#renedescartes — Public Fediverse posts

@enriquericos xD hahahahaha #satire #comedy #yt

#Cunk on #Sonic the #Hedgehog

https://youtu.be/AbNgAgD2Q0M

#ReneDescartes #Incognito ergo numb

@enriquericos xD hahahahaha #satire #comedy #yt

#Cunk on #Sonic the #Hedgehog

https://youtu.be/AbNgAgD2Q0M

#ReneDescartes #Incognito ergo numb

@enriquericos xD hahahahaha #satire #comedy #yt

#Cunk on #Sonic the #Hedgehog

https://youtu.be/AbNgAgD2Q0M

#ReneDescartes #Incognito ergo numb

@enriquericos xD hahahahaha #satire #comedy #yt

#Cunk on #Sonic the #Hedgehog

https://youtu.be/AbNgAgD2Q0M

#ReneDescartes #Incognito ergo numb

@enriquericos xD hahahahaha #satire #comedy #yt

#Cunk on #Sonic the #Hedgehog

https://youtu.be/AbNgAgD2Q0M

#ReneDescartes #Incognito ergo numb

Exploring the Foundations of the Scientific Revolution

Several notable and important people led to the modern Scientific Revolution. It grew from their faith rooted in a Christian worldview. These philosophers and scientists founded their beliefs on a rational knowable Creator believing He would leave this universe imbued with rational laws that do not change. As a result using a sound investigative method those laws might be discovered.

The initial start to the development of modern science was heavily influenced by two philosophers who taught and developed the methodology of scientific empiricism: Roger Bacon in the 13th century and Francis Bacon in the 16th/17th century.

Roger Bacon (c. 1219/20–1292), known as Doctor Mirabilis, was a medieval English Franciscan friar, philosopher, and polymath who is considered one of the earliest European advocates of the scientific method and empiricism.

His philosophical contributions include:

• Empirical Science: Bacon emphasized direct observation and controlled experiment as essential correctives to authority and tradition, influencing the addition of optics to the medieval university curriculum. 
• Major Works: In 1267, he submitted the Opus Majus to Pope Clement IV, a comprehensive encyclopedia covering grammar, logic, mathematics, optics, and moral philosophy. 
• Scientific Innovations: He was the first European to record the formula for gunpowder and made significant studies in geometrical optics, vision, and refraction, anticipating developments in lenses and spectacles. 
• Imprisonment: Between 1277 and 1279, Bacon was likely imprisoned or placed under house arrest by his Franciscan superiors due to his interest in astrology, alchemy, and “suspected novelties,” though modern scholars debate the historical accuracy of this event. 
• Legacy: While deeply rooted in medieval scholasticism and theology, his insistence on experimental science (scientia experimentalis) positions him as a precursor to modern scientific inquiry. 

However the next Bacon has had the greatest influence on the fundamentals of modern science.

Francis Bacon (1561–1626) was an English philosopher and statesman widely regarded as the father of empiricism and a foundational figure in the development of the scientific method.  He argued that knowledge should be derived from inductive reasoning and careful observation of nature, rejecting the deductive Aristotelian logic that dominated his era.

His philosophical contributions include:

• The Baconian Method: A systematic approach to science emphasizing experimentation, data collection, and the elimination of biases (known as the “Idols”).
• Key Works: He authored Novum Organum (1620), which outlined his new logical framework, and The Advancement of Learning (1605), advocating for the practical application of science to benefit humanity. 
• Philosophy of Science: Bacon believed that “knowledge is power,” asserting that scientific inquiry should not only seek truth but also produce tangible improvements in human life. 
• Legacy: His ideas heavily influenced the founders of the Royal Society and helped usher in the Scientific Revolution, shifting natural philosophy toward empirical and experimental practices. 

Francis Bacon was a devout Anglican Christian who sought to reconcile his faith with the emerging scientific method.  He believed that studying nature through empirical observation was a way to understand God’s creation and that scientific progress served a spiritual duty to alleviate human suffering. 

While Bacon argued for keeping theology and natural philosophy in separate spheres to prevent religious dogma from hindering scientific inquiry, he remained critical of atheism.

Bacon famously stated that “a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion,” viewing the increase of knowledge as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

However he was not a biblical creationist in the modern sense. He believed that mixing theological dogma with natural philosophy (science) corrupted both, famously criticizing those who tried to build systems of physics based on Genesis or Job.

Bacon articulated the metaphor of “Two Books” written by God:

• The Book of God’s Word (Scripture): Reveals God’s will, moral laws, and the path to salvation. Bacon considered this essential for spiritual truth and believed it should be studied deeply. 
• The Book of God’s Works (Nature): Reveals God’s power and omnipotence. He argued that studying nature was a religious duty that helped humanity understand the Creator’s greatness. 

He urged scholars to pursue “endless progress” in both books but warned strictly against “unwisely mingling or confounding” them.

Of course, I totally disagree his “unwisely mingling” view. There are “Two Books” representing one creation, One Creator. The two books are interwoven by the very nature of the creation. It is all one system created by God and any philosophy that ignores this fact is ultimately doomed to failure.

However he rightfully is credited with what is nowadays called the Scientific Method: hypothesis, experiment and data collection that may disprove the initial hypothesis. No experimental results can ever prove the hypothesis. If you want proofs, try mathematics, which is a closed artificial universe.

I have no doubt that this method gave a big start to the Scientific Revolution, which really started with Francis Bacon in the early 1600s. However in all my own experience in university research labs what was actually used were Bayesian Methods.

Bayesian Methods are statistical techniques that use Bayes’ theorem to update the probability of a hypothesis as more evidence or data becomes available. 

Instead of treating unknown yet-to-be-determined parameters as fixed, Bayesian analysis interprets probability as a degree of belief, allowing for the incorporation of prior knowledge or subjective beliefs alongside observed data. Bayes’ theorem uses a conditional probability to update the prior knowledge.

That means that Bayesian methods build on prior knowledge. And that also means prior biases, which is often seen when a parameter is measured over time. The prior measured value is considered with more weight than it should be and so new values are chosen that fall closest to the prior. What results is a progressive creep in the value towards the final accepted value, the true value. This can be seen in the historical measured values for the round-trip speed of light, c.

Also in the measurements of the electron charge (e).

The bias is not due to the error bounds not overlapping the final correct result but due to weight placed on the priors. So a results that favour a prior is accepted before newer values which may be more accurate. This bias is a feature of a worldview.

Thomas Bayes (c. 1701–1761) was a Presbyterian minister and a member of the English Nonconformist (Dissenter) religious tradition. While his father was a traditional Presbyterian, scholars describe Bayes’ personal theological beliefs as Unitarian or Arian, indicating he strayed from standard Christian orthodoxy. (That is the same accusation leveled against Isaac Newton, so perhaps there is some doubt there.)

Bayes mathematical work, specifically Bayes’ theorem, was originally developed to provide a probabilistic defense of Christianity against the skeptical arguments of philosopher David Hume, who had questioned the validity of miracles.

Bayes published two works during his lifetime: a theological tract titled Divine Benevolence (1731) and a mathematical defense of Isaac Newton’s calculus (1736).

Barring a miraculous revelation from God, in a dream or vision, most experimental development comes from a long list of prior researchers, scientists who slowly advanced the field — one building on the work of another. This is what the oft quoted expression means.

“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

The expression is most famously attributed to Isaac Newton, who used it in a 1675 letter to his rival Robert Hooke. However, the metaphor actually originated in the 12th century with the French philosopher Bernard of Chartres, who described humans as “dwarfs on the shoulders of giants.”

Isaac Newton (1643–1727) was an English polymath and a central figure in the Scientific Revolution, renowned for his foundational contributions to physics, mathematics, and optics.

Newton attended Trinity College, Cambridge, ostensibly preparing to become an Anglican minister, but spent his time developing his groundbreaking theories. The years 1665–1666 was a period of intense personal productivity known as his annus mirabilis. 

He was a deeply religious Christian whose theological writings vastly outnumbered his scientific works. Newton believed in God the Father as the sole creator and Jesus Christ as His divine Son, but some have claimed he denied their co-equality, rejecting the Trinitarian doctrine.1,2 Don’t be misled by such claims. He was an alchemist too, but he wasn’t a witch. Alchemy at that time was the start of modern chemistry and metallurgy.

He viewed his scientific discoveries as a means to understand God’s design in nature, believing that the laws of physics revealed the order of a rational Creator. Newton spent decades studying biblical prophecy (particularly Daniel and Revelation) and church history, seeking to restore the “pure” faith of the early apostolic era.

His major works include Principia Mathematica (1687), which established the laws of motion and universal gravitation, and Opticks (1704), which detailed his experiments on light and color, including the invention of the reflecting telescope (1668). 

Isaac Newton adapted and popularized the concept to acknowledge that his scientific discoveries built upon the work of predecessors like René Descartes. And this situation has been the norm since Isaac Newton.

René Descartes (1596–1650) was a French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist widely regarded as the father of modern Western philosophy and a key figure in the Scientific Revolution. 

He is most famous for the epistemological foundationalist dictum “I think, therefore I am” (Cogito, ergo sum) and for developing Cartesian dualism, the theory that the mind and body are distinct substances.

René Descartes was a Roman Catholic who actively sought to align his philosophy with Christian doctrine.  He worked diligently to provide rational proofs for the existence of God, aiming to reconcile the new science with Christian beliefs and avoid conflict with ecclesiastical authorities. 

He insisted that truths of faith were superior to human reason and separated theological doctrines (like the Trinity) from his rational metaphysics. 

In works like the Meditations, he offered arguments for God’s existence (such as the trademark and ontological arguments) to establish God as the guarantor of truth and the creator of the universe. 

His distinction between mind (immaterial soul) and body (material matter) was intended to support the immortality of the soul, a core tenet of Christian theology. 

Despite his personal devotion, critics accused him of atheism because his mechanistic view of the physical world seemed to exclude God from daily natural processes, leading to the prohibition of his books by the Catholic Church in 1663. 

Ultimately, Descartes is viewed as a figure who tried to rationalize religion without abandoning it, positioning human reason as a path to understanding God rather than a replacement for faith. 

That is quite different to the humanist arguments of atheistic human reason without any foundation in God.

What we now need to understand is that not all science is science. It is not all subject to the Scientific Method even allowing for the human biases and Bayesian inference.

When an hypothesis cannot be tested because the subject lies in the past for the researcher it cannot be called operational or experimental science.

One problem that arises here is that the scientists themselves cannot recognise their own biases and proceed as if they are validly testing their assumed hypothesis. Their minds are dominated by their worldview, and that could be based on there being no Creator (atheism), or that the Creator is no longer around (deism) and all universal parameters evolve from their initial conditions.

In cases where an historical parameter is sought, the science should be called forensic or historical science because no direct evidence of the sought-after parameter is available. As a result proxies are used. But the proxies also cannot be directly tested for what they are assumed to mean.

For example, when trying to determine historical Earth temperatures tree rings or Oxygen isotope ratios are used as proxies. They need calibration but even the calibrations cannot be unequivocal since no one has a time machine. No past measurement is possible. All are inferred from some measurement done in the present.

Francis Bacon kept separate his “Two Books”. To keep them separate is a flawed approach, which other Christian apologists have also used. It is very similar to what Hugh Ross (of Reason to Believe ministry) teaches. He speaks of the 66 books of the bible but then there is the 67th book of nature. Ross claims God revealed that to him before he was even a believer in Christ.

It is a compromise because it does not allow the Creator to work. It assumes that in terms of a literal history in the Genesis account there is error and the language must be reinterpreted to fit in with modern science.

In Ross’ case he believes in the big bang origin of the universe, and so he squeezes the big bang timeline into the 6 x 24-hour days of Genesis creation. Ross accepts the multi-billion-year ages of the Earth and its rock strata, fitting in long periods for each day of creation. He employs a sequence of progressive creation acts that are intended to correspond to the sequence of events in the Genesis account. But one problem with that is the order. They are out of sequence. As well, his progressive “creation” events are, for all intents and purposes, infinitesimally close to Darwinian evolution of species (which he denies).

Why is it so difficult for even the men of faith to completely accept the Christian worldview in all its details. Thankfully there have been many who have done so. But even among the believers there have been many who compromised on the scriptures in favour of secular interpretations of the physical sciences. They could not fully integrate into their worldview one big picture for the handiwork of God.

Footnote:

1. Some have accused Newton of Arianism, but this is rejected by Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian?, Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997. See here.
2. A very detailed defense of Newton’s Trinitarianism is Van Alan Herd, The theology of Sir Isaac Newton, gradworks.umi.com, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 2008. This documents much evidence, including Newton’s words refuting tritheism and affirming Trinitarian monotheism:

That to say there is but one God, ye father of all things, excludes not the son & Holy ghost from the Godhead becaus they are virtually conteined & implied in the father. … To apply ye name of God to ye Son or holy ghost as distinct persons from the father makes them not divers Gods from ye Father. … Soe there is divinity in ye father, divinity in ye Son, & divinity in ye holy ghost, & yet they are not thre forces but one force.

Related Reading

• Why Don’t Scientists Believe in God?
• The Lawgiver is the Biblical Creator God
• True Science and Science Falsely So-Called
• The Laws of Physics Point to the Creator
• How Much Can You Trust in Science?
• Evolution is Not Operational Science
• Why Believe in God in an Age of Science?
• The Bible is Still Relevant in This Age of Science!
• Religion in Science
• The Problem with Science is that So Much of it Simply Isn’t
• The Big Bang is Not a Reason to Believe!
• The Immortal Soul | Neuroscience vs. Materialism
• Can Artificial General Intelligence Have a Soul?
• Young Earth Creation vs. Modern Cosmology
• Operational and Historical Science: What Are they?

Free Subscribers

Subscribe to our Newsletters as a Free Subscriber and be notified by email. Just put your email address in the box at the bottom of your screen.

You’ll get an email each time we publish a new

Premium Subscribers

Subscribe to our Newsletters as a Premium Subscribers at $5 USD/month or $30 USD/year (you choose). Cancel anytime.

Paid Premium Subscribers will get exclusive access to certain content I publish. That will only cost you a cup of coffee per month.

Also you’ll be able to download, for free, a PDF of my book Apocalypse Now and also a PDF of my book The Physics of Creation The Creator’s Ultimate Design for Earth.

You can download them from the link below.

This is how you can support my work. I have been publishing this website for 10 years now and up to 2024 I never asked for any support.

Press the button “Premium” on the front page to find a list of Premium content. Thanks so much to all supporters.

At a minimum, please join as a Free Subscriber. It’ll cost you nothing. It may also help me beat the shadow banning of some posts.

Comments Welcome Below

Rate this:

Exploring the Foundations of the Scientific Revolution

Several notable and important people led to the modern Scientific Revolution. It grew from their faith rooted in a Christian worldview. These philosophers and scientists founded their beliefs on a rational knowable Creator believing He would leave this universe imbued with rational laws that do not change. As a result using a sound investigative method those laws might be discovered.

The initial start to the development of modern science was heavily influenced by two philosophers who taught and developed the methodology of scientific empiricism: Roger Bacon in the 13th century and Francis Bacon in the 16th/17th century.

Roger Bacon (c. 1219/20–1292), known as Doctor Mirabilis, was a medieval English Franciscan friar, philosopher, and polymath who is considered one of the earliest European advocates of the scientific method and empiricism.

His philosophical contributions include:

• Empirical Science: Bacon emphasized direct observation and controlled experiment as essential correctives to authority and tradition, influencing the addition of optics to the medieval university curriculum. 
• Major Works: In 1267, he submitted the Opus Majus to Pope Clement IV, a comprehensive encyclopedia covering grammar, logic, mathematics, optics, and moral philosophy. 
• Scientific Innovations: He was the first European to record the formula for gunpowder and made significant studies in geometrical optics, vision, and refraction, anticipating developments in lenses and spectacles. 
• Imprisonment: Between 1277 and 1279, Bacon was likely imprisoned or placed under house arrest by his Franciscan superiors due to his interest in astrology, alchemy, and “suspected novelties,” though modern scholars debate the historical accuracy of this event. 
• Legacy: While deeply rooted in medieval scholasticism and theology, his insistence on experimental science (scientia experimentalis) positions him as a precursor to modern scientific inquiry. 

However the next Bacon has had the greatest influence on the fundamentals of modern science.

Francis Bacon (1561–1626) was an English philosopher and statesman widely regarded as the father of empiricism and a foundational figure in the development of the scientific method.  He argued that knowledge should be derived from inductive reasoning and careful observation of nature, rejecting the deductive Aristotelian logic that dominated his era.

His philosophical contributions include:

• The Baconian Method: A systematic approach to science emphasizing experimentation, data collection, and the elimination of biases (known as the “Idols”).
• Key Works: He authored Novum Organum (1620), which outlined his new logical framework, and The Advancement of Learning (1605), advocating for the practical application of science to benefit humanity. 
• Philosophy of Science: Bacon believed that “knowledge is power,” asserting that scientific inquiry should not only seek truth but also produce tangible improvements in human life. 
• Legacy: His ideas heavily influenced the founders of the Royal Society and helped usher in the Scientific Revolution, shifting natural philosophy toward empirical and experimental practices. 

Francis Bacon was a devout Anglican Christian who sought to reconcile his faith with the emerging scientific method.  He believed that studying nature through empirical observation was a way to understand God’s creation and that scientific progress served a spiritual duty to alleviate human suffering. 

While Bacon argued for keeping theology and natural philosophy in separate spheres to prevent religious dogma from hindering scientific inquiry, he remained critical of atheism.

Bacon famously stated that “a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion,” viewing the increase of knowledge as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

However he was not a biblical creationist in the modern sense. He believed that mixing theological dogma with natural philosophy (science) corrupted both, famously criticizing those who tried to build systems of physics based on Genesis or Job.

Bacon articulated the metaphor of “Two Books” written by God:

• The Book of God’s Word (Scripture): Reveals God’s will, moral laws, and the path to salvation. Bacon considered this essential for spiritual truth and believed it should be studied deeply. 
• The Book of God’s Works (Nature): Reveals God’s power and omnipotence. He argued that studying nature was a religious duty that helped humanity understand the Creator’s greatness. 

He urged scholars to pursue “endless progress” in both books but warned strictly against “unwisely mingling or confounding” them.

Of course, I totally disagree his “unwisely mingling” view. There are “Two Books” representing one creation, One Creator. The two books are interwoven by the very nature of the creation. It is all one system created by God and any philosophy that ignores this fact is ultimately doomed to failure.

However he rightfully is credited with what is nowadays called the Scientific Method: hypothesis, experiment and data collection that may disprove the initial hypothesis. No experimental results can ever prove the hypothesis. If you want proofs, try mathematics, which is a closed artificial universe.

I have no doubt that this method gave a big start to the Scientific Revolution, which really started with Francis Bacon in the early 1600s. However in all my own experience in university research labs what was actually used were Bayesian Methods.

Bayesian Methods are statistical techniques that use Bayes’ theorem to update the probability of a hypothesis as more evidence or data becomes available. 

Instead of treating unknown yet-to-be-determined parameters as fixed, Bayesian analysis interprets probability as a degree of belief, allowing for the incorporation of prior knowledge or subjective beliefs alongside observed data. Bayes’ theorem uses a conditional probability to update the prior knowledge.

That means that Bayesian methods build on prior knowledge. And that also means prior biases, which is often seen when a parameter is measured over time. The prior measured value is considered with more weight than it should be and so new values are chosen that fall closest to the prior. What results is a progressive creep in the value towards the final accepted value, the true value. This can be seen in the historical measured values for the round-trip speed of light, c.

Also in the measurements of the electron charge (e).

The bias is not due to the error bounds not overlapping the final correct result but due to weight placed on the priors. So a results that favour a prior is accepted before newer values which may be more accurate. This bias is a feature of a worldview.

Thomas Bayes (c. 1701–1761) was a Presbyterian minister and a member of the English Nonconformist (Dissenter) religious tradition. While his father was a traditional Presbyterian, scholars describe Bayes’ personal theological beliefs as Unitarian or Arian, indicating he strayed from standard Christian orthodoxy. (That is the same accusation leveled against Isaac Newton, so perhaps there is some doubt there.)

Bayes mathematical work, specifically Bayes’ theorem, was originally developed to provide a probabilistic defense of Christianity against the skeptical arguments of philosopher David Hume, who had questioned the validity of miracles.

Bayes published two works during his lifetime: a theological tract titled Divine Benevolence (1731) and a mathematical defense of Isaac Newton’s calculus (1736).

Barring a miraculous revelation from God, in a dream or vision, most experimental development comes from a long list of prior researchers, scientists who slowly advanced the field — one building on the work of another. This is what the oft quoted expression means.

“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

The expression is most famously attributed to Isaac Newton, who used it in a 1675 letter to his rival Robert Hooke. However, the metaphor actually originated in the 12th century with the French philosopher Bernard of Chartres, who described humans as “dwarfs on the shoulders of giants.”

Isaac Newton (1643–1727) was an English polymath and a central figure in the Scientific Revolution, renowned for his foundational contributions to physics, mathematics, and optics.

Newton attended Trinity College, Cambridge, ostensibly preparing to become an Anglican minister, but spent his time developing his groundbreaking theories. The years 1665–1666 was a period of intense personal productivity known as his annus mirabilis. 

He was a deeply religious Christian whose theological writings vastly outnumbered his scientific works. Newton believed in God the Father as the sole creator and Jesus Christ as His divine Son, but some have claimed he denied their co-equality, rejecting the Trinitarian doctrine.1,2 Don’t be misled by such claims. He was an alchemist too, but he wasn’t a witch. Alchemy at that time was the start of modern chemistry and metallurgy.

He viewed his scientific discoveries as a means to understand God’s design in nature, believing that the laws of physics revealed the order of a rational Creator. Newton spent decades studying biblical prophecy (particularly Daniel and Revelation) and church history, seeking to restore the “pure” faith of the early apostolic era.

His major works include Principia Mathematica (1687), which established the laws of motion and universal gravitation, and Opticks (1704), which detailed his experiments on light and color, including the invention of the reflecting telescope (1668). 

Isaac Newton adapted and popularized the concept to acknowledge that his scientific discoveries built upon the work of predecessors like René Descartes. And this situation has been the norm since Isaac Newton.

René Descartes (1596–1650) was a French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist widely regarded as the father of modern Western philosophy and a key figure in the Scientific Revolution. 

He is most famous for the epistemological foundationalist dictum “I think, therefore I am” (Cogito, ergo sum) and for developing Cartesian dualism, the theory that the mind and body are distinct substances.

René Descartes was a Roman Catholic who actively sought to align his philosophy with Christian doctrine.  He worked diligently to provide rational proofs for the existence of God, aiming to reconcile the new science with Christian beliefs and avoid conflict with ecclesiastical authorities. 

He insisted that truths of faith were superior to human reason and separated theological doctrines (like the Trinity) from his rational metaphysics. 

In works like the Meditations, he offered arguments for God’s existence (such as the trademark and ontological arguments) to establish God as the guarantor of truth and the creator of the universe. 

His distinction between mind (immaterial soul) and body (material matter) was intended to support the immortality of the soul, a core tenet of Christian theology. 

Despite his personal devotion, critics accused him of atheism because his mechanistic view of the physical world seemed to exclude God from daily natural processes, leading to the prohibition of his books by the Catholic Church in 1663. 

Ultimately, Descartes is viewed as a figure who tried to rationalize religion without abandoning it, positioning human reason as a path to understanding God rather than a replacement for faith. 

That is quite different to the humanist arguments of atheistic human reason without any foundation in God.

What we now need to understand is that not all science is science. It is not all subject to the Scientific Method even allowing for the human biases and Bayesian inference.

When an hypothesis cannot be tested because the subject lies in the past for the researcher it cannot be called operational or experimental science.

One problem that arises here is that the scientists themselves cannot recognise their own biases and proceed as if they are validly testing their assumed hypothesis. Their minds are dominated by their worldview, and that could be based on there being no Creator (atheism), or that the Creator is no longer around (deism) and all universal parameters evolve from their initial conditions.

In cases where an historical parameter is sought, the science should be called forensic or historical science because no direct evidence of the sought-after parameter is available. As a result proxies are used. But the proxies also cannot be directly tested for what they are assumed to mean.

For example, when trying to determine historical Earth temperatures tree rings or Oxygen isotope ratios are used as proxies. They need calibration but even the calibrations cannot be unequivocal since no one has a time machine. No past measurement is possible. All are inferred from some measurement done in the present.

Francis Bacon kept separate his “Two Books”. To keep them separate is a flawed approach, which other Christian apologists have also used. It is very similar to what Hugh Ross (of Reason to Believe ministry) teaches. He speaks of the 66 books of the bible but then there is the 67th book of nature. Ross claims God revealed that to him before he was even a believer in Christ.

It is a compromise because it does not allow the Creator to work. It assumes that in terms of a literal history in the Genesis account there is error and the language must be reinterpreted to fit in with modern science.

In Ross’ case he believes in the big bang origin of the universe, and so he squeezes the big bang timeline into the 6 x 24-hour days of Genesis creation. Ross accepts the multi-billion-year ages of the Earth and its rock strata, fitting in long periods for each day of creation. He employs a sequence of progressive creation acts that are intended to correspond to the sequence of events in the Genesis account. But one problem with that is the order. They are out of sequence. As well, his progressive “creation” events are, for all intents and purposes, infinitesimally close to Darwinian evolution of species (which he denies).

Why is it so difficult for even the men of faith to completely accept the Christian worldview in all its details. Thankfully there have been many who have done so. But even among the believers there have been many who compromised on the scriptures in favour of secular interpretations of the physical sciences. They could not fully integrate into their worldview one big picture for the handiwork of God.

Footnote:

1. Some have accused Newton of Arianism, but this is rejected by Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian?, Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997. See here.
2. A very detailed defense of Newton’s Trinitarianism is Van Alan Herd, The theology of Sir Isaac Newton, gradworks.umi.com, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 2008. This documents much evidence, including Newton’s words refuting tritheism and affirming Trinitarian monotheism:

That to say there is but one God, ye father of all things, excludes not the son & Holy ghost from the Godhead becaus they are virtually conteined & implied in the father. … To apply ye name of God to ye Son or holy ghost as distinct persons from the father makes them not divers Gods from ye Father. … Soe there is divinity in ye father, divinity in ye Son, & divinity in ye holy ghost, & yet they are not thre forces but one force.

Related Reading

• Why Don’t Scientists Believe in God?
• The Lawgiver is the Biblical Creator God
• True Science and Science Falsely So-Called
• The Laws of Physics Point to the Creator
• How Much Can You Trust in Science?
• Evolution is Not Operational Science
• Why Believe in God in an Age of Science?
• The Bible is Still Relevant in This Age of Science!
• Religion in Science
• The Problem with Science is that So Much of it Simply Isn’t
• The Big Bang is Not a Reason to Believe!
• The Immortal Soul | Neuroscience vs. Materialism
• Can Artificial General Intelligence Have a Soul?
• Young Earth Creation vs. Modern Cosmology
• Operational and Historical Science: What Are they?

Free Subscribers

Subscribe to our Newsletters as a Free Subscriber and be notified by email. Just put your email address in the box at the bottom of your screen.

You’ll get an email each time we publish a new

Premium Subscribers

Subscribe to our Newsletters as a Premium Subscribers at $5 USD/month or $30 USD/year (you choose). Cancel anytime.

Paid Premium Subscribers will get exclusive access to certain content I publish. That will only cost you a cup of coffee per month.

Also you’ll be able to download, for free, a PDF of my book Apocalypse Now and also a PDF of my book The Physics of Creation The Creator’s Ultimate Design for Earth.

You can download them from the link below.

This is how you can support my work. I have been publishing this website for 10 years now and up to 2024 I never asked for any support.

Press the button “Premium” on the front page to find a list of Premium content. Thanks so much to all supporters.

At a minimum, please join as a Free Subscriber. It’ll cost you nothing. It may also help me beat the shadow banning of some posts.

Comments Welcome Below

Rate this:

Exploring the Foundations of the Scientific Revolution

Several notable and important people led to the modern Scientific Revolution. It grew from their faith rooted in a Christian worldview. These philosophers and scientists founded their beliefs on a rational knowable Creator believing He would leave this universe imbued with rational laws that do not change. As a result using a sound investigative method those laws might be discovered.

The initial start to the development of modern science was heavily influenced by two philosophers who taught and developed the methodology of scientific empiricism: Roger Bacon in the 13th century and Francis Bacon in the 16th/17th century.

Roger Bacon (c. 1219/20–1292), known as Doctor Mirabilis, was a medieval English Franciscan friar, philosopher, and polymath who is considered one of the earliest European advocates of the scientific method and empiricism.

His philosophical contributions include:

• Empirical Science: Bacon emphasized direct observation and controlled experiment as essential correctives to authority and tradition, influencing the addition of optics to the medieval university curriculum. 
• Major Works: In 1267, he submitted the Opus Majus to Pope Clement IV, a comprehensive encyclopedia covering grammar, logic, mathematics, optics, and moral philosophy. 
• Scientific Innovations: He was the first European to record the formula for gunpowder and made significant studies in geometrical optics, vision, and refraction, anticipating developments in lenses and spectacles. 
• Imprisonment: Between 1277 and 1279, Bacon was likely imprisoned or placed under house arrest by his Franciscan superiors due to his interest in astrology, alchemy, and “suspected novelties,” though modern scholars debate the historical accuracy of this event. 
• Legacy: While deeply rooted in medieval scholasticism and theology, his insistence on experimental science (scientia experimentalis) positions him as a precursor to modern scientific inquiry. 

However the next Bacon has had the greatest influence on the fundamentals of modern science.

Francis Bacon (1561–1626) was an English philosopher and statesman widely regarded as the father of empiricism and a foundational figure in the development of the scientific method.  He argued that knowledge should be derived from inductive reasoning and careful observation of nature, rejecting the deductive Aristotelian logic that dominated his era.

His philosophical contributions include:

• The Baconian Method: A systematic approach to science emphasizing experimentation, data collection, and the elimination of biases (known as the “Idols”).
• Key Works: He authored Novum Organum (1620), which outlined his new logical framework, and The Advancement of Learning (1605), advocating for the practical application of science to benefit humanity. 
• Philosophy of Science: Bacon believed that “knowledge is power,” asserting that scientific inquiry should not only seek truth but also produce tangible improvements in human life. 
• Legacy: His ideas heavily influenced the founders of the Royal Society and helped usher in the Scientific Revolution, shifting natural philosophy toward empirical and experimental practices. 

Francis Bacon was a devout Anglican Christian who sought to reconcile his faith with the emerging scientific method.  He believed that studying nature through empirical observation was a way to understand God’s creation and that scientific progress served a spiritual duty to alleviate human suffering. 

While Bacon argued for keeping theology and natural philosophy in separate spheres to prevent religious dogma from hindering scientific inquiry, he remained critical of atheism.

Bacon famously stated that “a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion,” viewing the increase of knowledge as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

However he was not a biblical creationist in the modern sense. He believed that mixing theological dogma with natural philosophy (science) corrupted both, famously criticizing those who tried to build systems of physics based on Genesis or Job.

Bacon articulated the metaphor of “Two Books” written by God:

• The Book of God’s Word (Scripture): Reveals God’s will, moral laws, and the path to salvation. Bacon considered this essential for spiritual truth and believed it should be studied deeply. 
• The Book of God’s Works (Nature): Reveals God’s power and omnipotence. He argued that studying nature was a religious duty that helped humanity understand the Creator’s greatness. 

He urged scholars to pursue “endless progress” in both books but warned strictly against “unwisely mingling or confounding” them.

Of course, I totally disagree his “unwisely mingling” view. There are “Two Books” representing one creation, One Creator. The two books are interwoven by the very nature of the creation. It is all one system created by God and any philosophy that ignores this fact is ultimately doomed to failure.

However he rightfully is credited with what is nowadays called the Scientific Method: hypothesis, experiment and data collection that may disprove the initial hypothesis. No experimental results can ever prove the hypothesis. If you want proofs, try mathematics, which is a closed artificial universe.

I have no doubt that this method gave a big start to the Scientific Revolution, which really started with Francis Bacon in the early 1600s. However in all my own experience in university research labs what was actually used were Bayesian Methods.

Bayesian Methods are statistical techniques that use Bayes’ theorem to update the probability of a hypothesis as more evidence or data becomes available. 

Instead of treating unknown yet-to-be-determined parameters as fixed, Bayesian analysis interprets probability as a degree of belief, allowing for the incorporation of prior knowledge or subjective beliefs alongside observed data. Bayes’ theorem uses a conditional probability to update the prior knowledge.

That means that Bayesian methods build on prior knowledge. And that also means prior biases, which is often seen when a parameter is measured over time. The prior measured value is considered with more weight than it should be and so new values are chosen that fall closest to the prior. What results is a progressive creep in the value towards the final accepted value, the true value. This can be seen in the historical measured values for the round-trip speed of light, c.

Also in the measurements of the electron charge (e).

The bias is not due to the error bounds not overlapping the final correct result but due to weight placed on the priors. So a results that favour a prior is accepted before newer values which may be more accurate. This bias is a feature of a worldview.

Thomas Bayes (c. 1701–1761) was a Presbyterian minister and a member of the English Nonconformist (Dissenter) religious tradition. While his father was a traditional Presbyterian, scholars describe Bayes’ personal theological beliefs as Unitarian or Arian, indicating he strayed from standard Christian orthodoxy. (That is the same accusation leveled against Isaac Newton, so perhaps there is some doubt there.)

Bayes mathematical work, specifically Bayes’ theorem, was originally developed to provide a probabilistic defense of Christianity against the skeptical arguments of philosopher David Hume, who had questioned the validity of miracles.

Bayes published two works during his lifetime: a theological tract titled Divine Benevolence (1731) and a mathematical defense of Isaac Newton’s calculus (1736).

Barring a miraculous revelation from God, in a dream or vision, most experimental development comes from a long list of prior researchers, scientists who slowly advanced the field — one building on the work of another. This is what the oft quoted expression means.

“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

The expression is most famously attributed to Isaac Newton, who used it in a 1675 letter to his rival Robert Hooke. However, the metaphor actually originated in the 12th century with the French philosopher Bernard of Chartres, who described humans as “dwarfs on the shoulders of giants.”

Isaac Newton (1643–1727) was an English polymath and a central figure in the Scientific Revolution, renowned for his foundational contributions to physics, mathematics, and optics.

Newton attended Trinity College, Cambridge, ostensibly preparing to become an Anglican minister, but spent his time developing his groundbreaking theories. The years 1665–1666 was a period of intense personal productivity known as his annus mirabilis. 

He was a deeply religious Christian whose theological writings vastly outnumbered his scientific works. Newton believed in God the Father as the sole creator and Jesus Christ as His divine Son, but some have claimed he denied their co-equality, rejecting the Trinitarian doctrine.1,2 Don’t be misled by such claims. He was an alchemist too, but he wasn’t a witch. Alchemy at that time was the start of modern chemistry and metallurgy.

He viewed his scientific discoveries as a means to understand God’s design in nature, believing that the laws of physics revealed the order of a rational Creator. Newton spent decades studying biblical prophecy (particularly Daniel and Revelation) and church history, seeking to restore the “pure” faith of the early apostolic era.

His major works include Principia Mathematica (1687), which established the laws of motion and universal gravitation, and Opticks (1704), which detailed his experiments on light and color, including the invention of the reflecting telescope (1668). 

Isaac Newton adapted and popularized the concept to acknowledge that his scientific discoveries built upon the work of predecessors like René Descartes. And this situation has been the norm since Isaac Newton.

René Descartes (1596–1650) was a French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist widely regarded as the father of modern Western philosophy and a key figure in the Scientific Revolution. 

He is most famous for the epistemological foundationalist dictum “I think, therefore I am” (Cogito, ergo sum) and for developing Cartesian dualism, the theory that the mind and body are distinct substances.

René Descartes was a Roman Catholic who actively sought to align his philosophy with Christian doctrine.  He worked diligently to provide rational proofs for the existence of God, aiming to reconcile the new science with Christian beliefs and avoid conflict with ecclesiastical authorities. 

He insisted that truths of faith were superior to human reason and separated theological doctrines (like the Trinity) from his rational metaphysics. 

In works like the Meditations, he offered arguments for God’s existence (such as the trademark and ontological arguments) to establish God as the guarantor of truth and the creator of the universe. 

His distinction between mind (immaterial soul) and body (material matter) was intended to support the immortality of the soul, a core tenet of Christian theology. 

Despite his personal devotion, critics accused him of atheism because his mechanistic view of the physical world seemed to exclude God from daily natural processes, leading to the prohibition of his books by the Catholic Church in 1663. 

Ultimately, Descartes is viewed as a figure who tried to rationalize religion without abandoning it, positioning human reason as a path to understanding God rather than a replacement for faith. 

That is quite different to the humanist arguments of atheistic human reason without any foundation in God.

What we now need to understand is that not all science is science. It is not all subject to the Scientific Method even allowing for the human biases and Bayesian inference.

When an hypothesis cannot be tested because the subject lies in the past for the researcher it cannot be called operational or experimental science.

One problem that arises here is that the scientists themselves cannot recognise their own biases and proceed as if they are validly testing their assumed hypothesis. Their minds are dominated by their worldview, and that could be based on there being no Creator (atheism), or that the Creator is no longer around (deism) and all universal parameters evolve from their initial conditions.

In cases where an historical parameter is sought, the science should be called forensic or historical science because no direct evidence of the sought-after parameter is available. As a result proxies are used. But the proxies also cannot be directly tested for what they are assumed to mean.

For example, when trying to determine historical Earth temperatures tree rings or Oxygen isotope ratios are used as proxies. They need calibration but even the calibrations cannot be unequivocal since no one has a time machine. No past measurement is possible. All are inferred from some measurement done in the present.

Francis Bacon kept separate his “Two Books”. To keep them separate is a flawed approach, which other Christian apologists have also used. It is very similar to what Hugh Ross (of Reason to Believe ministry) teaches. He speaks of the 66 books of the bible but then there is the 67th book of nature. Ross claims God revealed that to him before he was even a believer in Christ.

It is a compromise because it does not allow the Creator to work. It assumes that in terms of a literal history in the Genesis account there is error and the language must be reinterpreted to fit in with modern science.

In Ross’ case he believes in the big bang origin of the universe, and so he squeezes the big bang timeline into the 6 x 24-hour days of Genesis creation. Ross accepts the multi-billion-year ages of the Earth and its rock strata, fitting in long periods for each day of creation. He employs a sequence of progressive creation acts that are intended to correspond to the sequence of events in the Genesis account. But one problem with that is the order. They are out of sequence. As well, his progressive “creation” events are, for all intents and purposes, infinitesimally close to Darwinian evolution of species (which he denies).

Why is it so difficult for even the men of faith to completely accept the Christian worldview in all its details. Thankfully there have been many who have done so. But even among the believers there have been many who compromised on the scriptures in favour of secular interpretations of the physical sciences. They could not fully integrate into their worldview one big picture for the handiwork of God.

Footnote:

1. Some have accused Newton of Arianism, but this is rejected by Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian?, Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997. See here.
2. A very detailed defense of Newton’s Trinitarianism is Van Alan Herd, The theology of Sir Isaac Newton, gradworks.umi.com, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 2008. This documents much evidence, including Newton’s words refuting tritheism and affirming Trinitarian monotheism:

That to say there is but one God, ye father of all things, excludes not the son & Holy ghost from the Godhead becaus they are virtually conteined & implied in the father. … To apply ye name of God to ye Son or holy ghost as distinct persons from the father makes them not divers Gods from ye Father. … Soe there is divinity in ye father, divinity in ye Son, & divinity in ye holy ghost, & yet they are not thre forces but one force.

Related Reading

• Why Don’t Scientists Believe in God?
• The Lawgiver is the Biblical Creator God
• True Science and Science Falsely So-Called
• The Laws of Physics Point to the Creator
• How Much Can You Trust in Science?
• Evolution is Not Operational Science
• Why Believe in God in an Age of Science?
• The Bible is Still Relevant in This Age of Science!
• Religion in Science
• The Problem with Science is that So Much of it Simply Isn’t
• The Big Bang is Not a Reason to Believe!
• The Immortal Soul | Neuroscience vs. Materialism
• Can Artificial General Intelligence Have a Soul?
• Young Earth Creation vs. Modern Cosmology
• Operational and Historical Science: What Are they?

Free Subscribers

Subscribe to our Newsletters as a Free Subscriber and be notified by email. Just put your email address in the box at the bottom of your screen.

You’ll get an email each time we publish a new

Premium Subscribers

Subscribe to our Newsletters as a Premium Subscribers at $5 USD/month or $30 USD/year (you choose). Cancel anytime.

Paid Premium Subscribers will get exclusive access to certain content I publish. That will only cost you a cup of coffee per month.

Also you’ll be able to download, for free, a PDF of my book Apocalypse Now and also a PDF of my book The Physics of Creation The Creator’s Ultimate Design for Earth.

You can download them from the link below.

This is how you can support my work. I have been publishing this website for 10 years now and up to 2024 I never asked for any support.

Press the button “Premium” on the front page to find a list of Premium content. Thanks so much to all supporters.

At a minimum, please join as a Free Subscriber. It’ll cost you nothing. It may also help me beat the shadow banning of some posts.

Comments Welcome Below

Rate this:

Exploring the Foundations of the Scientific Revolution

Several notable and important people led to the modern Scientific Revolution. It grew from their faith rooted in a Christian worldview. These philosophers and scientists founded their beliefs on a rational knowable Creator believing He would leave this universe imbued with rational laws that do not change. As a result using a sound investigative method those laws might be discovered.

The initial start to the development of modern science was heavily influenced by two philosophers who taught and developed the methodology of scientific empiricism: Roger Bacon in the 13th century and Francis Bacon in the 16th/17th century.

Roger Bacon (c. 1219/20–1292), known as Doctor Mirabilis, was a medieval English Franciscan friar, philosopher, and polymath who is considered one of the earliest European advocates of the scientific method and empiricism.

His philosophical contributions include:

• Empirical Science: Bacon emphasized direct observation and controlled experiment as essential correctives to authority and tradition, influencing the addition of optics to the medieval university curriculum. 
• Major Works: In 1267, he submitted the Opus Majus to Pope Clement IV, a comprehensive encyclopedia covering grammar, logic, mathematics, optics, and moral philosophy. 
• Scientific Innovations: He was the first European to record the formula for gunpowder and made significant studies in geometrical optics, vision, and refraction, anticipating developments in lenses and spectacles. 
• Imprisonment: Between 1277 and 1279, Bacon was likely imprisoned or placed under house arrest by his Franciscan superiors due to his interest in astrology, alchemy, and “suspected novelties,” though modern scholars debate the historical accuracy of this event. 
• Legacy: While deeply rooted in medieval scholasticism and theology, his insistence on experimental science (scientia experimentalis) positions him as a precursor to modern scientific inquiry. 

However the next Bacon has had the greatest influence on the fundamentals of modern science.

Francis Bacon (1561–1626) was an English philosopher and statesman widely regarded as the father of empiricism and a foundational figure in the development of the scientific method.  He argued that knowledge should be derived from inductive reasoning and careful observation of nature, rejecting the deductive Aristotelian logic that dominated his era.

His philosophical contributions include:

• The Baconian Method: A systematic approach to science emphasizing experimentation, data collection, and the elimination of biases (known as the “Idols”).
• Key Works: He authored Novum Organum (1620), which outlined his new logical framework, and The Advancement of Learning (1605), advocating for the practical application of science to benefit humanity. 
• Philosophy of Science: Bacon believed that “knowledge is power,” asserting that scientific inquiry should not only seek truth but also produce tangible improvements in human life. 
• Legacy: His ideas heavily influenced the founders of the Royal Society and helped usher in the Scientific Revolution, shifting natural philosophy toward empirical and experimental practices. 

Francis Bacon was a devout Anglican Christian who sought to reconcile his faith with the emerging scientific method.  He believed that studying nature through empirical observation was a way to understand God’s creation and that scientific progress served a spiritual duty to alleviate human suffering. 

While Bacon argued for keeping theology and natural philosophy in separate spheres to prevent religious dogma from hindering scientific inquiry, he remained critical of atheism.

Bacon famously stated that “a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion,” viewing the increase of knowledge as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

However he was not a biblical creationist in the modern sense. He believed that mixing theological dogma with natural philosophy (science) corrupted both, famously criticizing those who tried to build systems of physics based on Genesis or Job.

Bacon articulated the metaphor of “Two Books” written by God:

• The Book of God’s Word (Scripture): Reveals God’s will, moral laws, and the path to salvation. Bacon considered this essential for spiritual truth and believed it should be studied deeply. 
• The Book of God’s Works (Nature): Reveals God’s power and omnipotence. He argued that studying nature was a religious duty that helped humanity understand the Creator’s greatness. 

He urged scholars to pursue “endless progress” in both books but warned strictly against “unwisely mingling or confounding” them.

Of course, I totally disagree his “unwisely mingling” view. There are “Two Books” representing one creation, One Creator. The two books are interwoven by the very nature of the creation. It is all one system created by God and any philosophy that ignores this fact is ultimately doomed to failure.

However he rightfully is credited with what is nowadays called the Scientific Method: hypothesis, experiment and data collection that may disprove the initial hypothesis. No experimental results can ever prove the hypothesis. If you want proofs, try mathematics, which is a closed artificial universe.

I have no doubt that this method gave a big start to the Scientific Revolution, which really started with Francis Bacon in the early 1600s. However in all my own experience in university research labs what was actually used were Bayesian Methods.

Bayesian Methods are statistical techniques that use Bayes’ theorem to update the probability of a hypothesis as more evidence or data becomes available. 

Instead of treating unknown yet-to-be-determined parameters as fixed, Bayesian analysis interprets probability as a degree of belief, allowing for the incorporation of prior knowledge or subjective beliefs alongside observed data. Bayes’ theorem uses a conditional probability to update the prior knowledge.

That means that Bayesian methods build on prior knowledge. And that also means prior biases, which is often seen when a parameter is measured over time. The prior measured value is considered with more weight than it should be and so new values are chosen that fall closest to the prior. What results is a progressive creep in the value towards the final accepted value, the true value. This can be seen in the historical measured values for the round-trip speed of light, c.

Also in the measurements of the electron charge (e).

The bias is not due to the error bounds not overlapping the final correct result but due to weight placed on the priors. So a results that favour a prior is accepted before newer values which may be more accurate. This bias is a feature of a worldview.

Thomas Bayes (c. 1701–1761) was a Presbyterian minister and a member of the English Nonconformist (Dissenter) religious tradition. While his father was a traditional Presbyterian, scholars describe Bayes’ personal theological beliefs as Unitarian or Arian, indicating he strayed from standard Christian orthodoxy. (That is the same accusation leveled against Isaac Newton, so perhaps there is some doubt there.)

Bayes mathematical work, specifically Bayes’ theorem, was originally developed to provide a probabilistic defense of Christianity against the skeptical arguments of philosopher David Hume, who had questioned the validity of miracles.

Bayes published two works during his lifetime: a theological tract titled Divine Benevolence (1731) and a mathematical defense of Isaac Newton’s calculus (1736).

Barring a miraculous revelation from God, in a dream or vision, most experimental development comes from a long list of prior researchers, scientists who slowly advanced the field — one building on the work of another. This is what the oft quoted expression means.

“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

The expression is most famously attributed to Isaac Newton, who used it in a 1675 letter to his rival Robert Hooke. However, the metaphor actually originated in the 12th century with the French philosopher Bernard of Chartres, who described humans as “dwarfs on the shoulders of giants.”

Isaac Newton (1643–1727) was an English polymath and a central figure in the Scientific Revolution, renowned for his foundational contributions to physics, mathematics, and optics.

Newton attended Trinity College, Cambridge, ostensibly preparing to become an Anglican minister, but spent his time developing his groundbreaking theories. The years 1665–1666 was a period of intense personal productivity known as his annus mirabilis. 

He was a deeply religious Christian whose theological writings vastly outnumbered his scientific works. Newton believed in God the Father as the sole creator and Jesus Christ as His divine Son, but some have claimed he denied their co-equality, rejecting the Trinitarian doctrine.1,2 Don’t be misled by such claims. He was an alchemist too, but he wasn’t a witch. Alchemy at that time was the start of modern chemistry and metallurgy.

He viewed his scientific discoveries as a means to understand God’s design in nature, believing that the laws of physics revealed the order of a rational Creator. Newton spent decades studying biblical prophecy (particularly Daniel and Revelation) and church history, seeking to restore the “pure” faith of the early apostolic era.

His major works include Principia Mathematica (1687), which established the laws of motion and universal gravitation, and Opticks (1704), which detailed his experiments on light and color, including the invention of the reflecting telescope (1668). 

Isaac Newton adapted and popularized the concept to acknowledge that his scientific discoveries built upon the work of predecessors like René Descartes. And this situation has been the norm since Isaac Newton.

René Descartes (1596–1650) was a French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist widely regarded as the father of modern Western philosophy and a key figure in the Scientific Revolution. 

He is most famous for the epistemological foundationalist dictum “I think, therefore I am” (Cogito, ergo sum) and for developing Cartesian dualism, the theory that the mind and body are distinct substances.

René Descartes was a Roman Catholic who actively sought to align his philosophy with Christian doctrine.  He worked diligently to provide rational proofs for the existence of God, aiming to reconcile the new science with Christian beliefs and avoid conflict with ecclesiastical authorities. 

He insisted that truths of faith were superior to human reason and separated theological doctrines (like the Trinity) from his rational metaphysics. 

In works like the Meditations, he offered arguments for God’s existence (such as the trademark and ontological arguments) to establish God as the guarantor of truth and the creator of the universe. 

His distinction between mind (immaterial soul) and body (material matter) was intended to support the immortality of the soul, a core tenet of Christian theology. 

Despite his personal devotion, critics accused him of atheism because his mechanistic view of the physical world seemed to exclude God from daily natural processes, leading to the prohibition of his books by the Catholic Church in 1663. 

Ultimately, Descartes is viewed as a figure who tried to rationalize religion without abandoning it, positioning human reason as a path to understanding God rather than a replacement for faith. 

That is quite different to the humanist arguments of atheistic human reason without any foundation in God.

What we now need to understand is that not all science is science. It is not all subject to the Scientific Method even allowing for the human biases and Bayesian inference.

When an hypothesis cannot be tested because the subject lies in the past for the researcher it cannot be called operational or experimental science.

One problem that arises here is that the scientists themselves cannot recognise their own biases and proceed as if they are validly testing their assumed hypothesis. Their minds are dominated by their worldview, and that could be based on there being no Creator (atheism), or that the Creator is no longer around (deism) and all universal parameters evolve from their initial conditions.

In cases where an historical parameter is sought, the science should be called forensic or historical science because no direct evidence of the sought-after parameter is available. As a result proxies are used. But the proxies also cannot be directly tested for what they are assumed to mean.

For example, when trying to determine historical Earth temperatures tree rings or Oxygen isotope ratios are used as proxies. They need calibration but even the calibrations cannot be unequivocal since no one has a time machine. No past measurement is possible. All are inferred from some measurement done in the present.

Francis Bacon kept separate his “Two Books”. To keep them separate is a flawed approach, which other Christian apologists have also used. It is very similar to what Hugh Ross (of Reason to Believe ministry) teaches. He speaks of the 66 books of the bible but then there is the 67th book of nature. Ross claims God revealed that to him before he was even a believer in Christ.

It is a compromise because it does not allow the Creator to work. It assumes that in terms of a literal history in the Genesis account there is error and the language must be reinterpreted to fit in with modern science.

In Ross’ case he believes in the big bang origin of the universe, and so he squeezes the big bang timeline into the 6 x 24-hour days of Genesis creation. Ross accepts the multi-billion-year ages of the Earth and its rock strata, fitting in long periods for each day of creation. He employs a sequence of progressive creation acts that are intended to correspond to the sequence of events in the Genesis account. But one problem with that is the order. They are out of sequence. As well, his progressive “creation” events are, for all intents and purposes, infinitesimally close to Darwinian evolution of species (which he denies).

Why is it so difficult for even the men of faith to completely accept the Christian worldview in all its details. Thankfully there have been many who have done so. But even among the believers there have been many who compromised on the scriptures in favour of secular interpretations of the physical sciences. They could not fully integrate into their worldview one big picture for the handiwork of God.

Footnote:

1. Some have accused Newton of Arianism, but this is rejected by Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian?, Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997. See here.
2. A very detailed defense of Newton’s Trinitarianism is Van Alan Herd, The theology of Sir Isaac Newton, gradworks.umi.com, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 2008. This documents much evidence, including Newton’s words refuting tritheism and affirming Trinitarian monotheism:

That to say there is but one God, ye father of all things, excludes not the son & Holy ghost from the Godhead becaus they are virtually conteined & implied in the father. … To apply ye name of God to ye Son or holy ghost as distinct persons from the father makes them not divers Gods from ye Father. … Soe there is divinity in ye father, divinity in ye Son, & divinity in ye holy ghost, & yet they are not thre forces but one force.

Related Reading

• Why Don’t Scientists Believe in God?
• The Lawgiver is the Biblical Creator God
• True Science and Science Falsely So-Called
• The Laws of Physics Point to the Creator
• How Much Can You Trust in Science?
• Evolution is Not Operational Science
• Why Believe in God in an Age of Science?
• The Bible is Still Relevant in This Age of Science!
• Religion in Science
• The Problem with Science is that So Much of it Simply Isn’t
• The Big Bang is Not a Reason to Believe!
• The Immortal Soul | Neuroscience vs. Materialism
• Can Artificial General Intelligence Have a Soul?
• Young Earth Creation vs. Modern Cosmology
• Operational and Historical Science: What Are they?

Free Subscribers

Subscribe to our Newsletters as a Free Subscriber and be notified by email. Just put your email address in the box at the bottom of your screen.

You’ll get an email each time we publish a new

Premium Subscribers

Subscribe to our Newsletters as a Premium Subscribers at $5 USD/month or $30 USD/year (you choose). Cancel anytime.

Paid Premium Subscribers will get exclusive access to certain content I publish. That will only cost you a cup of coffee per month.

Also you’ll be able to download, for free, a PDF of my book Apocalypse Now and also a PDF of my book The Physics of Creation The Creator’s Ultimate Design for Earth.

You can download them from the link below.

This is how you can support my work. I have been publishing this website for 10 years now and up to 2024 I never asked for any support.

Press the button “Premium” on the front page to find a list of Premium content. Thanks so much to all supporters.

At a minimum, please join as a Free Subscriber. It’ll cost you nothing. It may also help me beat the shadow banning of some posts.

Comments Welcome Below

Rate this:

Exploring the Foundations of the Scientific Revolution

Several notable and important people led to the modern Scientific Revolution. It grew from their faith rooted in a Christian worldview. These philosophers and scientists founded their beliefs on a rational knowable Creator believing He would leave this universe imbued with rational laws that do not change. As a result using a sound investigative method those laws might be discovered.

The initial start to the development of modern science was heavily influenced by two philosophers who taught and developed the methodology of scientific empiricism: Roger Bacon in the 13th century and Francis Bacon in the 16th/17th century.

Roger Bacon (c. 1219/20–1292), known as Doctor Mirabilis, was a medieval English Franciscan friar, philosopher, and polymath who is considered one of the earliest European advocates of the scientific method and empiricism.

His philosophical contributions include:

• Empirical Science: Bacon emphasized direct observation and controlled experiment as essential correctives to authority and tradition, influencing the addition of optics to the medieval university curriculum. 
• Major Works: In 1267, he submitted the Opus Majus to Pope Clement IV, a comprehensive encyclopedia covering grammar, logic, mathematics, optics, and moral philosophy. 
• Scientific Innovations: He was the first European to record the formula for gunpowder and made significant studies in geometrical optics, vision, and refraction, anticipating developments in lenses and spectacles. 
• Imprisonment: Between 1277 and 1279, Bacon was likely imprisoned or placed under house arrest by his Franciscan superiors due to his interest in astrology, alchemy, and “suspected novelties,” though modern scholars debate the historical accuracy of this event. 
• Legacy: While deeply rooted in medieval scholasticism and theology, his insistence on experimental science (scientia experimentalis) positions him as a precursor to modern scientific inquiry. 

However the next Bacon has had the greatest influence on the fundamentals of modern science.

Francis Bacon (1561–1626) was an English philosopher and statesman widely regarded as the father of empiricism and a foundational figure in the development of the scientific method.  He argued that knowledge should be derived from inductive reasoning and careful observation of nature, rejecting the deductive Aristotelian logic that dominated his era.

His philosophical contributions include:

• The Baconian Method: A systematic approach to science emphasizing experimentation, data collection, and the elimination of biases (known as the “Idols”).
• Key Works: He authored Novum Organum (1620), which outlined his new logical framework, and The Advancement of Learning (1605), advocating for the practical application of science to benefit humanity. 
• Philosophy of Science: Bacon believed that “knowledge is power,” asserting that scientific inquiry should not only seek truth but also produce tangible improvements in human life. 
• Legacy: His ideas heavily influenced the founders of the Royal Society and helped usher in the Scientific Revolution, shifting natural philosophy toward empirical and experimental practices. 

Francis Bacon was a devout Anglican Christian who sought to reconcile his faith with the emerging scientific method.  He believed that studying nature through empirical observation was a way to understand God’s creation and that scientific progress served a spiritual duty to alleviate human suffering. 

While Bacon argued for keeping theology and natural philosophy in separate spheres to prevent religious dogma from hindering scientific inquiry, he remained critical of atheism.

Bacon famously stated that “a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion,” viewing the increase of knowledge as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

However he was not a biblical creationist in the modern sense. He believed that mixing theological dogma with natural philosophy (science) corrupted both, famously criticizing those who tried to build systems of physics based on Genesis or Job.

Bacon articulated the metaphor of “Two Books” written by God:

• The Book of God’s Word (Scripture): Reveals God’s will, moral laws, and the path to salvation. Bacon considered this essential for spiritual truth and believed it should be studied deeply. 
• The Book of God’s Works (Nature): Reveals God’s power and omnipotence. He argued that studying nature was a religious duty that helped humanity understand the Creator’s greatness. 

He urged scholars to pursue “endless progress” in both books but warned strictly against “unwisely mingling or confounding” them.

Of course, I totally disagree his “unwisely mingling” view. There are “Two Books” representing one creation, One Creator. The two books are interwoven by the very nature of the creation. It is all one system created by God and any philosophy that ignores this fact is ultimately doomed to failure.

However he rightfully is credited with what is nowadays called the Scientific Method: hypothesis, experiment and data collection that may disprove the initial hypothesis. No experimental results can ever prove the hypothesis. If you want proofs, try mathematics, which is a closed artificial universe.

I have no doubt that this method gave a big start to the Scientific Revolution, which really started with Francis Bacon in the early 1600s. However in all my own experience in university research labs what was actually used were Bayesian Methods.

Bayesian Methods are statistical techniques that use Bayes’ theorem to update the probability of a hypothesis as more evidence or data becomes available. 

Instead of treating unknown yet-to-be-determined parameters as fixed, Bayesian analysis interprets probability as a degree of belief, allowing for the incorporation of prior knowledge or subjective beliefs alongside observed data. Bayes’ theorem uses a conditional probability to update the prior knowledge.

That means that Bayesian methods build on prior knowledge. And that also means prior biases, which is often seen when a parameter is measured over time. The prior measured value is considered with more weight than it should be and so new values are chosen that fall closest to the prior. What results is a progressive creep in the value towards the final accepted value, the true value. This can be seen in the historical measured values for the round-trip speed of light, c.

Also in the measurements of the electron charge (e).

The bias is not due to the error bounds not overlapping the final correct result but due to weight placed on the priors. So a results that favour a prior is accepted before newer values which may be more accurate. This bias is a feature of a worldview.

Thomas Bayes (c. 1701–1761) was a Presbyterian minister and a member of the English Nonconformist (Dissenter) religious tradition. While his father was a traditional Presbyterian, scholars describe Bayes’ personal theological beliefs as Unitarian or Arian, indicating he strayed from standard Christian orthodoxy. (That is the same accusation leveled against Isaac Newton, so perhaps there is some doubt there.)

Bayes mathematical work, specifically Bayes’ theorem, was originally developed to provide a probabilistic defense of Christianity against the skeptical arguments of philosopher David Hume, who had questioned the validity of miracles.

Bayes published two works during his lifetime: a theological tract titled Divine Benevolence (1731) and a mathematical defense of Isaac Newton’s calculus (1736).

Barring a miraculous revelation from God, in a dream or vision, most experimental development comes from a long list of prior researchers, scientists who slowly advanced the field — one building on the work of another. This is what the oft quoted expression means.

“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

The expression is most famously attributed to Isaac Newton, who used it in a 1675 letter to his rival Robert Hooke. However, the metaphor actually originated in the 12th century with the French philosopher Bernard of Chartres, who described humans as “dwarfs on the shoulders of giants.”

Isaac Newton (1643–1727) was an English polymath and a central figure in the Scientific Revolution, renowned for his foundational contributions to physics, mathematics, and optics.

Newton attended Trinity College, Cambridge, ostensibly preparing to become an Anglican minister, but spent his time developing his groundbreaking theories. The years 1665–1666 was a period of intense personal productivity known as his annus mirabilis. 

He was a deeply religious Christian whose theological writings vastly outnumbered his scientific works. Newton believed in God the Father as the sole creator and Jesus Christ as His divine Son, but some have claimed he denied their co-equality, rejecting the Trinitarian doctrine.1,2 Don’t be misled by such claims. He was an alchemist too, but he wasn’t a witch. Alchemy at that time was the start of modern chemistry and metallurgy.

He viewed his scientific discoveries as a means to understand God’s design in nature, believing that the laws of physics revealed the order of a rational Creator. Newton spent decades studying biblical prophecy (particularly Daniel and Revelation) and church history, seeking to restore the “pure” faith of the early apostolic era.

His major works include Principia Mathematica (1687), which established the laws of motion and universal gravitation, and Opticks (1704), which detailed his experiments on light and color, including the invention of the reflecting telescope (1668). 

Isaac Newton adapted and popularized the concept to acknowledge that his scientific discoveries built upon the work of predecessors like René Descartes. And this situation has been the norm since Isaac Newton.

René Descartes (1596–1650) was a French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist widely regarded as the father of modern Western philosophy and a key figure in the Scientific Revolution. 

He is most famous for the epistemological foundationalist dictum “I think, therefore I am” (Cogito, ergo sum) and for developing Cartesian dualism, the theory that the mind and body are distinct substances.

René Descartes was a Roman Catholic who actively sought to align his philosophy with Christian doctrine.  He worked diligently to provide rational proofs for the existence of God, aiming to reconcile the new science with Christian beliefs and avoid conflict with ecclesiastical authorities. 

He insisted that truths of faith were superior to human reason and separated theological doctrines (like the Trinity) from his rational metaphysics. 

In works like the Meditations, he offered arguments for God’s existence (such as the trademark and ontological arguments) to establish God as the guarantor of truth and the creator of the universe. 

His distinction between mind (immaterial soul) and body (material matter) was intended to support the immortality of the soul, a core tenet of Christian theology. 

Despite his personal devotion, critics accused him of atheism because his mechanistic view of the physical world seemed to exclude God from daily natural processes, leading to the prohibition of his books by the Catholic Church in 1663. 

Ultimately, Descartes is viewed as a figure who tried to rationalize religion without abandoning it, positioning human reason as a path to understanding God rather than a replacement for faith. 

That is quite different to the humanist arguments of atheistic human reason without any foundation in God.

What we now need to understand is that not all science is science. It is not all subject to the Scientific Method even allowing for the human biases and Bayesian inference.

When an hypothesis cannot be tested because the subject lies in the past for the researcher it cannot be called operational or experimental science.

One problem that arises here is that the scientists themselves cannot recognise their own biases and proceed as if they are validly testing their assumed hypothesis. Their minds are dominated by their worldview, and that could be based on there being no Creator (atheism), or that the Creator is no longer around (deism) and all universal parameters evolve from their initial conditions.

In cases where an historical parameter is sought, the science should be called forensic or historical science because no direct evidence of the sought-after parameter is available. As a result proxies are used. But the proxies also cannot be directly tested for what they are assumed to mean.

For example, when trying to determine historical Earth temperatures tree rings or Oxygen isotope ratios are used as proxies. They need calibration but even the calibrations cannot be unequivocal since no one has a time machine. No past measurement is possible. All are inferred from some measurement done in the present.

Francis Bacon kept separate his “Two Books”. To keep them separate is a flawed approach, which other Christian apologists have also used. It is very similar to what Hugh Ross (of Reason to Believe ministry) teaches. He speaks of the 66 books of the bible but then there is the 67th book of nature. Ross claims God revealed that to him before he was even a believer in Christ.

It is a compromise because it does not allow the Creator to work. It assumes that in terms of a literal history in the Genesis account there is error and the language must be reinterpreted to fit in with modern science.

In Ross’ case he believes in the big bang origin of the universe, and so he squeezes the big bang timeline into the 6 x 24-hour days of Genesis creation. Ross accepts the multi-billion-year ages of the Earth and its rock strata, fitting in long periods for each day of creation. He employs a sequence of progressive creation acts that are intended to correspond to the sequence of events in the Genesis account. But one problem with that is the order. They are out of sequence. As well, his progressive “creation” events are, for all intents and purposes, infinitesimally close to Darwinian evolution of species (which he denies).

Why is it so difficult for even the men of faith to completely accept the Christian worldview in all its details. Thankfully there have been many who have done so. But even among the believers there have been many who compromised on the scriptures in favour of secular interpretations of the physical sciences. They could not fully integrate into their worldview one big picture for the handiwork of God.

Footnote:

1. Some have accused Newton of Arianism, but this is rejected by Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian?, Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997. See here.
2. A very detailed defense of Newton’s Trinitarianism is Van Alan Herd, The theology of Sir Isaac Newton, gradworks.umi.com, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 2008. This documents much evidence, including Newton’s words refuting tritheism and affirming Trinitarian monotheism:

That to say there is but one God, ye father of all things, excludes not the son & Holy ghost from the Godhead becaus they are virtually conteined & implied in the father. … To apply ye name of God to ye Son or holy ghost as distinct persons from the father makes them not divers Gods from ye Father. … Soe there is divinity in ye father, divinity in ye Son, & divinity in ye holy ghost, & yet they are not thre forces but one force.

Related Reading

• Why Don’t Scientists Believe in God?
• The Lawgiver is the Biblical Creator God
• True Science and Science Falsely So-Called
• The Laws of Physics Point to the Creator
• How Much Can You Trust in Science?
• Evolution is Not Operational Science
• Why Believe in God in an Age of Science?
• The Bible is Still Relevant in This Age of Science!
• Religion in Science
• The Problem with Science is that So Much of it Simply Isn’t
• The Big Bang is Not a Reason to Believe!
• The Immortal Soul | Neuroscience vs. Materialism
• Can Artificial General Intelligence Have a Soul?
• Young Earth Creation vs. Modern Cosmology
• Operational and Historical Science: What Are they?

Free Subscribers

Subscribe to our Newsletters as a Free Subscriber and be notified by email. Just put your email address in the box at the bottom of your screen.

You’ll get an email each time we publish a new

Premium Subscribers

Subscribe to our Newsletters as a Premium Subscribers at $5 USD/month or $30 USD/year (you choose). Cancel anytime.

Paid Premium Subscribers will get exclusive access to certain content I publish. That will only cost you a cup of coffee per month.

Also you’ll be able to download, for free, a PDF of my book Apocalypse Now and also a PDF of my book The Physics of Creation The Creator’s Ultimate Design for Earth.

You can download them from the link below.

This is how you can support my work. I have been publishing this website for 10 years now and up to 2024 I never asked for any support.

Press the button “Premium” on the front page to find a list of Premium content. Thanks so much to all supporters.

At a minimum, please join as a Free Subscriber. It’ll cost you nothing. It may also help me beat the shadow banning of some posts.

Comments Welcome Below

Rate this:

Statue de Descartes, Tours, c.1910 - Papeghin CPA AP210

https://www.ebid.net/uk/for-sale/statue-de-descartes-tours-c-1910-papeghin-cpa-ap210-224112968.htm

#Tours #RenéDescartes

Statue de Descartes, Tours, c.1910 - Papeghin CPA AP210

https://www.ebid.net/uk/for-sale/statue-de-descartes-tours-c-1910-papeghin-cpa-ap210-224112968.htm

#Tours #RenéDescartes

Statue de Descartes, Tours, c.1910 - Papeghin CPA AP210

https://www.ebid.net/uk/for-sale/statue-de-descartes-tours-c-1910-papeghin-cpa-ap210-224112968.htm

#Tours #RenéDescartes

Statue de Descartes, Tours, c.1910 - Papeghin CPA AP210

https://www.ebid.net/uk/for-sale/statue-de-descartes-tours-c-1910-papeghin-cpa-ap210-224112968.htm

#Tours #RenéDescartes

Statue de Descartes, Tours, c.1910 - Papeghin CPA AP210

https://www.ebid.net/uk/for-sale/statue-de-descartes-tours-c-1910-papeghin-cpa-ap210-224112968.htm

#Tours #RenéDescartes

Sobre Deus, Descartes e o gênio maligno

https://outraspalavras.net/crise-civilizatoria/sobre-deus-descartes-e-o-genio-maligno/

"The reading of all good books is like a conversation with the finest minds of past centuries."

~ René Descartes, born today, 1596.

#RenéDescartes #Quote #Today

"The reading of all good books is like a conversation with the finest minds of past centuries."

~ René Descartes, born today, 1596.

#RenéDescartes #Quote #Today

"The reading of all good books is like a conversation with the finest minds of past centuries."

~ René Descartes, born today, 1596.

#RenéDescartes #Quote #Today

"The reading of all good books is like a conversation with the finest minds of past centuries."

~ René Descartes, born today, 1596.

#RenéDescartes #Quote #Today

"The reading of all good books is like a conversation with the finest minds of past centuries."

~ René Descartes, born today, 1596.

#RenéDescartes #Quote #Today

Bleh

https://piefed.zip/c/TheShitpostOffice/p/1224019/bleh

Tal dia com avui, però del 1650, va morir en René Descartes "Renatus Cartesius" (físic, militar, filòsof, polímata, escriptor, astrònom, musicòleg, matemàtic, epistològraf, automatista i teòric musical)

“Es governa millor dictant poques lleis i fent-les complir rigorosament”❗❗❗
“La multitud de lleis proporciona sovint excuses als vicis”❗❗❗
René Descartes

#Descartes
#RenéDescartes
#RenatusCartesius
#dubtopertantexisteixo
#pensopertantexisteixo

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
-- Rene Descartes

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #ReneDescartes #Doubt #Truth

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #ChacoCanyon #Petroglyphs #NewMexico

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
-- Rene Descartes

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #ReneDescartes #Doubt #Truth

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #ChacoCanyon #Petroglyphs #NewMexico

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
-- Rene Descartes

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #ReneDescartes #Doubt #Truth

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #ChacoCanyon #Petroglyphs #NewMexico

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
-- Rene Descartes

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #ReneDescartes #Doubt #Truth

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #ChacoCanyon #Petroglyphs #NewMexico

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
-- Rene Descartes

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #ReneDescartes #Doubt #Truth

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #ChacoCanyon #Petroglyphs #NewMexico

Ich bin ein bisschen stolz, dass ich #ChatGTP dazu "erzogen" habe, dieses #Descartes Zitat so passend zu verballhornen.

In diesem Sinne: Ich denke, also aua.

#CogitoErgoSum #renedescartes

Ich bin ein bisschen stolz, dass ich #ChatGTP dazu "erzogen" habe, dieses #Descartes Zitat so passend zu verballhornen.

In diesem Sinne: Ich denke, also aua.

#CogitoErgoSum #renedescartes

Ich bin ein bisschen stolz, dass ich #ChatGTP dazu "erzogen" habe, dieses #Descartes Zitat so passend zu verballhornen.

In diesem Sinne: Ich denke, also aua.

#CogitoErgoSum #renedescartes

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
-- Rene Descartes

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #ReneDescartes #Doubt #Truth

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #Canyon #SlickRock #IcebergCanyon #LakePowell #Utah

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
-- Rene Descartes

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #ReneDescartes #Doubt #Truth

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #Canyon #SlickRock #IcebergCanyon #LakePowell #Utah

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
-- Rene Descartes

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #ReneDescartes #Doubt #Truth

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #Canyon #SlickRock #IcebergCanyon #LakePowell #Utah

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
-- Rene Descartes

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #ReneDescartes #Doubt #Truth

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #Canyon #SlickRock #IcebergCanyon #LakePowell #Utah

If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
-- Rene Descartes

⬆ #Wisdom #Quotes #ReneDescartes #Doubt #Truth

⬇ #Photography #Panorama #Canyon #SlickRock #IcebergCanyon #LakePowell #Utah

🔴 🎙️ **Well Hidden: Descartes’ Life and Works**

“_How René Descartes’ understanding of his own intellectual project evolved across his lifetime._”

🔗 https://www.historyofphilosophy.net/descartes-life-works.

#Audio #Podcast #History #Philosophy #ReneDescartes #Descartes @philosophy

#Image attribution: Rijksmuseum, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons. Page URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portret_van_Ren%C3%A9_Descartes,_RP-P-OB-55.341.jpg.

🔴 🎙️ **Well Hidden: Descartes’ Life and Works**

“_How René Descartes’ understanding of his own intellectual project evolved across his lifetime._”

🔗 https://www.historyofphilosophy.net/descartes-life-works.

#Audio #Podcast #History #Philosophy #ReneDescartes #Descartes @philosophy

#Image attribution: Rijksmuseum, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons. Page URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portret_van_Ren%C3%A9_Descartes,_RP-P-OB-55.341.jpg.

🔴 🎙️ **Well Hidden: Descartes’ Life and Works**

“_How René Descartes’ understanding of his own intellectual project evolved across his lifetime._”

🔗 https://www.historyofphilosophy.net/descartes-life-works.

#Audio #Podcast #History #Philosophy #ReneDescartes #Descartes @philosophy

#Image attribution: Rijksmuseum, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons. Page URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portret_van_Ren%C3%A9_Descartes,_RP-P-OB-55.341.jpg.

🔴 🎙️ **Well Hidden: Descartes’ Life and Works**

“_How René Descartes’ understanding of his own intellectual project evolved across his lifetime._”

🔗 https://www.historyofphilosophy.net/descartes-life-works.

#Audio #Podcast #History #Philosophy #ReneDescartes #Descartes @philosophy

#Image attribution: Rijksmuseum, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons. Page URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Portret_van_Ren%C3%A9_Descartes,_RP-P-OB-55.341.jpg.

🟡 I Think, Therefore I Am, René Descartes, 1596–1650⁣
⁣
#Awareness, #CogitoErgoSum, #Existence, #Philosophy, #Quotations, #Quotes, #RenéDescartes, #Science⁣
⁣
Vintage ◦ Classic ◦ Historical | Art ◦ Design ◦ Inspiration | Restored ◦ Enhanced ◦ Remixed⁣
⁣
Prints, T-Shirts, Stickers, & More by @rocketshipretro via RedBubble → https://bigplanetprints.com/go/AEWccj

🟡 I Think, Therefore I Am, René Descartes, 1596–1650⁣
⁣
#Awareness, #CogitoErgoSum, #Existence, #Philosophy, #Quotations, #Quotes, #RenéDescartes, #Science⁣
⁣
Vintage ◦ Classic ◦ Historical | Art ◦ Design ◦ Inspiration | Restored ◦ Enhanced ◦ Remixed⁣
⁣
Prints, T-Shirts, Stickers, & More by @rocketshipretro via RedBubble → https://bigplanetprints.com/go/AEWccj

🟡 I Think, Therefore I Am, René Descartes, 1596–1650⁣
⁣
#Awareness, #CogitoErgoSum, #Existence, #Philosophy, #Quotations, #Quotes, #RenéDescartes, #Science⁣
⁣
Vintage ◦ Classic ◦ Historical | Art ◦ Design ◦ Inspiration | Restored ◦ Enhanced ◦ Remixed⁣
⁣
Prints, T-Shirts, Stickers, & More by @rocketshipretro via RedBubble → https://bigplanetprints.com/go/AEWccj

🟡 I Think, Therefore I Am, René Descartes, 1596–1650⁣
⁣
#Awareness, #CogitoErgoSum, #Existence, #Philosophy, #Quotations, #Quotes, #RenéDescartes, #Science⁣
⁣
Vintage ◦ Classic ◦ Historical | Art ◦ Design ◦ Inspiration | Restored ◦ Enhanced ◦ Remixed⁣
⁣
Prints, T-Shirts, Stickers, & More by @rocketshipretro via RedBubble → https://bigplanetprints.com/go/AEWccj

Rondom Dao, de filosofie van Otto Duintjer als wegwijzer naar Laozi en Zhuangzi

De bron van het leven ontspringt volgens Duintjer, zoals we weten, aan de onuitputtelijke ruimte van pure mogelijkheid. Uit deze dimensie, het Rondom, stamt alle ware creativiteit, alle kaders en regelsystemen, en vandaar ook alle mogelijke zijnswijzen. De rationeel-empirische zijnswijze is slechts één van deze mogelijke zijnswijzen, en dat geldt ook voor de andere wijzen van zijn en ervaren die we hiervoor hebben besproken.

Dit inzicht, dat onze huidige zijnswijze slechts één van alle mogelijke manieren van zijn is, en dat je die zijnswijze kunt veranderen, zowel op individueel als collectief niveau, is wat we te leren hebben, niet alleen cognitief, met alleen maar met ons hele wezen, lichaam en geest. Dat is de reden dat Duintjer zoveel nadruk legt op het opnieuw leren leven vanuit het lichaam, de zintuigen en het gevoel: die geven namelijk toegang tot een zijnswijze waarin je kunt deelnemen aan het leven vanuit de Bron, waarin alle leven verbonden is.

Het rationeel-empirische bewustzijn dat de mensen tegenwoordig domineert komt volgens Duintjer echter, zoals we hebben gezien, voort uit levensangst. Deze angst heeft geleid tot de bouw van de huidige maatschappij, waarin de wil tot macht en hebzucht hoogtij vieren, zodanig dat de mens inmiddels op het punt staat om zichzelf en al het andere leven op aarde uit te roeien (bladzijde 259).

Daoïst in de grachtengordel

Woei-Lien Chong is sinologe en filosofe en heeft Chinese filosofie gedoceerd aan de Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden. Zij is ook goed bevriend geraakt met de Nederlandse filosoof Otto Dirk Duintjer (1932-2020) en ziet een verband tussen zijn filosofie en die van het vroege daoïsme, met name die van de bekende Chinese klassiekers uit de vierde eeuw voor het begin van onze jaartelling: de Daodejing en de Zhuangzi. Om dit aan te tonen heeft ze drie boeken geschreven, getiteld: “Filosofie met de vlinderslag”, “Leren laveren” en “Rondom Dao”. De eerste twee heb ik al eerder mogen bespreken in het Boeddhistisch Dagblad, het laatste ligt nu voor me.

Chong heeft het in haar beide eerste boeken voornamelijk gehad over de praktijk en de filosofie van het daoïsme. Ze heeft daarbij wel vaak verwezen naar de filosofie van Duintjer, maar is daar nooit erg diep op in gegaan. Dit heeft ze bewaard voor dit laatste deel van de trilogie. Het boek bestaat uit twaalf hoofdstukken. Na een inleiding waarin de overeenkomsten tussen Duintjer en de dao nog eens worden uitgelegd, geeft Chong een uitgebreide biografie van deze bijzondere Nederlandse filosoof. Vervolgens bespreekt ze zijn filosofie, vooral zoals deze is verwoord in Duintjer’s boek uit 1988: “Hints voor een diagnose”.

Een uittredingservaring

Duintjer werd geboren in 1932, in een gereformeerd bankiersgezin. Aanvankelijk wilde hij dominee worden en begon aan een studie theologie. Gaandeweg verloor hij zijn vertrouwen in het geloof, hij voelde zich meer aangetrokken tot het existentialisme. Hij schakelde over naar een studie filosofie in Groningen, nadat hij zijn studie theologie in Amsterdam had afgerond. In 1966 promoveerde hij op een proefschrift over Kant en Heidegger.

Duintjer’s carrière nam echter een onvoorziene wending. In 1969 ervoer hij plotseling dat hij uit zijn lichaam trad en dat de werkelijkheid zich op een bevreemdende manier zich aan hem voordeed. Hij voelde zich opeens deel van een omvattende en onbekende werkelijkheid die hij “het rondom” ging noemen. Vanaf dit moment heeft hij steeds geprobeerd om deze ervaringen, die zich vaker begonnen voor te doen, filosofisch te verwoorden.

Om greep te krijgen op zijn situatie begon hij te experimenteren met meditatie en tàijí bracht tussen 1980 en 1984 zelfs zeven keer een bezoek aan een zekere Babaji in India. (Deze naam betekent letterlijk: Eerbiedwaardige Vader. Er zijn verschillende Indiase goeroes die met deze titel worden aangeduid. Hier gaat het om Haidakhan Babaji, een heilige die opdook in 1970 in een grot aan de voet van de berg Kumaon Kailash bij het dorpje Haidakhan aan de Ganges, in Noord-India. Volgens zijn volgers was hij een onsterfelijke goddelijke manifestatie, maar hij overleed in 1984 aan een hartaanval.) Duintjer zag Babaji in die tijd als zijn goeroe. Hij werd ook wel eens gezien in het gevolg van een andere Indiase organisatie: de Brahmakumari’s (Dochters van Brahma) die overigens nu nog op bescheiden wijze actief zijn. Chong beschouwt deze avonturen echter als een onderdeel van Duintjer’s daoïsme. Door uit zijn drukke hoofd te komen en in zijn lichaam te landen kwam Duintjer, zonder het te weten, op een pad terecht dat parallel leek te lopen met de weg van Laozi en Zhuangzi, en die zowel ontspringt als uitmondt in dezelfde onuitputtelijke Bron (bladzijde 15).

Zoektocht

De ervaring van het rondom leidde echter aanvankelijk tot een wilde zoektocht langs allerhande New Age-bewegingen, die toen veel aanhangers trokken. Het begon voor Duintjer in de theosofische invloedssfeer met de oefeningen van Hetty Draayer, maar leidde uiteindelijk tot wilde oefeningen als rebirthing. Hij volgde in die tijd ook lessen in yoga en tàijí, die hij tijdens zijn colleges aanprees. Hij was natuurlijk een trouw bezoeker van het toen zeer populaire New Age-centrum “De Kosmos”.

Duintjer begon zich steeds meer bewust te worden van zijn biseksuele aard en dit leidde tot een scheiding in 1970, zijn dochtertje was toen 6 jaar oud. Het was hem ook duidelijk geworden dat elke spirituele ontwikkeling vanuit het lichaam moet beginnen (bladzijde 54 – 55). Dit was een reden voor zijn belangstelling voor de Oosterse filosofie. Hij meende dat de westerse filosofie het lichaam een beetje was vergeten. Als oorzaak hiervoor wordt vaak de periode van de Verlichting genoemd, met name de invloed van de filosofen René Descartes en Immanuel Kant, maar ook het christendom en Plato. Met dat laatste is Duintjer het niet eens want Plato heeft het volgens hem wel degelijk over erotiek (bladzijde 58).

Het vergeten lichaam

Er zijn volgens Duintjer twee “dimensies” van lichamelijkheid: het energetische lichaam van de levensenergie en het lichaam zoals je dat gewoonlijk ervaart. Duintjer wilde in zijn meditaties niet wegdrijven van zijn lichaam om in hogere sferen te vertoeven. Dit was trouwens een reden voor zijn kritiek op de Advaita Vedanta. Het leidde tot een discussie met de filosoof Douwe Tiemersma, die juist een enthousiast aanhanger was. Het merkwaardige is nu dat Tiemersma wel degelijk yogalessen gaf en zelfs een Nederlandse vertaling heeft gemaakt van het alom geprezen boek “Fenomenologie van de Perceptie”, van de Franse filosoof Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Dit boek is een analyse van de lichamelijke ervaring als basis voor een nieuwe filosofie. Duintjer verwijst nergens naar dit boek en ook niet naar de filosofische traditie van de fenomenologie.

Eind jaren 90 richtte Duintjer zich meer op de boeddhistische ademhalingsmeditatie (bladzijde 62). Hij bleef dus mediteren maar beoefende een bepaalde vorm maar een paar jaar, om de formele oefening vervolgens te laten schieten. Het ging er volgens hem om de truc door te krijgen en deze naar eigen inzicht te gebruiken. Hij wilde niet aan een bepaalde vorm vast blijven zitten.

De vergeten wereld

 Tijdens zijn uittredingen had Duintjer namelijk ervaren, dat er rondom de ervaringsruimte waarin we gewoonlijk leven, onze dagelijkse “wereld”, nog een oneindig grotere ruimte is waar die alledaagse wereld slechts een deel van is. En dat niet alleen: die grotere, voorafgaande ruimte brengt voortdurend ontelbare werelden voort, in een duizelingwekkende diversiteit zonder weerga, zonder dat zij daardoor vermindert of verzwakt (bladzijde 71). Chong noemt deze ruimte ook wel “de Bron” en Duintjer heeft het over “de werkelijkheid”. Spiritualiteit was voor hem het je proberen open te stellen voor deze werkelijkheid. In ons alledaagse leven zijn we echter ingekapseld in wat hij noemt “een regelsysteem”.

Hoe komt dit? De regels zijn de basis voor een bepaalde manier van doen. Deze manier van doen maakt enerzijds bepaalde handelingen mogelijk, maar sluit anderzijds andere weer uit. Dit regelgeleide gedrag heeft volgens Duintjer 10 kenmerken:

1.  het is normatief,
2. de norm is niet noodzakelijk bewust, het is een weten hoe,
3. je kunt erover nadenken,
4. het veronderstelt een gemeenschap,
5. het is aangeleerd,
6. het kan worden begrepen,
7. het is symbolisch, betekenisvol,
8. het kan worden veranderd,
9. het kan op meerdere manieren worden toegepast en
10. het beantwoordt aan een gewettigd verwachtingspatroon (bladzijde 98-102).

De regels bepalen voor ons wat wel en niet aanvaardbaar is, want ze zijn op onze verwachtingen gebaseerd. Als we ons van onze beperktheid willen bevrijden moeten we dus onze verwachtingen opgeven. Wat dan overblijft, is een natuurlijke instelling, een levenshouding die niet is aangeleerd, maar die we hebben onderdrukt (bladzijde 103). Waarom onderdrukken we onze natuurlijke levenshouding dan? Volgens Duintjer komt dit door een existentiële angst waar we zo aan zijn gewend dat we deze niet eens meer merken. Regels geven ons een gevoel van veiligheid, omdat ze ons vertellen wat we kunnen verwachten. Duintjer moedigt ons echter aan om deze angst te overwinnen door onszelf een grondeloos vertrouwen in de werkelijkheid aan te leren (bladzijde 112).

De verlossingsweg van Duintjer bestaat dus uit het terugwinnen van het oorspronkelijke zelf door het men en het ego te overwinnen . Dit noemt hij individuatie. Dit kan uitmonden in universalisatie, als de scheiding tussen zelf en ander wegvalt. Als het tweede plaatsvindt zonder het eerste is er echter een terugval in een terreur van het men. Dus enerzijds is het innerlijke kind ons goddelijke zelf, dat landt in de regelpatronen en daarin tot zelfontplooiing komt, maar anderzijds geldt het daarin nog niet als een competente actor. (Bladzijde 130) Zolang je het kind in je laat leven, kun je ook binnen dat ene regelsysteem je blijven ontwikkelen en ontplooien (bladzijde 133). Duintjer noemt dit een stap achteruit doen, waarbij je zowel oog krijgt voor het regelsysteem als voor de Bron (bladzijde 145). Het bestaande regelsysteem krijgt dan de gedaante van een van de vele mogelijkheden waaruit je kunt kiezen. Het is zelfs zo dat de regelruimte zich samentrekt tot een punt dat zich bevindt in een transcendentale (grondende) ruimte waarin oneindig vele andere punten bestaan als mogelijke symboolruimten. Elke manifestatie verschijnt vanuit een bepaald perspectief, een bepaalde manifestatiewijze. Deze vormt een toegang tot de werkelijkheid die andere ingangen afsluit. Er zijn echter situaties waarin een perspectief openbreekt en er zich andere mogelijkheden voordoen, je kunt je er zelfs voor openstellen. Daartoe moet je alle gerichtheid of vooringenomenheid laten varen en alles nemen zoals het komt (bladzijde 151).

Evaluatie

Chong geeft een nauwkeurige en uitgebreide samenvatting van Duintjer’s boeken en ze heeft bovendien vele gesprekken gevoerd met de filosoof, waar ze regelmatig naar verwijst. Samen met de korte biografie vormt het boek een indrukwekkende ode aan het leven en werk van Duintjer.

Ik heb hem zelf ook een aantal malen ontmoet en ik herinner me de zoektocht die vele mensen maakten in de 60-er jaren langs allerhande meditatiemethodes en goeroes. Bij het lezen van zijn boek “Hints voor een diagnose” schrok ik echter. Het theosofisch taalgebruik, de astrale velden en het energielichaam, waar hij het zonder enige voorbehoud over had, zijn instemming met allerhande bewegingen, zoals Gestalttherapie en Bhagavan, maakten op mij een nogal naïeve indruk. Ik had zelf op verschillende manieren ervaren dat in de wereld van de “spiritualiteit” waarheid en illusie naadloos in elkaar overgaan. Theosofen die eindeloos discussieerden over astrale werelden en voorhistorische beschavingen, nepgoeroes, gezondheidsdiëten waar je alleen maar ziek van werd, het waren allemaal actieve deelnemers aan deze chaotische wereld. In tegenstelling tot Duintjer voelde ik de noodzaak en de nieuwsgierigheid om deze wereld van waarheid en illusie uitgebreid te bestuderen.

Duintjer heeft gelijk als hij stelt dat de rationeel-empirische benadering gebrekkig is, maar het gaat te ver om deze te willen afschaffen. Het is immers wel handig om te controleren of de trein waar je in wilt stappen ook daadwerkelijk naar je bestemming gaat. De wetenschap kan ons niet zeggen wat oude teksten over meditatie precies betekenen, maar ze kan wel aantonen hoe oud ze zijn. Filologisch onderzoek heeft ons veel geleerd over het boeddhisme en het daoïsme. Dit neemt niet weg dat Duintjer, mede door het enthousiasme waarmee hij zich in zijn spirituele avontuur heeft gestort, ons nog steeds veel te zeggen heeft. Hij was er trouwens aan het einde van zijn leven vrij relativerend over.

Chong heeft een mooi boek geschreven, het is goed leesbaar, heeft een goed notenapparaat, een trefwoordenregister en een uitgebreide boekenlijst. Het enige nadeel is dat zij de neiging heeft om af te dwalen, niet bang is om zichzelf te herhalen en bovendien bij elke gelegenheid probeert aan te tonen hoe daoïstisch Duintjer wel was.

Ik ben het niet eens met haar argument dat het beoefenen van tàijí en qìgōng erg belangrijk was voor het vroege daoïsme. Er bestonden in de tijd van Zhuangzi wel ademhalingsoefeningen die door sjamanen werden gepraktiseerd, men noemde dit dăoyĭn, en misschien bestonden er al lichaamsoefeningen voor de gezondheid, xíngqì. Tàijí is echter veel later ontstaan. Er is een betwijfelde legende dat de monnik Zhang Sanfeng in de 12e eeuw deze heeft uitgevonden, maar de meeste geleerden houden het op de tweede helft van de 16e eeuw of zelfs de tweede helft van de 19e eeuw. Aan de andere kant besteed Chong weinig aandacht aan de daoïstische meditatie, zùowàng, die wel op enkele plaatsen in de Zhuangzi wordt genoemd.

Ze heeft echter ongetwijfeld gelijk als ze stelt dat de vorige generatie sinologen teveel van uit het hoofd dacht en het lichaam en het dagelijkse leven heeft verwaarloosd. Dit is echter ook in China het geval geweest. Bovendien waren sinologen vaak slechte filosofen. Dit is nu aan het veranderen en de boeken van Chong zijn daar een voorbeeld van.

Dit is een automatisch geplaatst bericht via ActivityPub.

#RondomDao_ #advaitaVedanta #bankiersgezin #deFilosofieVanOttoDuintjerAlsWegwijzerNaarLaoziEnZhuangzi #DeKosmos #DouweTiemersma #EerbiedwaardigeVader #HaidakhanBabaji #hetRondom #HetVergetenLichaam #HettyDraayer #ImmanuelKant #KantEnHeidegger #MauriceMerleauPonty #OttoDirkDuintjer #RénéDescartes #uittrede #WoeiLienChong
#RondomDao_ #advaitaVedanta #bankiersgezin #deFilosofieVanOttoDuintjerAlsWegwijzerNaarLaoziEnZhuangzi #DeKosmos #DouweTiemersma #EerbiedwaardigeVader #HaidakhanBabaji #hetRondom #HetVergetenLichaam #HettyDraayer #ImmanuelKant #KantEnHeidegger #MauriceMerleauPonty #OttoDirkDuintjer #RénéDescartes #uittrede #WoeiLienChong

Rondom Dao, de filosofie van Otto Duintjer als wegwijzer naar Laozi en Zhuangzi

De bron van het leven ontspringt volgens Duintjer, zoals we weten, aan de onuitputtelijke ruimte van pure mogelijkheid. Uit deze dimensie, het Rondom, stamt alle ware creativiteit, alle kaders en regelsystemen, en vandaar ook alle mogelijke zijnswijzen. De rationeel-empirische zijnswijze is slechts één van deze mogelijke zijnswijzen, en dat geldt ook voor de andere wijzen van zijn en ervaren die we hiervoor hebben besproken.

Dit inzicht, dat onze huidige zijnswijze slechts één van alle mogelijke manieren van zijn is, en dat je die zijnswijze kunt veranderen, zowel op individueel als collectief niveau, is wat we te leren hebben, niet alleen cognitief, met alleen maar met ons hele wezen, lichaam en geest. Dat is de reden dat Duintjer zoveel nadruk legt op het opnieuw leren leven vanuit het lichaam, de zintuigen en het gevoel: die geven namelijk toegang tot een zijnswijze waarin je kunt deelnemen aan het leven vanuit de Bron, waarin alle leven verbonden is.

Het rationeel-empirische bewustzijn dat de mensen tegenwoordig domineert komt volgens Duintjer echter, zoals we hebben gezien, voort uit levensangst. Deze angst heeft geleid tot de bouw van de huidige maatschappij, waarin de wil tot macht en hebzucht hoogtij vieren, zodanig dat de mens inmiddels op het punt staat om zichzelf en al het andere leven op aarde uit te roeien (bladzijde 259).

Daoïst in de grachtengordel

Woei-Lien Chong is sinologe en filosofe en heeft Chinese filosofie gedoceerd aan de Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden. Zij is ook goed bevriend geraakt met de Nederlandse filosoof Otto Dirk Duintjer (1932-2020) en ziet een verband tussen zijn filosofie en die van het vroege daoïsme, met name die van de bekende Chinese klassiekers uit de vierde eeuw voor het begin van onze jaartelling: de Daodejing en de Zhuangzi. Om dit aan te tonen heeft ze drie boeken geschreven, getiteld: “Filosofie met de vlinderslag”, “Leren laveren” en “Rondom Dao”. De eerste twee heb ik al eerder mogen bespreken in het Boeddhistisch Dagblad, het laatste ligt nu voor me.

Chong heeft het in haar beide eerste boeken voornamelijk gehad over de praktijk en de filosofie van het daoïsme. Ze heeft daarbij wel vaak verwezen naar de filosofie van Duintjer, maar is daar nooit erg diep op in gegaan. Dit heeft ze bewaard voor dit laatste deel van de trilogie. Het boek bestaat uit twaalf hoofdstukken. Na een inleiding waarin de overeenkomsten tussen Duintjer en de dao nog eens worden uitgelegd, geeft Chong een uitgebreide biografie van deze bijzondere Nederlandse filosoof. Vervolgens bespreekt ze zijn filosofie, vooral zoals deze is verwoord in Duintjer’s boek uit 1988: “Hints voor een diagnose”.

Een uittredingservaring

Duintjer werd geboren in 1932, in een gereformeerd bankiersgezin. Aanvankelijk wilde hij dominee worden en begon aan een studie theologie. Gaandeweg verloor hij zijn vertrouwen in het geloof, hij voelde zich meer aangetrokken tot het existentialisme. Hij schakelde over naar een studie filosofie in Groningen, nadat hij zijn studie theologie in Amsterdam had afgerond. In 1966 promoveerde hij op een proefschrift over Kant en Heidegger.

Duintjer’s carrière nam echter een onvoorziene wending. In 1969 ervoer hij plotseling dat hij uit zijn lichaam trad en dat de werkelijkheid zich op een bevreemdende manier zich aan hem voordeed. Hij voelde zich opeens deel van een omvattende en onbekende werkelijkheid die hij “het rondom” ging noemen. Vanaf dit moment heeft hij steeds geprobeerd om deze ervaringen, die zich vaker begonnen voor te doen, filosofisch te verwoorden.

Om greep te krijgen op zijn situatie begon hij te experimenteren met meditatie en tàijí bracht tussen 1980 en 1984 zelfs zeven keer een bezoek aan een zekere Babaji in India. (Deze naam betekent letterlijk: Eerbiedwaardige Vader. Er zijn verschillende Indiase goeroes die met deze titel worden aangeduid. Hier gaat het om Haidakhan Babaji, een heilige die opdook in 1970 in een grot aan de voet van de berg Kumaon Kailash bij het dorpje Haidakhan aan de Ganges, in Noord-India. Volgens zijn volgers was hij een onsterfelijke goddelijke manifestatie, maar hij overleed in 1984 aan een hartaanval.) Duintjer zag Babaji in die tijd als zijn goeroe. Hij werd ook wel eens gezien in het gevolg van een andere Indiase organisatie: de Brahmakumari’s (Dochters van Brahma) die overigens nu nog op bescheiden wijze actief zijn. Chong beschouwt deze avonturen echter als een onderdeel van Duintjer’s daoïsme. Door uit zijn drukke hoofd te komen en in zijn lichaam te landen kwam Duintjer, zonder het te weten, op een pad terecht dat parallel leek te lopen met de weg van Laozi en Zhuangzi, en die zowel ontspringt als uitmondt in dezelfde onuitputtelijke Bron (bladzijde 15).

Zoektocht

De ervaring van het rondom leidde echter aanvankelijk tot een wilde zoektocht langs allerhande New Age-bewegingen, die toen veel aanhangers trokken. Het begon voor Duintjer in de theosofische invloedssfeer met de oefeningen van Hetty Draayer, maar leidde uiteindelijk tot wilde oefeningen als rebirthing. Hij volgde in die tijd ook lessen in yoga en tàijí, die hij tijdens zijn colleges aanprees. Hij was natuurlijk een trouw bezoeker van het toen zeer populaire New Age-centrum “De Kosmos”.

Duintjer begon zich steeds meer bewust te worden van zijn biseksuele aard en dit leidde tot een scheiding in 1970, zijn dochtertje was toen 6 jaar oud. Het was hem ook duidelijk geworden dat elke spirituele ontwikkeling vanuit het lichaam moet beginnen (bladzijde 54 – 55). Dit was een reden voor zijn belangstelling voor de Oosterse filosofie. Hij meende dat de westerse filosofie het lichaam een beetje was vergeten. Als oorzaak hiervoor wordt vaak de periode van de Verlichting genoemd, met name de invloed van de filosofen René Descartes en Immanuel Kant, maar ook het christendom en Plato. Met dat laatste is Duintjer het niet eens want Plato heeft het volgens hem wel degelijk over erotiek (bladzijde 58).

Het vergeten lichaam

Er zijn volgens Duintjer twee “dimensies” van lichamelijkheid: het energetische lichaam van de levensenergie en het lichaam zoals je dat gewoonlijk ervaart. Duintjer wilde in zijn meditaties niet wegdrijven van zijn lichaam om in hogere sferen te vertoeven. Dit was trouwens een reden voor zijn kritiek op de Advaita Vedanta. Het leidde tot een discussie met de filosoof Douwe Tiemersma, die juist een enthousiast aanhanger was. Het merkwaardige is nu dat Tiemersma wel degelijk yogalessen gaf en zelfs een Nederlandse vertaling heeft gemaakt van het alom geprezen boek “Fenomenologie van de Perceptie”, van de Franse filosoof Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Dit boek is een analyse van de lichamelijke ervaring als basis voor een nieuwe filosofie. Duintjer verwijst nergens naar dit boek en ook niet naar de filosofische traditie van de fenomenologie.

Eind jaren 90 richtte Duintjer zich meer op de boeddhistische ademhalingsmeditatie (bladzijde 62). Hij bleef dus mediteren maar beoefende een bepaalde vorm maar een paar jaar, om de formele oefening vervolgens te laten schieten. Het ging er volgens hem om de truc door te krijgen en deze naar eigen inzicht te gebruiken. Hij wilde niet aan een bepaalde vorm vast blijven zitten.

De vergeten wereld

 Tijdens zijn uittredingen had Duintjer namelijk ervaren, dat er rondom de ervaringsruimte waarin we gewoonlijk leven, onze dagelijkse “wereld”, nog een oneindig grotere ruimte is waar die alledaagse wereld slechts een deel van is. En dat niet alleen: die grotere, voorafgaande ruimte brengt voortdurend ontelbare werelden voort, in een duizelingwekkende diversiteit zonder weerga, zonder dat zij daardoor vermindert of verzwakt (bladzijde 71). Chong noemt deze ruimte ook wel “de Bron” en Duintjer heeft het over “de werkelijkheid”. Spiritualiteit was voor hem het je proberen open te stellen voor deze werkelijkheid. In ons alledaagse leven zijn we echter ingekapseld in wat hij noemt “een regelsysteem”.

Hoe komt dit? De regels zijn de basis voor een bepaalde manier van doen. Deze manier van doen maakt enerzijds bepaalde handelingen mogelijk, maar sluit anderzijds andere weer uit. Dit regelgeleide gedrag heeft volgens Duintjer 10 kenmerken:

1.  het is normatief,
2. de norm is niet noodzakelijk bewust, het is een weten hoe,
3. je kunt erover nadenken,
4. het veronderstelt een gemeenschap,
5. het is aangeleerd,
6. het kan worden begrepen,
7. het is symbolisch, betekenisvol,
8. het kan worden veranderd,
9. het kan op meerdere manieren worden toegepast en
10. het beantwoordt aan een gewettigd verwachtingspatroon (bladzijde 98-102).

De regels bepalen voor ons wat wel en niet aanvaardbaar is, want ze zijn op onze verwachtingen gebaseerd. Als we ons van onze beperktheid willen bevrijden moeten we dus onze verwachtingen opgeven. Wat dan overblijft, is een natuurlijke instelling, een levenshouding die niet is aangeleerd, maar die we hebben onderdrukt (bladzijde 103). Waarom onderdrukken we onze natuurlijke levenshouding dan? Volgens Duintjer komt dit door een existentiële angst waar we zo aan zijn gewend dat we deze niet eens meer merken. Regels geven ons een gevoel van veiligheid, omdat ze ons vertellen wat we kunnen verwachten. Duintjer moedigt ons echter aan om deze angst te overwinnen door onszelf een grondeloos vertrouwen in de werkelijkheid aan te leren (bladzijde 112).

De verlossingsweg van Duintjer bestaat dus uit het terugwinnen van het oorspronkelijke zelf door het men en het ego te overwinnen . Dit noemt hij individuatie. Dit kan uitmonden in universalisatie, als de scheiding tussen zelf en ander wegvalt. Als het tweede plaatsvindt zonder het eerste is er echter een terugval in een terreur van het men. Dus enerzijds is het innerlijke kind ons goddelijke zelf, dat landt in de regelpatronen en daarin tot zelfontplooiing komt, maar anderzijds geldt het daarin nog niet als een competente actor. (Bladzijde 130) Zolang je het kind in je laat leven, kun je ook binnen dat ene regelsysteem je blijven ontwikkelen en ontplooien (bladzijde 133). Duintjer noemt dit een stap achteruit doen, waarbij je zowel oog krijgt voor het regelsysteem als voor de Bron (bladzijde 145). Het bestaande regelsysteem krijgt dan de gedaante van een van de vele mogelijkheden waaruit je kunt kiezen. Het is zelfs zo dat de regelruimte zich samentrekt tot een punt dat zich bevindt in een transcendentale (grondende) ruimte waarin oneindig vele andere punten bestaan als mogelijke symboolruimten. Elke manifestatie verschijnt vanuit een bepaald perspectief, een bepaalde manifestatiewijze. Deze vormt een toegang tot de werkelijkheid die andere ingangen afsluit. Er zijn echter situaties waarin een perspectief openbreekt en er zich andere mogelijkheden voordoen, je kunt je er zelfs voor openstellen. Daartoe moet je alle gerichtheid of vooringenomenheid laten varen en alles nemen zoals het komt (bladzijde 151).

Evaluatie

Chong geeft een nauwkeurige en uitgebreide samenvatting van Duintjer’s boeken en ze heeft bovendien vele gesprekken gevoerd met de filosoof, waar ze regelmatig naar verwijst. Samen met de korte biografie vormt het boek een indrukwekkende ode aan het leven en werk van Duintjer.

Ik heb hem zelf ook een aantal malen ontmoet en ik herinner me de zoektocht die vele mensen maakten in de 60-er jaren langs allerhande meditatiemethodes en goeroes. Bij het lezen van zijn boek “Hints voor een diagnose” schrok ik echter. Het theosofisch taalgebruik, de astrale velden en het energielichaam, waar hij het zonder enige voorbehoud over had, zijn instemming met allerhande bewegingen, zoals Gestalttherapie en Bhagavan, maakten op mij een nogal naïeve indruk. Ik had zelf op verschillende manieren ervaren dat in de wereld van de “spiritualiteit” waarheid en illusie naadloos in elkaar overgaan. Theosofen die eindeloos discussieerden over astrale werelden en voorhistorische beschavingen, nepgoeroes, gezondheidsdiëten waar je alleen maar ziek van werd, het waren allemaal actieve deelnemers aan deze chaotische wereld. In tegenstelling tot Duintjer voelde ik de noodzaak en de nieuwsgierigheid om deze wereld van waarheid en illusie uitgebreid te bestuderen.

Duintjer heeft gelijk als hij stelt dat de rationeel-empirische benadering gebrekkig is, maar het gaat te ver om deze te willen afschaffen. Het is immers wel handig om te controleren of de trein waar je in wilt stappen ook daadwerkelijk naar je bestemming gaat. De wetenschap kan ons niet zeggen wat oude teksten over meditatie precies betekenen, maar ze kan wel aantonen hoe oud ze zijn. Filologisch onderzoek heeft ons veel geleerd over het boeddhisme en het daoïsme. Dit neemt niet weg dat Duintjer, mede door het enthousiasme waarmee hij zich in zijn spirituele avontuur heeft gestort, ons nog steeds veel te zeggen heeft. Hij was er trouwens aan het einde van zijn leven vrij relativerend over.

Chong heeft een mooi boek geschreven, het is goed leesbaar, heeft een goed notenapparaat, een trefwoordenregister en een uitgebreide boekenlijst. Het enige nadeel is dat zij de neiging heeft om af te dwalen, niet bang is om zichzelf te herhalen en bovendien bij elke gelegenheid probeert aan te tonen hoe daoïstisch Duintjer wel was.

Ik ben het niet eens met haar argument dat het beoefenen van tàijí en qìgōng erg belangrijk was voor het vroege daoïsme. Er bestonden in de tijd van Zhuangzi wel ademhalingsoefeningen die door sjamanen werden gepraktiseerd, men noemde dit dăoyĭn, en misschien bestonden er al lichaamsoefeningen voor de gezondheid, xíngqì. Tàijí is echter veel later ontstaan. Er is een betwijfelde legende dat de monnik Zhang Sanfeng in de 12e eeuw deze heeft uitgevonden, maar de meeste geleerden houden het op de tweede helft van de 16e eeuw of zelfs de tweede helft van de 19e eeuw. Aan de andere kant besteed Chong weinig aandacht aan de daoïstische meditatie, zùowàng, die wel op enkele plaatsen in de Zhuangzi wordt genoemd.

Ze heeft echter ongetwijfeld gelijk als ze stelt dat de vorige generatie sinologen teveel van uit het hoofd dacht en het lichaam en het dagelijkse leven heeft verwaarloosd. Dit is echter ook in China het geval geweest. Bovendien waren sinologen vaak slechte filosofen. Dit is nu aan het veranderen en de boeken van Chong zijn daar een voorbeeld van.

Dit is een automatisch geplaatst bericht via ActivityPub.

#RondomDao_ #advaitaVedanta #bankiersgezin #deFilosofieVanOttoDuintjerAlsWegwijzerNaarLaoziEnZhuangzi #DeKosmos #DouweTiemersma #EerbiedwaardigeVader #HaidakhanBabaji #hetRondom #HetVergetenLichaam #HettyDraayer #ImmanuelKant #KantEnHeidegger #MauriceMerleauPonty #OttoDirkDuintjer #RénéDescartes #uittrede #WoeiLienChong
#RondomDao_ #advaitaVedanta #bankiersgezin #deFilosofieVanOttoDuintjerAlsWegwijzerNaarLaoziEnZhuangzi #DeKosmos #DouweTiemersma #EerbiedwaardigeVader #HaidakhanBabaji #hetRondom #HetVergetenLichaam #HettyDraayer #ImmanuelKant #KantEnHeidegger #MauriceMerleauPonty #OttoDirkDuintjer #RénéDescartes #uittrede #WoeiLienChong

Boekbespreking – Dansen met je ego

“Ik ben dus ik denk”

Bovenstaande regel zal u misschien vagelijk bekend voorkomen. Dat klopt, het is de omkering van de beroemde uitspraak van de filosoof René Descartes, waarmee hij de moderne tijd inluidde. De oorspronkelijke uitspraak, “ik denk dus ik ben”, heeft iets vanzelfsprekends, maar het heeft eigenlijk zijn geloofwaardigheid al lang verloren. Te beginnen met Schopenhauer hebben vele filosofen er al op gewezen dat de vanzelfsprekendheid waarmee we ons bestaan aanvaarden niet voortkomt uit een gedachte of een gevoel, maar uit een soort betrokkenheid op de wereld. In het boeddhisme staat deze betrokkenheid bekend onder de term “tanha” of “tṛṣṇa”, die vaak wordt vertaald als “begeerte”. Deze betrokkenheid zorgt dat we voelen dat we er zijn en dit brengt weer de noodzaak met zich mee om daarover na te denken. We leven vanuit een geloof in de wereld en hoe sterker we geloven hoe meer last we daarvan hebben. Dit is de reden dat religies ons een alternatief geloof proberen aan te smeren, waarin de zaken er voor ons wat gunstiger voorstaan.

Het ego

Voor mij ligt een klein boekje dat de titel draagt “dansen met je ego”. Dit suggereert dat je niet je ego bent en dat je met dit ego kunt dansen, net zoals je dat gewoonlijk doet met iemand anders. Wat is dit ego dan? Op Wikipedia staan er verschillende definities. Het boekje beschrijft het als “de som van alle identiteiten die aan je zijn toegevoegd sinds je geboorte”, of ook wel wat je bent en wat je hebt (bladzijde 19). Bovendien ben je niet je ego, maar heb je er een. Juist het idee dat je je ego bent levert je volgens de schrijver problemen op. Het maakt je namelijk kwetsbaar.

Wie is dan degene die dat ego heeft? Volgens de schrijver is dat het grote IK. Het grote IK neemt al die kleine ikjes die samen het ego vormen aan als de zijne. Het draagt die ikjes als maskers van zichzelf.

Het stiltepunt

Je hebt dus een groot IK en een ego, dat op zijn beurt afwisselend allerhande kleine ikjes draagt. Als je nu beseft hoe dat ego dat doet, besef je vervolgens dat je niet je ego bent, maar dat dit ego zijn eigen gang gaat. Daardoor krijg je de keus om er afstand van te nemen of er juist in mee te gaan. Dat is wat de schrijver, Sanatan de Jongh Swemer, bedoelt met zijn uitdrukking “dansen met je ego”. Als je afstand neemt, word je je eigen stiltepunt. Het grote IK, dat je van je geboorte af al bent, is van zichzelf stil en grondeloos. Omdat alles met elkaar verbonden is, is dit grote IK ook het universele leven.

Conclusie

Het is een opmerkelijk helder en toegankelijk geschreven boekje. Het is ook didactisch heel goed van opzet en heel geschikt voor het middelbaar onderwijs. Het verdient een plaats in elke schooltas naast de schoolagenda. Er is geen zweem van mystiek en er worden geen ingewikkelde oefeningen aangeraden. Alles is uiterst concreet gehouden. Het boekje is een klein juweeltje, een lichtpuntje in deze donkere tijden.

Naschrift

Natuurlijk zit er wel wat mystiek in de afzwaai naar de Advaita Vedāntaleer, want met het grote IK wordt het ātman bedoeld dat in wezen ook het braḥman is. Er zou dus eigenlijk een insteekvelletje in moeten worden gevoegd met de boodschap dat volgens het boeddhisme de gedachten zichzelf wel kunnen denken. Ze doen dit alleen maar omdat ze indruk op je willen maken en als je ze loslaat houden ze zelf op. Het grote IK is zo stil omdat het niet bestaat, net zomin als het universele leven. Beide zijn volgens het boeddhisme een illusie. Het ego is dus, zoals sommige boeddhistische teksten wel zeggen, net als een bananenboom van binnen leeg.

#AdvaitaVedāntaleer #dansenMetJeEgo #ego #ik #RénéDescartes #SanatanDeJonghSwemer

Boekbespreking – Dansen met je ego

“Ik ben dus ik denk”

Bovenstaande regel zal u misschien vagelijk bekend voorkomen. Dat klopt, het is de omkering van de beroemde uitspraak van de filosoof René Descartes, waarmee hij de moderne tijd inluidde. De oorspronkelijke uitspraak, “ik denk dus ik ben”, heeft iets vanzelfsprekends, maar het heeft eigenlijk zijn geloofwaardigheid al lang verloren. Te beginnen met Schopenhauer hebben vele filosofen er al op gewezen dat de vanzelfsprekendheid waarmee we ons bestaan aanvaarden niet voortkomt uit een gedachte of een gevoel, maar uit een soort betrokkenheid op de wereld. In het boeddhisme staat deze betrokkenheid bekend onder de term “tanha” of “tṛṣṇa”, die vaak wordt vertaald als “begeerte”. Deze betrokkenheid zorgt dat we voelen dat we er zijn en dit brengt weer de noodzaak met zich mee om daarover na te denken. We leven vanuit een geloof in de wereld en hoe sterker we geloven hoe meer last we daarvan hebben. Dit is de reden dat religies ons een alternatief geloof proberen aan te smeren, waarin de zaken er voor ons wat gunstiger voorstaan.

Het ego

Voor mij ligt een klein boekje dat de titel draagt “dansen met je ego”. Dit suggereert dat je niet je ego bent en dat je met dit ego kunt dansen, net zoals je dat gewoonlijk doet met iemand anders. Wat is dit ego dan? Op Wikipedia staan er verschillende definities. Het boekje beschrijft het als “de som van alle identiteiten die aan je zijn toegevoegd sinds je geboorte”, of ook wel wat je bent en wat je hebt (bladzijde 19). Bovendien ben je niet je ego, maar heb je er een. Juist het idee dat je je ego bent levert je volgens de schrijver problemen op. Het maakt je namelijk kwetsbaar.

Wie is dan degene die dat ego heeft? Volgens de schrijver is dat het grote IK. Het grote IK neemt al die kleine ikjes die samen het ego vormen aan als de zijne. Het draagt die ikjes als maskers van zichzelf.

Het stiltepunt

Je hebt dus een groot IK en een ego, dat op zijn beurt afwisselend allerhande kleine ikjes draagt. Als je nu beseft hoe dat ego dat doet, besef je vervolgens dat je niet je ego bent, maar dat dit ego zijn eigen gang gaat. Daardoor krijg je de keus om er afstand van te nemen of er juist in mee te gaan. Dat is wat de schrijver, Sanatan de Jongh Swemer, bedoelt met zijn uitdrukking “dansen met je ego”. Als je afstand neemt, word je je eigen stiltepunt. Het grote IK, dat je van je geboorte af al bent, is van zichzelf stil en grondeloos. Omdat alles met elkaar verbonden is, is dit grote IK ook het universele leven.

Conclusie

Het is een opmerkelijk helder en toegankelijk geschreven boekje. Het is ook didactisch heel goed van opzet en heel geschikt voor het middelbaar onderwijs. Het verdient een plaats in elke schooltas naast de schoolagenda. Er is geen zweem van mystiek en er worden geen ingewikkelde oefeningen aangeraden. Alles is uiterst concreet gehouden. Het boekje is een klein juweeltje, een lichtpuntje in deze donkere tijden.

Naschrift

Natuurlijk zit er wel wat mystiek in de afzwaai naar de Advaita Vedāntaleer, want met het grote IK wordt het ātman bedoeld dat in wezen ook het braḥman is. Er zou dus eigenlijk een insteekvelletje in moeten worden gevoegd met de boodschap dat volgens het boeddhisme de gedachten zichzelf wel kunnen denken. Ze doen dit alleen maar omdat ze indruk op je willen maken en als je ze loslaat houden ze zelf op. Het grote IK is zo stil omdat het niet bestaat, net zomin als het universele leven. Beide zijn volgens het boeddhisme een illusie. Het ego is dus, zoals sommige boeddhistische teksten wel zeggen, net als een bananenboom van binnen leeg.

#AdvaitaVedāntaleer #dansenMetJeEgo #ego #ik #RénéDescartes #SanatanDeJonghSwemer

A Brief History of Human Nature

by #ExistentialComics

➡️ https://existentialcomics.com/comic/567

#Comic #Philosophy #Plato #Aristotle #ReneDescartes #ArthurSchopenhauer #FriedrichNietzsche #JeanPaulSartre #LudwigWittgenstein #JacquesDerrida

In the cloud?

Thomas Metzinger suggests that the global neural correlate of consciousness (the minimal set of neuronal events and mechanisms sufficient for the occurrence of the mental states to which they are related (Wikipedia))

…is like an island emerging from the sea—as noted, it is a large set of neural properties underlying consciousness as a whole, underpinning your experiential model of the world in its totality at any given moment. The global NCC has many different levels of description: Dynamically, we can describe it as a coherent island, made of densely coupled relations of cause and effect, emerging from the waters of a much less coherent flow of neural activity. Or we could adopt a neurocomputational perspective and look at the global NCC as something that results from information-processing in the brain and hence functions as a carrier of information. At this point, it becomes something more abstract, which we might envision as an information cloud hovering above a neurobiological substrate. The “border” of this information cloud is functional, not physical; the cloud is physically realized by widely distributed firing neurons in your head. Just like a real cloud, which is made of tiny water droplets suspended in the air, the neuronal activation pattern underlying the totality of your conscious experience is made of millions of tiny electrical discharges and chemical transitions at the synapses. In strict terms, it has no fixed location in the brain, though it is coherent.

Thomas Metzinger, The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self

Now this is, as Metzinger would be the first to admit, highly abstract language to describe the warm, luminous immediacy that is the lived experience of phenomena. The scent of a lover’s hair, the golden light of sunset, damp air on the skin at dawn – an information cloud hovering above a neurobiological substrate? And yet how else could one experience these things?

Oddly enough, for me at least, Metzinger’s technical language comes closer to expressing what might be thought of as one’s soul than any Cartesian plug-in ghost. The beautiful world that is our necessary home is as much the gift of who we are as it is a place “out there”; we are not, and never have been, visitors. Like everything else, we are just what causality does: “the self is but one of the countless manifestations of the Tao. It is an extension of the cosmos.” (David Y F Ho (PDF))

#awareness #consciousness #DavidYFHo #philosophy #RenéDescartes #Tao #ThomasMetzinger #Wikipedia

In the cloud?

Thomas Metzinger suggests that the global neural correlate of consciousness (the minimal set of neuronal events and mechanisms sufficient for the occurrence of the mental states to which they are related (Wikipedia))

…is like an island emerging from the sea—as noted, it is a large set of neural properties underlying consciousness as a whole, underpinning your experiential model of the world in its totality at any given moment. The global NCC has many different levels of description: Dynamically, we can describe it as a coherent island, made of densely coupled relations of cause and effect, emerging from the waters of a much less coherent flow of neural activity. Or we could adopt a neurocomputational perspective and look at the global NCC as something that results from information-processing in the brain and hence functions as a carrier of information. At this point, it becomes something more abstract, which we might envision as an information cloud hovering above a neurobiological substrate. The “border” of this information cloud is functional, not physical; the cloud is physically realized by widely distributed firing neurons in your head. Just like a real cloud, which is made of tiny water droplets suspended in the air, the neuronal activation pattern underlying the totality of your conscious experience is made of millions of tiny electrical discharges and chemical transitions at the synapses. In strict terms, it has no fixed location in the brain, though it is coherent.

Thomas Metzinger, The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self

Now this is, as Metzinger would be the first to admit, highly abstract language to describe the warm, luminous immediacy that is the lived experience of phenomena. The scent of a lover’s hair, the golden light of sunset, damp air on the skin at dawn – an information cloud hovering above a neurobiological substrate? And yet how else could one experience these things?

Oddly enough, for me at least, Metzinger’s technical language comes closer to expressing what might be thought of as one’s soul than any Cartesian plug-in ghost. The beautiful world that is our necessary home is as much the gift of who we are as it is a place “out there”; we are not, and never have been, visitors. Like everything else, we are just what causality does: “the self is but one of the countless manifestations of the Tao. It is an extension of the cosmos.” (David Y F Ho (PDF))

#awareness #consciousness #DavidYFHo #philosophy #RenéDescartes #Tao #ThomasMetzinger #Wikipedia

In the cloud?

Thomas Metzinger suggests that the global neural correlate of consciousness (the minimal set of neuronal events and mechanisms sufficient for the occurrence of the mental states to which they are related (Wikipedia))

…is like an island emerging from the sea—as noted, it is a large set of neural properties underlying consciousness as a whole, underpinning your experiential model of the world in its totality at any given moment. The global NCC has many different levels of description: Dynamically, we can describe it as a coherent island, made of densely coupled relations of cause and effect, emerging from the waters of a much less coherent flow of neural activity. Or we could adopt a neurocomputational perspective and look at the global NCC as something that results from information-processing in the brain and hence functions as a carrier of information. At this point, it becomes something more abstract, which we might envision as an information cloud hovering above a neurobiological substrate. The “border” of this information cloud is functional, not physical; the cloud is physically realized by widely distributed firing neurons in your head. Just like a real cloud, which is made of tiny water droplets suspended in the air, the neuronal activation pattern underlying the totality of your conscious experience is made of millions of tiny electrical discharges and chemical transitions at the synapses. In strict terms, it has no fixed location in the brain, though it is coherent.

Thomas Metzinger, The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self

Now this is, as Metzinger would be the first to admit, highly abstract language to describe the warm, luminous immediacy that is the lived experience of phenomena. The scent of a lover’s hair, the golden light of sunset, damp air on the skin at dawn – an information cloud hovering above a neurobiological substrate? And yet how else could one experience these things?

Oddly enough, for me at least, Metzinger’s technical language comes closer to expressing what might be thought of as one’s soul than any Cartesian plug-in ghost. The beautiful world that is our necessary home is as much the gift of who we are as it is a place “out there”; we are not, and never have been, visitors. Like everything else, we are just what causality does: “the self is but one of the countless manifestations of the Tao. It is an extension of the cosmos.” (David Y F Ho (PDF))

#awareness #consciousness #DavidYFHo #philosophy #RenéDescartes #Tao #ThomasMetzinger #Wikipedia

In the cloud?

Thomas Metzinger suggests that the global neural correlate of consciousness (the minimal set of neuronal events and mechanisms sufficient for the occurrence of the mental states to which they are related (Wikipedia))

…is like an island emerging from the sea—as noted, it is a large set of neural properties underlying consciousness as a whole, underpinning your experiential model of the world in its totality at any given moment. The global NCC has many different levels of description: Dynamically, we can describe it as a coherent island, made of densely coupled relations of cause and effect, emerging from the waters of a much less coherent flow of neural activity. Or we could adopt a neurocomputational perspective and look at the global NCC as something that results from information-processing in the brain and hence functions as a carrier of information. At this point, it becomes something more abstract, which we might envision as an information cloud hovering above a neurobiological substrate. The “border” of this information cloud is functional, not physical; the cloud is physically realized by widely distributed firing neurons in your head. Just like a real cloud, which is made of tiny water droplets suspended in the air, the neuronal activation pattern underlying the totality of your conscious experience is made of millions of tiny electrical discharges and chemical transitions at the synapses. In strict terms, it has no fixed location in the brain, though it is coherent.

Thomas Metzinger, The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self

Now this is, as Metzinger would be the first to admit, highly abstract language to describe the warm, luminous immediacy that is the lived experience of phenomena. The scent of a lover’s hair, the golden light of sunset, damp air on the skin at dawn – an information cloud hovering above a neurobiological substrate? And yet how else could one experience these things?

Oddly enough, for me at least, Metzinger’s technical language comes closer to expressing what might be thought of as one’s soul than any Cartesian plug-in ghost. The beautiful world that is our necessary home is as much the gift of who we are as it is a place “out there”; we are not, and never have been, visitors. Like everything else, we are just what causality does: “the self is but one of the countless manifestations of the Tao. It is an extension of the cosmos.” (David Y F Ho (PDF))

#awareness #consciousness #DavidYFHo #philosophy #RenéDescartes #Tao #ThomasMetzinger #Wikipedia

In the cloud?

Thomas Metzinger suggests that the global neural correlate of consciousness (the minimal set of neuronal events and mechanisms sufficient for the occurrence of the mental states to which they are related (Wikipedia))

…is like an island emerging from the sea—as noted, it is a large set of neural properties underlying consciousness as a whole, underpinning your experiential model of the world in its totality at any given moment. The global NCC has many different levels of description: Dynamically, we can describe it as a coherent island, made of densely coupled relations of cause and effect, emerging from the waters of a much less coherent flow of neural activity. Or we could adopt a neurocomputational perspective and look at the global NCC as something that results from information-processing in the brain and hence functions as a carrier of information. At this point, it becomes something more abstract, which we might envision as an information cloud hovering above a neurobiological substrate. The “border” of this information cloud is functional, not physical; the cloud is physically realized by widely distributed firing neurons in your head. Just like a real cloud, which is made of tiny water droplets suspended in the air, the neuronal activation pattern underlying the totality of your conscious experience is made of millions of tiny electrical discharges and chemical transitions at the synapses. In strict terms, it has no fixed location in the brain, though it is coherent.

Thomas Metzinger, The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self

Now this is, as Metzinger would be the first to admit, highly abstract language to describe the warm, luminous immediacy that is the lived experience of phenomena. The scent of a lover’s hair, the golden light of sunset, damp air on the skin at dawn – an information cloud hovering above a neurobiological substrate? And yet how else could one experience these things?

Oddly enough, for me at least, Metzinger’s technical language comes closer to expressing what might be thought of as one’s soul than any Cartesian plug-in ghost. The beautiful world that is our necessary home is as much the gift of who we are as it is a place “out there”; we are not, and never have been, visitors. Like everything else, we are just what causality does: “the self is but one of the countless manifestations of the Tao. It is an extension of the cosmos.” (David Y F Ho (PDF))

#awareness #consciousness #DavidYFHo #philosophy #RenéDescartes #Tao #ThomasMetzinger #Wikipedia

Vale lembrar que Ghost in the Machine foi um termo cunhado pelo filósofo Gilbert Ryle, no seu livro The Concept of Mind, em que critica o dualismo cartesiano que considera mente e corpo como duas coisas que ocorrem juntas, porem são de naturezas distintas.

#GilbertRyle #ReneDescartes #Dualismo #Filosofia

Vale lembrar que Ghost in the Machine foi um termo cunhado pelo filósofo Gilbert Ryle, no seu livro The Concept of Mind, em que critica o dualismo cartesiano que considera mente e corpo como duas coisas que ocorrem juntas, porem são de naturezas distintas.

#GilbertRyle #ReneDescartes #Dualismo #Filosofia

Vale lembrar que Ghost in the Machine foi um termo cunhado pelo filósofo Gilbert Ryle, no seu livro The Concept of Mind, em que critica o dualismo cartesiano que considera mente e corpo como duas coisas que ocorrem juntas, porem são de naturezas distintas.

#GilbertRyle #ReneDescartes #Dualismo #Filosofia

Vale lembrar que Ghost in the Machine foi um termo cunhado pelo filósofo Gilbert Ryle, no seu livro The Concept of Mind, em que critica o dualismo cartesiano que considera mente e corpo como duas coisas que ocorrem juntas, porem são de naturezas distintas.

#GilbertRyle #ReneDescartes #Dualismo #Filosofia