As we uncover the workings of the natural world certain things become clear:-
1) Stuff (matter-energy-space-time) interact with each other in highly predictable ways which we call "laws of nature", "causality" etc. However the reason for the existence of this structured patterns of behavior and their invariable attachment with stuff is unknown.
2) The laws of nature themselves are mathematical, a realm of abstract and extraordinarily rich realm of reality that is "somehow" glued into "stuff" through these laws and accessible to knowledge through rationality. Why should there be such a realm of abstract rational world of mathematics and why they intermingle with stuff is also not known.
3) Stuff..connected with the mathematical world via the laws of nature, is extraordinarily and unexpectedly fecund, coalescing in property rich groups with utterly novel qualities and functions starting from molecules, crystals, living things, stars, galaxies and sentient beings. The repeated (and apparently limitless) potential of emerging wholes with novel properties all stacked on top of each other (from molecules to man i.e.) from "stuff" is observable and describable; but why stuff has such properties is unknown.
Therefore Hindu-s propose that there is something more fundamental than matter-energy, laws of nature, mathematics and consciousness/information. On this more fundamental entity all these domains rest, and of which these various domains are aspects of. And this singular fundamental entity, which we call Brahman, provides the connecting glue and the structural richness around which stuff is coalescing to make it manifest in the sensory plane. This provides a "why" explanation rather than a what and how explanation. Such an explanation is needed as the interconnectivity of stuff, laws, maths, information, consciousness and repeated emergence are not mere facts, but extraordinary features that cannot be left unexplained.
And just like biology has provided us with senses to see stuff and rationality to see mathematics..it has also provided us with inner capabilities, which when honed through meditation or other proper spiritual practices, can help us grasp this fundamental entity undergirding all these domains of knowledge...at least to some extent.
That is the argument that I would ask atheists and materialists to consider.
Interesting.Thanks for sharing that.
I don't know much about Hinduism. Is Brahman a conscious agent? Does Brahman think and act? According to this from Wiki, no:
"Brahma (nominative singular), brahman (stem) (neuter gender) means the concept of the transcendent and immanent ultimate reality, Supreme Cosmic Spirit in Hinduism. The concept is central to Hindu philosophy, especially Vedanta; this is discussed below. Brahm is another variant of Brahman."
If you're just giving a proper name to the principles known and unknown that orchestrate the elements of reality's interactions and determine their properties, then I have no problem with that. If you're implying agenticity, I would caution you that that is not justified.
It is, however, a common cognitive bias, especially when reaching the limits of knowledge.
From
Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World
"The problem is that we did not evolve a baloney-detection device in our brains to discriminate between true and false patterns. So we make two types of errors: a type I error, or false positive, is believing a pattern is real when it is not; a type II error, or false negative, is not believing a pattern is real when it is. If you believe that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is just the wind (a type I error), you are more likely to survive than if you believe that the rustle in the grass is just the wind when it is a dangerous predator (a type II error). Because the cost of making a type I error is less than the cost of making a type II error and because there is no time for careful deliberation between patternicities in the split-second world of predator-prey interactions, natural selection would have favored those animals most likely to assume that all patterns are real.
"But we do something other animals do not do. As large-brained hominids with a developed cortex and a theory of mind—the capacity to be aware of such mental states as desires and intentions in both ourselves and others—we infer agency behind the patterns we observe in a practice I call “agenticity”: the tendency to believe that the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents. We believe that these intentional agents control the world, sometimes invisibly from the top down (as opposed to bottom-up causal randomness). Together patternicity and agenticity form the cognitive basis of shamanism, paganism, animism, polytheism, monotheism, and all modes of Old and New Age spiritualisms."
We also seem to have a capacity for spiritual experiences, by which I mean a sense of mystery, awe, gratitude, and connectivity. This has nothing to do with religion. Standing outside at night looking up at the stars and contemplating the incredible distance that the starlight has been traveling for years to reach out and touch you can evoke this reaction, as can understanding that we are made from the ashes of stars - that we were billions of years in the making.
But at such moments, we are at risk of assigning agenticity again - invoking gods.
Neil deGrasse Tyson did a nice presentation on just this topic which you can read at
The Perimeter of Ignorance | Natural History Magazine or see in video format at
Tyson gives the example of Ptolemy from antiquity, who suggested that the sun, moon, and planet revolved around the earth since that is how it appeared from what felt like a stationary earth - a reasonable if incorrect idea.
But when it came to the problem of the apparent retrograde motion of the planets - illustrated and explained at
Retrograde Motion - where they seemed to briefly stop, go backward, stop again, and reverse direction again, Ptolemy had reached the limits of his understanding, and at that moment, invoked his god, Zeus and described the spiritual experience I just described, but with his god credited:
"I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia" - Ptolemy
Nothing has been said or shown to challenge naturalism, a better word than materialism. While there may indeed be agenticity to the cosmos or beyond, we have no evidence of this, and are therefore not justified in assuming it or assigning it to reality.
I don't see much harm to making that leap of faith if one is approaching these matters from a philosophical and contemplative perspective and prefers to assign consciousness to these unseen principles as Ptolemy did, which seems to be the way with some Eastern religions.
The problem is when the god concept is used to manipulate you by organized, politicized religions.
