What is Religion?

Like "a word that signifies endless passage through cycles of life, death, and rebirth" Samsara Houston Smith, The World's Relgions, rev'd ed., p. 63.

Capra in his usual role of metaphysician.(I hope you don't think it's science.) The book, a bit dated now since Higgs boson, is an interesting and provocative thought piece, subtitled An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism, that tries to reconcile eastern mysticism and western physics by analogies that are, shall we say, imaginative. It rested on what then seemed to be a promising interpretation of quantum phenomena. Capra was an important figure in launching New Age consciousness. Not everything a physicist, even Heisenberg and Bohr, says is physics.

As a postscript:The Revolution That Didn't Happen , by Victor Stenger, particle physicist
"Modern physics is even more reductionist than classical physics. Ironically, the same year, 1975, that The Tao of Physics appeared, the highly successful standard model of elementary particles was developed and the holistic ideas such as Bootstrap Theory that Capra and others were working on (and he emphasizes in Tao) were tossed in the trash heap. The standard model is based on the notion that the universe is composed of material particles and nothing more. Classical physics still had ethereal fields. Since its inception, the standard model has agreed with all physics data and was crowned in 2012 with the observation of the long-predicted Higgs boson. As for the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics--this is not supported by a scintilla of empirical evidence."

Oh, that video. I couldn't tell from your description. It's simplistic, to be sure, but it covers basics of Taoist metaphysics as a Taoist understands it.

​

Too late! But the conversation has been useful in helping me understand the impasse. I think you are what I might call a "progressive" Buddhist, Taoist, Vedantist, whatever. You adhere to a version of eastern thought that discards metaphysical and religious trappings and treats concepts like samsara as essentially metaphors for phenomena that are reinterpreted in psychological or sociological terms. Progressive Christians do something similar to Judeo-Christian religion. You tell me that samsara "is the term used to describe how the experience of reality that we hold is actually a distortion of reality. It can be empirically demonstrated by a simple study of how our sensory apparatus works and how sensory data is processed by the brain, or mind if you wish." That is a far cry from the understanding of samsara most scholars in the field have--a highly intellectualized, secularized rendition. I'm curious as to where you got it. Do you include rebirth, and if so, how do you interpret it?

I consider myself to be a progressive Christian. If you were to ask me what heaven and hell are, I'd tell you they are states of mind--and that God is the ground of Being. But I realize that's not the usual understanding of the terms by most practicing Christians, past and present. Obviously I think it's acceptable to adapt religious concepts to a changing world. However, I think it's also legitimate for people who are interested in what religion is and how it came about to look at how it was and is interpreted and practiced by the bulk of believers. It is also useful to adapt the concept of religion to accommodate real world phenomena that seem to have basic similarities, as well as differences, and to include Buddhism and Taoism in the same book as Christianity, Islam and Judaism, since they all seem to fulfill similar human psychological needs and social functions.

 

intecessory prayer is only one variety. Prayer doesn't have to mean talking to a supernatural God. It can mean talking to one's inner or higher self. Emperor Marcus Aurelius once advised that, instead of asking the gods for things, we ask not to want those things. See how that works out. Mother Teresa, asked what she said to God in prayer, said "I listen." Asked what God said to her, she replied: "He listens."

 

It can. if that includes rebirth after death, it does.

Yes, metaphysics can be a wonderful source of ideas for scientific testing. We've gotten away from Ayer's idea that metaphysics is nonsense. But until we can formulate it into testable hypotheses and test them, it remains metaphysics or speculation. Capra's speculations remain in that category. Nobel prize winning physicist Leon Lederman observes: "Starting with reasonable descriptions of quantum physics, he constructs elaborate extensions, totally bereft of the understanding of how carefully experiment and theory are woven together..." Physics professor Jeremy Bernstein like-wise,complains about Capra's methodology: "his use of what seem to me to be accidental similarities of language as if these were somehow evidence of deeply rooted connections." Manjunath Sharma, author of Key Messages of Hinduism, points out Capra's "some misinterpretations of Vedantic concepts like Atman.

Stenger blames Capra for the New Age pseudoscience that resulted from his musings. In the preface of the first edition, Capra attributes his "Eureka!" insight tin reconciling theoretical physics with Eastern mysticism to ''power plants'" (psychedelics), initially "so overwhelming that I burst into tears, at the same time, not unlike Cateneda , pouring out my impressions to a piece of paper". (p. 12, 4th ed.) (Casteneda's reputation has not held up well.) Hmm. And I owe my Christianity to a profound, overwhelming religious experience (without the aid of mind altering substances). But I recognize that it's not veridical to skeptics.

Currently, physicists are fascinated by the possibility of parallel universes, some going the sci-fi lengths to speculate that we might have counterparts in other dimensions living out very different lives because of a different turn. Fascinating. But as Bruce Mazet observed in Skeptic magazine :"There is no evidence whatsoever that this infinite number of hypothetical universes exists, and according to the cosmologists who postulate these hypothetical universes, There is no means by which to obtain any such evidence." The current function of these propositions seems to be to provide an alternative "naturalistic" explanation to religious claims about design and fine tuning. Mazet concludes, "If it is acceptable to postulate the existence of alternative universes, then it is acceptable to postulate the existence of God." Skeptic (1998),6:2, 50-55.

Really? Mathematical physicist Peter Woit, Columbia University, has taken Capra to task for clinging to his theory long after the dramatic confirmations of the standard-model quantum field theory."Even now, Capra's book, with its nutty denials of what has happened in particle theory, can be found selling well at every major bookstore." Not Even Wrong The Standard Model explains three of the four fundamental forces that govern the universe; gravity has yet to be integrated. Pointing out the deficiencies of string theory and speculating that "if a theory of "quantum gravity" continues to remain elusive, the bootstrap idea may well be revived someday, in some mathematical formulation or other" hardly refutes the standard model and verifies the bootstrap notion, let alone Taoism. He's talking about the elusive Theory of Everything (TOE). Where is Stephen Hawking when you really need him?!

Yes, he also did science, but that wasn't what his books, for which he is best known, were mostly about. They are metaphysics. (And please don't ask me how I define that again.)

When I post a link, I'm not necessarily endorsing every point, citation or reference the author makes--just the one(s) that are relevant to the point I'm making. Besides, I like the Tao of Physics and other books by Capra. I like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, too. I'm not allergic to metaphysics,and certainly incorporate it into my world view. I just distinguish it from science, and realize that it is less reliable.

Not exactly. I gave you Stenger's assessment that it's not a viable theory in light of subsequent finding in physics. Subsequent refutation by happenstance doesn't make a body of speculation scientific. If Jesus' bones could somehow be definitively identified in a Jerusalem tomb, it wouldn't prove that the doctrine of resurrection was scientific (and refuted) after all. And a refuted scientific hypothesis doesn't carry much weight.

I'm going by the usual definitions. Psychology is the scientific study of the mind and behavior, according to the American Psychological Association.www.simplypsychology.org/whatispsychology.html Sociology is the "social science that studies human society and its development".Sociology - Wikipedia The point I was making is that your definition of samsara sounds more like these than anything found in Vedic or Buddhist writings, especially in throwing out the baby (rebirth) with the bathwater.

So you have formed your own conclusions which seem to be at variance with those of many scholars who have also devoted many years to the study and published their conclusions in peer reviewed journals. It's certainly possible you're right, but also possible that you might not be the best impartial judge of the soundness of your conclusions. I have my own views of Christianity, after years of study, that differ from those of most practicing Christians (no virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, angels, afterlife, or God who answers prayers). I wouldn't, however say that scholars who draw different conclusions about Christianity on the basis of what most Christians believe(d) or practice(d) are necessarily wrong about what they practice(d) and believe(d).

 

...

 

...

 

Wrong. I claimed that he was engaged in science. Just not when he was tripping in his Tao of Physics.

I guess you might call him a "biblical scholar." He's also a secular humanist "who has no belief whatsoever in the anthropomorphic Judeo-Christian God". Psychologist and atheist Richard Schermer, How We Believe, p.101.

To compare Einstein's theory with Capra's is ludicrous. To quote mathematical physicist Perter Woit. his theory is "not even wrong", which in scientific circles means too sloppy to qualify as falsifiable or false.Not Even Wrong "The bootstrap philosophy, despite its complete failure as a physical theory, lives on as part of an embarrassing New Age cult, with its followers refusing to acknowledge what has:happened." Or. as Jeremy Bernstein put it : "At the heart of the matter is Mr. Capra's methodology – his use of what seem to me to be accidental similarities of language as if these were somehow evidence of deeply rooted connections. Thus I agree with Capra when he writes, 'Science does not need mysticism and mysticism does not need science but man needs both.' What no one needs, in my opinion, is this superficial and profoundly misleading book.Science observed : essays out of my mind : Bernstein, Jeremy, 1929- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

"Mathematican George Ellis, who co-authored the Large Scale Structure of Space Time with Stephen Hawking, doesn't think it's testable. If he's right, then M-theory is metaphysics. Why is it a preposterous leap to claim that if scientists devise a theory about the existence of alternative universes based upon known scientific facts, then he can postulate the existence of God.?Really? Based on what? Base on the conclusion that neither is falsifiable.

Who said that? What I said is that the Standard Model is the accepted model in physics now that best fits the known facts, and that it has superseded the boot strap theory. There was a time back in the fifties when continuous creation was the favored model among scientists, and astro-physicist Fred Hoyle endorsed it in his Universe According to Hoyle. In 1965, Penzias and Wilson discovered 2.728 K cosmic microwave background radiation confirming the theory, and Hoyle revised his book to substitute Big Bang for continuous creation. So goes science. Hoyle did the right thing.

Ordinarily, the formulation of a hypothesis is done in science when there is a predetermined way to test it. That's the point.

If "based on means trying to relate quantum physics to oriental mysticism under the influence of "power plants", mebbe so.

I was actually referring to your description of samsara which differs from any I've encountered in scholarly studies of Vedic writings. As I've said, it's possible you're right and they're wrong.

By not mentioning it in a description of samsare.

Well, which ones support your definition of Samsara?

I agree with many people about many things, but I can't think of anyone, even my wife, I don't disagree with about some things. For example, I basically agree with the Bible, but disagree with a lot of it and don't interpret it literally. The reason I take fellowship with groups of different faiths and atheists is that I have found in each of these groups a rare opportunity to commune with people I can agree with in important areas. I haven't found a single group yet where that's true.

And now I think we really otta call it quits. We've reached an impasse. Time to move on with our lives.

 

I think we've reached and impasse. But there are just so many misconceptions that need to be cleared up.

This is a caricature of what I said.The Tao of Physics is an attempt to relate western science to eastern ideas, to advance the notion that the orientals were way ahead of us. It's not random stuff he made up. It's an attempt to relate two bodies of knowledge, resulting from a psychedelic Aha! moment The physics (which wasn't original for Capra) seemed at the time to be a promising interpretation of quantum phenomena, but was soon abandoned by most physicists in favor of the standard model. The oriental philosophy is just that: metaphysics. Developing empirically testable or refutable hypotheses seems to be a remote possibility.

Yes, Woita explains what went wrong with string theory, but he specifically criticizes Capra's theory (pp. 141-45):
"The Tao of Physics was completed in December 1974, and the implications of the November Revolution one month earlier that led to the dramatic confirmations of the standard-model quantum field theory clearly had not sunk in for Capra (like many others at that time). What is harder to understand is that the book has now gone through several editions, and in each of them Capra has left intact the now out-of-date physics, including new forewords and afterwords that with a straight face deny what has happened. The foreword to the second edition of 1983 claims, 'It has been very gratifying for me that none of these recent developments has invalidated anything I wrote seven years ago. In fact, most of them were anticipated in the original edition,' a statement far from any relation to the reality that in 1983 the standard model was nearly universally accepted in the physics community, and the bootstrap theory was a dead idea ... Even now, Capra's book, with its nutty denials of what has happened in particle theory, can be found selling well at every major bookstore."... The bootstrap philosophy, despite its complete failure as a physical theory, lives on as part of an embarrassing New Age cult, with its followers refusing to acknowledge what has happened."

What hypothesis? There is no scientific hypothesis in Capra's book, nor does it seem likely one can be formulated.

Einstein's theory led to testable hypothesis which confirmed it. Ask the Japanese.https://www.edn.com/einsteins-theory-of-general-relativity-is-tested-may-29-1919/

I do recognize that. I just don't think that by relating science to metaphysics Capra was developing a theory "based on science". BTW, a theory,hypothesis or explanation, that is "based on science" but untestable is metaphysics.

Yes, the Standard Model could be wrong. So could the Big Bang theory. And Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Process of Natural Selection is one pre-Cambrian rabbit away from the scrap heap. So far, no rabbits. They are the consensus scientific theories that best explain the known facts. The science part of Capra's theory (which he didn't originate) went out the window soon after publication and the eastern metaphysical part remains a speculative thought piece. Maybe Ptolemy's heliocentric theory will come back some day, but meanwhile science is sticking to Copernicus.

You misunderstand Mazet's point. The operative word is "IF". And he's right. There is no compelling evidence for M-theory, nor do there appear prospects for testing it. The point Mazet is making is that belief in M-theory, at this point, is essentially a matter of faith or taste. Scientists find it intriguing because it offers an explanation of the order and apparent "fine tuning" of the universe that doesn't involve a Higher Intelligence.

The previous bootstrap model in quantum physics was scientific but superseded by the standard model --kinda like the continuous creation model was superseded by the Big Bang theory. They seemed promising once, but a better model came along. But Taoism theory that Capra tied to the bootstrap model was never scientific.

That's possible, of course. What are those texts?

 

Not quite. A proposition, theory etc. is not scientific unless it is refutable--i.e., can be tested. For example, Darwin's theory could be and was tested by the fossil record, molecular biology, and biogeography, patterns of geographic distribution.

Yes. That should strengthen the case that it is metaphysics, not science.Nothing wrong with that. I think it's still a good book in understanding Taoism.

Surprise, surprise! "In non-technical terms, M-theory presents an idea about the basic substance of the universe. As of 2022, science has produced no experimental evidence to support the conclusion that M-theory is a description of the real world."
Introduction to M-theory - Wikipedia.
The Elusive Theory of Everything

 

Probably, the theory was falsifiable in 1905, but no one got around to testing it until 1915. Should we define "science" as anything a scientist (or mathematician) happens to be involved with? The great prestige of science lies in its validity and reliability, resulting of rigorous testing of refutable hypotheses. Would anyone think that Capra's speculations had those qualities?
Commentary: The dangerous growth of pseudophysics

 

Even Nikola Tesla inferred it was bunk.

first off space has 'no' features, therefore it cannot 'physically' curve.
secondly 'c' is a psuedo speed limit.

Einstein is a 'Religion' for many!

...and we couldnt use either relativity or special relativity to get our satelites to track properly. We had to go woth a modified Lorentz thanks to Ron Hatch. Yet people trot out einstein for false accreditation anyway! Now they are so accurate you can use them to write your name on a piece of paper.

Einstein plonk! LOL

 

Tell it to the Japanese! As is so often the case, the media has given Einstein a "larger than life" reputation as the unknown young patent clerk who single-handedly revolutionized physics with his theories of special and general relativity. That, of course, is an exaggeration. There was a long history of trying to understand motion and symmetry, and most of the ingredients for special relativity were already there in the work of Poincaire and Lorenz. But General Relativity was largely Eistein's baby, introducing the concepts of curved, multi-dimensional space in understanding and calculating the motions of bodies in gravitational fields . Einstein discovered the correct field equation of general relativity--not chopped liver. And so far, the theory has held up, after the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's radio experiments with two Mariner spacecraft as far as 250 million miles in space. Einstein's General Relativity Theory Upheld
General Relativity at 100: Einstein's Famous Theory Has Aged Well
Although Einstein didn't exactly discover E=mc2, he played a major role in its discovery.
E=mc2: Einstein's equation that gave birth to the atom bomb
7 ways Einstein changed the world
Einstein and General Relativity
Albert Einstein and the most elemental atomic theory
What is relativity? Einstein’s mind-bending theory explained

As always, the theory of general relativity continues to be questioned, mainly because that's the way of science, and because it doesn't accommodate quantum theory. It may not hold beyond the observable universe, but so far is the best one in town for the observable one. Physicists Are Still Probing Einstein's General Relativity for Flaws — Now On Cosmic Scales
Einstein’s general relativity theory is questioned but still stands ‘for now,’ team reports
It's true that Tesla questioned part of the theory on grouds that mass is unalterable. But Tesla's debunking seems to have been debunked, for not taking into account "gravitational potential energy". Debunking Tesla's argument against general relativity.
So far, the Hatch/Lorentz alternative to Special Relativity theory hasn't been accepted by the scientific community. Lorentz's ether theory was rejected after the Michelson/Morley experiment, and Hatch's revised version has yet to gain support. If and when it does, we might reconsider Einstein. Until then, no basis for giving him a "plonk".

 

You certainly seem to love your 'popular opinion' standards.
Sorry, facts arent subject to popular opinion.
Einstein-plonk
Newton/Lorentz/Hatch --3 thumbs up.
The GPS system works great now.
Bye bye Albert!

 

lol

 

thats all you got?