The reason I use the word 'myth' is based on the idea of the collective unconscious, as stressed by Jung, and he said that, 'There is nothing mystical about the collective unconscious.' — Jack Cummins

Since the theory of Collective Unconscious is vaguely defined, and not amenable to scientific verification, it serves mainly as a cautionary "myth" about human reason. I interpret the CU, not as a mystical Akashic Record out there in the ether, but as simply our genetic & memetic inheritance for certain knee-jerk attitudes and aversions -- such as innate fear of heights & snakes, or implicit racism & tribalism -- that are automatic, and by-pass our mirror of self-awareness.

Collective Unconsciousness : Collective unconscious, term introduced by psychiatrist Carl Jung to represent a form of the unconscious (that part of the mind containing memories and impulses of which the individual is not aware) common to mankind as a whole and originating in the inherited structure of the brain.
https://www.britannica.com/science/collective-unconscious

Akashic Record : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_records

Implicit Racism : https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/implicit-racism

:lol: It was my intention to sign out an hour ago, and I worry that I post things that others may not approve of, or I say too much. I think it is very important to respect you and that you started this thread so the thread should be as you want it. But the responses to this thread have been so stimulating and enlightening and I spin out of control.

Every day I come to this forum, I leave feeling like my brain is overloaded and about to shut down. If I have time, I take a nap when I leave because the mental work consumes so much of my energy, and I am very thankful I am not distracted by child care or a job. This is what gets me out of bed in the morning and puts a smile on my face and love in my heart. The people who post here are special people and you all give me hope. :heart: :flower:

Yes, it is hard to get carried away on this philosophy forum. I probably say more about my personal life than many others, and after all, it is about philosophy.

It can be very addictive as well. I hear beeps on my phone in the night and sometimes get up to read comments coming through, because of course people are writing in different time zones. But, on some nights I have been awake reading comments and tired in the day. Saying that, I think that it is fantastic that we are able to communicate philosophy ideas with people from across the world. It allows for such diversity of discussion, because I am sure that we all have such different lives.

I have just read your post and find it very interesting. I still had not responded to your second comment on the post because there have been a lot and I got a bit overwhelmed.

But I was planning to do a bit more writing on the thread tomorrow and your latest post here will be a useful stimulus for me to reflect upon.

Love :heart: , it is not my truth versus your truth. Democracy is an imitation of the gods who argued until they had a consensus on the best reasoning. Democracy is rule by reason, not authority over the people. Democracy is not control by the people who know God's truth and will. :grimace: Like the gods it is for us to reason until we have a consensus on the best reasoning, and it is our duty to speak up when we disagree with that reasoning and try to persuade others to accept our better reasoning. That is why democracy is an ongoing process, not a set of laws written by a God, and then rule by the leaders God gives us with all that there is for us to do, is to obey. — Athena

It sounds as though you would really enjoy Habermas' book Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of Law and Democracy. it aligns completely with these views.

So, I am asking about the whole question of truth arising from the clash between religion and science and divergent systems of thinking. Is there one which is the ultimate in terms of establishing truth? — Jack Cummins

I view the recurrent "clashes" between Religion and Science as an example of Hegel's Historical Dialectic. It's how Evolution works : ups & downs, but gradual progress. The Dialectic is a Heuristic searching process, perhaps working its way toward ultimate Truth. The key to Cultural progress is to learn from the past, but plan for the future. :smile:

Hegel : The notion that history conforms to a “dialectical” pattern, according to which contradictions generated at one level are overcome or transcended at the next,

Galileo : "The intention of [the Bible] is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens go."

Teilhard deChardin : The Omega Point is the subject of a belief that everything in the universe is fated to spiral towards a final point of unification.

Stephen Jay Gould : Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) is a philosophical world view that places religion and science in separate domains of questioning

Note -- Unfortunately, Gould's plea for mutual respect for separate domains of authority was well-intended, but impractical. Realistically, Science and Religion do indeed overlap in some areas. That's where the clashes occur, in which dominance may change hands. Yet, that's also how history, and human culture, progresses, in a back & forth ratcheting action, but generally upward in both technical knowledge and in collective morality.

I was just thinking about what you were saying about the collective unconscious , and I agree that it can be regarded as mythic rather than like some mystical entity. But in a sense, it seems wierd that people often level this criticism at the idea of the collective unconscious, because all theoretical structures are models really. The idea of the collective unconscious should not be seen as some kind of supernatural category.

Surely, no one theory can capture reality completely, but this would apply to religious and scientific viewpoints too. Perhaps all pictures of truth are partial and the problem is like trying to grasp for, 'The Whole of the Moon' as in The Waterboys' song.

I was just thinking about what you were saying about the collective unconscious , and I agree that it can be regarded as mythic rather than like some mystical entity. But in a sense, it seems wierd that people often level this criticism at the idea of the collective unconscious, because all theoretical structures are models really. The idea of the collective unconscious should not be seen as some kind of supernatural category. — Jack Cummins

Interesting fact: there's a Buddhist concept called the ālayavijñāna which is translated as 'storehouse consciousness. The 'ālaya' is the same word as in Himālaya, meaning 'abode' (Himālaya) means 'abode of the Gods'. There have been comparisons between Jung's collective unconscious and the Buddhist ālayavijñāna, although there are obviously many differences due to the cultural context.

I think naturally such ideas are mystical rather than scientific, in that they are not amenable to scientific method. I myself don't think that adds up to much but on this board it means a lot.

It's interesting really because I think that Jung's ideas are very ambiguous allowing for differing interpretations. My own taking has been influenced by the writings of Anthony Steven's who chose to see his perspective as seeing archetypes as patterns embedded in nature. But of course this is just one way of thinking about it all and I have read a book called, 'Jung the Mystic' by Gary Lachman. Also, I have an unread book on my shelves, called, 'Jung's Psychology and Tibetan Buddhism: Western and Eastern Paths to the Heart,' by Radmila Moacanin. Perhaps I should read it shortly.

I suppose that Jung is one of the writers on the edge, in between religion and science. I do think that there is this whole area as well as those who are on the sometimes aggressive battle between the two possible but not necessarily opposed ways of viewing truth and reality.

I am aware that there are some extremely religious people (mainly Christians) and some people who take a materialist reductionist approach. So far, the whole issue of the 'mystical' has been thrown up by the debates, but not between the most extremes of belief. I have to admit that it had occurred to me that the extremes could have been part of the debate, but the whole notion of 'cultural relativism,' may have led the discussion more into the middle area and this is probably where I have been hovering. I have to admit that I have probably chosen to think away from the 'mystical' because I have done academic studies in psychology and mental health care. But I have read a lot of esoteric philosophy at times as well.

I suppose that Jung is one of the writers on the edge, in between religion and science — Jack Cummins

If you read his autobiography Memories Dreams and Reflections, he wrote of the legend that he is the illegitimate grandson of Goethe, due to a dalliance between Goethe and an actress. It was never able to be confirmed but perhaps that makes the story even more evocative. Jung seemed to enjoy the fact that it *might* have been true. And in any case, I think there’s a lot of common ground between the two.

I see Jung as very much in the light of the broader gnostic tradition. (Coming to think of it, you probably are also. I have several of Lachman’s books - the one on Jung I liked.)

Again, the ‘divorce of faith and reason’ is very much a product of the intellectual history of the West. At times past, I wondered whether this might be related to the suppression of Gnosticism in early Christian history. (That has to be qualified by saying there was no one particular gnostic school or sect, instead Gnosticism was a broad tendency within early Christianity with many different manifestations, not of all of them healthy.) But I formed the view that there is a kind of experiential spirituality associated with Gnosticism, which, I think, was suppressed by the ecclesiastical mainstream, because it’s naturally more difficult to institutionalise and control. Believers are much easier to manage.

As you might know, there was a large cache of gnostic literature discovered in Egypt in the 1970’s which came to be known as the Nag Hammadi codex. It contained many previously-lost gnostic scriptures and commentaries. You will find an index of many books on it here. Elaine Pagels is a standout, although April DeConick’s books, which I’ve only recently learned of, also look interesting.

In any case, the exclusive emphasis in Western ecclesiastical religion was on belief, ‘believe and be saved’, at the expense of gnostic insight, ‘you will know the truth and the truth will set you free’. Defence of orthodoxy against heresy was a massive preoccupation for centuries. And ‘orthodoxy’ means ‘right belief’ or ‘right worship’. That is one of the underlying motivations for the rise of a purely secular philosophy. The Royal Society, for example, the first scientific society, explicitly declared the metaphysical philosophy of the priests off limits. Likewise many of the ideas associated with scholastic philosophy, which included a fair amount of Aristotelian philosophy, was more or less cordoned off after the Enlightenment.

So I think, understanding the cultural and historical dynamics is a big part of it. Actually Gnomon touched on that above. But this drives a lot of the responses, one way or another, and often for reasons that aren’t fully articulated or even conscious.

Is there one which is the ultimate in terms of establishing truth? — Jack Cummins

Science has it's limitations and so nobody can discount the supernatural. However, since the scientific method is an actual method that's based on testing, observation, standardization, then it is superior because anyone can repeat or follow the same methods and arrive at the same conclusions.

This cannot be done with the supernatural. That's why there are countless variations in religion, giving birth to millions of deities, each with their own special rules and principles, allowing for countless more interpretations and reinterpretations.

Therefore, any object/phenomenon/concept can only be proven to be real or true based on the scientific method.

That's not to say that unprovable things aren't true but rather that they shouldn't be considered as completely true. They are simply unknown or unverified.

since the scientific method is an actual method that's based on testing, observation, standardization, then it is superior because anyone can repeat or follow the same methods and arrive at the same conclusions. — 8livesleft

Well, except for the replication crisis.

There's also the fact that within philosophical and spiritual traditions, there's both peer validation and recognition of the student's understanding by experts (i.e. spiritual masters). In fact, arguably, this is where scientific method originated.

Well, except for the replication crisis. — Wayfarer

Yes of course, nothing is perfect but as a method, it's the best we have.

There's also the fact that within philosophical and spiritual traditions, there's both peer validation and recognition of the student's understanding by experts (i.e. spiritual masters). In fact, arguably, this is where scientific method originated. — Wayfarer

I can see where and how philosophical concepts can be peer reviewed and validated - much like how mathematical formulas/solutions are validated and reviewed. Phrases are reduced to near-algebraic terms if x = y, and y = z, then z = x kinda thing.

But can the same be done to religious experience? Probably not.

But can the same be done to religious experience? Probably not. — 8livesleft

You know this already, right? Presumably from long experience in monasteries, viharas, ashrams?

You know this already, right? Presumably from long experience in monasteries, viharas, ashrams? — Wayfarer

That's the thing. Anyone can go to a lab to test or see an experiment - or even do the test themselves if they have the right tools. But no matter how many times you go to a church, monastery etc... you'll probably have a slightly (added: or vastly) different experience as everyone else.

I don't think that you have to go to church to have significant experiences because people can have peak experiences in all kinds of places. But, of course, we are talking about inner experiences. We could wonder whether the whole world of subjectivity and that is where relativity comes in because, ultimately, no one can claim that their experience of the 'truth' is the superior one.

I agree that experience is largely subjective when it comes to humans since we all experience, process and convey things in a way that's specific for each person. But, that's where the scientific method comes in with things like tools and procedures - not perfect maybe but still preferable.

I don't think that you have to go to church to have significant experiences because people can have peak experiences in all kinds of places. But, of course, we are talking about inner experiences. We could wonder whether the whole world of subjectivity and that is where relativity comes in because, ultimately, no one can claim that their experience of the 'truth' is the superior one. — Jack Cummins

Just finished Cassirer's Essay on Man, which is...a survey of culture from the perspectives of myth, religion, language, art, history, and science. So more or less in line with your topic. His conclusion:

Human culture taken as a whole may be described as the process of man’s progressive self-liberation. Language art, religion, science, are various phases in this process. In all of them man discovers and proves a new power – the power to build up a world of his own, an ‘ideal’ world.

In other words, each of these domains has its own unique place in the overall project of culture. And to really understand them we need to understand how they do complement each other in the overall project that is humanity. And that is the purpose of philosophy.

Therefore, any object/phenomenon/concept can only be proven to be real or true based on the scientific method. — 8livesleft

The problem with this claim, as I explained at the beginning of the thread, is that science cannot tell us what constitutes being real, or being true. And your claim is left hollow when you can give "real" and "true" whatever meaning you want. So scientism will give us the circular argument that "real" and "true" is what science demonstrates to us, therefore "any object/phenomenon/concept can only be proven to be real or true based on the scientific method".

Yes I understand that science can only tell us what's real for us humans. And since our perception is limited, then the science will also be limited.

But again, it has very practical applications, most of which may only be suitable for humans but suitable nonetheless.

I'd tell a sick person to go to a doctor, not a shaman for example.

Yes I understand that science can only tell us what's real for us humans. And since our perception is limited, then the science will also be limited. — 8livesleft

You have an assumed "us" here. What substantiates the required proposition that what is real for me is the same as what is real for you, to support this assumed "us"? This is the point of relativism. And all I have to do is insist that what is real for me (perhaps all sorts of supernatural things) is different from what is real for you, to refute your claim of "us". To support your claim you would need to prove that I am lying. But if I truly believe what I am saying, then I am not lying.

You have an assumed "us" here. What substantiates the required proposition that what is real for me is the same as what is real for you, to support this assumed "us"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes I agree and that's where science comes in. If you say you caught a 14 inch fish, I can confirm by bringing along a tape measure.

But it really depends what we're talking about. If it's something that can be observed, measured or possibly recorded then there are a lot of things we can use to confirm what you're saying.

But it really depends what we're talking about. If it's something that can be observed, measured or possibly recorded then there are a lot of things we can use to confirm what you're saying. — 8livesleft

OK, let's talk about that part of reality which cannot be measured or observed, how is the scientific method the only way to prove that these things are real?

If we restrict reality to 'only the things which the scientific method can prove', then all those things which cannot be proven by science, are necessarily not real. And all that part of reality which cannot be measured or observed is necessarily not real.

OK, let's talk about that part of reality which cannot be measured or observed, how is the scientific method the only way to prove that these things are real? — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, I suppose we first have to agree on the definition of "real." For me, "real" are things that can be scientifically proven to be real.

But again, that's not to say (or rather I didn't mean to say) that unproven things are automatically not real.

Rather that they will remain unknown or unverified. 95% of the universe falls in this category so I understand that it's definitely possible for unproven things to exist.

Let me give you an example. Let's take the natural numbers. We have numerals, 1,2,3,4, which are symbols, representations of numbers. The numbers themselves cannot be observed. And if we wanted to measure the natural numbers, we would try to count them. But the count goes on indefinitely, so they never really get counted or measured. Therefore we can say that they cannot be measured.

Are these numbers something real? We cannot prove scientifically that they exist, because we cannot even determine where they are, to observe them. Yet they clearly have an effect in the world, as we can see the products of mathematics all around us. So how would you define "real", as anything observable, and measurable by scientific methods, in which case numbers are not real? Or would you define "real" as anything which has an observable and measurable effect in the world, in which case numbers might be real.

If we choose the latter definition, allowing that numbers have some form of reality due to the effects which they bring about in the world, then we ought to allow the truth of the proposition that there are things which cannot be observed, or measured by science, which have an effect in our world, and are therefore real.

↪Gnomon I have just read your post and find it very interesting. I still had not responded to your second comment on the post because there have been a lot and I got a bit overwhelmed. — Jack Cummins

I am glad I am not the only one who gets overwhelmed. This forum really requires thinking, unlike a political forum I am in where no one is thinking, they are just reacting to each other, mostly with insults. They make verb war and this pulls everyone down to that level. While here we put in effort and climb higher. I don't think people who won't put in the effort are here for long.

There has been so much debate in this thread that I hardly know where to step in, if at all, but I would like to take it back to the essential issues. One matter which arises when thinking of relativism and the whole dimension of questions arising between religion and science for philosophy is that we are framing the whole matter at this point in history.

The historical context of this cannot be ignored. In this respect,@Gnomon brought in the whole idea of dialectical truth as expressed by Hegel.I have not touched upon the ideas of Hegel as I would like and do plan to read in this area because I do believe that it is extremely important.

But the point I would wish to make here is that while we regard current thinking as extremely important, and I am not actually disputing the extent of knowledge of this information age, but at the same time we have to avoid a sense of superiority. It is possible that certain aspects of truth are being lost. Here, I would say that I question some of the depth of knowledge available on the internet, believing that it glosses on surfaces and does not go to the depths and foundations of the real searches of the thinkers of many ideas.

One other point I about the historical context is the whole idea of hermeticism, as attribute to the person known as Hermes Trimegistus, which was a foundation for Western thinking, including both science and religion, as well as philosophy. Perhaps this source, as well as gnosticism and paganism, is as important in thinking about the question of relativism in comparative, historical terms, rather than the matter being seen only in terms of comparative, anthropological terms. And perhaps the whole dialogue between religion and science does not have to be construed in terms of the Judaeo- Christian tradition alone.

Yes, I think that this whole area of discussion has so many aspects and that is why I am becoming rather overwhelmed. There are so many facets of discussion to explore, arising from each person's comments (and people getting into petty insults, which get in the way!)

My feeling is that this thread should not be a rushed one but one that grows slowly. It is not one for immediate answers or ones which avoid 'mistakes' as today's new area of speculation asks.The whole subject matter allows for experimental possibilities, mixed with careful reflection. It is not as if we have a strict deadline, as long as we are alive, for acquiring wisdom in these areas of intricate thought.

Wishing to give stimulus for further reflection upon belief in the midst of the cultural, relativistic debate, and the whole question of science and religion, I would like to share a quotation for reflection, by Derek Wilson, (2017), in, his book, 'Superstition and Science':
'Most thinking people who seek answers to the problems of "life, the universe and everything" want two things"- certainty and freedom. They want to know that their search for meaning has led them to ultimate truth and that they have liberty to seek, formulate and live by that truth. For atheists the result of their investigation is very satisfactory: since no ultimate source of ethical authority exists they are free to live their lives exactly as they wish, choosing for themselves whatever moral restraints(if any) they elect to impose upon themselves. For the the rest of humanity life is not so simple.'

This quotation opens the doors to the panorama of possibilities arising from relativism. Any thoughts?

Oh great another book I must buy and read. I am a painfully slow reader and I will never complete the book I believe I must write because I am forever learning and changing my understanding. But a book that is agreeable with my basic understanding of democracy is a must-read. Perhaps I will figure out a better way of saying what must be said if I read the book.

As I understand it, science is to democracy what religion is to autocracy. The miracle of democracy is group thinking. When we question what is right and what is wrong, and share our different points of view, our understanding is much greater than when we do not discuss right and wrong. Learning what the Bible has to say about right and wrong, is not equal to thinking through right and wrong.

That might make one think replacing education for independent thinking with groupthink is a good thing, but it is not because groupthink leads to conformity and reliance on authority, not independent thinking.
Education for groupthink has brought us to reactionary politics and tribalism, not actually thinking and working for a consensus on the best reasoning.

Yes, I think that this whole area of discussion has so many aspects and that is why I am becoming rather overwhelmed. There are so many facets of discussion to explore, arising from each person's comments.

My feeling is that this thread should not be a rushed one but one that grows slowly. It is not one for rushed answers or ones which avoid 'mistakes' as today's new debate. It allows for experimental possibilities and reflection. It is not as if we have a deadline for acquiring wisdom in these areas of intricate thought. — Jack Cummins

Wise words. You speak of the difference between reacting and thinking. Sleeping on a thought is a wonderful idea as our right brain can chew on the thought while we sleep and create new insight that our left-brain can not do.

This is really about culture and why we have cultural conflict today. We have been electing presidents who boast about not thinking too much before making a decision. While many of us think that is being reactionary and not good thinking. While the tribe who sees being reactionary as a sign of strength rather than weakness insults the presidents who listen to many people and do a lot of thinking before making a decision. Can others see this cultural conflict? If I am correct, and not just biased, being reactionary tends to go with being religious, while the slow thinkers seem more reliant on science. Those who want to stand with the power and glory of God, seem to like power, but not the uncertainty that goes with thinking things through and listening to what others say, and accepting the scientific method as a better way to know truth.