Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Dark Matter]

Think about it Spectrum. Look a little deeper.

[Spectrum]

That Pope got his information from ill-informed sources.
Confucius did not involve himself with question 1 and 2. His focus was more on Ethics and Politics.

The Buddha also avoided Question 1 and 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unans ... sava-Sutta

I should add, both Confucious and Buddha are not too concern with Question 4 as well, i.e.
4. What is there after this life?

Think about it Spectrum. Look a little deeper.

I have already dug very deep to come up with the thesis 'God is an impossibility' and the alternative theory, 'Belief in a God?' is a psychological issue.

Your views are not deep enough as you are caught in the surface entangled by psychological impulses.
When one's primal instincts and basic emotions are triggered in a constant state to deal with an existential crisis, one's thinking faculty is highly inhibited.

Note the following [deeper stuffs];



The primal brain is below the emotional limbic brain.
When 'survival' [existential] is threatened in this case subliminal not conscious, the higher thinking brain is dampened and the primal brain and emotional is activated and heightened.
This is why I am getting so much emotional reactions [one liners and derogatory comments] from some theists who are 'grunting' rather than engaging in an intellectual discussion.

If you think you are thinking "deeper" [cortical] then provide me the deeper stuffs [justifiable arguments] instead of one-liners.

[Dark Matter]

That Pope got his information from ill-informed sources.
Confucius did not involve himself with question 1 and 2. His focus was more on Ethics and Politics.

The Buddha also avoided Question 1 and 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unans ... sava-Sutta

I should add, both Confucious and Buddha are not too concern with Question 4 as well, i.e.
4. What is there after this life?

Think about it Spectrum. Look a little deeper.

I have already dug very deep to come up with the thesis 'God is an impossibility' and the alternative theory, 'Belief in a God?' is a psychological issue.

Your views are not deep enough as you are caught in the surface entangled by psychological impulses.
When one's primal instincts and basic emotions are triggered in a constant state to deal with an existential crisis, one's thinking faculty is highly inhibited.

Note the following [deeper stuffs];



The primal brain is below the emotional limbic brain.
When 'survival' [existential] is threatened in this case subliminal not conscious, the higher thinking brain is dampened and the primal brain and emotional is activated and heightened.
This is why I am getting so much emotional reactions [one liners and derogatory comments] from some theists who are 'grunting' rather than engaging in an intellectual discussion.

If you think you are thinking "deeper" [cortical] then provide me the deeper stuffs [justifiable arguments] instead of one-liners.

ROFLMAO!!! And here I thought you were "expert" on Buddhism.

[Dark Matter]

Sorry, Spectrum. But why should I "engage" with someone who has no interest in hearing anyone but themselves, their ideas, and their assumed expertise?

[Spectrum]

Sorry, Spectrum. But why should I "engage" with someone who has no interest in hearing anyone but themselves, their ideas, and their assumed expertise?

Who is expecting you should or must participate, surely you understand in such a forum it is at a person's discretion to participate or not to participate.
If you want to contribute your views, present your arguments, if not, shut up rather than your usual one-liners.

[Londoner]

Ah, you recognized it's source. Good. I quoted it to emphasize that faith is not what most people think. It's not just belief in a body of unsubstantiated ideas. Faith sees the world as it is without excluding science from its apprehension, adds to that personal experience and takes the further step of reasoning towards a highest ideal.

'Faith' is always troublesome in a discussion of religion. As you say, it is usually understood as 'I have decided to be irrational; I will say something is true even though I have no reason to'. So when somebody with little interest in religion encounters the word they shrug their shoulders, thinking there is no point in trying to discuss this further.

I would say that it should rather be understood as choosing to live as if life had a meaning, a purpose. The fact that contributors to these boards spend there time arguing with each other suggests that they all have some sort of 'faith' in that sense, otherwise what would be the point? And on other threads, people will argue about ethical questions, rather than simply respond to everything 'As if it matters!' as we might if we really considered our existence 'absurd'.

Spectrum, for example, has very strong opinions on the right or wrong way to think and behave. He may argue against religions, but he is fundamentally on the same page as them, in that he thinks such questions are meaningful. But you cannot draw meaning from science or maths or logic. As Lucky R puts it, it is:

An opinion unencumbered by data.

Yet we still have opinions! We are still obliged to live in this world, and we are more than passive receptacles for data.

It is not correct to say "the scientific consensus of QM is the same the world over." It is, in fact, much debated inscience, especially its implications. Many would argue it can have a profound effect on of religious concepts.

I take it that this is not directed at me. I haven't written about QM.

[Tamminen]

In both East and West, we may trace a journey which has led humanity down the centuries to meet and engage truth more and more deeply. It is a journey which has unfolded—as it must—within the horizon of personal self-consciousness: the more human beings know reality and the world, the more they know themselves in their uniqueness, with the question of the meaning of things and of their very existence becoming ever more pressing. This is why all that is the object of our knowledge becomes a part of our life. The admonition Know yourself was carved on the temple portal at Delphi, as testimony to a basic truth to be adopted as a minimal norm by those who seek to set themselves apart from the rest of creation as “human beings”, that is as those who “know themselves”.

Moreover, a cursory glance at ancient history shows clearly how in different parts of the world, with their different cultures, there arise at the same time the fundamental questions which pervade human life: Who am I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is there evil? What is there after this life? These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda and the Avesta; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze, and in the preaching of Tirthankara and Buddha; they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle. They are questions which have their common source in the quest for meaning which has always compelled the human heart. In fact, the answer given to these questions decides the direction which people seek to give to their lives.

Excellent text, profound, at the heart of philosophy.

But the pope did not mention God. An agnostic can say those same things. And what is that God anyway? We have carried that concept with us thousands of years having no clear idea of what we are talking about. But the word means something, and something very important, just because we have had it as long as we can see into our history. It is the unspeakable meaning of our existence, something we are dependent on. We cannot get a grip of God any more than we can get a grip of death. So God, if we want to use that concept, is the unspeakable depth of our existence. For Spinoza it was Nature. For Wittgenstein it was the world of facts and the metaphysical subject, so he had two gods. For our generation it may be the universe with its laws. So why not God, we only have to get rid of the dogmas of our religions.

[Belindi]

Spectrum, some people, when they might say "I believe in God" actually mean that they trust in God. The word 'believe' has at least two meanings.
You may say that you believe that when your tooth is extracted you may bleed, but that is not the same as saying that you believe in the dentist.

[Steve3007]

I would say that it should rather be understood as choosing to live as if life had a meaning, a purpose. The fact that contributors to these boards spend there time arguing with each other suggests that they all have some sort of 'faith' in that sense, otherwise what would be the point? And on other threads, people will argue about ethical questions, rather than simply respond to everything 'As if it matters!' as we might if we really considered our existence 'absurd'.

I think the trouble with this proposed definition of faith is that the potentially broad definitions of "meaning" and "purpose" could result in a correspondingly broad definition of faith. Some hedonistic contributors to these boards might see their purpose as simply to enjoy themselves. They might take part in discussions on these boards simply because they enjoy the intellectual exercise, like playing a game. That doesn't really seem to fit the concept of "faith" - playing a game for fun.

[Londoner]

I think the trouble with this proposed definition of faith is that the potentially broad definitions of "meaning" and "purpose" could result in a correspondingly broad definition of faith. Some hedonistic contributors to these boards might see their purpose as simply to enjoy themselves. They might take part in discussions on these boards simply because they enjoy the intellectual exercise, like playing a game. That doesn't really seem to fit the concept of "faith" - playing a game for fun.

I agree contributors might have that attitude, but I think it is rare that anyone lives their life entirely without values or purpose. Even if we think existence is 'absurd' we still have to take up some sort of attitude to it. Hedonism is itself an attitude.

I am not proposing it as a definition of 'faith' as if it was something new; I am suggesting that this is how the word was understood - and still is understood by Popes and those who take an interest in such things.

Even in normal use, 'faith' still has the meaning of 'trust' and 'commitment', without the implication that this is irrational. In the form 'faithful' it doesn't imply the person described has any supernatural beliefs.

[Eduk]

That's the thing, faith is not for the real world, it is for the supernatural world

What supernatural world? How do you know this supernatural world exists?

I quoted it to emphasize that faith is not what most people think. It's not just belief in a body of unsubstantiated ideas.

I use the normative definition of faith.

Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

If you use another definition then please explain otherwise I (and other I assume) won't be able to follow your argument. Please give one example of faith which is not belief in unsubstantiated ideas.

It is not correct to say "the scientific consensus of QM is the same the world over." It is, in fact, much debated inscience, especially its implications. Many would argue it can have a profound effect on of religious concepts.

Ah I'm sorry, you seem to be mistaking all the nonsense that many people write about QM with what physicists write about QM in recognised, peer reviewed papers. No physicist has any idea what the nature of QM is and therefore they can make no statements (other than personal conjecture) on its implications. The scientific consensus on the nature of QM is that the nature of QM is unknown. Many physicists even say it's a waste of time thinking about it and it's better to spend time on the equations and the results and things which can be falsified, others disagree but again there is no consensus on what the correct path is and here the physicist basically enters philosophy proper which they do not necessarily have any expertise in. By which I mean I trust a physicist who designs a semi conductor and tells me they are using QM (even though to me it's a black box) but I don't trust a physicist's philosophy in the same manner.

Real philosophy, philosophy in the spirit of the love and pursuit of wisdom, is shoved aside in contemporary society as meaningless.

So anyone who doesn't agree with you is not engaging in real philosophy? Since when did you become the arbiter of philosophy? Am I supposed to just agree with you axiomatically? If I said I am the arbiter of toast and any toast you eat which I don't like is not toast then would you simply take my word for it?

These are hardly the words of a philosophical dummy

The Pope's words have no content. He may not be a philosophical dummy but in his position as Pope he must write as if he is. Do you have literally no issues with any of his quote? I will pick one of many issues I have.

Why is there evil?

What evil? Calling something evil is what a philosophical dummy might say. I remember once saying to someone that luck wasn't a physical property of the universe. They looked at me like I was insane or joking. It beggars my belief that full grown adult humans think so little.

And BTW, who confuses an encyclical letter with scripture?

I don't know what an encyclical letter is. Or at least I didn't until I just googled it. In your mind who would confuse an encyclical letter with scripture, and what does that tell you about that person?

[Tamminen]

God, if we use that concept, is not something that exists or something that does not exist. God, seen as above, is beyond all proofs. Faith in such a God can be illustrated by quoting Kafka, who wrote that "even if one crow can easily cover the sky, that is not a proof against the sky". Cf. the holocaust.

[Eduk]

God, seen as above, is beyond all proofs. Faith in such a God can be illustrated by quoting Kafka, who wrote that "even if one crow can easily cover the sky, that is not a proof against the sky".

That is because we can see the sky before and after the crow. And also a crow cannot cover the sky.
Imagine this if you will. There is something, I will call it a fghty. I do not have any information about what fghty is, even the name fghty is simply my personal made up name because I am constrained by language and can do no better. In this case, what is fghty? and what should you do about fghty?

[Dark Matter]

'Faith' is always troublesome in a discussion of religion. As you say, it is usually understood as 'I have decided to be irrational; I will say something is true even though I have no reason to'. So when somebody with little interest in religion encounters the word they shrug their shoulders, thinking there is no point in trying to discuss this further.

True. I see it all the time. But I don't think it is as prevalent in this forum as it used to be.

I would say that it should rather be understood as choosing to live as if life had a meaning, a purpose. The fact that contributors to these boards spend there time arguing with each other suggests that they all have some sort of 'faith' in that sense, otherwise what would be the point? And on other threads, people will argue about ethical questions, rather than simply respond to everything 'As if it matters!' as we might if we really considered our existence 'absurd'.

I do not disagree, but I think it falls short unless by "meaning and purpose" you include trust in a supreme ideal beyond one's self.

Spectrum, for example, has very strong opinions on the right or wrong way to think and behave. He may argue against religions, but he is fundamentally on the same page as them, in that he thinks such questions are meaningful. But you cannot draw meaning from science or maths or logic. As Lucky R puts it, it is:

An opinion unencumbered by data.

Yet we still have opinions! We are still obliged to live in this world, and we are more than passive receptacles for data.

I especially agree with the last bit about being more than passive receptacles.That, I think, is at the heart of it all.

In my (somewhat prejudiced) POV, Spectrum is a cult of one whose only purpose is to promulgate his creed. If creationists have "faith," then so does Spectrum, but it's not faith in the real sense of the word.

It is not correct to say "the scientific consensus of QM is the same the world over." It is, in fact, much debated in science, especially its implications. Many would argue it can have a profound effect on of religious concepts.

I take it that this is not directed at me. I haven't written about QM.

The quote is from Eduk. I should have been more clear.

QM is the most successful and most verified theory in history. But it's also poorly understood. The axiom for many physicists is "shut-up and calculate."

[Dark Matter]

Ah I'm sorry, you seem to be mistaking all the nonsense that many people write about QM with what physicists write about QM in recognised, peer reviewed papers. No physicist has any idea what the nature of QM is and therefore they can make no statements (other than personal conjecture) on its implications. The scientific consensus on the nature of QM is that the nature of QM is unknown. Many physicists even say it's a waste of time thinking about it and it's better to spend time on the equations and the results and things which can be falsified, others disagree but again there is no consensus on what the correct path is and here the physicist basically enters philosophy proper which they do not necessarily have any expertise in. By which I mean I trust a physicist who designs a semi conductor and tells me they are using QM (even though to me it's a black box) but I don't trust a physicist's philosophy in the same manner.

We're on the same page.

These are hardly the words of a philosophical dummy

The Pope's words have no content. He may not be a philosophical dummy but in his position as Pope he must write as if he is. Do you have literally no issues with any of his quote? I will pick one of many issues I have.

It would scare the bejesus out of me if I didn't have any issues with the letter in its entirety, but I have none with the excerpt.

What irks me is that many here seem to think ideas are not "philosophical" unless they are empirically verifiable, and that's simply absurd.