or God. And I'm human, so I like barking at this tree, even if I look a bit silly doing it.
I think I would only be "barking up the wrong tree" if I didn't care about suffering. But I do care about it. I think it is safe to say that suffering - the possibility of it, the nature of it, and the meaning of it - is foundational to the concept of morality. If suffering were not a possibility, would we need morality? Maybe...but I suspect not. It's debatable. In any case, some very bad psychopathologies are associated with human minds that don't properly comprehend suffering.
I'm not convinced that suffering is an invention of the human mind, but even if it is: Just because something is an invention of the human mind, it does not follow that it has no objective reality. (Or, if you want to get picky: just because something has no objective definition, it does not follow that it has no objective reality.) I'd say that subjective experiences are objective facts of reality, even if we can't define them, or prove their existence in purely objective terms.
In any case, I think that my central question is important for humans, even if it is not important to goldfish, gardenias, or God. And I'm human, so I like barking at this tree, even if I look a bit silly doing it.
I'm not saying you should not care about suffering. As suffering is a state of mind, so to speak, so also morality is what humans define it to be. We might define evil as intentionally inducing the suffering state of mind in others, and good as helping others to avoid it. The development of these shared definitions is central to our evolution as humans.
I'm not saying you should not care about suffering. As suffering is a state of mind, so to speak, so also morality is what humans define it to be. We might define evil as intentionally inducing the suffering state of mind in others, and good as helping others to avoid it. The development of these shared definitions is central to our evolution as humans.
I doubt that avoiding suffering completely is a healthy attitude. I would amend your statement to "helping others to avoid needless suffering and deal with what is going to come anyway."
I've come across an article that takes an approach to Reality that is very similar to my own. And it gives this approach a name that I will probably adopt: "Agentive cosmopsychism." The author also references a book that I will now need to read.
One place where my theory differs is in the nature of the "cosmic mind."
Quote from the article:
...in my book I suggested that we think of the cosmic consciousness as a kind of ‘mess’ devoid of intellect or reason. However, it now seems to me that reflection on the fine-tuning might give us grounds for thinking that the mental life of the Universe is just a little closer than I had previously thought to the mental life of a human being.
My notion of "qualitative chaos" which I compare to "dreamless sleep" takes a different path, but he goes on to suggest that Reality pursues "value" - and this is something very close to my own view (which I roughly derived from A.N. Whitehead).
I don't have time to say much more, but I wanted to offer a link to the article, in case anyone is interested. BTW: If you are already familiar with the "fine tuning" problem, etc., you can save yourself some time be skipping down to around the middle of the article, where he begins to propose his solution.
Starting with the concept, from both Zen and Quantum Mechanics, that nothing really exists until it is observed and perceived by an intelligent mind, then starting with the Geosphere, the sphere of molecules and minerals, where very little is known and very little is real, we evolve to the Biosphere, where increasing levels of intelligence and consciousness make more of the world "real". Then, evolving into the Noosphere, of human intelligence and beyond, we eventually evolve to what Teilhard called the Omega Point, a state of complete consciousness and perfect knowledge. I believe this state is what makes the Universe "real", thus the Geosphere is "created"; a great big cycle:
to comport with the essay you posted I need only place "laws of physics" before Geosphere
My difference with Teilhard is that he saw Omega (Christ) as drawing us toward Him, whereas I see us as becoming Him. Or perhaps that is no difference.
Starting with the concept, from both Zen and Quantum Mechanics, that nothing really exists until it is observed and perceived by an intelligent mind, then starting with the Geosphere, the sphere of molecules and minerals, where very little is known and very little is real, we evolve to the Biosphere, where increasing levels of intelligence and consciousness make more of the world "real". Then, evolving into the Noosphere, of human intelligence and beyond, we eventually evolve to what Teilhard called the Omega Point, a state of complete consciousness and perfect knowledge. I believe this state is what makes the Universe "real", thus the Geosphere is "created"; a great big cycle:
to comport with the essay you posted I need only place "laws of physics" before Geosphere
My difference with Teilhard is that he saw Omega (Christ) as drawing us toward Him, whereas I see us as becoming Him. Or perhaps that is no difference.
I can't agree. (Yes, i read this stuff even if I don't post ) Reality exists even if not a single living creature was alive to Observe it. It becomes 'Real' for us when we see (or learn) that it is there, but that is a different concept altogether. What we 'know' what we believe (rightly or wrongly) and what we don't know does not (on all logic and evidence) determine the reality.
The solipsistic universe and the brain in a vat does not look credible. Reality apart from the human imaginings about it is the better hypothesis.
I've come across an article that takes an approach to Reality that is very similar to my own. And it gives this approach a name that I will probably adopt: "Agentive cosmopsychism." The author also references a book that I will now need to read.
One place where my theory differs is in the nature of the "cosmic mind."
Quote from the article:
...in my book I suggested that we think of the cosmic consciousness as a kind of ‘mess’ devoid of intellect or reason. However, it now seems to me that reflection on the fine-tuning might give us grounds for thinking that the mental life of the Universe is just a little closer than I had previously thought to the mental life of a human being.
My notion of "qualitative chaos" which I compare to "dreamless sleep" takes a different path, but he goes on to suggest that Reality pursues "value" - and this is something very close to my own view (which I roughly derived from A.N. Whitehead).
I don't have time to say much more, but I wanted to offer a link to the article, in case anyone is interested. BTW: If you are already familiar with the "fine-tuning" problem, etc., you can save yourself some time be skipping down to around the middle of the article, where he begins to propose his solution.
Thanks, Gaylen. You know I am interested. Both you and Goff are circling around my view of God because you seem unnecessarily concerned about the traditional attributes assigned to God. Your adherence to euphemism accurately predicts your choice of a name for God as the basis of our Reality - "Agentive cosmopsychism." Unfortunately, it too closely mirrors that mistaken traditional notion of God's Will. Why is it necessary to assign willfulness to the EXISTENCE of God (hence the existence of our Reality)? Is it not sufficient to concern ourselves with the procreation and growth of our Reality?
The pursuit of value as the basic motive force of our Reality coincides with my view of the nature of God as Agape or Maitri. This goal would explain the need for reproducing sentience to develop this state of consciousness by overcoming and enduring the vicissitudes of existence (esp. suffering and evil). The idea of a constrained God is anathema to the religious theists who have demanded that their God possess the Omni's, but it is completely consistent with my view and understanding of God. It is why I accept but cannot reconcile the "red in tooth and claw" aspect of existence.
Our scientific efforts are limited to investigations of how existence operates and is maintained not why. Our science is precluded from any deeper insights except by using our own existence and mind as a surrogate. That is why I suggest that philosophy and the physics of our imagination hold the key to understanding God at the level you and Goff, et al. seem to be interested in. This is why I am so grateful for my experiences. They allay any need to reconcile completely the sterile Reality of science with God just to accept God's existence and desire for Agape. My plausible hypotheses are more than sufficient for me.
I can't agree. (Yes, i read this stuff even if I don't post ) Reality exists even if not a single living creature was alive to Observe it. It becomes 'Real' for us when we see (or learn) that it is there, but that is a different concept altogether. What we 'know' what we believe (rightly or wrongly) and what we don't know does not (on all logic and evidence) determine the reality.
The solipsistic universe and the brain in a vat does not look credible. Reality apart from the human imaginings about it is the better hypothesis.
As I said, I get it from both Zen and Quantum Mechanics. An example of the first is the old question about a tree falling in the woods if no one is there to hear. My initial reaction was, of course, I don't doubt that the falling tree set up vibrations in the atmosphere. However, if we define sound as a human perception of those vibrations, then no, it doesn't make a sound. If said vibrations are never perceived or otherwise effect a conscious being, then to say they exist really has no meaning.
The latter is the idea from physics that a particle might be described by an infinite number of waveforms, and these only collapse into one "existing" waveform when the particle is observed. See quantum entanglement and Schroedinger's Cat. I don't know if it's true, but apparently is supported by experimental evidence.
I stopped reading after a couple sentences because any response to you can be summed up as follows - trying to find a logical and rational understanding of the way God works would be to invalidate faith, which goes against the entire concept of trusting Jesus. It's designed that way on purpose. Scripture also states God is entirely unknowable - only elements of himself he has chosen to reveal. The closest representation to God's character and 'being' is personified in the Lord Jesus, whom the world has largely chosen to ignore and blaspheme, thus ignoring and blaspheming God and securing their judgment
In other words, God is irrational so just accept it.
Irrational and confused, poor thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) Reality exists even if not a single living creature was alive to Observe it. It becomes 'Real' for us when we see (or learn) that it is there, but that is a different concept altogether. What we 'know' what we believe (rightly or wrongly) and what we don't know does not (on all logic and evidence) determine the reality. 
