(Un)naturalness and the nature of liberty

[Jane_the_Bane]

Know your place.
Follow orders.
Accept your fate.
Do as you are told.

Social systems of control (including religions) tend to demonize those who do not fall in line and become a neat little cog in the greater machine. Greek mythology is brimming with such motifs (Prometheus being chained to a rock and tormented by a vulture for bringing fire to mankind, Arachne, Marsyas and Niobe suffering excruciating torment for excelling the gods at something, etc.), but it is by far not the only setting. Even our secular or semi-secular tales (Doctor Faustus, Frankenstein, or, more contemporarily, Black Mirror) demonize those who quest for new, world-changing insights, who break away from the status quo in pursuit of a better world. The dangers of technology, the supposed evil of change is an ubiquitous morality tale.

The term "unnatural" is exceedingly popular in this context, equating specific cultural codes with natural order (and all deviation as a perversion thereof).

But I'd challenge these assumptions, starting with the very dichotomy of natural vs unnatural.
If we define "natural" as the absence of human ingenuity and cultural products, then people suffering from astigmatism should stumble through life half-blind, our feet ought to be the only thing transporting us from a to b, and women should die in childbirth on a far more regular basis on account of poor hygiene, the impossibility of performing a cesarean without killing the mother, and hip bones that are too narrow for the child's head.
Are our roads less natural than an anthill? Isn't our architecture as much a part of our species as a termite's nest is a part of theirs?

To "know our place", preserving the status quo, means to stagnate. Change isn't the enemy, it is the very essence of life. And obeying our elders, blindly upholding tradition, blinds us to the possibility of improvement.

Yes, technology has its dangers.
Yes, wasting resources and polluting everything is a global threat.
Yes, our current consumerist lifestyle is not only a HUGE export hit, but also positively toxic, to ourselves and to every other species on the globe.
But the solution to that is not to break the machines and crawl back under a rock. The solution to that is not a return to times when setting a dry branch on fire was the best way to produce light and heat.
Moving forward is the only viable option, combating disease, environmental degradation, and even ignorance. And for that, we need to challenge the status quo, not uphold it.

 

[Tolworth John]

Social systems of control (including religions) tend to demonize those who do not fall in line and become a neat little cog in the greater machine.

we need to challenge the status quo, not uphold it.

I agree with you, the status quo of todays way of think stiffles original thought and research.

The all encompassing embrace of evolutionary atheism needs to be challenged and shown as the bankrupt mode of thougth that it is.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I agree with you, the status quo of todays way of think stiffles original thought and research.

The all encompassing embrace of evolutionary atheism needs to be challenged and shown as the bankrupt mode of thougth that it is.

I guess by "evolutionary atheism", you mean the broad scientific consensus in fields such as biology, astronomy and palaeontology? Well, that's not really affiliated with atheism, as there are a whole lot of religious scientists working in those fields who have got no problem with accepting the evidence. Yes, the scientific knowledge we have accumulated by now pretty much kills Biblical literalism, but that was a world view that could only maintain itself for an extended period of time by literally demonising dissent, burning those who doubted it at the stake and censoring every shred of information that didn't support it.

The scientific method, on the other hand, not only accepts and invites challenges, it's actually built around the very concept. Everything about it is geared towards weeding out untenable hypotheses, eliminating the influence of confirmation bias and a priori conclusions, and incessantly testing the predictive models for errors. An untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis is essentially worthless. Which is why it's so ironic that anti-science believers sometimes cite the unfalsifiability of their god as an argument in their favor.

 

[mukk_in]

Know your place.
Follow orders.
Accept your fate.
Do as you are told.

Social systems of control (including religions) tend to demonize those who do not fall in line and become a neat little cog in the greater machine. Greek mythology is brimming with such motifs (Prometheus being chained to a rock and tormented by a vulture for bringing fire to mankind, Arachne, Marsyas and Niobe suffering excruciating torment for excelling the gods at something, etc.), but it is by far not the only setting. Even our secular or semi-secular tales (Doctor Faustus, Frankenstein, or, more contemporarily, Black Mirror) demonize those who quest for new, world-changing insights, who break away from the status quo in pursuit of a better world. The dangers of technology, the supposed evil of change is an ubiquitous morality tale.

The term "unnatural" is exceedingly popular in this context, equating specific cultural codes with natural order (and all deviation as a perversion thereof).

But I'd challenge these assumptions, starting with the very dichotomy of natural vs unnatural.
If we define "natural" as the absence of human ingenuity and cultural products, then people suffering from astigmatism should stumble through life half-blind, our feet ought to be the only thing transporting us from a to b, and women should die in childbirth on a far more regular basis on account of poor hygiene, the impossibility of performing a cesarean without killing the mother, and hip bones that are too narrow for the child's head.
Are our roads less natural than an anthill? Isn't our architecture as much a part of our species as a termite's nest is a part of theirs?

To "know our place", preserving the status quo, means to stagnate. Change isn't the enemy, it is the very essence of life. And obeying our elders, blindly upholding tradition, blinds us to the possibility of improvement.

Yes, technology has its dangers.
Yes, wasting resources and polluting everything is a global threat.
Yes, our current consumerist lifestyle is not only a HUGE export hit, but also positively toxic, to ourselves and to every other species on the globe.
But the solution to that is not to break the machines and crawl back under a rock. The solution to that is not a return to times when setting a dry branch on fire was the best way to produce light and heat.
Moving forward is the only viable option, combating disease, environmental degradation, and even ignorance. And for that, we need to challenge the status quo, not uphold it.

Not sure I followed completely but an interesting post .

 

[Tolworth John]

The scientific method, on the other hand, not only accepts and invites challenges, it's actually built around the very concept. Everything about it is geared towards weeding out untenable hypotheses, eliminating the influence of confirmation bias and a priori conclusions, and incessantly testing the predictive models for errors

If only that were true Jane.
Science today does not allow even the possibility that the supernatural exists so how can it test its own axioms if it is biased against a possible answer.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

If only that were true Jane.
Science today does not allow even the possibility that the supernatural exists so how can it test its own axioms if it is biased against a possible answer.

Well, how would you test the supernatural? And what do you need it for if you can actually discover the completely natural principles behind any given phenomenon?
There was a time when floods were treated as supernatural events. Lightning was pure supernatural mystery. Diseases? Monetary inflation? Earthquakes? All supernatural. Until we figured out how and why they happen. "The supernatural" is just a catch-all people project upon things they do not understand, an "explanation" that actually explains nothing, but gives the believer the feeling of security they crave.

 

[Tolworth John]

Well, how would you test the supernatural? And what do you need it for if you can actually discover the completely natural principles behind any given phenomenon?

Have you ever read John ch 9?
It is an account of a miracle and how it was investigated by the authorities.
What makes it so interesting is that when the authorities discover they do have a miracle before them, they reject it because it does not fit in their preconcieved ideas.

Yes most events today can be explained by natural principals.
Equally many things cannot be explained.

You referr to science as the arbitor of truth.
Can you explain why science works?
Why people believe in right and wrong?
Why atheists blaspheme? ( Children make up words with no meaning, but adults using words with no meaning is childish. )

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Have you ever read John ch 9?

Yes. Can you tell me (without appeals to authority, a priori conclusions about the nature of this particular text, or something similar) why I should put any more stock in this book than, say, the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, the Edda, or really just a volume of ancient Greek mythology?
Believers telling each other stories to bolster their faith and attack those who'd test and doubt is what I addressed in the OP, remember?

Yes most events today can be explained by natural principals [sic].
Equally many things cannot be explained.

Name some.

You referr to science as the arbitor of truth.

No. Truth isn't what the scientific method produces. If you are looking to contemplate the nature of truth, philosophy is the area of expertise you're looking for. Or religous studies, perhaps. For claims to "absolute truth", you're stuck with cults and religions.
The scientific method constructs predictive models and falsifiable theories that are constantly put to the test, and often tweaked when it turns out that they fail to take things into account. For example, Newton's mechanics are such a close approximation of reality that they work fairly well as long as you remain in a terrestrial setting. But Einstein and others found out that Newton's model was incorrect by looking at the cosmic scale.

Can you explain why science works?

Because it produces falsifiable results and thereby allows us to, say, construct a bridge that does not collapse, a computer that does what it's supposed to do, or a medical procedure that cures a specific condition.

Why people believe in right and wrong?

That is how we (along with many other, less self-aware social species) are geared. Cooperation is a survival mechanism, and far more effective than the dog-eat-dog mentality people often erroneously associate with Darwinian evolution. (Ironically, there are many Christians embracing the most ruthless cutthroat capitalism, arguing that they shouldn't be forced to pay to save somebody else's life, for example.)

Why atheists blaspheme?

I suppose there are as many reasons as there are atheists - as well as believers who are offended by something. A far better question (to me) is: why do believers feel that sense of *personal offense* when somebody criticises, lampoons, or otherwise negatively approaches their image of deity? Is your sense of identity and self so closely linked to your beliefs that you cannot distinguish between the two?

 

[Noxot]

there are potential positives and negatives to most things and so I don't see stories that tell some form of truth as evil. they only become evil when you can't get anything out of them and when you use them to do wrong to others.

sometimes stories display possible threats. sometimes they display possible uses. both ideas are probably something deeply rooted in humanity and so to be one-sided could be dangerous because it only sees from a specific pov. sometimes we need tragedies. sometimes we need heroic stories. all serve their purposes.

reality is far too complex for anyone to completely grasp it all. humans function in a variety of ways and since they all made it they probably have some kind of advantage as to why they made it. some things are more important than survival especially depending on the deepest core of reality.

"He truly loves freedom who affirms it for his fellows." ~nikolai berdyaev

 

[TheOldWays]

Social systems of control (including religions) tend to demonize those who do not fall in line and become a neat little cog in the greater machine.

You have described egregores or pendulums. The power structures that are part of everyday life. They seek to bind us to their will, so they can feed on our energy. In return we can get things like comfort, community, a feeling of belonging...but that is at the expense of your freedom. If we don't act according to the pendulums needs, we are coerced back into line, or rejected from the machine, and the unaware person will seek a new pendulum or egregore to be a part of. The key is to be aware of these things, and well avoiding pendulums is nearly impossible, knowing how to 'surf' them is the key to not getting snared by them.

Interesting topic Jane.

 

[dlamberth]

If only that were true Jane.
Science today does not allow even the possibility that the supernatural exists so how can it test its own axioms if it is biased against a possible answer.

It's not the possibility of the supernatural that matters. What matters in science is the mystery or the wow'ness that the observer and the rest of us experiences through the windows opened.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

You have described egregores or pendulums. The power structures that are part of everyday life. They seek to bind us to their will, so they can feed on our energy. In return we can get things like comfort, community, a feeling of belonging...but that is at the expense of your freedom. If we don't act according to the pendulums needs, we are coerced back into line, or rejected from the machine, and the unaware person will seek a new pendulum or egregore to be a part of. The key is to be aware of these things, and well avoiding pendulums is nearly impossible, knowing how to 'surf' them is the key to not getting snared by them.

Interesting topic Jane.

I knew I had seen the word "Egregore" before, but it took a short internet research to refresh my memory. I find it interesting that it connects so neatly to the Tibetan concept of "tulpa".

 

[Tolworth John]

why I should put any more stock in this book

To answer this I have to appeal to authority as my opion will not carry any weight with you.
The bible is a book written by some 40 authors over a period of a nearly a thousand years yet it tellsa a consitent story with an unpresedented degree of historical accuracy.
It tells a story that no other religion matches, that of a God being involved with a people group and of that God wanting a relationship with people.

Name some

What caused the big bang?
Why is the universe fine tuned to support live?
Why do some people give up promising careers to become missionaries?

"quote:-Can you explain why science works?
Click to expand...
Because it produces falsifiable results and thereby allows us to, say, construct a bridge that does not collapse, a computer that does what it's supposed to do, or a medical procedure that cures a specific conditionunquote"

Sorry that says what it does it dors not explain why it works.

Cooperation is a survival mechanism, and far more effective than the dog-eat-dog mentality people often erroneously associate with Darwinian evolution.

But that is not what evolution teaches is it.
'In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference' is what Dawkins says it means.
Why do people co operate, help those with whom they havew no genetic conection?
Unless there is more to live than materialism

why do believers feel that sense of *personal offense* when somebody criticises, lampoons, or otherwise negatively approaches their image of deity?

If one values nothing, and views those who value something with contempt.
Then you will find it hard to understand the offence to those who value what is treated with contempt.

Respect for others, tolerance, valuing live, honesty are values taught by Christianity and other beliefs, but can you justify holding these beliefs?

 

[Silmarien]

I guess by "evolutionary atheism", you mean the broad scientific consensus in fields such as biology, astronomy and palaeontology? Well, that's not really affiliated with atheism, as there are a whole lot of religious scientists working in those fields who have got no problem with accepting the evidence. Yes, the scientific knowledge we have accumulated by now pretty much kills Biblical literalism, but that was a world view that could only maintain itself for an extended period of time by literally demonising dissent, burning those who doubted it at the stake and censoring every shred of information that didn't support it.

The scientific method, on the other hand, not only accepts and invites challenges, it's actually built around the very concept. Everything about it is geared towards weeding out untenable hypotheses, eliminating the influence of confirmation bias and a priori conclusions, and incessantly testing the predictive models for errors. An untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis is essentially worthless. Which is why it's so ironic that anti-science believers sometimes cite the unfalsifiability of their god as an argument in their favor.

I pay plenty of attention to the intersection of science and philosophy, and I'm going to have to question the idea that science has not become associated with atheism. You see it in areas like philosophy of mind and cognitive science, where everyone flips out whenever anyone challenges materialism. Suddenly even atheists who won't sign on the dotted line are accused of aiding and abetting the "religious agenda," and the New Atheists grab their pitchforks and start howling for blood. I'm pretty convinced that reductionism has its roots in fear of religion.

Another issue that's of real interest to me is the cultural context in which we look at science. I ran across some posts by an Advaita Vedantist computational neuroscientist on Quora the other day, and it was really interesting to see non-materialism approached by someone immersed in an Eastern rather than Western philosophical framework. I'm used to the post-Cartesianism of Western materialists and a handful of non-materialist approaches that also have their roots in Western philosophy, so to see someone come at science from a non-dualist perspective instead was fascinating.

Anyway, I agree with your OP, but scientific materialism and naturalism have been solidifying into dogma as well. And these lovely parasites that have latched themselves onto the successes of science are, of course, untestable, unfalsifiable hypotheses.