Karma

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Well...I am not sure what point is finally being made by everyone. My point is clear.

1. Karma is a philosophical concept that explains the differences between people, the circumstances of their birth and their subsequent pattern of life.  Merely  attributing everything to chance is not philosophy.

2. Karma cannot be proved. Nor can it be disproved. It is believed to be a natural force that pushes individuals towards progress and development, freeing them from the  influences of their inherent animal tendencies.

3. It usually works in the long term (over life times) and therefore cannot be identified specifically.  All aspects of life are not physics for us to expect precise information, measurements and predictions.

4. Karma is not a theory that we can hope to use in our favor like we use other theories of science. It is fundamental and is probably used by our unconscious mind to direct our lives.

5. While evidence for Karma is almost impossible to come by because we don't know what exact outcomes it will have.....reincarnation had been studied  and some evidence is available as I have linked earlier.

Cheers.

Sriram

[SusanDoris]

It seems odd to compare scientific enquiry to a religion, since scientific accounts are often falsified, which leads to new discoveries.  Can we say this of religion?   Science fails all the time, in some ways, it is designed to fail.   Again, does religion do this?

I wonder if SotS will read this post of yours? More importantly, will he read it and actually take in what it says? Somehow, I doubt it. The arrogance of  the conviction that his expressed views are superior to those of non-believers seems to me to be evident in every post.

[torridon]

1. Karma is a philosophical concept that explains the differences between people, the circumstances of their birth and their subsequent pattern of life.  Merely  attributing everything to chance is not philosophy.

It might not be philosophy to attribute everything to chance, but it might be realistic, and to that extent karma represents a flight from reality. a pretence of mind, a victory for self-deception over honesty. I think it infantile and inadequate to be substituting this baseless make-believe to shield our eyes from reality; it is only by understanding problems that we can hope solve solve them.

[torridon]

5. While evidence for Karma is almost impossible to come by because we don't know what exact outcomes it will have.....reincarnation had been studied  and some evidence is available as I have linked earlier.

How is there evidence for reincarnation ?  The link you posted earlier was broken so perhaps you could explain. This idea suggests that when a living organism dies, something of it does not die, but what exactly is it that persists ?  For there to be evidence in support of reincarnation we need to be able to identify the unique thing inside so that it can be identified subsequently in another unique living organism.

[Nearly Sane]

It might not be philosophy to attribute everything to chance, but it might be realistic, and to that extent karma represents a flight from reality. a pretence of mind, a victory for self-deception over honesty. I think it infantile and inadequate to be substituting this baseless make-believe to shield our eyes from reality; it is only by understanding problems that we can hope solve solve them.

We have to be very careful with the idea of chance. Something that is not consciously directed does not therefore mean it is by chance in the sense of random. That sort of false dichotomy is used too frequently in terms of description of evolution.

That said, that there is no overall conscious direction is a perfectly sound philosophical view, and one that cannot be said to being not philosophy.

[torridon]

We have to be very careful with the idea of chance. Something that is not consciously directed does not therefore mean it is by chance in the sense of random. That sort of false dichotomy is used too frequently in terms of description of evolution.

That said, that there is no overall conscious direction is a perfectly sound philosophical view, and one that cannot be said to being not philosophy.

I suppose we could be more generous to the idea of karma by seeing it as an early recognition of determinism - there is really no such thing as good luck or bad luck because there is no such thing as true random and everything that happens is due to the operation of cause and effect at some profound level. I'm not sue that we can extrapolate from that to wrongs being righted or justice being served transcending human lifespans.

[wigginhall]

Oh well, Sriram has said that there is no evidence for karma.   File along with being in the Matrix, the world being created last Thursday, and aliens are going to eat you for breakfast. 

[Nearly Sane]

Certainly.....would the person with the neutral position please stand up.

Not really sure why you thought this relates to any sort of evidence for your statement, particularly as you have for some reason switched from 'a neutral position' to 'the neutral position'. What is 'the neutral position'?


Anyway first let's take Chomsky's syntactically correct but meaningless statement 'Colourless green ideas sleep furiously'. If someone were to claim that to me, then I might say that I didn't understand what they were saying and could they explain and justify the claim. I would not, however, claim that it was false so in that case I have a neutral position. The burden of proof remains with the claimant.


Next if we were to take a meaningful statement such as the claim that the total number of goals that will be scored in the EPL this season will be even, then I would take a position that that would need some evidence. I would not be taking a position that the claim is false. My position is a neutral one and the burden of proof remains with the claimant.

Now on god claims, since I have not seen a meaningful and logically consistent definition of god then my position is like the Chomsky example, and hence remains neutral. Even if we remove all definition to something such as a first cause, then my position is like the goals example and remains neutral. In both cases the burden of proof remains with the claimant.

Lastly, were someone to argue that the very idea of burden of proof was dependent on accepting certain common  assumptions about logic and epistemology, then I would have to agree. It would, however, be necessary to point out that without those assumptions, the statements made would be denied inter subjective understanding and have merely a solipsistic meaning  and thus would not be useful for discussion.

[ekim]

I suppose we could be more generous to the idea of karma by seeing it as an early recognition of determinism - there is really no such thing as good luck or bad luck because there is no such thing as true random and everything that happens is due to the operation of cause and effect at some profound level. I'm not sue that we can extrapolate from that to wrongs being righted or justice being served transcending human lifespans.

I'm not sure that it's about righting wrongs even though there seems to be a poetic justice in some interpretations of karma and samsara (the cycle of birth, death and rebirth).  Karma yoga is more about actions freed from egotistical predispositions and whether these arise from 'sins of the father' or 'former lives' doesn't really matter as it is the effort applied in the present which counts.  The scientific method is all very well but when the motives behind its use drive the production of better and better means of killing each other then, perhaps, a method to neutralise those motives would be worthwhile pursuing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

1. Karma is a philosophical concept that explains the differences between people, the circumstances of their birth and their subsequent pattern of life.  Merely  attributing everything to chance is not philosophy.

No. “Philosophy” requires rational argument. “Karma” on the other hand is wishful thinking, and it explains nothing. Inasmuch as people who are either kind or cruel are equally likely to win the lottery, to be involved in a car crash etc is an observable fact the acceptance of “randomness” on the other hand is a philosophy, albeit that the term “random” is used disingenuously here as the appearance of randomness is rather the outcome of unfathomably longs chains of cause and effect.   

2. Karma cannot be proved. Nor can it be disproved. It is believed to be a natural force that pushes individuals towards progress and development, freeing them from the  influences of their inherent animal tendencies.

No. It can be disproved at least in the sense that the positive claims made for it – that being nice to people makes you more likely to win a raffle etc – can be modelled and shown to be false. 

3. It usually works in the long term (over life times) and therefore cannot be identified specifically.  All aspects of life are not physics for us to expect precise information, measurements and predictions.

If you think it “works over the long term” then you’ll need to demonstrate that rather than just assert it to be so. I suspect however that the significance of looking for events over the long term is that it presents more opportunities for confirmation bias – “See, when Fred was a teenager he saved a kid from drowning, and now he’s a pensioner he’s won the lottery. Karma!” etc.

4. Karma is not a theory that we can hope to use in our favor like we use other theories of science. It is fundamental and is probably used by our unconscious mind to direct our lives.

It’s not a “theory” at all -  it’s just the child-like conviction that there’s agency in the universe rather than blind cause and effect. Essentially “karma” is the same phenomenon as a six-year-old saying, “that branch hit me”.

5. While evidence for Karma is almost impossible to come by because we don't know what exact outcomes it will have.....

Or because it’s illusory…

…reincarnation had been studied  and some evidence is available as I have linked earlier.

No it isn’t.

[Udayana]

Oh dear .. what a load of rubbish on this thread.

Certainly we must dismiss the various pseudo-scientific babble and childish schema for "justice", punishment or reward and winning lotteries in this life or another.

The idea is not properly defined, there are multiple different definitions. The meaning it has is poetic, mythological, metaphysical (ie no longer considered even as philosophy). An idea that can be meditated on and understood personally but really not really communicated except through leveraging empathy. It offers no logic that can be understood to be true or false.

The Wikipedia entry on Karma is pretty good. It includes this poem, which seems to capture the essence ...

Now as a man is like this or like that,
according as he acts and according as he behaves, so will he be;
a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad acts, bad;
he becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds;

And here they say that a person consists of desires,
and as is his desire, so is his will;
and as is his will, so is his deed;
and whatever deed he does, that he will reap.
— Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 7th Century BCE

It is not an answer to anything, not even attempting to define what "pure", "good", "bad" are, but only somewhere to start your own introspection.

[Sriram]

It might not be philosophy to attribute everything to chance, but it might be realistic, and to that extent karma represents a flight from reality. a pretence of mind, a victory for self-deception over honesty. I think it infantile and inadequate to be substituting this baseless make-believe to shield our eyes from reality; it is only by understanding problems that we can hope solve solve them.

torridon,

There you go again.  You are assuming something to be  reality when it is merely your version or perception of reality. You don't KNOW that chance is the reality. It is just your philosophical view, if at all it is that.

you are free to have your opinion but that is not necessarily reality.

About reincarnation....here is the link again. It is a PDF file containng the work of Dr.Ian Stevenson.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=vIDES6VWl1MC&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=case+studies+in+lebanon+of+reincarnation&source=bl&ots=kB57-_wsex&sig=2VASz_dmvM5nS803CjdewiuC3ug&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjB8KikqMnQAhVJqo8KHR47CUQQ6AEIPDAG#v=onepage&q=case%20studies%20in%20lebanon%20of%20reincarnation&f=false

The link works...I checked.

Your question about what persists after the body dies.  We only know it as Atma/spirit/soul/consciousness.  You can give it another name if you want.

You argument is backwards. You cannot insist that we should know everything about the thing that persists after the death of the body, before we can accept its existence. That is ridiculous!

We just have to know that there is enough reason to believe that something persists after the death of the body. That is all. What it is... we may get to know sometime or we may never know.

You don't insist on knowing everything about Dark Energy before you accept its existence. We have enough reason to believe that something possibly exists everywhere in the universe, though we don't know anything about it.  Its just got a name  ..Dark Energy... that is all. What is it? What are its properties? What is it made of? How did it arise? How does it work?   There are any number of questions that you can't answer.

About the spirit....it is the same... only far more complex and subtle.

[Sriram]

I suppose we could be more generous to the idea of karma by seeing it as an early recognition of determinism - there is really no such thing as good luck or bad luck because there is no such thing as true random and everything that happens is due to the operation of cause and effect at some profound level. I'm not sue that we can extrapolate from that to wrongs being righted or justice being served transcending human lifespans.

That is right!  Determinism and Karma are connected concepts.

I did not say anything about 'justice'. Justice is relative just as good and bad are relative.

I said Karma is like a correction. If something is going in the wrong direction or is becoming unstable...it gets corrected eventually.

PS: You don't have to be patronizing about Karma or reincarnation.  These are well accepted philosophical concepts among literally billions of people around the world. A few atheists not understanding it is neither here nor there.   )

Even Christians and Muslims and Jews would accept these concepts if they only looked into their early secret teachings ie. gnosticism,   Sufiism, Kabbala.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

That is right!  Determinism and Karma are connected concepts.

I did not say anything about 'justice'. Justice is relative just as good and bad are relative.

I said Karma is like a correction. If something is going in the wrong direction or is becoming unstable...it gets corrected eventually.

If by "wrong" you mean "variant from the norm", then what you meant all along then was just reversion to the mean - a statistical phenomenon.

Why didn't you just say so in the first place instead of relying on woo?

[Jack Knave]

And while that's true, it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof

Not really. He is just asking you to keep an open mind whilst the issue is still in the air. Considering that science hasn't disproved it yet. And to keep you happy, neither has he or whoever have proved their case.

[Jack Knave]

Well I wouldn't put it that way.  I would see science as a tool, a means to an end; it is the end result that is important, an improved understanding of things.  Having said that, science is broadly speaking the ethos that is focused on delivering that by diligent enquiry and I don't see any merit in sloppy work.

But it is not the only tool in the box, then other is ones personal experience of life and the values one acquired from these.

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

Not really. He is just asking you to keep an open mind whilst the issue is still in the air. Considering that science hasn't disproved it yet. And to keep you happy, neither has he or whoever have proved their case.

It's more nuanced than that. It's not that "science hasn't disproved it yet", it's that the conjecture isn't falsification apt. That is, it's not even wrong - it's just white noise. What he's attempting is a false equivalence - like someone saying, "science hasn't disproved the stork theory of baby arrivals yet", therefore keep an open mind... 

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

But it is not the only tool in the box, then other is ones personal experience of life and the values one acquired from these.

If by "tool" you mean something like, "method to distinguish the claim from white noise, guessing etc" then yes it is - at least so far.

[Jack Knave]

It seems odd to compare scientific enquiry to a religion, since scientific accounts are often falsified, which leads to new discoveries.  Can we say this of religion?   Science fails all the time, in some ways, it is designed to fail.   Again, does religion do this?

Well yes. Once a religion becomes out of date for the human psyche it is dropped for something new. That's why we have a graveyard full of old religions.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I wonder if SotS will read this post of yours? More importantly, will he read it and actually take in what it says? Somehow, I doubt it. The arrogance of  the conviction that his expressed views are superior to those of non-believers seems to me to be evident in every post.

I wonder if SusanDoris will read this post of mine? More importantly, will she read it and actually take in what it says? Somehow, I doubt it. The arrogance of the conviction that her expressed views are superior to those of believers seems to be to be evident in every post.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

I wonder if SusanDoris will read this post of mine? More importantly, will she read it and actually take in what it says? Somehow, I doubt it. The arrogance of the conviction that her expressed views are superior to those of believers seems to be to be evident in every post.

It's not arrogant to point out that your reasoning here is false.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#99

That's not the NPT, he isn't asking for it to be disproved he is just saying that so far science hasn't come across anything that disproves it.

It's still the NPF - arguing that "science" hasn't disproved it is an attempt at making a point. Otherwise why say it?

Or perhaps it is to see where the confidence/surety of science comes from ...

If a statement X is true, one can attempt to prove it directly, or indirectly by showing that the converse is false. Where the truth (or otherwise) is hard to establish, some may keep an open mind either way (a third option you keep on ignoring).

The only person who needs to maintain (incorrectly!) that the NPT is being used is you, because you, as always are not able to defend your position without continually shifting the burden of proof. And please: no more of your dancing pixies on keyboards / your imaginary friend Colin / leprechauns, or teapots in space!

[torridon]

torridon,

There you go again.  You are assuming something to be  reality when it is merely your version or perception of reality. You don't KNOW that chance is the reality. It is just your philosophical view, if at all it is that.

you are free to have your opinion but that is not necessarily reality.

About reincarnation....here is the link again. It is a PDF file containng the work of Dr.Ian Stevenson.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=vIDES6VWl1MC&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=case+studies+in+lebanon+of+reincarnation&source=bl&ots=kB57-_wsex&sig=2VASz_dmvM5nS803CjdewiuC3ug&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjB8KikqMnQAhVJqo8KHR47CUQQ6AEIPDAG#v=onepage&q=case%20studies%20in%20lebanon%20of%20reincarnation&f=false

The link works...I checked.

Your question about what persists after the body dies.  We only know it as Atma/spirit/soul/consciousness.  You can give it another name if you want.

You argument is backwards. You cannot insist that we should know everything about the thing that persists after the death of the body, before we can accept its existence. That is ridiculous!

We just have to know that there is enough reason to believe that something persists after the death of the body. That is all. What it is... we may get to know sometime or we may never know.

You don't insist on knowing everything about Dark Energy before you accept its existence. We have enough reason to believe that something possibly exists everywhere in the universe, though we don't know anything about it.  Its just got a name  ..Dark Energy... that is all. What is it? What are its properties? What is it made of? How did it arise? How does it work?   There are any number of questions that you can't answer.

About the spirit....it is the same... only far more complex and subtle.

OK I had a look at the link; didn't read far to be honest, it was quite old, and as expected, anecdotal stories about past life regressions, I would be looking for something more substantive than anecdotal claims.

We accept dark energy although we don't know what it is, but there is evidence for something having an effect on galaxies, we just don't understand it yet.  Is there any evidence for reincarnation beyond anecdotal claims ? Some things persist - energy is considered eternal perhaps, atomic matter, is for most intents and purposes, indestructible.  But I don't see how we can get from energy to souls, or something similarly complex that would fit the reincarnation idea. In reincarnation, it is a person that is somehow reborn is it not ? or perhaps the essence of a person or creature. But how to define that essence.  If I examine my self, I find I am made of the particularities associated by my private trajectory since conception, all my characteristics can be traced back to my biological parents and grandparents, this further coloured by my particular experiences through life.  If I subtract all this in a effort to find some 'essence'. or soul, there is nothing left.  I don't see what there is about me that does not come through this biological endowment.

[Nearly Sane]

Not really. He is just asking you to keep an open mind whilst the issue is still in the air. Considering that science hasn't disproved it yet. And to keep you happy, neither has he or whoever have proved their case.

No, because it asks for a disproof by science of something that is definably not anything to do with the methodology. It seeks to avoid any burden of proof of a claim. So as a reply it is exactly a switching of a burden of proof from the claimant.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

Or perhaps it is to see where the confidence/surety of science comes from ...

No, it has nothing to do with that. And the confidence in science comes from the fact that it observably works. There is though no “surety” about that, which is why scientific theories include a falsifiability test: they’re provisional, subject to amendment or to scrapping if and when further and better information arises.

Claims of certainty about science are straw men arguments, of the type Vlad attempts when he re-defines “scientism” for his private use for example.

If a statement X is true, one can attempt to prove it directly, or indirectly by showing that the converse is false. Where the truth (or otherwise) is hard to establish, some may keep an open mind either way (a third option you keep on ignoring).

No I don’t. Anything might be – you’re problem though is to establish why your conjecture is epistemically different from any other "might be" conjecture. 

The only person who needs to maintain (incorrectly!) that the NPT is being used is you, because you, as always are not able to defend your position without continually shifting the burden of proof.

That’s clearly not true, so why lie about it? I’m happy to take on the burden of proof when, say, I argue that germs cause disease or that babies emerge from their Mums. I merely ask the same of you when you want to argue for “God”, and repeatedly responding with “you can’t disprove it” is precisely shifting the burden of proof. 
 

And please: no more of your dancing pixies on keyboards / your imaginary friend Colin / leprechauns, or teapots in space!

These conjectures are all examples of the outcomes when I use the arguments you attempt for “God” (NPF, argument from incredulity etc and wearily etc) to conjectures other than your god. That they “work” equally for those conjectures too should tell you something about your arguments. Find an argument that doesn’t work for leprechauns though and we’ll have something to talk about.