Science is inherently atheistic
(Note: Atheism broadly means lack of belief in deities, according to Wikipedia/atheism.)
(Note that Wikipedia/astrology states that astrology may be seen as a “Greek system of planetary Gods”, see also Wikipedia/planets in astrology, which concerns deities. It becomes quite clear here that Modern science having dropped astrology (See Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy), disregards deities, where Modern Science need not make any positive claims about the in-existence of deities, although Modern Science clearly rejects belief in deities i.e. Modern Science is inherently atheistic.)
- Atheism does not merely concern rejecting deities, as you'll see on Wikipedia/atheism, or point 2 below.
- Modern Science is an atheistic endeavour. Since we didn't always have modern science, it is probably no surprise that Modern Science emerged from "archaic science/religion/protoscience" in the scientific revolution, as religion was literally dropped from science in the scientific revolution or age of enlightenment. See "Wikipedia/protoscience", or "Wikipedia/Scientific revolution". A quick example: See when "astrology/religion/archaic science" was dropped from "modern science/astronomy", on Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy. (Note that astrology concerns deities and religious endeavour.)
- This does not mean I am saying religious scientists can't exist. However, atheistic scientists are scientists that tend to objectively analyse the truth value of things including religion; they precisely align with the scientific endeavour of disregarding religious endeavour. This contrasts non-atheistic scientists on this matter, who disregard or "turn off" scientific endeavour while analyzing religion.
(Note that Wikipedia/astrology states that astrology may be seen as a “Greek system of planetary Gods”, see also Wikipedia/planets in astrology, which concerns deities. It becomes quite clear here that Modern science having dropped astrology (See Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy), disregards deities, where Modern Science need not make any positive claims about the in-existence of deities, although Modern Science clearly rejects belief in deities i.e. Modern Science is inherently atheistic.)
Comments (459)
Right, in the same sense other made up things are “outside” science, like astrology, magic, witchcraft, teapots in space, spaghetti monsters, etc etc.
To the OP, I dont think that science is an atheistic endeavor. Its not about disproving god and it would have to be implicitly about that to be considered atheistic. Its about more than that single claim, its about any claim, its a method for determining the way things work. Its like saying gardening is about eating carrots. Not really.
For the same reasons, a scientist can not work either within the metanarrative about the Universe inspired by a book cult. A scientist can not suppose that it´s all a God-best-selling-author´s cheap tale, because again that leads to a natural world that makes no real sense and it´s ultimately just fancy.
So a scientist can not be an Atheist in his lab, and he can not be Christian, Muslim, Feminist... A religious and open-minded approach is a must for a scientist who wants to contribute to basic science and not just to engineering and technology.
Laplace: Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis. "
This continues to be the case. But it does not mean that science is atheistic; rather, that science is agnostic.
That's even too strong. Atheism is simply a lack of a belief in a deity. That's it. You don't have to consciously reject the notion of a deity to be an atheist.
"Atheism" implies nothing else. Atheists have no necessary connection to science or science-based beliefs.
And science has no necessary connection to atheism. A lot of scientists are religious believers, though a much smaller percentage than non-scientists who are religious believers.
You should perhaps:
1. Read Wikipedia/atheism, and you'll probably discover yourself to be wrong.
2. Actually read the rest of the OP, which addresses religious scientists.
Wikipedia/atheism describes atheism to broadly mean lack of belief in deities. It's only when you get to the narrow definition where there is a positive claim about deities' inexistence.
The OP concerns the broad definition of atheism, and as science grew, it had long assumed or ignored belief in deities.
Well, or you could read the surveys about religious beliefs among scientists.
What part, specifically, do you think is wrong in what you're quoting?
Presumably you don't think that both of these are wrong, though, do you? "A lot of scientists are religious believers" and "the percentage of scientists who are religious believers is much smaller than the percentage of non-scientists who are religious believers"
1. The difference is rather clear; one ignores scientific endeavour when it comes to analysing religion, while the other applies scientific endeavor objectively and thereafter disregards religious endeavor.
2. If one recalls the history of science (See Wikipedia/history of science) one may see that religion is literally old science, contrary to models in modern science that disregard deities and religious endeavour. You'll notice astrology which was once science, and which concerns deities, is now regarded as pseudoscience, and astrology was replaced by astronomy which disregards deities and other religious endeavour. (See Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy)
[ My highlighting.] :up:
1. Note that 93% of elite scientist are atheists. Also, there are more atheists in the scientific community versus theists, compared to ratios of atheists to theists in general community. (See Wikipedia/demographics of atheism)
2. Albeit, as I mentioned in Op, I am not saying religious scientists can't exist.
However, it must be noted that God and angels are not expected to disrupt experiments in science, whether the scientists are theists or atheists.
3. Question:
Why do you think astrology (which concerns deities and religious endeavour) was dropped from modern science, and why do you think it is now regarded as pseudoscience? (See Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy)
That part, for example, is something that I said, that you quoted, and that you responded was wrong.
I don't think the stats mean what you think it means.
Bottom line is, there are more atheists in the scientific community, compared to the general public.
Do you have an answer to the question I asked above, regarding astrology's removal from modern science?
Quoting VoidDetector
And that's something that I had said that you said was wrong.
Do you think the stats mean that?
I want to clear this up first.
Excellent.
I'll answer your new question, after you've answered my old question regarding astrology's removal from modern science.
But you didn't answer my earlier question. Or questions, rather.
No, I literally mean not a single aspect of scientific practice, nor any theory that would qualify as scientific, would change or have to be amended. Science doesn't give a flying hoot about theology, which can drown in a well as far as it's concerned.
God and other theological trash are not hypotheses to be disproved. It's far worse. They don't even qualify as hypotheses to begin with.
I answered, with sources too. I don't know where you got your stats, but I doubt they'd overthrow the Wikipedia stats I provided; i.e. it is unavoidable that there are more atheists than theists in scientific communities, compared to the theists/atheist relationship seen in the general public.
You can continue to try to deflect my old question, but I suspect that you can't sensibly answer the only question I've posed to you so far. You can take your time though, sometimes we don't come up with good answers immediately, although I doubt an infinitum of extra time would deliver you to submit a sensible answer to the question I posed.
I didn't ask you something that was answerable with sources. The only source for what I asked you would be you.
The problem with atheistic scientists analyzing the truth value of religions is that they are usually more literal and fundamentalist about analyzing religious texts than many if not most religious believers. Instead of looking to or for the moral of a myth, legend, story, or parable (Yes, there is even Christian mythology. Only the dolts take it literally.); the atheist debunks the most literal interpretation of the text. That’s why so many atheists think the religious are stupid, or they think we are deluding ourselves. This is a mistake that religious texts can’t impart wisdom and that science alone can address all truths wrt humanity.
If religious texts contained scientific equations or scientific notation that could help to build computers and do machine learning or physics etc, the world of science would probably promptly gravitate towards religious texts.
That is demonstrably false. Look at the reality that heavily atheistic countries, tend to be the least violent, wealthiest, and happiest countries, compared to highly religious countries, that tend to be the most violent, saddest, and poorest countries.
Would you prefer to be [url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/john-allen-chau-killed-tribe-north-sentinel-island-andaman-christian-missionary-a8646201.html]a violent tribe, that embraces religion
without modern science[/url]?
Does shooting a visitor of a foreign land, classify as a more "meaningful" life? Unfortunately, this is what happened to the Christian visitor recently, when he attempted to contact a modern science-less/technology-less tribe.
Care to answer the prior question?
I wasn't referring to the Christian.
The tribe likely has a religion as well.
The tribe, absent modern science, and probably absent atheism is rather violent.
Also how do you explain highly atheistic countries tending to be the happiest?
How do you explain why american prisons are mostly filled with theists?
What is the data for that?
The UN Happiness Report and World Happiness Index indicate this trend, the least religious countries tendung to be the happiest. Correlation doesnt mean causation though, so a grain of swlt might be best.
Well, sure, if that's how you want to define "atheistic scientists" and "non-atheistic scientists." This the layout of your argument:
1. If a scientist objectively analyzes truth values, then they are an atheistic scientist.
2. If a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor while analyzing truth values, then they are a non-atheistic scientist.
3. Religion has truth values.
4. Therefore, if a scientist objectively analyzes religion, then they are an atheistic scientist.
5. And therefore, if a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor while analyzing religion, then they are a non-atheist scientist.
Your argument, while valid, it is not sound, because it conflates many definitions that are otherwise by and large agreed upon in philosophy. I'd like to offer these alternative definitions:
scientist-- a person who objectively analyzes truth values of concepts within the scientific realm.
scientific realm-- the plane of existence that includes everything that operates within the known laws of nature; the natural world.
atheistic scientist-- a scientist who concludes that there is no convincing philosophy for believing in the existence of anything outside of the natural world; denies the existence of the supernatural.
non-atheistic scientist-- a person who objectively analyzes truth values of concepts within the scientific realm, and also believes that a convincing philosophy exists that posits the possible existence of the extra-natural (supernatural).
Using these definitions, your first and second premises fail. If a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor in their search for truth within the natural world, then they are no scientist at all. If a scientist "turns off" scientific endeavor while establishing a personal philosophy regarding the extra-natural (including whether or not it exists), then they are simply someone who is aware of accurate definitions in philosophy.
Your argument begs the question, looking at the disagreement between religious and non-religious scientists and calling religious scientists wrong because you believe the extra-natural doesn't exist. Religious scientists are not those who ignore or "turn off" science, but rather are simply scientists who also hold the belief that someone exists outside of the science that they so diligently study. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but are actually two separate studies. Those who conflate the two, on either side, are uninformed about the definitions of their own viewpoints.
Data shows that religion does not provide any sensible well roundness.
Simply put, you likely won't hear a person condemning a nation, and threatening to destroy said other nation in the name of nothing.. aka in the name of absence of belief.
1. Side note: I am an atheist as Wikipedia describes in the broadest meaning, such that I lack belief in the existence of deities, i.e. I don't make any positive claims. Also, Science concerns the natural. To aim to practice otherwise is thus far demonstrably futile, as such "supernatural" aims contrast the pillars of modern Science, that has long dropped deity related models.
1.b. Note how astrology/archaic science was dropped from astronomy/modern science. Note also that astrology concerns deities and other religious endeavour, and note how it is currently regarded as not science, but pseudoscience instead.(See Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy)
2.a. It's not as trivial as you garner; one can quite simply turn on scientific endeavour while doing Science, while turning it off while doing other activities, including analyzing religion. For example, a quite bright medical Doctor may engage in smoking tobacco, somewhat turning of Scientific endeavour, while otherwise turning it on in several other activities.
2.b Simply put, we can roughly apply degrees of scrutiny; it's not merely scrutiny off all the time, or scrutiny on all the time, which your long albeit reasonably invalid expression above commits.
Your argument aims to service a false dilemma.
1. Side note: I am an atheist as Wikipedia/atheism describes in the broadest meaning, such that I lack belief in the existence of deities, i.e. I don't make any positive claims. Also, Science concerns the natural. To aim to practice otherwise is thus far demonstrably futile, as such "supernatural" aims contrast the pillars of modern Science, that has long dropped deity related models.
1.b. Note how "astrology/archaic science" was dropped from "astronomy/modern science". Note also that astrology concerns deities and other religious endeavour, and note how it is currently regarded as not science, but pseudoscience instead.(See Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy )
2.a. Secondly, my argument is not as trivial as you garner; one can quite simply turn on scientific endeavour while doing scientific experiments, while turning it off while doing other activities, including analyzing religion. For example, a quite bright medical Doctor may engage in smoking tobacco, somewhat turning of Scientific endeavour, while otherwise turning it on in several other activities.
2.b Simply put, we can roughly apply degrees of scrutiny; it's not merely scrutiny off all the time, or scrutiny on all the time, which your long albeit reasonably invalid expression above commits.
Your argument aims to service a false dilemma.
Didn’t you learn the world’s religions in your high school World History class? I know I did at my public high school. It enriched my education rather than being a detriment to it. I doubt the Islamic fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia had such a class.
I did learn them. In fact, atheists tend to know more about religious texts, than theists.
As it says on Wikipedia/Correlation does not imply causation, one can extrapolate causality from trends.
And the trend is indicating that religious presence tends to contrast happiness, wealth and prosperity.
I bet the world trade center terrorists quickly correlated their religion, with the cause of their destructive actions.
Simply put, you likely won't hear a person condemning a nation, and threatening to destroy said other nation in the name of nothing.. aka in the name of absence of belief.[/
In this instance, the countries could very well have other reasons for being happy. The Scandinavian countries for example have economic and social considerations, so a case could be made either way and the data I pointed out is not conclusive.
Thats all I was commenting on.
In general I think its foolish to think religion doesnt cause certain behaviours. Im not one of these people who thinks you cannot trace the root cause of plently of terrorism or other horrors directly to religion.
I believe terrorism stems from nihilism, not true religious beliefs.
I didn't easily find the actual questionnaire online. Do you know where the questionnaire is, plus the data re exactly how many people they polled and how they selected the people they polled?
Which group above seems to think they're literally always right? ( ?° ?? ?°)
Quoting VoidDetector
I'm making an early New Year resolution, which is to avoid the use of the word 'atheist' altogether, on the grounds that it's hopelessly ambiguous. Henceforth I shall try to restrict myself to the two words 'anti-theist' and 'agnostic', which are unambiguous and jointly exhaust the possible meanings of 'atheist'.
No, Ive never read the questionnaire, just the results and some data breakdown. I remember articles stating the study “concluded” that high atheism countries are happier but the actual study data I read didnt seem quite that strong.
Its not ambiguous in the least, its actually quite simple. Also, neither agnostic or anti-thiest cover what the word atheist means, they each are distinct and necessary.
If the answer to do you “believe in god?” is anything other than “yes”, you are an atheist. You can also be an antitheist and/or agnostic. They are not mutually exclusive. Atheism means “without belief”, anti-theism is when you are against religion(s) and agnostic is a stance on whether or not the existence of god can be known. If you are just the classic fence sitting agnostic, you are also an atheist.
Obviously people can obscure and misuse the terms for their own ends, but these are the classic definitions.
Are you saying highly atheistic countries, who happen to tend to be the happiest, wealthiest, least violent etc, can't deal with how people should behave? ( ?° ?? ?°)
I'm not seeing where the data indicates that religion is necessary for the properties you describe. Please enlighten me, or at least try?
I'm referring to highly atheistic, non-religious countries, with no Buddhism etc. How is it possible for them to know how to behave? ¯\_(?)_/¯
Hint: Religion is not required.
Any data there?
And I hope you're not referring to Bibles when it comes to behaviour lessons, because murder, rape, slavery etc are all endorsed/condoned by bibles.
What remnants are you talking about btw?
Are you saying that stripping away everything from religious texts, except love your neighbor, don't kill, etc is a great way to proceed in humane ways? ( ?? ?? ?o)
Because that my theistic friends, is how you get modern science and modern civilization.
Are you saying highly atheistic countries keep religious things with them, beyond loving thy neighbor, and the other nice ways to treat each other, or the other things currently maintained by law and order?
Care to justify this with an actual argument? I’m open to one.
The story of the Good Samaritan is one example that comes to mind.
Yes, although what follows is not much of an argument, but rather a reporting of facts.
The point is that obviously, mankind had not always had modern science; notably, 'archaic science/religion' was replaced by modern science in the scientific revolution, and thereafter, 'archaic science/religion' no longer applies.
Fact remains, astrology still concerns deity stuff. As we can see, it's no longer a part of modern science. When you strip away the silliness from archaic science or religion, you get modern science.
I don’t have a problem with premarital sex per se. My wife and I engaged in it. I do believe monogamy if only serial monogamy is most virtuous.
Well, and another problem is determining just which countries are "more atheist," determining the religious views of the person you're surveying, and determining what their relationship is to what they take to be their religious environment.
Determining someone's religious views can be far more complicated than it might seem to be if one hasn't gotten into a lot of in-depth discussions with others about just how they self-identify and what their religious views actually are. That can take some time to ferret out, and the answer to what their religious views actually are can be quite counterintuitive with respect to how they self-identify.
You said that in the other thread, too, but I've not run into much of a connection between religion and astrology. I'm not sure what you're referring to there.
I cast my vote for these wise words.
The endless comparisons between religion and science that dominate philosophy forums reveal that those making such comparisons are typically not interested enough in the topic to try to understand that which they are so eager to debunk. Such a blind faith "us vs. them" process tends to replicate some of the worst aspects of religion.
Religion is better compared to art. A novel or play can reveal deep truths about the human condition even though the plot is entirely fictional. It's helpful to remember that many of the stories religions present were written thousands of years ago for an audience very different than the culture we live in today. While such stories are ever more out of date in today's modern world, the messages about the human condition that the stories are trying to share are often still very relevant.
As example, the very first book of the Bible focuses on our relationship with knowledge, via the fable of Adam and Eve. Our relationship with knowledge is still the most fundamental fact about the human condition, and just as the Adam and Eve story predicted, the flaws in that relationship are causing us to eject ourselves from the "Garden Of Eden", ie. a healthy planet. All this, in a story written some 3,000 years ago, long before the age of technology.
No, I don't believe there was a guy named Adam and a girl named Eve, and a sneaky snake. But I do believe that whoever wrote that story had deep insights in to the human condition. But the story is now very old and in need of an update for modern audiences.
Science deals in fact about reality.
Religion deals with our relationship with reality.
What confuses many, especially those with no real interest in these topics, is that religion often makes factual claims in an attempt to help manage our relationship with reality.
As example, it would be highly rational for any of us to pursue a plan of falling in love with reality. But "reality" is too abstract a concept for most people, and so reality is often personalized in the form of a human-like character such as Jesus or God or Krishna etc. Everyone is free to decline this device of course, but the evidence shows that such a personalization method has been far more successful in inspiring a "falling in love" experience than anything science has been able to deliver.
Our emotional relationship with reality. Focus on that. If religion doesn't help a particular person develop that emotional relationship, ok, no problem, so walk away, and find something else that does work. That's the rational course of action.
The problem I have with religion from that perspective, though, is that I don't agree with most of its views about "the human condition," about morality, about customs, etc.
Plus the formal ritual most of it is wrapped up in is very distasteful to me, and not agreeing with its morality, etc., I find its influence on law and mores very bothersome.
I'm fine with leaving religious folks to be religious--I'm an extremely laissez-faire kind of guy, but the problem is that religion doesn't tend to be laissez-faire towards different behavior, different beliefs, different religions, etc.
I find it useful to always make a distinction between a belief in god and a belief in religion, its an efficient means of parsing what exactly a person believes and what you might think they believe.
Anyway, sounds like we agree the data and conclusion bears more scrutiny, but I would still maintain that the correlation is significant and worth serious consideration.
Wikipedia/astrology and astronomy may help.
Note that Wikipedia/astrology states that astrology may be seen as a “Greek system of planetary Gods”, see also Wikipedia/planets in astrology, which concerns deities. It becomes quite clear here that Modern science having dropped astrology, disregards deities, where Modern Science need not make any positive claims about the in-existence of deities, although Modern Science clearly rejects belief in deities i.e. Modern Science is inherently atheistic.
I don't actually see that quote on the astrology page.
The solution here is to simply discard that which isn't working for a person, and look for other methods of developing one's emotional relationship with reality.
Again, "reality" is likely still too much of an abstraction to facilitate the development of an emotional relationship, so one may wish to focus on a particular place and form bonds of attachment with that place. The process is much the same as making friends with a person. You have to invest a lot of time and open yourself up. No religion required.
Nicely put. :up:
Newborns are born ignorant of more or less everything, including knowledge of God.
See it in the 4th sentence of this section, on the same page.
..and unicorns and elves and leprechauns, etc...
Disagree. Here are some dictionary definitions of 'atheist':
"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheist)
"1. someone who does not believe in any God or gods
2. someone who believes that God does not exist"
(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheist)
"1. (n British) a person who does not believe in God or gods
2. (in American) a person who believes that there is no God"
(SYNONYMY NOTE: an atheist rejects all religious belief and denies the existence of God)
(https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/atheist)
"Atheism: 1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods. "
(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)
'Atheism' certainly does not mean 'without belief'. A lot of people seem to think it means either that or 'without god', and cite the Greek roots of the word ('a-' meaning 'without', 'theism' from 'theos' meaning 'god'); but to believe that a word's current meaning is determined by its origins is to commit the etymological fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy).
As the above examples from dictionaries make clear, the current meaning of 'I am an atheist' is ambiguous between 'I do not believe there is a God' (agnostic) and 'I believe there is no God' (anti-theist).
In the real world, atheism means a belief in the ability of human reason to meaningfully analyze assertions about the most fundamental nature of all reality, the scope of God claims. The "lack of belief" is based upon something, a competing belief.
Quoting VoidDetector
Who cares what Wikipedia says? Why should Wikipedia volunteers be expected to have any deeper understanding of atheism than the average man on the street?
Most people, including almost everybody on philosophy forums, blindly chant the memorized definition "atheism equals lack of belief in God" without bothering to ask where that lack of belief comes from, what is it built upon, what is it's source?
Atheism is no more merely a "lack of belief" in gods than theism is merely a "lack of belief" in Christopher Hitchens.
Impressive, now go and google anti-theist and agnostic.
Wikipedia/atheism then goes on to say that in a very narrow sense, atheism means a positive claim that no Gods exist.
It is quite clear that atheism has a broad meaning, and a narrow meaning. The OP concerns the broadest meaning.
Atheism is a positive claim that human reason is qualified to analyze questions the scale of god proposals, just as theism is typically a positive claim that some holy book is so qualified. Each party is referencing their preferred chosen authority, neither of which can be proven qualified for the task at hand.
What complicates the above is that while theists typically understand that they are operating from a faith based relationship in their chosen authority, atheists typically don't understand that they are in the same position. Usually the atheist's faith in their chosen authority is so deep, and so unexamined, that they take the qualifications of their chosen authority to be an obvious given which requires no inspection or challenge. And thus we see recurring misleading discussion themes such as religion = faith vs. atheism ? faith.
Given the number of ways that reason can indeed be very useful, such misunderstandings are understandable, especially given that within the forum realm they are typically being articulated by young people. Indeed, many very bright fully mature highly educated adults have fallen victim to the same misunderstandings. You know, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc are not stupid people. They're just not objective people, not fully loyal to their own chosen methodology, and thus have fallen victim to some of the very human failings that have often caused religious people to get sucked in to holy wars of various kinds.
Personally, I don't expect the typical scientist to have much of anything useful to contribute to such investigations, just as I don't expect Catholic clergy to uncover the secrets of the quantum realm etc.
Wikipedia/atheism states atheism to broadly mean lack of belief in Gods.
One doesn't require authority to lack belief in something, although one would perhaps require evidence to otherwise make positive claims. The broad definition of atheism is not a positive claim.
"Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods"
Can someone explain to be the difference between " a lack of belief in gods" and "an affirmative belief there is no god" - which they differentiate.
Theist - I propose there is a God
Atheist - I do not believe you
Theist - Then you believe there is no God
Atheist - I didn't say that - i said I don't believe there is a God
Theist - so you are saying you are not sure there is no God
Atheist - I didn't say that either
Theist - I am confused - Do you believe there is a God
Atheist - No
Theist - do you believer there is no God
Atheist - No
Theist - Are you undecided, un convinced of either of those answers
Atheist - No
Theist - I am confused
Google “Russels Teapot”. That will put you on the right track.
thanks and I agree the person making the assertion has the burden of proof. However I believe the statement " there is no God" is also a positive assertion, that also has a burden of proof. It seems the only case where this position seems problematic is when we speak of God. No one has any issue with it when making an assertion like there is no Santa Clause or Unicorns. They are happy to provide a reasoned argument that we have been looking for a long time and we have not seen either Santa Clause or unicorns, therefor I believe it is a reasonable belief that they do not exist. Where it is still impossible to state as a matter of absolute fact that neither Santa Clause or Unicorns do not exist.
To be clear - while i believe the agnostic position to be weak - I have no argument against the position of I know the theist arguments, and I am unconvinced. That is different than a positive belief that my belief that God exists in false, with a passive response that your counter position requires no support.
“There is no god” and “i lack belief in god” are not the same thing.
If someone claims god exists, the person who lacks belief is still is waiting on the burden of proof, starting with what god is. Once they do that they might say something like “there is no god” but it would have to be based on what was proffered. For example, if someones claims god exists and defines god as (in addition to whatever else) as a benign force of nature that protects all children from harm then the person might look at harm befalling children and say “i do not believe in god” on the basis that harm is befalling children and have a reasonable basis for doing so.
So thats the distinction between the two.
...irreconcilable and they coexist?
From an internal perspective - how one identifies oneself based on what one believes to be true and what one does based on that truth belief - i see nothing but a semantic difference in the two statements.
Would one believe or act differently from one to the other ? I don't see how. Yet again, I am unconvinced that " i lack belief in god " is anything much more than a passive tense declaration of the more assertive " there is no God" - with the very beneficial purpose of some belief that it relieves the "non-believer" of any requirement to provide a reasoned argument why he chooses not to believe, something many other chose to believe.
Well, it is a sort of semantic game but I think it is the believer who makes it that way, by calling “disbelief” a belief. The goal is to create a false equivalence so the believer doesnt have to support their position. Then, in order to correct that fallicy the non believer is forced to get into the semantics.
I mean, it IS a passive tense version in some sense thats the point. (That you arent making an assertion or claim).
Also, I think its a similar error to say “chose/choose to disbelieve”. I dont know how one can do that and make it distinct from a delusion. Same with “choosing to believe”. You are either convinced or you arent, you dont really make a choice.
Im sympathetic to what you are saying, these sorts of arguments are tired. This is because people on both sides muddy the waters by misunderstanding these sorts of arguments. They regurgitate what they have heard other people on their side of the debate say, repeat the same arguments but do not really umderstand them. Ive had this exact same conversation with atheists who were actually using the argument!
For myself, there are other more convincing or interesting arguments to have than this one but it always seems like this one and some variation of “no one is certainof anything so I dont have to defend my belief”, which is another false equivalence and uninteresting imo
You're making a positive claim, you just don't realize that you are.
Rank, you can't rely on most atheists to explain atheism to you, as they don't understand it themselves. In 20 years of discussing this on a variety of atheist and philosophy websites I've rarely encountered an atheist who understands, and will admit, that they are making a positive claim which requires a defense, just like the theist positive claim. Like most theists, they are typically just repeating memorized phrases they've heard from others.
Belief in God is based on trust in the qualifications of some authority, typically a holy book.
Disbelief in God is based on trust in the qualifications of an authority too, typically human reason.
The qualifications of both of these authorities are reasonably challenged. That process is called "reason".
Insisting that the other fellow bears the burden of proving the qualifications of their chosen authority, but that we bear no burden of proving the qualifications of our chosen authority, is called "intellectual dishonesty". Such a process is not reason at all, but merely ideology....
.... the very thing which probably alienates you from religion.
Hilariously flawed, you are talking right out your ass.
First, you tell me im trusting an authority called reasoning and therefore my view is no more or less justified than the view of the one not based on reason but ancient books written by primitives and what is your basis for doing that? Reason!
Spectacular failure. Not to mention I just got through explaining exactly why your assertion here is wrong.
Cherry on the cake? You dont even know what intellectual dishonesty means!
Congratulations sir, you have the proud distinction of the single, most profoundly ignorant post I have ever bothered to respond to. What can I say, i had a good long laugh.
We are done here, you go ahead and have the last word.
Let me guess... You're 22, right?
Oh well, Rome wasn't built in a day. In your defense some very bright leading minds have spent their entire lives stumbling around in the confusion you are expressing.
The thing is that with respect to whether atheism obtains or not, where/how the lack of belief arrives is irrelevant.
You're right: authority is neither required nor relevant. Justification is a different matter. To discard a theory or idea requires exactly as much justification as accepting it. No more, no less. ... If you're working with logic and reason, that is.... :chin:
To the continued point, I have no hesitation at all in saying " There is no china teapot orbiting around the sun". With my limited understanding of the the make up of china tea pots, and the nature of the physical environments around the sun. I see no way that a china tea pot could be put in such an orbit, or survive in those conditions. For these reasons, I challenge the proposition that a small china tea pot is in an elliptical orbit around the sun, and assert my reasonable belief that "there is no china teapot orbiting around the sun"
I am however open to arguments for the existence of a china teapot being there, and if convincing, would be happy to admit my prior truth claim was in error.
Ok, so you are wanting atheists to have a similar position towards god as you do towards the teapot? To assert there isnt a god? Is that right?
I disagree with your first sentence. Not believing in something is not a truth claim. This is what the teapot analogy illustrates. This is precisely the semantic game we discussed, not believing in something is the absence of a belief not a belief in something. A baby is in this state concerning all kinds of belief, what you are saying by not making the distinction is that as soon as the baby becomes aware of ANY claim no matter how preposterous or unsupported he becomes automatically bound by some sort of burden of proof for an absence of belief that hasnt changed at all since he was ignorant of it in the first place. This is a very poor way to go about it, and is not the way its done for any other beliefs as you yourself pointed out.
But I was actually hoping you would answer my question directly. You’ve obviously heard these explanations before and not been convinced. I doubt I can put it clearer than anyone else that understands it.
So, I was hoping to get a clear idea of where exactly you are coming from and where you stand.
To answer your question directly - which I thought I had. I do believe " not believing in the existence of God is an active act. It is not that you are un-aware of the concept of God as in your baby example. I have all along made the assumptions you are aware of the concept of God, have heard the basis for these truth claims, and actively reject them, presumably for some reason. I think people in such a position, who feel a need to articulate this active disbelief to others, should be willing to defend this claim.
The purpose of the baby example was to illustrate what it means to not have a belief about something. I guess it was a bad example because it wasnt meant to make a comparison anout knowledge of god.
So lets forget about what I think about this and address your thinking in it.
You said “not believing in the existence of god is an active act”. Is it only the lack of belief in god that is an active act or does it work that way for all lack of belief? I'm not trying to trap you here but if you answer yes that seems problematic to me.
Yes - it is an act of thought to - be presented with a concept as a truth, understand the concept as presented, and then reject that concept as false. If you wish to express that belief that you hold that the concept is false to someone else - you should be willing to support that.
I have basically said the same thing now a few times - not sure how to say it differently.
We can just agree to disagree as you suggested if its getting frustrating. I was just trying to track your view here and started from the beginning, but I get not wanting to repeat yourself.
From what I’ve so far read, I align myself with @Rank Amateur. In attempts to approach the issue from a somewhat different angle:
In one’s lack of belief concerning a given belief X:
A: Is one unaware of X as a stipulated belief of what is true? If yes, then no cognition of X occurs, as with the infant. If no:
B: Is one uncertain of whether or not belief X presents what is in fact true? Then one is agnostic about the truth-value of X.
Or
C: Is one certain that belief X is false? Then one holds a positive belief that belief X is false.
Where X signifies deity/deities, A is irrelevant to issues of belief, B defines agnosticism, and C defines atheism.
Other than the additional possibility of theism, what other possibilities are there? Else, how are the three offered possibilities wrong?
Ok, so if one's atheism arises from the use of tarot cards, that's just as valid as any other method, and the difference between one chosen authority and another is irrelevant. There's no need to examine and question any particular chosen authority, because they are all equally valid, and how one arises at one's views, on any subject, is irrelevant.
Yes, that's it. Some of our younger atheist friends (and many leading atheist spokesmen too) don't understand the difference between reason and ideology. The primary goal of the ideologist, whether religious, atheist or other, is to win. Reason doesn't care who wins.
I think atheists have, in theory, a valid methodology in reason. The problem is often that, 1) they don't understand what reason is, or 2) they want to wave the reason flag without actually doing reason.
If one follows the trail of reason on these subjects, one doesn't wind up being a member of either the theist or atheist camp. One doesn't even wind up being a regular agnostic, because agnostics typically recognize the theist vs. atheist paradigm as being the valid question they are trying to answer.
On subjects of such enormous scale, reason leads to a clear minded recognition of our ignorance.
Once the fact of our ignorance is seen and accepted, the next step on the path of reason is to ask what constructive use can be made of this abundant asset.
Discussions on philosophy forums almost never get that far, as the vast majority of users are still trapped inside the theist vs. atheist contest, still entangled in fantasy knowings of various flavors.
Except for the blind faith in science itself.
The problem you are up against is that many, perhaps most, atheists don't realize that they are making a positive assertion. This seems especially true of the more adamant atheists.
This is actually quite interesting, and should be even more so to a person of religious faith such as yourself. The reason so many atheists don't realize they are making a positive assertion is that they take the qualifications of human reason for any and all subjects to be an obvious given which requires no inspection or challenge. That is...
They are people of faith. Or rather, people of blind faith, people of faith who don't realize that they are people of faith.
Naturally, such an insight can be highly offensive to any atheist who has written 10,000 forum posts regarding how silly/bad/stupid etc faith is.
The problem with this approach is that you seem to be using reason to determine that those who take the application of reason for granted have a blind faith. Maybe they don't have a blind faith because maybe your application of human reason to this problem was inappropriate. It is only your blind faith which makes it seem so.
It's always an active act, unless the person has never heard of whatever is being examined. So, a baby's lack of belief in God is not an active act. Once they've heard of the God idea, whether they choose to believe or not, that's an active act, based on reference to some chosen authority.
The reason you don't believe in God is that you've examined God claims using your chosen authority, human reason, and by that process have concluded that sufficient evidence is lacking. The validity of your conclusion depends entirely on whether human reason is qualified to deliver meaningful answers on this set of questions, just as the validity of theist conclusions typically depends on whether their chosen holy book is so qualified.
If you wish for anyone else to accept your conclusions, you bear the exact same burden as the theist, you have to prove the qualifications of your chosen authority. And just like the theist, you will be unable to do so. And thus we arrive at what unites all of us on questions of this scale, our ignorance.
If we are operating from the unexamined assumption that the point of such inquiries should be to find an answer, (an assumption shared by almost all theists and atheists) then discovering our ignorance can be seen as a bad thing, an unwelcome defeat.
But we don't have to blindly accept the assumption that the most useful goal for such an enterprise must be to find "The Answer". We don't have to blindly accept that assumption just because almost everyone else does. We can question that assumption. We can explore alternatives. We can do philosophy.
the millions how follow - just repeat
Yes, this is a common and understandable misunderstanding, which I should work harder to clear up.
We can use reason to discover reason's limits. As example, we can examine the evidence of our lives using reason, and discover that we can't fall in love using only reason. We used reason to conduct that analysis, and in doing so discovered a limitation of reason.
Reason has been proven useful for very many things on human scale, way too many to begin to list. But no one has proven that human reason is also qualified to meaningfully analyze the very largest of questions.
The very same situation exists for holy books. Holy books have provided meaning and comfort to billions of people over thousands of years. But we can't leap blindly from the impressive success to the assumption that therefore holy books are also qualified to meaningfully analyze the very largest of questions, right?
If members would simply apply the very same methodology to atheism that they apply to theism (ie. intellectual honesty) they will soon discover that no one can prove the qualifications of their chosen authority, and thus the entire God debate merry-go-round comes screeching to a halt.
And that is where a more interesting inquiry might begin.
I agree with all of this, but...
It varies. Some atheists are indeed using this dodge as a deliberate debate tactic, that's true. But, imho, most atheists simply don't understand that they too are people of faith, and are arguing sincerely from that misunderstanding.
And so I should probably lighten up and stop kicking their ass.
My lame excuse is that I've been discussing this almost daily for 20 years, and conversations like this almost never make it past this point, and riding the same old merry-go-round over and over and over again does try my admittedly limited patience. Which is entirely my problem. I'll try to keep that in mind.
agree with all - and my interest in this debate is more about the is belief in anything an active act - than in any kind of theist - non theist debate. There is nothing I have to add to that issue - read, think, make your own mind up - is where that has been for as long as I can remember.
My only other concern on this issue is that each side respect as reasonable the other sides position.
But I completely agree that both science and reason - have been elevated to a religion based on faith by many - and many of those are completely blind to this.
I understand, and respect your style here. But, should it ever interest you, you should feel free to make the Catholic case, imho. We all know you're not an annoying evangelist, and it's possible to make the Catholic case without being one, as you already know. We're all making our cases, you should feel free to do the same.
Quoting Rank Amateur
What's interesting and useful about this reality is that it can help illustrate to non-theists how religious faith may come to be. When those adamantly against religious faith do so using a faith of their own, that tells us that faith is part of the human condition, not just the religious condition.
Personally, I have a strong (and sometime loud) faith that nobody knows the answers to any of this, and there's no way to prove that either. But that doesn't stop me from believing in my own perspective. We're all in pretty much the same boat, and the great divides so often proposed are largely a fantasy.
I think it is. Refusing to reach a conclusion, perhaps because of insufficient evidence, is not a truth claim. Reaching a conclusion is a truth claim. And proclaiming that something is, or is not, is a truth claim. How could it be otherwise?
Exactly. :up: Science (and the logic that underlies it) demands that we not reach a conclusion if the evidence is less than conclusive. We must suspend judgement (i.e. actively avoid drawing any conclusions) until such time as there is sufficient evidence available to justify a conclusion.
:up: On many (most? all?) subjects, reason leads to a clear minded recognition of our ignorance.
:smile:
You asked for my Catholic cut - here it is on this - said much better than I could.
“Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more.”
? Thomas Merton
Well, there are many, many subjects where we have exhaustive data. As example, reason has proven itself the best methodology for building bridges, beyond any doubt. This is true of very many things at human scale.
But, being qualified for many things does not automatically equal being qualified for everything. This is the unwarranted leap that many of us are making.
Good quote, thanks. I'd like to learn more about Merton should you ever wish to so instruct us.
From the Fundamentalist Agnostic :smile: perspective faith is an unnecessary step if we decline the very widely held assumption shared by theists and atheists alike that the point of the inquiry should be to find an answer, a knowing. As philosophers we might observe how rarely this assumption is questioned.
The atheist cosmologists have created what might well be a gigantic fairy tale - Eternal Inflation and its multiple universes all with different configurations; just to get around the need for God. Seems to me they are jumping through hoops just to avoid God. Not very objective or scientific IMO.
I like this issue. We might talk of a blind faith in that very project that rarely sees itself. Your idea here is similar (not the same thing) to Stirner's notion of 'the sacred,' which is something like a most general name of the project of finding/imposing trans-personal knowledge. Can this structure ever be dodged? Or is it just softened as it becomes aware of itself?
Your view also reminds me of negative theology in the revelation of the possibility of a not-knowing and a not-needing-to-know. In some ways the unveiling of this possibility is arguably a sharing of knowledge. The difference might live in the emotional tone of the presentation. A project that is invisible to itself as presupposition will perhaps tend to be more shrill. Those who resist the project are proclaimed fools. Reason is one and universal, the holy ghost itself for the woke. But when 'reason' is appealed to as a kind of fixed object that doesn't divide and interrogate itself, is this still reason, or an idol named 'reason'?
*edit: I mention 'theology' because one could think of 'god' as the open space in which one can debate whether or not there is a god, god as possibility itself, god as a questioning, etc.
Ok, take us there, as your time permits. A Merton thread, or general Catholic thread perhaps? Not sure how it should be organized given the enormity of the subject.
Quoting sign
For starters, it would satisfy me just that we question whether a search for answers (regarding the largest of questions) should automatically be assumed to be the best way to proceed.
Quoting sign
Yes, you get it. If reason is assumed to be a "one true way" in every circumstance it's on the edge of becoming a kind of religion.
I relate to that. Illuminate the issue! Use a torch to show the the darkness (darkness as possibility?) Some assume thinking is about the destruction of questions. But what if the cutting edge of reason is in the asking? In the annihilation of answers with question marks?
Quoting Jake
Indeed. And especially if one stops at the emotionally charged word 'reason.' Is reason ever done reasoning about the nature of reason? 'Reason is one and universal.' Is reason one and universal? This is what we need of reason to make sense of our imposing visions of the real on one another. Is reason not already divine or appealed to as a divinity then? Reason determines the real, makes it determinate, brings it consciousness without distortion. That seems to be the idea. Is this why 'the real is rational and the rational is real'?
The name for 'that which is binding' (abstract authority) changes, but perhaps the appeal to that which binds (behind its changing names) is constant. Aren't arguments largely about the name of that-which-binds? From or in the name of that-which-binds? Appeals to reason in its infinite ambiguity seem to imagine reason as a heavenly machine the true thinker incarnates (which isn't to say they are wrong or right).
Is this not the emotional charge of the idea of science? IMV, the OP clearly demonstrates a religious feeling toward the word 'science.' I read the anti-theism as a form of iconoclasm. Since scientific rationality is the true 'god' (a distributed 'holy ghost'), traditional theism is an enemy faith that apparently denies or resists the universality or incarnation of reason. 'God' is understood as a hidden entity subverting the mastery of reason as an alien, unjustified authority. But 'godless' man-as-rational-community who has come to full self-possession only grants authority through reason. The unreasonable is unreal.
===
Induction is as automatic as digestion. Patterns are experienced and projected on the future. Yesterday's 'how' shall be tomorrow's, a faith in our blood invisible to logic. Is science a system of concepts, algorithms, and a thin philosophy that only concepts and algorithms that lead to repeatable, witness-independent results are to count? What can 'god' be for science if not some concept associated with algorithms and repeatable, public results? Is this then not the god of the science-as-philosophy party? And what are the results that really count? Are these not finally feats of technology, overwhelming doubts about the philosophy of science in utility and as superior weapon? Science seduces with convenient and amusing gadgets and threatens with weapons that cannot be defended against by the pre-scientific. I am myself seduced and threatened by science, not against it just because I try to see its foundation. Is it the result of an embodied dialectic, where desire and fear are primary?
But is there not also along with the seduction of convenience and spectacle the old religious seduction? If only the 'superstitious' and the other philosophers who understand reason differently will see 'my' light which is the true light, I can tell the truth about reason. I can finally decide the real in the name of reason, creating the real with my voice (not I, but universal reason through me.) In the beginning was the (rational-scientific) word. But am I happy without the recognition by others of the reason that speaks through me? No. (Or why do I appear here?) So I am directed outward toward the recognition of 'my' reason by a reason also outside me. Can science address such things and replace philosophy, a philosophy that might be eerily adjacent to religion?
That's correct. So it would be fine to say for example - I hope God exists, but not okay to say I believe God exists, or I believe God doesn't exist. Theism and atheism are both unjustified conclusions. It's an argument that might work with some atheists; because they will recognize the limits rational argument places upon what they can and cannot claim to know.
But there's other atheists who insist atheism is not a belief; while effectively maintaining a belief that God does not exist. Similarly, theists refuse to recognize the epistemological principle. They would say - 'My faith is not based on evidence' and 'What kind of faith would it be if it required proof'? You cannot rationally argue someone out of an irrational position in which they are emotionally invested. And I think it's the emotional investment of both theists and atheists that keep them from settling on the rationally agnostic mid point.
Nitpicking, I know, as I agree with nearly all you say. :smile: But I think it's OK to say "I believe that God exists", as long as I don't go to the next step and assert that God exists. But this does depend on how we define "believe", and then proceeds to get even more confused as we delve deeper. :wink:
[ Edited to add: Of course, if I did say "I believe that God exists", and I do, I should be clearly aware that I am working outside logic, based on faith, and probably little else. I do believe God exists, but I know that I can offer no logical justification for my belief. None at all. And I'm happy with that. But it does need saying explicitly, so I'm going to say it again: I do believe God exists, but I know that I can offer no logical justification for my belief because there is no such justification.]
— karl stone
Quoting Pattern-chaser
It depends on how we define knowledge. If we define knowledge as true justified belief - as I have say, in the existence of Australia, then saying "I believe God exists" is a claim to knowledge. If I were to say, 'I believe Australia exists' I'm saying Australia exists - though I've never actually seen it. I'm not making a statement about my beliefs, but about what exists. In short, I don't think you can make that distinction - because belief has to claim something in the world is real.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Why do you believe? Why not just hope God exists? If you admit there's no rational justification for your belief, are you not really hoping that God exists, and yet construing that hope as belief? In doing so, you make a claim to knowledge - and existence, whether you intend it or not. Unless you would put your belief in God in the same category as the caricature of a patient in an insane asylum who believe's he's Napoleon. His belief is about his beliefs.
One can believe something to be true, and act accordingly based on either fact, reason or faith.
It is not a fact that God is
It is reasonable to believe in an "un-created creator" or a "necessary being" and if one wishes one
can call that being God
However the Christian God of the bible, or pick your other "god" is a belief of faith
If you have no problem making a claim that something exists without having an evidential basis for that claim, then you're not doing philosophy. At least, not epistemology. You might be doing theology, in which case - you can claim to believe anything you like. Theology isn't fussy about standards of proof. Science is. And the question here is 'Is science atheistic?' Not necessarily. Science is methodologically anti-faith - and yet, cannot entirely dismiss the God hypothesis because it cannot explain the first cause, in the progression of cause and effect relationships that describe the universe. It would be the claim, "I believe God is the first cause" - that's disallowed by a scientific epistemology.
I'm sorry, I dispute that. I think you mean "...you're not doing scientific or logical philosophy." Philosophy is about thinking, and there is more to thought than logic and evidence.
But, as you say, this thread asks whether science is inherently atheistic, which it is not. Science cannot comment on any aspect of God, because there is no evidence at all to work with.
Aha! A miracle has occurred! We find a point of agreement! :smile: Let's build on it...
It's of course true that agnosticism is almost always seen as a mid point between theism and atheism. However, that is not the only possible way to look at it.
The "regular agnostic" concludes that neither theists or atheists have convincing proof, and so they remain undecided as to which of these positions they will adopt for themselves. The "regular agnostic" is still within the theist vs. atheist paradigm. As example, they still accept the assumption shared by theism and atheism, that the point of the inquiry should be to find an answer, the "regular agnostic" just isn't sure which of the answers offered by theists or atheists is the best.
It's possible for a "regular agnostic" to reason their way deeper in to agnosticism. They can, for example, discard the theist vs. atheist paradigm entirely, being neither theist, atheist, nor between the two, but instead outside of the entire God debate framework.
As example, what I call a "fundamentalist agnostic" can decline the assumption that the goal of such investigations should be to find an answer. What if what the God inquiry has discovered is that we are ignorant, and....
That's a good thing!
Here's a little story to begin to illustrate....
You met a girl at the bus stop and she invited you home for lunch. A few hours later you're walking hand in hand with her in to her bedroom. What will make this an experience you are likely to remember the rest of your life? Ignorance!
Now imagine that you marry the girl, and 37 years later are again walking in to the bedroom with her. What will make this an experience you won't remember until next Tuesday. Not enough ignorance!
Ignorance can be the enemy when we are dealing with matters of survival. Other than that, ignorance is often what keeps life fresh and makes it magical.
The fundamentalist agnostic rejects the simplistic assumption that ignorance is automatically a bad thing. In those cases where ignorance is inevitable and abundant (such as the God debate), the rational act is to embrace ignorance, and mine this abundant resource for every value which it can provide.
But, but, but.... You're very concerned with reality you say? Ok, great.
The overwhelming vast majority of reality from the very smallest to very largest scales is.... nothing.
I accept there are important branches of philosophy - I'm thinking of political philosophy, that speak to concepts like justice, that have no material existence. It's a psychological and inter-subjective phenomena. Is that what you mean when you say you believe in God - not that you believe God exists, so much as you believe the concept of God exists, and has real world effects you believe are positive and desirable?
What would you choose given two theories of equal predicability:
- A complex theory with no God
- A simple theory with God
For me: no. I believe that God exists, because I choose to. I find the concept beneficial in many different ways, which is why I make this choice. But I accept, openly and consciously, that this is wholly a faith position.
It's not really about complexity, it's about necessity. The question I would ask myself of any phenomenon is "can I explain this using forces I've already had to posit the existence of to explain previously experienced phenomena using the same method? "
Of, course, no one is obliged to use this method, but its a perfectly reasonable method for avoiding what might otherwise be an unwieldy proliferation of theories, and it happens to be (as far as I know) the method adopted by the enterprise we call Science, which is the one on question.
But to answer your question more directly, I cannot think of a theory which would be so simple on its own that the addition of God doesn't automatically make it monumentally complex.
It's important to science to admit what you are and are not able to know - and that's why I'm agnostic. I don't know if God exists, or does not exist. I'm okay with not knowing. I see no reason to form an opinion. The requirement of faith is a religious one; and the unfaith of atheism is its mirror opposite. The agnostic who admits what he can and cannot know for reasons of scientific epistemology is not within that paradigm, because reality is not defined by religion or irreligion. It's defined by science!
The theories we have on the origin of the universe are more complex because they deliberately exclude the possibility of God.
The fact that the universe appears fine-tuned for life suggests the universe was created. Science has gone to extraordinary lengths to work around this rather awkward fact (for atheists). The cosmologists have invented models with an infinite number of randomly configured universes to try to explain fine-tuning. These models are complex and untestable.
The simpler Occam's Razor approach is to have a single universe that was fine-tuned for life by a creator. But it means excepting the possibility of God. Science needs to be open to this possibility if it's to continue to make progress IMO.
1) Science concerns itself with facts about reality.
2) Religion concerns itself with our relationship with reality.
Religion is poor science, and science is poor religion. Apples and oranges.
Here's a prescription for uniting reason and religion.
It's an act of reason to recognize the reality of our ignorance, proven by at least 500 years of totally inconclusive God debate.
It's an act of religion to use the fact of our ignorance to constructively enhance our relationship with reality. Relationship. Emotional. Psychological. The reality of where human beings live.
Jake - do see this as a kind of restatement of Absurdism ?
The trouble is you have no defined measure of complex here. I could argue that anything with God in it seems more complex, it gets us nowhere.
Quoting Devans99
No, the fact that the universe appears fine tuned for life suggests that we wouldn't be in any other universes to be thinking about it.
Quoting Devans99
As is a god-created universe, so we're back to square one except that the maths by which physicists postulate these alternate universes has already proved itself to be reasonably necessary in explaining other phenomenon, God has not.
Quoting Devans99
No, because it would involve postulating the existence of a force which does not seem to be necessary, hence it is simpler to try to explain the phenomena with forces we already have had to postulate.
So, you're saying you believe God exists - and surely, that's a claim about the nature of reality.
Quoting Jake
That's a contradictory claim. Nothing has no dimensions!
Apologies, I don't understand the question, can you clarify? That is, I don't know what Absurdism is, not being an actual philosophy but only a honking blowhard.
The weak anthropic principle explains that the universe must be fined tuned for life; it does not explain why the universe is fined-tuned for life.
Quoting Ciaran
There is no experimental evidence to support multiple universes. There is experimental evidence for the theory of Inflation but not for the extended theory of Eternal Inflation (multiple universes).
Quoting Ciaran
But that force is required to explain the fine tuning. Science can't just ignore the physical evidence.
The strong anthropic principle (multiple universes) just does not cut it IMO. Exactly how are all these universes meant to come out with different characteristics? They all go through the same processes and end up at the same temperature and density so they should all be life supporting. IE if there are multiple universes, they were all created, maybe by God.
Absudism is a philosophy most notably made popular by Camus - What is says in a sentence or two is, men seem to have a need to seek meaning for their existence. But there is no meaning to be found. This paradox of a need to find meaning where there is none is absurd.
https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/camus-and-absurdity
I should've been clearer, sorry. I believe that God exists, in some sense, but I stop short of the more-concrete claim that God exists in the 'real' world. There is no evidence, after all. So I am happy to say what I believe, but not to make claims that might appear scientific or 'objective'. That's going too far, for me at least. :wink:
Ah, thank you.
Well, first, there is a meaning to be found, any meaning we choose to craft for ourselves.
However, I suspect you and Camus are both referring to some external meaning beyond human invention. I'm not claiming there is no such external meaning, only that no one has been able to provide convincing proof of such a meaning. Nor has anyone been able to prove that there is NOT such an external meaning. Nobody can prove anything, ie. we are ignorant.
My focus is to attempt reconcile reason and religion by realistically facing the evidence of our ignorance (reason), and using that ignorance to constructively enhance our relationship with reality (religion).
And so for instance, I suggest a shift of focus to experience, rather than interpretations of experience.
Interpretations (from any side) are mired in ignorance and conflict, a pointlessly repetitive loop leading to nothing but more of the same, proven by 500+ years of inconclusive debate. Not an act of reason. Nor an act of true religion, imho, given the extensive conflict involved.
Experience free of interpretation can be rooted in the act of observation. It could perhaps also be rooted in the act of prayer, if the prayer is characterized not by talking, asking or believing, but in listening. Pretty much the same thing as observation.
Jesus suggested "dying to be reborn". While not claiming to know exactly what he meant by that, to me it means, dying to the symbolic and being reborn in the real. Not ideas about the real. The real.
Well, I'm happy for you if you find comfort and meaning in your belief. I just wouldn't base my economic and industrial strategy on it!
Right, so how does that have any bearing on the necessity of God? The universe is suitable for life, I'm not seeing the need to explain that via a creator, it can either just be that way by chance or be the only one of billions that aren't that way.
Quoting Devans99
Again, I'm not sure what relevance this has to God (the topic here) the amount of experimental data doesn't have any bearing on the theory, testing comes after developing a theory. Theories about multiple universes do rely on maths and physics which have already proven themselves to be useful in models. God has not yet proven to be so useful.
Quoting Devans99
Explain why anything is required to explain fine tuning.
Quoting Devans99
Do they? How do you know this?
Absolutely. Well said.
Belief in God is also entirely useless in tuning the carburetor on a 57 Chevy convertible. So buh! Bah hum bug! Phooey! What foolishness! Etc ad nauseam infinitum!!
— karl stone
Quoting Jake
It's the epistemic standard, or lack thereof, that follows from belief in God - and pervades societal institutions, that's the problem when it comes to economic and industrial strategy - not God as such! In my view, putting the science out front is simple common sense, but philosophy requires more of us than common sense. For the argument to have any authority it has to be proven true, insofar as it can - or at least justified by sufficient reason - particularly if that argument is that we should value scientific method and understanding. Hence the need to examine critically.
Having looked at the matter, I rather suspect it's those who believe in God who object to recognition of science, because it places an undue burden on religion to justify its claims, rather than the objection of scientists to the fact that people believe all sorts of things. I certainly have no objection to what people choose to believe, but the political ill-effects of the unfounded fear that religion would have no raison d'etre without an uncontested claim to truth, need to be rectified. It seems we are sophisticated enough to encompass the contradiction.
So you're with the 'there is no truth' squad - that band of people who undermine any scientific claim to authority with subjectivist and metaphysical relativism? The fact you're ignoring is that science works; it establishes generalized principles that can be applied over and over, and produce reliably valid results because the principle is true of some facet of reality. From the accumulation of true principles, over the past 50 years particularly, a highly coherent picture of reality has emerged - and it's that scientific picture of reality we need to take into account where necessary and appropriate to do so.
[*] Wikipedia/atheism underlines this clearly as well: "Atheism broadly means lack of belief in Gods, more narrowly, atheism means belief that no gods exist".
[*] It is very strange that your dictionary definitions clearly show that atheism concerns lack of belief in Gods, and you claim otherwise. The evidence you gathered clearly shows that atheism is broadly, lack of belief.
[*] See Wikipedia/false dilemma. You fallaciously propose that since atheism may be known as a positive belief that God's exist, it is therefore false that atheism may also concern lack of belief. That's a false dilemma.
[/list]
In other words, the absence of a person in a bank robbery, means that the person was actually at the bank robbery?
I think the analogy above closely matches your logic, and I hope you see how silly that logic is.
The absence of a crew member, that is, not being present at a bank robbery, does indeed require the crew member to do some reasoning. It still doesn't mean the crew member was present at the bank rubbery if indeed he wasn't there. ( ?° ?? ?°) ( ?° ?? ?°) ( ?° ?? ?°) ( ?° ?? ?°)
I think the analogy above nicely matches your grossly invalid logic.
The chances that a universe, picked at random, would be life supporting are very slim. So many things about our universe are 'just right' that it requires an explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
Quoting Ciaran
I'm using common sense (which cosmology could do with more of). All the universes are made of the same stuff and end up at a similar temperature/density so why on earth would anything be different about them. They all support life or they don't.
Unlikely doesn't mean impossible.
You may want to check out Appeal to improbability fallacy, which you are committing to in your response above.
Could you explain what you mean here? As well as provide citations for your claim?
It's not a matter of "valid" or not, whatever that would amount to in that context. It's just that "atheism" doesn't in any way denote how one arrived at a lack of belief in gods. The only thing it denotes is that one lacks a belief in gods.
Science was used to built your computers.
There are no scientific equations in bible that can help anyone to do anything sensible.
No I am not. I am not saying the universe is definitely fine-tuned for live; I'm saying it appears fine-tuned for life and any scientific explanation of the universe needs to explain the apparent fine tuning. That's exactly what the atheist cosmologists have done; they created the multiple universe theories to explain the fine-tuning. I'm merely pointing out instead of jumping through infinite mathematical loops of multiple universes there is a much simpler explanation.
Quoting VoidDetector
I can't provide citations because these are my opinions.
We have knowledge of what universes are like. We live in one. There is no good reason to expect other universes, should they exist, to be much different from this one. So statistically they should all be live supporting.
If you look at the multiple universe theories, say Eternal Inflation, it is one common mechanism that spawns all the child universes. That mechanism is the same mechanism we see at work in our universe; briefly:
- Universes are all made of the same basic material
- Universes all start with inflation
- Slowing down to regular expansion after a while
- All universes cool down to a similar temperature
- All universes end up at a similar density
So why should we expect the properties of matter/forces to be radically different in other universes? It does not make any sense. If the matter (which is the same matter for all universes) is at the same temperature/density then it is in the same state in all universes. IE life supporting.
See Cosmological Natural Selection for example, which is a scientific theory that explains fine tuning. it's basically much like biological natural selection. There were reasonably a large number of universes, each "successful" or occurring universe would reasonably contain black holes.
Well I read it but it sounds like another atheist pipe dream attempt to explain fine-tuning:
Black holes typically have a mass of a few solar masses on average. Our universe is utterly huge. If universes are caused by black holes, we should expect small universes of a few solar masses rather than utterly huge universes like ours. So the theory runs contrary to the physical evidence.
You may want to spend more than 4 minutes to go over the data I presented to you. The difference between religious data and scientific knowledge, is that unlike religious texts, scientific data builds modern medicine, the computers you use etc. You can take a few more months to go over the data.
I agree, and I think you are touching on the essence here. 'Rationality' is ultimately identified with utility and power in this appeal to technology. 'Knowledge is power' ultimately leads to 'power is knowledge.' The true ground of scientific authority (one might say) is white-washed with an ultimately religious talk about some kind of rationality apart from technical power. Science is the 'living God' because it actually performs miracles. In some sense, scientism just refers us to the correct and actual miracles, toward the living 'God' of man the engineer. As I mentioned before, scientism tends to repeat religious motifs.
[quote=1st Kings]
Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the LORD’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let Baal’s prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire—he is God.” Then all the people said, “What you say is good.” 25 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.” 26 So they took the bull given them and prepared it. Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made. 27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.”
[/quote]
https://www.biblestudytools.com/1-kings/18.html
When Elija calls on his living God, the fire comes down as requested. And of course he has all the false prophets gathered up and slaughtered as superstitious corrupters of the body politic.
What for me is interesting here is that scientism ends up looking like its own stereotype of postmodernism, its bogeyman to the left. It seems to need a kind of religiously understood 'pure' rationality even as it leans on technology for its perceived dominance over a philosophy that still has the audacity to question its metaphysical presuppositions. Scientism can retreat from its 'religious' investment in pure rationality into something like post-philosophical prudence. It can then take the shape of a world-saving political program that understands power as truth. In this case can it explain its own concern with saving the world? Perhaps in terms of a social instinct.
A last point is that technology-as-truth just opens up the 'truth' in religion all over again. Religion can easily be framed as a social technology. Once science becomes instrumentalism, there's no clear line between technologies that work. A system of beliefs and rituals can be true in its effectiveness. If science builds cellphones, then religion builds empires (with the help of science, just as science has its ideological sources in religion).
In other words, the gap between scientism and religion is itself a religious concept. A power-as-knowledge conception leads pretty quickly to the effectiveness of religion itself as one more technology. Indeed, scientism itself (which is not science but a cheerleading of science as the replacement of both philosophy and religion) imposes itself as a social technology which hardly differs from religion structurally. If 'God' was always a 'fantasy,' then so is 'perfect rationality.' It's the actions and more concrete thoughts that have these 'fictions' as their center that shape the world.
Dictionary atheism, built by those lacking a common sense understanding of the subject. Not impressed.
Right, we agree on this. But you appear to only be interested in critically examining other people's perspectives, never your own blind faith in science. So basically, you are in part an example of the very thing you reasonably object to. What I've been suggesting to you is that we apply the same critical eye to both religion and science, ie. intellectual honesty.
Quoting karl stone
Yes, I know your dogma, because you've shared it many times. However, what unsophisticated folks such as yourself (and most posters on every philosophy forum) don't seem able to get is that religion is not exclusively about ideological assertions. Religion is much more than wannabe science, no matter how much you wish to so define it.
Science culture is methodologically anti-faith, except in regards to itself. Your own writing provides a great example of that.
That is the "common sense" definition of it--which is why the dictionary reports the same.
The overwhelming vast majority of atheists arrived at their position through reference to human reason. To blatantly and repeatedly ignore this obvious FACT is equivalent to pretending that holy books have little to do with religion. To blatantly and repeatedly ignore the relationship between reason and atheism is to reduce the conversation to a level that would be unacceptable in a high school classroom.
The whole "merely lack belief" business is either a deliberate rhetorical scam (the desire to have no territory to defend), or more often, evidence of a very primitive understanding of the reality of atheism.
I apologize for my adamant stance, but I must admit that it frustrates me that this has to be explained to intelligent well educated people on philosophy forums over and over and over again, and STILL the "merely lack of belief" mythology continues to drag such conversations down to the lowest possible level.
Non-theistic is precisely what Atheism is. It is not a claim that god doesnt exist. On atheism alone you aren’t walking around claiming god doesnt exist, that would be some sort of anti-theism. Many atheist are antitheists as well, and thats where people get confused. If I come to you with an idea about a new god, you are an atheist about that god until you become convinced my new god is real. If you are not convinced and you feel a conflict with something you know or accept as true then you might want to make the assertion that my new god does not exist, you would be some varaiation of an Anti-New God-ist.
These distinctions are the philosophical and common sense uses.
But we've not picked one at random have we? We're talking about the one we're in, which, by definition is the one that's suitable for life. Where does the picking one at random come from?
Quoting Devans99
Are they? How on earth could you know what the temperature of an universe is? We don't even know if they exist yet?
If you think about hypothetical universes - all the possible universes we could of ended up with,
nearly all universes would lack cohesion; IE atoms and molecules (or similar complex structures) would not form. So the vast majority of hypothetical universes would not be life supporting.
The odds that our universe would be suitable for life are therefore probably millions to 1. So we have to answer the question why were we so lucky? The anthropic principle does not answer that question.
Quoting Ciaran
Multiple universes, if they exist, must be generated by some mechanism. It seems very likely that the same creation mechanism would be used for all universes and the same material would be used to create all universes. The universes should all follow the same life cycle. So should they come out like ours.
The alternative of each universe coming out different I have yet to read any convincing explanation of how this could happen. In all the multiple universe models I've seen, each universe starts with an explosion of some sort (to account for our expanding universe) and then the universes expand and cool. All of the universes go through the same phase transitions and end up in a similar state. The fate of all expanding universes is identical.
Quoting Devans99
Eh? Are all the other universes going to lack cohesion or come out like ours?
I am trying to make two separate points here:
1. Hypothetical universes (generated by different mechanisms) that we can imagine in our mind nearly all lack cohesion. Take the standard model, makes a small change, and the resulting universe lacks cohesion. The strong nuclear force and electromagnetic forces have to be just right for atoms to hold together; if the forces were different, atoms would not form, or if they would form, it would only be the simpler elements (no carbon/silicon so no life).
2. Multiple universes (generated by the same mechanism as for our universe) should come out like our universe
Right, so you seem to be saying that the only possible way a universe could be, is to be like ours, and then you're saying it's unlikely that the universe is like ours. I don't quite see how that follows basic probability. If the only possible way a universe could be, is to be like ours, then that makes it a virtual certainty that any existing universe will be like ours.
1. If universes are generated via different mechanisms using different matter then they should come out different. So this applies when considering the weak anthropic principle and single universe models; it is very unlikely that a randomly configured universe would be life supporting, so we have to ask why our single universe is life supporting, IE it was probably designed to be live supporting.
2. If universes are generated via the same mechanism using the same matter, they should come out the same. This applies when considering the strong anthropic principle and multiple universe models. The claim that the presence of multiple universes would somehow lead to all such universes coming out with different configurations (of the standard model etc) seems at odds with common sense.
No, we do not have to ask that. If our single universe were not life supporting we would not be in it to ask the question, so it's obvious that our universe is the life-supporting one (out of all the billions of non-life-supporting ones). It's like saying that a potter makes a billion pots, all but one of which has a hole in it. What's the chances that the only one with water in just happens to be the only one that is capable of containing water?
But if you were to pick a pot at random, you would likely get a pot with a hole. So you have to ask why you were so lucky to get the pot without a hole. There are two possible explanations why your pot has no hole:
1) You hit a billion to 1 chance and got the pot without a hole
2) Someone selected an pot without a hole for you
The first explanation is incredibly unlikely the second explanation is much more likely.
Its exactly the same for the universe:
1) We got lucky by a billion to 1 chance our universe was live supporting
2) Our universe is life supporting because it was designed to be
The 2nd explanation is much more probable than the first.
But we're not picking a pot at random. In the example, we're the water. We could only be in the pot without a hole so why is it surprising that that's the one we're in?
Of course it surprising that we have a pot with no hole; most pots have holes. We still have to ask why does the pot have no hole? We know it must have no hole, but why were we so fortunate to get a pot with no hole? It could just be that we were very lucky or something else is going on. Something else is much more likely.
Every pot has water poured into it (life has the theoretical opportunity to develop in every possible universe), why is it surprising that the only one with water still in it is the one without a hole? It's not like there's an astonishing coincidence of water and holeless pot. Any universe could have attempted life. It only succeed in the one that was suitable for it.
In pot terms:
- It is not surprising that water is found in a pot with no hole
- But it is still surprising that the pot has no hole (when most pots have holes)
Or in universe terms:
- It is not surprising that life is found in a life supporting universe
- But it is still is surprising that the universe is life supporting (most universes are not life supporting)
These two are subtly different.
I hope that is the case, but the existence of God should be inducible to a high degree and many people have trouble with the concept of faith and prefer evidence. If our universe was special, that goes someway towards arguing for God's existence. If on the other hand, there are billions of universes and we just got lucky to find one of the few that is life supporting, you would have to question whether there was any evidence for design and thus God in the multiverse.
Non-atheistic is precisely what theism is.
That's silly, right? Defining either theism or atheism by what they are not is simply silly.
A more useful formula is:
THEISM: Belief in the authority of holy books.
ATHEISM: Belief in the authority of human reason.
This formula is useful because we are now taken directly to an examination of each chosen authority. We can inspect and challenge the qualifications of holy books to address the very largest of questions. We can inspect and challenge the qualifications of human reason to address the very largest of questions.
Most forum atheists are clear on the need to challenge the qualifications of holy books, an entirely appropriate operation.
But when it comes to performing the exact same analysis on their own chosen authority, they typically become hopelessly confused. To be fair to forum atheists, this very same logic failure is shared by many, perhaps most, of the most prominent atheist spokesmen.
REASON: If we perform the same analysis on all chosen authorities in a even handed manner we are doing reason.
IDEOLOGY: If we challenge only the other fellow's chosen authority, and not our own, we are doing ideology.
Atheism becomes entirely pointless if it abandons reason for ideology. Without reason, atheism becomes just another kind of religious experience, and a very poor one at that. Further, there is no hope of competing with the ancient religions when it comes to ideology, for they are the masters of that realm.
To me, the most rational act for both theists and atheists is to focus on developing positive emotional experiences such as wonder and awe etc, and to forget about claims and counter claims, answers, explanations, interpretations, evidence and proof, etc.
The beliefs and counter beliefs etc are just symbols. To focus on symbols is like endlessly arguing about who wrote the best book about sex, instead of having sex.
The beliefs and counter beliefs etc are not only not necessary to reach these emotional experiences, they are counter productive. They draw our attention away from the real world in to the very much smaller realm of human thought. That's like trading a real apple for a cardboard image of an apple, not a great bargain!
Thought is not the solution. Thought is the problem. It's the inherently divisive nature of thought which creates the illusion that we are separate from reality, thus giving rise to the desire to "get back to God". Thinking about God does not accomplish the "getting back", the reunification with reality, because such a process uses the very medium which is causing the illusion of division.
To use religious language, the Apostle John so very efficiently defined God this way. "God is love." Three words! Love is not a theory, position, doctrine or counter theory, counter position, or counter doctrine. Love is an experience.
And if one doesn't believe in God, fine, no problem, and not really too relevant. The experiences of wonder, awe and love etc are still available, and what actually matters.
I'm sorry, but this is inaccurate. Very few people have any trouble with faith, they differ only in what they have faith in.
The situation is not that some people use faith while other people use reason. That's an entirely false division. Everybody uses faith.
As example, someone might like to prove for us that a single half insane semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies is capable of using any process to determine the most fundamental nature of all reality, the scope of God claims. The first problem such a person will encounter is that we actually have no idea what the concept "all of reality" even refers to.
But, even in the face of such absurdity, most people will have faith that some methodology or another can deliver credible meaningful answers of some kind. They differ only in what methodology they have faith in.
Good point. Surely the worst religious experience ever! Listen to Dawkins and Die. I'm amazed its so popular when there are scientific alternatives to atheism (I'm a deist myself).
Personally what I find most annoying is science's use of infinity. I am a finitist so I consider belief in actual infinity to be a supernatural belief. Science has been using infinity for 100 years unchallenged, they've built models of the universe on what is basically akin to magic.
If you look at the history of science, they have got it badly wrong in the past. For example they spent at least 100 years believing in this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
Right now they are probably wrong about infinity and probably wrong about the need for a creator too. It is high time that science was challenged to justify some of its irrational beliefs.
Ok Noah, that's cool. I'm hope I'm writing well enough that readers will understand that I'm not attempting to prove or disprove the existence of God. What I am attempting to address is the relationship between reality, and symbols that point to reality.
From a religious perspective, we can look simply and plainly at what religion is claiming, that God exists in the real world. If that is what one believes it seems the question becomes, how does one look for God where religions say that he is, in the real world? And should we conduct such an investigation, I believe we will find that the biggest obstacle to observing the real world is the very distracting noise being generated by the symbolic world between our ears.
I'm arguing that it is the experience that most matters, and what we call that experience is really not so important.
What I mean is I have no direct faith in God, I put my faith in scientific evidence and probability which lead me to believe that God may exist.
Nope, still not getting it, given a billion pots, given that it is possible for one to be hole-less, why is it surprising to find that one is?
Thanks for your reply. Yes, a scientific alternative to atheism (and theism too) is reason. Actual reason, not ideology posing as reason.
Here's a hypothetical question to illustrate. When members are having wild sex, are you concerned with the God debate? Probably not! That's because the power of that experience makes the God debate irrelevant. Reason should be guiding us not to win the God debate, but to escape it, transcend it, make it irrelevant.
Religion is fundamentally about achieving a psychological reunification with reality. To the degree we can achieve that state of mind, we have no need of religion, or anti-religion either.
The useful question reason should be addressing is, what is it that is generating the experience of being divided, separate, alone?
Ok, thanks for clarifying, that's an interesting twist on the faith experience.
The only reason we are able to question pots with holes and hole-less pots is because we are in a hole-less pot. That doesn’t in itself make us special.
Maybe a slightly different analogy:
Assume there are a billion possible pot designs, only one of which had no holes. Then we find the only pot that exists in fact has no holes. It must have no holes to hold the water but Is it just luck that we got the one with no holes or is something else going on?
Or assume a billion possible universe designs, only one of which is life supporting. We must be in a live supporting universe but are we there just because we got lucky or was the universe designed to be life supporting? The chances we got lucky are a billion to 1 so the universe is almost certainly designed.
Put it this way, the statement 'the universe must be life supporting' (anthropic principle) in no way answers the question 'why is the universe life supporting?' if you see what I mean.
How can we escape this debate though? Our prime directive is survival and that directive extends beyond the grave and into the realm of a potential God. I'm not sure it's possible to stop talking about it until we have some answers; that would be going against a basic instinct.
Well, let's see. Hmm...
First thing to come to mind is that most people have already escaped this debate, more or less. Most atheists never give the matter a thought, and even those who attend a church are typically not that ideological.
It's surely true that we have a basic instinct to try to know things. It doesn't follow for me that therefore we are required to try to know things for which there is really little evidence that a knowing is possible. This may boil down to whether we view philosophy as a means to an end, or as an end in itself.
This is just another theory, but it's not clear to me that survival is really our prime directive. I look at our deepest goal as being more a matter of reunification, liberation from the experience of division and separation. To me, just one view, it doesn't really matter whether we frame that goal as reuniting with a God, or with a vast mechanical reality. What matters in my view is whether we have the experience we are seeking. To the degree that we have that experience, it seems to me that the question of what we are uniting with loses it's importance. As example, while we're having great sex our opinions about sex tend to fade away.
But, your point is taken. It's surely true that some of us will never be able to stop talking about God, he said, while typing his 100,000th post on the subject. :smile:
We can't have got "the one" with no holes if it's "the only one that exists" in order to be surprised we got this one it can only be because there were a number of other options. If there are other options, then how do we know the status of life on them? It could be they all have life because universes suitable for life are inevitable (no surprises), or it could be that no others have life because life was tried on all of them but it failed owing to unsuitable conditions.
What it can't be is what you seem to be implying, that life is sitting somewhere outside of the universe waiting to be allocated a universe to exist in and, what good luck, it happens to be allocated the one with suitable conditions.
I would say that it was inevitable given so many universes.
That may be the case, but since someone who lacks a belief in gods but who came to that view via another means is still an atheist, we don't include the motivational background in the definition. That the position was arrived at via reason is not a necessary component of atheism, as common as that may be.
In the real world, the overwhelming vast majority of the time, what other means??
I said "that may be the case" (that "the overwhelming vast majority of atheists arrived at their position through reference to human reason"), but that's not a necessary criterion for atheism.
We can observe how forum atheists will do the dictionary definition dance all day long, but we somehow never get around to challenging the qualifications of the authority their atheism is built upon.
That's not reason. That's ideology.
I'm not sure what that is referring to.
My atheism is primarily built on the fact that I was never socialized into religion. So by the time i was exposed to religious beliefs in any detail they just seemed--as they still do--completely absurd to me.
I don't know what it would amount to to challenge that.
Exactly.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Ok, that's fine, no problem. I hope you understand I'm not trying to make you be a theist, but rather trying to help you be more loyal to your own chosen methodology, reason.
Religious beliefs seem absurd to you for a reason. That didn't happen magically out of nothing. You referenced your chosen authority, human reason, and discovered that many religious beliefs don't pass the tests required by human reason. And so you find those beliefs to be, in your words, absurd.
What you appear not to have done is apply the very same test to the authority of human reason that you reasonably apply to holy books, the theist's chosen authority. That's my complaint, not that you have declined theism.
To answer your opening question, no, I am not.
As for your other comments, they are not related to anything I said.
I don't know how much I bothered reasoning about it, though. It was more along the lines of "You can't be serious--you believe what?!? :lol: "
Well, ok, if you prefer not to reason about your publicly stated positions, that's your choice of course, and leaves me with little left to do here. No problem, go in peace.
What comes to my mind is a godless form of life. If everyone around you thinks religion is just too silly to bother with, then that becomes a kind of automatic truth not worth questioning. And we can imagine the reverse situation, where atheism is just so obviously silly as to be not worth thinking about. This would be a 'pre-rational' stance on the issue.
A reasonable person (who embraces taking a rational stance) might try to understand what some clearly intelligent people have in mind when they say the word 'God.' Some of them are of course doing bad science. But then there are people attached to 'rationality' also with crude understandings of the rational.
Philosophy (once the dream is born!) can be understood as idealism-meets-humanism to the degree that it only admits what is rational as real. 'God' either doesn't exist or the issue is undecidable or nonsensical because rationality (thinking in words) has determined it so. This is the 'idealism.' The humanism is understanding/projecting human virtue in terms of a universal rationality. I am most human when I sacrifice my wishful thinking to the fire of universal reason, the 'god' within me that gives me as an individual a voice worth recognizing inasmuch as I 'incarnate' that god. To be clear, I embrace this idealism/humanism. But to embrace it is to obsess over what it still gets wrong.
Maybe I misread your post. Let's have another look.
Quoting Mariner
If the fundamental questions epistemology seeks to answer are 'what can we know?' and 'how can we know it'? science, particularly relative to religious, political and economic ideology - constitutes a conception of reality with higher epistemic standards.
Science as a practice is a human activity. Were Pasteur not such a slob he left a cheese sandwich around to go moldy; if Newton had not been goofing off in the orchard... Methodically, science is a way of thinking - demonstrated to establish reliable knowledge, leading to general understanding. The sum of scientific knowledge is a conception of reality, to compare to the conception of reality proposed by ideology.
I would argue, that to maintain ideological conceptions of reality, the scientific conception of reality has been suppressed, downplayed and ignored, to our enormous detriment. Acting from an ideological identity is inescapable - but acting upon those ideas, like some theological over extension of metaphor - has equal and opposite effects. By the same principle, acting upon (not from) a scientific conception of reality will manifest a functionality in the real world - that follows from a truthful relation between the knowledge bases of action and reality. It is a lever - a key, a means of organisation with the potential for massive benefits - and in face of dire need.
And you would in fact argue that in almost every post in every thread.
As it is now, scientists are dazed and confused, and sound like theologians!!
What I see is that everyone around us assumes without questioning that the theist vs. atheist paradigm is the only valid way to approach such issues. Thus, it seems 95% of all commentary is focused on the us vs. them battle within that paradigm.
It seems to me a rational person might examine the evidence produced by this pattern, and see that this routine which has been going on in earnest for at least 500 years, has produced nothing much but endlessly more of the same.
Einstein said something to the effect of doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is the definition of stupidity, or perhaps insanity. I tend to agree.
Quoting VoidDetector
Never mind your strange 'analogy'. Please state clearly and logically exactly how my own logic is faulty. That would be most helpful. Thanks. :smile: :up:
Good point. I think those who can see beyond the fray mostly just avoid it. Others (like ourselves) can't resist suggesting a third position outside the framework which is taken for granted as necessary when this framework is itself a superstition (from the third position.) I think we are mostly ignored or misunderstood. The world just 'is' that framework to those within it.
Quoting Jake
I see what you mean. I would, however, that some thinkers have long since synthesized these positions into a more sophisticated unity. The transformation of the divine is also known IMO as the history of philosophy. Of course plenty of philosophy has gotten stuck at this or that stage, but the cutting edge of philosophy has move on, one might say. Hegel would be my obvious go-to here. Here he is in one of his clearest texts: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hp/hpintroduction.htm
Quoting Jake
Indeed. And that touches on Hume's noticing that induction has no deductive justification. It's deeper than that. It's in our blood. This is another thing that makes scientism a little questionable. Induction is a 'blind faith' in terms of some explicit rationality. Of course I trust induction. I can't help it. But I also can't pretend that it's not 'faith' in some sense.
https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/sum2016/entries/induction-problem/
— karl stone
Quoting Jake
The degree to which I've elbowed the subject in to other topics is over-estimated by those who do not appreciate the full scope of the argument. At its core is the relationship between life and causal reality, as a definition of truth, it proceeds through evolution and anthropology to history and unto politics - to explain the current state and nature of our civilizations relative to intellectual evolution. It's not even, nor merely that we now know better - that's debatable in many ways, but the emergence of a qualitatively distinct and superior form of knowledge in scientific understanding that is significant. Imagine we chose to recognize it as such. The potential of harnessing scientific functionality to human affairs certainly allows for a sustainable future; and begins with harnessing vast amounts of renewable energy. 450 solar farms, one kilometer square, floating on the surface of the oceans would double the amount of energy available every year. Used to produce fresh water and hydrogen fuel - it would allow for habitation and agricultural production in previously inhospitable areas - thereby protecting natural resources from over-exploitation. In theory, all this is possible - and quite possibly, infinitely more. It would be remiss not to point it out.
The full scope of the argument is...
You worship science.
Beginning, middle and end.
You sounded like you were lamenting how much more we could be doing if we embraced science, is that what you intended? It seems like the world at large HAS done that...
I'd love to be able to empirically test this. :wink:
I think in general, by the way, that you grossly underestimate stupidity. You often seem to think that just because someone is intelligent in some regard, they can't be quite stupid in other regards, even closely-related areas to the area in which their intelligence occurs.
https://www.ynharari.com/we-should-never-underestimate-human-stupidity-historian/
What is a "higher" epistemic standard? How can one compare standards? This is not a rhetorical question, by the way -- it goes to the core of the problem. (And asking it does not make the asker a relativist ;)).
I'll give you my answer: a higher epistemic standard (using "higher" in this normative sense that you are apparently defending) is one that calls our attention to the fundamental link between knowledge and (individual) experience. There is no knowledge without a knower, and a higher epistemic standard is one which tests a given proposition (offered as "knowledge") against the conditions of knowledge: personal experience, logic, rational articulation (among others).
Quoting karl stone
That is more utopian than actual. But even if we restrict the discussion to the natural sciences (the paragraph above becomes strained to the point of absurdity if we include many fields which are called "science" nowadays), it must not be forgotten that science works so well by excluding information from the field of inquiry. In order to develop a law of gravitation, we had to exclude all kinds of information from the actual experience and observation of falling bodies. (Indeed, Newton excluded better than Aristotle -- no slouch scientist, he -- which is why Newtonian gravitation is better science than Aristotelian gravitation). Science works by a severe shaving off of the (literally) infinite pool of "possible data", so as to focus on "relevant data" -- and the criteria of relevance is not a given in science. It comes from the input of the scientist as a rational observer. (In other words, we cannot do science by pure algorithm -- some criteria of relevance must be added beforehand to the mix).
Quoting karl stone
This downplays the immense difficulty of developing what you call the scientific conception of reality in the first place. It is not a given. It was achieved through hard work, expanded throughout generations. And it is not accessible to anyone without a proportionate effort. In other words, it is not easy to maintain a scientific outlook; it is not natural for human beings to do it. It is feasible, of course, but it is not intuitive.
It is not necessary to downplay anything if one wants to avoid a scientific outlook; all that is required for that is the direction of one's energies to other goals than that of achieving universalizable, replicable knowledge.
(I think your argument could use more explicit definitions of science and ideology, incidentally).
Quoting karl stone
Well said.
Nonetheless, there are other things between heaven and earth than science x ideology.
No, with about 8000,000,000 of us on the planet today, and we have done nothing to slow the rate at which that becomes 9000,000,000, and 10,000,000,000 of us soon after that, there can/will be no future for our species, sustainable or otherwise. We have consumed too much. The root of the problem revolves around capitalism and greed, I think.
The distinction I make is between science as a tool box, and science as an instruction manual. Our problem is, we have used scientific tools without reading the instructions.
If we were to give a 10 year old access to ever more power without limit catastrophe would inevitably be the result sooner or later.
Same for a 15 year old.
Same for a 20 year old.
Same for a 30 year old.
Same for a 40 year old.
Same for a 50 year old.
Same for a 60 year old.
Are you starting to get where this is going, or should I spell it out a little bit more?
Yes, the misapplication of science, outside of its sphere of relevance, is, er, unwise. :up:
The same scientists that built the computers upon which you type.
The same scientists that conceived modern medicine, modern transportation, etc.
On the contrary. Have you noticed that fertility rates globally have gone down?
This is 1970's reasoning, which has been shown to be incorrect.
I understand what you're saying. But my actual argument is that the human species faces an existential challenge, and recognizing that science describes an understanding of reality provides a rationale for the application of technology necessary to secure sustainability. And, it seems to me, applying technology in relation to a scientifically valid understanding of reality would address your concern about 'power without limit.'
They have indeed, but not enough to slow things down all that much, and it wasn't something we did, it just happened. God did it! :wink:
Quoting ssu
Interesting. I was under the impression that global warming and pollution are proceeding as they have done since the 70s and before, and (in many cases) still accelerating. It seems I'm wrong. Can you offer some justification for your happy conclusion? :chin:
Actually, in terms of population and natural resources, we are rather quite well placed right now to secure a favourable outcome. We have the knowledge, technology, the design capability and the industrial capacity to set ourselves, and future generations on a solid foundation. The obstacle is us; and the irony is - that the distance it seems from plausible is a precise measure of how far off the path we've gone. For it follows naturally that an organism crafted from the DNA up, to be correct to reality or die out, would welcome the ability to establish truthful knowledge, would revere and pursue such knowledge, and act accordingly. Does it not?
Ok, but where in the "scientifically valid understanding of reality" has any working scientist argued for limiting science research? With a few exceptions isn't the science culture dogma mantra full speed ahead on almost all fronts?
Where in your writing have you argued for limits on scientific research, any limits at all?
Or is the "scientifically valid understanding of reality" a utopian vision which you wish to present? If yes, then how do you propose to sell this vision to the scientific community, those who fund them, and the culture at large?
The distinction I'm trying to make is between science for power and profit, and - to put it very crudely, science for science sake. Scientists currently operate very much in the former context precisely because we fail to recognize the significance of a scientifically valid understanding of reality. Recognizing the authority of scientific truth in very certain respects, can alter the economic rationale such as to align profit and with a common interest in sustainability.
Quoting Jake
Currently, science is pursued almost solely for profit. The profit motive provides the rationale to do science, and to apply technology. I'm arguing for a different rationale, in certain key areas, one that follows from a straight up, scientifically bald description of the world. I do not imagine a utopia. I'm merely describing a useful tool.
There are legitimate limitations, I have argued should apply to the authority of a scientific understanding of reality, and both the legitimate authority of science, and a legitimate limitation upon that authority follow from the idea of existential necessity.
In scientific terms there's a really quite obvious series of technologies we need to apply on a global scale, in the immediate future. I would argue we must begin with renewable energy, clean fuel and clean water - all existentially necessary and well within our grasp.
That's what philosophy is for. As you might know, the etymological meaning is literally the love of wisdom.
Sorry, but religion is redundant.
That's a branch of philosophy called ethics. You might have heard of it.
No, I'm not suggesting that you don't value philosophy. My point was that what you're describing is actually covered by the branch of philosophy known as ethics. In a scenario where you were trying sell me religion based on the features and benefits, I'd be like: that's not a unique selling point, why shouldn't I just buy a different product? And likewise with the search for wisdom.
Again, religion is redundant. What can it do that science and philosophy can't?
Yeah, no shit. It was merely hypothetical. Just a way of getting the point across. If you were, you'd have your work cut out for you, as I'm not a gullible consumer.
[quote=Noah Te Stroete]The Internet can’t give you a guide on how to live a good life by itself, nor can science for that matter, but a religious text can teach one wisdom.[/quote]
After reading this, I am curious in what respect religious texts have more to offer, in terms of wisdom, than the internet or the literature of the social sciences? And would this be true for all religious texts, or only those texts that pertain to a specific religion?
Minus religion from the equation. Now, what would be the loss, given that religion can't do anything that science or philosophy can't do? And what would be the gain, given all of the wars and acts of terrorism avoided?
Sure, sure. Exactly the same number of wars would have occurred, and they would have lasted just as long, and been just as devastating, and it would be a similar thing with acts of terrorism, except that it would've been some [i]other[/I] motive. The European wars of religion would have instead been the European wars of cheese, and the twin towers would still have fallen as a result of a terrorist attack, but it would instead have been in the name of cats or some shit.
Oh, come off it. I don't believe that you could really be so clueless about the religious zealotry that has been a fundamental cause of wars and acts of terrorism all over the world for hundreds and hundreds of years right up to the present day. You must just be in denial.
Nope, I could just as easily flip that over and say that a person of average or lesser intelligence has trouble understanding religion, whereas philosophy and science taught with wisdom and compassion has its place.
It will be added to the bottom of my reading list, and will likely remain there for quite some time.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
All that is needed for what? I might come across as a little blunt and forthright in manner, a little combative, a little sarcastic, therefore I'm exactly the kind of person who would start a war or commit an act of terrorism in the name of religion, money, power, or any other cause whatsoever? That's a bit of a stretch.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
What about it? I know the history quite well, but what's your point? The wars of religion, the acts of terror inspired by religion, the religiously motivated oppression and persecution, punishment, torture, and extreme methods of execution, dwarf the examples of similar antireligious acts by perpetrators who were atheist.
Okay, let's minus philosophy from the equation and see how that looks. Phew! Good thing we avoided those European wars of philosophy. And look! The twin towers are still standing because those terrorists who were zealous adherents of Socratic philosophy lived completely different lives.
:rofl:
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Yes, but you would need to add up all of the abuses of religious regimes throughout our entire history and compare it to that. The abuses of the Soviet bloc would clearly be dwarfed. You do realise how recent and short lived that was, and how the victims numbered considerably less, relative to the long, long list of religious abuses spanning hundreds and hundreds of years, right?
It is an [i]ad hominem[/I] to focus on my alleged tribalism instead of the content of what I'm actually saying. Let's face it, you're throwing in the towel because you're losing the fight. :strong:
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
But then it seems that you assign value to the content of the texts themselves, regardless of whether they have a religious origin. In other words, there is wisdom to be found everywhere. And I would agree with you; that a text has a religious origin should not merely on that basis exclude it from our base of analysis or learning.
I think the main problem with the religions I know (Christianity and Islam) is that their scripture and method do not extend us that same courtesy. Both the Bible and the Qur'an explicitly state that their contents, as fragments of divine revelation, cannot be disputed or compared to sources of other origin. The latter sources can, in a religious method, only contain wisdom in so far as their contents do not go against the claims of scripture. That seems like an undue limitation on inquiry or reasoning, that can only be justified by presupposing a state of affairs that we have no reason to assume is true (at least not over any other possible state of affairs).
Ah, it "sounds like" that, does it? Well, I must be guilty by association then! And it's a good thing that you're focussing more on what it "sounds like" to you than what I'm actually saying.
Saint Noah Te Stroete: beacon of reason. We should all take a leaf out of his holy book.
No, as a matter of fact, [I]you[/I] characterised it as a fight. I was merely following your lead. You said that you do not wish to fight me. Well, if you're scared of a fight, then why are you here? Debate and argumentation is a fundamental part of this forum, it being a philosophy forum.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Relax. We're only fighting in a figurative sense. It's just words on a screen, I'm not literally going to punch your lights out or anything of that nature. :lol:
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
:rofl:
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Yes, that was sarcasm.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
I don't know about that. What's worse than fucking your own mother and then setting her on fire as a sacrifice to Satan?
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
So you choose instead to fight reasonable argumentation with evasion and fallacy? Okily dokily!
I break things down, analyse them, then share my analysis. I don't think that there's anything wrong with my method, and I think that it's a much better method for accuracy and staying on point. In my years of experience on forums such as this, those comments which don't take advantage of the quote-by-quote method are more likely to miss the point or digress or ramble on too long or a combination of the aforementioned.
I think that you've missed important things that I've said throughout our discussions, and maybe you wouldn't have done so if you'd have just quoted me more, so that it's right there, staring you in the face.
And yes, I'm sarcastic, because it amuses me. Don't be such a wet blanket. And yes, I'm hostile because you're my sworn enemy, as are all who dare to challenge me, and I will utterly destroy you. Hulk smash.
It is literally taking sections of your comment out of the surrounding text, but that doesn't necessarily distort the meaning, which is the only thing that matters when someone objects that something has been taken out of context. If you think that I've taken anything that you've said out of necessary context and thereby distorted the meaning in some important way, then the burden is on you to make that case. I don't accept that that's what I've done.
Above, for example, I've left out the following sentence where you describe what you take to be the consequences of what you allege of me. I've done so because I deny the allegation to begin with, rendering your stated consequences irrelevant to me. Hence, I saw little-to-no reason to address it, and by choosing not to include it in what I quoted, it is clear that my reply isn't directed at that, but only at the allegation itself.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
I don't take lectures from just about anyone regarding what philosophy is or is not for. I make my own mind up. This is a philosophy forum, and I shall use it as I please within the parameters set by the staff. What can I say? I'm a liberal, and proud of it.
If you're working towards wisdom, then you should listen to what I have to say. I'm a wise old owl, as those who stick around here long enough find out. (Even if they don't like to admit it).
To me, that's pie in the sky romanticism, unsuited to the questioning, critical discussion, and rational argument associated with the philosophical method.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
I find it depressing if you can't appreciate these natural wonders without attributing them to some imagined entity. I think that, for example, Darwin's work on the theory of evolution is much more wonderful, fascinating, and awe inspiring than the simplistic religiously influenced myths which were predominant beforehand. And it's sad that Darwin's work faced such fierce attacks from ignorant religious-minded folks. They have such a bad track record for attempting to hinder progress.
No, you’re not the kind of person to start a war. You’re inconsequential. You have no power. But, your tribalism is just what is needed to follow, say, a War on Terror.
The point was that any ideology can be cultivated to commit violence. The only necessary ingredient is the Politics of Difference. It just so happened that the differences among the warring factions of the past were religions. What about the Imperial Japanese? They didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor in the name of religion. They were cut off from their oil supplies. They didn’t invade China over religion. They were imperialists. The Nazis were also imperialists inspired by philosophy, a very destructive and ugly philosophy.
You’re a liberal in name only. I would better characterize you as an “asshole”.
It’s called metaphysics. You may have heard of it?
I find it depressing that you find your own mind to be the penultimate in the evolution of reality.
Thanks! I believe I was made in God's image.
It's called bad metaphysics, or wishful thinking.
You probably think your puerile jabs affect me. You’re just a sad, little man.
And you are brave enough to submit your metaphysics to scrutiny?
Do you realise that I've posted over six thousand comments here? Over double that amount if you were to include the posts I made on the old forum which now no longer exists. I've exposed my metaphysics to scrutiny more times than I can possibly remember.
I answer whatever questions I feel like answering. Do you have a problem with that? If so, tough. :grin:
I don't have an answer to every question, some things are unknown, and some questions are poorly composed. But I'll tell you that no, I don't believe in a genesis explanation for reality or that consciousness is a necessary ingredient of reality.
So, you believe our universe always existed? That’s dumb as it goes against scientific consensus.
That doesn't follow from rejecting a genesis explanation.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
My views are in line with the scientific consensus.
I'm not your logic tutor. Go figure it out.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
That's an example of the kind of poorly composed question I referred to. Do you know what a loaded question is? I don't assume a beginning, as that would be begging the question. And the Big Bang isn't a beginning in the sense that philosophers argue over.
Stephen Hawking and scientific consensus are not one and the same.
I want to know how such a God can be said to exist. Nothing you said there makes a claim of an existing being of God in the world. We are always able to call upon notions of hope, peace, love, etc. in virtue of own existence. That's to say, we just have the relevant idea and take the action of calling to the meaning. We can do this, it would seem, whether "God exists" is true or "God doesn't exist is true."
Given this, how is this Universal Consciousness an existing being of God, since its present regardless of whether God exists or not?
Now, these are beliefs that are not knowledge. Perhaps I am like William James in this case in that I believe in this case that it is rational to believe what makes me feel good. Furthermore, this belief causes no harm as long as I allow others to hold their own contrary beliefs, which I do.
It would be much like this one, minus the consciousness.
That couldn't reasonably be said, but what do you care about reason?
Nope.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Um, what? Please explain why you think that that's a relevant question.
A universe devoid of meaning wouldn't be nothing, it would just be a universe devoid of meaning. Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. Without consciousness, I wouldn't be able to differentiate anything, but that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be anything, it just means that I wouldn't be able to differentiate anything. These are non sequiturs on your part.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
I believe that my fridge is full of tantalising treats, that I'm a billionaire, and that I'm surrounded by flying pink unicorns and rainbows.
I know that, but my point is that is not attributed to any existing being under your argument.
Let's consider this Universal Consciousness. What happens if it exists with respect to the arguments you have given? Humans can call upon notions of hope, peace, love, etc. because they have those ideas and experiences.
Now what happens is if this Universal Consciousness doesn't exist? Humans can call upon notions of hope, peace, love, etc. because they have those ideas and experience.
My point is the existence of this Universal Consciousness doesn't matter to humans been able to call on notions of of hope, peace, love, etc. Humans can do it whether Universal Consciousness exists or not.
The meaning you are talking about/logical structure with Universal Consciousness is true without respect to whether it exists. It's a different sort of presence.
It's just not philosophy, and this is a philosophy forum.
I think that that's absurd. But the burden is on you, so...
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Again, that's not philosophy. Just blurting out something that you happen to believe isn't doing philosophy.
I'm not sure if it is your exactly metaphysics, but the metaphysics S thinks you have is contradictory.
The metaphysics S is attacking equivocates metaphysical entities (logical meaning, presences which do not exist nor exist) with empirical ones (the existence of some conscious being).
Imagine personal oblivion after death. Now imagine universal oblivion. In both cases there is nothing.
No, you haven't shown that your whacky beliefs are consistent with science. And no, atheism isn't faith. And fine, according to you, I'm an agnostic. In case you haven't picked up on it, I don't really care what you call me.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
If that's all it has going for it, it's nothing to write home about.
Science can be performed by the religious or as part of the practice of a religious tradition (just as it can with any other human tradition), but in terms of the science itself, the question really doesn't make sense. Science is just a method of investigating how the world works. It just takes in the world and tries to describe how it works.
Religion or non-religion is just a different thing, a certain kind or practice a person might be involved in. Either way, it has nothing to do with science itself.
Consciousness isn't. That's just a reference to a certain type of logical meaning.
A conscious being, however, most certainly is of the empirical. It's a particular state of the world. If you are going to claim: "this conscious person exists" or "this conscious God exists," it an argument about something that exists.
It simply doesn't follow that if I can't imagine anything, or if no one can imagine anything, then there isn't anything. That would only follow with an additional premise which only whacky idealists would accept, and I'm not one of them.
You have to be careful there. It would be outside the created universe, since its prior to its creation, but it would not be outside reality/ "universe" in the sense of what exists.
If such a being exists, there is a moment of reality which exists, which someone could think and experience. It's both existent and falsifiable (the absence of this existing being would falsify it).
It's not outside the observable universe. If someone was present, who could perceive that part reality prior to the creation of our universe, they would observe the being in question.
Obviously, it is likely outside our observation since the event would be long past and before us, but that no different than any instance or reality prior to our presence. It just means someone who observes has to be there when the event happens (if we are talking direct observation) or encounter things which show what happened (historical records, items from the past, etc.).
Those beliefs of yours which aren't supported by science run into contradiction with the beliefs of a scientifically minded person. If the science doesn't cover something, then to be consistent with science, you would stop there. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Um, no. Your metaphysics is whack.
I suspected you didn't.
But if you mean a non-material God, then it is not an existing conscious being. And it can certainly not be the cause of our universe. Causes are material events. One moment of existence which leads to another.
This is what I mean by the contradiction. I'm saying you are conflating the material and non-material God. The problem isn't that your non-material claim is falsified, its that you are ascribing the material to your non-material God. It's a logical contradiction in your idea of God.
...that wasn't my claim. States of consciousness may be causally efficacious. My point was any such state is material, a contingent moment of existence present in terms of what exists. This is in contradiction with a non-material God. If God is non-material, God cannot be a causally efficacious entity of consciousness.
Right, and that's the contradiction in your metaphysics. You ascribe something finite and limited, a thing of experience which causes something else, to that which is infinite, beyond change and the limits of tiny causal moments, the non-material.
I'm saying the "non-material" is infinite and changeless.
So when you claim the finite, limited moment of God causing our universe is "non-material," you ascribe the tiny moment of God causing our universe with and infinite and changelessness it does not have.
It's like taking a group of humans and saying, since they build a city or some other environment, they are infinite and changeless. Causing something doesn't mean you are infinite. Indeed, it's the exact opposite because the cause is limited to that singular finite moment.
Yes, you did. You also claimed God was "non-material" rather than a finite, material state of existence.
What do you mean be "consciousness?"
Do you mean the existence of a consciousness entity/states that cause some other event of existence?
Or do you mean the infinite, changeless meanings of logic which may appear in conscious experience?
Sure, that would just mean it is material/finite. Such spirit would exist in one moment and possibly be gone the next.
That doesn't really help me because you could be referring to either. Logic and experience have a theatre in the sense of the infinite definition of their concepts which are infinite and changeless.
But they also have the material theatre of when individuals exist experiencing them, causing things with them or being caused.
Sure, neither do I, necessary. There might be, for example, a existing entity who lives at all finite moments, who keeps living from moment to moment. We might say this entity exists eternally (it's always living). The idea is pretty common. Any sort of immortal being would fall under this, a thing of existence which just keeps living and living.
This sort of eternity is not infinity or changelessness. The immortal is subject to change, the limit of their life in a moment and the possibility of death. They are material/finite, even though they might exist eternally.
When I speak of the infinite, I'm not refer to this sort of eternal thing. I'm talking about a truth which is always the case, no matter what happens in existence (an immortal being never fits this because they require existence, the fact they exist living, etc.).
By "material" I'm referring to a certain metaphysical distinction between a category of existing things and a category of things beyond/regardless of existence. It's wider than just "matter" or "mass". It refers to anything which is true via something existing. So it includes existing things don't manifest as mass at all, such as a person's experiences, the colours of an object, etc.
That means it finite/material in my terms. And subject to falsification, since we could examine the present experiences in relation to caused states.
States of consciousness themselves aren't falsifiable because they don't have a manifestation outside their immediate appearance. Human states of consciousness aren't falsifiable in this sense either. We cannot do experiments to detect it directly.
I was referring to falsifying that some state of consciousness was causing something.
If it's not a derail, I'd be interested to know what you think wisdom is, and how it might be discovered or attained?
We know what wisdom is, in a sense, or at least the gist of it, because we know what the word means, or we can look it up.
What it consists in is trickier, although we aren't completely ignorant of that either. We can accurately identify what's wise and what's unwise in at least some cases, wouldn't you agree? The trick is in developing the skill to do so, knowing when to apply it, and following through with the right actions.
That seems alright as a brief summary, and as a working model - or at least the beginnings of one. Don't expect too much detail from me, though. It might be unwise to say too much or to venture too far. Sometimes there's wisdom in caution. Sometimes there's wisdom in silence. But then, it almost seems that nothing is guaranteed here.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Quoting S
I would normally agree that we all know what wisdom is, but your words confuse me. You seem to claim wisdom is easy, something we all know and understand. And yet, your description of wisdom is .. missing from your words.
What do you think wisdom is? :chin:
wisdom does concern the extraterrestial but never has been God directly.
science is definitely not atheistic but can be stupidly if the God question is already taken seriously. They don't stand by "not God" at all.
Even more than my last post: what do you think wisdom is? :chin: :gasp: :scream:
wisdom is like knowledge, but beneficent knowledge, things which improve experience, pe sey.
ways we can advance with knowledge, are ways envisioned by wise minds, because not only do they have this knowledge, but they are aware of it, the truth-value - this is wisdom, or good morality.
And that comes from science? I think perhaps science alone is insufficient for this task. :chin: Where does the ethical aspect of wisdom come from? Or the beneficence you refer to? Not science, that's for sure. :chin:
Handling life requires wisdom those wise of life handle it.
Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism - it's turning God into a nature god. And science needs religion in order to have a conscience, to know that, just because something is possible, it may not be a good thing to do.
Guy Consolmagno
Consult Wittgenstein. That will reveal an insightful method for answering your own question, which I take as a question which can be generalised to a question about linguistic meaning.
I didn't intend to ask about linguistic meaning. Nor do I especially want to know what Wittgenstein thought wisdom was. My interest is more focused than that. I just asked:
Quoting Pattern-chaser
So wisdom is "that quality which [...] can produce wise information...", which looks a lot like a circular definition to me. :chin: What do you think wisdom is?
Now that is starting to sound like a description of what wisdom is. I'm sure it's incomplete, but it does actually address the issue (what wisdom is). :up: :smile:
I think wisdom is something along these lines (quote taken from a Reddit discussion):
Wisdom, I think, is what oriental philosophies tend to refer to as "right action".
In Ignatian Spirituality this would be called discernment of spirits. Basically it is an understanding of our decision making. We all make hundreds of decisions each day, some big, some very small. We make those decisions based on desires. What Jesuit discernment is, is trying to identify the source of these desires, and see if they are ordered or not. Ordered being for the greater love of God and each other. In simple terms like your eastern beliefs of “ right action” it is "do the right thing", or more correctly learn, or train yourself how to desire the right thing, and internal source of these right desires. It is becoming aware of your feelings, and evaluating the source of those feelings, and if the source and the desires are ordered or not. Hard to explain in this small box, maybe think of it as a very well exercised conscience. What it is not, is some set of rules, the "thou shall not's" that is not it at all - it is just becoming aware of the sources of our desires, and do these desires increase good, increase love, or not.
Thanks for adding Catholic doctrine to such threads Rank. Although I'm not qualified to evaluate your interpretations of Catholic teaching, I sense you're doing a good job of it. Although not formally Catholic myself, I find such commentary an inviting jumping off place for my own interpretations. Here's an attempt to translate what you've shared in to Jake-talk.
As I see it, the source of all desire is the experience of division, an illusion generated by the nature of thought.
The will to live is built in to the body, and so any threat to the supposed division between our body and the rest of reality will trigger alarm bells in the form of pain. But this perceived physical division is really a fantasy, just as an ocean wave is not actually divided from the ocean at any point in it's "existence", but only appears to be a separate "thing".
To translate Catholic terminology in to Jake-talk, an "ordered desire" would be one which seeks to relieve the fantasy of division rather than reinforce it. Catholics advise us to love God and each other, which is a method of redirecting our attention away from the tiny prison cell of "me", a compelling form of illusory division which is the source of most of our suffering.
This has sometimes been expressed as "dying to be reborn", which I would translate in to secular language as "letting go of the illusion of division and embracing the reality of unity with all things."
While such secular language may be preferable to many users here, the problem with it is that it's far too abstract to usefully serve most people, who typically are not incurable nerds like us. And so in the attempt to serve as many humans as possible and not just nerds, Catholic culture has created a far more accessible story revolving around "love Jesus" and "love your neighbor" and "get back to God" etc. Love is an act of surrender, and each of these Catholic ideas boil down to advice to surrender the illusion of division, which is indeed good advice.
There are problems with this approach too of course, as there are with any approach.
First, assigning the noun "God" to the single unified reality has the effect of creating more division, because creating conceptual division is after all the purpose of nouns. And so for example the statement "I love God" presumes that "I" is one thing and "God" is another thing, and loving God is suggested as a method of bridging a a gap which doesn't actually exist anywhere but in our thought drenched imaginations. But what does exist is the illusion of division, and love is useful in the attempt to heal that illusion.
Catholic teaching does seem to address this in the doctrine that God is ever present everywhere in all times and places. If one takes that literally what it would seem to mean is that there is actually no division between God and everything else, or in new age talk, "all is one". However, in my experience Catholics usually reject the notion of this unity of all things and instead cling pretty stubbornly to the idea that God is something separate from us and everything else. I don't share that view, but then like I said, I'm no longer Catholic and haven't been for 50 years.
And then of course there is the issue of clerical structure, which preserves itself by reinforcing a division between "Catholics" and "everybody else". There is some hope here though, as in our time the Catholic clerical structure appears to be determined to destroy itself by any and all means available.
In my view, it's a mistake to get sucked in to debating what approach to fundamental human problems is the best. Instead we might focus on trying to understand what the fundamental human situation actually is, and then each of us can try to address that by whatever methodology works best for us personally.
As example, in the East they often approach this very same issue of fantasy division in a different manner by attempting to learn how to better manage that which is generating the illusion of division, thought. Same exact problem, but a different way of approaching it.
Which method is better? Whatever works best for you. And of course we don't really have to chose. One can love one's neighbor and meditate too.
Jake: perhaps there is no fundamental human situation. And in meditation, when I dissolve all distinctions between self and other, what neighbor remains to be loved?
Excuse me; I am an idiot. :yikes:
Wisdom is that which enables us to discern or recognise right action. It is not right action of itself. :up: :wink:
agree - was struggling with a way to secularize the concept - but gave up on it. Understanding the obvious leap into a faith based belief would be off setting.
Quoting Jake
The core concept in Ignatian Spirituality is " Seeing God in all things" - for some stuff this is real easy, for some stuff this is near impossible for those of weaker faith like me. But the concept is very much as you describe above. That God is active and present in everything, and if you train yourself to look you will see it.
As for the second half, it is just human to try and frame such a concept as God in some type of unique anthropomorphic form. It is the only way most can get their hands around such a concept. My personal take is that we as humans have no reasonable basis at all to say anything at all about the nature of such a thing as God. My faith tells me God is, as some type of entity, and with some qualities of absolute goodness, absolute love, etc, but i don't have any view on form or substance ( except of course a few very Catholic beliefs , such as Christ and The Eucharist)
Quoting Jake
This is a little trickier - in Catholicism the role of the clergy is different than the laity - not separate and not superior. Here is the teaching for better or worse - We are all "The Body of The Church" and we all have a calling. Some are called to family life, some to serve as clergy. The clergy are sacramentally bestowed an ability to act in some circumstances " In persona Christi" - This is an important concept in Catholicism - it is not the priest that can absolve sins, or perform the transfiguration - it is God - acting through the priest. Now in practice, by human beings, with all the frailties they inherently have - some turn this to their own power, and some allow them to. But the teaching is the clergy is just another calling.
Quoting Jake
no issue with any of this
Yes, and it seems the serious question is the practical one, how to best train oneself. Regrettably, there is no one perfect answer to this. For me, it's spending lots of time in nature, for somebody else it might be attending Mass, or doing scientific research, or driving a bus. We spend a lot of time arguing over which is the "one true way" when we probably should instead be focused on the question of "what is the right way for me?"
Words can easily get in the way. As example, if we ask "what is the right way for me to see God" the word God immediately brings to mind a collection of images in Western culture that may be helpful, or may be a fatal distraction. That's why I'm often arguing for ignorance, clearing the mind of theories and conclusions to assist in facilitating experience. Each of us can reach for experiences that transcend the mundane, and there is really no need to then label and categorize the experience. I'm not sure what part of Catholic teaching might address any of this, perhaps you point to something?
Quoting Rank Amateur
Yes, which is why I'm unwilling to dismiss Christianity out of hand. It's proven it's usefulness to billions of people over thousands of years, quite an accomplishment. It's obviously not useful to everybody, but so what, that's surely asking too much of any perspective.
The following will be useful to far fewer people, but for what it's worth, if we can shift the focus from concepts to experience, most of these kind of problems can melt away. I do however acknowledge that this way of looking at things will not have the broad reach of an approach like Christianity. I'm offering it only as an option for those who find Christianity, or any religion, to be an obstacle.
As to the clergy, I'm conflicted. My instinct is to decline an intermediate level between man and "Whatever It Is" but then here I am, basically acting like clergy myself by endlessly typing all kinds of explanations.
As far as Catholicism goes the solution I see is simple and straightforward, have the clergy and nuns swap roles. Still an entirely Catholic operation, but all the branding damage is removed as an obstacle. One decisive act and Catholic credibility is back on track in the public realm, but regrettably in it's current form Catholicism appears to be incapable of such clarity. But then, I haven't been Catholic in a long time, so what do I really know about it?
Spring is underway here in Florida, with fresh new baby green leaves exploding in every direction. The big meeting in Rome has been on my mind, and inspired this...
Think of a tree as The Church, the sun as God, and the leaves as the clergy, the interface between Catholics and God. Let's look how nature, the church that God built, actually works.
After a long summer season the leaves get worn out. They are chewed on by bugs, they get diseases etc and their ability to translate sunlight in to energy for the tree is diminished. So the tree does the sensible thing, it lets go of the leaves and they fall, melt in to the ground, and become nourishment for the tree.
In the spring an entirely new crop of leaves appears, fresh, new, perfect little engines of photosynthesis.
The tree remains the same. The sun remains the same. The leaves perform the same function as always. But, it's not the same old worn out leaves from last season.
As I see it, the current crisis in Catholicism is basically a matter of stubbornly trying to hang on to the old leaves, to prevent them from falling to the ground. The old leaves won't get out of the way, so the new ones can't emerge, and the old leaves keep getting older and older, weaker and weaker with each passing day.
The good news is that the old leaves are unlikely to have the last say in the matter. The laws of nature will intervene and keep the endless cycle of renewal going by some method or another.
When I listened to reports about the recent conference in Rome I was filled with hope. As it becomes clearer and clearer that the old leaves are worn out, it becomes ever more likely that they will drop from the tree and the new leaves will emerge. Just saying, this whole child rape clergy crisis thing might actually be good news for the Church, though it understandably doesn't always feel that way.
Sorry, but I'm not going to give you the easy answer. Do you think that that's a good way to find wisdom? By having it handed to you on a silver platter?
I'm so sorry, Master. I am humiliated. I have addressed you as an equal, and I am but a lowly student in your eyes. I abase myself before you and salute the knowledge and wisdom you hold. I sought only to discover your thoughts, not to trouble you with my own. I sought to learn from you, but I am not worthy. My apologies.
Is this what they call "sarcasm"? You'll have to teach me all about that some time. But first, of course, I must answer your question in exactly the way that you want me to, instead of you taking onboard my points and acting accordingly. I simply must do this for you, or else...? Or else what? You'll repeat the same question and expect a different answer each time? You'll give me some more of that sarcasm?
Agree - and no issue with me - I may be an apologist, but I am not an evangelist
Quoting Jake
There are all kinds of loaded words, and God is sure one of them. They are difficult to overcome in any discussion, not because of lack of meaning - but in having too many meanings, too many individual meanings, and too many different meanings. But for me it is a label, we have to call this entity something so we can somewhat discuss the concept. But agree can spend a bunch of unproductive time fighting through lots of walls and emotion when such words get used.
Quoting Jake
have to give me a few on this - nothing jumping to mind
Quoting Jake
Think we had this chat before. There is an immovable obstacle in the way of this idea. One that is complete catholic dogma so don't have a reasoned argument against. But the catch is, it has been addressed authoritatively, which means infallibly. It will take some pretty creative canon lawyers to find a way to get around this and maintain the concept of Papal infallibility - and without that, the Church just collapses into just one more protestant sect. Not going to happen.
for the rest -
There is no way around the abuse scandal - none. There is no excuse or explanation. The only thing the church can do, and what it should have done all along, is shine as bright a light on it as they can, ask for forgiveness, make amends to the injured and have faith that if what you believe to be true, is true, this is the one true church - it will survive. That to me is the one very big sin of the cover up, it is a lack of faith in The Church and therefor in Christ.
Sermon over -
And that's all there is to it? Discernment or recognition? Nothing additional about acting accordingly? So long as I discern or recognise right action, I am wise, even if I spend my entire life doing foolish things? Even if, say, I spend my entire life bashing a frying pan against my head and incessantly rambling about the wisdom of cauliflower, I would be a wise man, so long as I discerned or recognised right action?
Wait, it's actually worse than that. You say that it's not the discernment or recognition, but what enables it. So my brain is wisdom, yet my discernment or recognition and my actions are just that and nothing more.
Does making wisdom an individual concept lessen it?
No. It requires your deliberate misunderstanding to reduce it to nonsense. :sad:
Is it wise to give a definition if the wording is terrible and easily leads to the very thing you call nonsense? Is it unwise to get you to try to think of a better way to word it?
You tell me, Master.
The wording isn't terrible. It refers to simple questions about what wisdom is, or might be. In asking you what you think wisdom is, I was just trying to find out ... what you think wisdom is. I wasn't trying to steal your definition, or even your understanding, for myself. I just wondered what you thought. I have my own understanding of wisdom, which you have ridiculed, and I hope(d) to improve that understanding. You have moved this discussion away from that destination, not toward it. So, in a literal and autistic way: thanks for nothing.
Yes, Master. Sorry, Master. In future, if I find myself in a situation like this again, I will refrain from demonstrating how such a wording leads to logical consequences which seem to suggest otherwise, in case it embarrasses Masters such as yourself, and they take it personally.
Master, what do you think of Diogenes of Sinope? Was he a fool to bring a plucked chicken to Plato's Acadamy and exclaim, "Behold! I've brought you a man!"?
Do you know what they did after that? They improved the definition. Maybe they should've just replied that it's not a terrible definition, and thanked Diogenes for nothing.
The problem is that we can never truly be objective, in the sense you seem to mean here. And that it could still be unwise, or so it seems to me, to go out searching for what we perceive truth to be, and acting in accordance with this perceived truth, which might not be true at all. Or should we all go on a wild goose chase, so long as we believe we can catch one?
But your stab at it is along the same lines as my stab at it, and I think that both of our stabs at it are better than Pattern-chaser's, who seems to have thrown his toys out of the pram after I criticised his attempt.
Anyway, here's what I really think about wisdom.
sure, and we can never be absolutely, truly a bunch of things. Does the inability of purity make the quest less important?
Quoting S
except there is no "truth" or "wisdom" judge to give you the absolute and un-biased truth that you really are a fool. Although - there will be no shortage of impostures that tell you they are - and that you are
Quoting S
You too ??
No, certainly not. It just means that it could amount to a foolish endeavour.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Yes, there is no such judge. We can only judge for ourselves as best we can.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Ah, but the difference is that I'm not an impostor. That's everyone else. :grin:
Quoting Rank Amateur
I'm not disagreeing, just trying to clarify that there may be a conflict between the reality of the situation and our desire to discuss. Discussion requires the use of nouns. Nouns imply an "entity" or some phenomena which is separate and distinct from other phenomena. That process may be appropriate to the reality of the situation, or maybe not.
The best example I've been able to come up with is space. We have a name for space, implying it is something distinct from other phenomena, but in reality space is intrinsic to all phenomena.
What might make us suspicious of nouns and the divisions they require is that we are literally made of (psychologically) an information medium (thought) which operates by a process of conceptual division. So is God a separate entity in reality? Or does God just seem to be a separate entity due to the inherently divisive lens we are looking through?
Quoting Rank Amateur
Just for the sake of friendly debate, I would ask, what price are Catholics willing to pay for sticking with the failing status quo? The credibility and influence of the Church is collapsing, which from the Catholic perspective will result in lost souls. Is losing these souls worth it, just so the clergy can do one particular job instead of another equally important job, the work of nuns?
Here's who will decide this question in reality. The laity. So long as the laity continues to fund a collapsing leadership structure that structure will continue. At the moment the laity decides to stop funding that leadership structure, some change the scale of what I'm suggesting will unfold.
Quoting Rank Amateur
So long as Catholics keep saying that, it will remain true.
There is of course no way to undo the past, but there is a way to transform the future of the Church. There is a way around the abuse scandal, there is a way to restore the credibility of the Church. It's true that those who got the Church in to this mess have no clue how to find their way out of the mess. That doesn't equal there being no way out.
Imho, the principle at play here is this. The scale of change the Church submits itself to has to match the scale of the crime that's been committed. When those two things line up, the credibility of the Church will be restored.
Yeah right. The stench of this scandal is going to follow the Church around for a long, long time to come, even if they manage to get a grip on it. And rightly so.
For science to be atheistic, it would have to commit itself to ontological naturalism.
I think that since science has been so successful in explaining the world, without supernatural forces, it ends up appearing as inherently atheistic, but if the world contained supernatural entities with causal powers, then scientists would have accepted their existence.
The real question is if there are supernatural realities. If not, then, inevitably, science will be atheistic since atheism and ontological naturalism are closely linked.
Not arguing, explaining. For Catholics, the authority of the church is a direct and unbroken line from Christ to Peter, to every pope since. And even with some incredibly bad popes, and all the awful things some of them have done, none of them have ever acted authoritatively on matters of faith and morals, or as we would say infallibly, that had ever been shown to be in detriment to the church or in any moral way wrong. The reason we believe this, is when acting so, it is not the man acting, it is God acting through him. So, when John Paul spoke infallibly that the priesthood will only be men, that means to us God said so. One cannot actually be a well formed Catholic and not believe in the infallibility of the pope when acting authoritatively on matters of faith and morals. It is the very authority of the Church. Right or wrong, good or bad, there will not be women priests in the church. Or at least not without causing another great schism.
Understood, no problem.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I understand this theory, and agree you've represented the doctrine accurately (not that I'm expert on such things).
I'm not discussing the theory, but what I see in the real world. There is no authority of the Church. It's gone. The authority of the Church has been flushed down the toilet by clerical greed and incompetence.
So if one believes, as it seems you and I both do, that the Church can be a force for good in the world, the question would seem to become...
How to restore the lost credibility of this institution which has been so central in Western culture?
I agree that the scale of change necessary would likely lead to a schism. So what? As you say, that's already happened before and that didn't impede the growth of Christianity, but rather assisted that growth, because the Reformation made more options available, it made Christianity more accessible to more people.
All that said, I agree with you that none of what I'm suggesting is likely to happen any time soon, if ever. My point is really only that there is a path out of the current disaster, but that doesn't mean the path out will be taken.
Or perhaps to be more precise, what does "supernatural" really mean?
Does it mean beyond the laws of nature? Or does it mean beyond the laws of nature as understood by human beings?
My guess is that there are things going on over our heads that would seem supernatural to us, because the phenomena exceeds our understanding of nature. As example, the Internet would seem "supernatural" to a squirrel, even though it obviously isn't.
I would suggest that we might be suspicious of all dualistic polarities such as "natural vs. supernatural". Such either/or paradigms are likely to be more a function of how the human mind works than they are an accurate representation of reality.
As example...
Does space exist, or not, yes or no?
The question assumes a dualistic polarity which may not be relevant to the phenomena of space. Instead of challenging various answers to the question, we might focus instead on challenging the question itself. If the question arises from a profound form of built-in bias, it's unlikely to deliver a useful answer.
Would it be more accurate to say for some Catholics?
My guess is that millions of Catholics would welcome some version of fundamental change, while millions of others clearly wouldn't.
Let's say for example there was a schism and that it resulted in two versions of Catholicism, one run by nuns, one run by male clergy. This would allow us to put the fundamental change theory to a test. If the nun version withered away after a century or two, then I'd be proven wrong, and the question would be settled. Without a real world test of competing theories the situation remains one of "one theory vs. another theory" a recipe for eternal conflict within the Church.
Thanks
Bill
Thanks
Bill
I'm open to such a theory, but suspect the universe as a whole would be doing something far more advanced than mere human thinking. We could use the word "intelligence" but that concept also relies on a ridiculously small sample of reality, a single species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies.
I am quite open to the idea that the universe as a whole, matter and energy etc, is more than just a mechanical device. What exactly that might be, no idea.
There are only two ways, although really there's only one, as the other is an illusion.
1) In a nutshell, become everything it's not.
2) Trick enough people, like so many people were tricked in the past.
The first way is self-defeating, as it results in the effectual death of the Church (Hurrah!). The Church becomes empty and redundant. Or rather, even more so.
The second way is immoral. The good times were from The Enlightenment onwards. The Dark Ages are known as that for a reason.
Yeah, and perhaps pigs can fly. Maybe I should write an entire treatise on that.
Or, just another option, maybe you could refrain from clogging the forum with your cleverness? You know, there's an appropriate place for what you want to do. It's called Facebook.
No thanks. Here will do.
:up:
Jake - sorry this took so long. Maybe the best I have seen on this point is from Karl rathner he refers to God as Mystery, a mystery we are inherently aware of, but unable to completely know. This mystery is not separate from us, but a part of us and everything else.
By contrast with Camus, who argues this inherent search for meaning is absurd, Rahner argued that this unquenchable questioning was not absurd, but rather a constitutive feature of human nature, drawing us toward that holy mystery named God. Rather calls this a pre- knowledge, we all are aware of the infinite, we know it is there, even if we don't admit it.
I did a very poor job on this slight touch into rahner's theology, but if it is a topic that interests you he is someone you should look into.
Again, I am not an evangelist, but if I was, this quote from Rahner would be the kind of evangelist I would want to be.
“It is by entering into the world of today, and being with men in their difficulties, their anxieties and doubts, that we can bring this world to faith, and not by posing as somehow different. . . . Our faith must be such that even the unbeliever cannot deny that here a man believes who is like himself, a man of today, on whose lips the word God does not come easily and cheaply, who doesn’t think he has mastered everything, and in spite of all this, rather because of all this, he believes.
“For Christianity is not a formula which makes everything clear, but the radical submission of myself to an incomprehensible Mystery Who has revealed Himself as ineffable love.”
Actually science is naturally agnostic
Or our subjective interpretation would be so... because it (science) doesn't answer these kind of questions.
After all, how can an objective methodology give answers to something that is logically and rationally a subjective question?
An answer to how the World is doesn't give any answer how we should live. Religion answers to moral and ethical questions typically using the dichotomy of good and evil. If one has read actually what religions teach that is. And as I said, science or using the scientific method doesn't give answers to this. That there is or isn't a black hole in the center of our galaxy isn't a question about morality. How you live your life in a good way is a question about ethics and morality.
I personally find it whimsically naive to think that science destroys religion and would make us atheists, because in religions there typically is an old explanation of how the World came to be. When science has proven that this cannot be taken literally as a fact, the atheists rejoice! Or that evolution doesn't need a God. Well, mathematics and chemistry don't need a divine entity either, because they study totally different questions.
Have Nietzsche's fears come true? I don't think so.
Thanks Rank, I'm just back on the forum myself.
That's a great quote, thanks for sharing it. A couple thoughts in reply...
First, and this takes us back towards science, I'm wondering if you are familiar with the drug DMT? Here's an introductory documentary of a research study which you might find interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtT6Xkk-kzk
I bring it up here because the test subjects in this study reported visiting another realm which felt even more real to them than our everyday experience, and they attempted to describe this incomprehensible realm as being saturated with a profound indescribable love.
What was interesting to me is that this was a scientific study that had nothing to do with religion, and yet very similar to religion kinds of descriptions emerged from it.
Another thing I liked about it is that the study was experience based instead of theory based. I suspect that philosophy (and thus most of theology) is not really the appropriate channel for exploring such things. It's not so much that this or that idea is right or wrong, but that ideas in general aren't really the right medium for such investigations.
The quote you shared above suggests as much, and as you know I'm fond of quoting the Apostle John who said with brilliant conciseness "God is love".
Language is so limiting. Any words we choose immediately serve to shove the subject in to some little box. This becomes problematic when the phenomena we are attempting to explore is defined as being beyond all division.
Anyway, explore the documentary linked above if you have time, and aren't already familiar with the topic. It's not at all Catholic, but explores similar issues from another direction.
I hear what you're saying and agree.
I'll just add my usual rant that science, and our relationship with science, are two very different things. The later can not be described as being agnostic.
Indeed
I hate it when people use drugs to make a point like that, especially when they pretend they're being scientific. It's about as scientific as conducting a survey in a madhouse. Only a fool would take the results seriously.
You feel all kinds of things, and have all kinds of thoughts, and all kinds of strange experiences when you're on powerful drugs like that. You're also more prone to come out with stupid shit like, "I've just seen God!", which a mate of mine once said after taking ketamine, only to feel dumb and embarrassed about ten minutes later, taking back what he had said.
Do you know what I got from ketamine? When you take enough of it, the dizzy, noxious feeling is nothing. I felt like I had brain damage, and was stuck like that for what seemed like a really long time, with very diminished ability to communicate.
There was a guy in another discussion who was trying to argue that everything is appearance, and remarked that unless you had taken LSD, you wouldn't truly understand. Which is a load of codswallop of course, because I have taken LSD, not that it really matters, and I still strongly disagree with him about everything being only appearance.
It's important not to lose your good sense - presuming you had good sense to begin with - about these experiences of taking strong drugs, tempting as it can be to reach fantastical conclusions.
"The world is made of rainbows!", "I've seen God!", "There's another realm!". No, you just took drugs and had a brain fart. Pull yourself together.
I know, I know: you'll dismiss what I've said because I'm clever and belong on Facebook. I don't talk enough nonsense to be a prestigious philosophy-type who rightfully belongs on a forum like this. Sorry about that.
Hey, whaddya know, you're finally right about something! Congratulations!