How can you say that there is no absolute truth and also say that there are absolute moral principles and an absolute good? That’s an obvious contradiction.
In practice there are ‘absolutes in the conventional sense’
Absolute may refer to:
Science[edit]
Absolute magnitude, the brightness of a star
Absolute zero, the lower limit of the thermodynamic temperature scale, -273.15 °C
Mathematics[edit]
Absoluteness in mathematical logic
Absolute value, a notion in mathematics, commonly a number’s numerical value without regard to its sign
Absolute (geometry), the quadric at infinity
Law[edit]
Absolute defence, a factual circumstance or argument that, if proven, will end the litigation in favor of the defendant
Absolute liability, a standard of legal liability found in tort and criminal law of various legal jurisdictions
Politics[edit]
Absolute majority, a majority of the entire membership of a group
Absolute monarchy, a monarchical form of government in which the monarch’s powers are not limited by a constitution or by the law
Linguistics[edit]
Absolute construction, a grammatical construction used in certain languages
Philosophy[edit]
Absolute (philosophy), a concept in philosophy
Absolute truth (Buddhism) (Sanskrit, paramārtha-satya, Pāli paramattha sacca, Tibetan: don-dam bden-pa), describes the ultimate reality as “sunyata”, empty of concrete and inherent characteristics
When I say,
Within a very sound philosophical framework I am absolutely certain there is no such thing as Absolute Truth.
Note the “Truth” is with a capital ‘T’ i.e. the ontological Truth and some claim to be God. This is the Truth of the Absolutely Absolute.
When I refer to “absolute moral principles” I was referring to relative absolutes within the Moral and Ethical Framework. Such absolutes are conditional upon whatever their framework and system of knowledge, thus they are relative absolutes.
From my perspective, in term of degrees of philosophical complexity, “absolute moral principles” would be rated at 99% while the others are below it.
If you take mathematics as an example. It has absolute truths. And since gods do not need to be introduced, it has Absolute Truths as well.
Physics provides absolute truths in the form of descriptions of physical interactions. The theories which explain those interactions may not be true, but the descriptions are truth. (Again no gods.)
If you concepts of good and evil and moral principles can evaporate simply by adopting another philosophical framework, then I don’t see why you are so gung-ho to push your own particular concepts on to everyone. Those are just your own preferences and they are no better than the preferences of someone with another framework.
I had agreed, Mathematics, Physics and others do have absolute truths, but these absolute truths are conditioned by their respective Framework and Systems which are maintained [shared with consensus] within the specific groups of human minds.
As with the above, religions can claim for absolute truths which are conditioned within their Framework and Systems. So as long as believers are willing to accept such conditions and their systems are man-made there is no issue. For example, most of the Eastern religions are willing to accept their Framework and System are human-made.
However there is an issue with the Abrahamic religions and some theistic Framework and Systems which claimed their Framework and Systems are not conditioned by humans at all but are independently created by a God which is totally unconditional. Thus the truths from such an Absolute system is the Absolute Truth without any condition at all. Such claims are not philosophically sound, thus are illusory and false, albeit they do work to a very limited degree based on threats, i.e. ‘Do do this ought, else Hell!’
Note the difference?
So far I have not presented the full proposals of the philosophical Moral & Ethical Framework and System yet. The only clue I gave is it is along the same theories proposed by Kant and similar to the principles from some Eastern religions, especially Buddhism, Taoism [complementarity for e.g.].
The point is no one should accept any proposals until the arguments are soundly proven to be logical, sound, rational and possible to be implemented, tested and verified.
Those religious are also ‘conditioned’ because not all texts and revelations are accepted. There is a process of selection and interpretation. And there is an acknowledgement of the possibility of error.
Not all Abrahamic religions have a belief in hell. The concept of hell has changed significantly over time. The “threat” has evolved.
[/u]
I was thinking the same. It doesn’t make sense to even talk about such as transcendental being - a being that transcends reality itself. It would be like talking about nothingness. Transcend into what? The closest that we can get to that is an expression of fear of the unknown (and perhaps faith is just that). After an encounter with such an unknown, you can’t really say anything, nor should be, really, unless you can somehow prove it to be true in empirical sense; and this is where science comes in (but science does not work with transcendental, only with reality).
Another variation of such transcendental being, from the Buddhists, is reality as a God’s dream. However, even if that were a true case, how can one prove it to be true, other than alluding to as-below-so-above argument, from which one can make many such assumptions. So it does boil down to simply a thought experiment; and when people overstep this and start taking it seriously, as truth, they either are just being naïve, or self-serving.
So, if God is transcendental, then science is not compatible with it. If God is not transcendental, but is seen as some sort of revelation of complex reality that is mystified/spiritualized (as Jung may have believed) then science may be compatible; although the interpretation of facts may be affected by assigning extra meanings.
There is no possibility of error in the Quran as Allah had claimed.
Quran 5:3 [part] … This day have I [Allah] Perfected [akmaltu] your religion [deenakum] for you [Muslims] and completed My favour unto you [Muslims], and have chosen for you [Muslims] as religion [deenan] AL-ISLAM. [al-islama deenan], …
I understand Christianity has a provision for error by humans. Not too sure with Judaism?
Whatever the “hell” concept the fundamental intent is to invoke and trigger primal existential fears.
Yes, note Meno’s Paradox, i.e. how can one really knows any thing when one do not know it in the first place.
I am very familiar with Buddhism. Within Buddhism proper there is no such thing as an absolutely independent transcendental being.
Some Buddhist schools may have beliefs in some sort of beings but they are ultimately conditioned. There is no independent transcendental being within Buddhism-proper.
If “God” is not taken as an independent absolute transcendental being, then it is compatible with or explainable by Science and other fields of non-transcendental knowledge subject to sound arguments and justifications.
Allah is perfect and his religion is perfect but fallible men read the texts and act in imperfect ways.
It can also be looked at as an absolutely fair justice system - nobody can hide his wrongdoing or to avoid the consequence of a wrong act.
Scientist vs Mystic | A Conversation about Cosmos, Brain and Reality | David Eagleman and Sadguru:
youtube.com/watch?v=aaCTs8oeAh8
Most of what the mystic said was based on yogi metaphysical classification of human mind and rather outdated view of the components of reality through primary classical elements. Some of the things they talked about (mostly yogi mystic):
Dimensions of the mind:
Intellect - quality of the brain - conscious reasoning - slave to arbitrary (social) identity which it protects
Identity - Ahamkara - ego identity - intellect serves identity.
Body memory (genetic/subconscious) - Manas - has more memory than the brain - memory of ancestors all the way back to beginning of life - and beyond! (3:16-4:38)
Pure Intelligence - Chitta - deeper intelligence present in nature - is not dependent on memory - appears to be like that of automatic animal nature (4:38- 6:00)
The question raised by yogi is whether there is a type of knowledge which does not fit into logical framework, that is through intellect, and the consequences of pursuing knowledge only through intellect (science)
On time perception (8:03-12:23)
Acts as psychological filter - Physicality is cyclical/movement - planets, etc. - disassociation with one’s physical nature (time) will negate the consequence of time!
[This naturally begs the question of self identity. The yogi admitted that the brain could be fooled, but the body could not (10:00-10:20), but how does he get his self identity to be independent of them, even as acknowledging them? The answer to that, as I understood it, was the evolution of self-awareness (the breaking off) to be seen as a purely exploratory independent phenomenon (as he believed that the instinctive animal nature would have taken care of itself without awareness), exploring different dimensions of reality, not for its usefulness or survival (as in current science), but for exploration sake only. (12:23-17:00). This led to his critique of science being driven not for the sake of exploration, the need to know, (as he claims is so in mysticism), but primarily for its usefulness/utility (17:05- 18:15).]
Purpose/Point of Life vs Purpose of Science (27:48- 32:13)
Yogi - Life is not about how to use knowledge/its usefulness - this approach will not make life better, because no matter how well you survive it will never be enough to fulfill a human being - the possible alternative presented is perhaps knowing itself is purpose of life because it satisfies the fundamental need to know. He also points to the issue of morality: if science only looks for what it can use (utility), why wouldn’t it also not study humans for their potential uses?
What is life (40:46-46:55)
Everything is life, differentiated by varying degrees of accumulation of information - it’s possible to dissasociate yourself from your genetic memory - it is possible to know a part of self that is beyond your physical nature (47:45-48-55).
[I don’t know what to say on that issue. This is something you either believe in or not. I can only comment by saying that the yogi himself pointed out that science is trying to touch the non-physical with a physical stick, pointing to its limitations, but, somehow, humans themseves are an exception, being able to access the non-physical]
This is not new, but would be worthwhile to consider and maybe even explore further.
Changes in right parietal lobe (and frontal lobe) and their effect on sense of spirituality.
‘Perfected’ and ‘Completed’ in Quran 5:3 above are merely ideals and theoretical.
-
The reality is, it is impossible for a God to exists as real.
-
Therefore there was no ‘Perfected’ and ‘Completed’ Quran from any God.
-
Thus from 2, the Quran [claimed to be from God] was authored by human[s].
-
Because the Quran was from fallible human[s] it contain X-good [some] and Y-evil [lots] elements.
-
Muslims must adopt the Quran and thus are compelled to comply with X and Y elements to please God.
-
When they commit Y element to please God, the consequences are terrible evils and violence wrecked upon non-Muslims and even some Muslims deemed as apostate.
It cannot be an absolutely fair justice system to humanity-in-general and even to believers when fears and guilt exist like a shaky ceiling [or guillotine] over their heads all the time.
A system based on threat do work [morally or immorally] but it is limited within circumstance, conditions, time, etc.
Religious based morals are relatively effective if implemented in a society that is full of anarchy, the people are very barbaric and has great sensitivity to fears. But this is an the expense of genuine justice and basic human rights.
A moral system that has justice is one where people has high moral quotient and act spontaneously good and not because they are threatened with a rod or the wrath of God who will send them to HELL.
I agree, humanity must explore such a topic via neuroscience, other advancing knowledge, philosophical deliberations, etc.
It is obvious the brain is the most critical source of human spirituality. However to attribute it to specific part [theory abandoned] or certain parts of the brain need to be taken with lots of caution. The human brain has on average 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 synapses [chemical connectors] plus the many other elements from the body that are interdependent with the brain.
The point is at present whatever is presented from the neurosciences, genomic and other advance knowledge we should welcome them, the more the better, but the reservation is we can only accept them with a ‘ladle [not pinch] of salt.’ [a caution from Antonio Damasio].
I did not go through the 50 minutes in the video. Normally most gurus will explain their Hindu philosophical traditions en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_philosophy and school of thought.
This Guru seem merely to focus on Yoga and little on Hindu philosophy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaggi_Vasudev
Most of the popular Yoga teachers from India do not focus much on Hindu Philosophy but more on the exercises. e.g.
Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga - Sri K. Pattabhi Jois
Bihar School of Yoga - Swami Satyananda Saraswati[1]
Sivananda Yoga - Swami Vishnu-devananda
Iyengar Yoga - B.K.S. Iyengar
On the aspect of Spiritual Philosophy and Neuroscience I would prefer to read those of the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhism.
Here he is moving beyond to the Transcendental and thus out of the scope of empirical and philosophical reality. This is likely related to the concept of Brahman as the Transcendental Absolute Reality beyond the self and physical reality which can be theistic or pantheistic. At this ultimate point such concept [albeit more refined] is no different from Transcendental Absolute God [a crude concept] of the Abrahamic religions and other theistic religions.
Note there are those [some] who view Brahman from the non-theistic perspective.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya
The existence of God or supreme being is not directly asserted, nor considered relevant by the Samkhya philosophers. Sāṃkhya denies the final cause of Ishvara (God). [wiki]
Fairness and fear/guilt are compatible. It’s fair that a person feels guilt for a wrongful act. It’s fair that he fears the consequence of a wrongful act.
??
A pretty strange statement coming from someone who constantly talks about evil and the potential for evil.
If everyone was “spontaneously good” then there would no need of a justice system or a moral code of conduct.
This is just preaching from your atheist philosophical framework.
Your argument carries no weight because theists (Muslims, Christians, Jews) don’t accept your framework. They do not accept your first statement and therefore the rest of the statements are irrelevant or false.
But if you want to keep repeating this for the benefit of other atheists …
It is not fair and with justice if guilt is triggered based on evil intentions, ignorance or delusions.
For example;
- The Bible stated fornication before marriage is sinful.
- Johnny was driven by impulse and had sex before marriage.
- The above act in 2 triggered fear and guilt.
- Upon 3 Johnny committed suicide when overcame by guilt.
There are many such cases as above where innocent commit suicide or suffer terribly due to fears and guilt and all these are grounded on an illusion, i.e. God exists.
Thus the moral system that cause the above cannot be an absolutely fair justice system to humanity-in-general.
First there is no 100% perfection. So I did not state every one is spontaneously good with the maximum moral quotient possible.
In an effective moral and ethical system, every one will progress continuously from their base to be “spontaneously good.” Some bases may be 10%, 20%, 50%, 75% and other degrees.
Therefore we still need an effective moral and ethical system to guide every one to progress from whatever their current based of being “spontaneously good”.
Note theists have never accepted my premise 1 since human since conceived it, from thousands of years ago.
But the reality is humans are still discussing it and many theists have accepted premise 1 and became non-theists.
So it does not matter if theist do not accept my P1 [by default they Must not accept it] but regardless we in a philosophical forum must discuss it and give our views.
Why Humanity must discuss the above framework regardless theist agree or not?
One of the consequences of the Framework encompassing 1-7 is this;
With such a link and cause-effects factors between the two, any concerned citizen of humanity must strive to find the root causes and seek solutions.
Are you a concern citizen of humanity?
The cause is that people pursue their own agendas with total disregard for others. Which is also what you are doing.
The solution is in focusing on what humans have in common but instead the focus is turned towards differences.