To What Extent Do Religion And Spirituality Differ As Perspectives?

[3017Metaphysician]

1. What does "smuggling religion into the secular world" mean? Are you suggesting human's, in a secular context, are unable to have spiritual experiences?

There are no "spirits" as traditional religions have defined the term. So, there are no "spiritual" experiences in that sense, either.

2. Why would having a spiritual experience be a contradiction to one who thinks spiritual experiences don't exist? You seem to be conflating some sort of paradigm or meme that says, 'I deny having an unexplained experience' with, 'I had a spiritual experience but because I'm an atheist I won't talk about it'.

If I don't believe magical powers exist, it would be a contradiction if I stated that I have had the experience of magical powers.

3. You said: "Spirituality had always been linked to the belief in the supernatural, in an immaterial reality separated from the material world." Nonsense. There are all kinds of 'immaterial realities' including the causal relationships between mind and matter, 'information' giving rise to material matter (or the other way around), one's own Will to exist or not exist, and a whole host of other 'non-material' phenomena that is all a part of experiencing reality.

By now I'm prety much aware that you have no idea about what the concepts of material or immaterial reality entail, so I will not insist on correcting you.

4. Your statement about reflection on "intellectual and emotional life" while on its face having significant ontological impacts, is just another bad example of one (you) projecting their personal agenda in denying the phenomenon of having a 'natural' cosmic feeling(s):

“[...] It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.” [Albert Einstein, New York Times Magazine, 9 Nov 1930, pg 1-4, reprinted in Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, Inc. 1954, pg. 36-40.]

I disagree, it's nonsense. Trying to conciliate religion and science or to conflate feelings of awe, wonder and curiosity about nature's grandiosity with religious feelings, is simply a big mistake. The latter come with the perception that cosmic forces are imbued with some magical character and purposeful order that gives significance to existence and to which the individual must surrender.

Indeed! Consciousness can be quite a mystery and a bit unsettling to the rationalist! Like spirituality itself, consciousness is that phenomena which is logically impossible, yet still exists. You know, like quantum phenomena (non-locality)... ! And just think, curiosity and wonder confer no Darwinian survival advantages either!

[Greatest I am]

Indeed! Consciousness can be quite a mystery and a bit unsettling to the rationalist! Like spirituality itself, consciousness is that phenomena which is logically impossible, yet still exists. You know, like quantum phenomena (non-locality)... ! And just think, curiosity and wonder confer no Darwinian survival advantages either!

Of course, it is logically possible for those concepts to exist, given that we create all concepts.

We just do not know the logic trail used by nature yet.

Mystery, yes for now, unsettling, nah. We are well in the cave on consciousness.

Being a telepath, I know a bit about this.

Regards
DL

[JackDaydream]

1. What does "smuggling religion into the secular world" mean? Are you suggesting human's, in a secular context, are unable to have spiritual experiences?

There are no "spirits" as traditional religions have defined the term. So, there are no "spiritual" experiences in that sense, either.

2. Why would having a spiritual experience be a contradiction to one who thinks spiritual experiences don't exist? You seem to be conflating some sort of paradigm or meme that says, 'I deny having an unexplained experience' with, 'I had a spiritual experience but because I'm an atheist I won't talk about it'.

If I don't believe magical powers exist, it would be a contradiction if I stated that I have had the experience of magical powers.

3. You said: "Spirituality had always been linked to the belief in the supernatural, in an immaterial reality separated from the material world." Nonsense. There are all kinds of 'immaterial realities' including the causal relationships between mind and matter, 'information' giving rise to material matter (or the other way around), one's own Will to exist or not exist, and a whole host of other 'non-material' phenomena that is all a part of experiencing reality.

By now I'm prety much aware that you have no idea about what the concepts of material or immaterial reality entail, so I will not insist on correcting you.

4. Your statement about reflection on "intellectual and emotional life" while on its face having significant ontological impacts, is just another bad example of one (you) projecting their personal agenda in denying the phenomenon of having a 'natural' cosmic feeling(s):

“[...] It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.” [Albert Einstein, New York Times Magazine, 9 Nov 1930, pg 1-4, reprinted in Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, Inc. 1954, pg. 36-40.]

I disagree, it's nonsense. Trying to conciliate religion and science or to conflate feelings of awe, wonder and curiosity about nature's grandiosity with religious feelings, is simply a big mistake. The latter come with the perception that cosmic forces are imbued with some magical character and purposeful order that gives significance to existence and to which the individual must surrender.

Indeed! Consciousness can be quite a mystery and a bit unsettling to the rationalist! Like spirituality itself, consciousness is that phenomena which is logically impossible, yet still exists. You know, like quantum phenomena (non-locality)... ! And just think, curiosity and wonder confer no Darwinian survival advantages either!

I am left with mystery andt he nature of theism and atheism being left as a bit categorical rather than able to look towards the wider scheme of understanding. There are questions of logic and how this relates to the wider scheme of spirituality and this may be part of the wider scheme of understanding. In my reading of spiritual understanding, I take on board ideas of spirit and spiritual, ranging from the ideas of Hegel and Jung.

Sometimes, in philosophy it all seems so reductive. Personally, I'm opposed to all unhelpful generalisations and simplification. I try to understand the various ways of thinking of science and religion. I wonder about the interplay and the areas of delineation, and how do human beings in their philosophy explorations navigate an understanding, based on the underlying mysteries. Of course, that does come down to the question of are there mysteries which are inherent in nature?

[3017Metaphysician]

1. What does "smuggling religion into the secular world" mean? Are you suggesting human's, in a secular context, are unable to have spiritual experiences?

There are no "spirits" as traditional religions have defined the term. So, there are no "spiritual" experiences in that sense, either.

2. Why would having a spiritual experience be a contradiction to one who thinks spiritual experiences don't exist? You seem to be conflating some sort of paradigm or meme that says, 'I deny having an unexplained experience' with, 'I had a spiritual experience but because I'm an atheist I won't talk about it'.

If I don't believe magical powers exist, it would be a contradiction if I stated that I have had the experience of magical powers.

3. You said: "Spirituality had always been linked to the belief in the supernatural, in an immaterial reality separated from the material world." Nonsense. There are all kinds of 'immaterial realities' including the causal relationships between mind and matter, 'information' giving rise to material matter (or the other way around), one's own Will to exist or not exist, and a whole host of other 'non-material' phenomena that is all a part of experiencing reality.

By now I'm prety much aware that you have no idea about what the concepts of material or immaterial reality entail, so I will not insist on correcting you.

4. Your statement about reflection on "intellectual and emotional life" while on its face having significant ontological impacts, is just another bad example of one (you) projecting their personal agenda in denying the phenomenon of having a 'natural' cosmic feeling(s):

“[...] It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.” [Albert Einstein, New York Times Magazine, 9 Nov 1930, pg 1-4, reprinted in Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, Inc. 1954, pg. 36-40.]

I disagree, it's nonsense. Trying to conciliate religion and science or to conflate feelings of awe, wonder and curiosity about nature's grandiosity with religious feelings, is simply a big mistake. The latter come with the perception that cosmic forces are imbued with some magical character and purposeful order that gives significance to existence and to which the individual must surrender.

Indeed! Consciousness can be quite a mystery and a bit unsettling to the rationalist! Like spirituality itself, consciousness is that phenomena which is logically impossible, yet still exists. You know, like quantum phenomena (non-locality)... ! And just think, curiosity and wonder confer no Darwinian survival advantages either!

I am left with mystery andt he nature of theism and atheism being left as a bit categorical rather than able to look towards the wider scheme of understanding. There are questions of logic and how this relates to the wider scheme of spirituality and this may be part of the wider scheme of understanding. In my reading of spiritual understanding, I take on board ideas of spirit and spiritual, ranging from the ideas of Hegel and Jung.

Sometimes, in philosophy it all seems so reductive. Personally, I'm opposed to all unhelpful generalisations and simplification. I try to understand the various ways of thinking of science and religion. I wonder about the interplay and the areas of delineation, and how do human beings in their philosophy explorations navigate an understanding, based on the underlying mysteries. Of course, that does come down to the question of are there mysteries which are inherent in nature?

Yes Jack there are all sorts of mysterious phenomenon that exists. While consciousness itself is but just one of many, think about some physical phenomena associated with non locality, quantum superposition, and of course that spooky action at a distance where there is an obvious sense of an independent existence! Particles behave independently of each other. And we haven't even covered immaterial 'stuff' (information) that has causal power allowing for both being and becoming (biological systems) : self organized propagation, autoimmune systems, stream of consciousness, et. al.

[Sy Borg]

Science has gaps. Science will always have gaps. However, the gaps that we have closed have never been achieved with the answer "God did it". That would be the end of exploration.

[Meta Island]

3017's comments by Einstein are well placed. My main issue with the field of Philosophy is that there is no agreed upon starting point – no “Big Bang” from which everything flows, an agreement that everyone adheres to until newly perceived facts force adjustment or abandonment. Case in point: where did the processes of Reason originate? Did it originate with the introduction of human perception, or did it originate with processes in the structure of the Universe? If the processes of Reason originated in the Universe, then what is the justification for distinguishing between human and Universal rationality? And if there is no distinction, then one is included in the other. If the life of the Universe is functionally defined as the life of eternity, then religion, spirituality, and philosophy are relatives with a common ancestor.

MI !

Indeed. Your questions are important ones. Your questions relate to the many reasons why the exclusivity of Materialism fails. 'Things' that comprise intellectual properties, qualities of experience, and other meta-physical entities (quantum phenomena, etc.), speaks to that which is encoded into matter, and makes matter itself, work the way it does. Hence, the Materialist cannot explain the how, what, where, when and why, the information narrative emerges form the matter narrative. In other words, where are the instructions, for self-organization, propagation, self-directed entities, etc. in that big hunk of dirt!!

3017, I think we have taken Einstein’s comments in different lights. When he speaks of the rationality of the Universe, I take it to mean that the physical process of rationality – the greater including the lesser in a complex, ever-changing Universe – the “ratios” of forms of energy – are both the “instructions” and the information. To me, these ratios, from the great to the small, are what we call – what we experience as - information. Connected levels of those ratios create the architectures we experience as a self-image, acquired knowledge, and critical thinking.

I agree that there is information encoded into individual forms of energy, such as the “dirt” you mention, but that encoding – that self-organization, that self-direction - again to my lights – is also rationality at work. I would suggest that a form of energy with the ability to propagate (as in reproduce a semblance of itself physically) would need to be of a higher complexity (i.e., more connected levels) than a hunk of dirt.

As I suppose is painfully obvious, I am more familiar with the philosophy of Archie Goodwin than I am of Descartes and the other pillars of philosophy cited in the topics of this forum. I admit to a misunderstanding over the division between materialists and non-materialists. Do non-materialists suggest that energy, in all its forms, is not the sole substance of the Universe? If so, what do non-materialists suggest instructions (using your term) are composed of? If not, what exactly is causing the divide? Can it be described in a few sentences?

[Count Lucanor]

I am left with mystery andt he nature of theism and atheism being left as a bit categorical rather than able to look towards the wider scheme of understanding. There are questions of logic and how this relates to the wider scheme of spirituality and this may be part of the wider scheme of understanding. In my reading of spiritual understanding, I take on board ideas of spirit and spiritual, ranging from the ideas of Hegel and Jung.

Sometimes, in philosophy it all seems so reductive. Personally, I'm opposed to all unhelpful generalisations and simplification. I try to understand the various ways of thinking of science and religion. I wonder about the interplay and the areas of delineation, and how do human beings in their philosophy explorations navigate an understanding, based on the underlying mysteries. Of course, that does come down to the question of are there mysteries which are inherent in nature?

By mystery you mean mystical, that is, religion. Mysticists resort to talk about "the wider schemes" to conceal the fact that their vague speculations never land in concrete facts. It's a never ending cycle of ineffabilities aimed to nurture faith and dogma.

[JackDaydream]

I am left with mystery andt he nature of theism and atheism being left as a bit categorical rather than able to look towards the wider scheme of understanding. There are questions of logic and how this relates to the wider scheme of spirituality and this may be part of the wider scheme of understanding. In my reading of spiritual understanding, I take on board ideas of spirit and spiritual, ranging from the ideas of Hegel and Jung.

Sometimes, in philosophy it all seems so reductive. Personally, I'm opposed to all unhelpful generalisations and simplification. I try to understand the various ways of thinking of science and religion. I wonder about the interplay and the areas of delineation, and how do human beings in their philosophy explorations navigate an understanding, based on the underlying mysteries. Of course, that does come down to the question of are there mysteries which are inherent in nature?

By mystery you mean mystical, that is, religion. Mysticists resort to talk about "the wider schemes" to conceal the fact that their vague speculations never land in concrete facts. It's a never ending cycle of ineffabilities aimed to nurture faith and dogma.

When I speak of mysteries I am not coming from the angle of trying to advocate any one specific viewpoint. Whether one comes from a religious or a scientific point of view there is a lot which is unknown and some have even suggested that Wittgenstein was a mystic for suggesting that one should remain silent about that which one does not know. The problem may be when people try to fill in gaps.It may be a human tendency to fill in gaps.

The issue may when people fill in these gaps with fabrication and then treat the fabrications as though they are more than that, and people who come from materialistic or spiritual approaches can do this at times. In some ways, mythical approaches give stories as meaningful aspects of knowing but the danger may be about literalism. In a similar way, scientists create theoretical models and it is important to be aware that while they may contain some accuracy of explanations they are still only representations.

As far as faith goes, both religious and scientific people have an angle of faith in the sense of trusting in specific ideas in a positive way. A certain amount of this is necessary as a basis for living and trying to navigate a pathway rather than being lost in a maze of confusion. An aspect of it may be that mindset is a starting point for all actions and it may be that this approach is more important than the accuracy of specific ideas.

[3017Metaphysician]

3017's comments by Einstein are well placed. My main issue with the field of Philosophy is that there is no agreed upon starting point – no “Big Bang” from which everything flows, an agreement that everyone adheres to until newly perceived facts force adjustment or abandonment. Case in point: where did the processes of Reason originate? Did it originate with the introduction of human perception, or did it originate with processes in the structure of the Universe? If the processes of Reason originated in the Universe, then what is the justification for distinguishing between human and Universal rationality? And if there is no distinction, then one is included in the other. If the life of the Universe is functionally defined as the life of eternity, then religion, spirituality, and philosophy are relatives with a common ancestor.

MI !

Indeed. Your questions are important ones. Your questions relate to the many reasons why the exclusivity of Materialism fails. 'Things' that comprise intellectual properties, qualities of experience, and other meta-physical entities (quantum phenomena, etc.), speaks to that which is encoded into matter, and makes matter itself, work the way it does. Hence, the Materialist cannot explain the how, what, where, when and why, the information narrative emerges form the matter narrative. In other words, where are the instructions, for self-organization, propagation, self-directed entities, etc. in that big hunk of dirt!!

3017, I think we have taken Einstein’s comments in different lights. When he speaks of the rationality of the Universe, I take it to mean that the physical process of rationality – the greater including the lesser in a complex, ever-changing Universe – the “ratios” of forms of energy – are both the “instructions” and the information. To me, these ratios, from the great to the small, are what we call – what we experience as - information. Connected levels of those ratios create the architectures we experience as a self-image, acquired knowledge, and critical thinking.

Agreed. The laws themselves speak to an ordered universe which in turn suggests purpose (teleology). Conversely, in principle, a universe that is purely chaotic and indeterminate, though could yield some sort of purpose, would not produce the ordered complexity necessary for life, much less biological life forms and organisms. In any event, the next concern would be, are those laws themselves an aberration, human invention, and are they transcendent laws with some sort of independent existence.

Some argue the latter, in that since the laws (of rationality as you say) describe the initial conditions prior to the BB theory, that they are in some ways transcendent. With respect to causation/physics (things that have causal powers from encoded information/laws), material substances behave in both a determinate and indeterminate fashion. Philosophically, it of course suggests both free Will as well as determinate 'things', logically necessary having such causal properties, along with the existential notion of both Being and becoming in nature. Process philosophy would be a good resource there... .


I agree that there is information encoded into individual forms of energy, such as the “dirt” you mention, but that encoding – that self-organization, that self-direction - again to my lights – is also rationality at work. I would suggest that a form of energy with the ability to propagate (as in reproduce a semblance of itself physically) would need to be of a higher complexity (i.e., more connected levels) than a hunk of dirt.

Yes. It is indeed rationality at work. No exceptions taken. And I most certainly agree that we are talking about things-in-themselves having such a high degree of complexity (like the emergence of consciousness), that it gives rise to information as having primacy, or the causal powers, of all existing material substances. As such, Hawkings had wondered where matter came from, what the rationality of the laws themselves communicate, and what purpose do they serve:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

― Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

As I suppose is painfully obvious, I am more familiar with the philosophy of Archie Goodwin than I am of Descartes and the other pillars of philosophy cited in the topics of this forum. I admit to a misunderstanding over the division between materialists and non-materialists. Do non-materialists suggest that energy, in all its forms, is not the sole substance of the Universe? If so, what do non-materialists suggest instructions (using your term) are composed of? If not, what exactly is causing the divide? Can it be described in a few sentences?

Can you share some thoughts on Goodwin?

To answer those questions, non-materialists would believe that information precedes matter. As such, information itself has the causal power. Much like Wheeler's 'it from bit'. Or, in a humanist/existential way, and/or ontologically, one's own Will to survive is that 'immaterial thing' that causes one to act, behave, feel purpose and survive and not die. That thing which causes one to want to become something.

With respect to 'instructions', that is a great question and can easily be parsed. The distinctions relate to primacy and dichotomy. Materialist claim 'nonsensically' that the existence of 'dirt' exclusively explains everything. Meaning, as opposed to Idealism, the materialist attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. This would leave the nature of consciousness itself, and the teleology and anthropic relationships between mind and matter, the Will, etc., out of the picture. The materialist cannot explain how the information narrative emerges from the matter narrative. The correct position to take is that there is both material and non-material entities that exist, and both are logically necessary. As such, living life is both/and, not either/or.

In summary, with respect to 'information' and 'instruction' (the propagation of genetically coded biological creatures), this very short video explains a more modern approach to 'information and matter', and the proposition of which may take primacy ('it from bit' v. 'bit from it'). Note Paul is embracing 'information' in his words, as "the primary stuff". This will capture your concern with 'rationality and information' in the universe:

[Pattern-chaser]

...some have even suggested that Wittgenstein was a mystic for suggesting that one should remain silent about that which one does not know. The problem may be when people try to fill in gaps.It may be a human tendency to fill in gaps.

The issue may when people fill in these gaps with fabrication and then treat the fabrications as though they are more than that...

Yes, I think it's an aspect of human nature that the one thing we find the most difficult to accept is that we don't know the answer to a question. No matter how clear it is that the question in question () cannot be answered, we will not accept it. The problem with this is that there are some questions that humans cannot answer, and some of these are questions that humans will never be able to answer.

[JackDaydream]

...some have even suggested that Wittgenstein was a mystic for suggesting that one should remain silent about that which one does not know. The problem may be when people try to fill in gaps.It may be a human tendency to fill in gaps.

The issue may when people fill in these gaps with fabrication and then treat the fabrications as though they are more than that...

Yes, I think it's an aspect of human nature that the one thing we find the most difficult to accept is that we don't know the answer to a question. No matter how clear it is that the question in question () cannot be answered, we will not accept it. The problem with this is that there are some questions that humans cannot answer, and some of these are questions that humans will never be able to answer.

It may be a form of egocentricism which makes it hard for people to admit they don't know. It is a habit which is learned, with an inherent attitude of bravado and selling oneself. Beyond philosophy, most people would probably rather bluff at an interview rather than say, 'I don't know'. It reminds me of a book one of my philosophy tutors had on the wall, 'A Bluffer's Guide to Philosophy'. There may be an attempt to bluff one's way rather than admit some kind of impasse, such as an honest opinion, such as not knowing what happens at death. Personally, I think that honesty of not knowing is just as valuable as trying to bluff, because it involves so much unnecessary fabrication, which may go against the spirit of genuine philosophical enquiry.

[Meta Island]

In any event, the next concern would be, are those laws themselves an aberration, human invention, and are they transcendent laws with some sort of independent existence.... {/quote]

For me, looking at what physical laws do – the addition and subtraction (and their siblings multiplication and division) of forms of energy to forge a resulting stable form – a resulting stable Idea - describes them as the essence of perceivable existence. Embodied transcendence, if you will, as opposed to disembodied transcendence.

Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

― Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

At the risk of sounding like I am correcting Steven Hawkings I would say the fire/animation in the equations is the energetic volatility of forms driving the greater including the lesser, which perception experiences as functional laws.

Can you share some thoughts on Goodwin?

Archie Goodwin is the blue-collar eyes and ears of the genius detective Nero Wolfe. Archie does the legwork in the mystery stories, leaving the brainwork to his boss. I confess to sometimes feeling like blue-collar Archie, surrounded as I am by the philosophical erudition on this site.

With respect to 'instructions', that is a great question and can easily be parsed. The distinctions relate to primacy and dichotomy. Materialist claim 'nonsensically' that the existence of 'dirt' exclusively explains everything. Meaning, as opposed to Idealism, the materialist attempts to explain everything in terms of material events. This would leave the nature of consciousness itself, and the teleology and anthropic relationships between mind and matter, the Will, etc., out of the picture. The materialist cannot explain how the information narrative emerges from the matter narrative. The correct position to take is that there is both material and non-material entities that exist, and both are logically necessary. As such, living life is both/and, not either/or.

My take is that perception integrates architectural Levels into a stable form, functionally creating relative free will in the process, because no two architectures are completely equivalent due to variations in their definitional quality and number.

My views on the operation of perception aside, I hope I am not being blockheaded by still not understanding - specifically - whether non-materialists think there is a substance other than convertible forms of energy composing the Universe.

As for the Davies video, I don’t deny he has a thoughtful take on the role of information. I could be wrong, but my sense is that his definition of compatible implies a difference in kind, and that is why you suggested the video. If that is the case, I have an alternate take. When he says laws governing information and laws governing matter “better be compatible”, I would use the framework of ratioed forms of energy as the embodiment of information and form; I would substitute “congruent” for “compatible”.

3017, this has been an interesting conversation, but this OP is about religion and spirituality, and I think we may be drifting off-topic. If you are assigning spirituality to the realm of non-materialism, I would never in good conscience try to change your mind about non-materialism. I am just offering my reasons for my personal point of view, which does not deny spirituality a form.

[Pattern-chaser]

...some have even suggested that Wittgenstein was a mystic for suggesting that one should remain silent about that which one does not know. The problem may be when people try to fill in gaps.It may be a human tendency to fill in gaps.

The issue may when people fill in these gaps with fabrication and then treat the fabrications as though they are more than that...

Yes, I think it's an aspect of human nature that the one thing we find the most difficult to accept is that we don't know the answer to a question. No matter how clear it is that the question in question () cannot be answered, we will not accept it. The problem with this is that there are some questions that humans cannot answer, and some of these are questions that humans will never be able to answer.

It may be a form of egocentricism which makes it hard for people to admit they don't know.

Can it really be the case that something that appears so deep-seated in the human psyche is caused by something as superficial as egocentrism? It seems much more than that to me; it seems to require a 'deeper' answer, if that makes any sense? Is it possible that our brains are hard-wired in a way that causes this near-universal human trait? Or something similar?

[JackDaydream]

...some have even suggested that Wittgenstein was a mystic for suggesting that one should remain silent about that which one does not know. The problem may be when people try to fill in gaps.It may be a human tendency to fill in gaps.

The issue may when people fill in these gaps with fabrication and then treat the fabrications as though they are more than that...

Yes, I think it's an aspect of human nature that the one thing we find the most difficult to accept is that we don't know the answer to a question. No matter how clear it is that the question in question () cannot be answered, we will not accept it. The problem with this is that there are some questions that humans cannot answer, and some of these are questions that humans will never be able to answer.

It may be a form of egocentricism which makes it hard for people to admit they don't know.

Can it really be the case that something that appears so deep-seated in the human psyche is caused by something as superficial as egocentrism? It seems much more than that to me; it seems to require a 'deeper' answer, if that makes any sense? Is it possible that our brains are hard-wired in a way that causes this near-universal human trait? Or something similar?

Often the various philosophies of human nature appear brutal in facts and I am not sure it is that simple. Freud speaks of the conflict between Eros and Thanatos, which may be about survival but not simply about the lower aspects of the person. Maslow spoke of the hierarchy of needs but this is about the possibility of the heights of consciousness. So, there is a danger that thinking about the human spirit can become too pessimistic. So many are aware of the lower aspects of human nature but it may be that this needs to be counterbalanced by the highest possibilities too.

Thinking of the idea of knowledge in regard to this, it may be that the starting point of not knowing is a basic starting point for deeper analysis of philosophy. Lack of knowing is a form of scepticism but it may be an important crossroads for thinking about all the various philosophical possibilities as opposed to the static position of certainty and clear knowledge. Personally, I do find that my lack of clarity stimulates my reading and thinking as opposed to a sense of complacency.

[Pattern-chaser]

Thinking of the idea of knowledge in regard to this, it may be that the starting point of not knowing is a basic starting point for deeper analysis of philosophy. Lack of knowing is a form of scepticism but it may be an important crossroads for thinking about all the various philosophical possibilities as opposed to the static position of certainty and clear knowledge. Personally, I do find that my lack of clarity stimulates my reading and thinking as opposed to a sense of complacency.

Yes, at one extreme, ignorance is almost a disability, and at the other extreme, it could almost be seen as the sole cause of learning. It seems to depend on the individual's response to ignorance, not on ignorance itself.

But this does not seem to address the issue of our apparent inability to accept that we don't know, and we may never know, the answers to particular questions...?