Is there any relevance to above questions today? Humans are in life for millions of years. What is the relevance of such a question today?
Initially humankind had only a singular answer to the above questions; the answer religions had given, that an almighty God had created the cosmos and earth, and He planted humans here, so that they worship him, understand Him and attain salvation.(salvation means,human spirit joining His spirit, after death)
During 16th and 17th centuries, the old science of Greek, Islam, Indians, Chinese etc was replaced by modern science of Newton, Galileo etc.
Science started as a tradition of ignoring the remote cause realm and emphasizing the extreme relevance of the present. Was it a shift in the direction of facing the stark reality of what is in front of the eyes,ignoring everything spooky about the old beliefs? Perhaps, yes.
A new tradition of ignoring all stories of religions and old beliefs was initiated by modern science.
Life as it was, accepted an inevitable reality irrespective of its cause and metaphysics. Perhaps, that was a better description as to how science was born, and her simple philosophy.
The spectacular victory of nation-states over the Church at the end of the conflict between them had strengthened this base ideology. No more allowances for spooky metaphysics or religious beliefs. Life will be ruled by what has been observed by humans with his rational sense and open observations. Religion was totally ousted from human affairs. Rulers had become the first and foremost sponsors and supporters of science. They had a clear reason for doing so.
In short, the WHY life question lost its relevance for ever in human history. That was a realm handled earlier by the Church and now Church had been shown its place, so from now on, it is the reign of human observation, Reason, and common sense.The reign of science over the world and people's mind had begun. The old authority of Church had now been replaced by Science.
Is there any sense in life? Scientific view is, that question itself is irrelevant. That is a metaphysical question. Why worry of it? Scientific view is, ignore all such metaphysical questions. Observe what humans experience in day today life and that is life.
What humans ultimately need and seek is a good life. Good life is, living it the way the most successful humans live, by possessing everything technology has brought; cars, high tech mobile-phones, temperature controlling devices like air conditioners, fast travel in planes, most expensive footwear, dress and perfumes. Court the best women. Be in the company of most successful humans. What else life is? Be with the nature who always looks for the best who succeeds in the struggle for achieving good life. Life for Nature is simply a struggle to survive. Survive with everything best possible!This is the current, most popular stand on life.
Was it not a simpleton world view?
In the absence of a better world view, it is the best. It is the most practical. Why worry on life metaphysical meaning? Wasn't it an animal time world view? Yes; animals always looked to possess maximum number of mates, best habitat with abundant supply of food etc. Why not to imitate such a plain world view if Nature is FOUND supporting such a world view?
Has such a life any sense?
What sense? Philosophy of science is to follow what is obvious, empirical and what the moment before you demands. Let who care for higher metaphysics, sense and meaning pursue it. But it is not the cup of tea of science!
It is clear here, why science followed such a practical world view. 'Sense'of life is far away, needless, so totally absent from her priorities.
So, why pursue such a question? Seeking answer to such questions is a waste of time.
But can any truth seeking man ignore such 'sense' questions about life?
It is plain evident, man not only has urges to have a good life but also for permanent, ultimate truths. Religions and even Science originated out of such basic human urges. When science abandoned this urge, she thought,she found the most practical, sensible approach towards life. Religions had also abandoned the question when she invented an almighty, creator, preserver God. Religions had moved such questions to God's court. He is the creator and ultimate owner of life, so let him mind such questions and answers. Your job is to worship him and obey him.
Is there 'sense' in these two stands?
What is sense? It seems we have a faculty to detect this 'sense' factor. When a dog is shown to a human and say it is a goat, his 'sense' faculty won't accept it. We must understand here, that words 'dog' and 'goat' are learnt by us. Words are based on our mutual agreement on certain sounds to mean certain objects or relation we have become familiar with. They are not absolute identity of the objects in existence that we observe. Or if we hear, if all A,s are B,s, therefore all C,s are A, the same faculty of sense will violently object.
It is this inherent faculty of 'sense' of humans that object to the above stands of science and religions.This faculty of 'sense' is like the faculty of sight; one need to positively 'use' it. If one goes carelessly without caring what is in front of the eyes, he may hurt his feet on stones on the way, or even put the foot on a snake on the path. Every sense faculty needs such intentional,smart use of them for optimum results. Faculty of sense also is same. It deserves much better, quality use.
Science is yet to recognize the existence of such a 'sense' faculty inherent in humans. For her, truths are only what has been passed by her observations, experiments and logic. What observations can provide when it lacks services of the most important sense faculty, REASON? Science is yet to identify it and recognize its role in acquiring knowledge. Love to share the following paper on this new role of Reason here:
https://isreasonasenseorgan.blogspot.com/2018/11/is-mans-faculty-of-reason-internal.html
For Logic, she has certain fixed universal premises/axioms.When her observations, experiments are found consistent with these fixed axioms or universal premises, she pass them as theories. The physical nature of everything that exists is one of her chief axioms.
Existence is the exclusive phenomenon we belong to. There is no external abodes standing from where we could pass 'objective' judgments on existence. Can it be a mindless, intention-less, mechanical phenomenon as Science say? Funniest stand of science is, that we can't say because we are smart and intelligent, but universe is mute and dump matter.
Can such a mindless, mechanical stuff cause the emergence of elaborate body organs net work, reflecting unimaginable intelligence and 'creative choices' to sustain life? Are desire for love and care, the most integral aspects of life, essential for survival if we go by the stand of survival theory?
Does sex simply for the sake of pleasure (not for reproduction) essential for survival? Beauty of flowers and valleys essential for survival? Human qualities like writing novels, paintings and other creative arts essential? Philosophy and art essential? Unimaginably different shapes and colors of plant leaves essential? Size and varieties of fruits? Orgasm? Unimaginable variety in the shape of sexual organs, way of copulation, child birth, and death? Merging of galaxies? Morning and evenings? Seasons? Can a dead, physical cosmos cause all the above to emerge? Only dump minds can claim so.
Everyone who lives his/her life might have experienced in the course of life, that there is a certain mystery element of completion to all life events, whether it is one's daily travel, his diseases, his job, income, meeting his needs etc, totally unrelated to and inconsistent with the effort he put in. Having one's health, income and good life seem to have a foundation and meaning other than one's intelligence and toil.
Yes, life is so complex to be explained by survival related stories. Perhaps following paper might help the reader to understand this argument better: http://leadingdogmasthatruletheworld.blogspot.com/2012/08/leading-dogmas-that-rule-contemporary.html
Is concept of God, sensible?
We have listed arguments against the belief of science. Now, will a God concept in its religious sense can fill the need for a sensible explanation of life?
Above 'sense' is absent in believing that this almighty God had planted humans on earth in order to relish their devotion, love, worship and good deeds. Does't such an image of God degrades him? Can he be such a pompous entity?
Believing in our inability to grasp God (iconoclasts) also has no 'sense'; when we have been blessed with faculties to see, hear and smell, why we should be deprived of similar faculties to understand the whole drama of existence too? Besides the above given link on Reason, the following link has a complete study on the subject, including a book link that can be found at blog number three from beginning.
http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/2011/01/part-b.html
If we look closely at whether man holds inherent moral sense might throw disturbing facts.Following long paper delves into this vital morality issue:
http://newphilosophyoflife.blogspot.com/2018/01/is-there-inherent-moral-element-behind_24.html
So, if one closely analyse stands of religion and science on existence, both won't pass the simple test of plain human 'sense'. Both the stands/world views were perhaps strategy of believe, and then close shut the mind. Can we go ahead with world views when we claim we are modern?
The uniqueness of existence
While trying to understand life, the phenomenon of 'existence' shines before our eyes in its wholesomeness. It is our exclusive metaphysical, physical and spiritual abode. No one can ignore it and live on like the way animals have been living for millions of years. Even humans also did so, like animals, for millions of years. But can he continues to do so for ever? Can he treat her primary physical nature as her final reality and remain a believer in science?
Existence has the meaning of all meanings. We happened to find and define 'meaning and sense' because we were extremely lucky to be in life!
It has the 'sense' of all senses. It is a harsh belittling of our basic 'sense', to claim that it is a thermodynamics phenomenon, with no emotional sense and meaning. Theories of thermodynamics are man-made concepts, something man, from his life, has created. How can we judge,that the very source of our being is based on mere 'categories' (physical/energy) we have invented? We don't know whether our such judgment mechanism also is a 'product' of the scheme we are in. How can science consider that our 'sense of self 'mechanism and its typical sense of 'singularity' are free and independent to have 'objective', sensible assessment of the reality in front of us?
The component level physical-organisation of a 'whole' might exhibit certain mathematical consistencies, but it might not have any binding on the 'whole' and its working principle. Example is atoms; every known physical object has atoms as its base building blocks, but the overall identity, working principles of the wholes are varied unimaginably! Take the mind of man and his brain. Are any two brains behave similarly? Are any two hearts, kidneys or liver? Why Planets and Stars are different? How come huge galaxies merge together uneventfully in outer space?
Can such unique phenomenon that makes up our 'sense of self', intelligence, philosophy and science be 'senseless' and meaningless? A physical affair ruled by the laws of thermodynamics? Such a conclusion will always laugh at our concept of knowledge, perception and epistemology systems.
Perhaps it might laugh at our God concept also, as it was also born out of our fear factor or inborn craze for divinity factor.
Science was perhaps born from an opposite motivation, a despise towards all belief-systems. She took pride in being observation oriented. She doesn't BELIEVE, but make theories on what has been observed, what gets repeated, so also predictable. But such an obsession for 'not believing' could also be the result of some similar features of the smart plan of existence that constituted our 'sense of self' mechanism. .
Why we find life full of meaning, sense and wonder, despite its routine miseries, uncertainties, deaths and wars?
Arguments we first need to consider here are:
1. Presence of a lot of signs of 'creative choices' in nature we observe: Why the heavenly bodies are spherical in shape, not any other? Can't cosmos been smaller or larger? ( though we don't know yet, how large it is!) Why shape of all plant leaves dissimilar? Why human male sexual organ was designed in the existing fashion? Also that of females'? Couldn't it have been some other shape, design, with different working principle? We could cite thousands of similar examples, showing signs of creative choices in existence. It could have been different, but it is in the existing design as a result of some creative CHOICES.
2. Though science doesn't agree with the principles of SELF explained in following paper, on the very smart plan and scheme of giving birth to the 'sense of self' of man, the evidences are very forceful, sensible and convincing:
http://unrecognizedobjectsofthemind.blogspot.com/2019/06/concepts-of-self-realization-and.html
She simply holds, that sense of self is a function of the brain. It is extremely difficult for man, be it scientists, philosophers or men of religion, to free himself/herself off all one's pre-notions, pre suppositions, learning, factors of upbringing,categories of knowledge one accustomed with etc and look at existence with a totally free and unbiased, blank mind. Only at such a blank mind, existence could be placed for a genuine 'objective' view of it.
3. Are humans very clear about how he gains knowledge? Perhaps NOT. His existing epistemology is so mixed up and confusing. Even for his so called scientific knowledge, he always depended on a hidden 'sense' faculty, REASON, without knowing its actual role and working. Following paper:
https://isreasonasenseorgan.blogspot.com/2013/09/is-reason-internal-sense-organ-super.html?m=1
(My book link also there on the subject of Reason in this post)
might throw adequate light on this new area. This area could attain its mainstream status only if Science and Philosophy turn humble enough to accept at least part of the above facts and get ready to open up.
4. Serious inconsistencies of her all controlling biological theory of 'survival of the fittest' are listed in the following paper. Will she attend to these listed inconsistencies and at least try to give answers?http://leadingdogmasthatruletheworld.blogspot.com/2012/08/leading-dogmas-that-rule-contemporary.html
5. Can science open up and start research on the crucial relation between the product 'world' and the individual? She must accept the existence of natural laws other than that in the physical realm too. Sensible organisations can be there outside the physical realm too. Either physical energies transform to accomplish these extra physical realm, or there are separate energy systems that control laws of this realm.
6. First and foremost step for human to enter a new knowledge realm is to abandon the 'autonomy' of the self realm; he need to rethink whether it is his toil, intelligence and will that make him move, or are they all his GIVEN systems like his involuntary penis erection during sexual encounters, his orgasm,his lung and blood circulation system, his sensory system and brain, his dependence on his sense organs for building the foundation of his knowledge system etc.
Following paper will perhaps help scientists to know more on our dependence on sense organs for building the foundation of our knowledge system: http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.com/2016/07/sense-organs-of-man-are-they-natures.html
7. The ultimate WHY question and answers might need a thoroughly BLANK mind to comprehend it. Thought it is very simple principle, for minds heavily loaded with pre-notions of physicalism /naturalism, it might face hard resistance.
We have learned from the paper on 'sense of self', that any entity needs some other for establishing its reality. Without some other, one is invisible to oneself! It will be empty nullities without some others. 'I' become something, some identity only when some other perceives me. I am what I am in the perception of such others. He creates me. This is an existential physics perhaps science is yet to identity and accept, and perhaps this is the clue to our WHY question too. Existence is mad about having KNOWING beings. It is certainly a stage in intelligence and self knowledge millions of years away from the animal and jungle humans-stage.
Perhaps this is the answer to the WHY question. It is simple, but very tricky if minds are not free and purely blank for receiving fresh truths.
Following paper on 'WHY life' might throw more good light on this answer: http://newphilosophyoflife.blogspot.com/2018/05/why-life-why-existence.html
Who might be behind the phenomenon of existence?
Science agrees, there is a huge physical universe there. The crucial question is, is she moot, blind and dead physical? Without a mind, can she accomplish all the above listed items of creative choices? Why she has produced man and his intelligence? Can dead physical matter do it? Can we believe, such a physical whole can have intentions, plans, goals and schemes to sustain herself out of energy needs? If we compare stories of religions and science, many similarities can be seen, stories of both contain more imagination than sensible content. If we read her explanations about the size of the cosmos, or predominantly 'dark matter' filled state, her stories will be more fantastic than creation time or later stage world maintenance stories of religions!
But can we ignore such question and go on living our lives like millions of our forefathers had done and animals and plants continue live on even now? Can we achieve more and more material prosperity, create more and high tech weapons and space travel missions and go on believing in our superior intelligence of one day conquering the entire cosmos as if it is an enemy-less territory? Shouldn't we have a commitment, an intellectual responsibility to know who we are and why we are here?
Can man grow above his earthy 'categories' and conceive existence free of them? We know that, our sense organs are our exclusive sources of gaining knowledge about existence and her various categories. It is urgent and crucial that we learn the basics and detailed role of our sense organ of REASON too, and see if it is the sense faculty that is supposed to give us knowledge about the mystery categories of existence?
We know that, or at least the dedicated, committed sages and seekers know, when their usual perceiving tools of the body and world are shut off, they cease to be any worldly entity. At this entity, identity less stage, they perhaps tun non different from the stuff of the real existence. At this stage, perhaps this entity-less beings gain insight into what the controlling force is behind existence,and why they were human beings before the transcendence stage.
There definitely is a cause, a force, a reason and an entity behind existence, human beings, life, seas, galaxies, fishes and plants. It may be much beyond and above our imaginable categories of world. It doesn't mean that it is spooky metaphysical stuff, a term to escape from, not facing the reality behind existence. It is our base, exclusive reality. It is not part of any external, objective affair of man. It is his ancestry,substance and meaning.
While trying to understand existence, first requirement is, we need to free our mind from all God concepts and images. It has certain 'divinity' images, that might harm our desire to know her. When divinity is attributed, we tend to be adopting a role of devotees, creatures etc. Perhaps that roles may not be the right status of humans. When their very 'sense of self' is particular, standing within such role may not be the right, most sensible option. If we free ourselves from such roles and identities, as described above, perhaps we tend to understand existence better.
She (existence) certainly will have a 'predisposition', and it might be her primary reality, feature we better understand and grasp. This stand might be true with understanding other people, and even animals too. Their physical properties may not reveal their predisposition easily. But once we realize someone's /something's predisposition, our understanding will be almost complete.
We realize, even science has her idea of 'predisposition' of existence fixed. She concluded, existence is a physical whole with its typical mechanical, survival oriented predisposition. She helps the ones who follow her predisposition, ie, their tendency to win over others in the survival game. But do existence really helps only the survival-smarts? Our experience says, it is not. Even the most down trodden, diseased and defeated often get up and survive, perhaps even better than the so called survival smarts. So, it is not her primary predisposition.
What about religions' God? He is kind, worship liking, devotion liking etc. Such a stand on her predisposition reiterates human's free willed options to be a devotee. It reiterates his special IDENTITY, positive and final. He often tries himself/herself in being a dear and near one to God. Is our 'sense of self' worth, stable and solid to be a permanent identity? How lasting, solid and real is our sense of self?
As said earlier, when one tries to discard all his pre-notions, pre-identities, and all similar world concepts and notions, it is then he tends to understand existence better. It is the kind of the 'SPIRIT' science once wanted the seekers and researchers of truth to possess. It is the basic of a true scientific method. Holding such a SPIRIT is the primary prerequisite of a scientist. But today, science seems to have mistook 'physicalism' with scientific spirit. Those who hold the view, that existence has a physical base, tend to be known as truly scientific. In short, physicalism has become an other word for the famed scientific spirit.
Existence certainly wants humans to understand her. The moment she/he ( the seekers) shed all their worldly identities, norms and concepts, they experience themselves as integral part of existence. The identities as humans they previously held melts at least for the time being. They can't keep such awareness for long as they tend to live exclusively as their egos, the world entities /sense of selves. Those who once experienced the nullity of their world identities, will always live with the rare knowledge of that experience through the rest of their life!
They tend to live their lives full, indulging in everything it offers, but always with the knowledge that, they are simply participating in the unique opportunity of life! Existence, they have known, as being selfless, loving and caring, and every moment being with seekers. Of course those who build up their entire concept of reality around their sense of self, world and its categories, will have a life experience strictly based on cause-effect, as explained in following paper:http://thewhyquestionofexistenceanswered.blogspot.com/2015/03/how-could-we-explain-diseaseswars-and.html
Science, if open and being true to her original spirit, should have been willing to abandon her obsession and belief in physicalism/ naturalism and sought to know existence as she really is. Humans are not objects in existence but active participants. So, knowing her will be an altogether different exercise. It will perhaps demand a serious paradigm shift to her presuppositions, her method, her concepts of research etc.
If she get willing to open up, perhaps she will be able to eradicate the BELIEFS in her realm and the realm of religions, and bring in more light and clarity into human minds, ending the existing wall that exist between science and religions.
Above was a new metaphysical stand, world view or whatever similar. If it helps to remove old beliefs, concepts and pre-suppositions of science and religions, or at least science opens up, this author's mission will stand achieved.
Authored by: Abraham J.palakudy
He is a seeker and researcher in philosophy, metaphysics, God, spirituality and polity.
His twitter handle: voice of philosophy@jopan1
His other blogs and profile: https://www.blogger.com/profile/14249415589712707293
No comments:
Post a Comment