Intersection of Atheism and Empiricism
This comes after a conversation I had with someone who expressed belief that all theistic religions were obselete and dangerous on account of individuals believing without question in something with no room for rational arguement.
It seems that the problem is the modeling of thought. The question if an event would be equally likely to exist or not exist given some reason to believe it doesnt exist. For instance: do aliens exist? Most right now would agree scientifically its roughly equally likely and there isnt enough data to suggest one way or the other. This is well and good seeing as there is sensory reason to believe it could, but in theistic religions things are said to occur that reason would not account for as realistic. So the question is: does the belief that others should all ascribe to atheism itself necessitate a nonbelief in all things of this nature? What of things that our imaginations could not proport to reasonably exist, does it intrinsically deny the existence of all those things? I’d think this would mean a certain impermeability of imagination, where individuals become unable to imagine things that don’t already exist in the framework of physical sense.
All men believe what they sense, but does argueing for the universal spread of atheism mean that one must systematically deny anything outside of its realms of plausibility? It seems to be poor from a philosophical standpoint, resulting in the depreciation of rational thinking.
It seems that the problem is the modeling of thought. The question if an event would be equally likely to exist or not exist given some reason to believe it doesnt exist. For instance: do aliens exist? Most right now would agree scientifically its roughly equally likely and there isnt enough data to suggest one way or the other. This is well and good seeing as there is sensory reason to believe it could, but in theistic religions things are said to occur that reason would not account for as realistic. So the question is: does the belief that others should all ascribe to atheism itself necessitate a nonbelief in all things of this nature? What of things that our imaginations could not proport to reasonably exist, does it intrinsically deny the existence of all those things? I’d think this would mean a certain impermeability of imagination, where individuals become unable to imagine things that don’t already exist in the framework of physical sense.
All men believe what they sense, but does argueing for the universal spread of atheism mean that one must systematically deny anything outside of its realms of plausibility? It seems to be poor from a philosophical standpoint, resulting in the depreciation of rational thinking.
Comments (115)
No, it just means you have to prove what you believe. Typically first comes an observation, then the process of human imagination thinking up an explanation, and then using sensory data to prove your explanation.
If it doesn't seem plausible, you should expect people not to believe it until you can prove that it is plausible.
If that's true, I can also make an the case that theists have a better understanding of the true nature of reality than most atheists do. I say that, even though I have no personal theistic belief.
They observed that certain materials had certain properties and then theororized that atoms existed and those materials had different properties based on what made up those atoms. At least that's my understanding of it. Then later on people went looking for atoms and found them. You say those folks were laughed at and that's probably true, they should have been. Only after you present evidence should people believe you.
Quoting kudos
I think that people should be able to be religious. I just don't think they should be taken seriously until they show proof that god exists. Whatever you decide to worship or believe durring your free time is your buisness, but when you go into work or to contribute to society you put unprovable beliefs aside and work with what we can prove.
The person you were discussing this with should have had an argument re why believing in something, without question, with no room for rational argument is necessarily "dangerous." Because if that's not necessarily dangerous, it's a moot point.
Quoting kudos
There's no way to figure likelihood in scenarios like that.
Quoting kudos
If one is proposing a normative based on rationality to that effect, then it would suggest being skeptical about all similar claims, sure. That wouldn't include claims about alien life, though, as there is good reason, grounded in scientific principles if one buys them, to believe that some sort of alien life would exist somewhere.
Quoting kudos
Why would you be advocating that people believe things "outside of the realms of plausibility"? That seems like a weird thing to advocate.
In a nutshell their claim was that now because of global terrorism, violence/oppression of women, and so on religions thenselves are causing harm and are unnecessary.
Since there are religious believers who don't engage in terrorism, violence towards or oppression of women, etc., then it would seem that believing in something, without question, with no room for rational argument is NOT necessarily dangerous. Something else would have to be at play in the examples he's objecting to.
Nothing novel there.
"I don’t believe you; I just don’t accept that. You have had, perhaps, no experience of God under this precise code-word God but you have had or have now an experience of God – and I am convinced that this is true of every person."
What he was referring to, was a concept of his theology called "pre- apprehension". Pre apprehension is the concept that it is man’s nature to search for the infinite, because he is either totally or partly, aware of its existence. This implicit knowledge is the base for knowing all things. Rahner would describe what we explicitly know of the universe as an island floating on a sea of a preapprehed knowledge of all we do not yet understand, but are aware of its existence. Man is a creature in the boundary between the physical world we inhabit and the infinite world we are innately aware of.
I am not aware of a good argument that can dismiss this very natural part of the human condition. Camus called this desire absurd, and that was an outgrowth of existentialism which says we can define this for ourselves.
I understand these ideas in the context of their times. The advent of mechanized warfare at the turn of the century, and 2 brutal wars, a genocide, and the dawn of nuclear destruction makes the prospect of such a thing as God difficult to believe.
But I do not find these arguments compelling against such a basic human desire.
Rahner's second point in the quote above, if by using the word God, we inject all kinds of meanings and assumptions. None of them true to him. To him, God is better defined as a mystery. Something we have an inate understanding that exists, but one we have no real understanding of.
Not sure I did that good a job on Rahner's theology here, I think I understand it better than I can articulate it. It is almost as much feeling as knowledge in me right now.
:smile:
I'm on the side of those that deny that religious belief is necessarily irrational, in this discussion.
But I have a viscerally negative reaction to statements like that attributed to Rahner.
The level of conceit it must take to tell other people what they think and feel is simply mind-boggling.
To go further and say that the assertion applies to every single one of the seven billion plus people in the world defies comprehension.
I often refer back to an OP by religious affairs scholar Karen Armstrong on why "belief" in the way it is now construed could be described as a metaphysical mistake. The reasons are complex, deep, and historical in nature. But suffice to say, they originated with, first, the corralling of religious dogmas into abstract syllogistic propositions, and, second, the tendency to treat 'God' as the source of, and so an element in, scientific explanation. All this goes back to early modern Western philosophy, where Newton and others simply assumed that 'nature's laws shew God's handiwork'. But with Newton's deism and Descartes' dualism, 'God' became a very attenuated reality indeed - 'a ghost in his own machine', as one writer put it.
Whereas, as Armstrong puts it, in the pre-modern understanding,
Something which is the source of a large number of the debates on this and other forums!
It doesnt follow to me that this is a valid conclusion based on incommunicability or lack of rational proof. That faith only holds up for a multitude when gone unquestioned doesn’t mean it’s practical in nature. There are things that are irrational and not practical. What about irrational numbers? To suggest its like riding a bike is also a flimsy analogy. This is just lazy thinking like saying “philosophy is a waste lets just live, man!”
It's not at all like that. Your example is of a weak justification to not do something. Not doing something is consistent with the notion of laziness.
Wayfarer is talking about doing something - in this case religious practice. Whatever criticisms one might wish to make about certain forms of religious practice, it's hard to see how laziness can be one of them. It's a lot easier to stay in bed of a morning than to get up and go to the mosque, church or temple.
There are many reasons for an atheist to be an atheist, many of them are not based on empiricism. There are many reasons for a believer to be religious, many of them have nothing to do with empiricism. The main difference is an epistemological distinction between what is required for belief, truthfully, there are many things that atheists will believe despite not having sufficient proof, the alternative is too impossible to imagine.
I meet atheists who believe in ghosts, such things are possible. I think that Christianity in particular, a lot of smart people make exceptions for it - they're still completely competent to determine the truthfulness of claims but they don't apply that rigour to religion. It is rather clear that it doesn't hold up to scrutiny in so far as "proving God exists" is concerned.
I reflect on that whenever I sleep in instead of getting up for zazen.
I think someone will have a great time with empiracism.
Shouldn't racism be empirically proven in our postmodern times? Or does it mean that empiricism leads to racism???
I'm not saying this is a "good argument" to dismiss the above, but whenever I encounter someone talking about "the infinite" in this sense, I don't even know what the heck the concept is supposed to be. We get this on this board often. Someone will say something about "the infinite," and then someone will respond with something about the standard ways to parse infinite numbers, say, but the person who brought up "the infinite" will dismiss is, because it wasn't really what they were talking about. The best I can make out is that "the infinite" is supposed to be some kind of a code word for "God, where God is not subject to any logical, physical, etc. facts"--or something like that at any rate, but I also can't say that the idea of that is at all comprehensible to me, either.
We can all get very caught up in words. Especially very loaded words with many different meanings to different people and some which cause some immediate emotional reaction. God is certainly one of those. While i understand that definitions are important, as a means to communication, I am more concerned about the concept.
The concept here is, it is difficult to make a reasoned argument against the proposition that man has some in inherent need for knowledge, and understanding. And he has some need for understanding his purpose. And as far as i am aware of them, all of the philosophical attempts to define such meaning, that does not include something "God Like" are unconvincing. If it is existentialism, absurdity, hedonism, nihilism - none seem to convincing - at least to me, and I believe in general. The best individual answers i have heard on this point - tend to be a kind of secular spirituality. One that are focused on love of others, on some selflessness. Which I wont argue against, but always seem rather God centered to me - just without the God.
Let's reason together. Let's apply the principle you've articulated in an even handed manner to all beliefs.
Some people believe their holy book is a reliable source of information about the very largest of questions, but they can't prove it.
Some people believe human reason is a reliable source of information about the very largest of questions, but they can't prove it.
No difference so far.
Holy books have proven that they are useful in creating meaning, purpose and comfort for billions of people over thousands of years. But that fact does not prove that they are also qualified to credibly address the very largest of questions.
Human reason has proven itself useful for an uncountable number of practical tasks that humans encounter. But that fact does not prove that human reason is also qualified to credibly address the very largest of questions.
So, still no difference.
Some religious people seem to be motivated to find some way to declare themselves superior to other people, while other religious people are content just to hold their private view. The same is true of atheists.
Again, no difference.
The supposed big divide between theism and atheism is a hoax fueled by ignorance and ego. Both perspectives are built upon faith, as neither side can prove the qualifications of it's chosen authority in regards to the largest of questions.
I've typed this about 1,000 times on the forum and other philosophy forums too. And it makes no difference at all, because readers are generally not interested in reason, but only the appearance of reason. And this is my irrationality, a habit of persistently attempting to do something, in spite of any evidence that it will ever work.
We are brothers and sisters, united as one, embracing illusion with equal enthusiasm. The biggest accomplishment any of us can hope to achieve is to develop a sense of humor about the absurdity of our human condition.
All one would have to say is "If you do such and such actions, maybe 'as if' certain things were true, or in the manner of playing along with some particular fiction, then it can have x, y and z benefits, including insights, etc." That seems to be all that's saying, really, and that wouldn't be near as controversial.--at least no more controversial than saying that people receive benefits or gain insights from interacting with the arts.
I definitely agree re knowledge/understanding--because it's impossible to survive as a human without those things. So that's pretty much built into us. But I don't think that a search for "higher meaning" or some grand purpose or anything like that is something that necessarily everyone has a drive towards--although it certainly is very common.
The fundamental difference between science and religion is that while religion attempts to explain phenomenon, science seeks to understand and control them. This leads to a mastery of nature and benefit to the general populace. You can genuinely understand why something happens through science, and that’s why it’s our best bet. Sure, it could all be coincidence and we could really understand nothing, but that’s quite a few coincidences.
It is easier to prove that nothing exists rather than proving something does. In some understandings of the universe, a creator is necessary. Who started the universe? I think the better question is what. Why does it have to be a sentient being that created the universe? I think it more likely to be a force or natural mechanism of the universe that created existence. There is no need for a god and no evidence for one. Why should I believe in a benevolent overlord when there is absolutely no evidence to the point that it’s nonexistence is so much more likely.
I agree with your sentiment about us being brothers and sisters. As I said above I have no problem with people being religious in their free time. However, if we want to improve our lives and learn about the universe, that is impossible when we believe fairy tales. If it makes you happy and gives your life meaning, fine. If a community wants to build a church and pray for things to get better, fine. But when they walk into their jobs, rationality must rule. I would feel more comfortable living in a building designed by someone who understands math and physics rather than one built by someone who prayed it would stay up and doesn’t understand how to build a house. If they do both, I don’t care, as long as they do the first.
[i]Asking, .. What does God mean for the modern person?" Rahner
strove to reinterpret theology in the light of modem thought. His work
was motivated by two goals:
to make theology intellectually respectable
and to make it serve the broadest interests of Christian faith and life.
Like Kant, he starts with the human subject and the possibility of
knowledge. He examines the human experience of knowledge as the
experience of absolute and limitless transcendence. His method
combines philosophy and cultural analysis to look at the world from an
existentialist perspective.
Referred to as a transcendental Thomist, Rahner was deeply
influenced by Aquinas's theology and in particular the notion that all
knowledge has a priori conditions of possibility. Prompted by Kant,
he asks, "Is it possible to know what is ultimately real?" Inspired by
Aquinas, he asks, "Is it possible to gain knowledge of the non-sensible
God?" Departing from Kant's ontology and his axiom that all human
knowledge necessarily refers to sensible intuitions, Rahner wants to
interrogate the possibility of metaphysics. He sees the ability to reach
ultimate truth through what Aquinas calls excessus ( excess), which is
nothing more than the condition that makes it possible for humanity to
experience the world.
For Rabner excessus represents preapprehension
or Vorgriff, the unthematized grasp of the "Infinite Horizon" that is God
before it is thematized in words and images. There is an
interrelationship in his method between a priori and a posteriori
knowledge and experience. The theologian Karl-Heinz Weger notes
that for Rahner "the term a priori points to something in man that is
already present and previously gi~ something, in other words. that
has not simply been acquired on the basis of experience ... All
knowledge, however, is a posteriori knowledge, because without a
posteriori experiences, the person inhabits nothing that can be known
about his/her a priori constitution. The a priori constitutes our ability
to transcend a posteriori experiences. which are the reality of ~everyday
experiences in the world. The a priori aspect of our knowledge is not
constituted by a posteriori reality. )
We can only experience what we do because we always see out world in the light of a transcendental a
priori. Rabner presupposes within human nature the a priori grasp of
being itself within which metaphysical objects can be known. He
seeks to demonstrate that this human a priori brings about a person's
fundamental experience of God.
Rahner insists on the transcendental nature of human existence
while always keeping the historicity of finite existence in mind. In his
conception, the human being is historical precisely as a transcendent
subject. Asking what existence is in itself, he argues that while
human experience may give answers, it cannot by itself make human
existence intelligible. Finite human beings are present to themselves as
a question and as such open to endless possibilities. The moment we
become aware of our finitude, we have already surpassed it. We
become aware of God as the Infinite Horizon of our consciousness. By
starting with what Weger calls .. modem man's actual experiences,"
Rahner' s methodology breaks with traditional Catholic theology. He
makes anthropology the beginning of his theology.[/i]
have no issue in general with your point - but language like this is pejorative and IMO should be avoided.
Criticism is absolutely necessary for open discourse. Criticism doesn’t have to always be positive in nature to be useful either. I do my best to be kind but if I happen to be rude i have faith that others can take the little disrespect I dish out. If they can’t handle that I don’t consider them to be fit for debate in the first place.
This strikes me as very odd to jump to right after "knowledge is possible." I'm curious why he'd see the human experience of knowledge as experience of "absolute and limitless transcendence"--how would someone arrive at that sort of notion? But I suppose I'd have to delve into Rahner and search for if he gives any "ontogenetic" clues as to how he wound up there.
Good post, thanks.
To me, it's a fairy tale that any of us know what is or isn't a fairy tale, in regards to issues the scale of the God theory.
The God idea is a collection of theories about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, the ultimate big picture question.
Human beings are a single half insane species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies.
Expecting something as small as humans to understand something as large as the nature of everything is like expecting a squirrel to understand the Internet, in my typoholic opinion.
To me, the useful question is, what is our emotional relationship with God or reality, or whatever one prefers to call this place we find ourselves in. This is something we can do something about.
All that said, I plead guilty to forgetting that many forum members may be in their teens or twenties, and thus it's not reasonable to expect them to already have understandings which have taken others of us a lifetime to come to.
by " absolute and limitless transcendence " he is IMO referring to this part:
[i]"For Rabner excessus represents preapprehension
or Vorgriff, the unthematized grasp of the "Infinite Horizon" that is God
before it is thematized in words and images. There is an
interrelationship in his method between a priori and a posteriori
knowledge and experience. "[/i]
Where he believes we have a " a priori" transcendental knowledge that there is some undefined yet very real horizon of "infinite knowledge". We can not define it or even understand it - but we all have an innate knowledge that it is there -
Not sure that helps much - probably do to my inability to communicate it well
It leads to a mastery of nature, but not a mastery of the human condition. Thus for example, we are brilliant enough to be able to create nuclear weapons, while at the same time being insane and stupid enough to actually do so.
The "benefit to the general populace" continues only until the point at which science hands us one or more enormous powers which we can't successfully manage.
The very common notion that science is leading us step by step towards an ever better future is 19th century thinking in my view.
And why can’t we change ourselves to use technology more safely? Cybernetics to enhance physical strength and memory are advancing all the time. We can change our brains to not feel the anger needed to launch a nuke. We are nature ourselves, therefore mastery of nature is mastery of ourselves.
IMO the application of science - Technology - is driven by inherently human drives - mostly power and money - but occasionally and to a lesser degree - altruism. Technology, as the application of science, can not escape the human condition with all the good and bad that that entails.
Your mistake is confusing physical scale for our position on a scale of knowledge. The universe is big but it’s almost entirely made up of the same stuff. If there is something beyond the horizon that is entirely different, we will probably see it again. We know about a lot of the things we can see and have explained them.
You assume that a piece of the puzzle can’t understand the rest of the puzzle. That is wrong.
As for your comment on age. In your view, time is everything. Sure, a 15 year old is more ignorant than a 30 year old on average, but what of the 45 year old? Ultimately, we are all infants compared to the age of the observable universe. If your logic held true, not even the old wise man I assume you are wouldn’t even be close to knowing that he doesn’t know. And you know that you don’t know, don’t you?
What is your reasonable argument that you can have any idea at all where we as human beings stand on such a thing as a scale of knowledge - with zero knowledge on one end - and all the possible knowledge on the other ? Seems an unsupportable statement to me.
By saying this:
Your mistake is confusing physical scale for our position on a scale of knowledge
It seems you have made some assumption of where we are on such a scale. Your posts 2 posts appear in opposition to me.
If man has only what's set before him by natural probabilities, then he doesn't really need what you're calling the 'a priori.' This seems to me by nature non-useful for practical gain by that we can't use it for reliable explanations or predictions in the real world (like the paying/building example). By claiming that G-d does not exist for reasons like 'human suffering' the only sound argument seems to be a rejection of everything not related to immediate existence, or else some type of arbitrary decision to believe or not without reasoning. One in this position would have to accept a certain incapacity of believing in escape from their immediate reality by justification, otherwise they'd be admitting some chance that G-d could exist.
Let's start with something simpler first. Let's change our brains so that we aren't incurably bored by the discussion of the most pressing threat to everything humanity has built over the last 500 years. Once that's done, the rest of your proposal will become more credible.
My mistake is in the persistent assumption that discussing such issues will accomplish anything at all. Seriously, not being sarcastic. THAT is my logical flaw, which I freely admit to.
What I've come to realize (ok, so it took a long time) is that our relationship with knowledge is beyond the reach of logic. That relationship will be not be edited by reason, but by pain.
But, I'm an incurable typoholic logic nerd, so I keep doing the only thing I know how to do, until the pain of too much time online stops this irrational behavior.
This thread may help:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3728/the-knowledge-explosion
Yes, that's it. Wise insightful comment, as usual from you.
With all its SO MANY flaws, this is the genius of religion, the realization that the nature of the human condition is central, fundamental.
The other angle we might focus on is the issue of scale.
So long as knowledge and power are limited, of relatively small scale, as has been true throughout human history until very recently...
Then we can afford to make mistakes, learn from them, and then try again, continually building upon what's come before. This is what I call "19th century thinking", and it was valid in the 19th century and earlier, a very long time.
When the power grows to a scale which threatens civilization itself an entirely new equation is born. With powers of such awesome scale, a single failure a single time of a single such power can bring down the entire system, rendering all the many other positive accomplishments irrelevant.
The one great value of nuclear weapons is that they are incredibly simple, a box that goes boom. Thus, they should illustrate this concept to anyone over the age of 10. But sadly, that rarely happens, such is the human condition and the awesome power of wishful thinking.
So my friends, it's on to pain. Sooner or later some city in the world will vanish in an instant, and perhaps then our thinking will enter the 21st century. Not that this worked the last time of course...
Are you bored of that? I’m not.
Quoting Jake
Perhaps you should make a good point before you start preaching about your crusade to convert heathens.
And go easy on rank ameteur. While being hostile can sometimes get a point across is does make people dislike you. That isn’t good for productive discourse. Of course you misunderstand logical thinking anyway, don’t you? The proof comes first, then belief. That is what you can’t get past. There’s no reason for anyone to believe in your god other than indoctrination and emotional weakness and you seem to have no counter to that.
Ah, a good visit back to the antinatislt type argument where any negativity invalidates all positivity.
You forgot about nuclear power. You forgot about technology letting us colonize the stars, making nuclear weapons ending civilization a thing of the past (we’re entering the beginning phases of that by the way). You forgot about mutually assured destruction. You forgot about the innumerable failsafes nuclear powers have in place to stop their countdowns. You forgot about nuclear bunkers filled with technology to rebuild the future. You forgot about the versitality of mankind, essentially. You forgot a lot.
You say that more is better doesn’t fit us anymore, but why? For food it never made sense, as you seem to also imply. Poisonous mushrooms have always killed us. I wouldn’t like more of those. It’s about type of food/knowledge, not amount. Even then, a nuclear weapon is a useful tool in defense in the case that we encounter hostile aliens or we create a planet wide plague we can’t cure on a colony in the future. Of course, that’s all speculation, but it it doesn’t take away from my original point. Technology is all about how you use it. A nuclear war could destroy my entire planet but a system of nuclear power plants could give electricity to the world.
I don’t think any planet destroying tech is worth stopping any and all scientific progress so we can go back to worshiping a god you can’t prove is real and hopping he pitys us enough to let our crops grow.
The notion that atheists don't believe in things which they have no proof of is true of only a portion of atheists. While some atheists believe that atheism is the only logical position, many atheists are not following atheism for better reasons than Christians follow Christianity. Born into atheist parents, with atheist friends and it's just as natural for them to be atheist as a Christian would be Christian given their parents, friends and community all being Christian.
Many atheists are just as prone to fantasy as religious folk but make an exception on this one issue, they are still liable to believe in ghosts, spiritual nonsense, bad science and whatever else.
I think many atheists give themselves too much credit, I'm an atheist but I don't feel that I would trust an atheist to be more independent, wiser or fairer than a Christian at all. There's a huge difference between choosing not to become a Christian and choosing to no longer be a Christian and I don't think it's as easy to blame people for not choosing the latter as many of the people who belong to the former group believe.
It's nonsense, as no one has proof of any empirical claims.
We believe the guy driving the other car will stop at the light
We believe our spouse will love us forever
We believe the airplane is well made and well maintained
and on and on
and while we may have good reason to believe such things, there is also some pretty good empirical evidence that they are not always true. Yet we believe them anyway.
Yes, that and every other empirical claim. It's a basic tenet of science methodology, for example, that empirical claims are not provable. They're at best provisionally verifiable.
That doesn’t take into account the possibility of revealed truth: that God has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind. So for the religiously orthodox, it’s not a guessing game or ungrounded speculation, but reflection on the meaning of historical events that were animated by the Holy Spirit.
Interesting snippet on Rahner. You might find David Bentley Hart’s 2014 book worthwhile - there’s a review here.
A general observation on the idea of ‘understanding everything’ - the understanding of ‘God’ as ‘ground of being’ or ‘first cause’ is not necessarily a matter of sythesizing vast amounts of empirical knowledge to arrive at a model of the whole. Physics and cosmology has a number of huge crises on its hands in the attempt to arrive at such an understanding on the basis of discoveries made through empirical means.
God as ‘source of being’ is not depicted or understood as an ‘ultimate understanding of everything that is’ in the scientific sense. If such states of mystical intuition are real at all - of course, many will deny that - then they’re more like insights into a different order of being than they are models acquired through accumulation of empirical facts. If you study philosophical theology and ancient philosophy there are many indications of this.
Well, that's one of the popular theories of course.
My own speculative theory is that ideas like "God" and "mankind" assume a division which is only conceptual, not real. The perceived division is a property of the observer, not a property of the reality that is being observed.
If I'm wearing sunglasses all of reality appears to be tinted. If everybody is wearing sunglasses all their lives, then the apparent tint color of reality is taken as an obvious given by the group consensus, and becomes an assumption which is rarely if ever examined.
For centuries those wearing sunglasses engage in never ending debates regarding whether reality is tinted more blue than green, or more green than blue. The debate becomes a career for some, while many people build their personal identity around their position in that debate, and an ever higher pile of compelling human agendas builds in favor of keeping the debate going. And it's all about nothing, because the debaters neglected to examine and challenge the assumption the debate was built upon.
Where are your threads on the subject? Point us to them please.
Not only that, I forgot why I bother to discuss this on philosophy forums at all.
Why do I need a thread on something to have interest?
Quoting Jake
Have you ever considered that if you can't prove a point to anyone, you may be wrong? It may be an interesting avenue of thought. Perhaps you should explore that.
Just another poser....
Quoting TogetherTurtle
I did spend years considering that, until I discovered that no one, no matter how well educated, has been able to defeat the general premise articulated in my thesis. What they typically do instead is what you're doing, throw up a bunch of ego fueled smoke and then get bored, and wander off to some other subject where they can throw up more ego fueled smoke.
While this pattern has been frustrating to me, and to some degree still is, I have learned something important from years of engaging in this process.
Our outdated relationship with knowledge is not going to be edited with reason. What I've been wrong about was the assumption that was possible.
My mindset in this regard suffers from the same ignorant arrogance that leads the group consensus to assume that it can manage any power science uncovers, no matter how large.
So, it is entirely possible to debunk my posts on this subject, but sadly for you, you're not up to the job, so I have to do it for you. But, you're in plenty of good company. And if you're a 20-something, you have a perfectly reasonable excuse.
Aren't you the one getting a little angry?
Quoting Jake
So, what would you consider, "ego fueled smoke"?
Quoting Jake
Why do you think this though? You cling to this truth but is it really even true?
Quoting Jake
So, what have I been doing? You seem to drop an argument after I criticize it. Am I supposed to assume that you have an argument and you are just sparing me?
Quoting Jake
You've been losing an argument on the internet, and it's actually made you mad to boot. But, you're in plenty of good company. And if you're a 70-something, you have a perfectly reasonable excuse.
Rather, I think it leads to the illusion of a mastery of nature.
Oh, I almost forgot. There's this great website called tumblr.com that I think is more your speed. You should check it out. They love activism.
That's nondualism. It's interesting but not relevant to the point as it belongs to a different domain of discourse. The point I was making was one about how spirituality might inform epistemology, but never mind.
Yes, when my science teacher separated hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis it was all smoke and mirrors.
Yes, I apologize. I have no personal beef with you, I really don't. But please understand, I've been discussing this for over a decade on many different sites, and I've heard everything you're saying, and the snarky attitude behind it, at least 56 million times.
Imagine getting in to a debate with a Jehovah's Witness. Stupid, right? They will debate you in earnest, but really they have no interest in reason. Same thing talking with science worshipers. To the degree I'm angry it's mostly with myself for engaging in an activity that I know is a total waste of time. So that's on me, and it my little problem to sort out.
Ok, I hear you, no complaints. But then, dividing everything up in to different domains of discourse is another example of what I'm pointing to. Just sayin... :-)
With all due respect I don't worship it. I know people who worship it. A worshiper will be devout and will not change. If you made a good point I would agree with you. I can't back that up of course but I suppose you could just take my word for it. Just know that I think that changing your mind isn't a weakness but a strength, and I'm not afraid to agree with you, but I won't unless you make a convincing argument.
Quoting Jake
I don't have any beef with you either. I apologize if I was too snarky but I do tend to match the attitude others give out. It's just banter anyway, all in good fun, I never intended to hurt your feelings too much.
I think that you are doing a good thing despite what you may think. The universe may work a certain way but we will never get there if we don't challenge already established ideas. Everyone needs a devil's advocate.
Quoting Jake
We all struggle with our impulses. Don't feel bad about that.
(Why is this site becoming infested with turtles? First we had a Stationary Terrapin and now we have a Together Turtle! Are there more invaders form the natural world to come? Perhaps nature is trying to tell us something about our supposed mastery! :joke: :rofl:)
Let's try this. Perhaps you could summarize what you think my argument is. If you wish. Or we could forget it and move on. Agree to that too.
Whoever said we had endless resources? All I'm saying is that once you understand everything about something you can control it. I know all of the properties of dirt and I can find out what particles and elements are in it. Therefore I can do anything I wish with the dirt as long as it can be done with the dirt. That is mastery.
From my perspective, your argument is this: You can't prove that there is no god and humans can't understand the overarching themes that define the universe.
My argument was that you don't have proof for that either, and on the contrary, we manipulate the laws of nature to our own ends all the time.
And who said that there would be no consequences? Everything has consequences. So, humor me. How does nature work? Why can't I learn everything about dirt?
And to be fair, I know exactly what can happen if I use dirt wrong. Floods or food shortages can be caused by having the wrong dirt in the wrong place. But, if I know everything about dirt, and I know everything about floods and crops, then I can move the dirt accordingly. Disasters are only allowed to happen because we don't understand everything.
We don't manipulate the laws of nature: at best we manipulate natural materials in accordance with our understanding of the laws governing their behavior. The point is that understanding the behavior of natural materials, the small picture, does not give us the big ecological picture regarding our place in nature, and the inevitable consequences of our over-exploitative manipulations.
But you said that you (by which I assumed you meant the collective 'we') understood everything about dirt, which would seem to be a contradiction. Or were you talking just about yourself? If so, are you a soils scientist as well as an expert ecologist or something like that?
You just made my statement longer. Using the laws of nature to manipulate materials is still using (manipulating) the laws of nature.
Quoting Janus
Whoever said that? I may understand dirt but I certainly don't understand the importance of spider monkies in their ecosystem or ever where they live really. I know that if we study them we could know all that and then act accordingly.
As for our place in nature, who defines that but ourselves? We generally do what we please most of the time. If we are destroyed by over exploitative manipulations we weren't smart enough to live in the first place.
Dirt isn't the only thing creating disasters, is it? Wind and lightning and dry grass and the ocean cause disasters all the time. I never claimed that we knew everything about those.
And I meant we. I must have slipped or something. Accidents happen. I would like to be a biologist of some kind but animals gross me out when they're cut open, so I'll leave that for someone else.
Here is where the true nature of your (and when I say 'your' I am also referring, by implication, to the collective we) ignorance is so beautifully and ironically betrayed. Yes, if we destroy ourselves it will be because we weren't smart enough; and we are not smart enough if we think that our place in nature is determined only by ourselves.
And yet we have not destroyed ourselves yet, despite overwhelming odds. Why is that?
If we don't define our place, who does? Definition seems to be an inherently human idea. A chair is only a chair because we have decided it is a chair.
That’s not a definition. :razz:
True they cause disasters for us; but it is we who are causing greater disasters for ourselves as well as the rest of nature on this planet at least.
That is not a definition, sure, but it is an object we have defined.
And who can stop these? Certainly not us if we don't look into more technology. Especially if we can't fully understand these problems.
But what of the nukes? What of the many other things that we thought would be our downfall even before 300 years ago?
I don't believe the answer is more technology, but rather a change of mindset away from advocating and relying upon the kinds of technologies which require vast amounts of cheap energy for their use and development. If we don't stop, then nature will demonstrate its mastery over us by stopping us. I think the very idea of us going to other planets, mining asteroids and so on, is a laughable scientistic masturbatory fantasy.
Quoting TogetherTurtle
I am not sure about what things piror to 300 years ago you are referring to? God's Judgement perhaps? As for nukes they will not harm us unless we use them, so that much is up to us, it seems. Although it might just be the deviant nature of some fear-crazed individual that precipitates a cascading series of nuclear strikes; we can only hope it doesn't come to this!
What constitutes "proof of an empirical claim" is an epistemological position based on interpretation. It's not nonsense, it's just subjective.
It is relevant because it shows that many atheists are not basing their views on empirical claims but rather cultural influences.
Quoting kudos
The answer is no. Atheism does not necessitate a nonbelief in similar things.
I think there are five main reasons to be an atheist. Arguments using history, science, epistemology, culture and intuition. Similarly Christians aren't just Christian because they've determined God is a reasonable epistemological or scientific claim. So to say that atheists are always predisposed towards the epistemological stance of nonbelief in things that lack proof or to say Christians are necessarily against the epistemological stance of nonbelief in things which lack proof are both wrong.
More likely, the Christian takes exception about Christianity because of other factors and the atheist is not just lacking belief purely because of his epistemological stance, he probably has other reasons too. Sometimes it really is that simple but generally, I think it's not.
As I suspected, you have no idea at all what my thesis is, and are objecting just to object. Very normal, not very interesting.
I agree that there is no technofix beyond clean, renewable energy. Consumerism probably has to go as well. Anyone ready for that? We don’t build consumer products to last. We replace them far too often. Population control is of paramount importance, too. Family planning is essential in the countries with a low median age. Immigration is necessary for the aging countries, which tend to have more wealth so family planning usually already exists there, and the newcomers will settle into the family planning methods of their host country, eventually producing fewer offspring over a couple of generations. Fixing old shit instead of building new is important, too.
I think this thread has now gone way off-topic, so I''ll just say that I am not confident that renewable technologies can be developed without mining and production that will need to use vast amounts of fossil fuels.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
I'll also respond to this because I think it is an important issue. What you say is of course true, but the problem is that if we suddenly started building things to last the companies that sold those things would fairly quickly go bankrupt; probably unless the prices for those things were unaffordably high. The only way to ensure continual economic growth is built-in product-fail, redundancy or obsolescence.
Also, we might lament the loss of the benefits of modern medicine, but it is easy to forget that its development was made possible by the fiscal excess that comes with rampant consumerism; which in turn has been made possible by cheap energy. Everything is interconnected; and you can't have the benefits without the downsides.
I think a thread about the plausibility of transitioning to renewable energy sources would be a great idea; I may start one myself sooner or later if I feel I have sufficient time to devote to it.
Dang! I wish I'd said that first. :smile: Made me smile, thanks.
Yes, philosophy forums provide a great example of this. Almost all religion threads seem to focus on ideological beliefs, as if that was all there is to religion. The constant comparisons between science and religion reveal a profound lack of understanding of the nature of religion. I would summarize the situation this way.
SCIENCE: facts about reality
RELIGION: our relationship with reality
Religion proposes facts about reality not to compete with science, but to assist in managing our emotional relationship with reality.
Religions seem to get what philosophers are rarely able to grasp. The reality of human beings is that we are like an M&M candy, with a thin hard shell of reason on the outside obscuring a much larger soft and squishy center of emotion. Philosophers typically don't get this because while being superficially clever, we are typically emotionally inept. Clever, but shallow. Yea, me included, as I bow to no one in nerdly nerdmanism. :smile:
Just ask almost any woman. They will read this forum and see immediately that it's primarily about male ego emotions, whereas we routinely delude ourselves in to thinking it's about razor sharp logic, blah, blah, blah...
The great irony is that, generally speaking, religions have a more realistic understanding of the human condition than do the "no-nonsense realists". That's why religions go on and on and on for thousands of years, they are aligned with the real world of human beings.
An interesting, and pregnant, statement.
If you look at it through an historical lense, what you find is something like this. 'Phenomena' means, basically, 'what appears'. In early philosophy, a distinction was nearly always made between 'what appears' and 'what is truly so'. The distinction was later said to be between noumenon (what is ideally so) and phenomena (what appears).
Such a distinction actually lay at the source of modern science itself, where I would argue that it appears as the distinction between natural or scientific law (which are principles), and observable phenomena (in which the effects or manifestations of principles can be observed), as per this statement:
Quoting TogetherTurtle
But at the same time, due to the overwhelming influence of empiricism, the distinction between 'noumenal' and 'phenomenal' is now no longer intelligible; discussions of this distinction are generally very confused on this forum. And furthermore, the kinds of things that amount to 'an explanation' are now radically different. And that's because empiricism basically wishes to restrain all explanation to the domain of the phenomenal, of 'what appears', because that is what is measurable and predictable by the senses (including scientific instruments). The whole idea behind a 'first cause' in the sense understood by classical philosophy, has actually been entirely forgotten - hence:
Quoting TogetherTurtle
Which is natural, given empiricism as a guiding philosophy. But the point is that the philosophy which gave rise to empiricism didn't start out deliberately looking for an anthropomorphic explanation. Plato and Aristotle didn't really subscribe to a 'creator God' in the Christian sense (although their ideas were later co-opted by Christian theology).
But the point about the classical understanding of causation, was that first causes or the origin of phenomena, were in some radical sense prior to phenomena themselves. So the idea of looking for the evidence of the ground or origin of being by observing phenomena would have seemed a backwards way of going about it. Phenomena themselves were illusory and ever-changing, what was real was the laws (logos) which caused phenomena to exist and gave them an identity. And you can still see that in science today, with the caveat that most people don't seem to recognize that the ontological status of natural laws and the nature of number, are not themselves questions amenable to scientific explanation, but without which science could not exist.
Now that way of thinking in terms of an hierarchy of causation is still preserved in some forms of modern philosophy - typically derived from the tradition of Aquinas, but that is because Aquinas himself received and transmitted many elements of pre-existing Greek philosophy. In practical terms, it turns out to be best preserved in the philosophical aspects of Catholicism (in my view.)
In any case, notice the entire emphasis on 'mastery' and 'control' of nature - as befits a technological culture. But what is lost in all of this are the original questions of philosophy, which are not instrumental or technological in nature, but are concerned with the question of meaning, in the largest sense. But that kind of questioning is almost unknown in our technological culture, so much so that the question itself is no longer even understood.
Quoting Jake
But more to the point, philosophy is neither science, nor religion. It has its religious aspects - or I think it does, although that doesn't sit well with secular culture - but it also takes pains to understand in a way that religious believers don't want to bother with. 'Why should I believe or accept that' is something a philosopher might ask, but will accept an answer that might not be acceptable to empiricism pure and simple.
I’ll need to think on this one for a while. Earlier in this you say that finding out how nature works by observing its functions is “backwards” and I would agree. However, I don’t think that makes it less effective. Science now seems to be “reverse engineering” nature, and then using the knowledge we gain to help ourselves is technology. Sometimes we don’t fully understand the underlying (noumenon?) but we are always getting closer by trying.
To add another layer to your idea, what is the relationship between philosophy and reason?
Do the human problems which religions have long attempted to address and which make the power of science dangerous in the modern world arise from bad ideas? Or from the nature of thought itself?
If one answers bad ideas, then philosophy seems a solution grounded in reason, because philosophy is a systematic discipline dedicated to removing bad ideas.
If one answers thought itself, then it seems questionable whether philosophy is a reason based response, given that philosophy is made entirely of that which, in this view, is said to be the source of the problems.
It seems to me that philosophy can be used to uncover that fundamental human problems arise from the nature of what we're made of psychologically, thought. Philosophy can be used to show that the notion that the source of our problems is bad ideas is itself a bad idea.
And then, if one wishes to move beyond understanding the situation to doing something about it, one has to move beyond philosophy.
Consider the cave man philosopher who has diligently explored the landscape he inhabits on foot. And then his explorations bring him to something new, the ocean. If the cave man wishes to explore this different environment, he has to surrender his passion for walking.
If the cave man is a person of reason who wishes to explore the ocean he will willingly give up the act of walking to learn how to navigate the new environment of the ocean by learning how to swim. Exploration is the priority for this cave man, not walking, which he sees as being merely a means to an end.
If the cave man is not a person of reason, but merely a philosopher, then he will turn his back on the ocean and go looking for new landscapes that can be explored by walking. For this cave man, walking is the priority.
As per Jakes arguement, for most of us this is preaching to the converted. But the question is ‘why it is the case that collective societies repeat generally destructive behaviours collectively in order to reach greater profit individually?’ It is a philosophical problem. But bringing it back to the general topic at hand, Are the materialistic motives you point to in some way connected to our complacence in accepting the two distinct ideas as one?
I think the popular atheism in the article is a somewhat real product of a more thoughtful atheism of the 1930 - 1950's. Which I think has its roots in the horrors of mechanized, chemical, and nuclear war of the same period - not to mention an attempted elimination of an entire race. In the face of such horror - a questioning of God seems quite appropriate. What I find interesting though, was this horror was the application of science by man - technology. Yet there seemed little discussion in this time frame for a more responsible use of science. But what these thinkers did try to address is, if not God, than why do we exist, what is our purpose.
The more "commercial atheists" Dawkins et al - who to me seemed more intent on selling atheism in their books and commercial appearances than any significant in depth philosophy of the subject. And it need to be said there sale was much easier with the rise of an equally un-thoughtful evangelical fundamental Christianity, used by some for their own power and money. These atheists has an easy fight - and a winning strategy - you use a poor definition of God ( IMO they all are by the way), that is completely based on faith - and show it does not pass a test of reason. Basically showing that faith and reason are different. duh. They all but ignore the question of if not God - what, generally falling into some form of hedonism - also great timing in the mid 60's for that.
Now what they did do well was establish a narrative, by comparing their erudite sophisticated selves to the crude fundamental Christians that smart people were atheists and dumb people were not. I think this narrative has had more to do with a rise in popular atheism than anything else.
IMO there is a large gap between popular atheism and popular theism, the gap is much smaller between thoughtful atheism and theism.
It seems to me that a truly thoughtful investigation would largely discard the simplistic, tired and outdated either/or atheist vs. theist paradigm in favor of a more serious and practical approach. We philosopher types at least invest far too much time in debating atheist vs. theist when we could instead be focusing on developing our relationship with reality.
Every human being is born in to a marriage with nature, with reality, with this place where we find ourselves. Reason should be leading us to the question, how do we fall more deeply in love with our marriage partner? How does a person find their way to a place where, for example, they experience tears of joy at the beauty of a sunrise? It seems less important what approach one takes than whether one actually gets where one is trying to go by whatever approach one chooses.
True reason would take us beyond philosophy in to the emotional realm, because that's where we really live.
To expand on this a bit...
If we destroy ourselves (or more likely modern civilization) it will be because we experience reality as being divided between "me" (very very small) and "everything else" (very very big). This perspective gives rise to fear, which in turn gives rise to most human problems.
If we perceive our situation as that of being very small and alone in a vast merciless mechanical universe, then it follows that we would focus on trying to become bigger, perhaps by grabbing all the resources we can, or maybe by attaching our identity to something larger than ourselves such as a tribe, nation or ideology etc.
It's important for philosophers to realize that the illusion of division which is driving all this dangerous activity arises directly out of the nature of thought, that which all philosophies are made of. Thus, the profound conundrum for the philosopher is that by analyzing the situation with thought, by doing philosophy, any philosophy, we are feeding the mechanism which is generating the illusion of division (which in turn generates fear, which in turn leads to all kinds of trouble).
As philosophers, we might be compared to the alcoholic who is trying to cure his disease with a case of scotch. The harder he tries to apply the cure the deeper in to his disease he falls. Seeing he's getting worse, he tries even harder, and thus falls even faster.
So, I don't think think this mode of thought is natural or necessary to human discursive thought or analysis. For example I don't believe that it is predominant in Eastern philosophy, and particularly not in Chinese thought. Moderns systems, information and complexity thinking also eschews atomism. Indeed, modern science in general seems to lead away from the idea that we are separate from nature, but it takes a long time to change old habits of thought! Hopefully we have enough time to accomplish the task!
Never a problem.
Quoting Janus
If it should interest you, I'd be interested in reading how you might summarize what you hear me saying, in your own words. What is it that you are agreeing with?
Quoting Janus
That seems reasonable enough (not that I'm expert on such subjects).
I'm attempting to suggest that the content of thought (various philosophies such as you referenced) is a symptom of the nature of thought, you know, the way thought works.
In my view, the real source of "atomistic thinking" is not this or that philosophy, but rather thought itself.
Here's an example to illustrate. As far as I know, every ideology ever invented inevitably subdivides in to competing internal factions. The universality of this experience should tell us that it's not the properties of this or that ideology which is generating the division, but instead something that all ideologies have in common. Which can only be that which all ideologies are made of, thought.
If it is true that the perception of division (ie. "atomistic thinking") is generated not by the content of thought but by the medium of thought itself, that would seem to put philosophy in a very different context. Why argue over competing philosophies if ANY philosophy is inevitably going to generate more division, and thus more conflict?
If it is true that the perception of division is generated not by the content of thought but by the medium of thought itself, then fundamental human problems are not a philosophical issue, but a mechanical one. Such an insight is not likely to be popular with philosophers, but that is where reason takes us, like it or not, imho.
I was agreeing that atomistic thinking can be a problem. I also think holistic thinking is possible, so I don't agree that atomistic thinking is inherent or necessary to thought; although it may be essential to some disciplines, but it is then a sort of shorthand like infinitesimal calculus.
So, I don't agree that it is the process of thinking that inevitably leads to atomism, but rather the problem consists in a specific way of conceiving of things. Atomistic or mechanistic thinking also has its place and uses, but it is merely a methodology, and if it is reified, if the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness" (Whitehead) is indulged in, then that may become a major problem.
I would respectfully counter that division is how thought works. Thought breaks a single unified reality in to conceptual parts.
We are then able to rearrange the conceptual parts in our mind, which gives us the power to imagine reality the way it might be. That is, this division process is the source of human creative genius.
The conceptual division process is also the source of our insanity, because it causes us to see ourselves as a perishable "thing" separate from all else, which gives rise to fear, and most other other human problems.
As example, language is a key expression of thought. The noun is the building block of language. And the purpose of a noun is to divide. And so from the first word spoken in human history, long before any philosophy, we were already conceptually dividing.
If human divisions could be solved by philosophy, any philosophy, wouldn't they have long ago been solved? You know, billions of thinkers over tens of thousands of years, surely someone would have come upon "the answer" by now, right?
Instead, we see the same human problems endlessly repeat themselves in every time and place, whatever the cultural circumstance. The universality of these phenomena seem a huge clue which we are largely ignoring, imho.
While I'm not a hardcore materialist I think claims concerning the immaterial are just too speculative - the flying sphagetti monster. Why open a door that lets in anything? It would be a messy affair.
That said I'd like to mention radiowaves - they're well ''immaterial'' and yet they exist. Of course we detect them with instruments but they can't be sensed with any of our organs.
If we’re to accept this model into common understanding, then it will stand in the way of problems where the collective must act with ‘organized unreason.’ Take climate change for example, what reason would such a race have to place greater interest in the next generation of humankind than the satisfaction of their own biological survival instincts?
From this kind of materialism it seems wise to maintain the G-d possibility or G-d doubt concerning the discourse on the subject. We can make an analogy of the informant. Say there was a claim of a murderer on his way to you. You could veritiably claim that you don’t believe it, but can you systematically respond that it’s untruth without somehow degrading truth’s stature? When it’s suggested ‘G-d is a myth,’ ‘G-d is a delusion,’ etc that to me is like the person from the analogy saying ‘I can say I know absolutely there is no murderer because it is sufficiently unlikely.’ What does one consider unlikely, but all the things that contradict their frame of reality.
Keep in mind this doesnt concern physical verification of a deity but of an infinite being beyond comprehension.