Liberal Naturalism

[Ouroboros]

Is that what you mean by being a 'dual-aspect pantheist'? Was there consciousness before the first brain formed then in your view?

Yes and no. The potential existed, and perhaps it even existed in some other realizations in the primary singularity (if there such a thing), or perhaps it was realized in some other multiverse world. Can't say. But I think there is a pre-existence of all things, matter of many forms, energy of many forms, and consciousness of many forms, and there never was a first.

Well, anyway, in Advaita thought, Consciousness/Brahman is the One and only fundamental and matter and energy are props in the play/drama or Illusion (Maya in Hinduism) of Consciousness/Brahman.

Yup. I've come understand that. Personally, I think more of Brahman not as a first consciousness, but the completeness and whole unity of consciousness, matter, energy, time, and all other things that are chaotically competing and forming some kind of order from the interactions. I don't think even time is linear or one directional. We're just experiencing one direction, which doesn't mean that fundamentally it has to be that way in the fabric of all things, so to say that something existed before something else is just our limited view of how we are personally experiencing this world and maybe not the true nature of things.

 

[MARCELLO]

So I again I am on the threshold of deism while holding the door handle of theism whilst I am staring at Buddhism. You don't know how it is hard for a gemini to decide.

 

[metis]

I think the key may be how it defines the term 'supernatural'. I don't see how anything that exists could not be 'natural' so the term 'supernatural' is rendered almost meaningless to me. I guess to me the philosophy does not really say anything interesting that we all want to know. I know some people will respond that 'we can't know' certain things but I disagree (by considering human 'spiritual' and 'beyond the normal' experiences, I think I can take a more detailed position).

I would call "miracles" as being "supernatural", and what I mean by that is that some deity or deities caused X to happen that normally would not have happened.

 

[metis]

I've read the OP description of Liberal Naturalism and thought about it some more. I don't see where it does not still fall under the umbrella of atheistic-materialism. Is it what Dawkins calls 'sexed-up atheism'?

Many people seem to recoil from the label 'atheist-materialist' as it sounds so harsh and unromantic when it perhaps should be viewed as a neutral descriptive term.

Einstein was asked that same question, namely was he an atheist in reality? His response was that he wasn't but believed in "Spinoza's God", which is more pantheistic/panentheistic/deistic appfroach (as far as I know, and I've read about 6 books on Einstein and religion, he didn't use either term to reference himself). Some feel that he might have used the name "God" as a substitute name for the "laws of physics" or the "laws of nature", thus not admitting that maybe he was an atheist or an agnostic, but I guess we'll never know for sure for sure what that answer is.

As for myself, I will periodically write and mean "Whatever caused our universe/multiverse, I'll call 'God', and pretty much leave it at that". I take that position because there's no way that I can take it any further because of the general lack of evidence one way or the other. But I'm more inclined to take the liberal naturalism position because it seems that, if there is a creator-god, his creation(s) probably reflects largely who he is.

Am I sure of this? Of course not.

 

[metis]

I have to add something to this point. I don't agree completely that all things only come down to a single form like consciousness anymore than I think all things boils down to matter/energy/spacetime or such. I think both views of some single form of fundamental things that all other things are built on is a form of reductionism and not holistic. Consciousness only is just as reductionistic as matter/energy only. The holistic view is that all things are part of each other and interplay. None is more important than the other. And none can be reduced to the other.

Ya, this is where I also have a problem with the cosmic consciousness position, although not to the point of saying it couldn't be true. It seems too simplistic to me, plus many who believe in this then go off on all sorts of tangents that may be supported by some logic but little else. However, since I specialize in my "I don't know" approach, who am I to conclude that it's wrong? So, I don't go that far.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ya, this is where I also have a problem with the cosmic consciousness position, although not to the point of saying it couldn't be true. It seems too simplistic to me, plus many who believe in this then go off on all sorts of tangents that may be supported by some logic but little else. However, since I specialize in my "I don't know" approach, who am I to conclude that it's wrong? So, I don't go that far.

Exactly, we don't know. Hence it's called a belief. If we could prove it, then it would be a fact and a knowledge, and not a belief.

And when it comes to the cosmic consciousness, if there is one, it would be so completely different and complex compared to our understanding of consciousness that we wouldn't recognize it as such. In other words, if such a consciousness existed, it wouldn't be a consciousness as we know it, and hence not a consciousness as we think of it being.

Our words to define things are the very same things that don't fit the things we try to define. Words and definitions are as illusionary as the consciousness in our physical brain or matter in the quantum level. Things seems to be something which they're not in reality.

 

[George-ananda]

I would call "miracles" as being "supernatural", and what I mean by that is that some deity or deities caused X to happen that normally would not have happened.

OK, but it's just a semantical difference. Deities, if they exist, would have to be natural and their actions would be natural. As I said to another poster, I think the term 'supernatural' in its colloquial sense is really best understood as 'beyond the normal natural' with the 'normal natural' being our familiar three-dimensional world of matter and energy. Of course even that definition can get picked apart ad infinitum. I would take it that non-physical based consciousness, souls, ghosts, etc. (things I personally believe in) are not accepted as existing in liberal naturalism. It seems to have an anti-supernaturalism bent that I don't agree with.

 

[metis]

OK, but it's just a semantical difference. Deities, if they exist, would have to be natural and their actions would be natural. As I said to another poster, I think the term 'supernatural' in its colloquial sense is really best understood as 'beyond the normal natural' with the 'normal natural' being our familiar three-dimensional world of matter and energy. Of course even that definition can get picked apart ad infinitum. I would take it that non-physical based consciousness, souls, ghosts, etc. (things I personally believe in) are not accepted as existing in liberal naturalism. It seems to have an anti-supernaturalism bent that I don't agree with.

Yes, it does have that kind of bent, but remember that liberal naturalism largely based on science, so the acceptance of such deities simply is not in the cards since we cannot in any way substantiate their existence. However, that doesn't mean that they can't exist.

 

[George-ananda]

Einstein was asked that same question, namely was he an atheist in reality? His response was that he wasn't but believed in "Spinoza's God", which is more pantheistic/panentheistic/deistic appfroach (as far as I know, and I've read about 6 books on Einstein and religion, he didn't use either term to reference himself). Some feel that he might have used the name "God" as a substitute name for the "laws of physics" or the "laws of nature", thus not admitting that maybe he was an atheist or an agnostic, but I guess we'll never know for sure for sure what that answer is.

As for myself, I will periodically write and mean "Whatever caused our universe/multiverse, I'll call 'God', and pretty much leave it at that". I take that position because there's no way that I can take it any further because of the general lack of evidence one way or the other. But I'm more inclined to take the liberal naturalism position because it seems that, if there is a creator-god, his creation(s) probably reflects largely who he is.

Am I sure of this? Of course not.

The more I talk to people on RF, I (personally) see the great division (in my mind) to not even be theist/atheist but the nature of our consciousness (is it material or non-material). I take the non-materialist side (based on paranormal evidence and the insights of spiritual masters) and Einstein and Liberal Naturalists are materialists on that question.

 

[metis]

The more I talk to people on RF, I (personally) see the great division (in my mind) to not even be theist/atheist but the nature of our consciousness (is it material or non-material). I take the non-materialist side (based on paranormal evidence and the insights of spiritual masters) and Einstein and Liberal Naturalists are materialists on that question.

Yes, and I am definitely more the latter. But then, what do I really know?

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, it does have that kind of bent, but remember that liberal naturalism largely based on science, so the acceptance of such deities simply is not in the cards since we cannot in any way substantiate their existence. However, that doesn't mean that they can't exist.

I agree with your assessment and believe too much reliance on science is too limiting. I think the evidence strongly suggest that human consciousness can experience real things not understood by our current science. Since spiritual and non-material things can not be studied with the same rigorousness as physical things, I see a bent in the scientific types to want to ignore and disparage the importance of these types of things.

 

[Ouroboros]

The more I talk to people on RF, I (personally) see the great division (in my mind) to not even be theist/atheist but the nature of our consciousness (is it material or non-material). I take the non-materialist side (based on paranormal evidence and the insights of spiritual masters) and Einstein and Liberal Naturalists are materialists on that question.

Yes, and I am definitely more the latter. But then, what do I really know?

And I'm more of the neither.

I see the conflict between matter and spirit (consciousness, etc) a bit more like the picture of yin-yang. The whole yin-yang is comprised of two opposing things. Neither can exist without the other, unless the whole symbol disappears. Both are necessary for the whole to be one. All is one. One is all. A mutual co-existence in a total all.

I see science v spirituality the same way. Two things making a whole. Or reductionism v holism, both true, but neither one the single truth.

 

[George-ananda]

And I'm more of the neither.

I see the conflict between matter and spirit (consciousness, etc) a bit more like the picture of yin-yang. The whole yin-yang is comprised of two opposing things. Neither can exist without the other, unless the whole symbol disappears. Both are necessary for the whole to be one. All is one. One is all. A mutual co-existence in a total all.

I see science v spirituality the same way. Two things making a whole. Or reductionism v holism, both true, but neither one the single truth.

Can 'subjective consciousness experience' exist without a physical brain in your thinking?

 

[metis]

I agree with your assessment and believe too much reliance on science is too limiting. I think the evidence strongly suggest that human consciousness can experience real things not understood by our current science. Since spiritual and non-material things can not be studied with the same rigorousness as physical things, I see a bent in the scientific types to want to ignore and disparage the importance of these types of things.

But non-material things that can be detected in some way, which is covered in the OP, are "kosher". However, those spiritual* and non-material things that are not detectable aren't because there's no guarantee they even exist.


*I'm using a more literal definition of "spiritual", defining it as that which is influenced by an actual spirit(s).

 

[George-ananda]

But non-material things that can be detected in some way, which is covered in the OP, are "kosher". However, those spiritual* and non-material things that are not detectable aren't because there's no guarantee they even exist.

I think looking for scientific guarantees is too limiting at this stage of current science. My 'beliefs' best follow the evidence and best theories as I study them and I am OK with not claiming guaranteed proof. But I do claim the 'most reasonable' position when all evidence and argumentation is considered.

 

[Ouroboros]

Can 'subjective consciousness experience' exist without a physical brain in your thinking?

No. (depending on your meaning of "physical" though)

Experience requires something to experience, like a world of some kind and a separation of "this being the consciousness experiencing" and "that being the thing being experienced."

A "world" where there is a separation would be the separation of mind vs physical. If that "physical" world really is the same kind of "physical" that we see and experience in this current world, that could be another question.

 

[George-ananda]

No.

Experience requires something to experience, like a world of some kind and a separation of "this being the consciousness experiencing" and "that being the thing being experienced."

Ok, then I see you on the side of Einstein and Metis (not bad company) in the great divide that I was talking about regarding 'the nature of consciousness'. I'm on the other side of the divide I discussed in post #29. In my thinking that is still the central divide.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ok, then I see you on the side of Einstein and Metis (not bad company) in the great divide that I was talking about regarding 'the nature of consciousness'.

Not quite. I'm in between. I know it's hard to accept, but that's what it is. I don't see matter first, consciousness arising singly and only from matter or the physical. It can arise or emerge without there being the primary potential of consciousness, but not consciousness itself as we know it. Matter, energy, physics, space, and time can't arise out of that primary form either without the other already be potential. Also, I don't limit my views on the arrow of time, but think of the future affecting the past as much as the past affecting the future. If there might be a future higher consciousness, beyond our simple minds, that is the Omega cause rather than the Alpha cause of existence, then the circle is closed (as the Ouroboros symbol I used to have as an avatar). It all ties together in things that are beyond the infinites that we tend to think of.

I'm on the other side of the divide I discussed in post #29. In my thinking that is still the central divide.

I think the division is an illusion.

 

[George-ananda]

Not quite. I'm in between. I know it's hard to accept, but that's what it is. I don't see matter first, consciousness arising singly and only from matter or the physical. It can arise or emerge without there being the primary potential of consciousness, but not consciousness itself as we know it. Matter, energy, physics, space, and time can't arise out of that primary form either without the other already be potential. Also, I don't limit my views on the arrow of time, but think of the future affecting the past as much as the past affecting the future. If there might be a future higher consciousness, beyond our simple minds, that is the Omega cause rather than the Alpha cause of existence, then the circle is closed (as the Ouroboros symbol I used to have as an avatar). It all ties together in things that are beyond the infinites that we tend to think of.


I think the division is an illusion.

Regarding the great divide I discussed, I don't see how your view on the nature of consciousness differs from the materialist position. Certainly materialists believe in consciousness dependent on matter also. So, where are you different than materialists on the divide I was discussing in post #29? Here is that post again:

The more I talk to people on RF, I (personally) see the great division (in my mind) to not even be theist/atheist but the nature of our consciousness (is it material or non-material). I take the non-materialist side (based on paranormal evidence and the insights of spiritual masters) and Einstein and Liberal Naturalists are materialists on that question.

You see consciousness as arising from complex material interactions (materialism). I see consciousness as the primary that incarnates matter (the secondary) and can not arise by any complex material interactions. As physicist Amit Goswami (Advaita thinker) puts it, Advaita posits a downward causation; causation starts from pure consciousness level and creates and incarnates the denser levels. The materialist believes in upward causation; the physical creates the more subtle (consciousness).

 

[Ouroboros]

You see consciousness as arising from complex material interactions (materialism).

Then you're not quite understanding what I'm saying.

I see consciousness as the primary that incarnates matter (the secondary) and can not arise by any complex material interactions. As physicist Amit Goswami (Advaita thinker) puts it, Advaita posits a downward causation; causation starts from pure consciousness level and creates and incarnates the denser levels. The materialist believes in upward causation; the physical creates the more subtle (consciousness).

Dual-aspect:
In the philosophy of mind, double-aspect theory is the view that the mental and the physical are two aspects of, or perspectives on, the same substance. It is also called dual-aspect monism.

Neither the physical nor the spiritual are primary, and yet both are together the primary.