The natural spirit and secular humanism

[m_the0ry]

I was thinking about why atheism is met with such resistance by the public, in most cases. I concluded that the main reasons are the lack of a structure for common morality but more importantly a refusal to mention anything about the incorporeal nature of the human - spirituality. There is an overwhelming desire for every person to feel more useful in their life than, say, a wheelbarrow. We are forced into a dichotomy by science. Either we are deterministic machines or quantum computers. Both have unromantic analogies for how our thought processes work - in one we are gears in a machine, in the other our thoughts are results of a nanoscopic roulette table. It is commonly accepted that secular humanism is based on logic and reasoning alone, and on the tantamount of the just-mentioned premises there is no room for spirituality.

I recently came to the conclusion that religion is a subset of spirituality, not the other way around. Ideal dharmic ideology expresses a basic and flexible structure for common morality and spirituality without any theology. In examining the meaning of 'spirit' in dharmic religion has many existentialist facets. If I exist, I have a spirit.

Common morality can be expressed in many modes - common and case law, religious scriptures, even gossip communicates common morality. This is one of the reasons why a common morality framework is absolutely essential for a society. I believe that the idea of "law" supplants the religious need for common morality and, in this sense atheism needs no refinement. All that holds secular humanism back is the refusal to accept that one is just a machine.

On this premise secular humanism would become significantly more popular and less resisted by society if nontheistic spirituality were introduced. The definition of 'the spirit'?

The perfect illusion of free will.

[MidGe]

Just to clarify: dharmic religions do not necessarily imply a spirit. Buddhism is very clear about that. You could say it is one of the most fundamental tenet of Buddhism that there is no spirit or soul.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to clarify: dharmic religions do not necessarily imply a spirit. Buddhism is very clear about that. You could say it is one of the most fundamental tenet of Buddhism that there is no spirit or soul.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my understanding Midge, but I'm perplexed, why does the Dali Lama believe that he is the reincarnate of former Dali Lama's? Does this not suggest a wondering soul?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
We are forced into a dichotomy by science. Either we are deterministic machines or quantum computers.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, science forces nothing of the sort. What a ridiculous misconception.

[madnak]

Atheist spirituality is huge. Unfortunately, it's growing very slowly. I think a major problem is that (at least in the West) spirituality is much too directly linked to metaphysics.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
No, science forces nothing of the sort. What a ridiculous misconception.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rebuttal or counterexample please? I stand completely by my assertion and am willing to debate any part of it.

The spirit is the element of theistic religion that people have the most trouble giving up. Your point about buddhism reinforces what I'm trying to say. There's no mass migration from christianity/islam to buddhism for the same reason there's no mass migration to atheism. The spirit is the bridge. It's what lets people feel like they aren't machines (regardless of the truth of the matter).

[Skidoo]

You said: "We are forced into a dichotomy by science. Either we are deterministic machines or quantum computers."

This is such a baffling non sequitur that, frankly, I'm not sure where to begin with a rebuttal. Perhaps you can start things off by explaining where you think you see that in any of the formalisms of science, and we'll take it from there.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
You said: "We are forced into a dichotomy by science. Either we are deterministic machines or quantum computers."

This is such a baffling non sequitur that, frankly, I'm not sure where to begin with a rebuttal. Perhaps you can start things off by explaining where you think you see that in any of the formalisms of science, and we'll take it from there.

[/ QUOTE ]

The laws that govern neuron activity aren't any different than the laws of the physical universe. And in that sense the mechanisms either operate on the cellular level or the atomic level. If they are on the cellular level they are mostly governed by classical mechanics and are determinant for the majority of cases. If they are on the atomic level they are governed by quantum mechanics. If they are a mix of the two, they are governed by an amalgam of complete randomness and deterministic processes (as the processes manifest themselves macroscopically). You're either a machine or a crapshoot. I can't tell whether you're being so inflammatory because this fact bothers you or because you don't understand the concepts.

[MidGe]

hiya yuconcpa,

[ QUOTE ]
I'm perplexed, why does the Dali Lama believe that he is the reincarnate of former Dali Lama's? Does this not suggest a wondering soul?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all I don't know what the Dalai Lama believes. Secondly I do not know if has ever made that claim. He may have, and if it was a knowledge of his, I would not want to dispute it. In any case my Buddhist salvation is in no way compromised by not believing it.

Having said that, often I hear westerners with just a little knowledge of Buddhism refer to "re-incarnation". There is no such thing. The word came into use with some of the earliest translations of part of the Buddhist texts into English, notably by associates of Annie Besant, Rhijs, amongst others, if I remember right.

Today's, modern translation use the term "rebirth" which is described in one of the most profound doctrine in Buddhism, on a par, in importance, with the doctrine of Anatta (Impersonality). This doctrine is called Patticasamuppada (Dependent Origination) which describes the conditionality of all physical and psychical phenomena.

The third part of the Buddhist Pali canon (based on the oldest extant texts), called the Abbhidamma-Pitaka, deals exclusively with these two doctrine in a highly systematic way.

In a simpler way, you may perhaps say the The fourteenth Dalai Lama birth of consciousness was dependent, conditioned somehow, by the last, or death moment, of the previous Dalai Lama's consciousness. That birth moment may have had as a necessary condition, though not necessarily a proximate one, the death moment of the previous Dalai Lama. A bit like a butterfly flapping its wings in Australia and generating a blizzard in Canada. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

But rest assured that there is no soul wandering anywhere, there is nothing that jumps from one life/body to another, in the canonical Buddhist texts.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
The laws that govern neuron activity aren't any different than the laws of the physical universe. And in that sense the mechanisms either operate on the cellular level or the atomic level. If they are on the cellular level they are mostly governed by classical mechanics and are determinant for the majority of cases. If they are on the atomic level they are governed by quantum mechanics. If they are a mix of the two, they are governed by an amalgam of complete randomness and deterministic processes (as the processes manifest themselves macroscopically). You're either a machine or a crapshoot.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the grossly incomplete current MODELS of mental activity, which you seem to be confusing with rigorously sufficient descriptions of the causal determinants of its observable properties, exhibit classical and quantum behavior.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
No, the grossly incomplete current MODELS of mental activity, which you seem to be confusing with rigorously sufficient descriptions of the causal determinants of its observable properties, exhibit classical and quantum behavior.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't need to model the brain because its workings must be reducable to quantum or classical mechanics because it exists in our universe. For the record I personally believe that the brain and resulting thoughts are primarily derived from quantum processes. I include classical mechanics because I cannot exclude the possibility that classical mechanics may determine thought; certainly as said before classical mechanics allows the brain as a quantum computer to manifest itself macroscopically.

http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0408/0408148.pdf
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/q-bio/pdf/0702/0702004.pdf
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0508/0508207.pdf

You keep saying none of this is scientific. You're claiming your brain operates outside of the realm of both quantum and classical physical chemistry. I challenge you to find some way to make THAT claim scientific.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
We don't need to model the brain because its workings must be reducable to quantum or classical mechanics because it exists in our universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a normative statement, not an empirical one. Once again, it's back to wishful idealisms rather than hard science.

[ QUOTE ]
For the record I personally believe that the brain and resulting thoughts are primarily derived from quantum processes.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're certainly entitled to your beliefs. I don't dispute that.

[ QUOTE ]
You keep saying none of this is scientific. You're claiming your brain operates outside of the realm of both quantum and classical physical chemistry. I challenge you to find some way to make THAT claim scientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science does not make affirmative statements outside empirically establish frameworks, therefore my refusal to define the mind in terms of concepts derived from observation of rudimentary physical systems to which it has not been shown to be reducible is entire in keeping with the methods of science, unlike what you are doing.

[m_the0ry]

Fair enough. At what point in the evolution of humanity - from cingle celled organisms to multicelled and so forth to mankind - does the 'mind' exist as something beyond basic physical processes? Prokaryotes? Jellyfish? House pets? Self awareness?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. At what point in the evolution of humanity - from cingle celled organisms to multicelled and so forth to mankind - does the 'mind' exist as something beyond basic physical processes? Prokaryotes? Jellyfish? House pets? Self awareness?

[/ QUOTE ]

You could ask the same question about sight. At what point did sight exist beyond the basic physical process?

But it's really electromagnetic radiation that makes sight possible - not the physical process in the organism. I'm not saying we don't rely on certain physical characteristics for this attribute to emerge, just the physical is not truly the cause, because it is contingent on something else (e/m) to manifest itself.

And a similar process could be occurring with mind/thought/awareness/consciousness. Our brains could very well be organs that perceive awareness in the same way our eyes function as organs for sight.

[madnak]

To elaborate, the wiki entry can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_%28Buddhism%29). The Dalai Lama personally responds (http://www.dalailama.com/page.54.htm),

[ QUOTE ]
Question: About you being the incarnation of the bodhisattva of infinite compassion, Avalokiteshvara. How do you personally feel about this? Is it something you have an unequivocal view of one way or another?

Answer: It is difficult for me to say definitely. Unless I am engaged in a meditative effort, such as following my life back, breath by breath, I couldn’t say exactly. We believe that there are four types of rebirth. One is the common type wherein, a being is helpless to determine his or her rebirth, but only reincarnates in dependence on the nature of past actions. The opposite is that of an entirely enlightened Buddha, who simply manifests a physical form to help others. In this case, it is clear that the person is Buddha. A third is one who, due to past spiritual attainment, can choose, or at least influence, the place and situation of rebirth. The fourth is called a blessed manifestation. In this the person is blessed beyond his normal capacity to perform helpful functions, such as teaching religion. For this last type of birth, the person’s wishes in previous lives to help others must have been very strong. They obtain such empowerment. Though some seem more likely than others, I cannot definitely say which I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not so much that reincarnation "doesn't happen" under Buddhism per se, it's more that how it happens doesn't resemble how we think of it. If you take a thread and separate the fibers, then weave each fiber into its own new thread, are the new threads "reincarnations" of the old one?

[m_the0ry]

I think Marvin minksy says what I"m trying to say better:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/minsky/minsky_p2.html