THE BIG BANG: ETHICS and IRRATIONALITY

ETHICS, GOD, and THE BIG BANG

[This piece continues the theme of earlier blogs, as promised earlier.  Please refer to them as necessary.]

ethics

To preface what follows: It’s been my purpose for the past several years to try to justify the physical world with the metaphysical (science with the spiritual).  Science being a child of philosophy, the two approaches to truth historically were one.  I believe that they are on parallel tracks that will link again when we finally know the truth.  It’s my goal to meld the two approaches insofar as possible while realizing that full spiritual understanding is out of my range.  Metaphysics is yet (if ever) to be mastered, and I’m certainly not the one to master it.  I’m now putting my personal views and beliefs, for what they’re worth, on the line.  You may disagree.  I

The Science-Religion Dichotomy – NOT

ETHICAL ISSUES:  SCIENCE vs RELIGION

I write this as a career scientist of no particular religion who has had an undeniably spiritual personal experience—a peak experience as defined by Abraham Maslow—and as a philosopher.  I do not ask that you believe me (although it is certainly the truth).  I ask only that you read on because the subject is interesting.

The rapid advance of science in recent years has brought with it an increase in secularism and, not surprisingly, atheism.  However, it should be noted that while denouncing spirituality, atheism itself bears all the scripts of a religion (faith, belief, conviction, confidence, trust, reliance, devotion, dogma, doctrine).  Indeed, it makes for an extremely demanding one in that it’s entirely negative and has no particular guiding light other than the passion of those who would sponsor it.

The atheist presupposes (simplistically) that science deals in

THE ETHICS OF ACCEPTANCE: BELIEF

THE ETHICS OF ACCEPTANCE:  BELIEF, TRUST and FAITH

There’s an old story about Amos at his baptism.  After the first submersion he surfaces shouting, “I believe!  I believe!”  Coming up after the second dunking he sputters again, “I believe!  I believe!”  After the final immersion he’s asked:  “Just what do you believe, Amos?”   Amos:  “I believe you’re tryin’ to drown me!”

We all believe—have beliefs—call it trust or even faith.  You trust that you’ll be alive in the next instant, otherwise why bother surviving this one? The fact is that you believe it.  You go to sleep fully expecting–trusting–that you’ll wake up alive.  That takes faith.  If you thought you’d die during the night you probably wouldn’t be so ready to fall asleep.

But just what do you believe?  Well, you may as well believe

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS ISSUES: SCIENCE and NATURE

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS – MORE THAN SCIENCE

As a scientist and philosopher, I write to see what I think.  Here’s what I think, for what it’s worth.  You decide.

I’ve been trying to reconcile science with spirituality for some time now and found that it can’t be done from either end—it requires that we go up a level (to philosophy, their source).   I’m lucky to have had a peak experience in 1992, www.extremeethics.org/ethics-peak-experiences/ an unexpected but true enlightenment that set me on a promising track and caused me to write a book about ethics. Writing To Tell The Truth provided me with plenty of opportunity to “see what I think” and show that much of it is well-founded.    One of the things I’ve found is that we all have faith whether or not we want it or even admit to it.  Want an example?  We fall asleep at night fully expecting to wake up.  That’s faith.  Don’t believe it?  You don’t have to—it’s there anyway…

Faith is based in reason (not religion), and man is gifted with intellect that enables him to reason—it’s what identifies mankind.  Rationality provides us with the means to shape our individual destinies in accordance with the way we should live our lives, but we don’t always do this.  We forget that while we all create our own individual lives as we live them, we do not create nature.  That’s already been done—nature created us.  Witness the Universe and the living Earth of which we are a product.

Science dates the Universe at some 13.7 billion years, but in order for it to have happened, there had to be a cause.  Something (this something being the basis for many religions) had to precede it, even though we can’t identify it because it’s literally beyond our dimension—metaphysical rather than physical.  Our innate spirituality is given of this dynamis (a metaphysical term; science has no such concept).

I’ve often made the point that an effect can’t prove its cause, a result can’t prove its origin, a conclusion can’t confirm its grounds, an outcome can’t define its input nor can an end justify its means.  These are all ways of saying the same thing: that the answer to the origin of anything always lies outside of the thing itself (Gödel’s mathematically-proven Incompleteness Theorem).

I submit that Consciousness is that base, and Truth its manifestation.  Our intellect is a divine gift that we often accept without acknowledgment, perhaps because we tend to associate ‘divine’ with religion.  But religion isn’t a factor.  Truth precedes religions and even the universe, and intelligence is based in truth—a given available to you whenever you decide to use it–and the answer lies in the givens.

ETHICS of the MIND

ETHICS ISSUES:  SCIENCE and the MIND

“Mind is the complex of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, thinking, reasoning, perception, feeling and judgment…”  So says Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.  Notice that the term is mind, not the mind.  Mind is not a physical thing, but instead a metaphysical ‘complex of faculties’ (abilities, capacities), a function of the brain and nervous system (things of substance).  While mind is not material, it still is. Without it we would be not.

Your mind is yours alone, working within your individual self.  It processes information that comes from without as well as what it itself generates, combining real and imagined data, random associations, unique experiences and every other input seen or unseen, heard or unheard, touched or untouched, smelled or unsmelled, tasted or not, to create an increasingly unique (metaphysical) structure. The process doesn’t follow a direct