Respecting Science

It seems plausible to me that we should not have to choose between being scientifically reasonable and connecting with the Ultimately Real, the External Agent in charge of the Universe, God, or Brahman.

Here is my proposal. Every serious scientist agrees that there is immense randomness involved in the history of the cosmos. The processes by which life on earth developed seem to involve additional random factors. Why not see in this randomness a kind of God-like activity or good fortune? We have been very lucky: there are heavy elements, the earth is not too hot or too cold for carbon-based life. The various constants work together neatly in order that there be solid objects, etc. This good fortune is like the hand of God. I say that we move further and identify the two. We can then be grateful and even worship these random forces that so far have been remarkably benign.

An Impossible Distinction

Can we distinguish between direct action by the ultimate manager and indirect action of the ultimate manager mediated by multiple actions of humans who believe in the U.M.?

How can this obvious distinction be maintained when the multiple actions of humans are the result of earlier "natural" processes? Even more tricky would be something like global warming that results naturally from certain events caused by humans.

So, natural events versus intervened events are hard to tell apart.

Actions involving believing agents

Events whose causal explanation requires essentially a reference to a believing agent where the belief is part of the causal chain are not natural events in the same way that earthquakes or supernovas are natural events.

The key element here is that there is an essential causal role for human belief and action. Once these are introduced, the naturalness diminishes. Will it even be possible to divide the world up into two categories, natural events and human-caused events?

Partial causation and the efficacy of the mental

If the idea of a Manager of the Universe is to be powerful, then it is going to have to be efficacious through its effects on the minds of those who accept the existence of such a manager. In other words, any commitment to the Manager of the Universe being a powerful intentional object (and nothing "more" than an intentional object) is necessarily going to involve a commitment to mental causation and the mental having influence on physical events. Or, if it is not going to do this, then it will be incumbent upon one to say how beliefs and desires about the will of the Manager and about pleasing the Manager can make a difference in human action and not do so in virtue of their mental content.

In other words, the idea of the Manager exists and those whose belief in pleasing or otherwise interacting with the Manager makes a difference to what they do, require an accounting. Clearly the content seems to play a causal role and thus the content is at least a partial cause.

Defining Terms

The most difficult term I need to state my view that there is no single manager of the whole is "causes directly." I say this because direct causation of events is what it seems many traditions embrace and what lends potency and status to any candidate for manager.

Features of the manager: directly causes events that are clearly physical and clearly in space and time. Thus, appealing to the manager would be a way of changing future events, assuming that the appeal was accepted.

What does it take to establish the non-existence of the manager? The idea of the manager is real and does exist and does have power. However, this does not prove that there is direct causation since the reality is generated by the mere thought processes; these thought processes can be made more concrete by writing and various forms of image-making: in particular, music where the manager is the object of the songs; art where the manager is indirectly the object of the art; poetry and prose that purpose to be ABOUT the manager.

Introductory Entry

Thinking is no mean trick but with the pressure to do it often enough to justify readers visiting, maybe I will develop the habit of doing it.

Here is the basic orientation of this blog: what is, is; what is not, as a famous philosopher once said, we should pass over. I will do my best to focus on what has some sort of Being. Maybe not complete being but something close enough.