Can Religion and Physics Find Common Ground in Universal Ethics?

[Canute]

Why do you think Buddhism is totally inconsistent with science?

I didn't say totally inconsistent. In many respects they are consistent. But would a Buddhist build a bomb? I think not. Would Buddhists interfere with the world like science? It is a doctrine of non-interference. Science is predicated on physicalism, whereas Buddhism is precisely non-physicalism. There is a long list of differences.

I suppose the the nost obvious inconsistency is that science only deals with third-person observable or measurable phenomena and thus cannot address metaphysical questions. According to science all questions about reality itself are undecidable and 'metaphysical', meaning meta-scientific. By contrast in Buddhism (and its equivalents) such questions have answers, or perhaps resolutions is a better word.

 

[Canute]

One Raven

I agree with much of what you say. You seem a bit hard on Theosophy, which I would say is founded on mysticism rather than a theoretical attempt to distill a number of theories, but I feel you're bang with other comments. E.g. "All these different religions that claim to come from the teachings of Jesus are barely recognizable as related, save for their names and quoting the man." Ditto Mohammed. Also the bit about Abraham and the Vedas.

The mystics in all religious traditions are in agreement with one another. Even Sufis and Christian mystics, who consider themselves to be respectively the true followers of Mohammed and Jesus, following in their footsteps rather than turning their teachings to barren theoretical formulae and dogma, are in complete harmony. Theosophists take the same approach.

Btw I'd be interested to hear more about your writing sometime.

Canute

 

[one_raven]

I didn't say totally inconsistent.

Well, actually you did...

Buddhism is not inconsistent with the scientific evidence, but it totally inconsistent with science, disagreeing with its methods, its metaphysical assumptions, its goals and most of its activities.

But I guess there's no need to be pedantic since you made you point more clear in your second post.

 

[the_truth]

"How so? One could extend that and say people are flawed. And people do science as well as religion."

Because rational debate is the only way to determine whether something is true or not. Everyone from all religions agrees that under certain conditions F=MA. However they all disagree with each other religiously, this is because all of these religions are wrong and they only believe in them, because they are either insane, evil, pretending to or simply don't care whether it's true or not and just go along with everyone else. Otherwise their religions would be able to withstand deabte and we would have found our universal religion.

Some parts of religion are logical, such as that murder should be illegal and things. However you cannot prove god exists or there is a heaven or that Mohammed cured lepers (which we have now cured due to advances in medicine).


"Science (and technology) has created many problems, like nuclear weapons and other WMD. Or how about air and water pollution?"

sorry for the caps but...
I DID NOT SAY SCIENCE IS THE UNIVERSAL RELIGION

Religion causes and solves many problems aswell. Science has done more good however. There is a slight chance that you will have to face nuclear destruction in your life time, but don't expect to die at the age of 30 after a life of agricultural labour and see 80% of your children die before the age of 5. Science has done more than religion and thus clearly is closer to this theoretical universal religion that will do what can be done perfectly to make the world a better place. For instance if the universal religion was discoverred in 1700, what course of action would this new religion take? 20 years of heated scientific programs and experimentation to cure diseases or 20 years of heated theology and bible study?


"What about dissenters? There's some in every crowd?"

There would be dissenters, but they would all be crushed in debate and if they are malicious, becasue the universal religion would be so correct and madness to oppose, they would probably o better to try and corrupt the universal religion instead of opposing it.

 

[Nusc]

Because rational debate is the only way to determine whether something is true or not. Everyone from all religions agrees that under certain conditions F=MA. However they all disagree with each other religiously, this is because all of these religions are wrong and they only believe in them, because they are either insane, evil, pretending to or simply don't care whether it's true or not and just go along with everyone else. Otherwise their religions would be able to withstand deabte and we would have found our universal religion.
... For instance if the universal religion was discoverred in 1700, what course of action would this new religion take? 20 years of heated scientific programs and experimentation to cure diseases or 20 years of heated theology and bible study?

lol. Good points but watchout, there are some individuals on these forums that are religious. Unfortunate but not unexpected. It's no surprise who they are.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I didn't say totally inconsistent. In many respects they are consistent. But would a Buddhist build a bomb? I think not. Would Buddhists interfere with the world like science? It is a doctrine of non-interference. Science is predicated on physicalism, whereas Buddhism is precisely non-physicalism. There is a long list of differences.

.

Real-life Buddhists have armies, and deal harshy with minorities (Thailand) Japan was at least partly Buddhist at the time of the rape of Nanking and the Bataan death march. And Japan was seeking to build a fission bomb at the end of the war. They didn't get far but they were trying to concentrate Uranium using Cyclotrons. The history of the expansion of Buddhism into Southeast Asia is replete with wars and empires, just like Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and for that matter Paganism.

 

[Nusc]

I didn't say totally inconsistent

So you lied.

But would a Buddhist build a bomb? I think not.

No facts to back up claim. selfAdjoint: Real-life Buddhists have armies, and deal harshy with minorities (Thailand) Japan was at least partly Buddhist at the time of the rape of Nanking and the Bataan death march. And Japan was seeking to build a fission bomb at the end of the war. They didn't get far but they were trying to concentrate Uranium using Cyclotrons. The history of the expansion of Buddhism into Southeast Asia is replete with wars and empires, just like Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and for that matter Paganism.

But I feel that Einstein overstated the case. Buddhism is not inconsistent with the scientific evidence, but it totally inconsistent with science, disagreeing with its methods, its metaphysical assumptions, its goals and most of its activities.

In many respects they are consistent.

I'm so confused. Is this an example of rational thinking?

 

[Canute]

Well, actually you did...

So I did. Sloppy writing again. Sorry about that.

 

[Canute]

The Truth

You say that "rational debate is the only way to determine whether something is true or not." Unfortunately this is the opposite of the truth. Aristotle concluded that "Actual (true) knowledge is identical with its object", and this still apears to be the case to philosophers. This is precisely the reason that solipsism is unfalsifiable, and why Descartes chose 'cogito' as an axiom. Don't be too quick to dismiss religion - in with the bathwater there is a baby.

 

[Canute]

So Japan building a fission bomb shows that Buddhists are warmongers? And where are these Buddhist armies you speak of by the way? I don't know where you get all this stuff. Perhaps you could cite a reference or two. Are you so anti-Buddhism that you're prepared to suspend your reasoning?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Thailand, for one, is a majority Buddhist country. Check up on its history and current events. It is currently ruled by Generals. And yes, Japan trying to make the Bomb contradicts your blanket assertion about Buddhists being oh-so-much better than anybody else. I have nothing against Buddhism but it is just another human religion and not superior to the others.

 

[Canute]

Damn, you were too quick. I just came back to delete that post. It was a bit of a knee-jerk response. I reacted badly to that stuff about Buddhists going to war to build empires in South-East Asia and so on, for which there is no evidence at all. I've never even seem it suggested before.

But the real issue is that a country cannot be Buddhist, Christian or anything else. People have to be these things as individuals. We cannot condemn Christianity for the actions of governments and other institutions, who commandeer religions to serve their own purposes. By this I include the institutions of some churches. Nor can we condemn atheism for the actions of Stalin.

Of course, many Japanese and Thais are Buddhists, but they do not run their countries, and I think you'll find that they do not fight in their armies. Tibet is the only country whose actions could be fairly judged to reflect on Buddhism, prior to its annihilation by China. The simple point about Buddhism is that it is a doctrine of non-harm. In the view of Buddhists, and mystics in general, to harm another is quite literally to harm oneself.

But 'Buddhist' is a widely-defined term, just as 'Christian' is. A person who has just decided to practice Buddhism may call themselves a Buddhist, just as a person who has just enroled at university to do science might call themselves a scientist, and just as many people call themselves Christians when clearly they are not. It is skilled scientists whose work should be taken as representing the scientific view, and skilled Buddhists who should be taken as representing the Buddhist view, and the same for Christianity and the rest.

Btw, I am not a member of any religion, not defending some dogma or other. I'm defending the mystical view of the world, which, I'm trying to argue, is the common root of all the major religions, underneath all the accumulated clutter. In mysticism the differences between religions are the result of mistaken views.

On the science issue, which I muddled up with a thoughtless remark, I was proposing that the mystical view is completely consistent with the scientific evidence but completely inconsistent with the current scientific orthodoxy, which is based heavily on various ad hoc metaphysical assumptions superimposed on the evidence. Whether this means that the mystical view is consistent or inconsistent with science probably just depends on how you look at it. I was suggesting only that Buddhism cannot serve the needs of future science in the way that Einstein proposed, not unless science undergoes a earthquake scale paradigm shift.

I hope that un-muddles my previous posts a bit, even if you don't agree with any of this.

Cheers
Canute

 

[Loren Booda]

Please concentrate on developing a universal religion as you would see it, not denigrate existing religion.

 

[Canute]

To unify religions it is necessary to reveal their differences as inconsequential. It is therefore necessary to argue that the instituitional teachings of the main organised religions are garbled versions of the teachings of their founders. This is difficult to do this without denigrating them, which is of course the whole problem. Eggs must be broken to make an omelette, as the saying goes. Still, I take your point. Here is the view of the universality of religion I would support put very generally, albeit not without a touch of denigration.

"Organised religion, bereft of its experiential component, has largely lost the connection to its deep spiritual source and as a result has become empty, meaningless, and increasingly irrelevant to our life. In many instances, lived spirituality based on profound personal experience has been replaced by dogmatism, ritualism and moralism."

Stanislav Grof
The Cosmic Game

"When an ordinary person reads about the kingdom of God and Heaven, he reads these names, but he does not know where Heaven is, and he feels that there is a God, but there is no evidence for it. Therefore, a large number of intellectual people who really are seeking the truth are turning away from the outer religion because they cannot find its explanation. Consequently, they become materialistic. To the mystic, the explanation of the whole of religion is the investigation of the self. The more one explores oneself, the more one will understand all religions in the fullest light and all will become clear. "Mysticism" is only a light thrown upon one’s own religion, like a light brought into a room where everything one wants is to be found, and where the only thing that was needed was light."

From The Message through Inayat Khan.
Adapted from talks given in the early 1900's.
Online

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

lol. Good points but watchout, there are some individuals on these forums that are religious. Unfortunate but not unexpected. It's no surprise who they are.

That tells much about what kind of person u r..You see that's why in a previous topic i said it'd be disastrous if everyone had the same intellectual understanding as u...

What kinda of understanding u have not to show a little respect for people who think differently??

Back to the topic, I don't think there's a way fro a unified religion, because it's hardly that people will dump what they believe in just for unity, it's more logical that people want to make others adopt their own beliefs...That's how there is terrorism...

I think there's not need for that as long as people can accept others beliefs and ways in life...

It's pretty damn hard..nah??

The truth u said all religions are disproven, how and who did that

 

[NoGeniusJustSensible]

Well if really looked into deeply, the similarities between different religions is a lot. Even between the religions founded in the middle-east (judaism, christianity & Islam) and those founded elsewhere (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Bahai, Zorastrianism)... the basic foundations on which a religion is based is the same, and then they slowly branch out... in essence, all religions are united... however it is us as humans who differentiate ourselves based on the variations of the laws... Some things which one might see as impractical might not quite be so... but to accept one's mistakes would be a major step for any normal, regular, average human being... our ego's just wouldn't admit a unification of all religions cos we are not committed enough to society to compromise our personal beliefs...

 

[Canute]

Loren Booda

Just had a read through your quantumdream writings. Very interesting. Most of it was over my head but it had a certain resonance, especially your remarks about complementarity and the concept of an inside-out universe. By coincidence I've just been writing about this, but likening its inside-out topology to something like a Klein bottle in five dimensions, relating this to Wittgenstein's bottle. Do you have a simplifed summary or overview somewhere? I'd like to understand more of what you're suggesting.

Canute

 

[Loren Booda]

Canute,

Did not the king of that name attempt to rule the waves?

My girlfriend too insists that I simplify my writings, so they be more accessible to the general public. So far I have made little progress in that regard. Einstein said that a truly profound idea should be understandable by children. I am hesitant to lose any meaning in mine, however.

I greatly appreciate your visit. You may find more about a Klein bottle universe through Google. It's been a while since I have explored it - "pre-PC."

Have you seen Grof interviewed on one of the "Thinking Allowed" tapes? The series is a trip.

"NoGenius" has a sensible idea, that all religions actually were once united.

 

[Canute]

No, I don't know "Thinking Allowed." Grof is always interesting though.

I called your writings 'resonant' because they seemed to support the mystical view of reality. Is that a misreading of them?

I've been thinking about this universal religion question and decided that I was coming at it from the wrong angle.

If a universal religion is based on an unverifiable doctrine then it will never be universal, since many people will not join it, not having any faith in that doctrine. So showing the doctrines of the various religions to have a common root will not be enough. People can still opt out.

The only possible universal religion then is one whose doctrine is verifiable by anyone. This entails that the doctrine of this religion be true, describes what is the case, for rather obviously one cannot verify the truth of a false doctrine. As there is, presumably, only one completely true cosmological doctrine, then this universal religion would have to be founded on this doctrine. So a universal religion would have to have a true doctrine that is verifiable by anybody.

This entails that any universal religion must be methodologically based on mysticism, on contemplation and meditative practice, on first-person experience, since no scientific or metaphysical theory can be verified as being true. True and certain knowledge can only be knowledge by identity, as even Aristotle concluded.

In this religion 'mystical' practice, the exploration of ones own consciousness, would have to allow the truth to be verified by anyone with the time and patience. But for others the possibility of this verification would have to be taken on faith, just as a blind man would have to take the laws of optics on faith, to use William James's example.

Of course, those who had only faith would tend to have their own views and conjectures as to the truth, since they would not know it. Then no doubt some of the more charismatic and opinionated of those who have not verified the truth would start their own various religions with theoretical and conjectural doctrines that are not the truth, and others who also hadn't got around to verifying the truth might become members rather than bothering to check on the truth. Then we'd end up where we are now, with all mystics agreeing on the truth and its complete verifiability, incuding the all founders of the world's main religions, and all others believing in some variation or other rather than checking the facts for themself.

So I don't think we can have a universal religion until at least a majority of people have verified what is true, and maybe not until everyone has done it. But if everyone has done it then we won't need a religion at all, as mystics argue. So even then we wouldn't have a universal religion, just a universal agreement.

So no, I don't think a universal religion is possible, since to be universal it would have to cease being a religion and become simply a shared knowledge.

 

[Loren Booda]

I believe an "inside-out" or "inverted" space (analogous to the image in a mirrored ball) is mostly unexplored physically - for that reason, mystical. But weren't relativity and quantum mechanics mystical in themselves?

 

[Canute]

I wouldn't say they were mystical, unless by mystical you mean baffling. I'd rather say that they were not mystical in any way, but just fairly conclusive proof that the mystics were right all along about reality. It's just too much of a coincidence that their doctrine states that reality has only dual aspects whichever aspect one chooses to describe, measure, conceptualise or include in a theory. The first good physicist to fully grasp why this is and build it into a quantum-cosmological theory will win a Nobel prize in my opinion, and probably the gratitude of the rest of humanity.

On the idea that reality is inverted or inside-out rather like a Klein bottle, you may like this description of passing through the inner gate to hyperspace, known in Taoism as the "gateless gate".

"As one goes through it, one sees that the gate one went through was the self that went through it."

R.D. Laing
The Politics of Experience

Disclaimer: I haven't read this book so don't know the context. He may have meant something other than what I've guessed he meant.

 

[the_truth]

"The Truth

You say that "rational debate is the only way to determine whether something is true or not." Unfortunately this is the opposite of the truth. Aristotle concluded that "Actual (true) knowledge is identical with its object", and this still apears to be the case to philosophers. This is precisely the reason that solipsism is unfalsifiable, and why Descartes chose 'cogito' as an axiom. Don't be too quick to dismiss religion - in with the bathwater there is a baby."

You say that "rational debate is the only way to determine whether something is true or not."

Reasonning and logic used to prove or determine rational hypothesis, interrogated in a rational debate, is the only method of determinning reality that has occurred. When you work and live your everyday life you use reasonning to interact with your environment and make predictions etc, if you did otherwise you would be a madman and history has proven this time and time again.


"Unfortunately this is the opposite of the truth."

This is a very ambiguous statement. I have provided 4 retorts (including the claim that you are quibbling) to prove this wrong, which ever definition you meant.

Next time you have a cold, slit one of the veins in your arm and bleed 2 pints of blood into a bucket to balance your humours then.

There may be other ways of determinning the truth and indeed scientific method and such methods of reasonning are hugely varied and often corrupted by people who wish to pass fallacy off as the truth, however rational debate is the only way to determine the truth.

By rational debate I implied the usage of reasonning in a free debate concerning important issues which people disagreed apon, I have been talking about reasonning for some time now.. I did not imply that the only way to find the truth was via discussion and thus that it was impossible to do so via individual thought. Discussions however usually have the effect of correcting people's personal thoughts as certain fallacies they picked up may be crushed in the debate.


"Actual (true) knowledge is identical with its object", and this still apears to be the case to philosophers. This is precisely the reason that solipsism is unfalsifiable, and why Descartes chose 'cogito' as an axiom. Don't be too quick to dismiss religion - in with the bathwater there is a baby."

Elaborate. I assume this has something to do with sentience and the fact you are stuck in your own mind and cannot experiences the thoughts of others.

 

[Loren Booda]

Canute

On the idea that reality is inverted or inside-out rather like a Klein bottle, you may like this description of passing through the inner gate to hyperspace, known in Taoism as the "gateless gate".

"As one goes through it, one sees that the gate one went through was the self that went through it."

Coincidentally, you describe the duality common to the perspective of reciprocal (inside-out) space and that of juxtaposed superstring dimensions. For instance, try moving your eye towards the focus of a large concave mirror.

 

[Canute]

I don't get that I'm afraid. Is 'reciprocal' space a common concept and term? I haven't come across it.

The Truth - The difference between knowledge by identity and relative knowledge (gained by reason alone or by from our physical senses) is that the former can be certain and the latter cannot be. That's not to say that relative knowledge has no value, it's very important. But when doing philosophy, especially metaphysics or ontology, it is crucial to distinguish between what we can know, with certainty, and what we cannot. This is why descartes chose 'cogito'. He knew that to find a certain starting point for his deductions he had to start with self-knowledge, knowledge by identity, for all other knowledge is not certain knowledge. Note that no amount of debate, rational or otherwise, can establish 'cogito'.

Canute

 

[Loren Booda]

"Reciprocal space" is found foremost in crystallography; I use the terms "reciprocal," "inverse" and "inside-out" interchangeably in regards to a possible dual geometry of spacetime or phase space.

 

[Dr.Yes]

The unifiying religious tenent:

Take the path of least resistance.

(This requires being knowledgeable of your environment so - bone up!)

NB: Also remain naked under your clothes.

 

[yokebutt]

Personally, I think the simple fact that humans don't have a universal religion is a fairly strong hint that there is no omnipotent god or equivalent entity. But, then again, -without any preconceptions -try defining god. (And what about all the other creatures in the world, I'd think it not too controversial to point out (at least here, shudder) that all life on Earth is related, so do we still have the gall to think we're special and "chosen"?)

Yoke.

 

[Canute]

Fair points. But God does not have to be defined as omnipotent, and perhaps all life is special. The fact that human beings have a variety of beliefs implies simply that knowing is not the same thing as believing. In the "mystical religions" there is no God and belief is not considered knowledge so these logical problems don't arise.

 

[Dr.Yes]

"Reciprocal space" is found foremost in crystallography; I use the terms "reciprocal," "inverse" and "inside-out" interchangeably in regards to a possible dual geometry of spacetime or phase space.

This is cool stuff Loren! And it is mystfying since, as you say, there have been none too many accounts of exploring the dual world or the inside-out... unless you look at Ken Kesey, Jack Kerawac and Richard Alpert... not to mention Allan Watts and Timothy Leary.

The inside out and the mirror worlds are hard to study because its hard to know when your in them and when you're not. Comparisome studies are difficult in that sort of amalgamous environment where each state has as much influence as the next.

I would also propose that these variations of realities are not bound by simple mirrored or reciprocal boundaries but that there are as many worlds as there are combinations of molecules in this dimension today. There seems to be an infinite individuality which creates and is created by a uni-model of utmost efficiency and ethicality...(NB: the "universe".) Rather striking, I must say!

 

[Loren Booda]

Dr. Yes,

It's mystifying that no major physics about spatial inversion symmetry (other than crystallography) has been explored before. Superstrings comes close with its "T-duality," but my approach (pursued in my website below) would apply semiclassical likenesses to both quantum mechanics and relativity. There "phase duality" is the simplist symmetry that my ignorance could think of to modify physics universally.

Awareness of "true" environment is often difficult and often requires a paradigm shift. Yes, I speculate that curvature of relativistic spacetime affects dynamics of quantum phase space (and vice versa), according to cosmos focused from beyond conventional limits.

Thank you for your insights. As for religion and physics, neither is complete and beg to be studied beyond a lifetime.