The motivation is a subconscious drive to prevent psychological pain. — JerseyFlight

Well, if that is what it is it has not worked very well. The human condition is steeped in pain and religion does not change that. But I am also wary of psychoanalytical definitions of religion. It is too easy to invent these theories and they come in all shapes an colours.

A great deal of creativity goes into probing the mechanism of action of a novel cellular protein...exploring the unknown. This is not base or primitive. This is merely a part of a constellation of human interests and activities. — Marco Colombini

Yes I agree but I am talking about science as knowledge not as a creative activity. Scientific and mathematical knowledge is primitive. By primitive I don't mean base or degraded, I mean rudimentary. Questions concerning consciousness go beyond the nuts-and-bolts of materialism.

While the purpose of science is to develop knowledge about reality, I think religion is better described as an effort to develop our relationship with reality. What confuses this issue is that religions often make claims about reality as part of the attempt to manage that relationship. — Hippyhead

Very often people argue about religion in terms of whether the mythology is 'true' or 'false'. That is like arguing whether a painting by Cezanne is 'true' or 'false'. Cezanne's painting is obviously not literally true because he does not represent things literally. Cezanne's truth is on a more subtle level. Likewise, religion is mythological because people need mythology. People need truth in a mythological form because myth is the oldest language of mankind, maybe older even than the spoken word. It is our first language.

Because myth is not literally true does not mean it contains no truth. It is a poetic image of the truth. It is also a practical context in which people can practice their faith. Truth is within religion. The outer myth is only a poetic image. (But religion is more than myth as it also makes direct claims about reality).

As evidence we might consider space, that is, the overwhelming vast majority of reality. There are no divisions in space. — Hippyhead

Yes, all is one. Consider the following. Let x^2 mean x squared. Now consider the squares;-
1^2 = 1
2^2 = 4
3^2 = 9
4^2 = 16 and so on. This squaring is an abstract, mental concept. Now draw a graph of x squared on a 2 dimensional sheet of paper. The graph will represent precisely the squares of real numbers. But how can this be? How can a mental concept be mapped onto space? The only way this can happen is if there is a natural affinity between mind and space. That is, mind and space must share the same nature. If they did not it would not be possible to map the squares onto a graph. There are many examples of how things on one level of reality can be mapped onto another level of reality. This is because nature is universal. The universe is an image of God's nature and God's nature is expressed on many different levels. But ultimately it is all one thing, as you say.

Point being, our attempts to define God would seem to be in rather substantial conflict with the vast majority of reality. All of our definitions presume that boundaries are real. Are they? — Hippyhead

But humans need simple definitions of God. They may not be ultimate but they are useful.

I think you are forgetting that established physics are nowhere near to explaining everything in and about our universe so using god to explain what is unknown is not a realistic explanation for his existence. — Leiton Baynes

I don't think god is simply invented to explain things. Belief is often based on intuition. Yes, people may use god to 'fill in the gaps' but even then they are not necessarily wrong because God really does move the planets. It is just that God's actions are more complex then we originally thought.

I see art, music, literature, and emotion as being soft, malleable, unreliable, and thus rather useless tools if one wants to know anything with any confidence. — Marco Colombini

The subtext here is that only 'provable' rudimentary truths are admissible; subjective things are open to debate, established science and mathematics are not. All that seems reasonable but the problem is provable, objective truths that can be agreed upon are rudimentary, primitive. They are almost useless.

Imagine a luxury ocean liner on a cruise. In the bowels of the ship you have the engineers tending to the engine and the basic running of the ship. But on the upper decks there is opera at night. This is an art exhibition. The passengers occupy themselves with discussions about higher things; art, philosophy, religion, creativity and so on.

Why would the people on the upper decks summon one of the engineers to comment on these things? Because he is an expert engineer and knows every nut and bolt of the engine? Why would this qualify him to make judgements on art and religion or music?

I'm not denigrating science or mathematics but in the modern age we have this fixation with the scientist because he knows weird stuff that intimidates regular folk. They are 'geniuses' and are held in awe. So we tend to think they are experts on all manner of things outside their area of expertise. But two minutes reflection will show that they are no more qualified in philosophical matters than anyone else. Indeed, there might be more truth in folk wisdom than there is in a library of science books.

In fact, scientists are often poor judges of matters concerning consciousness because they are scientists. This is because people can be 'hypnotized' or drunk on their own knowledge and expertise; they are blinded by it and are locked inside the consensus box. Very often it takes someone who is willing to think outside the box to break the spell. And 'spell' is the exact word here because academic excellence can cast a spell on the mind and prevent it from going outside the consensus. In this respect, scientists can often be very poor philosophers. How many times have you heard science writers parroting the consensus simply because it is the consensus rather than rigorously established science?

To assert that art, music and literature are higher in any way than science and mathematics is merely a personal opinion to which anyone is entitled to have or not to have. As to primitive, I think archeology would indicate that art preceded mathematics and thus is more primitive based on the depictions on the walls of caves. — Marco Colombini

When I say primitive I don't mean historically or culturally primitive, I mean they are rudimentary. Atoms and numbers are rudimentary compared to the more sophisticated realms of consciousness. They are the nuts and bolts of existence. The 'music' of reality is on a more evolved and sophisticated realm.

The hydrogen atom is a physical image of energy. It is not an ultimate physical substance because there is no ultimate physical substance. All physical objects are images of energy. Likewise with physical music, art and religion. They are images or metaphors of something else. The question I am asking is what do these metaphors/images represent? Art and religion are images of the contents of our consciousness. So what is the reality behind the image?

All human, physical life is an image of something else. Science is concerned with the invisible order behind the physical world. Religion is concerned with the invisible order behind the image that human life is. In this respect science and religion are both attempts to grasp the 'world beyond the world'.

It is important to see this because it's the psychological motivation behind our drive to prove their transcendence, and this motivation stops us from comprehending reality. — JerseyFlight

What, in your understanding, is this motivation?

I agree, these things do exist. You ask, what do they mean? This is a strange question, because you seem to be assuming some extra-dimension to which they correspond? — JerseyFlight

I am saying the reality of these things cannot be hammered into the limited confines of scientific knowledge. Science can not explain these things so we have to find a better way of coming to terms with them.

I think it was meant to be rhetorical. I mean, you are free to prove the existence of "higher things," if you can? I'm all ears. — JerseyFlight

There is no need to prove the reality of these things. Art is really there. So is music, religion, consciousness. The question is not whether these things are real, the question is 'what do they mean?'

Did you just assert the general existence of "higher things?" Well this is certainly proof of a strong, Primate imagination. — JerseyFlight

I'm not sure what your question is asking. I am asserting the reality of art, music, religion...
When I say primitive I am not referring to primates, I am referring to basic things. These are the things that lend themselves to 'proof'. Can you restate your question?

As I see it, science is concerned with primitive realities. Matter is primitive and so is much of mathematics. It is naive to think that the science of the primitive could answer questions concerning higher things: art, religion, consciousness, God, creativity, emotion, music, literature... these things are far beyond science. Trying to reduce these things to scientific 'proofs' is like trying to reduce oil painting to the chemistry of pigments or reduce music to an analysis of the sine wave.

It this respect it is unfair to ask for proof and unrealistic to try to limit knowledge to things that can be 'proved' because proof almost always concerns primitive things. If our world view is to be limited to provable things then our world view will be wrong because much of reality cannot be proved in this primitive way (if you have a thought can you prove you had it? can someone prove you did not have it? Thought is the source of much of the world we live in and is, in many respects, more potent than physical energy or matter)

The question about God being an explanation comes down to the opinion that 'God' is the most convincing explanation for the world.

Arguing about the reality of God within the context of religion is fraught with all kinds of complications. Better to argue in terms of God as the source of the world and not complicate it with particular religious viewpoints.

Anyone willing to help me reason through this issue? — Gregory

I would be hard pressed to describe anything that is demonstrably anti mathematical.

I’m not saying the preexistence of spirits is impossible I’m saying we don’t nearly have enough evidence to assume it — khaled

Yes, I understand that. I'm just putting forward an observation that needs to be answered.

none of what you are sending requires the existence of spirits. It could still be explained in terms of genetics and nurture. I don’t know why you think those two aren’t enough. — khaled

But can it be explained in terms of genetics and nurture? It hasn't been so the question of preexistence of our spirits is still open.

Doesn’t take long to develop at all you already have qualities that make you distinct from birth. — khaled

I have known children who have almost adult characters from an early age. Some children have a level of maturity that normally takes decades to arrive at.

Tell me exactly what you mean by “character” and why you think it takes so long to develop. I don’t know what young Mozart was like so I don’t know what you think is so special about him that the only way to explain it is by saying he is some kind of “old soul” or something — khaled

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/character

Mozart was a child genius. https://www.classicfm.com/music-news/pictures/composer/classical-musics-child-prodigies/mozart-child/

I believe there are two fundamental types of exist in our universe. That of objects with shape and location such as quarks and of properties of these objects which is not their shape/location that govern their behavior in relation to other objects. — Francis

The properties of a sub atomic particle are the particle; they are its nature. The distinction is artificial.

Mind-brain (or mind-body) is a feedback loop. One affects the other.

The second major difference between evolution of the mind and evolution of purely physical features of an organism is the mind itself. Not only is there a change in the structure of the matter in the body – as would happen in the evolution of any new feature – there is another aspect of reality that is altered along with the structure of the matter in the organism. In the Property-Dualist Interactionist model which I subscribe to we call this other aspect of reality a non-physical property. — Francis

Consciousness is of the mind (the five senses are a physical imitation of the mind's consciousness). Brain development allows more of the mind to participate in physical reality. As the brain evolves it enables more of the mind to become manifest in a physical context.

Some people will just be born with the right genes for the right environment to be considered geniuses. There is no need for past lives or spirits to explain that. I tend to favor the metaphysics that “creates” the fewest things and makes sense. You don’t need spirits to explain differences in intelligence and performance so I don’t believe in them. — khaled

It takes decades to develop character and some children are already born with highly developed characters - bad and good...

“Beauty is truth, truth beauty, —that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know” ~ Keats

"Mathematics is beautiful. If it is not, nothing is beautiful" ~ Paul Erdős

I think beauty is beyond biology but biological forms can be a context for beauty.

And this means? — schopenhauer1

It lends credibility to the idea that our spirits exist before we are born. It is clear that many children have highly developed characters at a very early age. This cannot easily be explained by physical science.

It seems that a theory of reincarnation that's based on the existence of verifiable memories of past lives is unfalsifiable, ergo isn't a scientific theory. — TheMadFool

Even unscientific theories can be true. Also, if a person remembers a past life how can we be sure it is their past life? It may be someone else's life they are remembering.

There is no you prior to your birth that could have been something else. — schopenhauer1

Are you sure about this? Many children are born highly developed - Mozart, Picasso, child geniuses etc.

So material cause thus becomes some bare notion of contingency or accident or fluctuation. It is whatever is logically complementary to formal cause. That leads to a Peircean ontology of constraints on contingency. Matter arises from action being given a direction. — apokrisis

As I understand it, the laws of nature are not separate from nature or imposed on nature from outside. Things behave as they do because it is their nature to behave that way. There is only nature, not nature and laws of nature. Matter is what it is because non material energy condensed in a particular way. The Fine Tuning Argument says that energy condensed in a very precise way and as a result the creative potential of matter was optimized. The combinatorial possibilities of matter are immense (Lego!) and this is because of the way energy condensed into matter. If things happened in a different way, matter might just be a blob without much creative potential.

I was simply saying above that we don't fully know what matter is. You say it's energy. But do you know what energy is? How close is the relationship between energy and matter? When energy becomes matter, is there true change or simply a rearrangement or condensation or something? This is what I'm interested in. I am not sure philosophy really has an answer — Gregory

Suppose you have a lump of bronze and you make a statue of an eagle from it. Nothing of substance has been added. Only form has been created - the form of an eagle. When energy condenses into matter only material form is created, nothing of substance is added.

What is energy? If energy is also contingent then there must be a deeper underlying 'energy' upon which energy is contingent. But it's not 'turtles all the way down', there must be a fundamental substance.

How do you know the result is not more real than the process? — Gregory

I'm not saying it is more real. I'm saying the result - matter - is dependent on the cause, energy. This means matter is contingent.

All kinds of things can tempt towards suicide. But if certain philosophies are depressing so too are some philosophies optimistic and life affirming. So, are you reading the right philosophers? Ultimately life itself is its own philosophy. Philosophy in books are an abstraction, that may be far from the truth.

Prove it. Demonstrate what matter even is — Gregory

There is no need to prove it as science already shows that matter is only form. Energy assumes a certain structure and when it does we call it matter. In principle it is possible for all the matter in the universe to evaporate - see The Heat Death of the Universe.

The philosophy you are quoting says objects are formed from pure matter and form. My question is, why only one form? Why only one matter? Why only two principles? Why not five? Materialism says there is one principle per object. It's simpler and doesn't waste people's time — Gregory

Energy is primary, matter is secondary and contingent. Energy is the substance of matter. Matter is substance/energy and form. Form can be dismantled as in nuclear reactions radioactive decay etc.

So, why have as an objective of one's philosophy proving the existence of god or why use the existence of god as one's philosophical foundation? — Daniel

I think it is a question of approaching things with an open mind and, for me, realizing that God is the most coherent explanation for the world. I would not assume God exists and start arguing from there. I argue about the world I see and experience and then come to the conclusion that the existence of God is the best explanation.

I think the idea of god stalls philosophical discussion since it "solves" many of the unknowns with which philosophy deals. In my opinion, you cannot do philosophy when you assume a supernatural entity is the main cause of existence. You can believe in god and do philosophy, but your philosophy cannot be based on the existence of god. — Daniel

Rather than assuming God's existence and arguing from there I think it is better to argue from existence and arrive at an argument for God's existence as being the most persuasive explanation of reality.

As far as we can tell, the human mind is the most evolved, complex entity in the universe thus far. That is what matters. Most of the rest of the universe is a desert, probably populated with remote islands of life.

which I do think is just good in its own right, there is something to be said for humility. — thewonder

True. Philosophy is like a workout for the mind, it teaches us how to think critically provided we don't take ourselves too seriously.

If one's goal were to understand a word, one might suppose that one must first understand the words in its definition. But this process is circular. — Banno

"We cannot define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, "You don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says, "What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?" ~ Richard Feynman

the past where you do things aimlessly and ignorantly seems to be more fulfilling as now you face with the uncertain absurdity of life. Is this true for most of y’all or am I being somewhat nihilistic? — Josh Lee

If living intuitively - "aimlessly and ignorantly" - is more fulfilling than framing one's existence within the box of philosophy then philosophy might be to blame.

I don't think that it is the case that you can say that something like stealing is wrong in every given context. — thewonder

I believe there is a law in Britain that says if you're starving you can steal a few vegetables from a farmer's field without breaking the law. There is always the danger of condescension when it comes to the law/morality or even world views. The central lesson of philosophy is, we don't know. Sometimes I think philosophers are among the most confused people of all because they are wont to believe in their own philosophy.

Theism or Platonism doesn't work as it might posit a formal cause, but is pretty mute about material cause. — apokrisis

Matter is secondary because it is contingent or caused. The cause of matter is beyond matter.

its collective thermal direction that is the entropic gradient we call time. — apokrisis

I don't see entropy as a definition of time. It may be - in most cases - parallel to the arrow of time but it does not define time. Physical time is a physical object in the same way that chairs or tables are, except it has an extra dimension which is why it is called spacetime. I think it is a mistake to equate time with entropy simply because they are moving is the same direction.

A blank everythingness that is neither material, nor enformed. Just a pure vagueness or state of potential. — apokrisis

Yet, the void, or 'chaos' contained within itself, the potential for order, which may mean it is not true chaos.

Morality has always been considered as according to social conventions. — thewonder

Social contexts are just that, a context in which moral standards are interpreted. But morality, in spiritual terms, should be a guard against crimes against life. Life is sacred/valuable (depending on whether we are speaking from a theist/atheist point of view) and this concept is the keystone of moral ideals. For the Jews, morality was not merely a social convention, it was seen to be a representation of God's Justice on earth.

At best, morality relies upon an appeal to a kind of quasi-ascetic superiority complex arbitrated by those who decide who is and isn't virtuous. — thewonder

That is more like an abuse of moral concepts. No doubt, these concepts can be abused in the way that concepts of justice can be abused. But corruptions of moral concepts are not a measure of ideal moral concepts.

If, for the sake of argument, we consider an earlier state of the universe as pure energy sans familiar matter which then, for reasons unknown to us, "coalesced" into matter, would that count as creation ex nihilo? — TheMadFool

In a sense yes because nothing of substance is added to create matter. Matter is nothing in the sense that it is only form.

Dare I say we're afflicted with an illness of a moral nature? We are, like it or not, bad, despite our protestations that we're not. — TheMadFool

Some are good. Most are weakly bad. Some are evil.

I receive some comfort, as little as it may be, from the realization that all that's good in the world comes from mankind. — TheMadFool

But doesn't a dog love its owner? Isn't love the ultimate moral good? The beauty of the world is also a good. Even cats love and defend their 'children'. The good permeates all nature. But the world is fallen.

Corrupt are some religions have become, the loss of Christianity and the moral collapse of society are not merely coincidental. Unless mankind has something higher than mankind to aspire to, things will go badly.

ptolemy's theorem — talminator2856791

I had not heard of that. Very interesting. The Greeks did math by geometry so they may have discovered it geometrically first and then did the algebra.