Category Archives: Living

Systematics — Laziness or Avoidance

Posted on by
Reply

It’s annoying. Since one of my interests is in metaphysics and its implications, it annoys me when people offer a metaphysical hypothesis without doing the hard work of systematics. One reason it annoys me is that, from my background as a design engineer, designs have to work. Another more important reason is that worldviews matter, and sloppy formulations can have a deleterious impact on people’s lives.

Except for a two-year stint to study theology, biblical studies, etc., at a Lutheran seminary, I worked for some 40 years as a design engineer. I even received 15 US patents for my inventions. I mention that only to suggest that I know something about design.

The cardinal principle in design engineering is that the design has to work. This means it has to meet the specifications. If it doesn’t, a design engineer may have a short career, or even people could get hurt. Specifications for systems are often very complex.  They include not only the final function but also cost, materials, time frames, production factors, deployment, the functional environment, repair ease, fault detection, and so on. Some of the systems I worked on in the aerospace industry had many pages of specifications.

What it takes
So, what does it take to design something that works? Of course, it takes knowledge and imagination. That requires training, study, and experience. But here I want to talk about why a systematic approach is crucial. Machines, software, and other systems are complicated. They usually have many moving parts that are interrelated. The human body is a good analogy. There are various organs that perform a function, but they are also related to other functions and are integrated into a whole we call a human organism. The various components don’t stand alone. Other factors within the organism impinge on their function as well.

 So, what might this have to do with a sound metaphysics? It’s crucial. One has only to survey the literature of prominent metaphysical systems in history to see that they are complex and expansive. For them, it’s not enough to make some cursory assertion and leave it at that. No. They have to deal with all sorts of implications in how parts of a system are interrelated and affect each other. In other words, each assertion affects what follows. As an example in machine design, each step in the design constrains what is possible going forward. A simple example is that if you take up too much space for some component, then the rest has to be smaller to meet the overall size specification. That may not be adequate for its function. This also applies to materials, power factors, stresses, environments, cost, range of motion, and on and on. So, in designs, there has to be a lot of forward-looking for what comes after. This is systematics — evaluating the implications of each part as it relates to the whole, with the specification in mind.

Metaphysics
What I see consistently from both many academics and social media influencers is laziness or avoidance of systematics. They just make some narrow assertion and leave it at that. It may sound good and be appealing, but if tough questions are asked of it (not often), it can collapse or devolve into all sorts of ridiculous contrivances. Hence my annoyance. Ideas matter.

The essence of systematics in metaphysics is dealing with all the issues at roughly the same time. Now, it’s not necessarily a linear process, but thinking about the effects on other factors in the system can short-circuit a lot of false starts. For instance, in theology or religious philosophy, ontology (about being) is a bedrock from which many things depend. But ontology doesn’t just spring forth from nothing. It is formulated based on prior suppositions, often based on intuitions about reality. For instance, does ontological dualism seem OK or not? Does there seem to be meaning and purpose fundamental for this reality? Is there free will? Is this reality fundamentally flawed or not? Ontologies usually spring forth from both rational, empirical, and intuitional factors. Here again, this is systematics. Lots of factors go into a metaphysical formulation. Each assertion affects what can follow.

Now, if the basic intuition for a metaphysic is that reality is fundamentally non-intentional, the system can be relatively simple. Things just happen for no grand reason. It’s all autonomic. Full stop. Of course, this rarely ends there. That’s because most people have the intuition that there is some sort of libertarian free will and that there are objective values (moral realism). This is the fly in the ointment. Again, so we get contrivances that inevitably don’t work.

However, when it comes to intentional formulations, particularly theism, things get complicated very fast. From that intuition, a vast number of formulations have emerged over the centuries and continue today.

The Key
Now, I wouldn’t presume there is a definitive theistic formulation (even my own) that has no problems. That’s not how finite systems work. Speculations about the fundamental nature of reality are always limited by our knowledge, creaturely strengths and weaknesses, biases, provincial and species inclinations, etc. However, at the very least, we should strive to be comprehensive (systematic) in our efforts. This means not shying away from the complete and difficult questions and issues.

For the theistic system I developed, I have criteria that I think are essential. Others may have different ones. Fine. Mine are the product of logic, empiricism, and experience that in some cases, lead to an intuition (a gestalt) about reality. Here are the criteria I chose.

  • Have verisimilitude (appears to be true)
  • Be monistic
  • Be ontologically personal
  • Be reasonable
  • Be systematic
  • Be science-friendly
  • No violational supernaturalism
  • No eschatology (end times) or soteriology (salvation schemes)
  • Be world-affirming
  • Affirm religious experiences and intuitions
  • Affirm ongoing divine activity
  • Affirm teleology (personal and divine purpose)
  • Affirm objective meaning
  • Affirm objective value (moral realism)
  • Affirm free will
  • Affirm the efficacy of prayer
  • Better address the problem of evil
  • Address consciousness

So, for me, all these factors need to be adequately addressed in the theology, and the answers offered need to be systematically sound and consistent.

Is it too much to ask for others to be systematic before they assert something? Sure, they can pick their own important factors in the system and present arguments for them, but don’t just spout some simple assertion and not address the profound implications of that, taking everything into account.

Something to consider:  8 × 10²² Earth Like Planets in the Universe

Posted on by
Reply

It can be very tempting to be provincial in our view of the cosmos and our place in it. This can lead to a homo-sapiens-centric cosmic view for our worldviews. However, according to current data from the Kepler telescope, it suggests that there are:

~40 billion Earth-like planets in the Milky Way galaxy alone.
And since there are an estimated 2 trillion galaxies, that gives us:

~80 sextillion (8 × 10²²) Earth-like planets in the observable universe.

So, there is a number of 8 with 22 zeros after it of planets like Earth in the habitable zones of a star. Are we to think that all these worlds are barren of any life and therefore any complex life like ours? Given how life finds a way in the most inhospitable environments on this planet, this is certainly ridiculous.

If this is ridiculous, then we, as humans, should be extremely humble about our metaphysical formulations. After all, even on our planet, there are life forms like dolphins, elephants, chimpanzees, dogs, cats, octopuses, and even more fundamental organisms that may have their own type of spirituality. If there is a divine depth to everything, as I suggest on this website, then every entity, even the most elemental, has some form of divine presence. This represents the Divine Life in everything.

What this Means.

This means that any metaphysical formulation should not be species or location-specific. Again, it is tempting to locate metaphysical insight and wisdom to our species. Arrogant, right? Humans have their own specific abilities/limitations and cultures that shape our perspective. These shape our worldviews accordingly.

Thomas Nagel wrote in his seminal paper on consciousness, “What is it like to be a Bat?” What is it like to be a being on a very different planet with different challenges? We live on a planet with all sorts of resources we take for granted. Things like iron ore, oil, timber, abundant water, suitable weather, etc. All these resources make possible the technological advances we see. What if they are not available? What shape does life take? There would be a different relationship to the environment and what is possible. And what meaning is about. Metaphysical systems should be cosmic in scope. If not, they become irrelevant just in principle.

So, all this is to say that we should be leery of being provincial in our metaphysical suggestions. Humility and metaphysical expansiveness should be our goal.

After Life

Posted on by
2

One of the guiding principles I have adopted for developing a theology is minimalism. Metaphysical speculations should be kept to a minimum and only arise where they are needed to offer answers to pressing existential questions and are actionable in life. Accordingly, with respect to the topic of an afterlife, I don’t have much to say. However, most people are concerned about the question, so I think it should be addressed as best it can be within the minimalist constraints.

There are all sorts of speculations in religion and philosophy about what happens after death. They range from a dissolution of the self within the ultimate to having some sort of “existence” beyond. That existence could be non-corporeal (a spiritual being), a heavenly existence, a rebirth to another life (reincarnation), or some other formulation.

What I can say, coming from the ontology of a divine idealism is that even after our earthly life ends, the memory of us and our life is eternal in the Mind of God. What God decides to do with that memory could take many forms. This is where all I can offer are some possible options that come to mind. There could be many others.

  • Those memories could be just archived (so to speak) with nothing more happening. However, a particular life doesn’t just go into the dustbin of history. Just as our memories of past loved ones affect us now, so it would be with God.
  • There could be an essence of a life that gets re-instantiated in some form and lives again.
  • There could be an integration of many individual lives’ memories into some sort of composite for another life. After all, our bodies are a composite of many other beings like cells, organs, viruses, and bacteria all working together.
  • We might also think about the Author/Story metaphor I often refer to. In a novel, although a particular narrative eventually comes to an end, the characters in that narrative may be revived in subsequent narratives (sequels) and live again. God could create other narratives within God’s Mind where a particular life takes on a new life, perhaps in a very different type of setting and in a very different form than in this life. Since God obviously places such a great value in life and individual lives, I believe this is the most likely scenario.
  • There could be some other afterlife that we would have no concept of.

It is important to remember that all these options are just metaphors. The true reality of things could be very different.

That’s about all I would be willing to speculate about. But here’s the thing. I firmly believe that God loves each and every person and creature. If we believe that, then we can also believe that God will act in a loving way toward each life. Personally, I think that is enough.

Knowing When to Quit — Deal-Breakers

Posted on by
Reply

Humans have had an interest in metaphysics for millennia. When did it all start? That’s hard to know but things like red ochre and personal items were even found in Neanderthal graves. That makes one wonder why. Then, of course, there is the long history of metaphysical thinking from early animism to what we have today.

Metaphysics reaches beyond what is straightforwardly apparent. That requires speculations. The human psyche needs to find some broad orientation for living. There are essential questions that beg for answers. What is the meaning of life? How should I live? What happens when I die? What is the good? And so on.

If metaphysical systems help people orient their lives, and inform how they should think about things, and live, the question is “Which one?” Lord knows there is no shortage of these systems. There are even new ones coming on the scene all the time. Not only are there religious systems but also non-religious systems. More-or-less systematic attempts date back at least three or four thousand years. If internet activity in forums and online media outlets like YouTube is an indication, there is considerable interest in metaphysical explorations.

For most people, these explorations aren’t just for fun. They are existentially (what matters to us) important. So, choosing one to orient one’s life around is also important. How does that choosing process come about? For most people, the choice was initially already made by their upbringing or the culture they found themselves in. However, for some, there comes a point when their current metaphysical system (religious or non-religious) isn’t working for them anymore. So, they may start looking for something else. The search is on. With so much metaphysical thought out there that can be a daunting task. However, I think it can be facilitated by understanding what essentials would have to be present in a system such that it is a viable option. We all have intuitions about what is important to us. Those intuitions may not be that explicit but they can be. They can be thought of as essential criteria that must be met.  

Understanding the essential criteria can help short-circuit a fruitless extended evaluation. If something in the system doesn’t meet a criterion, that can be a deal-breaker. It is no longer viable. Some systems are complex. So this may require scanning ahead to look for problem areas. Addressing existential issues is difficult and often put off for much later in a system (if at all). If they aren’t addressed at all, that should be a red flag. By looking for deal-breakers that can avoid a lot of wasted time. It can help one know when to quit on that particular approach. From there, the search can move on.

Now, some proposed metaphysical systems are just in the fledgling stage but might be promising. This makes things a bit more complicated. One way to evaluate an incomplete new system (or anyone that doesn’t explicitly address existential concerns) is to look at the early fundamentals and project where they can lead. A good place to start is ontology — how things fundamentally are. Is there a monism or dualism? Is it simple or complex? Is there fundamental intentionality or non-intentionality involved in how reality becomes constituted? And so on. Initial fundamentals constrain what can follow and determine whether or not it is even possible for certain criteria to be met. It takes some experience with various systems but using this method may greatly facilitate an evaluation.

Now, at this point, it is important to describe what this evaluative process looks like. Since systems contain a lot of propositional content, it might seem that the evaluations are just utilizing the step-by-step reasoning in the cognitive processes, but that need not be the case. In fact, intuitions come into play more often than not and can be a powerful tool. While intuitions often aren’t that explicit, they can still give a sense that something seems right or is off-putting. There can be a consonance or dissonance with something deep within. I talk about that here.

While so far I’ve talked about a personal evaluation of metaphysical systems, this applies equally to those who are trying to develop one. As an example, recently I’ve seen a lot in forums and online media about the problem of consciousness (subjective experience) with many proposals being offered. Inevitably, they either propose a metaphysical system or expand on one. For developers, knowing when to quit on a certain line of thinking and try something else can avoid wasted time and crucial (perhaps terminal) problems down the road.

So, as an example, here’s the list of criteria I have used to evaluate metaphysical systems and develop my own. Obviously, answers to these criteria need to be unpacked so I’ll put in links where I do so. Your criteria may be different but if you have a sense of them, perhaps you can quickly know when to quit on a particular approach. The key here is that all the criteria must be met or at least solvable without jeopardizing the others.

Essential Criteria

Systematic Criteria:

  • Logically sound (following the rules of logic)
  • Coherent (makes sense, nothing obscure)
  • Consistent (no self-contradictions)
  • Rigorous (details matter)
  • Complete (doesn’t leave out anything pertinent)
  • Elegant (no ill-conceived contrivances, only as complex as needed)

World Affirmation or World Rejection?

Posted on by
Reply

Metaphysics is about questions and answers. Why is there something? Why is the world the way it is?  What is the meaning of life? And so on. Some questions about reality may find straightforward answers. We can make observations and postulate reasonable explanations. However, some questions are underdetermined by observation. There can be different answers from the same observations. In that case, to formulate answers requires inferences and speculations. So, we get metaphysical systems, both religious and non-religious. These systems can vary widely. Why?

To answer that question requires a deep dive into where metaphysical systems come from and why they take the shapes they do. Obviously, that is a complex question but in this post, I want to focus on a particular feature of metaphysical systems — a value assessment of the world. That value assessment can also be complicated but it can be broadly characterized as world-affirmation or world-rejection.

Metaphysical systems don’t just pop into existence from nowhere. They emerge from worldviews. When a deep question is asked about reality, the answers are greatly influenced by the worldviews held by individuals and cultures of the time.  At any particular time in history, a certain sentiment may emerge about the state of the world. When times are hard, perhaps with lots of violence and wars going on, the assessment of the world will tend to be negative. When times are good, it may be more positive. This also applies to metaphysical thinkers and their psychological makeup.  Also, sometimes an event can create a psychological crisis that changes a worldview. Legend has it that Siddartha Gautama (the Buddha), who was raised in a privileged environment, when exposed to the real world with its troubles had his worldview dramatically changed. This spurred him on to develop what we now know as Buddhism. Other seminal religious thinkers have their own motivating histories.

Worldviews of most people may not be so dramatic. It can be just an inculcation from the family, group, or culture. Still, they shape how we think about the world and our place in it. When certain metaphysical questions are asked, the answers tend to flow from that worldview.

Metaphysical systems, while not totally linear, do build on foundational principles that set the tone for what can follow. A key factor in how those foundations are formulated is a world value assessment.  Shortly, I’ll talk about how certain assessments (world affirmation/rejection) have had a profound effect on religious systems worldwide.

Renowned sociologist of religion, Robert Bellay researched and wrote extensively on how religious sentiment evolved over the millennia. Here I’ll focus on what he says concerning a world value assessment within religion. Bellah talks about phases in religious evolution:

“There are 5 major phases in the world-wide evolution of religion. Acceptance of “this world” is emphasized in the first and last phases. Rejection of “this world” is highest in the middle phase, Historic Religion. Rejection of “this world” is a function primarily of religious dualism. Dualism reaches its peak during the historic phase when the “great, universal, ethical religions” emerged—Christianity, post-tribal Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Islam.” 

The phase of historic religion is particularly important because it is out of this phase the major world religions came into being and remain dominant worldwide.

Implications
When a particular world assessment is chosen, that has far-reaching consequences for the theology or religious philosophy.  Questions beg for solutions.  If the question is “why is the world so screwed up?” and the answer comes out of a world-rejection worldview then the answers will almost be inevitable. With a fundamentally flawed world, the obvious answers could be twofold — get out or get something new and better. This leads to two terms used in theology but also apply to religious philosophy — soteriology and eschatology. Soteriology is about salvation schemes.  If the world (or us) is so fundamentally flawed, it needs to be saved. So, we get salvation schemes. Those vary among the major traditions and even within them.  In mainstream Christianity, the world is flawed because of human sin. This leads to a judicial type of soteriology. The scales of justice must be balanced. They are balanced with the atoning death and resurrection of the Son of God (Jesus).  That balances the scales but what about this flawed world. Enter eschatology. Eschatology is about the end times when this eon comes to an end and a new one begins. Presumably, this new eon won’t be flawed like this one. What this new eon is like varies. There could be a new heaven and earth or just some heavenly (unflawed) existence.

Obviously, this mainstream approach has major theological problems. Did God screw up in creating this world? Isn’t the artisan responsible for the artifact? This presents a picture of God as an incompetent creator where a fix has to be applied. So, does God do a better job creating the new heaven and Earth? There are many other problems with this world-rejecting sentiment but that’s not what this post is about.

In the East, this world-rejection also shows up in Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Daoism, and Confucianism. What we get also has various salvation schemes and eschatologies. These vary greatly among these religious philosophies but a common thread in Buddhism and Hinduism is “the liberation from or ending of samsara, the repeating cycle of birth, life, and death.” The eschatology may be more of a personal escape or transformation.

The Issue
Theologies and religious philosophies are built on fundamental tenets. They are fundamental for a reason. Fundaments are needed as a basis upon which further explications can ensue. They shape and restrict the system according to the questions asked and answers given. Since they are fundamental, any attempt to change the sentiment is highly problematic. But what if a fundamental worldview is no longer compelling? Again Robert Bellah. The first phase he calls “Primitive Religions” and the last phase (our current one), “Modern Religion”.

“Acceptance of “this world” is emphasized in the first and last phases.”

Studies show that the fastest-growing group regarding religion is the “nones” — no religious affiliation. There are many reasons for this decline but according to studies one of the major ones is that the tenets of a religion are no longer compelling or believable. In other words, they don’t seem to fit in with the current worldview.

Now, broadly speaking, I don’t view this disaffiliation as problematic. I myself became unaffiliated some 25 years ago. However, disaffiliation can have its personal downside. It can lead to a sense of loss and being spiritually adrift.  That was my case for a while. Still, disaffiliation can be a motivating force for reassessment. It can lead to spiritual or religious growth.

Now, theologians have recognized this issue for a long time. They, themselves may have experienced a sea-change in their own thinking. So, they responded. I don’t know much about other religious traditions but within liberal Christianity, there have been many attempts to reframe Christian theology to address the changing worldviews. Whether or not some may be effective is an open question. If those changes enhance people’s lives and aren’t harmful, in my view, all the better.

I believe this questioning of ancient sentiment is a positive. Life is about growth and change. A world-rejecting worldview can have significant downsides. It can lead to a complacency toward the serious problems the world faces.  If soteriology and eschatology are in the offing, why bother with concerns about the future? If escape or a new creation are the goals, that is a cop-out instead of a sober affirmation of life as it is.

If there is an affirmation of the world just as it is, that changes things dramatically. There is a call to action. I believe one of the goals for this Divine Life is the eternal creation of love, courage, beauty, and meaning. There is no perfection to be attained, only the constant effort to create the good and beautiful. Doesn’t that offer a profound meaningfulness for life? Isn’t that enough?