An Astrology Exchange/Challenge

[Aquila]

Aquila: what does astrology do? I realise I've asked this before, but I'd appreciate an actual answer this time. No snarkiness, no "clever" comments, just an honest answer as to what you think astrology does that requires all the explanations you've attempted to explain it with.

An honest answer eh? I'll do my best: this is not necessarily what all astrologers would say, but for me, it is an artistic way of categorizing inner experiences. I know from other threads that you like Science Fiction, so maybe you could appreciate my view of astrology as a similar sort of artistic expression.

And to reply to Dafydd's statement that "There are much more profitable ways of using your time than investigating meaningless woo." Yes, sure there are, but then why do people read novels, watch movies and listen to music? There is an expression "art reflects life", so maybe people find some sort of wisdom in the art of astrology. The other use of art, including astrology, is that it is useful, to some, to balance out the real, hard, factual world.

 

[Aquila]

Coincidence. As predicted by the law of probability. http://www.skepdic.com/lawofnumbers.html

One of our many inbuilt cognitive biases causes us to expect far fewer coincidences to occur than the law of probability actually predicts. Add our other inbuilt cognitive bias to attach significance to the ones that are meaningful to us and ignore the ones that aren't and you have all the explanation that is required for the perceived accuracy of tarot, I Ching, astrology, tea leaves etc etc.

Thank you for the link. I am reading about Jung and synchronicity on the same site. The probability argument is quite compelling, but I have heard of some experiences which still seem quite exceptional and begging this law of probability. For example, last year my son fell off his bicycle and had to be taken to hospital. He was not seriously hurt but the whole episode caused a lot of worry in my family. When I told my mother in England about the event which happened the day earlier, she said that "by coincidence" my son's photo had fallen off her mantelpiece at about that time. It just makes me wonder...

 

[PixyMisa]

Thank you for the link. I am reading about Jung and synchronicity on the same site. The probability argument is quite compelling, but I have heard of some experiences which still seem quite exceptional and begging this law of probability. For example, last year my son fell off his bicycle and had to be taken to hospital. He was not seriously hurt but the whole episode caused a lot of worry in my family. When I told my mother in England about the event which happened the day earlier, she said that "by coincidence" my son's photo had fallen off her mantelpiece at about that time. It just makes me wonder...

Sorry, still waiting for the part that you thought was exceptional and begging the law of probability.

P.S. CONFIRMATION BIAS!!!!!

 

[dafydd]

Thank you for the link. I am reading about Jung and synchronicity on the same site. The probability argument is quite compelling, but I have heard of some experiences which still seem quite exceptional and begging this law of probability. For example, last year my son fell off his bicycle and had to be taken to hospital. He was not seriously hurt but the whole episode caused a lot of worry in my family. When I told my mother in England about the event which happened the day earlier, she said that "by coincidence" my son's photo had fallen off her mantelpiece at about that time. It just makes me wonder...

What about all the people who had accidents and whose photos did not fall off something that day? It just makes me wonder why you do not take those into account.

 

[dafydd]

An honest answer eh? I'll do my best: this is not necessarily what all astrologers would say, but for me, it is an artistic way of categorizing inner experiences. I know from other threads that you like Science Fiction, so maybe you could appreciate my view of astrology as a similar sort of artistic expression.

And to reply to Dafydd's statement that "There are much more profitable ways of using your time than investigating meaningless woo." Yes, sure there are, but then why do people read novels, watch movies and listen to music? There is an expression "art reflects life", so maybe people find some sort of wisdom in the art of astrology. The other use of art, including astrology, is that it is useful, to some, to balance out the real, hard, factual world.

So astrology is just entertainment,escapism.

 

[Sledge]

An honest answer eh? I'll do my best: this is not necessarily what all astrologers would say, but for me, it is an artistic way of categorizing inner experiences. I know from other threads that you like Science Fiction, so maybe you could appreciate my view of astrology as a similar sort of artistic expression.

So astrology does nothing. Why does it need an explanation? You're postulating convoluted explanations that go against every understanding of how the universe actually works to explain how something that doesn't work works. Why?

And to reply to Dafydd's statement that "There are much more profitable ways of using your time than investigating meaningless woo." Yes, sure there are, but then why do people read novels, watch movies and listen to music? There is an expression "art reflects life", so maybe people find some sort of wisdom in the art of astrology. The other use of art, including astrology, is that it is useful, to some, to balance out the real, hard, factual world.

Would you please make your mind up? One minute you're saying astrology doesn't do anything, the next you're saying it's useful. USEFUL FOR WHAT?

 

[Aquila]

So astrology does nothing. Why does it need an explanation? You're postulating convoluted explanations that go against every understanding of how the universe actually works to explain how something that doesn't work works. Why?

Would you please make your mind up? One minute you're saying astrology doesn't do anything, the next you're saying it's useful. USEFUL FOR WHAT?

We've discussed this before, but I'll mention it just one more time before conceding that astrology does very poorly when subjected to critical thinking.

Some people find astrology useful as a language of unseen/mysterious/"spiritual" principles. These mysterious principles are probably explainable with science, objectivity and rational thought; for example Confirmation Bias and the Forer/Barnum effect do seem to explain some of astrology.

So if we have a rational/scientific explanation of astrology, why do people still believe in it? As mentioned before, the reason is probably the same reason that even some scientists believe in God, albeit a "laws of physics" god, rather than a creator god. Until science explains all the mysteries in life, such as where does the life-power and consciousness come from, people still seem to need a mystical language for tying everything together, rather than a language based solely on science.

Lastly, I know that you will probably just call this observation confirmation bias, but just wanted to let you know that astrologers did predict the current trend of critical thinking, science and objectivity in human affairs that is sweeping through education, the internet and the celebrity world. Of course skeptics like the JREF forum have been around for many years, and so have atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris etc, but the anti-religion and critical thinking movement does appear to have reached "critical mass" in the past two years or so, and this corresponds very well to the entry of the planet/dwarf planet Pluto into Tropical Capricorn, a sign ruled by Saturn, which astrologers have long associated with the scientific method of requiring evidence.

Compare this current transit (which will last until 2024) with the preceding 12 year transit of Pluto through Tropical Sagittarius, the sign ruled by expansive Jupiter, and which astrologically rules religion. During this time, many people began to deeply investigate and transform (Pluto) their religious ideas. Pluto also symbolizes a digging up and bringing to the surface, and we saw many instances of religious abuses brought to the surface. The planet rules Scorpio, the sign of sex, and many of these abuses were of a sexual nature. The biggest transformation however, I think, was the whole 9/11 episode, which revolved around difference in ideologies, and their political manifestations (land of Israel for example) between Judaio-Christian America and Islam. Dawkins and Hitchens helped us realize that religious ideologies become ingrained merely depending on where on the earth one is born.

Is this observation mere wishful thinking, trying to confirm some pre-conceived belief in astrology? Or is there in fact some sort of intelligent design which connects human affairs to the clock of astronomical movements and the Sun-Earth relationship?

I appreciate everyone's input on these questions, and after many years of studying astrology, I am now leaning towards scientific explanations for apparent coincidences like this. I also cannot afford the luxury of indulging in fantasies like astrology, like I did when my children were younger, as I now work in the real world - sometimes even teaching science!

So, thanks once again everyone, and if you will indulge me briefly just one more time, you've got until 2024 to find the mechanism of consciousness and which parallel universe we all came from.

 

[Sledge]

We've discussed this before, but I'll mention it just one more time before conceding that astrology does very poorly when subjected to critical thinking.

Actually, I've asked the question before. You've yet to answer it. You've claimed, as you continue to do in this post, that some people use if for various purposes. This doesn't tell us what it DOES. This is akin to me asking what a spanner is for and you telling me that some people use it to fix their car. Whilst that is true, it isn't an answer to the question.

Some people find astrology useful as a language of unseen/mysterious/"spiritual" principles. These mysterious principles are probably explainable with science, objectivity and rational thought; for example Confirmation Bias and the Forer/Barnum effect do seem to explain some of astrology.

No. They ARE explainable with science, objectivity and rational thought. There's simply no place for the feeble cold reading games of astrology.

So if we have a rational/scientific explanation of astrology, why do people still believe in it? As mentioned before, the reason is probably the same reason that even some scientists believe in God, albeit a "laws of physics" god, rather than a creator god. Until science explains all the mysteries in life, such as where does the life-power and consciousness come from, people still seem to need a mystical language for tying everything together, rather than a language based solely on science.

SOME people. And that number is dwindling. More and more people are realising that things like "life-power" are meaningless phrases that they need not concern themselves with.

Lastly, I know that you will probably just call this observation confirmation bias, but just wanted to let you know that astrologers did predict the current trend of critical thinking, science and objectivity in human affairs that is sweeping through <snip>

No they didn't. No astrologer has ever predicted anything in any useful detail. It's all cold reading and claims too vague to be of any use except in retroactively calling them a prediction of an event that has transpired.

I'm not even going to bother quoting the rest of the post. It's meaningless new-age twaddle and baseless assertions. However, if I for one moment believed that you taught science to anyone, that thought would terrify me.

 

[PixyMisa]

Of course skeptics like the JREF forum have been around for many years, and so have atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris etc, but the anti-religion and critical thinking movement does appear to have reached "critical mass" in the past two years or so, and this corresponds very well to the entry of the planet/dwarf planet Pluto into Tropical Capricorn, a sign ruled by Saturn, which astrologers have long associated with the scientific method of requiring evidence.

No.

Compare this current transit (which will last until 2024) with the preceding 12 year transit of Pluto through Tropical Sagittarius, the sign ruled by expansive Jupiter, and which astrologically rules religion.

No.

During this time, many people began to deeply investigate and transform (Pluto) their religious ideas.

No.

Pluto also symbolizes a digging up and bringing to the surface, and we saw many instances of religious abuses brought to the surface.

No.

The planet rules Scorpio, the sign of sex, and many of these abuses were of a sexual nature.

No.

The biggest transformation however, I think, was the whole 9/11 episode, which revolved around difference in ideologies, and their political manifestations (land of Israel for example) between Judaio-Christian America and Islam.

No.

Is this observation mere wishful thinking, trying to confirm some pre-conceived belief in astrology?

Yes.

Or is there in fact some sort of intelligent design which connects human affairs to the clock of astronomical movements and the Sun-Earth relationship?

No.

I appreciate everyone's input on these questions, and after many years of studying astrology, I am now leaning towards scientific explanations for apparent coincidences like this.

You're just making stuff up.

 

[dafydd]

Pluto also symbolizes a digging up and bringing to the surface, and we saw many instances of religious abuses brought to the surface. The planet rules Scorpio, the sign of sex, .

How does Pluto do this?What is the mechanism? How can a small,icy planet millions and millions of miles away be connected with sex? Why are you repeating the nonsense spouted by astrologers?

 

[Akhenaten]

We've discussed this before, but I'll mention it just one more time before conceding that astrology does very poorly when subjected to critical thinking.

And yet the the obvious conclusion escapes the astrologers.

What do you call it when one does the same thing over and over, each time expecting a different result?

Some people find astrology useful as a language of unseen/mysterious/"spiritual" principles.

Most people find it to be unintelligible gibberish. Fortunately, this is the group that's growing.

These mysterious principles are probably explainable with science, objectivity and rational thought; for example Confirmation Bias and the Forer/Barnum effect do seem to explain some of astrology.

Ignorance of how things actually work explains all of astrology. Again, fortunately, humans are well on the way to overcoming this ignorance. There are a few who would put sand in the gears of the machinery driving this progress, but luddism, just like astrology, is itself an anachronism and its time is just about up.

So if we have a rational/scientific explanation of astrology, why do people still believe in it?

The rational/scientific explanation of astrology is that people like to make up stuff. The reason people still believe it is that they don't realise the extent to which people like to make up stuff. Sucks to be them.

As mentioned before, the reason is probably the same reason that even some scientists believe in God, albeit a "laws of physics" god, rather than a creator god. Until science explains all the mysteries in life, such as where does the life-power and consciousness come from, people still seem to need a mystical language for tying everything together, rather than a language based solely on science.

I think this waffle is a reference to the god of the gaps. Pathetic little creature it is, and becomimg smaller and more irrelevant every day.

Some of us aim to eradicate the horrid creature altogether and others hope to breathe more life into it's flaccid corpse. I'm glad I'm on the winning team.

Lastly, I know that you will probably just call this observation confirmation bias, but just wanted to let you know that astrologers did predict the current trend of critical thinking, science and objectivity in human affairs that is sweeping through education, the internet and the celebrity world. Of course skeptics like the JREF forum have been around for many years, and so have atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris etc, but the anti-religion and critical thinking movement does appear to have reached "critical mass" in the past two years or so, and this corresponds very well to the entry of the planet/dwarf planet Pluto into Tropical Capricorn, a sign ruled by Saturn, which astrologers have long associated with the scientific method of requiring evidence.

my bolding


You got that one right. Why did you bother presenting it then?

<some words>

Is this observation mere wishful thinking, trying to confirm some pre-conceived belief in astrology?

Well, duh.

Or is there in fact some sort of intelligent design which connects human affairs to the clock of astronomical movements and the Sun-Earth relationship?

Can you not tell that this sounds exactly like the utter rubbish that it is? Really?

I appreciate everyone's input on these questions, and after many years of studying astrology, I am now leaning towards scientific explanations for apparent coincidences like this.

I don't know that looking for a scientific explanation for coincidences is going to be much of an improvement on astrology. The old correlation/causation thingy seems to be tripping you up.

I also cannot afford the luxury of indulging in fantasies like astrology, like I did when my children were younger, as I now work in the real world - sometimes even teaching science!

indeed. That's scary.

So, thanks once again everyone, and if you will indulge me briefly just one more time, you've got until 2024 to find the mechanism of consciousness and which parallel universe we all came from.

Give it up, mate. Flagellum equus mortuus.

 

[PixyMisa]

What do you call it when one does the same thing over and over, each time expecting a different result?

Politics?

No, wait, history.

No, I mean, Windows.

Ignorance of how things actually work explains all of astrology. Again, fortunately, humans are well on the way to overcoming this ignorance. There are a few who would put sand in the gears of the machinery driving this progress, but luddism, just like astrology, is itself an anachronism and its time is just about up.

It is painful to see anyone talking about "Mars in the house of Sagittarius" (or whatever) when we have robots scouting the surface of Mars as we speak.

It's like having someone tell us, in all sincerity, that the streets of far-away Sydney are paved with gold (rather than asphalt and the occasional dead cockatoo). I live in Sydney, let me take a picture for you - sorry, the council cleaned up the dead cockatoo last week.

 

[Hokulele]

So if we have a rational/scientific explanation of astrology, why do people still believe in it? As mentioned before, the reason is probably the same reason that even some scientists believe in God, albeit a "laws of physics" god, rather than a creator god. Until science explains all the mysteries in life, such as where does the life-power and consciousness come from, people still seem to need a mystical language for tying everything together, rather than a language based solely on science.

OK, this ties in nicely with the long post I have been composing regarding I Ching, Tarot, "The Secret", etc., so here goes nothing.

First off, my condolences on your husband. I can't imagine what that would be like, and if there were such a thing as genies, my first wish would be to eliminate cancer from this world. Now, on to my point.

There is really only one universal truth: Life isn't fair.

From what I can tell, all religions, including various flavors of New Age belief systems, are responses to this universal truth. Some are attempts to deal with this truth (Buddhism), some are attempts to find work-arounds to this truth (Abrahamic faiths), and some are attempts to deny this (New Age beliefs). The fact is, bad things can happen to good people, and good things can happen to bad people. No amount of free will can change this.

At best, one can come to an acceptance of this fact and try to live their life accordingly. This is the whole concept of suffering in Buddhism, and the Eightfold Path is one way to reduce one's suffering by putting this into perspective. It isn't necessarily the best way, but it can work. A slightly less pleasant version of this approach can be seen in the fatalism of Hinduism, in that this life might not be fair, but the next one can be better based on one's actions now.

Not quite as realistic, but reasonable if you assume the basic irrational assumption is true, is the idea that one can bargain with the entity responsible for the whole mess. This is the whole concept of a covenant with God that is the root of the Jewish faith that is "improved" by Christianity and Islam. In other words, if I do what this entity wants, although this life may not be fair, things can get better.

What I consider to be New Age beliefs (although most are rooted in older concepts) seem to deny the very fact that life isn't fair. Between assuming it really is fair, and most people just don't see that, or assuming that it would be fair if people would just believe/act/think properly, if fails to address the basic truth. Wishful thinking may be comforting, but it doesn't really fix anything.

So, does this mean that a bleak outlook is the only option? Not at all. Even science can lend a hand to minimize the effects of this universal truth.

Although an individual is extremely limited in how he or she can attempt to compensate for the universal truth in their own lives, it is very possible to address it for others. The person who offers a smile instead of a put-down is helping to make life just a bit more fair to those who are simply having a bad day. The person who volunteers at the local domestic violence center is helping to make life just a bit more fair to those who suffer at the hands of others. The person who devotes their professional career to a search for a cure for a particular type of cancer is helping to make life just a bit more fair to those who fall victim to its ravages and those who love them.

To me, religion and similar belief systems are ultimately purely selfish, and most likely doomed to failure as there is no evidence they can sufficiently and reliably overcome the one universal truth. Only by overcoming the indivdual's selfish tendencies can humankind as a whole reach a real better place.

I do believe in the concepts of "pay it forward" and "what goes around, comes around". If you were to try and make life just a bit more fair for others, others will be working to make life just a bit more fair for you. And that is what I see as being the best response to the only universal truth.

 

[Aquila]

Glad you are back Hokulele.

...
There is really only one universal truth: Life isn't fair.

From what I can tell, all religions, including various flavors of New Age belief systems, are responses to this universal truth. Some are attempts to deal with this truth (Buddhism), some are attempts to find work-arounds to this truth (Abrahamic faiths), and some are attempts to deny this (New Age beliefs). The fact is, bad things can happen to good people, and good things can happen to bad people. No amount of free will can change this.

Your whole post reminds me a little of the story of Job in the Bible, and the concepts of justice and compassion which people have been grappling with for thousands of years.

I think that in the story of Job, who was afflicted with all sorts of illnesses and losses, the point is that he still worships his god, because he is aware that the underlying justice that brought him all these afflictions is ultimately good. I'm not sure how a Buddhist or New Ager would approach Job's problems but the language of astrology is at the root of Kaballah, which is in turn the root of the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam (please see this pic of the Beit Alpha synogogue mosaic

The point with Job, is, I think, that his health afflictions were the working out of conditions that he had a predisposition to, rather like inheriting a gene for cancer, and despite all his self-conscious attempts to live a healthy life, these were just not powerful enough to fight the conditions. I hear the same sort of reasoning from modern medicine; prevention is the best approach to many modern diseases like diabetes, high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke and even cancer, but if we have done all we can to prevent these and we still get them, it is time to pull out the big guns and fight them with drugs and/or surgery.

Just because people get sick doesn't mean that the laws of physics (my idea of "God") are evil, or that there is no justice in the world. And just because there was a man called Hitler and millions of people died in the holocaust also doesn't mean the same. I think I am what is termed a "deist" in that I believe in a god - the laws of physics who does not interfere with those laws once they are made. I see the evils and misfortunes of this world as human faults, not the fault of the laws of physics.

My husband was very spiritual, but not religious, - a Christian who studied kaballah, until the day he died 5 years ago. I sometimes wonder if he had lived, if he would have been influenced by Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris/Shermer and co. like I have been. He saw kaballah as the esoteric interpretation of the Bible, like I do, and this interpretation gets beyond the silliness of literal interpretations of so called events such as the 6-day creation, Virgin Birth, literal resurrection or magic tricks like turning water in wine. In kaballah, they are all meant to be interpreted psychologically.

At best, one can come to an acceptance of this fact and try to live their life accordingly. This is the whole concept of suffering in Buddhism, and the Eightfold Path is one way to reduce one's suffering by putting this into perspective. It isn't necessarily the best way, but it can work. A slightly less pleasant version of this approach can be seen in the fatalism of Hinduism, in that this life might not be fair, but the next one can be better based on one's actions now.

I cannot speak for Buddhism, but IMO some religious/spiritual ideas continue to change, and rules or commandments set forth in the Bible are re-interpreted for modern times. Unfortunately Islam is very recalcitrant and doesn't apply here, but in Judaism, no one takes the commandment about coveting your neighbors cow literally anymore and I think that Hinduism also has modernized from being fatalistic to becoming more Westernized and psychological. I know that even Vedic astrologers are beginning to soften their predictive stance and at least try to help people deflect their "fate" by offering gems which supposedly absorb the "evil" energy. No matter how woo-ish and scammish this all reeks of, we have to see that they are at least tapping into the same idea of justice/karma-which-can-be-altered that the other esoteric belief systems recognize.

Not quite as realistic, but reasonable if you assume the basic irrational assumption is true, is the idea that one can bargain with the entity responsible for the whole mess. This is the whole concept of a covenant with God that is the root of the Jewish faith that is "improved" by Christianity and Islam. In other words, if I do what this entity wants, although this life may not be fair, things can get better.

The whole concept of a personal God to whom one prays and makes covenants is an idea which is now seen as ridiculous and mere superstition. But it was an idea that worked for people at a certain time in human history. The way that an astrologer would explain this is via the ages/aeons - the Arian Age of Moses as leader, the Piscean Age of Jesus and Mohammed as leaders, and the dawning Aquarian Age of science (with Dawkins as leader?!)

What I consider to be New Age beliefs (although most are rooted in older concepts) seem to deny the very fact that life isn't fair. Between assuming it really is fair, and most people just don't see that, or assuming that it would be fair if people would just believe/act/think properly, if fails to address the basic truth. Wishful thinking may be comforting, but it doesn't really fix anything.

"New Age" beliefs seem, to me, to be a mish-mush of watered-down concepts that have sometimes lost their link to any supposed master-principles of consciousness, for example kaballah/Ageless Wisdom. As stated above, this system does recognize justice as an important principle, counterbalanced by Mercy/Compassion.

So, does this mean that a bleak outlook is the only option? Not at all. Even science can lend a hand to minimize the effects of this universal truth.

Although an individual is extremely limited in how he or she can attempt to compensate for the universal truth in their own lives, it is very possible to address it for others. The person who offers a smile instead of a put-down is helping to make life just a bit more fair to those who are simply having a bad day. The person who volunteers at the local domestic violence center is helping to make life just a bit more fair to those who suffer at the hands of others. The person who devotes their professional career to a search for a cure for a particular type of cancer is helping to make life just a bit more fair to those who fall victim to its ravages and those who love them.

Dawkins and Humanists would say that kindness like this simply evolved because it was of some advantage to the selfish genes of one's species to be nice to one's neighbor. The recipients might meet you again and then you would expect the same treatment from them!

To me, religion and similar belief systems are ultimately purely selfish, and most likely doomed to failure as there is no evidence they can sufficiently and reliably overcome the one universal truth. Only by overcoming the indivdual's selfish tendencies can humankind as a whole reach a real better place.

I agree that religions are doomed to failure, but not because of your assumption that there is no justice on a deeper level. They are doomed because people are just fed up of being told how to think and what to do. People are also not stupid, and they are beginning to interpret the old faiths in the light of science and modern psychology.

I do believe in the concepts of "pay it forward" and "what goes around, comes around". If you were to try and make life just a bit more fair for others, others will be working to make life just a bit more fair for you. And that is what I see as being the best response to the only universal truth.

As mentioned above, the evolutionary view of being nice is all about selfish genes, but I guess that is just a scientific version of going around and coming around.

 

[dafydd]

What is this thread about? It seems to have lost the plot.

 

[Hokulele]

Well, this has gotten rather far off track, but what the heck.

The point with Job, is, I think, that his health afflictions were the working out of conditions that he had a predisposition to, rather like inheriting a gene for cancer, and despite all his self-conscious attempts to live a healthy life, these were just not powerful enough to fight the conditions. I hear the same sort of reasoning from modern medicine; prevention is the best approach to many modern diseases like diabetes, high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke and even cancer, but if we have done all we can to prevent these and we still get them, it is time to pull out the big guns and fight them with drugs and/or surgery.

Um, no. Not even close. The bible makes it quite clear that Job's suffering is entirely the work of God/Satan and there is no questioning what happens to a person. God has the mother of all hissy fits when Job asks why he has to suffer and basically tells Job to sit down and shut up. There is no questioning God and his decisions.

Just because people get sick doesn't mean that the laws of physics (my idea of "God") are evil, or that there is no justice in the world. And just because there was a man called Hitler and millions of people died in the holocaust also doesn't mean the same. I think I am what is termed a "deist" in that I believe in a god - the laws of physics who does not interfere with those laws once they are made. I see the evils and misfortunes of this world as human faults, not the fault of the laws of physics.

Any justice in the world is entirely our doing. It has nothing to do with god(s) or physics.

My husband was very spiritual, but not religious, - a Christian who studied kaballah, until the day he died 5 years ago. I sometimes wonder if he had lived, if he would have been influenced by Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris/Shermer and co. like I have been. He saw kaballah as the esoteric interpretation of the Bible, like I do, and this interpretation gets beyond the silliness of literal interpretations of so called events such as the 6-day creation, Virgin Birth, literal resurrection or magic tricks like turning water in wine. In kaballah, they are all meant to be interpreted psychologically.

You could interpret it as musical notes just as easily, and probably end up with a more useful interpretation. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should, or that the end result is at all meaningful.

I cannot speak for Buddhism, but IMO some religious/spiritual ideas continue to change, and rules or commandments set forth in the Bible are re-interpreted for modern times. Unfortunately Islam is very recalcitrant and doesn't apply here, but in Judaism, no one takes the commandment about coveting your neighbors cow literally anymore and I think that Hinduism also has modernized from being fatalistic to becoming more Westernized and psychological. I know that even Vedic astrologers are beginning to soften their predictive stance and at least try to help people deflect their "fate" by offering gems which supposedly absorb the "evil" energy. No matter how woo-ish and scammish this all reeks of, we have to see that they are at least tapping into the same idea of justice/karma-which-can-be-altered that the other esoteric belief systems recognize.

It doesn't matter how many belief systems support the notion that justice can be served or karma can be altered, until there is evidence of this happening, it is simply magical thinking bolstered by confirmation bias.

The whole concept of a personal God to whom one prays and makes covenants is an idea which is now seen as ridiculous and mere superstition. But it was an idea that worked for people at a certain time in human history. The way that an astrologer would explain this is via the ages/aeons - the Arian Age of Moses as leader, the Piscean Age of Jesus and Mohammed as leaders, and the dawning Aquarian Age of science (with Dawkins as leader?!)

No, people thought it worked. There is no evidence it does work.

"New Age" beliefs seem, to me, to be a mish-mush of watered-down concepts that have sometimes lost their link to any supposed master-principles of consciousness, for example kaballah/Ageless Wisdom. As stated above, this system does recognize justice as an important principle, counterbalanced by Mercy/Compassion.

Justice, mercy, and compassion are all purely human notions, not objective standards.

Dawkins and Humanists would say that kindness like this simply evolved because it was of some advantage to the selfish genes of one's species to be nice to one's neighbor. The recipients might meet you again and then you would expect the same treatment from them!

Not necessarily. I don't hold much with the notion that "trait X evolved because of Y" explanations. It assumes that evolution works by selecting for certain traits/features. In reality, it is the exact opposite. Evolution works by selecting against certain traits/features. Most people interpret the phrase "survival of the fittest" incorrectly. It wasn't so much that the longer-necked giraffes survived, but the shorter-necked ones didn't. There are probably more traits that exist simply because they are neither good nor bad, they are just there (Why do people have 5 toes, wouldn't 4 be enough?). If there comes a time when selfishness and cruelty inhibits one's chances of having children, it may very well die off.

I agree that religions are doomed to failure, but not because of your assumption that there is no justice on a deeper level. They are doomed because people are just fed up of being told how to think and what to do. People are also not stupid, and they are beginning to interpret the old faiths in the light of science and modern psychology.

I didn't mean "doomed to failure" in the sense that religion will eventually go away, but failure in the sense that they cannot deliver what they promise. Life will always be unfair.

As mentioned above, the evolutionary view of being nice is all about selfish genes, but I guess that is just a scientific version of going around and coming around.

As mentioned above, you seem to have evolution backwards.

 

[Aquila]

Well, this has gotten rather far off track, but what the heck.

Yes, I know, but you did call it an "exchange".

Um, no. Not even close. The bible makes it quite clear that Job's suffering is entirely the work of God/Satan and there is no questioning what happens to a person. God has the mother of all hissy fits when Job asks why he has to suffer and basically tells Job to sit down and shut up. There is no questioning God and his decisions.

My comments on the Job story were my personal interpretation based on my belief (please see below) in the justice/karma-free will interplay. I know that the Bible is very flat, with God appearing to be a horrible, cruel ogre. You can accept that and become a slave to dogma, or you can "read between the lines" and combine the literal story with philosophies from different cultures and modern psychology.

Any justice in the world is entirely our doing. It has nothing to do with god(s) or physics.

We have to do stuff to create karma. And doing alters the physical world, which is subject to the laws of physics. Even thinking uses up brain cells, which are dependent on food.

You could interpret it as musical notes just as easily, and probably end up with a more useful interpretation. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should, or that the end result is at all meaningful.

Is there any evidence for musical notes? Would they exist if there was no one to hear them? Imaginary concepts like "justice" and "mercy" are also dependent on our minds interpreting situations.

It doesn't matter how many belief systems support the notion that justice can be served or karma can be altered, until there is evidence of this happening, it is simply magical thinking bolstered by confirmation bias.

Yes, it's all internal. We're talking philosophy and art here, not empirical science. The only "evidence" is our subjectivity and our conscience.

No, people thought it worked. There is no evidence it does work.

Unfortunately it (religion, prayer,the idea of a personal god) worked, and continues to work too well for some people, enslaving women and doling out abuse and cruelty. It did produce some nice stained glass windows and cathedrals though.

Justice, mercy, and compassion are all purely human notions, not objective standards.

They have been just notions or concepts up until recently, but in the legal system for example, DNA evidence is now making justice more of an objective reality.

Not necessarily. I don't hold much with the notion that "trait X evolved because of Y" explanations. It assumes that evolution works by selecting for certain traits/features. In reality, it is the exact opposite. Evolution works by selecting against certain traits/features. Most people interpret the phrase "survival of the fittest" incorrectly. It wasn't so much that the longer-necked giraffes survived, but the shorter-necked ones didn't. There are probably more traits that exist simply because they are neither good nor bad, they are just there (Why do people have 5 toes, wouldn't 4 be enough?). If there comes a time when selfishness and cruelty inhibits one's chances of having children, it may very well die off.

Yes, I know that evolution is basically caused by mutations, and the organisms with features most adapted to their environments survive and reproduce. It's not like Lamarkism where features seem to grow because they are "needed". The reason I bought up evolution at all, is because the whole process is surely a form of natural justice.

 

[Garrette]

My apologies for what will likely be a hit-and-run post, but I have enjoyed this exchange and saw an opportunity to add a thought or two.

My comments on the Job story were my personal interpretation based on my belief (please see below) in the justice/karma-free will interplay. I know that the Bible is very flat, with God appearing to be a horrible, cruel ogre. You can accept that and become a slave to dogma, or you can "read between the lines" and combine the literal story with philosophies from different cultures and modern psychology.

Bolding mine.

In other words, you can look at anything you like in any manner you like and it's okay.

I suppose that's true, but then it is disingenuous at best to pretend there is actually a system in place to do so. Your system is actually the lack of a system. You are saying that astrology is the absence of structure.

We have to do stuff to create karma.

Apparently we have to do a lot more stuff to create karma since it hasn't been shown to exist at all yet.

And doing alters the physical world,

In a limited sense, yes, but not in the metaphysical sense you are suggesting.

which is subject to the laws of physics. Even thinking uses up brain cells, which are dependent on food.

Today isn't identical to yesterday, therefore astrology?

Is there any evidence for musical notes?

Yes.

Would they exist if there was no one to hear them?

Yes, so long as someone or something was there to produce them.

Imaginary concepts like "justice" and "mercy" are also dependent on our minds interpreting situations.

Agreed, except for your use of "also;" you've not shown that anything physical is "dependent on our minds interpreting situations."

Yes, it's all internal.

By which I think you actually mean subjective, inconsistent, and non-demonstrable?

We're talking philosophy and art here, not empirical science.

Philosophy and art exist. Reactions to them exist. Some of those reactions are measurable.

The only "evidence" is our subjectivity and our conscience.

No.

Unfortunately it (religion, prayer,the idea of a personal god) worked,

Yes.

and continues to work too well for some people, enslaving women and doling out abuse and cruelty.

Some of it. But if it's subjective anyway, what is your objection to it?

It did produce some nice stained glass windows and cathedrals though.

Some religion, yes.

They have been just notions or concepts up until recently, but in the legal system for example, DNA evidence is now making justice more of an objective reality.

No. The idea of justice is as transient as ever. What science-based evidence has done is allow for a more accurately targeted implementation of the current notion of it.

Yes, I know that evolution is basically caused by mutations, and the organisms with features most adapted to their environments survive and reproduce.

It is not trivial to point out that your wording is still opposite to what Hokulele was saying.

It's not like Lamarkism where features seem to grow because they are "needed".

I don't think that's Lamarkism at all. Try acquired traits and increased complexity, though I could be misremembering.

justice[/I].

Not in the slightest, except with the wildest and most shallow of understandings of it coupled with cherry-picked examples.

 

[PixyMisa]

The whole concept of a personal God to whom one prays and makes covenants is an idea which is now seen as ridiculous and mere superstition. But it was an idea that worked for people at a certain time in human history.

If it worked so well, how come they're all dead?

The way that an astrologer would explain this is via the ages/aeons - the Arian Age of Moses as leader, the Piscean Age of Jesus and Mohammed as leaders, and the dawning Aquarian Age of science (with Dawkins as leader?!)

No.

"New Age" beliefs seem, to me, to be a mish-mush of watered-down concepts that have sometimes lost their link to any supposed master-principles of consciousness, for example kaballah/Ageless Wisdom.

The kaballah / ageless wisdom of which you speak is crap. Watered-down crap is still crap.

 

[Hokulele]

Yes, I know, but you did call it an "exchange".

Oh, sure. I am just noting that there is probably no point in asking other posters to stay on topic (as I had warned in the OP), now that the topic is, well, whatever it is.

My comments on the Job story were my personal interpretation based on my belief (please see below) in the justice/karma-free will interplay. I know that the Bible is very flat, with God appearing to be a horrible, cruel ogre. You can accept that and become a slave to dogma, or you can "read between the lines" and combine the literal story with philosophies from different cultures and modern psychology.

Well, sure, but interpreting anything any way you like simply reinforces what you already believe. Why bother? Again, this is pretty much anti-science and doesn't lead you anywhere but where you started. I guess this is sort of the philosophical equivalent of NASCAR racing. Entertaining, but not much else.

We have to do stuff to create karma. And doing alters the physical world, which is subject to the laws of physics. Even thinking uses up brain cells, which are dependent on food.

No, we have to do stuff to get stuff done. If karma were real, doing nothing would actually be more beneficial, in a karmic sense, than accidentally doing the wrong thing.

Is there any evidence for musical notes?

Yep, the iPhone even has an app for that.

Would they exist if there was no one to hear them?

Does an iPhone count?

Imaginary concepts like "justice" and "mercy" are also dependent on our minds interpreting situations.

Well, sure. That was my original point. Justice and mercy are subjective. A# above middle C is objective. You are trying to apply objective standards to subjective concepts.

Yes, it's all internal. We're talking philosophy and art here, not empirical science. The only "evidence" is our subjectivity and our conscience.

Again, yes, that was my point. Anecdote is not evidence. If karma really is a force in the world, there would be evidence for it. There isn't, which implies that karma does not alter the physical world after all.

Unfortunately it (religion, prayer,the idea of a personal god) worked, and continues to work too well for some people, enslaving women and doling out abuse and cruelty. It did produce some nice stained glass windows and cathedrals though.

Now you are addressing a claim that is actually the opposite of what I was saying. When I stated that "religion cannot work", I mean that the point of religion, and karma, is that it assumes the proper application of religion will result in life becoming more fair for the practitioner. This simply doesn't happen, either for religion, or for trying to develop "good" karma.

The fact that religion can accomplish other things has no bearing on my point. There is nothing that a single individual can do to make the universe do what they want it to do.

They have been just notions or concepts up until recently, but in the legal system for example, DNA evidence is now making justice more of an objective reality.

How so? Does DNA evidence somehow make rape illegal in countries that consider it morally acceptable? It can make the application of justice more consistent, but it doesn't set an objective definition of what is and is not just.

Yes, I know that evolution is basically caused by mutations, and the organisms with features most adapted to their environments survive and reproduce. It's not like Lamarkism where features seem to grow because they are "needed". The reason I bought up evolution at all, is because the whole process is surely a form of natural justice.

No, that is still completely backwards. It isn't organisms with features most adapted to their environments which survive and reproduce, but those with features most likely to get them killed which are removed, and the lucky ones are left to continue their line.

For example, let's say that there are some very tasty fish that come in all sorts of colors. The ones that stand out against their background are much easier to find, the slowest are the easiest to catch, and the largest are the most worth the trouble. It isn't so much that natural selection is working for the dull, quick, and small, but that it is working against the bright, slow, and large.

You also have gotten Lamarckism wrong. That system proposed that features that were gained by the efforts of the parents were passed on to the offspring. For example, if a person became a body-builder and kept working on his or her physique, his or her offspring would be born with larger muscles than if he or she became a musician.

And no, evolution isn't a form of justice, as the dodo bird will attest. Being large, slow, and flightless was evolutionarily successful ... for a while.



ETA: And I cross-posted with just about everyone else. Figures.