I take it to be the initial recognition of the divorce of facts and values that is one of the basic problems of modern philosophy. — Wayfarer

I'm skeptical of this divorce or Hume's Guillotine. Don't we evaluate everything? These evaluations may be based on personal values, or values which are selfish and shortsighted (materialistic) in nature, but they are values nevertheless. In the absence of an overarching telos or collective purpose perhaps we default to baser interests and goals.

I listened to a CliffsNotes version of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber while at the gym today. It seems to strongly suggest that ideas can significantly influence cultural and economic change. From what I understand he believed that, though difficult, it's possible to escape our iron cage. How though?

But the Buddha didn't say anything about God. Why? — TheMadFool

Again because God isn't relevant to this system of belief. You might as well point out that Jesus didn't say anything about emptiness and ask why.

1. He found God but didn't want to reveal it

2. He didn't find God but didn't want to reveal it

3. He could neither prove nor disprove God

Allow me the assumption that the Buddha was a good man and thus devoted to the welfare of his followers and all mankind.

It then follows that knowledge of God's existence/nonexistence must be harmful in some way. Did the Buddha anticipate crusades/jihad and the nihilism of atheism?

Which of the 3 options given above do you think best explains Buddha's cryptic silence on the matter? Why? — TheMadFool

4. Impermanence (and what you describe as an "undeniable truth")

The point of Buddhism is to transcend being or realize our true nature (emptiness). That being the case, God is just another sentient being, although an ultimately powerful one. That or God has transcended being, and if that's the case, good for him/her. Either way God isn't really relevant to salvation in Buddhism.

You also see it in pop journalism headlines like "science just explained why we all do this!" — Noble Dust

You mean things like this?

There are two basic senses of Materialism. One is generally to value material possessions and physical comfort over spiritual values. We've touched on this in this topic. The other is basically a philosophical position. Neither of these is necessarily religious in nature, or to my mind contain the "underlying principles of religious belief."

Maybe it would help if you explained what you believe the underlying principles of religious belief are. They must be more than just dogmatically holding to a particular philosophical view.

I'm one of the practitioners of a personal spiritual practice that you felt the need to alert me to here. I'm not a member of a religion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have assumed so simply because I'm not critiquing religion here, and I'm using it in a neutral way as an analogy. — Noble Dust

By the way, and not that it's important, I was perusing the Get Creative! topic in the lounge and noticed some of your artistic expressions.

I guess that I didn't recognize taking science as a "source of moral authority or a basis for normative judgement" as an expression of rationalization.

It would be great if Wayfarer could expand on this. I can't quite wrap my head around the idea of science as a source of moral authority.

That's what seemed to be the case to me, and I said as much earlier.

I'm referring to this:

You (and billions of others) are suffering from a cultural malaise, from the pernicious effects of taking a religious view of science, as others here are saying.

What are you arguing for here? — Noble Dust

I'll mention again that I need to study the theory of rationalization more, but offhand I'm skeptical of the idea that scientism (or an irrational dependence on science) is responsible for it. Generally the finger points to the enlightenment, as you seem to have done yourself when stating: "Enlightenment freedom seems inherently materialistic,..." McDonaldization is the expression of a materialistic value system or culture.

Is it the claim that science somehow shifted values towards the material rather than the spiritual?

Clearly scientism is not the cure for our Cartesian Anxiety.

As to having the freedom to find our own ends, I think it's an illusion. I hear this claim often, but what exactly does it entail? It's usually an appeal to comfort or pleasure, which is a poor, pale comparison to religious or spiritual ends; this is ironic considering how the enlightenment championed this new found freedom. Enlightenment freedom seems inherently materialistic, which undermines the entire concept in my view. — Noble Dust

You assume nonspiritual or religious ends when that is not necessarily the case at all. And there is overwhelming evidence that people can find their own spiritual "ends," as you call it, even prior to the enlightenment. A quick google search estimates 4,200 religions in the world. Are all these religions illusory except for yours?

It's possible to live a meaningful life without religion
— praxis

Perhaps your confusion lies here? — Noble Dust

You claimed:

The enlightenment championing of reason and scientific progress is ultimately what lead to faith in science; the underlying belief manifests itself in technological innovation that's now devoid of the "ends" that the enlightenments growing means originally suggested. — Noble Dust

I pointed out that the enlightenment allows us to find our own ends.


What do you mean by "The notion that mankind is freed from the religious mindset is bogus"?

I need to study these theories more on my own, so I'll limit further questions before doing so. Thank you for your patience.

I repurpose the word religion to illustrate the irrational dependence on rationality and science found in scientistic and even some less severe materialist positions. The goal is to make those folks evaluate their assumptions and underlying beliefs. It's an ironic use of the term for the sake of provocation. The notion that mankind is freed from the religious mindset is bogus, and reusing the word religion seems like an effective way to illustrate this. — Noble Dust

By "religious mindset" do you mean an irrational dependence?

On the Cartesian Anxiety of Our Times and What Faith Can Offer — Nils Loc

St. Augustine well described the human person without God as curvatus in se (turned in on himself). That is what seems to have happened to us as we have retreated into our minds. Through faith God can turn us out again to creation, to truth, to one another, and to Himself. This is the real cure for our Cartesian Anxiety. — Msgr. Charles Pope

And what if we're unable to swallow this pill?

Freedom is a state of being. It's another prerequisite for something else. It's possible to live a meaningful life in a state of ignorance; it's possible to live a meaningful life without political freedom or social freedom. — Noble Dust

It's possible to live a meaningful life without religion. We're free to find our own ends rather than, for example, the afterlife that Christianity offers.

I was quoting Wayfarer. Personally I find his phrasing somewhat misleading.
— praxis

How So? Is this what your initial comment in the op referred to? — Noble Dust

I apologize for answering a question with a question, but if you don't mind, what does taking a religious view of something mean?

What is unclear is how scientism contributes to rationalization.
— praxis

It's a positive feedback loop or a vicious cycle depending on what one's attitude is. Rationalization leads to science and science leads to rationalization. — TheMadFool

I still need to study Weber's theories, but with just scratching the surface it occurs to me that scientism may be an expression of rationalization. Today rationalization appears to apply widely, even to religion.

We are now enjoying the "ends" that the enlightenment afforded us:
— praxis

Autonomous thinking is a tool, not an end. It's just the first step. What's autonomous thinking for, exactly? It serves no purpose (end) in itself. You have to show exactly why it's better than relying on "guidance from another". Showing why it's better will/would reveal the ends; critical thinking in and of itself reveals no ends. — Noble Dust

The essential benefit of autonomy is freedom, and in this context, freedom from ignorance. To offer an extreme example, there's a 0% chance that I'll be burned at the stake by the government for being a warlock. It isn't just fairies and pixie dust in Weber's "great enchanted garden," demons live there too.

Prior to the enlightenment, was the separation of church and state possible?

And it is unclear what you mean by "faith in science."
— praxis

In that context I was using it to mean scientism; "taking a religious view of science", as you put it. — Noble Dust

I was quoting Wayfarer. Personally I find his phrasing somewhat misleading.

The problem being, that science is primarily, or only, concerned with what can be measured or quantified. The 'domain of the qualitative', so to speak, is then regarded as a matter of private belief, tantamount to a matter of opinion. And the consequence of that, is that it obviates the Platonic distinction between 'mere opinion' and 'real knowledge'; in respect of values, we can only have real knowledge of what we can measure (which is the source of the 'is/ought' problem. There is of course more to say but duty calls....) — Wayfarer

Hopefully you'll follow up on this is/ought teaser when duty permits.

The enlightenment championing of reason and scientific progress is ultimately what lead to faith in science; the underlying belief manifests itself in technological innovation that's now devoid of the "ends" that the enlightenments growing means originally suggested. — Noble Dust

We are now enjoying the "ends" that the enlightenment afforded us:

Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere aude! [Dare to know!] Have the courage to use your own understanding! That is the motto of enlightenment.’
- Immanuel Kant, 1784

And it is unclear what you mean by "faith in science." I have faith in science and technological innovation to supply the next iPhone, but I have no faith in it whatsoever to save humanity from itself or to supply essential meaning.

The result is an increasingly mechanized society which doesn't have any telos, any ends for the ever increasing means. — Noble Dust

What was the "ends" prior to the enlightenment?

Are you sure you aren't just making a commentary on people who claim to be spiritual but not religious (Because I agree that would be an accurate description of them). — Reformed Nihilist

I'm sure that I'm just commenting on that, yes.

I'm suggesting that the way that the word is commonly used today, in the "I'm spiritual, but not religious" sort of way, ends up not being as distinct and separate from religion as the utterer is intending. I'm saying that it's analogous to saying "he's not fat, he's full bodied". When you dig into the claim, you find that it's essentially the same thing, just without a connotation that the speaker doesn't like. So although I have them, my point here isn't to make judgments about the value of engaging in spirituality or religion, but just to clarify what, or even if, there is a meaningful distinction between the traditional, religious use of "spiritual" and the more modern, ostensibly secular meaning. — Reformed Nihilist

The essential distinction is between following and finding your own way, I believe.

This is a meaningful distinction because a major issue with religion is in its power to influence, and unfortunately power seems to corrupt pretty reliably.

A critique of finding your own way might be that doesn't have the power to unite people in common values and purpose.

I don't know if Scientificism (the religion of Science-Worship) is a system of meaning. For many it's a system of no-meaning. — Michael Ossipoff

Can you imagine anyone adhering to a meaningless religion? The only essential thing a religion needs to provide is meaning. If it fails to do that it will die, or never takes hold to begin with.

But, either way, it can be said that different Scientificists worship their religion in different ways...that iit has "denominations", if you like. — Michael Ossipoff

There are of course different branches of science. What does that have to do with it being a religion? How exactly do Scientificists worship?

Evidently, at face-value, daldai's Science-Worship is causing him great angst. — Michael Ossipoff

That is not at all evident.

But, when someone's belief is presumably making him unhappy, but he adamantly advocates an unusually extreme, doctrinaire and dogmatic version of it,, and isn't considering letting go of it, will anyone be able to help him? — Michael Ossipoff

I suggest you review what daldai has written in this topic.

I think history, and non-secular cultures today, tell us this [truth and meaning act in opposition]. When societies have religion peoples' lives have meaning. When western culture embraced scientific realism, people's lives lost meaning. — daldai

This sounds like a sort of pre-rational romanticism. And I think your meaning may be clearer if you use a term like 'rationality' or 'skepticism' rather than truth.

Both reason and meaning are driven by our values and, just thinking out loud, that may be the essential reason why they can't really act in opposition. We don't apply our capacity to reason on things we don't value, and things that we don't value are meaningless to us. Conversely, we may apply our reason vigorously to things that we do care about, like truth, and find that activity meaningful. If this is the case, then it would seem that the real problem is confusion about, or the obscuration of, our true values. I think it's possible to lose touch with our values, due to over-intellectualizing, and this can cause anxiety which may further obscure our real values.

Searching for the meaning of life is taking the process of justification beyond the point that it is useful. You could call it the existential justification fallacy. — daldai

Searching for meaning in life makes sense to me. Searching for the meaning of life, a singular meaning, seems nonsensical. We are surrounded by and saturated in meaning.

You (and billions of others) are suffering from a cultural malaise, from the pernicious effects of taking a religious view of science, as others here are saying. — Wayfarer

How does this make sense? If science is functioning as a religion or system of meaning why would it's adherents, and our nihilist friend daldai, be suffering from a lack of meaning?

Art

No just something I learned recently and thought might be a helpful insight.

When I've worked at home freelance in the past I would procrastinate like a mofo, and it created more stress. Kind of a vicious cycle.

I know the feeling well.

Incidentally, they say procrastination is an expression of stress.

Hypnotherapy for boredom eating seems to be popular. Perhaps there's one for boredom posting.

hasn't Buddhism always said that everything is impermanent? "This life is like a dewdrop at dawn, a bubble on a stream, a flash of lightning in the dark of night." But Buddhists are not unhappy on that account. — Wayfarer

They're unhappy because of their ignorance, or rather because they fail to realize wisdom. Or so they say.

So, what Beyond Rationality is is a Genius/Buddha. — Dwit

I always like the term transrational, which I think was coined by Ken Wilber.

Don't need to be particularly rational to have a transrational experience. Indeed, "what is the sound of one hand clapping" is not a rational question.

What does "bypass conscious awareness" mean?

Conditioned response. Was Pavlov's dog consciously aware of what Pavlov was doing? No. It worked nevertheless. Salivating wasn't particularly beneficial for the dog, I imagine, but the same technique could be used to effect the dog in more beneficial ways.

If I suggested that you relax, and I really want you to relax, how is that a lie or in any way deceptive?

I understand your concerns, Worsret, though I think they're unfounded. If the subject actually interests you at all I suggest that you read Cure. It's a fascinating study.

It can be shitty if it's designed to be shitty. Nocebo is as effective as placebo, from what I understand.

The basic components of meaning, for humans anyway, is purpose, community, narrative, and transcendence. All of this can be attained within a framework of truth. Religion is just a tidy little package of these basic element that others dreamt up.

The only way we can imagine Sisyphus as happy, lacking purpose, community, and narrative, is in transcendence. He is one with the rock... but of course that can't last and sooner or later he's bored as hell.

They say that placebos even work when you're told that they're placebos, but I don't think that's the whole story. Either there is a paranoid response in which you don't fully believe that, or you're only told it's a placebo after being told that it is something else.

Is it that you don't believe people can be conditioned to respond in ways that apparently bypass their conscious awarness?

Animals don't know truths (at least our truths I assume) and therefore have meaning, because you believe truth and meaning act in opposition?

Whilst I was searching for the truth it provided my life with meaning driven by the naïve assumption that it would all come together one day in some kind of revelatory "meaning of everything" moment. Instead, I was able to acquire so much objectivity, that I could see "everything" and it didn't have any meaning because I'd stepped so far back that, not just me, but the entire human race had shrunk into complete insignificance. The god's-eye view is not a myth any more, it's just really fucking scary and I want to come back.

With this God's-eye view and objectivity, do you see why we have a need for meaning?

To be concise: conditioned response and altering rural pathways.

It has to do with consciously manipulating autonomic functions. That doesn't read?

From what I understand, hypnotherapy and the like aren't about resolving deep seated personality issues or whatever, but more like consciously manipulating subconscious conditioned responses.

After reading Cure, the book mentioned in my last post, I started paying more attention to my conditioned responses and experimenting with them. For instance, part of my morning routine is drinking tea, often too much, and at some point walking the dog for a couple of miles. Frequently by the end of the walk I gotta pee, and sometimes urgently. Turning the last corner to the house and suddenly it's urgent and gets worse the closer I get to the door. I just checked and there's actually a medical term for this. It's called latchkey incontinence.

A couple of times this happened I tried to kind of suppress the urgency by sheer will. That had no effect. The next time as I approached home and could start to feel the need, I made a conscious plan to go around the block again, seeing if I could trick myself by removing the possibility of relief. Even though I consciously knew that I wasn't going around the block again but just suggesting to myself that I was, it seemed to work. I only tried that once and it could be that I simply didn't need to go that bad in that instance.

Sorry about the urinary overshare, just thought it was a good example.