Omniscience, Omnipotence, and Free Will

[Gatsby]

Gatsby, you seem to be saying that science is the sole source of all knowledge. How do you know that to be true?

That's not quite what I'm saying. What I'm saying is this:

The human mind has an extraordinary capacity for self-deception. This is not to say that self-deception is necessarily a bad thing, in fact it can be very useful. However as useful as self-decieving modes of thinking can be, they are still self-decieving. I see religion and mysticism as sophisticated forms of self-deception: their primary goal is not to lead people to a truthful understanding of reality (though they may claim otherwise), rather their primary goal is to bring about certain desired changes in people's attitudes and behaviours. Religion and mysticism are, imo, what you get when you use the "power of suggestion" as the centrepiece of your strategy for dealing with the human condition.

Science on the other hand is ultimately concerned with obtaining a factual understanding of reality. To this end, science (unlike religion and mysticism) has an array of practical mechanisms to counteract the human mind's mischevious and powerful tendency towards self-deception, e.g. double-blind experiments, independent peer review, reliance on empirical evidence, statistical analysis, falsifiable predictions. I'm not saying that science is perfect in terms of what it sets out to do - it certainly runs into problems when it gets mixed up with political and financial interests, for example - but it is the best (or if you prefer, the least worst) tool we have available to us for obtaining knowledge and understanding about reality.

 

[timtofly]

You do realize that science is not a full proof way of avoiding self-deception? And the only reality it can work with is the observable. It is a safe way to keep ahead of the curve and allow necessary changes, but it cannot answer all questions, and if one thinks that it can, that is the self deceiving trap that one cannot escape.

Religion does not answer all questions either.

 

[Gatsby]

All that these various mystical traditions seem to be saying, to me, is that, if one wants to see the world as it truly is, one should look it at without preconceptions.

Now, this is undoubtedly simply my trite and simple-minded take on it, but I think, in essence, that's all they're really saying when they talk about the Unmanifested, or the Unborn Mind, or even (at a stretch) Universal Consciousness.

Science, when it talks about the Big Bang, is talking about the entire Universe that we know of coming out of a single (and hence undifferentiated) point of zero dimension, without mass, or energy or anything (afaik).

So here we have something (the Universe) coming out of nothing (the singularity). How bizarre is that?

And how is that in anyway different from mystics talking about the Void being the ground of our being?

It's a mystery how something could possibly come from nothing, but that seems to be the reality, or The Reality, if you like.

They might say that, but in reality people only ever seem to have these experiences of enlightened realization after years of studying and being conditioned by the teachings of mystical traditions. That leaves a whole lot of room for the power of suggestion to generate self-fulfilling prophecies about the nature of ‘enlightenment’, particularly if you are caught up in groupthink because you’ve practiced under a charismatic spiritual guru and/or with fellow believers. A similar effect can be seen in accounts of Near-Death Experiences: the person’s experience of an afterlife is strongly conditioned by their religious beliefs and values.

If you look more closely at it, the Big Bang Theory (at this point it is only a theory) doesn’t actually say that the universe came from nothing; rather it says that the universe came from an extremely hot dense singularity which had, in a sense, ‘always’ existed prior to the Big Bang. The idea that the universe ultimately came from nothing is a Christian article of faith which is so deeply ingrained in Western thought that most people wrongly assume science agrees with it. I myself was under this mistaken impression until very recently. Even if we say that the something we call the universe ultimately had to come from nothing, postulating another something (i.e. God) as the means by which something came from nothing does not at all solve the problem of how something could come from nothing.

 

[Gatsby]

You do realize that science is not a full proof way of avoiding self-deception? And the only reality it can work with is the observable. It is a safe way to keep ahead of the curve and allow necessary changes, but it cannot answer all questions, and if one thinks that it can, that is the self deceiving trap that one cannot escape.

Religion does not answer all questions either.

Did you actually read my post? I said that science wasn't perfect, but it's still better than anything else on offer.

Science cannot answer all questions yet. But the gaps in scientific understanding where you can shoehorn gods and other magical phenomena have been getting inexorably smaller and fewer. Furthermore we should also consider the possibility that some questions themselves may be based on flawed assumptions, and that scientific advancement may eventually expose these flawed assumptions if it hasn't done so already.

It is true that science can only work with observable reality, but then again reality is observable by definition. Even the alleged transcendental states of mystics are technically observable because they are observed by mystics! But if what you meant by observable was "tangible" then I'm sure alot of psychologists, anthropologists, other social scientists, systems theorists and mathematicians would disagree with you.

 

[timtofly]

Only a fool would rule out things, so it seems, but that is not my point. What I do not understand is why put science into a comparison role with anything else, much less religion?

Science assumes where we came from, but it cannot prove that, because all that is based on predictions, that are currently being observed, and not what was observed when they supposedly happened. It would be foolish of me to say science is wrong, because I have as much proof as scientist do.

 

[Borachio]

Science on the other hand is ultimately concerned with obtaining a factual understanding of reality. To this end, science (unlike religion and mysticism) has an array of practical mechanisms to counteract the human mind's mischevious and powerful tendency towards self-deception, e.g. double-blind experiments, independent peer review, reliance on empirical evidence, statistical analysis, falsifiable predictions. I'm not saying that science is perfect in terms of what it sets out to do - it certainly runs into problems when it gets mixed up with political and financial interests, for example - but it is the best (or if you prefer, the least worst) tool we have available to us for obtaining knowledge and understanding about reality.

Well, I sort of agree with you.

But Science (with a capital "S") isn't going to tell me anything about my own subjective experience.

And in the end, that's the only thing that interests me.

I wonder how far you can describe Science as truly objective (which is what you seem to imply), though.

When you come to the quantum level, and find the mere fact of observation affects your results, is there any objectivity to be found?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Yes separation is essential to ego, in fact that’s what an ego is – a defining of ‘my’ boundaries, of what is and isn’t part of ‘me’. Naturally though, what isn’t part of ‘me’ is potentially a threat to ‘me’, and this unfortunate reality is at the core of the human condition. The mystic’s solution is to this problem is to expand the boundaries of ‘me’ to encompass everything. The problem with this solution though is that the greater the proportion of reality ‘you’ identify with, the less substantial and consequential ‘you’ become; if you identify infinitely (i.e. with all of reality), then by definition you have no definition and thus ‘you’ become nothing. I don’t see how you can say that individuality and ego are different, because they are both about self-definition.

Ego is necessary and very potent natural tool at certain stage but it can be a great obstacle when you are trying to go beyond it - which we all must since its use is only temporary as it doesnt and cannot by definition stand for our Goal. I am not apparently talking in frame of ones fleeting human life-time.

Ah, another likely story. So in other words you can’t prove it at all.

If you would say medieval man what are some of the parts of human world and human life look like some hundreds years later from his age he would give you exactly the same answer. Nothing is impossible my friend.

 

[Gatsby]

But science isn't going to tell me anything about my own subjective experience.

You might be surprised. A book called Hallucinations by neurology professor Oliver Sacks offers a wealth of scientific information about the origins and mechanisms of various kinds of hallucinations including drug trips, ghost sightings, Out-of-Body Experiences and communications from divine beings. It's hard to think of anything more subjective than hallucinations and 'psychic' visions.

I wonder how far you can describe Science as truly objective (which is what you seem to imply), though.

Well certainly to a much greater degree than we can describe religion or mysticism as objective. Science endeavours to devise falsifiable predictions, to disprove its established theories. Moreover science is objective enough that it can be used to create complex and amazing technologies; one does not have to believe an airplane can fly in order for it to be able to fly.

When you come to the quantum level, and find the mere fact of observation affects your results, is there any objectivity to be found?

My basic understanding of this quantum observation anomaly is that because it involves observation at such a minute level, the mere act of 'using the measuring stick' inevitably causes what you're trying to measure to be significantly 'nudged' by the measuring stick itself. I don't think this necessarily means that no objectivity can be found, particularly when objective measurements and effects take place at the macro level of reality all the time. The rules of the sub-atomic realm of reality are not identical to the rules of macro-level reality; perhaps it is even the case that the "fuzziness" of sub-atomic phenomena cancel one and other out in such a way as to produce a more stable (and functionally objective) macro reality.

 

[Gatsby]

Only a fool would rule out things, so it seems, but that is not my point. What I do not understand is why put science into a comparison role with anything else, much less religion?

Because religion makes audacious claims about the nature of reality that often have major real-world ramifications for how people and societies behave. Often these audacious claims have detrimental effects on humanity and prove to be untenable upon closer inspection.

Science assumes where we came from, but it cannot prove that, because all that is based on predictions, that are currently being observed, and not what was observed when they supposedly happened. It would be foolish of me to say science is wrong, because I have as much proof as scientist do.

Science is always testing its assumptions and theories. It is religion which makes huge and untestable claims about where we came from.

 

[Gatsby]

Ego is necessary and very potent natural tool at certain stage but it can be a great obstacle when you are trying to go beyond it - which we all must since its use is only temporary as it doesnt and cannot by definition stand for our Goal. I am not apparently talking in frame of ones fleeting human life-time.

No apparently you’re not, which means that what you’re saying here is speculation pure and simple.

If you would say medieval man what are some of the parts of human world and human life look like some hundreds years later from his age he would give you exactly the same answer. Nothing is impossible my friend.

So…you’re trying to tell me you’re from the future?? Though I think you might be right in a way when you say “nothing is impossible”

 

[timtofly]

Well certainly to a much greater degree than you can describe religion or mysticism as objective. Not only does science endeavour to devise falsifiable predictions, but it explicitly tries to disprove its established theories. Moreover science is objective enough that it can be used to create complex and amazing technologies; one does not have to believe an airplane can fly in order for it to be able to fly.

One does not have to believe in God for God to exist. There are methods in the spiritual realm, that work the same way and can be as objective as the scientific method. Can they be "controlled" like science? No, and neither can one use science to "control" the world around them. One can only control how they exist in the universe around them. The universe can be just as elusive in the physical realm as the spiritual realm.

Because religion makes audacious claims about the nature of reality that often have major real-world ramifications for how people and societies behave. Often these audacious claims have detrimental effects on humanity and prove to be untenable upon closer inspection.

I agree that religion makes audacious claims. Religion is a tool just like science, and who can deny science has been used in detrimental ways also.

Science is always testing its assumptions and theories. It is religion which makes huge and untestable claims about where we came from.

Why do you use the words huge and untestable? I am not sure how you can attack something that was written down thousands of years ago as huge and untestable. Is that assuming they were huge and untestable back when they were written down? What if they were tested and still came out as the truth? How would you or I even be able to prove that without being there at the time?

It is true that modern man has convinced himself to believe what he can see today, but that has very little to do with what people actually saw and believed 4000 years ago. Would that not be a huge and untestable claim to say today you knew what actually happened back then? Now, I do not mind being called crazy and wrong for accepting such things as true. I have accepted that. Hopefully my thoughts are not too offensive.

 

[Gatsby]

One does not have to believe in God for God to exist. There are methods in the spiritual realm, that work the same way and can be as objective as the scientific method. Can they be "controlled" like science? No, and neither can one use science to "control" the world around them. One can only control how they exist in the universe around them. The universe can be just as elusive in the physical realm as the spiritual realm.

“One does not have to believe in magical flying unicorns for magical flying unicorns to exist”. See what I did there? Those “methods in the spiritual realm” you speak of are not objective at all, they rely heavily on the power of suggestion and years of preparatory religious indoctrination. Scientific discoveries in the physical realm, particularly in the fields of neurology and psychology, are demystifying the so-called spiritual realm more and more as time goes on.

I agree that religion makes audacious claims. Religion is a tool just like science, and who can deny science has been used in detrimental ways also.

Science is used in detrimental ways by political and financial interests, and when such interests (ab)use science they often show contempt for science itself by deliberately distorting or suppressing scientific findings and methodologies. Religions however don’t need to outsource their detrimental abuse because religious leaders, institutions, and even religious texts do a fine job of it without external help (see “Middle Ages, The&#8221.

Why do you use the words huge and untestable? I am not sure how you can attack something that was written down thousands of years ago as huge and untestable. Is that assuming they were huge and untestable back when they were written down? What if they were tested and still came out as the truth? How would you or I even be able to prove that without being there at the time?

It is true that modern man has convinced himself to believe what he can see today, but that has very little to do with what people actually saw and believed 4000 years ago. Would that not be a huge and untestable claim to say today you knew what actually happened back then? Now, I do not mind being called crazy and wrong for accepting such things as true. I have accepted that. Hopefully my thoughts are not too offensive.

A miraculous event which allegedly happened thousands of years ago is untestable by that very fact. But I am not just talking about miracles here; I am also talking about claims of divine truth which are supposed to apply at all times. It might be a huge untestable claim for me to say I knew exactly what happened thousands of years ago but then again I’m not the one making such a claim, the religionists with their miraculous stories are. Furthermore science can offer plausible explanations for these miraculous stories which fit very well with the available historical and scriptural data.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

So…you’re trying to tell me you’re from the future?? Though I think you might be right in a way when you say “nothing is impossible”

To be "from the future" isnt really something that extraordinary after all. If you believe in expansion of knowledge and progress and at the same time acknowledge that some people of the past have exhibited greater capacity which is beyond the reach of most man at this time you can say about these individuals that they were ahead of general mankind by centuries and even millenia. Socrates, Napoleon, Jesus, Tesla are just few examples...

If "nothing is impossible" then "possibility of everything" also known as God may seem more likely all of sudden doesnt it?

 

[timtofly]

“One does not have to believe in magical flying unicorns for magical flying unicorns to exist”. See what I did there?

If you have seen a flying unicorn, then yes, I see what you did there.

Those “methods in the spiritual realm” you speak of are not objective at all, they rely heavily on the power of suggestion and years of preparatory religious indoctrination. Scientific discoveries in the physical realm, particularly in the fields of neurology and psychology, are demystifying the so-called spiritual realm more and more as time goes on.

I would think that to understand science one has to go through preparatory indoctrination. What is wrong with using the word education? People who grow up in all religions are educated in those religions. Calling it something else matters little. Discoveries in the physical workings of the brain will never demystify the spiritual realm. There is a difference between human imagination and the spiritual world. If you want to "wish" it away using analogies within the observable physical world, you are free to do so. I just don't see the spiritual world as really relating to the human imagination.

Science is used in detrimental ways by political and financial interests, and when such interests (ab)use science they often show contempt for science itself by deliberately distorting or suppressing scientific findings and methodologies. Religions however don’t need to outsource their detrimental abuse because religious leaders, institutions, and even religious texts do a fine job of it without external help (see “Middle Ages, The”).

It would seem to me that no matter what tool one uses: science or religion, they both are done out of contempt, regardless of their initial beginnings, whenever they cause harm to other humans. I am not understanding this external help part. People who use science can also appeal to an external force to terrorize people into exploitation.

A miraculous event which allegedly happened thousands of years ago is untestable by that very fact. But I am not just talking about miracles here; I am also talking about claims of divine truth which are supposed to apply at all times. It might be a huge untestable claim for me to say I knew exactly what happened thousands of years ago but then again I’m not the one making such a claim, the religionists with their miraculous stories are. Furthermore science can offer plausible explanations for these miraculous stories which fit very well with the available historical and scriptural data.

It seems to me that human nature has not changed in the last 4000 years, but technology and knowledge has. Since divine truths only apply to human nature, I do not see education and technology taking away from that fact. I do see superstition and human imagination changing, but I do not hold that the spiritual realm is the result of such things, but exist on it's own merit.

 

[Gatsby]

To be "from the future" isnt really something that extraordinary after all. If you believe in expansion of knowledge and progress and at the same time acknowledge that some people of the past have exhibited greater capacity which is beyond the reach of most man at this time you can say about these individuals that they were ahead of general mankind by centuries and even millenia. Socrates, Napoleon, Jesus, Tesla are just few examples...

If "nothing is impossible" then "possibility of everything" also known as God may seem more likely all of sudden doesnt it?

So all those characters you mentioned were time travellers from the future? Is that what you're suggesting?

You don't understand what I mean when I say "nothing is impossible"...

 

[Gatsby]

If you have seen a flying unicorn, then yes, I see what you did there.

Yeah I've seen one. Every evening right when I finish eating dinner he comes in through a window and flies around the living room exactly 6 times and then disappears out the same window

I would think that to understand science one has to go through preparatory indoctrination. What is wrong with using the word education? People who grow up in all religions are educated in those religions. Calling it something else matters little. Discoveries in the physical workings of the brain will never demystify the spiritual realm. There is a difference between human imagination and the spiritual world. If you want to "wish" it away using analogies within the observable physical world, you are free to do so. I just don't see the spiritual world as really relating to the human imagination.

No scientists are educated, meaning that they are exposed to multiple perspectives, encouraged to question and challenge existing theories, given a toolset for managing self-deception and bias, and given the opportunity to actually see and apply scientific principles in objectively verifiable situations. Religions indoctrinate because they fundamentally rely on faith and the power of suggestion, promote one specific view as THE only right answer, and encourage the indoctrinatee to come up with the answers the indoctrinator wants.

Re: the spiritual realm, I will also refer you to the works of neurologists like Oliver Sacks. Even occultists openly admit that the wilful use and development of the imagination is a key component of their spiritual experiences, and their methods are very similar to those who identify as religious and mystical.

It would seem to me that no matter what tool one uses: science or religion, they both are done out of contempt, regardless of their initial beginnings, whenever they cause harm to other humans. I am not understanding this external help part. People who use science can also appeal to an external force to terrorize people into exploitation.

If you don't understand the external help comment then have a look at the history of religions and how effective they have been in prosecuting holy wars, inquisitions, and manipulating public opinion to serve their own ends.

It seems to me that human nature has not changed in the last 4000 years, but technology and knowledge has. Since divine truths only apply to human nature, I do not see education and technology taking away from that fact. I do see superstition and human imagination changing, but I do not hold that the spiritual realm is the result of such things, but exist on it's own merit.

Why do divine truths only apply to human nature? What evidence do you have for that, and why does it even matter? Ditto the spiritual realm existing on its own merit; what evidence do you have for that?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

So all those characters you mentioned were time travellers from the future? Is that what you're suggesting?"

Is there really such a thing as the future?

You don't understand what I mean when I say "nothing is impossible"...

You are welcome to explain it...

 

[timtofly]

Yeah I've seen one. Every evening right when I finish eating dinner he comes in through a window and flies around the living room exactly 6 times and then disappears out the same window

So since you lied, that makes me a liar?

No scientists are educated, meaning that they are exposed to multiple perspectives, encouraged to question and challenge existing theories, given a toolset for managing self-deception and bias, and given the opportunity to actually see and apply scientific principles in objectively verifiable situations. Religions indoctrinate because they fundamentally rely on faith and the power of suggestion, promote one specific view as THE only right answer, and encourage the indoctrinatee to come up with the answers the indoctrinator wants.

Re: the spiritual realm, I will also refer you to the works of neurologists like Oliver Sacks. Even occultists openly admit that the wilful use and development of the imagination is a key component of their spiritual experiences, and their methods are very similar to those who identify as religious and mystical.

Experienced craftsmen, still hit their thumbs with a hammer now and then. Science and religion are just tools. How they are used is determined by the human that uses them. They can be used to deceive or they can be used to benefit mankind.

There is no way a tool used for examining the physical world will ever explain or discredit the spiritual world. Religion does that all on it's own.

If you don't understand the external help comment then have a look at the history of religions and how effective they have been in prosecuting holy wars, inquisitions, and manipulating public opinion to serve their own ends.

I see nothing in the examples listed where any external help was enlisted.

Why do divine truths only apply to human nature? What evidence do you have for that, and why does it even matter? Ditto the spiritual realm existing on its own merit; what evidence do you have for that?

Because humans are God's representatives on earth. They are the only external help that God uses to accomplish his will and still retain a choice in doing so. All the rest of nature declares God, having no choice to do otherwise. Science is the tool that is used to understand the physical and religion is the tool used to understand the spiritual world. The evidence is that science is just a tool. Religion is just a tool. As stated earlier, no one has control of their thoughts as in where they come from at any given moment. There is no explaining that from a physical point of view, unless they can be attributed to the spiritual, they are just relegated to magic and that seems a poor choice to me.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

For someone who’s been dead for over 60 years, Sri Aurobindo sure is an active contributor to this thread! You might just get me to believe in life after death yet .

There are plenty of long time dead people who exercise influence on the present society. Thats the way the cookie crumbles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w2MCpzE8u0

Again none of this is any more substantial or persuasive than a Papal Edict. What does it even mean to say that the world exists as a symbol of Brahman?? While it’s true that people can get caught up in their concepts and symbols of reality, this is more likely like to happen to a person who spends a lot of time with their “head in the clouds” contemplating and speculating about abstract ideas and spiritual doctrines. It is ironic that people like Sri Aurobindo talk about this, because ideas like Brahman and a “cosmic illusion” are about as abstract and symbolic as you can get. I would even describe people like Sri Aurobindo as hypocritical in this regard.

The world exist as a symbol of Brahman/Creator in a sense that it is put forth from It and doesnt have any separate existence from It. The world could be quite different just like symbols can be very different and since there are probably many different universes thats actually true but non of these universes exist separate from their Source.
You seem to know little about Aurobindos life (or death) but I suggest you take little more trouble in that regard before you label someone a hypocrat.

More Edict talk. Who says reality has to be unchanging? Even if it were, how can an unchanging ultimate reality give rise to a secondary / illusory reality characterised by change, when that ultimate reality never changes?.

Well may be Reality can be unchanging yet transcendent at the same time. What if illusion itself is illusion so what appears to be a change cant be essentialy different from the "changed".

The things we are aware of as objectively existing are said to be objective because their objectivity has functional implications which do not depend on any person’s perceptions or beliefs. You can still sit on a chair regardless of whether or not you believe it is a ‘real’ chair.

True, however if you realise any object not only in its objective appearence and functonality but in its essential reality - consciousness - it may open totaly new vistas and unlimited potential.

Be careful with this “forms of consciousness” talk because it can be a double-edge sword: if objective things are illusions then why wouldn’t subjective things, including the most sublime mystical concepts, also only be forms of consciousness? We use concepts as a mental shorthand to make sense of the world around us, because these concepts emerge and evolve from our experience of reality. Of course we can deconstruct those concepts by looking closer, but this is not the same as destroying or invalidating those concepts; if anything, such an endeavour fleshes out our concepts. Again I think that Sri Aurobindo might be projecting here, because the sort of person most likely to get caught up in concepts is someone who spends all or most of their time with their head in the clouds of philosophical and spiritual contemplation.

Objective things arent an illusion but rather their objectivity is. Subjective things are bound to be form of consciousness in this light as well. The wider and profounder "the form consciousness" the more real it is.
I think the most likely person to get cought up in concepts is not someone who pursues arduously any kind of knowledge but rather someone who idly accepts things at their first appearance and in their general suggestion.

It almost seems like Sri Aurobindo thought that he could form a compelling and profound worldview just by using impressive sounding metaphysical words like “consciousness”, “cosmic”, “manifestation”, “inexpressible” and “transcendental” often enough. All he’s really doing here is playing abstract word games with his audience and presumably with himself as well. Saying words like “Brahman”, “Self” and “consciousness” hits a neurological g-spot in his follower, triggering a rush of feel-good neurochemicals because they are such nice, cosy and reassuring-sounding words. What he says here about ‘choosing to be my Self-consciousness’ also makes it quite clear that his conception of an ultimate Reality does actually have a very egotistical quality to it.

Very funny but little confusing. Words like "consciousness", "cosmic" are impressively sounding to you yet very abstract and somewhat reassuring in the same time.
And apparently to "your self-consciousness" whoever said "I and my Father are one" was nothing but a colossal egoist.
Aurobindo needs impressive methaphysical vocabulary to form a compelling worldview and you need quick glance and your own self-knowledge to make decent judgment...

 

[Gatsby]

Is there really such a thing as the future?

So..you're saying that they were psychics rather than time travellers?

You are welcome to explain it

"Nothing" in the absolute sense of the word is merely a construct of the human imagination. We ask "how did something come from nothing" but completely ignore the unproven assumption underlying this question, i.e. that something originally came from nothing. Not only that, but we completely ignore the fact that no one has ever encountered this alleged absolute primal nothingness, so how can we possibly know that there even is such a thing as nothing? We think this way because it has been drummed into us our whole lives by a culture which has inherited the Christian article of faith that the world was created ex nihilio ("out of nothing"). I myself laboured under this faulty thinking until very recently.