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

[Lagayascienza]

...there’s no respectable alternatives [...] that deviate from naturalism and physicalism.

I suspect that is true. And I guess that the only reasons people turn to Idealism are that

1.) metaphysical Idealism cannot be disproved and
2.) Idealism can can be used (however inadequately) to plug an explanatory gap left by the the inability of science thus far to provide a satisfactory materialist account of what is going on.

Would you agree with that Count Lucanor?

[Count Lucanor]

...there’s no respectable alternatives [...] that deviate from naturalism and physicalism.

I suspect that is true. And I guess that the only reasons people turn to Idealism are that

1.) metaphysical Idealism cannot be disproved and
2.) Idealism can can be used (however inadequately) to plug an explanatory gap left by the the inability of science thus far to provide a satisfactory materialist account of what is going on.

Would you agree with that Count Lucanor?

There might be many reasons, rooted in sociological, historical and psychological factors. That could be a long thread. Perhaps this topic itself is that thread if we managed to focus on religion, which is IMO a major influence in culture. People cling on to transcendent realms to solve or compensate the material limitations of real life. For a long time religion and philosophy partnered in providing support to illusions about spiritual realms, so much that you could not make any distinction between philosophy and theology. The scientific revolution brought up what we know now in the history of Western thought as the crisis in religion, hand in hand with the crisis in philosophy. As societies have turned more secular, the old philosophical themes influenced by religious thinking have been reshaped to allow for the spiritual realms, now free of winged angels (seriously discussed by Thomas Aquinas, a champion of Western philosophy) and bearded dudes in white robes. So you got Kierkegaard and Existentialism, which looks more sophisticated. Some major figures in Idealism could even dispense with the notions of the Christian god and flirt with agnosticism, but overall, all the main tenets of modern Idealism point to the direction of keeping the concepts of souls, spirits and transcendent realms, with a little more sophistication.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, I agree that old ways of thinking (religion and past philosophy) that have persisted despite the scientific revolution, might be another reason why some people still look to Idealism.

And, yes, a discussion along those lines might bring this thread back to the question posed in the OP: What is the nature of religion? It's a good question.

Hereandnow's question, and his detailed, thoughtful responses to our posts, prompted me to do a lot of reading about Idealism (in it's past and present forms) and about phenomenology. That was fascinating. But, at the end of the day, I must say that I am not convinced. And post-modernism has little to recommend it, IMO. I think religion harks back, in the first instance, to something like Dennett's Intentional Stance and, in more recent times, I think Marx's notion of it being the Opium of the People has much to recommend it. If people were more educated and their lives not so consumed by want, there would be less room for even that. They wouldn't need religion as a salve.

I'm guessing your thoughts on the nature of religion are somewhat similar to my own.

[Sy Borg]

My usual analogy (did I already use it here?) is that, in order to become an adult, we must forever lose some qualities. We will lose some of our innocence, our cuteness, our charm, reflexes and a child's ability to learn quickly. As adults, we have have greater knowledge, experience, networks and understanding instead.

It's not a zero sum game; the losses and gains are far from equal. Would you choose to keep your youthful innocence, cuteness and quickness and forego your hard-won knowledge, experience, networks and understanding? Of course not, because that would make you dysfunctional in an adult word.

It's clear that human progress is more influential and potent than that which we lost along the way (some natural knowledge, instinct and intuition etc).

You keep saying that we lost something in exchange for our gains, whether that’s a zero sum game or not matters less than the fact that the argument fails. While it may work in the case of our personal development, it does not work in the context of our research practices, which don’t follow a fixed script. In any case, the whole process will go through several stages, with different inputs and outputs from each one. There are opportunities for intuitive approaches at some points, even resorting to creativity and imagination, especially at the moment of figuring out a workable hypothesis and designing the appropriate testing conditions. At some other points in the process, a more rigorous methodical approach is required, usually when applying measurements, controls and verifications. Archimedes had his Eureka moment, but at the end he had to validate his findings.

You ignore the opportunity costs of progress. To become more is to sacrifice a measure of intuition and instinct. One only has 24 hours in a day.

You ignore the fact that the sum is unequal. Two opposing forces need not cancel each other out.

Your claim that there can be no middle ground between materialism and what we refer to as "the supernatural" is false the reasons I made above, which you did not address:

Again, some areas that lie between materialism and the so-called supernatural are "... the qualities of things that cannot be calculated. Everything that exists that we cannot perceive. Every web of interactions and relationships between entities that we do not notice ..."

Materialism cannot account for any of those things. The scientific method cannot solve them. Many things in reality will never be known by anyone. Countless events simply happening, unobserved, unknown.

The complex informational webs of reality are not "spooky" as you seem to claim. It's just aspects of reality that science can't do much about.

If the “supernatural” is only just “so-called supernatural” and it isn’t spooky, why would you then call it “supernatural”? If it’s just natural, it doesn’t really exist as the supernatural, spooky realm, which was exactly what I said. I’m not calling the natural world spooky, you are. What would be the point then when saying that there’s a middle ground between materialism (which implies naturalism) and the supernatural? So, let me go back to my statement, which still stands in its original meaning : once you decide not to embrace materialism, you are in spooky territory.

I don't call it "supernatural". That's your word. Unlike you, I don't attack the word, I simply see it as making no sense - because I see everything as nature. Thus, what you or others might call the "supernatural" or sheer poppycock is may be simply undiscovered or misinterpreted nature. Again, I am referring to what you and others refer to as supernatural.

-You speculate that humans have already worked out most of reality, with only some arcane details to fix. Thus, in 10,000 years' time, you believe that scientists will still use all the same models we use today, because they are already correct.

None of that corresponds to anything I said. Paradoxically, your mindset is that you have already figured out the actual extension of reality and put yourself in a position to judge how much the rest of humans have not worked out. I think the other way: I look to what we have worked out vs what we had before. I look at what frameworks we have used to achieve it and what frameworks we used to have. Makes more sense than your speculations.

You have already made clear that you believe science to have worked everything in reality out, aside from a few details. Your dogmatism treats science like God - infallible. Otherwise, you would be open to the likelihood that paradigm-shifting scientific discoveries are possible in the future.

I probably did not make myself clear and you made no effort to understand the point I was making.

Christianity indeed inherently materialistic. The myths themselves are metaphors for perceived unseen dynamics, to make them more understandable. To render them more "material".

Meanwhile, Christian fundamentalists treat the poetry and metaphor with which the ancients expressed themselves as literally true. That is, materially true. Today there is a "prosperity gospel", which treats material wealth as evidence of righteousness, and poverty as evidence of sin. There are believers with a more Spinoza-like non-material notion of God, but they are either a tiny minority or they keep their vies to themselves to avoid ostracism, probably some of each.

Saying that Christianity is inherently materialistic has to be one of the most preposterous, wildest things I have ever heard. I mean, not even one chance. It is widely accepted that Christianity, ever since the beginning, endorsed notions of spirituality and immaterial realms.

At no point are heaven and hell is described as immaterial, just another place.

Meanwhile, the cultures of societies founded by Christians are also the most materialistic - they are the home of materialism, in fact. That's not to mention the other materialistic aspects of Christianity I referred to, including the prosperity gospel.

Funny thing. I think your model of consciousness sucks exactly because because it is quasi-creationist. In your anthropocentrism, you and others ignore critical aspects of evolutionary history - the fact that life started as genetic material supported by a metabolism, and that life was feeling its environment long before the evolution of brains.

What is really funny is than none of your assertions point to a non-materialist model of consciousness. You might think that mine sucks, I happen to believe that about yours too, but the important thing is that we can both agree that there’s no respectable alternative among the ones compatible with metaphysical Idealism, that is, the ones that deviate from naturalism and physicalism.

The idea that consciousness started with brains ignores billions of years of evolutionary history, hence it creationist in essence. Synergistic informational flows that are too complex to be calculated might as well be thought of as metaphysical for most practical means and purposes.

You falsely paint this scenario as you embracing modernism while I embrace postmodernism. Materialism and idealism have now been conflated to modernism and postmodernism. Ok.

Your first logical error is in taking the "If you ain't with us, yer against us" approach, which is anti-philosophical.

Secondly, even if you had sufficient objectivity to question my post on the basis of the middle ground fallacy ("the truth must be in the middle", you'd still be wrong. There's no reason why answers need to be exactly in the middle, and that is not my claim.

Here is where you reveal your link between idealism and post-modernism: "peddling epistemological nihilism, so that anything goes".

Again, you are completely wrong

I am very much a modernist, which anyone who's read my posts here for decades would know, but I also accept that post-modernism has its place. The concept has a bad reputation because it has been misunderstood and misused as a replacement for modernism, rather than a critique that reveals some of modernism's limitations.

Epistemology operates as postmodern tempering of your certainty regarding ontology. Postmodernism questions claims regarding objective truth and morality. It questions anyone's claim to be completely objective. It questions the notion that reason and logic can solve all problems.

You really have gone off the rails here. I mean, what are you talking about? Postmodernism and modernism? Oh, please, come on! Such deviations from the topic are mere distractions and perhaps your best and only chance to produce more straw men, in industrial quantities. It’s funny how you get a step forward, plant arguments that I’m supposed to say (even though I never said such things), and then answer them. How clever!!

You were the one who introduced post-modernism, I quote:

"It is all about reducing the Materialism/Idealism distinction to a subtle and irrelevant scholastic intellectual discussion. And it’s all about peddling epistemological nihilism, so that anything goes".

Now claim I am "going off the rails" - for simply responding to the bait of your bait-and switch play.

[Count Lucanor]

You ignore the opportunity costs of progress. To become more is to sacrifice a measure of intuition and instinct. One only has 24 hours in a day.
You ignore the fact that the sum is unequal.

One must keep a coherent structure in our conceptual categories. When referring to individuals, we can talk about personal progress, as well as about intuition and instinct. When referring to society, we can talk about social or cultural progress, but can we talk about social or cultural intuition and instinct? Nonsense. Archimedes’ eureka moment, clearly one of intuition, did not compromise progress in his scientific endeavor. On the contrary, it contributed to it. Those scenarios, multiplied several times, will result in social progress. Clearly, intuition and instinct can be part of an overall scientific approach. The rest is sophistry.

I don't call it "supernatural". That's your word.

When we discuss the natural and the supernatural, these terms are to be understood as they are so-called, having the properties they are commonly ascribed, regardless of whether one thinks they are real or not. Worth noticing that the supernatural is defined in terms of the natural, and they are defined as mutually exclusive, so when you agree on what is called the natural, you are automatically agreeing on what is to be called the supernatural, and vice versa. You explicitly said “what WE refer to as the supernatural”, but OK, I’m open for you to correct yourself. Then, if you think one is not defined appropriately, you force yourself to believe neither the other one, in other words, that both categories are false and the distinction of properties among them is also false. So what would be the point of stating that there’s a middle ground between those two categories if you think that such distinction of two mutually exclusive categories is false?

Unlike you, I think the word itself is makes no sense because I see everything as nature. Thus, what you or others might call the "supernatural" is either undiscovered or misinterpreted nature. Again, I am referring to what you and others refer to as supernatural.

There it is. You are saying that the distinction between “supernatural” and “natural” is false, that these concepts are wrongly defined and that you advocate for another concept of the “natural” realm that includes "... the qualities of things that cannot be calculated. Everything that exists that we cannot perceive. Every web of interactions and relationships between entities that we do not notice ...", in other words, everything that the rest of us don’t know or cannot know to exist, but that you have already figured out that exists for real, even those mysterious, spooky, strange things, claimed by the supernaturalists to exist ungoverned by physical laws, which they have never understood, but you have. It’s obvious that you have much more things in common with them than the “so-called” naturalists. I’m not surprised. I mean, for what I see, when you notice that I have a quarrel with Idealists, you jump to talk about the “middle ground”. Although in paper that looks like a fair approach, it is not always applicable. I wouldn’t try to conciliate the stances of flat-earthers with science.

I also think that everything is natural, but I reject that this everything includes anything of what the “so-called” supernaturalists posit as being real, nor I think that all that is left to discover will confirm their ideas about the web of interactions and relationships being governed by forces or entities that contradict or supervene physicalism. Historically, the dominant paradigm before the scientific revolution was precisely that same model, endorsed by the different forms of Idealism, which has been severely discredited by materialism and science.

You have already made clear that you believe science to have worked everything in reality out, aside from a few details. Your dogmatism treats science like God - infallible. Otherwise, you would be open to the likelihood that paradigm-shifting scientific discoveries are possible in the future.

No, actually I have made clear exactly the opposite, but your straw-man-making machine in automatic mode keeps shooting this. Ironically, as what I have shown in the previous responses, it is you who thinks to have figured out everything. I’m more than confortable in acknowledging that we humans, in all our discovery endeavors, science included, have not managed to grasp enough knowledge about the universe. If, let’s say, we have figured out 10% of the universe, most if not all of that hypothetical 10% has been figured out with the help of science and its materialistic foundations. It’s not speculation, it’s a fact. Before that, most if not all of the hypothetical 10% was explained resorting to religion and philosophical Idealism. Now they are grabbing the “knowledge gap” argument to justify their conviction that we will find in the 90% remaining, the confirmation of their belief in spiritual, ghostly realms, in any of
its variants. I would l like to see evidence of the shift in materialist paradigms, not just speculations on likelihood based on knowledge gaps.

At no point are heaven and hell is described as immaterial, just another place.

Meanwhile, the cultures of societies founded by Christians are also the most materialistic - they are the home of materialism, in fact. That's not to mention the other materialistic aspects of Christianity I referred to, including the prosperity gospel.

I can understand that you have not read most of the relevant Christian literature and I don’t blame you, so your ignorance in that subject is excusable. But the claim that Christian doctrines endorse Materialism instead of Idealism, is absolutely ludicrous.

You’re also confusing Materialism as an ontology with materialism as greed, which reminds me again of Engels’ famous quote on that confusion, but I’m so tired of quoting him, so I’ll leave it there.

The idea that consciousness started with brains ignores billions of years of evolutionary history, hence it creationist in essence. Synergistic informational flows that are too complex to be calculated might as well be thought of as metaphysical for most practical means and purposes.

I’ll do as Dillahunty: how is this in anyway refuting materialism and science? How is this helping the case that there is something beyond the physical that explains consciousness? If not brains, or central nervous systems, or the whole living organism, something embodies it.

You were the one who introduced post-modernism, I quote:

"It is all about reducing the Materialism/Idealism distinction to a subtle and irrelevant scholastic intellectual discussion. And it’s all about peddling epistemological nihilism, so that anything goes".

Now claim I am "going off the rails" - for simply responding to the bait of your bait-and switch play.

It’s really sad that you try to quote me on postmodernism, but the term postmodernism, nor any controversy between modernity and postmodernism, do not even appear in my quote. So it’s evidently an adventurous interpretation from your part, to say the least, which you’re entitled to, but fails to prove any point.

[Sy Borg]

You ignore the opportunity costs of progress. To become more is to sacrifice a measure of intuition and instinct. One only has 24 hours in a day.
You ignore the fact that the sum is unequal.

One must keep a coherent structure in our conceptual categories. When referring to individuals, we can talk about personal progress, as well as about intuition and instinct. When referring to society, we can talk about social or cultural progress, but can we talk about social or cultural intuition and instinct? Nonsense. Archimedes’ eureka moment, clearly one of intuition, did not compromise progress in his scientific endeavor. On the contrary, it contributed to it. Those scenarios, multiplied several times, will result in social progress. Clearly, intuition and instinct can be part of an overall scientific approach. The rest is sophistry.

You ignore the fact that societies consist of people who will have stronger or weaker conditioning and people with stronger or weaker instincts. Culture is created by people so, if the people are less intuitive, then the culture in general will be less based on intuition.

Societies are not entirely distinct from the people who comprise them, as you intimated above.

I don't call it "supernatural". That's your word.

When we discuss the natural and the supernatural, these terms are to be understood as they are so-called, having the properties they are commonly ascribed, regardless of whether one thinks they are real or not. Worth noticing that the supernatural is defined in terms of the natural, and they are defined as mutually exclusive, so when you agree on what is called the natural, you are automatically agreeing on what is to be called the supernatural, and vice versa. You explicitly said “what WE refer to as the supernatural”, but OK, I’m open for you to correct yourself. Then, if you think one is not defined appropriately, you force yourself to believe neither the other one, in other words, that both categories are false and the distinction of properties among them is also false. So what would be the point of stating that there’s a middle ground between those two categories if you think that such distinction of two mutually exclusive categories is false?

Because I'm referring to the usual term "supernatural" and what it refers to - either the undiscovered or misinterpreted natural.

Unlike you, I think the word itself is makes no sense because I see everything as nature. Thus, what you or others might call the "supernatural" is either undiscovered or misinterpreted nature. Again, I am referring to what you and others refer to as supernatural.

There it is. You are saying that the distinction between “supernatural” and “natural” is false, that these concepts are wrongly defined and that you advocate for another concept of the “natural” realm that includes "... the qualities of things that cannot be calculated. Everything that exists that we cannot perceive. Every web of interactions and relationships between entities that we do not notice ...", in other words, everything that the rest of us don’t know or cannot know to exist, but that you have already figured out that exists for real, even those mysterious, spooky, strange things, claimed by the supernaturalists to exist ungoverned by physical laws, which they have never understood, but you have. It’s obvious that you have much more things in common with them than the “so-called” naturalists. I’m not surprised. I mean, for what I see, when you notice that I have a quarrel with Idealists, you jump to talk about the “middle ground”. Although in paper that looks like a fair approach, it is not always applicable. I wouldn’t try to conciliate the stances of flat-earthers with science.

I also think that everything is natural, but I reject that this everything includes anything of what the “so-called” supernaturalists posit as being real, nor I think that all that is left to discover will confirm their ideas about the web of interactions and relationships being governed by forces or entities that contradict or supervene physicalism. Historically, the dominant paradigm before the scientific revolution was precisely that same model, endorsed by the different forms of Idealism, which has been severely discredited by materialism and science.

Yes, I endorse a middle ground but one can be flexible enough not to assume that "in between" is slap bang in the middle like tribunal settling between employee and employee claims.

For instance, Dawkins thinks of atheism as a 7-point scale, with 1 being total belief in God and 7 being total atheism. Dawkins said he was a 6. That is, he's pretty sure there's no God but, as a good scientist, he abides by the "never say never" adage.

Dawkins embraced the middle ground. Not exactly in the middle (which would be mindless) but still in between the poles. It's that kind of tempering of certainty that I'm talking about, not an abandonment of standards, as you wrongly claimed.

You have already made clear that you believe science to have worked everything in reality out, aside from a few details. Your dogmatism treats science like God - infallible. Otherwise, you would be open to the likelihood that paradigm-shifting scientific discoveries are possible in the future.

No, actually I have made clear exactly the opposite, but your straw-man-making machine in automatic mode keeps shooting this. Ironically, as what I have shown in the previous responses, it is you who thinks to have figured out everything. I’m more than confortable in acknowledging that we humans, in all our discovery endeavors, science included, have not managed to grasp enough knowledge about the universe. If, let’s say, we have figured out 10% of the universe, most if not all of that hypothetical 10% has been figured out with the help of science and its materialistic foundations. It’s not speculation, it’s a fact. Before that, most if not all of the hypothetical 10% was explained resorting to religion and philosophical Idealism. Now they are grabbing the “knowledge gap” argument to justify their conviction that we will find in the 90% remaining, the confirmation of their belief in spiritual, ghostly realms, in any of
its variants. I would l like to see evidence of the shift in materialist paradigms, not just speculations on likelihood based on knowledge gaps.

You certainly back-pedalled on your certainty here! I accept your concession, even if you don't realise it.

I will not refrain from pointing out those gaps for political reasons. If knowledge gaps exist, I accept them and point them out. I'm not going hold back in case some theists take it the wrong way.

Nor should you try to silence people for being inconvenient in your endless battle with theists. Not everyone cares about battling theists and theism. My focus is on the philosophy, not politics.

At no point are heaven and hell is described as immaterial, just another place.

Meanwhile, the cultures of societies founded by Christians are also the most materialistic - they are the home of materialism, in fact. That's not to mention the other materialistic aspects of Christianity I referred to, including the prosperity gospel.

I can understand that you have not read most of the relevant Christian literature and I don’t blame you, so your ignorance in that subject is excusable. But the claim that Christian doctrines endorse Materialism instead of Idealism, is absolutely ludicrous.

You’re also confusing Materialism as an ontology with materialism as greed, which reminds me again of Engels’ famous quote on that confusion, but I’m so tired of quoting him, so I’ll leave it there.

You can't entirely parse materialism as a way of life from materialism as a philosophy. As stated, societies that were founded by Christians are the most materialist. The connection is clear. Never mind disconnected theorising from your intellectual Ivory Tower - just look at the actual reality on the ground.

If Abrahamic religions are not materialist, why are their conceptions of heaven ALWAYS about materiality, eg. you get everything you ever wanted, or maybe even seventy-two virgins ...

The idea that consciousness started with brains ignores billions of years of evolutionary history, hence it creationist in essence. Synergistic informational flows that are too complex to be calculated might as well be thought of as metaphysical for most practical means and purposes.

I’ll do as Dillahunty: how is this in anyway refuting materialism and science? How is this helping the case that there is something beyond the physical that explains consciousness? If not brains, or central nervous systems, or the whole living organism, something embodies it.

It's complex - and hitherto undiscovered - synergies. One can assemble all the stuff of bodies in countless ways without consciousness emerging.

While it appears that consciousness is created by the synergistic effects of various body parts, we cannot discount the least strange idealistic models, eg. Chalmers's soft panpsychism. Maybe our consciousness is purely about filtering, and not generation? Then again, maybe consciousness IS generated by filtering? It's not yet known.

You were the one who introduced post-modernism, I quote:

"It is all about reducing the Materialism/Idealism distinction to a subtle and irrelevant scholastic intellectual discussion. And it’s all about peddling epistemological nihilism, so that anything goes".

Now claim I am "going off the rails" - for simply responding to the bait of your bait-and switch play.

It’s really sad that you try to quote me on postmodernism, but the term postmodernism, nor any controversy between modernity and postmodernism, do not even appear in my quote. So it’s evidently an adventurous interpretation from your part, to say the least, which you’re entitled to, but fails to prove any point.

Pure sophistry. Oh, boo hoo, you didn't say the exact word "postmodernism", and instead described it - and attributed it to me. Shall I quote you again? ... "epistemological nihilism, so that anything goes". That's basically postmodernism.

[Count Lucanor]

You ignore the fact that societies consist of people who will have stronger or weaker conditioning and people with stronger or weaker instincts. Culture is created by people so, if the people are less intuitive, then the culture in general will be less based on intuition.

Societies are not entirely distinct from the people who comprise them, as you intimated above.

The above makes absolutely no sense. Societies are emergent realities arising from relationships among individuals. They don’t take the psychological traits of those individuals, which are anyway too diverse and complex. Intuition is a cognitive ability that operates in given instances, without disallowing other ways of reasoning (it’s not a zero sum game). There’s no such thing as mainly intuitive or non-intuitive people, all people have moments of intuition and moments of serene inference. There’s no such thing as intuitive societies.

Yes, I endorse a middle ground but one can be flexible enough not to assume that "in between" is slap bang in the middle like tribunal settling between employee and employee claims.

For instance, Dawkins thinks of atheism as a 7-point scale, with 1 being total belief in God and 7 being total atheism. Dawkins said he was a 6. That is, he's pretty sure there's no God but, as a good scientist, he abides by the "never say never" adage.

Dawkins embraced the middle ground. Not exactly in the middle (which would be mindless) but still in between the poles. It's that kind of tempering of certainty that I'm talking about, not an abandonment of standards, as you wrongly claimed.

First of all, Dawkins did not take the middle ground, he took a position near the end of the scale. Secondly, it is not a scale of atheism. Third, the Dawkins scale is a measuring tool. It measures, in levels of certitude, where one stands on the issue of the existence of God. It is not a scale of truthfulness, so if the Pope was measured with the scale, he would be a solid 1, which compared with Dawkins’ 6, will not make any of them more right or less wrong, based only on their position in the scale. Interestingly, besides that, each one will still think the other is dead wrong and they are dead right in the position they took on the scale, they will not be assuming the truth is distributed in degrees of the scale. No such middle ground, as you pretend.

BTW, it is quite funny that you resort to the work of a well-known naturalist, materialist and advocate of science, which endorses almost everything I’ve been endorsing, to try to prove me wrong about my materialism, naturalism and my advocacy of science, as well as my disdain for the influence in society of religious thinking.

You certainly back-pedalled on your certainty here! I accept your concession, even if you don't realise it.

I will not refrain from pointing out those gaps for political reasons. If knowledge gaps exist, I accept them and point them out. I'm not going hold back in case some theists take it the wrong way.

Nor should you try to silence people for being inconvenient in your endless battle with theists. Not everyone cares about battling theists and theism. My focus is on the philosophy, not politics.

I’m certainly not back-pedaling on anything I said, in fact it is 100% consistent with my previous responses, such as this:

Gaps in our scientific knowledge do not immediately translate to “some spooky force must be involved and materialism is false”. As science progresses, new questions and new problems to solve arise

.

the more you learn, the more you know how much there is yet to know, but there’s no reason to believe one must go backwards to the tools and frameworks, the paradigms of the pre-scientific era.

.

Of course, you cannot quote me saying anything different, for you it’s all a matter of your own usual interpretations, which as we know, are not what one would call trustable insights.

You can't entirely parse materialism as a way of life from materialism as a philosophy. As stated, societies that were founded by Christians are the most materialist.

Once again, you are conflating two different issues that are only accessorily related, not essentially. “Way of life” points to theories of values, not ontology. When you refer to societies that are the most materialist, you are just referring to societies where consumerism and hedonism take a central role. But the relationship you bring up between materialism as way of life and materialism as ontology is just another case of the “correlation is causation” fallacy. It is actually a way of life that comes along with capitalism, although not exclusive of it. The same conditions in capitalism that encourage consumerism and hedonism, also allow other developments, such as secularism, science and technology, urbanization, the immanentist approach to problems, etc. Materialism as an ontology, gained strength in the same context, it was necessary for natural science to progress and eventually for social science. Nothing to do with “Christian values”, which have been, and still are, committed to ontological Idealism.

If Abrahamic religions are not materialist, why are their conceptions of heaven ALWAYS about materiality, eg. you get everything you ever wanted, or maybe even seventy-two virgins ...

Well…again, they are not materialist, for the many reasons I explained and you conveniently decided to ignore from your ivory tower. It remains true that you cannot make the very important philosophical distinction between what is deemed “real” and what is deemed “material”.

It's complex - and hitherto undiscovered - synergies. One can assemble all the stuff of bodies in countless ways without consciousness emerging.

While it appears that consciousness is created by the synergistic effects of various body parts, we cannot discount the least strange idealistic models, eg. Chalmers's soft panpsychism. Maybe our consciousness is purely about filtering, and not generation? Then again, maybe consciousness IS generated by filtering? It's not yet known.

Ever since you claimed materialism and the corresponding model of consciousness I cling on too, actually suck, I’ve been asking for your non-materialistic model that hopefully would not suck. All I’ve been getting every time is nothing that moves away from materialism, beside just looking up in the air trying to find an answer and getting stuck in vague speculations, when not simply confessing that you don’t know. That sucks big time. Relying on panpsychism isn’t of much help either, it does not solve any gap in our knowledge, as it just extends the problem Chalmers tried to raise to all other physical entities in the universe. Big deal.

Pure sophistry. Oh, boo hoo, you didn't say the exact word "postmodernism", and instead described it - and attributed it to me. Shall I quote you again? ... "epistemological nihilism, so that anything goes". That's basically postmodernism.

Oh, dear! No, postmodernism is not described as “epistemological nihilism, so anything goes”. It’s simply not “basically it”. Too wild a claim to be taken seriously. I have used those terms several times in this forum, in previous discussions with others and with you. I have used them to reject agnosticism, but most of the time I have used them in relation to the tenets of Idealism and Phenomenology which lead to solipsism. While it is obvious that their doctrines have been an influence in some strains of postmodernist thought, especially in relation to cultural relativism and constructivism, one can hardly reduce the implications of the whole cultural movement to that particular statement, nor the subject becomes relevant to our current discussion. It’s preposterous and an obvious attempt to deviate from the subject.

[Sy Borg]

You ignore the fact that societies consist of people who will have stronger or weaker conditioning and people with stronger or weaker instincts. Culture is created by people so, if the people are less intuitive, then the culture in general will be less based on intuition.

Societies are not entirely distinct from the people who comprise them, as you intimated above.

The above makes absolutely no sense. Societies are emergent realities arising from relationships among individuals. They don’t take the psychological traits of those individuals, which are anyway too diverse and complex. Intuition is a cognitive ability that operates in given instances, without disallowing other ways of reasoning (it’s not a zero sum game). There’s no such thing as mainly intuitive or non-intuitive people, all people have moments of intuition and moments of serene inference. There’s no such thing as intuitive societies.

No.

Humans are not interchangeable blocks of a monolithic society. Societies are influenced by history, culture and the temperament of the people.

It's the individuals who matter most, not the system (which is ideally only there to serve individuals). Or does your enthusiastic Marxism find that idea unpalatable? Generally, advanced western societies have a higher percentage of educated, rational and scientific individuals than poor societies. I expect you to deny this fact too.

Yes, I endorse a middle ground but one can be flexible enough not to assume that "in between" is slap bang in the middle like tribunal settling between employee and employee claims.

For instance, Dawkins thinks of atheism as a 7-point scale, with 1 being total belief in God and 7 being total atheism. Dawkins said he was a 6. That is, he's pretty sure there's no God but, as a good scientist, he abides by the "never say never" adage.

Dawkins embraced the middle ground. Not exactly in the middle (which would be mindless) but still in between the poles. It's that kind of tempering of certainty that I'm talking about, not an abandonment of standards, as you wrongly claimed.

First of all, Dawkins did not take the middle ground, he took a position near the end of the scale.

No.

The middle ground extends from 2 to 6. That is the middle - between the poles of 1 and 7.

That was my point - the embracing of non-extremism, the middle ground. It's naively mechanistic to consider the middle ground to be the precise centre. Your approach does not acknowledge shades of grey, only that grey exists This approach may work out in academia but, like so much of academia today, it's not reality.

I would describe my atheism as a 6 too, like Dawkins. You, on the other hand, have zero doubt, total certainty. Total dogmatism. THAT is what I question - not your stances but your absolute faith in today's science and absolute certainty that science has no blind spots, that today's science is so unimpeachable that it cannot possibly have has not missed anything important.

[Pattern-chaser]

That was my point - the embracing of non-extremism, the middle ground. It's naively mechanistic to consider the middle ground to be the precise centre. Your approach does not acknowledge shades of grey, only that grey exists This approach may work out in academia but, like so much of academia today, it's not reality.

Yes, as I have said before, in other topics, it's the middle ground where nearly all of the action takes place. The actual extremes are rarely approached, never mind reached. To concentrate (only) on the extremes gives us a skewed picture, I think.

So I agree, there is black and white ... and there is grey too, *loads* of it, and there is colour as well!!!

[Count Lucanor]

No.

Humans are not interchangeable blocks of a monolithic society. Societies are influenced by history, culture and the temperament of the people.

It's the individuals who matter most, not the system (which is ideally only there to serve individuals). Or does your enthusiastic Marxism find that idea unpalatable? Generally, advanced western societies have a higher percentage of educated, rational and scientific individuals than poor societies.

I wish this discussion was about sociological theory or psychology, at least, but it’s not, it’s about something more basic, perhaps just basic common sense. We cannot attribute to societies cognitive abilities such as intuition, but even worst, we cannot even pretend that a particular mode of reasoning, either intuition or inference, will absorb the whole character of a person. An educated, science-minded person will still have intuition as a cognitive ability at their disposition, while an uneducated person will not be short of their rational faculties just because they lack formal instruction. Complete irrationality will put anyone in a mental hospital. Your proposition is plainly absurd.

No.

The middle ground extends from 2 to 6. That is the middle - between the poles of 1 and 7.

You’re wrong. The middle ground is a neutral position. Taking a 6 in a seven points scale is hardly ever a neutral position. Dawkins himself anyway has made every effort to put to rest the perception that his 6 represents any concession to believers in the existence of God. He says he is as agnostic about the existence of God as he is about garden fairies. Publicly he has said he’s more like a 6.9. If you think it would be fair-minded to take the middle ground on the existence of fairies, it’s your choice, but don’t add Dawkins to the pack. Besides, in that same book he’s far from being an advocate of the middle ground on everything, he’s willing to take positions on scientific facts and deny others their anti-scientific stance, as well as being careful in not buying into the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy to settle an argument:

The point of all these way-out examples is that they are undisprovable, yet nobody thinks the hypothesis of their existence is on an even footing with the hypothesis of their non-existence […] The fact that orbiting teapots and tooth fairies are undisprovable is not felt, by any reasonable person, to be the kind of fact that settles any interesting argument.

He also takes care of making a distinction between TAP (temporary agnostic in practice), which implies we should renounce agnosticism when evidence justifies our certainties, and PAP (permanent agnostic in principle). BTW, I don’t see anywhere that he settles for a “middle ground” between TAP and PAP.

That was my point - the embracing of non-extremism, the middle ground. It's naively mechanistic to consider the middle ground to be the precise centre. Your approach does not acknowledge shades of grey, only that grey exists This approach may work out in academia but, like so much of academia today, it's not reality.

My point against your point, that you decided to ignore in the usual cherry-picking style, is that your argument is a false analogy. The Dawkins scale is a scale on levels of certainty about the proposition “God exists”, it’s not a scale about degrees of truthfulness of that proposition. He is not proposing that the truth of that proposition is somewhere in the middle. The scale doesn’t apply in how to make the distinction between materialism and supernaturalism, as you propose.

I would describe my atheism as a 6 too, like Dawkins. You, on the other hand, have zero doubt, total certainty. Total dogmatism. THAT is what I question - not your stances but your absolute faith in today's science and absolute certainty that science has no blind spots, that today's science is so unimpeachable that it cannot possibly have has not missed anything important.

It seems that your 6 will not discount garden fairies and includes the belief that Dawkins will not dismiss them entirely neither, because that will make both extremist and dogmatic. Anyway, your assumption that my atheism is based on knowledge obtained entirely from empirical scientific research is dead wrong.

BTW, you still have not solved the contradiction of using Dawkins as a flag in your crusade against scientific certainties, while he is regarded as a champion in the advocacy of reason and science. That’s the name of his foundation: The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, not the Richard Dawkins Foundation for New Age Thinking.

The accusation of one being dogmatic and extremist for having strong convictions about very well settled facts, is ridiculous and just shows you misunderstand what dogmatism is. It is not about the strength of your convictions, but about the lack of openness to any challenge. Most fairly science-minded people as myself will keep strong convictions about settled facts without denying anyone the chance to make a different case. I’m listening: what’s the case for the alternative to biological evolution, what’s the case against the Earth’s roundness, what’s the case for the 4,000 year old universe, what’s the case for an afterlife, what’s the case for cryptozoology, astrology or aliens visiting us, what’s the case for supernatural realms, gods, spirits, and so on. But making the case that none of these things can be discounted because “we cannot know everything”, or “we can’t never be sure”, or “we should settle for a middle ground”, is the sign of true dogmatism and peddling nonsense. No, I’m not giving you an inch

[Sy Borg]

No.

Humans are not interchangeable blocks of a monolithic society. Societies are influenced by history, culture and the temperament of the people.

It's the individuals who matter most, not the system (which is ideally only there to serve individuals). Or does your enthusiastic Marxism find that idea unpalatable? Generally, advanced western societies have a higher percentage of educated, rational and scientific individuals than poor societies.

I wish this discussion was about sociological theory or psychology, at least, but it’s not, it’s about something more basic, perhaps just basic common sense. We cannot attribute to societies cognitive abilities such as intuition, but even worst, we cannot even pretend that a particular mode of reasoning, either intuition or inference, will absorb the whole character of a person. An educated, science-minded person will still have intuition as a cognitive ability at their disposition, while an uneducated person will not be short of their rational faculties just because they lack formal instruction. Complete irrationality will put anyone in a mental hospital. Your proposition is plainly absurd.

Many words need to turn my post into a convenient straw man you can break down.

By your reasoning flat Earthers are just as rational as anyone else, just that they lack education. Education aids reason and rationality. Hilarious that you see no link between education and rationality.

And again, societies are deeply influenced by history, culture and the temperament of the people but you don't agree, for some reason.

No.

The middle ground extends from 2 to 6. That is the middle - between the poles of 1 and 7.

You’re wrong. The middle ground is a neutral position. Taking a 6 in a seven points scale is hardly ever a neutral position.

Why don't you just admit that you were wrong? Anyone can see it, clear as day. Again, no one talked about equal footing or a "neutral position". These are the results of your mechanistic thinking.

Dawkins did indeed describe himself as a "6" and - you may find this hard to admit - but that is not "7", despite your sophistry.


Anyway, I'm bored. This is going in circles and you are now shifting each premise a little more with each post. If I wanted to apply conventional Marxism to religion without adding any thought, I would refer to a book.

[Count Lucanor]

No.

Humans are not interchangeable blocks of a monolithic society. Societies are influenced by history, culture and the temperament of the people.

It's the individuals who matter most, not the system (which is ideally only there to serve individuals). Or does your enthusiastic Marxism find that idea unpalatable? Generally, advanced western societies have a higher percentage of educated, rational and scientific individuals than poor societies.

I wish this discussion was about sociological theory or psychology, at least, but it’s not, it’s about something more basic, perhaps just basic common sense. We cannot attribute to societies cognitive abilities such as intuition, but even worst, we cannot even pretend that a particular mode of reasoning, either intuition or inference, will absorb the whole character of a person. An educated, science-minded person will still have intuition as a cognitive ability at their disposition, while an uneducated person will not be short of their rational faculties just because they lack formal instruction. Complete irrationality will put anyone in a mental hospital. Your proposition is plainly absurd.

Many words need to turn my post into a convenient straw man you can break down.

By your reasoning flat Earthers are just as rational as anyone else, just that they lack education. Education aids reason and rationality. Hilarious that you see no link between education and rationality.

Rationality as a psychological trait, as the faculty of reasoning, is an innate cognitive faculty, it is not a construction starting from a blank slate mind. Its part of our cognitive skills and rather than being the result of formal education, it is what allows our fast learning and higher mental functions. Learning is just the mental absorption of our personal and social experiences since the day we are born, and formal education is the systematic guidance of that process, in which aptitudes play a big role, but also attitudes. Education (formal and informal) guides and develops our reasoning (it does not create it), but it also involves guiding our character, our attitudes. Lack of good reasoning often involves a combination of aptitudes and attitudes from failures in both formal and informal education. When I see a flat earther I see a problem in character, more than a problem in reasoning skills.

And again, societies are deeply influenced by history, culture and the temperament of the people…

That’s a truism that is not relevant to this discussion. Napoleon and Alexander The Great had their temperament and their actions were influential in their societies. So what?

No.

The middle ground extends from 2 to 6. That is the middle - between the poles of 1 and 7.

You’re wrong. The middle ground is a neutral position. Taking a 6 in a seven points scale is hardly ever a neutral position.

Why don't you just admit that you were wrong? Anyone can see it, clear as day. Again, no one talked about equal footing or a "neutral position". These are the results of your mechanistic thinking.

Well…I was just expecting you to admit how wrong you were, it seems it is not happening anytime soon, but OK, so be it…

Dawkins did indeed describe himself as a "6" and - you may find this hard to admit - but that is not "7", despite your sophistry.

It’s a 6, it is clear as a sunny day. And he has made every effort to explain what that 6 means (a 6.9 he said once), and quite evidently it is not what you pretend…I gave more than enough arguments to support that, you will have to keep pushing your head in the sand and ignore them. It’s the only thing you can do.

[Sy Borg]

No.

Humans are not interchangeable blocks of a monolithic society. Societies are influenced by history, culture and the temperament of the people.

It's the individuals who matter most, not the system (which is ideally only there to serve individuals). Or does your enthusiastic Marxism find that idea unpalatable? Generally, advanced western societies have a higher percentage of educated, rational and scientific individuals than poor societies.

I wish this discussion was about sociological theory or psychology, at least, but it’s not, it’s about something more basic, perhaps just basic common sense. We cannot attribute to societies cognitive abilities such as intuition, but even worst, we cannot even pretend that a particular mode of reasoning, either intuition or inference, will absorb the whole character of a person. An educated, science-minded person will still have intuition as a cognitive ability at their disposition, while an uneducated person will not be short of their rational faculties just because they lack formal instruction. Complete irrationality will put anyone in a mental hospital. Your proposition is plainly absurd.

Many words need to turn my post into a convenient straw man you can break down.

By your reasoning flat Earthers are just as rational as anyone else, just that they lack education. Education aids reason and rationality. Hilarious that you see no link between education and rationality.

Rationality as a psychological trait, as the faculty of reasoning, is an innate cognitive faculty, it is not a construction starting from a blank slate mind. Its part of our cognitive skills and rather than being the result of formal education, it is what allows our fast learning and higher mental functions. Learning is just the mental absorption of our personal and social experiences since the day we are born, and formal education is the systematic guidance of that process, in which aptitudes play a big role, but also attitudes. Education (formal and informal) guides and develops our reasoning (it does not create it), but it also involves guiding our character, our attitudes. Lack of good reasoning often involves a combination of aptitudes and attitudes from failures in both formal and informal education. When I see a flat earther I see a problem in character, more than a problem in reasoning skills.

So you deny any connection between education and reasoning skills. Noted.

And again, societies are deeply influenced by history, culture and the temperament of the people…

That’s a truism that is not relevant to this discussion. Napoleon and Alexander The Great had their temperament and their actions were influential in their societies. So what?

I see, so desert people are the same as those from the tropics, and secular people are the same as Muslims, Italians are the same as Russians who are the same as South Sudanese.

All of these interchangeable parts can be manipulated in any way. I'm guessing it's your Marxism that leads you to see societies as purely a top-down proposition with no bottom-up influence, as though people were blank slates that can be manipulated in any way. History says otherwise - it's a two-way flow.

No.

The middle ground extends from 2 to 6. That is the middle - between the poles of 1 and 7.

You’re wrong. The middle ground is a neutral position. Taking a 6 in a seven points scale is hardly ever a neutral position.

Why don't you just admit that you were wrong? Anyone can see it, clear as day. Again, no one talked about equal footing or a "neutral position". These are the results of your mechanistic thinking.

Well…I was just expecting you to admit how wrong you were, it seems it is not happening anytime soon, but OK, so be it…

Dawkins did indeed describe himself as a "6" and - you may find this hard to admit - but that is not "7", despite your sophistry.

It’s a 6, it is clear as a sunny day. And he has made every effort to explain what that 6 means (a 6.9 he said once), and quite evidently it is not what you pretend…I gave more than enough arguments to support that, you will have to keep pushing your head in the sand and ignore them. It’s the only thing you can do.

I see, so you are basically arguing that shades of grey are not actually grey, but various shades of black.

How boring. This is circular. My views and your dogmas have been made clear enough, and don't need reiteration.

[Count Lucanor]

Education (formal and informal) guides and develops our reasoning (it does not create it), but it also involves guiding our character, our attitudes.

So you deny any connection between education and reasoning skills. Noted.

I just talked about that connection, but your straw man machine will not process it.

And again, societies are deeply influenced by history, culture and the temperament of the people…

That’s a truism that is not relevant to this discussion. Napoleon and Alexander The Great had their temperament and their actions were influential in their societies. So what?

I see, so desert people are the same as those from the tropics, and secular people are the same as Muslims, Italians are the same as Russians who are the same as South Sudanese.

Another fallacy. What makes a Muslim a Muslim and a Russian a Russian is their culture, which is comprised of learned, internalized behaviors, using the same cognitive faculties common to all members of the species. Basic modes of reasoning such as intuition and inference are hardwired, they are not written on a blank slate, as you suggest.

All of these interchangeable parts can be manipulated in any way. I'm guessing it's your Marxism that leads you to see societies as purely a top-down proposition with no bottom-up influence, as though people were blank slates that can be manipulated in any way. History says otherwise - it's a two-way flow.

It has become very clear now that you’re craving for adding Marxism to this discussion, even though you cannot avoid showing your complete ignorance of it. I guess you think it is a good smoke screen and the chance to feed the straw man machine. The discussion about your weird attempt to extend cognitive faculties to the whole character of a person and even worst, to characterize societies psychologically, does not need to appeal to social theory. It’s a mistake too basic to even go any further.

[Pattern-chaser]

It’s a 6, it is clear as a sunny day. And he has made every effort to explain what that 6 means (a 6.9 he said once), and quite evidently it is not what you pretend…I gave more than enough arguments to support that, you will have to keep pushing your head in the sand and ignore them. It’s the only thing you can do.

I see, so you are basically arguing that shades of grey are not actually grey, but various shades of black.

Yes, the numbers — "6" or "3" or... — don't really matter here. What does matter is that the grey area between black and white, in many contexts or discussions, occupies most of the available space. The extremes are the fence-posts; the edges; the boundaries; nearly all the action takes place in between. It is almost unheard of for a 'pure' extreme to exist in the real world. In other words, there is dark grey, but very little black, or light grey, and very little white. So little, in fact, that the Taoists saw fit to create the 'yin-yang sign' to illustrate the point visually.