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

[Tegularius]

Tegularius

So, in effect, whatever eludes logic, nature or experience simply supply a supposition to give it a modicum of probability? It's amazing what realities or potentials thereof we create through language only. To complete as truth whatever wishful thinking desires surround it with a subject and a predicate and that which never existed all of a sudden blooms forth as something one can argue for or against. Is this perhaps what free will does when it has nothing else to do; simply make the impossible less improbable?

"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil

Do you as an atheist deny the potential for science to verify the necessity for our source or are you open to the possibility that science will eventually verify the necessity of our source?

What do you mean by the necessity of our source and why it must be a necessity?

What if science reaches the point in its investigations where what it predicts requires a source, is this a possibility?

There is no "what if" about it. Predictions are made based on what is known or assumed to be known. That is its source. They don't flow out of nothing. You seem surprised by the fact. But the whole point was, which you managed to detour, that simply with words and assumptions one can create any scenario one wishes, even virgin births. There's nothing wrong with that as long as it remains fictionalized since there's no such thing in nature. The reason you can't respond logically is because it's irrefutable. Any attempt to do so becomes becomes abstruse, incomprehensible and totally non-sequitur as per your responses.

[Nick_A]

Tegularius





Do you as an atheist deny the potential for science to verify the necessity for our source or are you open to the possibility that science will eventually verify the necessity of our source?

What do you mean by the necessity of our source and why it must be a necessity?

What if science reaches the point in its investigations where what it predicts requires a source, is this a possibility?

There is no "what if" about it. Predictions are made based on what is known or assumed to be known. That is its source. They don't flow out of nothing. You seem surprised by the fact. But the whole point was, which you managed to detour, that simply with words and assumptions one can create any scenario one wishes, even virgin births. There's nothing wrong with that as long as it remains fictionalized since there's no such thing in nature. The reason you can't respond logically is because it's irrefutable. Any attempt to do so becomes becomes abstruse, incomprehensible and totally non-sequitur as per your responses.

You are with the majority who follow the trodden path of thought. I admire those who have seen and felt more deeply so are capable of deductive reason.

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930

Positive atheists for some reason have become closed to their potential for experiencing INTUITION which enables them to sense the insufficiency of the trodden path of thought. They have become unable to contemplate unrelated facts "and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law." Since this is intolerable for the closed mind, they had to be killed. The world demeans them but those like me admire them.

Are you open to new facts which would reveal the logic behind the virgin birth those like Jesus and Socrates spoke of? I don't think so. It seems so absurd to you that you will revolt against it.

[Sculptor1]

Simone Weil wrote:

The errors of our time come from Christianity without the supernatural. Secularization is the cause—and primarily humanism.

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith: in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be atheistic with the part of myself which is not made for God. Among those men in whom the supernatural part has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.

Those who have experienced the vertical awakening of their supernatural part are fortunate concerning the future of their being but unfortunate in society which has not experienced this awakening. They will be ridiculed and condemned as ignorant except for the charlatans who appeal to those needing consolation.

The believer must remember that atheists are necessary. They help keep the self serving fantasy out of Christianity making it possible for some others to experience the awakening of their spiritual part.

I think what Weil is saying is absurd and without any justification.
There is no supernatural. It's just a fiction.
"The errors of our time" - what are they exactly? And how would you lay that at the door of humanism.
What is "True Faith"?
It all reads like gibberish.

[Fanman]

Sculptor1,

I think what Weil is saying is absurd and without any justification.
There is no supernatural. It's just a fiction.
"The errors of our time" - what are they exactly? And how would you lay that at the door of humanism.
What is "True Faith"?
It all reads like gibberish.

Your mind is closed to the possibility of the supernatural existing, but there are people (not just the proponents of the major religions) whose lives revolve around it. If the case were that there was no reality whatsoever to what they practice, why would they do it? Does that seem logical? In your world view, the supernatural does not exist, and that’s fine. I am sceptical about it as well, but our scepticism does not equate to a refutation. How can it be demonstrated that something widely purported to exist is fiction? I don’t think it can; it is just whether a person believes in it or not.

[Robert66]

Sculptor1,

I think what Weil is saying is absurd and without any justification.
There is no supernatural. It's just a fiction.
"The errors of our time" - what are they exactly? And how would you lay that at the door of humanism.
What is "True Faith"?
It all reads like gibberish.

Your mind is closed to the possibility of the supernatural existing, but there are people (not just the proponents of the major religions) whose lives revolve around it. If the case were that there was no reality whatsoever to what they practice, why would they do it? Does that seem logical? In your world view, the supernatural does not exist, and that’s fine. I am sceptical about it as well, but our scepticism does not equate to a refutation. How can it be demonstrated that something widely purported to exist is fiction? I don’t think it can; it is just whether a person believes in it or not.

Ah, yes - the George Michael argument: "You've gotta have faith". Salespeople of all stripes have been aided by this throughout the ages. They tell us "It won't happen if you don't believe in it" (miracle cures, skin care products, eternal life) and if not, your skepticism is viewed as a deficiency.

[Tegularius]

What do you mean by the necessity of our source and why it must be a necessity?

What if science reaches the point in its investigations where what it predicts requires a source, is this a possibility?

There is no "what if" about it. Predictions are made based on what is known or assumed to be known. That is its source. They don't flow out of nothing. You seem surprised by the fact. But the whole point was, which you managed to detour, that simply with words and assumptions one can create any scenario one wishes, even virgin births. There's nothing wrong with that as long as it remains fictionalized since there's no such thing in nature. The reason you can't respond logically is because it's irrefutable. Any attempt to do so becomes becomes abstruse, incomprehensible and totally non-sequitur as per your responses.

You are with the majority who follow the trodden path of thought. I admire those who have seen and felt more deeply so are capable of deductive reason.

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930

Positive atheists for some reason have become closed to their potential for experiencing INTUITION which enables them to sense the insufficiency of the trodden path of thought. They have become unable to contemplate unrelated facts "and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law." Since this is intolerable for the closed mind, they had to be killed. The world demeans them but those like me admire them.

Are you open to new facts which would reveal the logic behind the virgin birth those like Jesus and Socrates spoke of? I don't think so. It seems so absurd to you that you will revolt against it.

That's also been your your type of default when you can no-longer counter a valid argument. Then you follow that up with quotes as usual. I'm quite certain that even Einstein's intuition would not have encompassed an idea so ludicrous as virgin birth. If "thinking deeply" means deep-sixing one's credibility as an actual thinking person then it's high time you come to the surface once in a while.

[Fanman]

Robert66,

Ah, yes - the George Michael argument: "You've gotta have faith". Salespeople of all stripes have been aided by this throughout the ages. They tell us "It won't happen if you don't believe in it" (miracle cures, skin care products, eternal life) and if not, your skepticism is viewed as a deficiency.

Where did I mention faith? My argument was quite specific. I don't perceive that any of the points I raised were dealt with by you. Your response is a strawman.

[Tegularius]

Tegularius,

Why not renounce the supernatural completely as a fable? Doing so doesn't in any way negate the spiritual as an experience independent of the supernatural. Even as an atheist I can walk into a cathedral and feel a certain awe which was not there on the outside. Atheism can resemble a purification by allowing the spiritual to assert itself independent of any peculiarities relating to religion. I don't think it's a mistake to suspect that's precisely how the gods were created as internal placeholders within themselves. The creation of gods and religion was their way of anchoring the spiritual. In the past, especially among ancient civilizations, I think the feeling capacity was considerably more raw and intense than in modern times. The manner in which they created and imagined is far removed from the more contemporary manifestations of spirit. In spite of these severe differences where one would seem alien to the other it all emanates from the same source.

I do not believe that old (ancient) "supernatural" practices have disappeared, just because people claim they don’t engage in them anymore. In what aspect of life, except technologically and medicinally, have people progressed so much that they don’t do the same things as the ancients did? People will engage in anything they derive something from. And if what they engage in gives them a sense of community, security and/or power, for what reasons would they stop? This does not demonstrate that the supernatural exists, but it does give an indication that there is something there because people continue to live according to its dictates. If atheists went to certain parts of the world and claimed the supernatural doesn't exist, they would be ridiculed.

If it gives them a feeling of security and community then the supernatural, though it be a lie, serves a purpose. No sense letting the truth intrude upon such good feelings unless there is no choice. From the beginning civilization has proceeded in that manner and for good reason; it's also why Jesus in a modern secular society remains active in so many contemporary minds.

No doubt atheists would be ridiculed or worse for not believing in the supernatural. Consider Islam! But such societies remain ensconced within a medieval perspective where the supernatural still has potency. One may believe in the supernatural, but there has never once been any validation for that belief. It may be trite to say, but the supernatural amounts to nothing more than the human tendency to expand itself beyond how reality is defined which rarely offers consolation. Insofar that's successful it serves a purpose. In life, it's sometimes better to negate or ignore the truth and arrive at one's own which makes living easier making truth simply a word easily dispensed with in the service of life. What nature has created it can't disclaim only destroy if it fails. Truth is a word based on dogma; nature is what it is without it.

[Fanman]

Tegularius

If it gives them a feeling of security and community then the supernatural, though it be a lie, serves a purpose. No sense letting the truth intrude upon such good feelings unless there is no choice. From the beginning civilization has proceeded in that manner and for good reason; it's also why Jesus in a modern secular society remains active in so many contemporary minds.

I don’t know about it being “a lie”. But I do have a pretty good idea about human nature. Jesus, regardless of whether he (as the son of God) was real or not – works. And has worked for over two thousand years. I would hesitate to dismiss that. Yes, his doctrine has been misused, but not in all cases. "He" has done wonders for some people both personally and interpersonally.

No doubt atheists would be ridiculed or worse for not believing in the supernatural. Consider Islam! But such societies remain ensconced within a medieval perspective where the supernatural still has potency. One may believe in the supernatural, but there has never once been any validation for that belief. It may be trite to say, but the supernatural amounts to nothing more than the human tendency to expand itself beyond how reality is defined which rarely offers consolation. Insofar that's successful it serves a purpose. In life, it's sometimes better to negate or ignore the truth and arrive at one's own which makes living easier making truth simply a word easily dispensed with in the service of life. What nature has created it can't disclaim only destroy if it fails. Truth is a word based on dogma; nature is what it is without it.

I can’t fault your reasoning, but from my perspective, it’s not as cut-and-dry as that. The supernatural can only be validated by testimony. Which, in the mainstream Western society doesn’t have factual veracity. It's up to us if we believe or not. So I guess that if it does exist, the only way it could be validated is by a method of detection that it is not subject to - empirical science. Which is impossible. In this case, atheists will always have the upper hand, in arguments of this ilk. Fundamentally, because there is nothing perceptible that is supernatural to point to with our five senses. I'm not arguing for faith, God forbid. But I mean, who knows what the extent of reality is - I like to keep an open mind.

[Tegularius]

I don’t know about it being “a lie”. But I do have a pretty good idea about human nature. Jesus, regardless of whether he (as the son of God) was real or not – works. And has worked for over two thousand years. I would hesitate to dismiss that.

I agree. That's why I wrote...

No sense letting the truth intrude upon such good feelings unless there is no choice. From the beginning civilization has proceeded in that manner and for good reason; it's also why Jesus in a modern secular society remains active in so many contemporary minds.

The supernatural can only be validated by testimony

Not really. It must be validated if not by overt proof then by a probability which makes it all but insurmountable at which point it's no-longer supernatural. It's usually the latter which gets validated by testimony which is no better than hearsay.

In this case, atheists will always have the upper hand, in arguments of this ilk.

It's not a matter of who has the upper hand. That in itself is immaterial. It's what history, logic, science affirms or ignores as a non-sequitur which is the principle-in-chief regarding anything and everything. It's the "A" in Atheism which negates theism otherwise the word would have a very remote chance of denoting itself as a word if its function wasn't to deliberately counter theism

I'm not arguing for faith, God forbid. But I mean, who knows what the extent of reality is - I like to keep an open mind.

We will certainly never reach or know its full extent but in trying to close that gap an open mind is indispensable. There are still far too many people who have their minds incarcerated by dogma; an inability to think further unless shocked into realization. Such transformations however are rarely foreseen or expected by the person whose mental poles have experienced such a reversal.

[Robert66]

Sculptor1,

I think what Weil is saying is absurd and without any justification.
There is no supernatural. It's just a fiction.
"The errors of our time" - what are they exactly? And how would you lay that at the door of humanism.
What is "True Faith"?
It all reads like gibberish.

Your mind is closed to the possibility of the supernatural existing, but there are people (not just the proponents of the major religions) whose lives revolve around it. If the case were that there was no reality whatsoever to what they practice, why would they do it? Does that seem logical? In your world view, the supernatural does not exist, and that’s fine. I am sceptical about it as well, but our scepticism does not equate to a refutation. How can it be demonstrated that something widely purported to exist is fiction? I don’t think it can; it is just whether a person believes in it or not.

Ah, yes - the George Michael argument: "You've gotta have faith". Salespeople of all stripes have been aided by this throughout the ages. They tell us "It won't happen if you don't believe in it" (miracle cures, skin care products, eternal life) and if not, your skepticism is viewed as a deficiency.

Fanman: 'Where did I mention faith? My argument was quite specific. I don't perceive that any of the points I raised were dealt with by you. Your response is a strawman.'

I was just commenting on your generous attitude to those who believe in the supernatural. How could anyone answer your question: 'If the case were that there was no reality whatsoever to what they practice, why would they do it?' without referring to faith?

[Fanman]

Tegularius,

There’s nothing you say that I wish to contest, as before, I can’t fault your reasoning.

Not really. It must be validated if not by overt proof then by a probability which makes it all but insurmountable at which point it's no-longer supernatural. It's usually the latter which gets validated by testimony which is no better than hearsay.

Some people accept testimonies as the truth. I understand that you believe this to be incorrect because it's hearsay, but that is the state of play. Some people are willing to accept the possibility that the supernatural exists.

[Fanman]

Robert66,

I was just commenting on your generous attitude to those who believe in the supernatural. How could anyone answer your question: 'If the case were that there was no reality whatsoever to what they practice, why would they do it?' without referring to faith?

If you made that clear, I would not have claimed that your argument was a strawman - In answer to your question. There are a variety of practices that people claim to engage in that are related to the supernatural. From the major religions to the occult. Alongside the benefits of community, security and power. The reason they do so is because of the efficacy of their practices. It's not only faith that causes that people to have beliefs. If something works, they engage in it.

[Tegularius]

Tegularius,

There’s nothing you say that I wish to contest, as before, I can’t fault your reasoning.

Not really. It must be validated if not by overt proof then by a probability which makes it all but insurmountable at which point it's no-longer supernatural. It's usually the latter which gets validated by testimony which is no better than hearsay.

Some people accept testimonies as the truth. I understand that you believe this to be incorrect because it's hearsay, but that is the state of play. Some people are willing to accept the possibility that the supernatural exists.

In fact many accept the supernatural. Religion and belief depends on it. But testimonies or scriptures offering itself as truth do not have the credibility as actual truth DNA in a manner of speaking. I think we agree that an untruth need not be a lie if it serves a beneficial purpose since nature itself has never made reference to what we acknowledge as true or untrue.

[Fanman]

Tegularius,

In fact many accept the supernatural. Religion and belief depends on it. But testimonies or scriptures offering itself as truth do not have the credibility as actual truth DNA in a manner of speaking. I think we agree that an untruth need not be a lie if it serves a beneficial purpose since nature itself has never made reference to what we acknowledge as true or untrue.

I accept some testimonies with a dose of salt. I do not believe that what they claim happened is the absolute truth (if there is such a thing), but I believe there is a half-truth to it or a truth to it if you catch my drift – like something in nature that is to our current understanding inexplicable. I agree - Nature does not acknowledge this - It is something our minds impose on it. Nature is. We are trying to make sense of it. And I think that is the absolute of what we can achieve in our desire to establish reality - To have a coherent, consistent understanding. Science is the best method if we're talking about what is empirical, but if you believe that all that can exist is empirical - then the supernatural will be non-existent in your view. I think there is room for both - rightly or wrongly.