That matter became life, without divine assistance, and evolved into the many beings of earth, is almost infinitely improbable, and one need look no further for miracles. — Bitter Crank
These two statements seem to be contradictory. You also seem to agree with my basic position, that life itself is suffused with miracles and the supernatural - at least the active principle of life is.I do not. — Bitter Crank
True - I would say that in terms of the collective, there is virtually no progress in the long run. In the short term, we do sometimes see progress from one historical era to another, but that progress does not last, and is ultimately erased. We also see regress - it is like a pendulum swinging back and forth around the same point of equilibrium.Yeah, and that 'acting' hasn't changed in the slightest, which is why I am against the notion that there is any real progress. — Coldlight
I agree with you, this is an individual journey that no one else can make for you. Exploring the unconscious, bringing the light of consciousness into that realm is absolutely necessary in order to achieve spiritual growth. As Jung said, the roots of the tree must reach to the depths of hell for the trunk to reach to the heavens. It is not possible to grow spiritually without undoing the mechanism - and it is a mechanism, that's what the unconscious is - that we are subject to.I agree with mysteries and miracles being always within life. After recognising that fact, it is more about working with one's own unconscious mind. Specific language use can also help with that, but generally things like dreams, visions, intuition have the possibility of uncovering what was unseen for us before. The experience is very individual, which is why it requires individual effort and insight. — Coldlight
I would say that the unconscious is created by ourselves, through the act of repression. When something gets repressed, it gets thrown under the rug of consciousness. But the repression is never complete, that is why what was thrown in the depths of consciousness reemerges in various forms, and uncannily makes itself felt, whether it is through dreams, visions, or otherwise. Man tries to escape from his darkness by repressing it and pretending it does not exist, but this is no escape, it merely makes the process more hidden, and lodges it deeper within oneself.To use a Freudian framework, it might be that that's where the unconscious mind was directed, and so that became the centre of the spiritual. — Coldlight
To a certain extent I agree with this, but I would say that the unconscious and the spiritual are not the same thing. If I may say so, the unconscious is the mechanisation of the spiritual, when the spiritual turns into a mere shadow of its former self, and loses its life & vitality.To me, unconscious and spiritual are closely linked. — Coldlight
Yes, I agree with this. Historical movements are either consciously driven, in which case the ones responsible for it are aware of what they are doing (at least to some extent) and are consciously looking to influence and guide the collective unconscious or in an era of darkness, it is completely unconsciously driven, such that even the leaders know not what they are doing (like today). For example, take the Nazi's - the reason they were so successful is because they tapped into the collective unconscious of the Germans and permitted free expression to it - and they did so consciously. What the Germans were afraid to express, because it was not nice, because it wasn't good & decent, etc. the Nazi's awakened and gave it permission, encouraged it, to make itself felt. Any world-historical movement must be in line with the unconscious because it requires the mass movement and action of vast numbers of people. And remember, the unconscious drives most people without their knowledge. So it is virtually impossible to get masses to act by appealing merely to their consciousness - to reach into their depths, one must appeal to what they have repressed, to what they keep hidden, to their own repressed spirituality. Then the masses are literarily transformed into puppets.To relate it to the important movements in history, it could well be the case that the collective unconscious worked in that well and was directed by the spiritual. — Coldlight
Hence the dismissal of the spiritual is a form of protection in an age lacking wisdom.I generally dislike that spiritual, mystical, and supernatural are often portrayed as some sort of medieval magic, and then dismissed right away. — Coldlight
You also seem to agree with my basic position, that life itself is suffused with miracles and the supernatural - at least the active principle of life is. — Agustino
Yes, exactly. This was precisely my point but you have phrased it much more clearly than I was able to, so thank you for that. The problem is precisely that both Hume and St. Augustine (through the quotes posted in this thread) were obfuscating the issue by not properly defining their terms, such as in effect, they weren't saying anything at all.2k
I'd like to follow Hume down his rabbit hole a bit. Elsewhere, in his sceptical discussion of causation, he notes that the laws of nature are derived from past experience of regularities, and, though he doesn't put it this way, descriptive rather than prescriptive. He concludes that there can be nothing in the laws of nature that dictate the future; this is the problem of induction that I like to summarise as 'you can't get a will be from a has been'.
Accordingly, in looking at the past, one is looking at nature, and in noticing regularities one is calling them laws. So in noticing irregularities in the past one says, either there is a regularity that we haven't penetrated yet because it is complicated, or else that there is no regularity, and we have randomness.
As to the future, there is nothing that can possibly be a violation of the laws of nature because there is no law (derived from the past) that can tell us that the future will be like the past.
And as to the past, there is nothing that can possibly be a violation of nature, because if there is a violation, then that is not the law as the regularity is not regular.
None of which is to deny that weird shit might have happened, and weird shit might happen in the future. So it's not, as it turns out very helpful, because in ruling out miracles, nothing whatsoever is ruled out. — unenlightened
Yes, I agree. The miraculous and supernatural represent precisely the entrance of the unconditioned as seen within the realm of the conditioned, the realm of time and space. The created world seems to represent the unity of the unconditioned through the forms of space and time. Analogically, as things are at the macro scale, so are they at the micro. And as things are in the past, so are they in the future.However, one can take another view, and find another definition. Let us say instead, that the laws of nature describe the orderly succession of events, such that the present is conditioned by the past. Now if the laws of nature are complete, and the succession is entirely orderly, then if, the big bang then I write this post. That is, initial conditions + physics determine history.
But that is an old-fashioned notion, because randomness seems to be built in. And randomness in radioactive decay, for example, seems to be unconditioned by the past. — unenlightened
Yes - as Blaise Pascal said, there is sufficient light for those who wish to believe, and sufficient darkness for those who wish to disbelieve. I will say this though - the untrained eye is not capable to distinguish with certainty a miracle from a random event. If I say I'm going to flip a coin 20 times and 20 times in a row get tails, and I do it, someone could always claim that it was random if they so wish. The possibility is always there. One requires understanding in order to truly discern this matter.It is difficult, because if it is not conditioned by the past, it would appear to be random - I'm not entirely sure if there is a way of telling, and if there is in principle no way of our distinguishing the non-random unconditioned event from the random event, then there is no way of answering the question of whether there are miracles or not. — unenlightened
If I say I'm going to flip a coin 20 times and 20 times in a row get tails, and I do it, someone could always claim that it was random if they so wish. The possibility is always there. One requires understanding in order to truly discern this matter. — Agustino
But that is an old-fashioned notion, because randomness seems to be built in. And randomness in radioactive decay, for example, seems to be unconditioned by the past. — unenlightened
I think, finally, that if there is any criterion for distinguishing the random from the miraculous, it must lie in the meaning/significance of the event. But that is a can of worms for another day, or another poster. — unenlightened
Sure.So the circumstances matter. — unenlightened
What if I could, on a regular basis, cure certain forms of cancer just using my mind? Would you call that a miracle?OTOH, if you could do it on a regular basis, I'd think it was conditioned by your skill in flipping, or in some sleight of hand. — unenlightened
Why do you think moral significance is important for something to count as a miracle? Maybe I just walk on water to impress my friends, is that any less miraculous than if I, say, walked on water to save someone from drowning? If so, how come?Turning water into wine down the pub on Saturday night to impress your mates doesn't count as a miracle merely as inexplicable, but doing it at a wedding feast in the moment of crisis does. — unenlightened
In other words, nothing whatsoever could count as a miracle for Hume. Even if I raised people from the dead, it would be taken as the world being irregular.The world just is regular - or not, as the case may be. Which makes it hard for a Humean to make sense of a miracle. — SophistiCat
Exactly, which is one reason why "laws of nature" are an incoherent concept, as I've previously argued.But even if we take a more hospitable approach by assuming the reality of the laws of nature, we then have to tackle those. What is a law of nature? It can't just be a precise specification of what actually happens, because no matter what happens, it could be specified, and that specification could be said to be a law. Thus, any purported miracle could be accommodated in a law that makes room for that miracle. — SophistiCat
What if I could, on a regular basis, cure certain forms of cancer just using my mind? Would you call that a miracle? — Agustino
Why do you think moral significance is important for something to count as a miracle? Maybe I just walk on water to impress my friends, is that any less miraculous than if I, say, walked on water to save someone from drowning? If so, how come? — Agustino
In what sense? Curing illnesses that are for the most part statistically incurable on a regular basis would certainly count as inexplicable, wouldn't it?The problem with such miracles is that what is actually done on a regular basis does not seem to be anything inexplicable. — unenlightened
That is not an everyday miracle, very few people reach the point where they can do that. It is a potential as you say, but not an actuality for most. And I agree about counting that as miraculous.Where I think there is something much more interesting than all these 'what ifs' is in subjectivity itself; arguably, the everyday miracle is the (potential) freedom of the human spirit from its own conditioning. — unenlightened
When you talk about miracles and the supernatural, aren't you references the actions of God? I am not. Chemicals, physics, and time produced life, and in time, intelligent beings, and at some point, just a few seconds ago in geologic time, God. — Bitter Crank
This is precisely the problem. The Universe is suffused with creative energies. Chemicals, forces of physics, etc. - merely labels. This is a tremendous creative force at play, regardless of how you call it, whether you speak of it in poetic or scientific terms, etc.A theist could say that God brought all things into being through physical and chemical processes, and that the principle of life is the hand of God at work. If that's what you mean, fine; but that's not what I am saying. I am saying there was no directive hand, and that the processes of chemistry and physics could have ended up producing only rock. — Bitter Crank
I would say that the unconscious is created by ourselves, through the act of repression. — Agustino
Anything can get repressed into the unconscious - it is a spiritual process in nature. But once something is repressed into the unconscious, it ceases to be spiritual, and becomes a mechanism. — Agustino
To a certain extent I agree with this, but I would say that the unconscious and the spiritual are not the same thing. If I may say so, the unconscious is the mechanisation of the spiritual, when the spiritual turns into a mere shadow of its former self, and loses its life & vitality. — Agustino
As Jung said, the roots of the tree must reach to the depths of hell for the trunk to reach to the heavens. It is not possible to grow spiritually without undoing the mechanism - and it is a mechanism, that's what the unconscious is - that we are subject to. — Agustino
It is a feature of our minds that we can have experiences we call spiritual, mystical, and supernatural. Our mystical mind-bending experiences are cooked up somewhere in what you call "the hidden, incoherent depths of unconsciousness". It's where we live. Imagining God, creating God, striving to fulfill divine commands and follow the paths of Buddha or Christ or... are all profound creative acts. It is human. It is one of the things we do. — Bitter Crank
One has to decide how much reality one's God has. — Bitter Crank
Big Bang denier?This perforce is false since the "world" is not created — charleton
So water having the power to become ice involves volition? You're so scared of God that even little things which may indicate the possibility threaten you. Why not address this anxiety? If you don't believe in God fine, but at least be emotionally open, and tackle it head on, not by hiding, repressing etc.'powers', and that would involve some sort of volition. — charleton
“Thermodynamic miracles… events with odds against so astronomical they’re effectively impossible, like oxygen spontaneously becoming gold. I long to observe such a thing.
Until your mother loves a man she has every reason to hate, and of that union, of the thousand million children competing for fertilization, it was you, only you, that emerged. To distill so specific a form from that chaos of improbability, like turning air to gold… that is the crowning unlikelihood. The thermodynamic miracle.
But…if me, my birth, if that’s a thermodynamic miracle… I mean, you could say that about anybody in the world! Yes. Anybody in the world.
But the world is so full of people, so crowded with these miracles that they become commonplace and we forget… I forget. We gaze continually at the world and it grows dull in our perceptions. Yet seen from the another’s vantage point, as if new, it may still take our breath away. Come…dry your eyes. For you are life, rarer than a quark and unpredictable beyond the dreams of Heisenberg; the clay in which the forces that shape all things leave their fingerprints most clearly.”
Miracle: An event that either makes an exception of one or more of the known laws of nature or otherwise is unexplainable. For example, this definition includes things like me telling you I will flip this coin and get tails 20 times in a row, and I get it, and you and others are not capable to reproduce the event within a reasonable timeframe using the same coin. — Agustino
Contemporary physics, particularly at the extreme micro- and macro- levels is a much richer source of novelty and strangeness than the impoverished narratives of "miracles" and "the supernatural", which are fuelled largely by superstition and parochialism rather than the more hard-earned aspects of the imaginative life associated with the former, which are borne of a combination of real intellectual work and theoretical courage. So, anything of "miracles" or the "supernatural" that can't be at least potentially distilled into theoretical physics can be confidently flushed from consciousness as superfluous to understanding and most probably detrimental to it. — Baden
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.