On Consciousness and Science

[Guest guest]

List Moderator's Note: List wants to thank the members for their continued

support to list policies and guidelines. Please do not include the previous

posters' messages in the tail end (or in the beginning) of your message while

sending your replies. Both the new members and other members do seem to continue

to repeat doing this. The list appreciates your cooperation in keeping the

message crisp and clear by removing all unnecessary parts of previous messages.

(As it was done in this message!)

 

 

 

Chittaranjan wrote:

 

(......_)According to Hume, relations between ideas are perfectly

determinable

because they are demonstrable through ideas alone.

--------

 

Hello Chittaranjan,

 

You have written about David Hume whose influence has vastly

exceeded the quality of his thought. His great division of reality into

matters of fact and relations of ideas is an unsustainable generalisation

for who has ever seen a quark or a proton except through their

effects. The view of causality which sustains his billiard ball remarks

is limited to efficent causality and is an over estimation of the part of

induction in science. "The impulse of one billiard-ball is attended with

motion in the second. This is the whole that appears to the

*outward* senses. The mind feels no sentiment or *inward*

impression from this succession of objects: Consequently there is not,

in any single, particular instance of cause and effect, anything which

can suggest the idea of power or necessary connexion." ((from An

Enquiry concerning Human Understanding Sect.2 his emphasis))

 

In his day he was taken to be the prototype of the happy infidel and

was thus promoted by Boswell to his mentor the great Dr.Johnson.

Johnson inclined to think Hume's equanimity on his death-bed to be

exalted humbug - "it was not so, Sir. He had a vanity in being thought

easy". In this age of unbelief it is hard to credit Johnson's dismissal of

Hume's reasoned rejection of religion as being due to the fact that "he

had never read the New Testament with attention". Substitute your

favourite scripture for that. In a different era it is evident that in a

context of overwhelming belief proofs of the existence of God by

reason or scripture tend to be cogent.

 

How is faith to be made rational when rational is strictly defined as

having a good reason for your belief and the meaning of a statement is

the method of its verification as per Logical Positivism? The sturdy

young vedantin may well be downfaced. Channeling the great Doctor

I say ' Nay Sir, examine whether your faith be constrictive or

expansive whether it lead to an access of consciousness or not. Live

by final and not efficent cause and what you believe will be self-

evident to you yourself. The eating of the peach is its best proof.'

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Dear Michael-ji,

 

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote:

> Hello Chittaranjan,

> How is faith to be made rational when rational is strictly

> defined as having a good reason for your belief and the

> meaning of a statement is the method of its verification

> as per Logical Positivism?

 

Schopenhaeur said that reason is the apology of the will. And I

believe it was Wittgenstein who said that a proposition carries with

it the criterion of its own judgment.

 

> Channeling the great Doctor I say '...... Live by final and

> not efficent cause and what you believe will be self-evident

> to you yourself. The eating of the peach is its best proof.'

 

Yes.... the Buddha said essentially the same thing.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan