The understanding that this instrument, the intellect, is really not the instrument to reach ultimate understanding or finality in the essence of anything is something which cannot be communicated. This instrument is only interested in perpetuating itself through what it calls `understanding,’ which in reality is its own machinations. It is only sharpening itself to maintain its own continuity. When once you know that it is not the instrument and that there is no other instrument, then there is nothing more to understand let alone anything to use to understand.
It’s very simple, you see. But this very simple fact of our life, of our existence, is something which the complex structure that we have created is not ready to accept, because its very simplicity is going to shatter the complexity. What, after all, is evolution, if there is any such thing as evolution? It is the simple becoming complex. The complex structure is not ready to face this situation - the very simplicity of the whole process. When once that is understood, the whole theory of evolution collapses. Maybe there is such a thing as evolution. We really don’t know for sure. When once you accept that there is an evolution in the life around, you put the same thing in other realms (mind, experiential, spiritual, mystical, etc.) and say that there is also progress there. You will say, “I am more evolved than my neighbor (in whatever realm), more evolved than my fellow beings.” That makes us feel superior to all. So the very complexity which we are responsible for is not ready to leave that simple thing alone, to leave it simple.
It’s a very misleading phrase, to accept what is'. It is very interesting to talk about what is,’ but you cannot describe that what is' in any manner. And you cannot leave what is’ as it is. You cannot even complete the sentence and say "What is, is". But we don't stop there. We build a tremendous structure, the fantasy structure, romantic structure, on what is’ and talk about love, bliss, heaven, or immensity.
We dare not leave that what is' alone. It implies that you are still grappling with what you romantically phrase as what is’. It is like dealing with the unknown. There is no such thing as the unknown. The known is still trying to make the unknown part of the known. It is a game that we play. That is how we fool ourselves in our approach to problems.
I don’t think MMP with his intimidating picture is trying to disagree for the sake of offending. He’s looking at assumptions and throwing back an alternative angle or deeper look into what’s behind the abstraction not with the intention of getting anywhere, but to point out that there is perhaps nowhere to ultimately get and so we can’t arrive at some comfy conclusion. That’s pretty cool. After all, we all, when we look inside ourselves find the opposite of what we want. So what do you want? What’s behind the want?
Points 3 and 4 concern “our ultimate end”, points 1 and 2 have to do with causes, origin, growth, hopes, fears, loves and beliefs. Does your religion ignore those human concerns?
I have pretty much the same problem with point 1 and 2…
1 "That man is the product of causes that had no prevision of the end they were achieving;
I would want to ask, so what? What should it matter to us how it came to be that we are what we are… given we are happy with what we are.
2 that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms;
Same question… what does it matter?
Our growth, hopes and fears, loves and beliefs are there all the same… and the fact of the matter is that they have value TO US… why is that not enough?
You ask if my religion ignores those concerns… of course not. My religion, like any other, tries to shed some light on what we are and who we are, so that we may more easily live full and happy lives without getting in our own way. It just dosn’t pretend that there is only ONE way to do that… there might be a whole range of options and It is for us to explore, discover and decide what our options are and which of them work to our advantage. And that requires we allow ourselves to get rid of bad ideas as better ones come along.
According to the principles of cognitive psychology, emotional states do follow from the way we think. Cognitive therapy that encourages depressed people to “reappraise” things, to challenge their negative responses, can act to lift mood. Cognitive behavioral therapy aims to help patients by focusing on problems in their thinking and teaching them ways to improve it. So, perhaps your religion involves cognitive reframing of the scientific cosmology as represented by Russell.
You put that in a very peculiar way,as though my religion needs this… as though Russell’s reaction were the natural one of all humans.
I would say that such emotional reactions to ideas are incidental to our way of thinking… which is nurtured… and not nature.
Russell could just as well have been happy that we had a better understanding of ourselves and our relation to the world…
It seems to me, that we would only be getting in our own way, by framing it as Russell did… no one would need RE-framing if we didn’t frame it poorly to begin with.
Allow me to re-phrase: So, your religion frames the facts of the scientific cosmology in a different way than Russell did in the quotation, right?
But it’s not like this is an isolated view that Russell had one afternoon when he was feeling kinda down. It’s big part of the 20th century existential and post-modern critical theory. It’s huge theme of 20th century philosophy, art and literature that doesn’t seem to have gone away quietly during the first decade of the 20th. So if you have adequate answers to these points, you’ve got something there P Man.
Answers tend to depend on the questions… some of which might be meaningless to begin with.
In much of western writing and thinking people adopt a “God’s eye view” when it comes to “meaning” and “purpose” and “values”. They strive for an “objective” perspective that shelves all that WE are in order to say what the world ought to be to us. Some people have noticed that when you do this sort of thing, you need a “god” to HAVE meaning… So that without a god there is no meaning but what WE make… but then, why SHOULD our constructs be valuable? And so they’re not.
This is all caused by that blasphamy… That desire to decalre somethng true of “ultimate reality”… Regular reality is not quite enough to go by.
There should be “ultimate truth” behind the truth… or it’s not true
There should be value behind our values… or their not valuable.
There should be will behind our wants… or their not ours.
This seems like nonsense to me… It’s a well constructed labyrinth of concepts and abstractions either leading to God, Nihilism or Confusion (if you should get lost)
My religion avoids that maze altogether…
I’m a little pressed for time…so this was a bit rushed, but I hope it helps.
I am referring to Russell’s four points so you can determine if they are meaningless or not.
So far I have cited a quotation that raises four points so why go off on generalities? If your statement above refers to those points, please explain how they require a God’s eye view. They seem to be statements of fact well supported by science. I don’t see how God enters into it.
Russell four points seem to be dealing with “regular reality” or at least the scientific cosmology up to the time when he wrote them. So while I agree with what your saying, I don’t think it applies in this case. As to whether you religion avoids concepts and abstractions that lead to God, nihilism or confusion, I would like to withold judgment until we have discussed it further if you don’t mind.
you brought up the general existential and postmodern trends…
I answered that those were responses to a christian/ideological tradition…
You ask how a God’ enters into it… I answer that the fact that god dosn’t enter into it is the source of the “despair”.
Yes Felix… but the emotional context of Russell’s points are not part of the scientific cosmology nor “regular reality”. They are incidental to Russell’s way of thinking.
I could repeat those 4 points from the perspective of my religion if that’s what you’re after… and show how the conclusion comes out.
That one gets to stay the same
That his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are the outcome of billions of years of evolution;
That no fire, no herosim, no intensity of thought and feeling, would exists without this.
That all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, were made possible by the death of a star and the simple processes of nature. The whole temple of Man’s achievement has yet to be built and experienced… all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.
Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding vitality, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.
Sartre did say “The existentialist thinks it very distressing that God does not exist and that we have to face all the consequences of this. Because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with him. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist. “ [Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism (New York: Citadel, 1947), pp25-27.]
If God does not exist, according to Sartre’s line of thinking, it is hard to see how meaning and morality can be anything but the interpretation or projection of various individuals including yourself. Can you avoid the conclusion that there are no values or moral truths[nihilism]? Are there moral truth and values that are universal and objective [moral universalism] or are all moral truths and values relative to individuals, cultures or other groups including yourself [relativisim]?
Maybe science is not about conclusions. It’s a way of thinking that focuses on intellectual suspence and constant questioning. Beliefs held scientifically are tentative and hypothetical. Whatever world view we hold today is always open to ongoing questioning. Given these characteristics, a scientific world view may be at best awkwardly analogous to a religion. Practitioners who apply science in some sphere of their life may need to look elsewhere for moral truths and values, e.g traditional religion, conventional democratic conformism, political movements, etc. or abandon them altogether in mindless contemporary culture like so many others seem to do. These are difficulties that a scientific world view as religion has to confront, don’t you think?
But what if your cosmology has no “one behind many”? Is it mandatory that our perspectives must fit a category? A label? Should we fail to choose one of the convenient categories, does it follow that we must accept “mindless contemporary culture”? If I should choose to use the word religion to describe the process I have chosen to make sense of the world, is it necessary that I should find difficulties to confront? Or is it possible that the notion of confrontation belongs to others?
Well, then when it comes to whatever I might choose to call “my religion”, it is of the ineffable, and regardless the content, is mine alone. Which leaves us discussing HOW we should live, not WHY are we here? Nah, that’s too easy.
Well, then when it comes to whatever I might choose to call “my religion”, it is of the ineffable, and regardless the content, is mine alone. Which leaves us discussing HOW we should live, not WHY are we here? 
Nah, that’s too easy. 