Expand Quote
Interesting point, a few questions arose within my mind while reading this.
Why would the physical processes of the brain, that powers the mind, cancel out the mind's ability to alter and even create physical reality via the ideal?
Isn't Quantum Physics a metaphysical system of science? Dose that make many of the claims and theories of Quantum Physicists false? I've just gotten into the whole quantum physics reality and much of it actually makes me hyped on the possibility of a supreme being or mind, is that an improper interpretation of what Quantum Physics is dealing with?
I enjoy reading myths because they use the language of the imagination to explain things, concepts and even reality itself in a way similar to art, music, plays and so on. Sometimes the explanation is obscure other times pretty plain (it depends on the imagery). Dose the use of this language make the things they are explaining false? Is it the use of this language that makes myths false? Do myths even qualify as being either true of false? Ex. Art is neither true or false.
Isn't the truth relative in a way? It seems to be pretty dependent on one's ability to perceive it isn't it? Is not faith a faculty of reason? Isn't it faith (the assurance of things hoped for and yet to be seen) that part of our reasoning ability that helps us to continue pursuing a matter until we get to the truth of it?
The reason I say that faith may be a faculty of reason rather than an alternative is because I don't think faith can function properly without reason, I believe it would cease to be faith and mutate into delusion.
I think you're right that mind is causally efficacious on the material world and mind does create matter (we add to the periodic table).
But, even if true, mind is still dependent on the physical.
The metaphysical question is whether mind explains matter (most religions) or whether matter explains mind (physicalism)
And even if the mind does things in the world - the evidence is overwhelming that matter is fundamental, so religions are not the case.
I don't know the arguments for gods in quantum mechanics. But God has free will - chooses ends then acts.
Quantum mechanics is chance/probabilities, so no will (if everything you did was random, we wouldn't think you were choosing anything)
And general relativity is deterministic, so no freedom
So, I don't think you get God from science, since no physical events are best explained by purposeful acts to some end, but by the absence of purposeful acts (probabilities or determinism)
You're right about myth, but it is taken literally or in some way true by theists. And I'm arguing against them.
Art doesn't usually make propositions, so no truth value. But myth does (Earth was made in such way), so it can have a truth value.
But myth does have other functions than truth claims.
Faith is often commitment to conclusions despite the evidence. Reason accepts conclusions given the evidence. So I still see a difference.
But I might not understand what you're saying.
Hmmm, Do you think the mind (basically our metaphysic selves) can somehow
transcend matter?
Also there is substantial evidence that the mind and how and what we perceive, actually determines how matter behaves. Many quantum scientist have been tripping out that light waves and particles will behave differently depending on how they are observed and that electrons only appear when researchers are looking at them. This kind of leads me to believe that physical and metaphysical reality are just two sides of the same coin. Could that be that the case?
And if so, could the physical world actually be functioning according to an underlying uniform purpose some scientist just can't see as purposeful because they simply don't
want to?
As an artist I would have to disagree that art dose not make propositions, its very purpose is to propose
something, wether it be profound, absurd or nothing at all. "telling the truth through lies." Which is why its kinda neither but at the same time both. Two things at once, kind of quantum...hmmm
So aren't our myths the same? Almost all our television shows, movies, plays, music, video games spring in some shape of form from our collective
old mythology. I think our collective mythology may be the exegesis of our collective mind, of who we are, what we are, the gnarly as well as the rad. I kind of see them as the true lies of where we probably came from and where we are
probably going in some yet to be
determined way.
Maybe religion was a way to utilise those
true lies in order to overcome the issues of mind over matter people so desperately needed back when matter was almost mind crushingly dominant. Now that we've had a little while (in the 20th-21 centuries) for some of our minds to breath a little the religion is no longer needed by some though the edifice is quite useful to others, but the problem it tried to solve has only gotten more significant- as of now we are facing the very real possibility of extinction within our lifetime. Though the race is on to beat it, death is still coming for us.
So, is this
really the best time for us to be shedding a huge part of what and who we are as a species,
especially knowing that the segment of our population that corrupted and
continue to corrupt not just religion, but every aspect of human culture for their own selfish and strange desires stand to benefit the most from us doing so?
Can't we just take our religions out of the temples of the corrupt and place them back into the hearts of the enlightened to the benefit of us all?
Or is it too late?
Oops, sorry for not explaining that last point clearly, basically what I was saying is that I think faith may not work properly without reason. I see it more as a commitment to continue gathering evidence for a conclusion yet to be reached.
Topic: Jamie vs. Ed (Read 17641 times)