Post Covid 19 beliefs

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree with that. But we humans cannot help formulating hypotheses to explain life and its purpose.

True but having formed hypotheses we need methods to determine whether they are correct or not. And why should life have a 'purpose' - you are presupposing that it does.

Scientists may keep saying that there need not be any answers to our philosophical questions...but that is neither here nor there.

As I professional scientist but with a strong secondary professional interest in ethics and philosophy I think that is non-sense. I cannot think of any scientist I know who thinks that philosophy and a range of other social sciences are irrelevant. However just as science should not stray outside it's appropriate territory, neither should philosophy.

Where scientists have a problem is when philosophy (which are inherently subjective, true-for-you and non provably in an objective sense) stays into spiritualism and pseudo-science - and claims that they are objectively true. If they are objectively true - e.g. faith healing and many other pseudo-science claims - then they will be amenable to the scientific method and have strayed into the world of science. Of course science proves them to be non-sense (beyond the well-known placebo effect).

But philosophy in its proper form and place is fine - and I kind think there are many scientists who'd disagree - it is about how we think and how we interact within human societies. It provides frameworks for how we live. All fine provided it doesn't stray into the territory of claiming god made everything in 7 days, or that lightning is made by the Thor or that a clinically dead person suddenly came alive again 3 days later.

[Outrider]

I agree with that. But we humans cannot help formulating hypotheses to explain life and its purpose.

Not every notion is an hypothesis, though - in order to be an hypothesis the idea needs to be experimentally verifiable.  Claims of 'non-physical', 'spiritual' or 'mystic' influences without measurable impacts on reality are not hypotheses; they aren't definitively wrong, but in the absence of a means by which they can be verified or refuted they are something other than hypotheses.

Scientists may keep saying that there need not be any answers to our philosophical questions...but that is neither here nor there.

It is quite an important point - any time you presume that there is something there to be found you are begging the question.

Or alternatively again, we can adopt  a Hindu view which also happens to be secular and is not specifically religion based. Existence of a universal Consciousness that is the source of creation. Life is illusionary (maya) like in a VR game. Spiritual evolution of life from lower forms of consciousness to higher forms of consciousness.  Soul (atma), after-life, Karma, reincarnation, spiritual progress life after life to eventual freedom. An ongoing process like the water cycle.

'Universal consciousness', 'source of creation', 'higher forms of consciousness', 'soul/atma', 'afterlife', 'Karma', 'reincarnation', 'spiritual progress' - a precise definition of religion is difficult to nail down, but wherever the exact line in the sand is this stuff is from way, way, way over the other side of that line from the materialist viewpoint.

First idea is a default one based purely on sensory inputs. Second is a belief based on scripture. The third is speculative but has some evidence in the form of NDE's, reincarnation research by Jim Tucker etc. Philosophies such as Cosmopsychism and panpsychism support this view.

I'd argue - playing Devil's advocate - that the claim of the religious would be that scripture is the way the message is conveyed, but the original authors were passing on their own sensory inputs.  I wouldn't agree with them, but the scripture didn't emerge out of nothing, it was written by people who may have genuinely thought they'd been told about people experiencing exactly what they've recorded.

As to the third, it's just a variant of the second; you've got claims from olden days passed down and unverifiable by actual investigation. Either there is no evidence or the evidence is weak and can be interpreted to support multiple interpretations. Philosophies like panpsychism do not 'support' a view, they ARE the view - they are at best not contradicted by the evidence, but there is no basis for presuming  them to have any validity.

Take your pick...

I'll take the phenomena I can establish with some confidence actually exist.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'll take the phenomena I can establish with some confidence actually exist.

O.

Indeed.

[ProfessorDavey]

We can adopt a purely materialistic view saying that its all just a chance happening beginning with the Big Bang. Life is just an inevitable consequence of initial conditions.  No after-life, no God, no soul, no purpose, no nothing. 

Alternatively, we can adopt a religious view such as that of the Abrahamic religions. One God, one time creation, soul, after-life, Judgement day, heaven and hell.

Or we can follow the evidence - your first line is backed up by huge amounts of evidence, your second line is backed up by none.

[ProfessorDavey]

Existence of a universal Consciousness ...

Unevidenced assertion.

that is the source of creation.

Unevidenced assertion.

Life is illusionary (maya) like in a VR game.

Unevidenced assertion.

Spiritual evolution of life from lower forms of consciousness to higher forms of consciousness.

Why does this need to be spiritual evolution, standard evolutionary theory is able to comfortably explain the progression in levels of consciousness through the evolution of species on the basis of evolutionary advantage. 

Soul (atma),

Unevidenced assertion. 

after-life,

Unevidenced assertion. 

Karma,

Unevidenced assertion. 

reincarnation,

Unevidenced assertion.

spiritual progress life after life to eventual freedom.

Unevidenced assertion.

[ekim]

Yes I'm well aware of the notion, but one has to ask what is the appropriate next life a perfectly innocent 14 year old victim of a tragic crushing at a football match that is 'coloured by its attachments formed from its living experiences'.

More uncomfortable - using your example you'd have to imply that Philip Hammond must have done something truly awful in his previous life to justify such a horrible end - was he a murderer? That seems to me to be the grossest of victim blaming of a completely innocent 14 year old to imply his horrible death was just 'reaping what you sow'. That is grotesque in the extreme.

I don't know the answer to your questions but I suppose that in the eyes of karma if you are 'perfectly innocent' there will be no further rebirths as you have arrived at nirvana or heaven or whatever state of being the religion indicates.  I don't think 'victim blaming' features in the karmic scene, I believe it is supposed to be like a natural learning process.  If for instance you were a rational intellectual psychopath in one life and deliberately caused a painful death of somebody, then in the next life you will attract a painful experience from which you will gain the quality of empathy.

[ekim]

Both just seem like metaphysical fantasies really. How about we just see what is going on here and now and try and do something about it one way or another?

Yes, at the level of the 'mystic', the practices are more about inner stillness rather than metaphysical speculation or means of control by religious organisations.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think 'victim blaming' features in the karmic scene, I believe it is supposed to be like a natural learning process.  If for instance you were a rational intellectual psychopath in one life and deliberately caused a painful death of somebody, then in the next life you will attract a painful experience from which you will gain the quality of empathy.

But that is just pure sophistry.

If someone is the victim of a painful experience and you think the reason they suffered that painful experience is because they themselves caused pain to someone else in the past that is clearly victim blaming - in other words placing the responsibility for the painful experience (blaming) on the person who is harmed by that painful experience (the victim).

It seems to me of little consequence whether 'in the past' means earlier in that individual's life or in a previous life (if you believe in reincarnation), except the latter is rather more offensive as firstly you do not know that there was a previous life and secondly there is much less direct relationship between purported reincarnated existences rather than earlier and later periods in a single life.

And the notion of 'teaching a lesson' is a classic trope in victim blaming behaviour - 'serves you right you were raped if you went out in that skirt - you'll learn to dress more modestly next time'.

[ProfessorDavey]

If for instance you were a rational intellectual psychopath in one life and deliberately caused a painful death of somebody, then in the next life you will attract a painful experience from which you will gain the quality of empathy.

Blimey I can think of much better ways of teaching people empathy than needing them to be murdered. Doesn't sound very effective nor very ethical to me.

And there is a problem with the maths - so if a murderer needs to be a murder victim in the next life - well you'll need a whole new set of murderers to do the murdering. Now in their next life they too will need to 'learn' so they'll need to be murder victims themselves, so which you'll need a further set of murder victims. It is kind of like a crime ponzi scheme - can't see how this can ever move toward a less violent, more caring and more ethical position.

But maybe you've not through this through properly ekim.

[Enki]

I don't know the answer to your questions but I suppose that in the eyes of karma if you are 'perfectly innocent' there will be no further rebirths as you have arrived at nirvana or heaven or whatever state of being the religion indicates.  I don't think 'victim blaming' features in the karmic scene, I believe it is supposed to be like a natural learning process.  If for instance you were a rational intellectual psychopath in one life and deliberately caused a painful death of somebody, then in the next life you will attract a painful experience from which you will gain the quality of empathy.

I think you have fallen into the same trap that Glen Hoddle(former England football manager) did some years ago, when, in an interview with the Times, he suggested that for people who were disabled, it was because of mistakes made in their previous life. You seem to be saying much the same thing.  Hoddle lost his job partly because of that interview, even though he later apologised. I agree with the Prof, perhaps you need to think this through again.

[Sriram]

Blimey I can think of much better ways of teaching people empathy than needing them to be murdered. Doesn't sound very effective nor very ethical to me.

And there is a problem with the maths - so if a murderer needs to be a murder victim in the next life - well you'll need a whole new set of murderers to do the murdering. Now in their next life they too will need to 'learn' so they'll need to be murder victims themselves, so which you'll need a further set of murder victims. It is kind of like a crime ponzi scheme - can't see how this can ever move toward a less violent, more caring and more ethical position.

But maybe you've not through this through properly ekim.

Karma is not about 'tit for tat'. 

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/karma/

[Udayana]

I think you have fallen into the same trap that Glen Hoddle(former England football manager) did some years ago, when, in an interview with the Times, he suggested that for people who were disabled, it was because of mistakes made in their previous life. You seem to be saying much the same thing.  Hoddle lost his job partly because of that interview, even though he later apologised. I agree with the Prof, perhaps you need to think this through again.

I agree, though to be fair to ekim ISTM he was probably trying to describe how some see the system, rather than supporting that view.

Even the idea of having one life after another - ie. serially in time, doesn't make much sense if the lives (ie universes) are virtual.   

Anyway, it makes no difference, Our experiences, including covid, are where we are and it is in response to those that we make any decisions or act, ethically or otherwise.
 

[ProfessorDavey]

Karma is not about 'tit for tat'. 

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/karma/

From the article:

'It is believed that any person who does something wrong or selfish acquires bad karma, while anyone who does something good and selfless acquires good karma.

A person who acquires bad karma will face troubles and misfortunes such that the bad karma is eventually eliminated.'

Which effectively means - do bad stuff and you will have bad stuff done back to you as a consequence.

[Sriram]

From the article:

'It is believed that any person who does something wrong or selfish acquires bad karma, while anyone who does something good and selfless acquires good karma.

A person who acquires bad karma will face troubles and misfortunes such that the bad karma is eventually eliminated.'

Which effectively means - do bad stuff and you will have bad stuff done back to you as a consequence.

You didn't read the full article.......

[ekim]

But that is just pure sophistry.

If someone is the victim of a painful experience and you think the reason they suffered that painful experience is because they themselves caused pain to someone else in the past that is clearly victim blaming - in other words placing the responsibility for the painful experience (blaming) on the person who is harmed by that painful experience (the victim).

It seems to me of little consequence whether 'in the past' means earlier in that individual's life or in a previous life (if you believe in reincarnation), except the latter is rather more offensive as firstly you do not know that there was a previous life and secondly there is much less direct relationship between purported reincarnated existences rather than earlier and later periods in a single life.

And the notion of 'teaching a lesson' is a classic trope in victim blaming behaviour - 'serves you right you were raped if you went out in that skirt - you'll learn to dress more modestly next time'.

I'm not sure where you are getting those inferences from in my attempt to explain how I see karma.  I am not blaming anybody.  There is no God who is doing the blaming.  I may be wrong but as I said, I believe it is seen as a natural process like action and reaction but with the opportunity to be aware of consequences and grow accordingly with potentially a greater degree of harmony.  There is no 'teacher of lessons' other than the one you have introduced.

[ekim]

Blimey I can think of much better ways of teaching people empathy than needing them to be murdered. Doesn't sound very effective nor very ethical to me.

And there is a problem with the maths - so if a murderer needs to be a murder victim in the next life - well you'll need a whole new set of murderers to do the murdering. Now in their next life they too will need to 'learn' so they'll need to be murder victims themselves, so which you'll need a further set of murder victims. It is kind of like a crime ponzi scheme - can't see how this can ever move toward a less violent, more caring and more ethical position.

But maybe you've not through this through properly ekim.

As I said in the above post, there is no teacher other than the one you have invented but perhaps there is a learning process just as there is if you brush against something and it stings you.  You gain in awareness of a painful situation.  I don't think it is seen as a crime/ sin and punishment situation as in the Abrahamic tradition but more one of ignorance and illumination.
As regards your ponzi notion, perhaps karma as an educational scheme is not very efficient and this is shown by the ever increasing numbers of war and conflict victims throughout man's history.  Still, all it will take now is one psychopath aided and abetted by a few self righteous scientists to improve upon the weapons of mass destruction and maybe the balance will be restored, provided our technological rape of the planet doesn't come first.

I will admit that it was about 50 years ago when I looked at the idea of karma and my thoughts about it are likely to have degenerated over time.

[ProfessorDavey]

You didn't read the full article.......

Yes I did - but most of it is guff and non-sense, for example:

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.

and

The concept of Fractals wherein patterns seem to repeat in Nature at all levels, indicate that there could be certain natural phenomena from which we can learn about such abstract patterns that work in our lives. We could draw on certain well known theories and see if we can adopt a similar model to understand Karma.

But what is absolutely clear from the article is the concept that effectively means that if you do bad stuff you will have bad stuff happen to you in the form of pain and suffering. So not just the 'headline' quote that I post here again:

It is believed that any person who does something wrong or selfish acquires bad karma, while anyone who does something good and selfless acquires good karma.

A person who acquires bad karma will face troubles and misfortunes such that the bad karma is eventually eliminated.

but this too:

If we indulge in bad karmic actions, it is only through what we perceive as ‘suffering and pain’ that they can be erased. This is the only ‘cleaning’ process. There is no other way.

[ekim]

I think you have fallen into the same trap that Glen Hoddle(former England football manager) did some years ago, when, in an interview with the Times, he suggested that for people who were disabled, it was because of mistakes made in their previous life. You seem to be saying much the same thing.  Hoddle lost his job partly because of that interview, even though he later apologised. I agree with the Prof, perhaps you need to think this through again.

Please see Udayana comment.  Whether there is karma or a ruling judging God, I don't know, but adversity can be a powerful learning experience about one's self.

[ProfessorDavey]

Please see Udayana comment.  Whether there is karma or a ruling judging God, I don't know, but adversity can be a powerful learning experience about one's self.

All seems terribly Victorian 'crime and punishment' - take the criminal, lock him up, treat him appallingly and he'll learn a lesson.

What we realise now is that rehabilitation doesn't work like that. If you want people to learn a lesson and change their ways, punishment rarely works (although it may be completely appropriate for justice and safety of the public). No people learn through positive rehabilitation programmes, not through punishment and suffering.

[Udayana]

All seems terribly Victorian 'crime and punishment' - take the criminal, lock him up, treat him appallingly and he'll learn a lesson.

What we realise now is that rehabilitation doesn't work like that. If you want people to learn a lesson and change their ways, punishment rarely works (although it may be completely appropriate for justice and safety of the public). No people learn through positive rehabilitation programmes, not through punishment and suffering.

Yes, the 'crime and punishment' ideas are basically stories intended to scare children or people into doing what they are told.

To behave ethically you need to think about and understand the consequences flowing from your actions, intentional or not, and whether those are right or wrong.

But, unfortunately, it is an impossible task as the consequences are determined by the laws of the universe (dharma) ... as are your own thoughts and decisions.
 
Now, how does this relate to covid? ... perfectly!
 

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, the 'crime and punishment' ideas are basically stories intended to scare children or people into doing what they are told.

And in the case of many religions, including christianity and hinduism to get the majority and impoverished populace to accept poverty and suffering, as they'll 'get their reward' in the next life, regardless of whether that is heaven or the next incarnation. Of course there is no evidence that this next life actually exists, but it is a great trick for those at the top of a heirarchical society to keep those at the bottom in check. And this is why many religions seem to think that pain, suffering and poverty are somehow noble and worthy - it is a great way to tell those who are having a really, really shit time to effectively shut up, accept their lot and wait for their reward in the next life.

[ProfessorDavey]

To behave ethically you need to think about and understand the consequences flowing from your actions, intentional or not, and whether those are right or wrong.

True.

When we are children we need the notion of reward and punishment to help us to see the difference between right and wrong. But once we grow up we can see the difference through understanding the consequences of our actions - we no longer need the threat of punishment, nor the offer of reward to make the right choices.

Strangely many religions seem never to have progressed beyond childish 'first gear' of thinking people will only make appropriate choices under the threat of punishment and the offer of reward.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

True.

When we are children we need the notion of reward and punishment to help us to see the difference between right and wrong. But once we grow up we can see the difference through understanding the consequences of our actions - we no longer need the threat of punishment, nor the offer of reward to make the right choices.

Strangely many religions seem never to have progressed beyond childish 'first gear' of thinking people will only make appropriate choices under the threat of punishment and the offer of reward.

I'm not sure I understand your comment about how once people grow up they do not need the threat of punishment. The amount of crime adults commit indicates many people never outgrow the need for threats of punishment to curb their behaviour.

The amount of late filing and even tax dodging that would go on if there wasn't the threat of penalties/ surcharges and interest to keep people in line does not bear thinking about. Many of them know it's wrong but self-interest over-rides the interests of others if they thought they could get away with it. And it is self-interest that makes many of them pay their tax as a better option than facing the punishment. There are still a quite a few people who are willing to risk the punishment, as they figure HMRC does not have the resources to check everything, and only relatively large amounts will be flagged as needing investigating.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not sure I understand your comment about how once people grow up they do not need the threat of punishment. The amount of crime adults commit indicates many people never outgrow the need for threats of punishment to curb their behaviour.

If punishment curbed people's behaviour there would be no crime - well certainly no reoffending. But we know that most crime is committed by reoffenders, which demonstrates that punishment has very little impact on reoffending behaviour.

Punishment might work as a measure of justice, it may well keep people safe while offenders are in prison, but it is piss-poor at changing behaviours.

[ProfessorDavey]

The amount of late filing and even tax dodging that would go on if there wasn't the threat of penalties/ surcharges and interest to keep people in line does not bear thinking about. Many of them know it's wrong but self-interest over-rides the interests of others if they thought they could get away with it. And it is self-interest that makes many of them pay their tax as a better option than facing the punishment. There are still a quite a few people who are willing to risk the punishment, as they figure HMRC does not have the resources to check everything, and only relatively large amounts will be flagged as needing investigating.

I think you are confusing the threat of punishment with the threat of getting caught - they aren't the same thing.

UK stats indicate that at least 75% of offenders go on to reoffend having been punished - hardly supports the notion that punishment changes reoffending behaviour. There is actually good evidence that punishment and harsher punishment not only didn't reduce reoffending behaviour, but actually slightly increases it.