Good point about “inaccessibliyt of the premise”. It can be illustrated with the first premise of the first way of Aquinas: “it is certain, and evident to our sense, that some things are in motion”.
This premise alone is inaccessible to the typical modern reader, who will tend to misunderstand the term ‘motion’ as ‘local motion’ -- change of place from Cartesian point A to point B on in a Newtonian space imagined as an homogenous void containing corporeal bodies. Because of this first misunderstanding, he cannot help but misread the proof from movement to unmoved Mover as a temporal succession of causes to First Cause that is confirmed by the Big Bang science. But this to completely misread the argument from Aquinas, who baptised Aristotle’s Umoved Mover argument. Now of course Aquinas believes time began, because he read it in Genesis. He just did not think it could be know by reason, and consequently the first way is not proving time began. So while the modern reader comes to the proofs with the idea that we know by science time began, and it is an article of faith that God exist, Aquinas writes the proofs from the complimentary position: we now by faith time began, and by reason, God is. And Aristotle, like all good greeks, believed the universe always was. He argued from motion to unmoved mover on assumption time always was. Clearly the first way has /nothing/ to do with big bang cosmology or the question ‘did time begin?’. Yet we modern readers tend to read it that way. At least this one does! What is going on here then? In my own study of the proofs over the decades, that was the first lesson I had to learn, and am still learning: that I do not really understand the first premise. The mystery of motion! What on earth do Aquinas and Aristotle mean by ‘motion’ that the argument from motion is not proving time began? On Aug 11, 9:17 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > So, why are the Materialists or Atheists saying they alone are valid, > > true, correct and, by implication and their crusade, have the sole > > right to exist or occupy the thought and knowledge space in human > > minds ? > > I think that there are two reasons for this, the way the history of > science developed and and a problem at the foundation of ontology. > > The historical problem is that the scientific method was not > abstracted until late in human history. While I believe that there > were always materialists in fact. (You can see it in some of the > attitudes the Roman writers had toward theology. They considered a lot > of the divination and sacrifice to be superstitious bunk - even while > they utilized it to manipulate others. I think that there have always > been those who have thought so and conducted their lives on a > practical basis without resort to divination or religious ceremony, > and even with contempt for those who believe.). But the scientific > revolution that was developed happened only within the last 300 years > or so, and it happened in Europe mainly. (Ok I know there were other > cultures that practiced a form of science but none that are contiguous > with ours nor none that, as far as I am aware, abstracted the > scientific method). This revolution was not independent of a hostility > to religion. In fact when it first was conceived, it was just that. > Read the history on Darwins decision to publish his theory. It is > fascinating. The religious beliefs were not all fundamentalist but > there was no boundary then between the religious and scientific > viewpoints. If you look at the "pre-scientific" world view, for > example the "Great chain of being" you can see the complete blending > of physics and metaphysics. There was no "science" to distinguish from > "non-science". Prior to the scientific revolution there was no > scientific reality so to speak - or rather there was one but as it was > not based on the scientific method it largely failed and resulted in > wrong claims as there was no notion of experimental confirmation - or > a poor one. Instead ideas about how the world worked were mixed in > with religious ideas and not distinguishable. Fundamentalism was not > avoidable. > > It began by taking a look at nature - literally - through a telescope > at the moons of Jupiter for example, and just describing what was > seen. And that process was so productive and led to results which > seemed to contradict so much that was then held to be true that it led > to a revolution in thought. > > That revolution was then met by a virulent response from the political > elite that had been set up. Yes its true that the earth does not go > around the sun, nor does the sun go around the earth but rather one is > the same as the other, and it is also true that at the time of Galileo > there were those who realized this, still what happened in Europe can > only be described as an effort to suppress science and scientists - > maybe not 100% of the time (we do after all, have Mendel) but often - > and with effective threat to their lives and freedom. To a > fundamentalist, and I include modern ones, both religious and secular, > there really is no difference between religion and science. You need > only look at the attempts to suppress the teaching of evolution in the > United States, or taking from the other side, you can look at the > critiques of those like Dawkings which are completely ignorant of the > metaphysics and lack any awareness of genuine religion. Both sides > look at the others "theories" and claim the other is wrong. That is > why I support teaching creationism in science classes. It is a > scientific theory actually and it deserves the sandblasting that it > would gets by the scientific data. It should be taught as one. It > should be taught in terms that completely discredit it of course. I > would oppose vehemently and fire any biology teacher that taught > creationism as valid scientifically but it does not belong outside of > the science class because it is a theory of nature. It is a theory > about the beginning of the physical world. It is a cosmology. In fact, > I think it should be a mandatory part of the curriculum just so no one > is confused. > > So the failure to see the distinction between science and religion, > and the identification of a portion the power elite with the Roman > Catholic church brought on a struggle that is, unfortunately, and to > me unbelievably, still going on. The emergence of secular political > power, the success of the scientific method, and to a large extent the > success of the Protestant reformation in Europe has changed the order > of battle of the debate - the Catholic church's power is much > attenuated, their land is a postage stamp compared with the political > power that it once had, but it is still happening. > > When I consider those like Aquinas or Augustine I realize that they > did not have the benefit of science. Still I wonder how much they > suspected and felt not free to express. I would love to have access to > their thoughts to see to what extent they realized things that they > dare not publish and published things that they suspected were wrong > but knew better that to follow up on as that would have led to an > impossible political situation. I do realize that they did not think > like a scientist and were not involved in what I would call scientific > method but were rather "speaking out of" their religious vision > without regard to nature. Same with Aristotle I am afraid. > > The second problem is much more difficult. I would phrase it like > this: Why do so few people have genuine religious experience? The fact > that that happens is reflected in the religious traditions but the > attempts to explain why are all pre-scientific explanations. The > "fundy's" can argue about about whether Eve ate the apple, or whether > she even existed, to me its obvious that that is not the explanation - > so what is? > > I was once like that. I can remember arguing a form of Occham's razor. > So in a sense all I have to do is to reflect on my own experiences to > see the problem. But why it occurs? What is at its root? Well there > are several approaches. One is the role of meaning and its > relationship to reality. I think that the notion of "positing" > existence and having that posited existence still have properties is > near the root. The whole concept of matter. What matter means is also > in debate in a sense. > > I once studied the proofs of the existence of God in Aristotle and > Aquinas. After careful examination I came to believe that they were > "invalid" in one sense and valid in another. In mathematics when I try > to prove something to you I start with a premise that is acceptable to > all. You certainly agree to it. This is critical. Without it the proof > fails by a criteria call "inaccessibility of the premise". Then I make > a series of arguments that basically derive in turn that cause you to > "If you see this, you now see this" and so on until I arrive at what I > was to prove. Now that characteristic is completely missing in the > proofs. If you understand the meaning of the term "God" and have > experienced God you can understand what they are saying what they are > saying but there does not seem to be a way to gain access to that > initial premise. What does God mean? That is the problem. And the > meaning of what God means also calls into question what meaning means > itself. And language, not just the specifics of a given language but > the linguistics of noun and verb are lacking. It is not just that it > can't be said "literally" in *this* language but in *any* language. > > This has resulted in some extreme measures in for example Zen thought > or in the work of Wittgenstein where perhaps, all rationality, or > attempt at it are deliberately undermined in order to attempt to make > one see or to be faithful to the truth. > > There is something about the "literalizing" that makes statements on > religion very hazardous. If I take your own words: "...that all three > (Unity, Connection, Separation) exist, are there within us, in the > way we are, know, think, believe, feel, and look upon upon others and > themselves. " I can see how a fundy sees them. I can imagine them > trying to define Unity, Connection, or Separation. The first thing > they do right away is remove the capital letters. They just have no > idea on what the capital letters signify. They are right that there is > no thing called Unity in me. How would I measure it? Forget > measurement, how do I even experience it? How do I observe it in the > manner of the scientific "removed observer"? Remember that it is not > usual to have direct religious experience. Absent it how would you > interpret your words. They are litteraly looking for some objective > reality to them. When you say that these thing "exist" you make no > distinction on how you mean "exist". You do, in fairness say "within > us". Now a fundy will see that as being a great relief. At least you > don't *really* think that they "exist" he would say, with the problem > of the meaning of "really" and "exist" causing all of the problem. You > are just talking about something subjective! They will think your > thinking very imprecise at best and that is when they are charitable. > Actually they think its ludicrous mumbo jumbo! As for being "in us" > the closest the scientific world has for that is psychology which > basically has failed at nearly every attempt to integrate the material > into science. That is why there are what are called "hard" and "soft" > sciences. So there is no frame of reference. > > I know that Martin Heideggar was a Nazi and in my book that does call > into question his philosophy at a very deep level and in fact I > believe that what it means is that philosophy alone will never lead to > ethics but it does lead to understanding of ethics that most nearly > approximates fundy thought. In a sense you can, as Thomas Aquinas did, > even define philosophy in a way that limits it to rational thought but > - rational reflection on the limitations of rationality. So I think > the way out of all of this is to focus on the meaning of the word > being. Philosophy is where the rational scientific world collides with > the religious world. I think it is necessary to pursue the debate > through a clarification of the foundations, the intellectual > foundations, underlying both religion and science and abandoning the > silly debates about how the scientific method leads to progress and is > based on something etc. > > What is necessary is to clarify the meaning of statements like "the > appearing of a particle" and "material". Given the linguistic problems > and the inherent trouble for lack of a better word, with coming up > with a linguistic formalism that communicates the experience of the > divine, - sort of like a course or series of courses that results in > divine inspiration - I realize that the program will not easily > succeed. Still, at least we should be able to express why it fails > better. I realize that it is equally hard to understand General > Relativity. But I believe that the problem there is similar but not > the same. In that problem there are a series of steps that can be > taken to master the material. It is not like you study and study and > wham you get it. Instead there are a series of insights that occur one > after another until gradually you can see the theory. But in religion > its not like that. Its more "wham" you get it. > > So that aspect of religious experience, the "ringing of the bell" or > Saul falling off of his horse in insight, or Satori in Zen there is > exactly the same thing in science but it is like they are "little" > insights. For example there is something called the gradient of a > scalar field and I remember finally seeing why something called the > curl of a gradient had to be zero. Its funny because I could have > repeated the proofs prior to that moment but they were like dense and > dark and I really didn't realize what they meant then FLASH and I > knew. What causes that? I don't know. But science is like a ladder > with many steps and religion is like a ladder with only one really big > one. > > Neurology may help. While I don't recommend it LSD has in fact caused > a lot of people to become enlightened. I do think it has been > discredited though as a beneficial way of achieving it and the risk of > harm is real and greater than the benefits too. > > So I think that the atheists or materialist are not saying they are > the only ones with right to be thought. I just think they think that > the religious viewpoint is false - entirely and obviously. In fact for > me that was a big help. At one point the fact that it was so obvious > that religion was bunk made me wonder how so many smart people, people > capable of science, could entertain it and that is why I kept studying > (Come to think of it that is what I think about conservatives > now! ;) ) > > On a bright note I think we are over the hurdle. Materialism - at > least its most uncomprimised form - has been discredited in modern > physics almost entirely. There are no longer people (credible ones > anyway) trying to restore materialism to the wave particle duality nor > are there serious scientists would would say that the world is a > certain way right now - relativity met with initial objections on > philosophical grounds but it is now virtually unchallenged in physics. > And there is realization that the objective viewpoint - or the > subjective-objective viewpoint if you'd like is flawed. There are many > "popularizations". A group like Minds Eye would have been impossible > in the late 1800s I think. So things are getting better. > > Still, I think the academy has some work to do in philosophy. Sadly, > you can be "very educated" even a Nobel Prize winner and be > unenlightened. What is amazing to me is how there are so many major > philosophers at a universities today that are completely > unenlightened. You would thing some experience with the process would > be an entrance criteria. I mean its ok if someone becomes enlightened > and then says that they think that what they experienced was invalid > in some way but to never have even had any experience. That is the > real problem. But again. Where is the verbal formalism that results in > enlightenment in anything like a reliable way. > > I wish there was some way to speak so that what you say could not be > interpreted fundamentally but I have not been able to find it. > I do think that the key to is to find away to express the problems at > the philosophical foundations of both areas. In particular I think > that ontology and hermeneutics are the answer. > > Have fun. > > On Aug 11, 3:48 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:> One > dimension of the perennial debate between Theists and Atheists, > > Spiritualists and Materialists, has been of the kind : > > > There is spirit. Where is the spirit ? > > > There is God. Where is God ? > > > There is One, Whole, Unity. Where is One, Whole, Unity ? > > > Now, dialectically, the discussion goes far but nowhere. So, let me > > place the issue in a familiar context that may perhaps express the > > separation and the connection between these two poles. Here it goes : > > > My Father and I are one. >>> Unity > > > I am the Way. >>> Connection > > > I know not ; only my Father knows. >>> Separation > > > These may not exactly be his quotes but they are what Christ seems to > > have expressed at some point of time or other. What they reveal, if > > indeed they do, is that all three exist, are there within us, in the > > way we are, know, think, believe, feel, and look upon upon others and > > themselves. > > > So, why are the Materialists or Atheists saying they alone are valid, > > true, correct and, by implication and their crusade, have the sole > > right to exist or occupy the thought and knowledge space in human > > minds ? > > > Or, is their crusade merely reactive, historically speaking, against > > the ( highly unreasonable and destructive ) religious crusades and > > millenia - long ( unreasonably subjugatory ) proselytation efforts of > > ( mono ) theists ? > > > Why can't the theists realise that atheism is inevitable and atheists > > see the Whole, the Unity, as Universe surely is, even though it is the > > parts that are apparent to us ? > > > What prevents the understanding, even among people who are so well > > informed, read, educated, and intellectually endowed ? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
