Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on April 28, 2023, 06:14:21 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Karma is a very common and fundamental part of Indian philosophy. It figures prominently in Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism.
It is generally seen as 'What goes around...comes around'.
Here is something on this intriguing subject....
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/karma/
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Here is something on this intriguing subject....
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/karma/
Got as far as:
"Karma is required to explain the great differences that we see in the personalities of different humans and the many different circumstances that people are born in and live in everyday. The innumerable differences among different humans and their lives cannot be explained by science."
At least I got a laugh out of it.
-
Got as far as:
"Karma is required to explain the great differences that we see in the personalities of different humans and the many different circumstances that people are born in and live in everyday. The innumerable differences among different humans and their lives cannot be explained by science."
At least I got a laugh out of it.
Me too :)
-
And what explanation, according to you, does science offer for these differences....besides 'chance'?!
-
And what explanation, according to you, does science offer for these differences....besides 'chance'?!
Nature and nurture.
-
And what explanation, according to you, does science offer for these differences....besides 'chance'?!
You do seem to be unable to accept the idea of chance or effective randomness for some reason, despite the evidence that it does play a significant part in all sorts of situations. No idea why, you've never justified it.
That there are different circumstances that people get born into is, of course, due to all sorts of reasons. That people have different personalities is, as Maeght said, down to nature and nurture and also life experiences.
You're trying to 'explain' something that is already adequately and almost trivially explained already.
-
You have explained nothing. Chance is not an explanation. It is a cop out.
For people like me who believe in a deeper meaning and purpose to life, karma is a more meaningful explanation.
-
You have explained nothing. Chance is not an explanation. It is a cop out.
For people like me who believe in a deeper meaning and purpose to life, karma is a more meaningful explanation.
Who doesn't like a reassuring fairy tale?
-
You have explained nothing. Chance is not an explanation. It is a cop out.
So you assert. The problem is that just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen and that it isn't an explanation. The evidence is that things happen for reasons that are often effectively random chance in the sense that they are complicated and not actually related to the subject you're focusing on. It is also the case that even systems that are fully deterministic can be unpredictable, see chaos theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory). And, of course, there may be true randomness from quantum effects.
For people like me who believe in a deeper meaning and purpose to life, karma is a more meaningful explanation.
So you're basing your conclusion on blind faith. ::)
-
So you're basing your conclusion on blind faith. ::)
That's what you like to think.
-
That's what you like to think.
It's pretty much what you said. You said "For people like me who believe in a deeper meaning and purpose to life..." - a belief for which you have never provided any evidence or reasoning, then "...karma is a more meaningful explanation." Hence, you chose it because it fits with your unjustified beliefs - blind faith.
-
There is nothing supernatural about the idea of karma. If you had read the article in full you would have seen that the idea of karma could basically be seen as moving from unstable high energy states to more stable low energy states.
-
There is nothing supernatural about the idea of karma. If you had read the article in full you would have seen that the idea of karma could basically be seen as moving from unstable high energy states to more stable low energy states.
Searched through for that bit. More laughs. Desperate attempt to dress up obvious woo to look a bit like your poor understanding of atoms. I mean, seriously?
"We can picture the proton as the Higher self and the electron as our Lower Self. The further away the Lower Self is from the centre, the more energy it has and the more unstable it is. It tends to bond with others and get involved in activities more and more.
Needs and desires can be seen as high energy requirements that lead to mental and emotional instability. These energies lead to activity and karma. If however, the energy is released, the individual self (Jivatma) moves closer to the centre and becomes more stable. There is then less karmic energy.
So, the idea is that ‘bad karma’ is about acquiring energy and becoming unstable while ‘good karma’ is about releasing this energy, moving closer to the centre and becoming more stable."
-
There is nothing supernatural about the idea of karma.
Can you give a natural explanation for it, then? Or, at least, propose an experiment within natural cause and effect by which we could test it? Otherwise, it's a supernatural explanation. That doesn't explicitly mean that it's wrong, but it does make it significantly more likely.
If you had read the article in full you would have seen that the idea of karma could basically be seen as moving from unstable high energy states to more stable low energy states.
Except that you can't measure these 'energies' or show the effects of these 'energies' or quantify these 'energies' or in any way explain, categorise or quantify these 'energies'. Piling that on top of the assumption that people considered to be in a current 'low energy' state were once 'higher energy' and are headed is not demonstrated in any way. Even if the energy system were there, you can't show people moving in one direction or another, or indeed that people are moving at all.
Absolute tosh, start to finish.
O.
-
Just because we can't measure something empirically does not mean it cannot exist. This attitude is what leads to scientism.
Philosophically speaking, it is a possibility and ties in with the lives of most people.
-
Can you give a natural explanation for it, then? Or, at least, propose an experiment within natural cause and effect by which we could test it? Otherwise, it's a supernatural explanation. That doesn't explicitly mean that it's wrong, but it does make it significantly more likely.
Except that you can't measure these 'energies' or show the effects of these 'energies' or quantify these 'energies' or in any way explain, categorise or quantify these 'energies'. Piling that on top of the assumption that people considered to be in a current 'low energy' state were once 'higher energy' and are headed is not demonstrated in any way. Even if the energy system were there, you can't show people moving in one direction or another, or indeed that people are moving at all.
Absolute tosh, start to finish.
O.
Energy is a word that science borrowed and gave it’s own definition to. A process the mechanics of which are plain in the appropriation of the word ‘nothing’ by Krauss et al.
Not only does the word have a flexible,to suit, meaning for these operators, Krauss is seen imposing his new definition on the past.
-
Just because we can't measure something empirically does not mean it cannot exist. This attitude is what leads to scientism.
Well, if you can't measure it somehow then all you've got is hand-waving. You can't possibly make all the silly claims about "moving from unstable high energy states to more stable low energy states" because you can't say what is "high", "low", and "stable".
Scientism has nothing to do with it. It is you has tried to claim that this is somehow science, or at least similar, when you started babbling about energy levels and compared it to atoms.
Philosophically speaking, it is a possibility and ties in with the lives of most people.
All sorts of things are possible, but without a philosophical argument (logic) they are nothing but baseless speculation. You lost all credibility when you claimed that science couldn't explain "the innumerable differences among different humans and their lives". This is an absurd claim even by your standards.
-
Energy is a word that science borrowed and gave it’s own definition to.
Just like information technology stole 'avatar' (and then Hollywood stole it from them)... that's how language works, words get recycled and reused and reinvented.
A process the mechanics of which are plain in the appropriation of the word ‘nothing’ by Krauss et al.
Actually, Krauss' book is about exactly the opposite - it's about how people use the term 'nothing' incorrectly in that sense, because what they're talking about isn't 'nothing' it's an equilibrium state between fluctuating amounts of 'something' and 'anti-something'.
Not only does the word have a flexible,to suit, meaning for these operators, Krauss is seen imposing his new definition on the past.
No, Krauss is showing that the language of the past isn't always capable of explaining the learning of the present.
O.
-
Just like information technology stole 'avatar' (and then Hollywood stole it from them)... that's how language works, words get recycled and reused and reinvented.
Actually, Krauss' book is about exactly the opposite - it's about how people use the term 'nothing' incorrectly in that sense, because what they're talking about isn't 'nothing' it's an equilibrium state between fluctuating amounts of 'something' and 'anti-something'.
No, Krauss is showing that the language of the past isn't always capable of explaining the learning of the present.
O.
No it’s linguistic piracy, coupled with shuffling and intellectual totalitarianism.
-
No it’s linguistic piracy, coupled with shuffling and intellectual totalitarianism.
That would be 'piracy' from the Greek peirein, meaning 'to attack' or 'to try'. Is that piracy in the sense of seaborne raiders (which this clearly isn't) or the broadcast of unsanctioned entertainment (which this questionably is) or are you having the temerity to repurpose words?
O.
-
Certainly, karma is a more meaningful explanation for the differences in human lives, than chance. Science relies far too often on chance and randomness which can never be true explanations.
Measurement and precise knowledge is not really important. In psychology for example, we hardly have precise knowledge or precise predictions.
Reality is a spectrum that moves from exact to inexact phenomena. Physics...chemistry.....biology.... psychology.....spirituality. Each subsequent field is less precise than the one before. That is the way reality is. Let us face it.
-
Certainly, karma is a more meaningful explanation for the differences in human lives, than chance. Science relies far too often on chance and randomness which can never be true explanations.
Measurement and precise knowledge is not really important. In psychology for example, we hardly have precise knowledge or precise predictions.
Reality is a spectrum that moves from exact to inexact phenomena. Physics...chemistry.....biology.... psychology.....spirituality. Each subsequent field is less precise than the one before. That is the way reality is. Let us face it.
I don’t know why you think this supports your view: psychology is beset with problems precisely because it’s difficult to measure psychological phenomena.
-
Certainly, karma is a more meaningful explanation for the differences in human lives, than chance.
Sorry to break it to you Sriram, but your subjective opinion about how 'meaningful' an explanation is has bugger all to do with whether it's correct or not.
Science relies far too often on chance and randomness which can never be true explanations.
This is one of your silliest claims.
Whereas whether true randomness exists in nature is an open question, there is no doubt that effective randomness (random for all practical purposes) does. Think about flipping a coin or rolling dice. The outcome isn't truly random, it's due to the exact details of the forces applied, encounters with other surfaces, and so on. It is widely accepted, however, that the outcomes are effectively random because the influences are complicated and finely balanced so as not to favour one outcome over the others. We accept the effective randomness because we know how the outcome is determined and that it follows no patterns.
It's similar for the differences in human lives. We actually know why people's lives are different: different nature, nurture, and experience. It's not statistically random like dice and coin flips because many of the factors are due to politics, economics, climate, culture and so on. Where you're born and the economic circumstances of your parents play a huge role.
However, the main point is that there is simply no need for further explanation. What we know already explains what we see perfectly adequately.
Trying to shoehorn 'karma' into it seems to be nothing but superstition and wishful thinking. You, as usual, have no evidence and no sound reasoning.
It's also worth noting that you are introducing unfounded superstitious ideas of a person as separate form nature. Phrases like "Science does not know of any factors that decide which person would inherit which set of genes..." are arse about face. There isn't a bank of people waiting to get born with some set genes. It's the other way around. The genes, and the subsequent nurture and experience, produce the person. I couldn't possibly have been born in different circumstances with different genes, because the result would have been a different person, not me. You and me were not landed with our nature, nurture, and experiences, we are the people we are because of them.
-
It is true that '"Science does not know of any factors that decide which person would inherit which set of genes...". It is only chance.
In spiritual philosophy....the soul chooses its body and circumstances according to its level of development.
-
It is true that '"Science does not know of any factors that decide which person would inherit which set of genes...". It is only chance.
It would help if you actually read what has been said before 'answering'. There is so much wrong with this it's difficult to know where to start.
Firstly, chance can be a perfectly good reason, so there is no either/or about a reasons or chance.
Secondly, science knows of lots of reasons why circumstances of birth, genetics, etc. vary, as I explained.
Thirdly, the question is framed in such a way that it assumes your unevidenced superstition about people being somehow separate from nature so pre-existing people get somehow allocated genes and all the rest. In fact, according to the evidence we have, people are the end result of genetics, other factors in their nature, plus nurture, and life experiences. There is no evidence that there is anything at all that is separate that you could use to identify a particular person. So it's a non-question based on an invalid premiss.
In spiritual philosophy....the soul chooses its body and circumstances according to its level of development.
So why should anybody believe this without evidence?
-
In spiritual philosophy....the soul chooses its body and circumstances according to its level of development.
How does it do that then?
Are there any soul to body choice rules?
-
It is a philosophical position. Also, NDE's are good evidence for the existence of a soul. Plus....read the thread on reincarnation.
-
It is a philosophical position.
A guess that some people like. It's not philosophy in any sort of rigorous, logically argued sense.
Also, NDE's are good evidence for the existence of a soul.
No, they don't.
Plus....read the thread on reincarnation.
Neither does anything there.
-
Don't expect the realities of the world to be restricted to your 'logic'....
-
Don't expect the realities of the world to be restricted to your 'logic'....
I suggest it's far more likely to be closer to the conclusions based on logic and evidence than to those based on your unevidenced superstitions. ::)
-
Don't expect the realities of the world to be restricted to your 'logic'....
Don't expect anyone else's understanding of reality to be torn away from the evidence by your isolation from that same logic.
O.
-
It is a philosophical position.
Ah, I see, it's just some mind games and not an actual real thing.
Got it.
For a few moments there I thought that you were proposing that it actually exists!
-
What evidence? You actually have evidence that it is all random chance events and that there is no soul?!
-
What evidence? You actually have evidence that it is all random chance events and that there is no soul?!
As I said, they are not truly random but based the factors I mentioned - and of course there is evidence for those. And you are also still trying to answer an invalid question based on an unevidenced superstition.
-
Sriram,
It is true that '"Science does not know of any factors that decide which person would inherit which set of genes...". It is only chance.
In spiritual philosophy....the soul chooses its body and circumstances according to its level of development.
That's not philosophy, it's woo. Comforting woo for some no doubt, but woo nonetheless.
-
Sriram,
Also, NDE's are good evidence for the existence of a soul. Plus....read the thread on reincarnation.
NDEs are bullshit. Every time I tell you why they're bullshit you just run away though, so I see little point in explaining it to you again.
-
Sriram,
Don't expect the realities of the world to be restricted to your 'logic'....
It's not "your" logic that's the problem - it's that you have no logic at all to justify your claims.
-
Sriram,
What evidence? You actually have evidence that it is all random chance events and that there is no soul?!
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof
Your appalling inability to reason is letting you down again.
-
That's so easy. The burden of proof is always with the other guy. ::)
It is not just the spiritualists who are making claims. Even the materialists are claiming that it is all chance and randomness. That needs proof. They claim that the soul does not exist in spite of NDE's. This needs proof.
-
That's so easy. The burden of proof is always with the other guy. ::)
It is not just the spiritualists who are making claims. Even the materialists are claiming that it is all chance and randomness. That needs proof. They claim that the soul does not exist in spite of NDE's. This needs proof.
No - it is for the 'soul' advocates to make a sound case that can be subjected to rational scrutiny, and if they can't it is perfectly reasonably to point out that they haven't. And if they want to say that their claim is 'beyond science' then they need to offer an alternative but equally robust method.
It is therefore reasonable to just dismiss some claims as fanciful woo/nonsense.
-
That's so easy.
It is, actually.
The burden of proof is always with the other guy. ::)
No. It's with the person who is proposing some hypothesis or making a claim.
It is not just the spiritualists who are making claims. Even the materialists are claiming that it is all chance and randomness.
In this instance, the factors that go into deciding the differences in human lives are all well documented and evidenced: nature (including genetics), nurture, and experience.
You have set up a daft question based on an unevidenced and unargued claim that there is some notion of a person that goes beyond the product of those things, in order to then question the matching between this fantasy notion and the nature and circumstances of life. You have a whole shed-load of claim justification, just make your question mean anything.
They claim that the soul does not exist in spite of NDE's. This needs proof.
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) You're never going to get proof of anything about reality. What we do get is evidence.
You've also missed the point on the burden of proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)). You are the one proposing some unseen and unevidenced 'soul' exists, you burden of proof. See also Russell's teapot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot). And, for about the ten thousandth time, near death experiences are not evidence for a soul.
-
Sriram,
That's so easy. The burden of proof is always with the other guy.
No it isn’t. The burden of proof is with the person making the truth claim – like “soul” for example.
This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp Sriram.
It is not just the spiritualists who are making claims. Even the materialists are claiming that it is all chance and randomness.
No “materialists” aren’t. What materialists actually do is to provides cogent explanations for certain observed phenomena that don’t require a “soul” and suchlike. If nonetheless you want to argue that there is a soul, then the burden of proof is with you to demonstrate that.
That needs proof.
Straw men don’t need "proof".
They claim that the soul does not exist in spite of NDE's. This needs proof.
No “they” don’t. They explain why NDEs tell you nothing at all about souls, an afterlife or any other woo – nothing more, nothing less. Your non-thinking is letting you down again here.
-
You people keep talking in circles....
The idea of a soul is a hypothesis....a perfectly valid hypothesis....based on NDE's and OBE's of thousands of people across the world. The idea of a soul also does not conflict with any other established theory.
You people (and many scientists) have a problem with it just because it is an idea taught in religions. It is your anti religious fixation that is responsible for your outright denial of such matters. There is no scientific basis in this at all.
-
If the 'soul' is a hypothesis, as opposed to wishful or magical thinking, then you should be able to explain what characteristics it has and what methods could be used to test for its presence (or absence, where said asserted characteristics are absent) - but it seems 'soul' proponents can't get beyond wishful or magical thinking.
Therefore 'soul' is not a valid hypothesis: it is an invalid hypothesis that no unbiased academic researcher would take seriously in the absence of robust methods to investigate the claim. If I think back, having done a research-based higher degree (Ph.D, University of Edinburgh, 1995), had I used the word 'hypothesis' in the same way that you have here I'm pretty sure the Prof and my two supervisors would have chased me out of the room and told me not to come back until I understood the term properly.
As regards these 'NDE's', I surprised that you're still banging that drum: you've mentioned the likes of Raymond Moody before yet his 'work' isn't something I'd ever want to cite, since it is so embarrasingly flawed.
-
You people keep talking in circles....
The idea of a soul is a hypothesis....a perfectly valid hypothesis....based on NDE's and OBE's of thousands of people across the world. The idea of a soul also does not conflict with any other established theory.
You people (and many scientists) have a problem with it just because it is an idea taught in religions. It is your anti religious fixation that is responsible for your outright denial of such matters. There is no scientific basis in this at all.
We don't know what NDEs and OBEs are so they can't really be used as evidence for something else.
-
The idea of a soul is a hypothesis....a perfectly valid hypothesis...
No, it's nowhere near detailed enough to be a hypothesis. At the very best, we might describe it as a conjecture but, quite frankly, it's so vague and baseless I'm not really inclined to dignify it as much as that. It appears to be nothing but hand-waving and wishful thinking.
...based on NDE's and OBE's of thousands of people across the world.
For which there are plentiful other potential explanations that don't require wild, baseless speculation
The idea of a soul also does not conflict with any other established theory.
Neither does the invisible purple dragon in my garage. ::)
You people (and many scientists) have a problem with it just because it is an idea taught in religions. It is your anti religious fixation that is responsible for your outright denial of such matters.
Your claim does not stand up to scrutiny, because many scientists who recognise the need for proper evidence are also religious but know better than to try to mix the two.
There is no scientific basis in this at all.
There is no scientific basis for a 'soul'.
-
Sriram,
You people keep talking in circles....
No "we people" don't. What we actually "talk in" is reason – a facility you seem to lack.
The idea of a soul is a hypothesis....
No it isn't. It's a guess or a speculation or a conjecture at best, but it falls a long way short of being a hypothesis scientific purposes.
...a perfectly valid hypothesis....
No it isn't – see above.
...based on NDE's and OBE's of thousands of people across the world.
NDEs as evidence for "souls" are bullshit for the reasons you always run away from when they're given to you.
The idea of a soul also does not conflict with any other established theory.
But only in the sense that Tooth Fairy "does not conflict" with your parents taking your teeth away.
You people (and many scientists) have a problem with it just because it is an idea taught in religions.
No, the only "problem" "we people" have with it is that it's gibberish. White noise. Woo. That religions teach it too is a separate matter.
It is your anti religious fixation that is responsible for your outright denial of such matters. There is no scientific basis in this at all.
More idiocy. The "scientific basis" is that the methods of science have nothing to investigate.