“Do Religions Start Wars?” - FLC Philosophy Club - April 17, 2023

 For the past couple years I attended some of the Philosophy Club meetings at our local college when I can.  It's interesting and a nice break interacting with college students.  The last meeting provided me with some food for thought and an excuse to work on these ideas some more.  Any feedback would be appreciated.

“Do Religions Start Wars?”  

To me, it's an empty question because it defies resolution since everyone works with their own specific definitions.  

The conversation then drifted into the notion that Religion & Science are both simply faith systems of a different flavor.  The following discussion seemed surprisingly superficial to me, I stayed out of it since it was lively discussion, simply listening, keep my mouth shut for the most part.  Still it's been on my mind

Hello Professor,

May I ask you to consider some observations regarding  the Philosophy Club’s last discussion and to challenge a little.

I couldn’t help but feel that it’s a futile question that defies resolution because everyone works outward from their own specific definitions, and our discussions devolved into a parade of “sure, but …,” talk for talk, little that was constructive enough for anyone to do anything with.

Then the conversation drifted into the notion that Religion & Science are both simply faith systems of a different flavor.

That discussion remained surprisingly superficial while the core of the matter was avoided all together.

You may ask: What ‘core of the matter’?   Appreciating our human consciousness and its limits.

As I’ve been chewing on that meeting I got to thinking about an off hand comment one of your club officers made about me possibly actually leading one of the meeting discussions.

I’ve been thinking about it and would like to ask for your consider -  please invite me to speak at one of next year’s FLC Philosophy Club meetings.

I believe there’s plenty here to fill an hour and a half with challenging and constructive (timely and relevant) discussion.

Below I offer an outline of the substance of such a talk.

Thank you for your consideration,

Peter Miesler

970-769-9400

===========================================================================

Outline for a presentation to the FLC Philosophy Club meeting.

“Religion & Science, are both simply Faith Systems of a Different Flavor?”

I would suggest that the most constructive way to come at this challenge is from an Evolutionary perspective, one that begins with a better appreciation our own minds, the wellspring of all our thoughts.

“Who Are You?”

If you asked me that, I’d respond: “Most fundamentally I am an evolved biological sensing creature.  My mind is the product of my body, and my body is a product of this Earth’s Evolution.  A self-aware filament in Earth’s ongoing Evolution.”  

Why is that important?

Because only from an Evolutionary Perspective can we fully appreciate human consciousness in a way that truly helps us recognize the contrast between the pursuit of Science and faith in Religion.

The key insight is a deep time appreciation for the Human Mind ~ Physical Reality divide.

Physical Reality is the physical world of atoms, molecules, universal laws of physics, biology and Earth’s laws of nature.  It is Earth’s dance between geology and biology and time and Earth's evolving creatures. 

Human “Mindscape" is all that goes on inside of our minds.  The landscape of our thoughts and desires and impulses along with those various voices and personalities who inhabit our thoughts and Being.  The ineffable notions that our hands can turn into physical reality that changes our planet.  

The me, myself and I, and all that unfolds within the thoughts just beyond the biological sparks and chemical cascades unfolding within our physical bodies and brains as they navigate their environments.

Once we have a visceral appreciation for the fact that my physical body creates my mind, it becomes clear that both science and religion are products of our minds dealing with the physical reality each of us is imbedded within.  Two projects with two very different natures.

Science seeks to objectively learn about our physical world, but we ought to still recognize all our understanding is embedded within and constrained by our mindscape and the bubble our personal ego creates. 

Religion is all about the human mindscape itself, with its wonderful struggles, fears, spiritual undercurrents, needs and stories we create to give our live’s meaning and make it worth living, or at least bearable. 

What’s the point? 

Religions, science, same as political beliefs, heaven, hell, mathematics, art, music, even God, they are all products of the human mindscape, generations of imaginings built upon previous generations of imaginings, all the way down.

That's not to say they are the same thing, they are not!  Though I think they're both valid human endeavors, still fundamentally, qualitatively different.

Religion deals with the inside of our minds, passion and souls, Science does its best to objectively understand the physical world beyond all that, doing its best to eliminate ego and bias from its deliberations.

From this starting point a much more constructive conversation about the many substantive contrasts between religion and science becomes possible.

__________________________________________

From there I’d move onto tackling the Faith question with an invitation for critique that would go something like the following copy of a flier I’ve offered up at a couple Philosophy Club meetings already.

With a half year or more to think on it, it will be more refined and I’d happily share my notes ahead of time.

I’m looking for serious critique and feedback.  This past December I finally had a teaser, but it begged a question that still hasn’t received a response, despite my further inquiries.  

So, I’m hoping someone might be willing to step up and give it a shot.

I was told:

“Your essays consistently make conceptual confusions; the ego-God piece is a good example of this confusion.  

In that piece, you waffle back and forth between having the word ‘God’ refer to a heavenly creator and having it refer to the CONCEPT of such a creator.  

Example: frogs are amphibians, but the concept of ‘frog’ is not an amphibian.  It’s a concept that we use to think about the world.” *

I responded: 

Now you confuse me.

Where specifically do you see this waffling?

I started out with “God” in scare quotes, the first sentence reads:

Who is “God” but a creation of our unique complex human minds dealing with our day to days? 

Later I write:

Humans are the product of our Earth, God is the product of our human mind.  

It’s why our conceptions of God always wind up being driven by our own Egos, not by any outside force.  

Nothing wrong with that, if only we could bring ourselves to explicitly recognize it for what it is, our mind striving to reconcile itself with the unknowable.

The critique continued:

“It’s obvious that humans created the CONCEPT of God, 

and equally obvious that humans couldn’t create the BEING God.   But your essay confuses the two.”

I found this shocking.  After getting my bearing I asked:

I know of Beings and I know of Things and both can be observed in one way or another.  If they can’t, I'm told they are figments of my imagination.

How can something that’s never been observed on any level (beyond the human heart & mind) be categorized as a BEING of physical reality?  Even the super mystery of “Dark Matter” has evidence pointing at its existence.

How do philosophers justify referring to something as a BEING if it can’t be demonstrated in any way beyond imaginative intellectual arguments and human desire?

How does an Assumption get transubstantiated into a BEING?

* As for that analogy, it brings this discussion back to my essays which strive to highlight the need to explicitly appreciate the “Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide.”  (Though that’s a different discussion I’m hoping to have with the curious.)

I’m hoping for someone who's willing to explain what they think I’m missing here?

============================================

===========================================================

===================================================

My response reads:

“Thanks for this offer.  The Philosophy Club is student-run, and, as such, the students select all of the topics and speakers.  I’ll be sure to raise your offer with them when we gather in the fall to set the schedule for the academic year.

Best, …”

__________________________________________________________________

I posted the above at CenterForInquiry an online forum I'm a regular participant at.  I'm sharing the following comment since it gave me a chance to further explore these ideas.

write4u:

citizenschallengev4:

“From this starting point, a much more constructive conversation about the differences between religion and science becomes possible.”

I doubt that.
Religions are exclusive belief systems, each claiming divine truth.

Therefore there can never be consensus
and if religions exist side by side it is due to “tolerance” not consensus.
Differences are bound to create problems of “tolerant acceptance”.

__________________________________________________________________

Okay, sure, religions are “exclusive belief systems.” but that’s beside the point here.
Sure religions simply tolerate other religions and conversions are rare, but that’s irrelevant to the point I’m trying to make.

Where did I bring up consensus?
Consensus on what specifically?

citizenschallengev4:

Religion deals with the inside of our minds, hearts and souls,
Science does its best to objectively understand the physical world beyond all that, doing its best to eliminate ego and bias from of its deliberations…

Humans participate in both endeavors, scientific, religious, that’s simply how it is.

The challenge is to understand on a human level what makes science so uniquely different from religion and other human endeavors arts, music, etc.
Tackling that requires understanding that science is a set of rules dedicated to understanding the physical world around us, the world we can measure, record and study as objectively (that is, honestly) as possible.

From there, it’s time to consider the so-called Brain/Mind Problem and the self evident fact that our human mind is qualitatively unique. Our minds are the product of physical biological processes, yet they are one step beyond. Which is why the problem of where our internal voices come from, and who they “really are”, is important.

“Who am I?” It has teased the human intellect since we became self aware. It was our human mind that invented Gods, to answer those nagging questions and placate fears.

It’s teased me all my days. After decades of chewing on it, a few years back I had a little epiphany, (that is a thought that makes a physical and lasting impact on my being and awareness.) An awareness that my thoughts are the product of my body and brain, interacting with this physical world that surrounds me, yet that was all separate from my mind. As for my mind my consciousness, that was a mere fleeting spark.

From there it was easy to formulate: “Appreciating the Physical Reality ~ Human Mindscape divide” and I believe the insight is a first base prerequisite for better understanding human consciousness and why we behave as we do.

All this matters because fact is, all we think and know gets processed through our individual body/brain and mind. Ergo even God is a product of our mind, driven by our body and soul.

As is science. That’s important to come to grips with. Now we’re in a better position to think about the difference between science and religion, which is all I’m commenting on. Religion is dedicated to people and our dreams and stories, that’s why I say religion is all about our human mindscape.

Whereas, what makes science different is that science is a universal set of rule for objectively studying physical reality as objectively and honestly as possible. These rules and the language of science is so clear that anyone who takes the time and effort to learn the rules and methods and language of science can contribute from anywhere in the world.

__________________________________________________________________

Center for Inquiry

 lausten: For me, that hope is sitting (in) pews all over the world, not buying most of what is being said from the front of the room, but wanting the community, inspiration, and challenges that come from religion.

I could see that, still the dam breaking change that needs to be realized is that our Gods came from within the human creature!  God does not come down from Out There, where ever that might be.  God is a byproduct of our own human evolution.

Once we, collectively process that, all sorts of constructive changes would be possible.

Religion, easy as ... (workbook #a)

Think about it, aren't the Abrahamic religions all about self-centeredness - ours as well as God’s? Worse is their contempt and disregard for the sovereignty of our Earth’s biosphere, her other inhabitants and the reality of our Evolutionary origins. 

August 30th, 2020, an update on my 

Hoffman Playing Basketball in Zero-gravity project

I’ve one last assignment before I can put the bow on my Hoffman Playing Basketball in Zero-gravity project.  But it’s a challenging topic, easy to avoid and procrastinate, plus I’ve had a very busy summer, still do. 

On the other hand, time and experience has been clarifying these fundamental questions most others have also pondered, so of course I want to enunciate and share my perspective, while I'm still around. 

I want my final installment to Hoffman's project to be a sharp essay, so have decided to go slow, share the introduction, and basically conduct a personal workshop and hopefully by doing it online, it'll push me to completing the final details in style.   

It would be wonderful if some others would chime in, and in fact, I have a thread started over at CFI's CenterForInquiryForum and invite you to share any comments or general thoughts over there.

This isn’t for everyone, but if concepts such as Earth Centrism, Evolution, deep time and Earth as a physical geo-biological entity, resonates, you may find this fascinating.  

Introduction

I’ll wager that if you took some time to think about it, you’d acknowledge that on a fundamental level the Abrahamic religions are all about self-centeredness - ours as well as God’s.

These religions were founded on the basis of self-interest, they were focused on selected kernels of knowledge, born of an aggressive insecurity, and supported by a passionate sense of self-important certitude. Usually with empire building in mind while reeking with hostility towards outsiders, other teachers and learning.  They did achieve results.

All the while pretty much ignoring the sovereignty of our Earth’s biosphere, her other inhabitants and the reality of our Evolutionary origins.

Consider, within the Abrahamic tradition our planet’s life support system and her inhabitants never rise above something to exploit until we suck it dry, then we move on to the next bonanza.

Whereas for me, Earth, her creatures and biosphere, her Evolution, these are my touchstones with physical reality. I feel time flowing through me as I travel through my days. I live within a mindscape that’s filled with an awareness of time in its entire spectrum, from microseconds, to my heart beat, to the days, seasons, years and decades, on to the eons of Evolution.

 

It’s Not A “Body-Mind Problem” - It’s An “Ego-God Problem.”

(updated January 1, 2022)

Among the lessons I’ve taken away from my Hoffman adventure is that as I’ve followed the philosophical roots of “dualism” back through Descartes (1600s) and on past Anselm (1000s), one thing has become clear. the entire philosophical edifice of this Mind-Body “Problem” was formed from within that Abrahamic God-fearing mindset that gave us the three major religions, with their self-serving patriarchal mentality, heaven and hell, along with branding dualism’s hard boundaries and need for a sense of certitude into our imagination and onto our expectations.

The Abrahamic worldview perceives people as isolated objects, not only from this planet, but each other, even from ourselves.  The creatures we live with and the landscapes we exist within are treated with contempt and wanton waste.

Regarding the “Mind-Body Problem.”  

Dr. Solms makes a wonderful analogy that highlights the error being made:

Question:  Was it lightning or thunder that killed the man?

It’s a meaningless question.

Lightning and thunder are simply different aspects of the same phenomena.

Our Mind and consciousness is the interior reflection of our living body (both its interior housekeeping and external interaction with the environment).  We simply cannot have one without the other.

We are embedded within an interconnected web of life and are the direct products of Earth’s Pageant of Evolution.

Why isn’t that reflected in modern philosophical discourse? 

Learning to appreciate the deep-time pageant of Evolution puts an entirely different richer light upon our interior existence.  An awareness that encompasses the whole of time and this planet that created us.

It also gives us a deep appreciation for the continuity of life.  Life is good, life is precious, but death is no enemy, painful though it may be.  Death is part of the cycle that brings forth new life.  Revel in the pageant you are blessed enough to be witnessing.  While you can. 

As for God?  

Who is “God,” but a creation of our unique complex human minds dealing with our day to days?   

Where did God come from?  

What is “Earth Centrism”?

edited November 5, 2021

The Earth Centrist’s perspective acknowledges that Earth; her material constituents and physical processes, unfolding one day at a time, are our fundamental touchstone with reality.  We acknowledge Earth and glory in understanding her pageant of Evolution and appreciating how that pageant is reflected within our own bodies. 

We find justification in the physical fact that humans were created out of Earth's processes. 

Science shows us that we belong to the mammalian branch of one of Earth’s amazing animal kingdoms.  Yet, it’s undeniable that something quite unique happened around six million years ago when certain apes took a wild improbable evolutionary turn.

By and by, besides the marvel of our two hands, we developed two feet and legs that could stand tall or run for hours and a growing brain that learned rapidly and remembered. 

During this period our brain physically morphed in some significant ways that enabled it to host a profound leap in cognitive information processing, storage and retrieval ability. 

On the outside hominids learned to make tools, hunt, fish, and select plants, plus they mastered fire for cooking and better living.

On the inside our brains were growing and benefiting from the new super nourishment while human curiosity and adventures started filling and stretching our Mindscapes with experiences and knowledge beyond anything the "natural" physical Earth ever knew.

By Mindscape, I mean the product of all that our body/brain perceives and processes, which of course, evolutionarily speaking, was dependent on our brain’s hardware keeping pace with and driving the ever increasing volume of information and thoughts.

While the human mind and spirit seem ineffable mysteries, they are also of tremendous consequence and real-world physical power.  They drove our growing ability to study and manipulate our world; to communicate and record our experiences; and to formulate explanations for a world full of mysteries, threats and wonders.

People learned to think and gossip and paint pictures upon the canvas of cave walls, and even better, upon the canvas of each other’s imaginations.  We’ve been adding to our mind’s awareness and complexity ever since.

Students’ Resource: A representative cross-section of Dr. Mark Solms' scientific publications.

We're now into section five of a larger project that’s intended to be a ‘Student’s Resource for Defending Physical Reality.’  In this third chapter of my introduction to Dr. Mark Solms, Ph.D., ( #1, #2 ), I provide a bibliography of his insightful publications (books & scientific papers) which explain the basis for bringing the study of our human consciousness, and the so-called Mind-Body Problem, into the realm of sober, physical reality respecting, evolution appreciating, science.  (Incidentally, thereby putting the lie to the claim that meta-physical outside agents are needed to explain and understand human consciousness.)

This list is not complete by any stretch, but it is an impressive introductory sampling, and it’s intended to serve as a reference that’s guaranteed to inform, perhaps inspire, the serious student, along with serious enthusiasts of science.  People interested in better understanding how Earth’s evolution made us who we are. 

 …  (Continued at the end of this bibliography)

Dr. Mark Solms, PhD.

Professor of Neuropsychology

CURRICULUM VITAE Mark Leonard Solms

Born district of Lüderitz, Namibia, July 17, 1961

The International Neuropsychoanalysis Society

Co-chairs, Mark Solms with Cristina Alberini

Google Scholar list of Dr. Solms' scientific papers

Solms-Delta Wine Estate

Franschhoek Valley, South Africa

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dr Mark Solms, Ph.D. (WITS)

University of Cape Town, Department of Psychology

Background and research interests

• Brain mechanisms of dreaming, emotion, motivation.
• Psychological mechanisms of confabulation and anosognosia syndromes.

Teaching responsibilities - Neuropsychology – Research and Clinical.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Chicago Psychoanalytic Institute  |  Mark Solms PhD

Psychoanalyst and neuropsychologist.

Affiliations:

Dr. Solms holds the position of Chair of Neuropsychology at the University of Cape Town and Groote Schuur Hospital (Departments of Psychology and Neurology) and is the President of the South African Psychoanalytical Association. He is also Research Chair of the International Psychoanalytical Association.

Dr. Solms founded the International Neuropsychoanalysis Society in 2000 and was a Founding Editor (with Ed Nersessian) of the journal Neuropsychoanalysis. He is Director of the Arnold Pfeffer Center for Neuropsychoanalysis at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute, a Trustee of the Neuropsychoanalysis Fund in London, and Director of the Neuropsychoanalysis Trust in Cape Town.

Dr. Solms’ Introductory Lectures in Psychoanalysis can be viewed here.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Regarding Mark Solms South African Farm and dealing with a history social injustice

Jill Choder-Goldman interviews Mark Solms, August 2019.

“I started to realise that the first thing is not to impulsively, concretely enact something, but rather just sitting with it and letting it be the ugly thing that it is, until you start to see what the nature of the thing is,” says Mark Solms.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

What is Neuropsychoanalysis?

Turnbull Lab, Prifysgol Bangor University, Wales, U.K.

The term 'neuropsychoanalysis' was first used in the late 1990s by Mark Solms, as the title of the journal Neuropsychoanalysis. 

Diary - Closing Out 2020 Defending Physical Reality

 As 2020 draws to an end the one-hand-clapping finds himself embroiled in a curious effort to defend established “scientific realism.”  Because?  Well, because apparently someone needs too.  

Curious, because the process has inspired me to think in terms of composing a Students Guide In Defense of Reality - Dissecting Hoffman’s Case Against Reality. I want to create a framework for a virtual class to examine the process of scientific deception, and science by rhetoric rather than facts, while pressing home the importance of learning about Evolution from the bottom up.  I’m at chapter 19 with many more in the pipeline before wrapping it up (still at the laying groundwork phase - chapters listed at the bottom).

This mission is about exposing how folks like Donald Hoffman, Templeton Foundation, and many intellectual celebrities are wasting our precious time looking through the wrong end of both telescope and microscope, for fun and profit.  

For instance, Hoffman’s “Conscious Agents” and FBT Theorem are simply the latest rationalization in human’s long tradition of denying responsibility for ourselves, lives and actions.  Now that God has lost its substance, it’s time for math and pseudo-science?  

What's wrong with appreciating ourselves for the incredible biological creatures that we are?   Why not explicitly recognize the divide between physical reality and our Mindscape with something more substantial than flailing at a supposed body-mind "problem.”

This project is forcing me to realize that the younger generations need to escape the shackles of generations old self-indulgent manmade philosophical constructs who’s stilted questions and inscrutable solutions have more to do with human insecurity, egos and turf battles, than in understanding our actual human condition and the biosphere that created and sustains us self-obsessed human beings.

Our answers are limited by the quality of our questions!  

Genuine understanding about our natural world is an emergent property driven by the inflow of honest quality facts and evidence.  All else is dancing within our minds.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that.  Just stop being blind to the supremacy of physical reality!

Finding answers?