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

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

.

My dear fellow intelligent human beings,

Enough is enough!

It is all about truth. About the Objective Truth, of course.

Enough of this old religion BS, of the laughable Ken Wilbur BS, of the incoherent Kastrup BS, of the naive and childish Phenomenology BS, and of the useless Transcendental Mysticism BS. Only Western science alone was capable of landing many rovers on Mars, because Western science really works, and all this opium for the masses BS do not work at all.

What we should be thinking and believing is that life is individuals' quests to truth and beauty, and the holy grail is always receding from us but normally does not permanently disappear.

Belindi, I do completely agree with you, my friend!

We are all distinctly unique individuals, ultimately taking care of our own self. As it is pretty objectively self-evident, no religion or spirituality has ever fitted all humans. We are adults, and therefore, most of all, we are responsible for ourselves, and we have a duty to critically think for ourselves.

The history of Western science is the best positive example we all should learn from. Western science is objective, and therefore,in principle, it is acceptable to all properly educated individuals. Had Western science not been objective, there would not have been such thing as objective technology for all to benefit from.

I'd love to find a religion, or at least a spirituality, that I didn't need faith to believe in. Then I could follow it's tenets (if they are any different to those I currently subscribe to) with a clear intellectual conscience.

Lagayscienza, in light of the above insight of Belindi, only Western science can fulfill your above very intelligent criteria. As far as I was able to understood you better recently, you have already been naturally following your individual atheistic spiritual path to truth for a long time!

And, I have no doubt in my scientific mind, that Western science, given enough time for its natural understandably slow progress, will finally answer all the important questions that we, intelligent humans, have been asking ourselves ever since the dawn of human civilization, when early on, we invented the idea of THE GOD OF THE GAPS in order to simply make ourselves feel better about living in the vast unpredictable Universe.

Sincerely yours,
Jon (an experimental quantum physicist, and no-longer a Buddhist)

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

.

The scientific theory of Big Bang was scientifically proven
by Albert Einstein's mathematical equations of General Theory of Relativity.

Therefore, clearly, no creator god was needed to create our Universe.

This is an objective truth.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

.

Scientific theory of Darwinian Evolution was NOT proven
by mathematical equations, only because it is obviously self-evident.

Therefore, clearly, no creator god was needed to create
all living biological organisms on our planet Earth, and elsewhere
in our Big-Bang-created purely physical Universe.

This is an objective truth.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

.

THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD :

No creator god has ever existed, simply because
there has never been any need for any god to create anything at all.

The scientific theory of Big Bang was scientifically proven
by Albert Einstein's mathematical equations of General Theory of Relativity,
and the scientific theory of Darwinian Evolution is obviously self-evident.

Only Western science alone was capable of landing many rovers on Mars,
because Western science really works, and all this opium for the masses BS do not work at all.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

.

WHAT IS THE ULTIMATE NATURE OF PHYSICAL REALITY ?

The ultimate nature of our purely physical reality is clearly
and obviously self-evidently physical.

What else could you possibly expect ?
Some idealistic mysticism BS, perhaps?
Don't be silly, please.

Our purely physical reality is what it is in itself, and everyone can see it
with their own physical eyes thanks to physical photon quantum particles,
and it is all clearly real, and it really happens the way we really see it happening.

What else could you possibly expect ?
Some creator god and the host of his Arch-angels, perhaps?
Don't be silly, please.

Only Western science alone was capable of landing many rovers on Mars,
because Western science really works, and all this opium for the masses BS do not work at all.

[JackDaydream]

The problem which I see with you line of argument seems to be too concrete, in equating science with objective 'truth'. That is because 'truth' is a form of understanding, based on perceptual lens. It is partial and not necessarily possible for it to be complete. It is not just like a jigsaw puzzle because the entire picture itself is shifting.

Of course, science and its aim of objectivity is important but it is not possible to be completely objective because of the role of observer has an active role. It is only able to construct models or paradigms. Some may think that these are 'real' but they are only constructs ultimately.

It is possible to look at religion as a possible 'lesser' viewpoint, but that is based on certain assumptions. In particular, religious perspectives and science aren't necessarily opposed. They can even be complementary. Some of the founding figures of science were religious, such as Newton and Charles Darwin was not necessarily trying to go against religion, but to give a more detailed an analytic perspective.

There is a need for demystification and at times religious thinking has created a fuzziness which is unfortunate. However, there may a possible blending of ways of seeing. You referred to Ken Wilber, and I think that his integrative approach to understanding is important. It involves different ways of seeing, as a multidisciplinary approach. Both science and the arts are important and it may be a big philosophical mistake to see "truth' as being exclusive to science alone. Even art and science interplay. The artist learns techniques for portrayal of certain 'truths', just as the scientist creates art.

I am not sure that this all comes down to the issue of atheism as such. In particular, I was surprised to find out at one point that Stephen Hawking was an atheist, because his writings portray so much of intricate design, although it is disputable whether design relies upon a designer as such. Also, the idea of God doesn't necessarily involve a deity as such but more of an underlying source, possibly like consciousness within the unconscious, like the Tao, as spoken of by Fritjof Capra. Science and belief in God can coexist, such as in the writings of Paul Davies. God doesn't have to be in a box and is an idea which may or may not be useful. The usefulness may be as pointing to the numinous, which may also be grasped differently within the framework of the arts. What may be essential is the Eureka moments of understanding, or insight. This is where thought is philosophy, rather than science the ultimate, in which philosophy may be viewed almost as an appendix to science.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

The problem which I see with your line of argument is that it is too concrete.

At times religious thinking has created a fuzziness which is unfortunate.

Religious thinking, by scientific definition, is nothing but pure fuzziness itself.

And the problem which I see with your line of religious metaphysical mystical transcendental opium for the masses wishful-thinking no-argument is that it is too fuzzy, too subjective, and too useless for me, and that it will never land even a single rover on Mars.

[JackDaydream]

The problem which I see with your line of argument is that it is too concrete.

At times religious thinking has created a fuzziness which is unfortunate.

Religious thinking, by scientific definition, is nothing but pure fuzziness itself.

And the problem which I see with your line of religious metaphysical mystical transcendental opium for the masses wishful-thinking no-argument is that it is too fuzzy, too subjective, and too useless for me, and that it will never land even a single rover on Mars.

I am not in favour of 'religious metaphysical mystical opium for the people', and your term is your subjective labelled opinion of my point of view. It is not objective at all and even atheism can he seen as an ideology just like religious philosophies can be used. It is not necessarily ideas which are problematic but the way in which they are used in life. Any one one 'truth' can become dogma if it is enforced as the one and only 'correct' way of thinking.

You quote Einstein but he was ambiguous on the existence of 'God' and his various comments have been interpreted in differing ways. The quantum level of reality shows a lack of 'solidity' and is not consistent with materialism.

Also, the dialogue between materialism and physicalism is not unique to Western thinking and exists in Buddhist philosophy. To argue for physicalism or idealism may ignore the two interconnected aspects of 'reality'. Both may be important, such as the perspective of neuroscience and the experience of consciousness.

[A Material Girl]

.

THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD :

No creator god has ever existed, simply because
there has never been any need for any god to create anything at all.

The scientific theory of Big Bang was scientifically proven
by Albert Einstein's mathematical equations of General Theory of Relativity,
and the scientific theory of Darwinian Evolution is obviously self-evident.

Only Western science alone was capable of landing many rovers on Mars,
because Western science really works, and all this opium for the masses BS do not work at all.

I have never thought of it the way!

It is soooo obvious, isn't it?

And it makes perfect sense to me.

[A Material Girl]

The problem which I see with your line of argument is that it is too concrete.

At times religious thinking has created a fuzziness which is unfortunate.

Religious thinking, by scientific definition, is nothing but pure fuzziness itself.

And the problem which I see with your line of religious metaphysical mystical transcendental opium for the masses wishful-thinking no-argument is that it is too fuzzy, too subjective, and too useless for me, and that it will never land even a single rover on Mars.

I am not in favour of 'religious metaphysical mystical opium for the people', and your term is your subjective labelled opinion of my point of view. It is not objective at all and even atheism can he seen as an ideology just like religious philosophies can be used. It is not necessarily ideas which are problematic but the way in which they are used in life. Any one one 'truth' can become dogma if it is enforced as the one and only 'correct' way of thinking.

You quote Einstein but he was ambiguous on the existence of 'God' and his various comments have been interpreted in differing ways. The quantum level of reality shows a lack of 'solidity' and is not consistent with materialism.

Also, the dialogue between materialism and physicalism is not unique to Western thinking and exists in Buddhist philosophy. To argue for physicalism or idealism may ignore the two interconnected aspects of 'reality'. Both may be important, such as the perspective of neuroscience and the experience of consciousness.

"It is not necessarily ideas which are problematic but the way in which they are used in life."

Agree.

"Any one 'truth' can become dogma if it is enforced as the one and only 'correct' way of thinking."

Except the objective scientific truth, of course. Do you believe that the objective scientific truth is being enforced on you as a dogma? Doesn't "freedom of individual to hold religious beliefs" guaranteed in the US Constitution?

Had it not been guaranteed, there wouldn't have been
THE SATANIC TEMPLE in the US. TheSatanicTemple. com

My parents have few friends from THE SATANIC TEMPLE, and they are very nice people.
They like me very much!

Jack, isn't everything you wrote above merely your subjective opinion, by your own standards?

I like the idea of Western SCIENCE being an atheistic spiritual path to objective TRUTH, don't you? What's wrong with this? Could you be honest with me, please?

[JackDaydream]

The problem which I see with your line of argument is that it is too concrete.

At times religious thinking has created a fuzziness which is unfortunate.

Religious thinking, by scientific definition, is nothing but pure fuzziness itself.

And the problem which I see with your line of religious metaphysical mystical transcendental opium for the masses wishful-thinking no-argument is that it is too fuzzy, too subjective, and too useless for me, and that it will never land even a single rover on Mars.

I am not in favour of 'religious metaphysical mystical opium for the people', and your term is your subjective labelled opinion of my point of view. It is not objective at all and even atheism can he seen as an ideology just like religious philosophies can be used. It is not necessarily ideas which are problematic but the way in which they are used in life. Any one one 'truth' can become dogma if it is enforced as the one and only 'correct' way of thinking.

You quote Einstein but he was ambiguous on the existence of 'God' and his various comments have been interpreted in differing ways. The quantum level of reality shows a lack of 'solidity' and is not consistent with materialism.

Also, the dialogue between materialism and physicalism is not unique to Western thinking and exists in Buddhist philosophy. To argue for physicalism or idealism may ignore the two interconnected aspects of 'reality'. Both may be important, such as the perspective of neuroscience and the experience of consciousness.

"It is not necessarily ideas which are problematic but the way in which they are used in life."

Agree.

"Any one 'truth' can become dogma if it is enforced as the one and only 'correct' way of thinking."

Except the objective scientific truth, of course. Do you believe that the objective scientific truth is being enforced on you as a dogma? Doesn't "freedom of individual to hold religious beliefs" guaranteed in the US Constitution?

Had it not been guaranteed, there wouldn't have been
THE SATANIC TEMPLE in the US. TheSatanicTemple. com

My parents have few friends from THE SATANIC TEMPLE, and they are very nice people.
They like me very much!

Jack, isn't everything you wrote above merely your subjective opinion, by your own standards?

I like the idea of Western SCIENCE being an atheistic spiritual path to objective TRUTH, don't you? What's wrong with this? Could you be honest with me, please?

You say that my post is only my post is my subjective opinion and, of course, it is. The only thing I would add is that so is yours and everyone else's. There is no objective 'Truth' as far as the existence or non+existence. That is because it is not possible to prove or disprove this objectively, as with most matters or religion and spirituality.

I am definitely not against science but it has its limits. I am particularly aware of how problematic some aspects of religion can be, especially the idea of Satan. Such ideas are often used in an abusive way. Nevertheless, even atheism can be abused. As Dosteovsky questioned, is everything permissible if there is no God? Of course, the answer isn't necessarily 'yes'. Morality and ethics matter to secular humanists and other systems of thinking which do not rely upon religious beliefs.

As far as I see philosophy ia not about definitive, objective truth due to the limits of knowledge. It is possible to build pictures of knowledge incorporating knowledge of empirical verification, by science. However, such knowledge is not absolute because 'facts' are still based on human interpretation, including the social and cultural construction of knowledge.

[A Material Girl]

You say that my post is only my post is my subjective opinion and, of course, it is. The only thing I would add is that so is yours and everyone else's. There is no objective 'Truth' as far as the existence or non+existence. That is because it is not possible to prove or disprove this objectively, as with most matters or religion and spirituality.

I am definitely not against science, but it has its limits. I am particularly aware of how problematic some aspects of religion can be, especially the idea of Satan. Such ideas are often used in an abusive way. Nevertheless, even atheism can be abused. As Dosteovsky questioned, is everything permissible if there is no God? Of course, the answer isn't necessarily 'yes'. Morality and ethics matter to secular humanists and other systems of thinking which do not rely upon religious beliefs.

As far as I see philosophy ia not about definitive, objective truth due to the limits of knowledge. It is possible to build pictures of knowledge incorporating knowledge of empirical verification, by science. However, such knowledge is not absolute because 'facts' are still based on human interpretation, including the social and cultural construction of knowledge.

I am definitely not against science, but it has its limits.

I am sorry, but I don't believe you, Jack.

WHY are you definitely not against science?

And, WHY science has its limits?

[JackDaydream]

I am in favour of science because it leads to valuable insight. With biology, knowledge of neuroscience, the endocrine system and all aspects of organic functioning allow for medical advances. I was not very great at school science and that was because it seemed abstract. As an adult I try to read on quantum physics as well as a background for understanding metaphysics and for expanding my imagination.

The reason why I see science has limits is because paradigms change, such as the shift from the Cartesian- Newtonian one to quantum one. Also, new theories are being developed, which shows incompleteness. In 300 years from now, if humanity still exists it is hard to know how much thinking in science will have advanced. However, it is likely that there will be gaps even if these are not filled in with God or gods. Science may provide maps but it does not constitute reality itself.

[rainchild]

.

Scientific theory of Darwinian Evolution was NOT proven
by mathematical equations, only because it is obviously self-evident.

Therefore, clearly, no creator god was needed to create
all living biological organisms on our planet Earth, and elsewhere
in our Big-Bang-created purely physical Universe.

This is an objective truth.

You're mixing up evolution (an established fact with a well-developed theory that explains it) with hypotheses about abiogenesis (hypotheses about how life originated from non-life on Earth). Obviously, abiogenesis must have happened, since best scientific evidence continues to confirm that the Earth was not always capable of supporting life. But exactly how abiogenesis happened is a scientific mystery whose solution is still a work in progress. At present, there are some highly educated hypotheses, but a sovereign theory of abiogenesis has yet to be formulated and vindicated by testing.

As for science, it has definitely ruled out religious fundamentalism and biblical literalism. However, both of these developments are recent--arising as they did in the 19th and 20th centuries, not the 1st. Science has nothing to say about the existence of God. Logic does have something to say about the existence of untestable entities like God, but the claim that empirical evidence has ruled out the existence of an incorporeal, all-powerful, all-knowing creator of reality is simply false.

It may surprise some scientistic thinkers (very few of whom are actually scientists) that "objective truth" is not a concept that is necessary for the actual activity of science. Based on previously acquired scientific knowledge, scientists formulate testable hypotheses, which, when confirmed by tests, become data that can be used to construct explanations for the both new and established empirical knowledge. These explanations are called theories.

The findings and theories of the natural sciences are compatible with multiple philosophical accounts of putative ultimate truth. For example, scientific findings and theories are compatible with materialism--the idea that ultimate constituents of matter/energy found in particle accelerators are the ultimate constituents of ultimate reality. This idea does not follow from the equations of General Relativity, the equations of Quantum Mechanics, the modern synthesis in evolutionary theory, or from any other scientific theory or finding. It is a philosophical stance, most often called "materialism, which far more ably defended by materialist philosophers than by scientists who are unacquainted with philosophy.

However, scientific findings and theories may also be compatible with a kind of idealism, namely the idea that ultimate reality is underlyingly abstract. Witness the fact that when some phenomena appear to violate some established scientific theory, such as the extremely abstract explanations we gain from QM and GR, these apparent violations are not cataloged as if they were exceptions to general rules in English grammar, but rather explained by either a) error, or b) equally abstract revisions of the theories in question. It strains credibility to imagine that the concrete particulars of the universe appear to conform rigidly to such abstract rules as E=mc^2 by the sheerest coincidence, or that E=mc^2 was arrived at by dogged induction. Arguably, the famous equation is both an abstraction and a property of underlying reality.

If you wish to explore this issue further, you should look up "materialism" and "idealism" on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[Jacy Covers]

While you Don not believe in God because of the lack of proof. It is not scientifically proven that the world was created from a big bang either.