Philosophy Discussion Forums

Tamminen wrote: ↑January 5th, 2018, 9:30 am

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

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

Excellent text, profound, at the heart of philosophy.

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

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

Greta wrote:In some cases. Emotional ploys are a standard rhetorical tactic in all areas, not just religious belief. Yesterday I saw a person online's comment coming out strongly against lab-grown, death-free meat. When pushed on this attitude she said: "I seem to have been triggered by the animal rights protesters. For many, myself included, it is a highly emotional topic which supersedes rational thought". In other words, she chose to encourage the slaughter of innocent animals so as to harm people she doesn't like. Thankfully, on philosophy forums, things are usually a little more grown up.

What irks me is that many here seem to think ideas are not "philosophical" unless they are empirically verifiable, and that's simply absurd.[\quote]
Well I more or less agree but I'm not sure anyone said exactly that? And if they did I wouldn't think it absurd as empirical verification is a significant thing.
For example if you take relativity, at the time it couldn't be verified, but it did have a number of things going for it, one of the key things being it didn't contradict empirical evidence and did predict things.
Now of course a scientific theory and a philosophical theory are not the same thing and I think it is to be expected that with philosophy there is less in the way of demands for empirical evidence but there are still demands on logic and rules of non contradiction and the like.
By the way I think science should be guided by philosophy. As in what to study. How to go about doing it. And so on. I think Sam Harris mentions perhaps science could tell good from bad but I don't see how without axioms and I don't see why you want to tell good from bad without philosophy.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑January 5th, 2018, 5:58 pm

Greta wrote:In some cases. Emotional ploys are a standard rhetorical tactic in all areas, not just religious belief. Yesterday I saw a person online's comment coming out strongly against lab-grown, death-free meat. When pushed on this attitude she said: "I seem to have been triggered by the animal rights protesters. For many, myself included, it is a highly emotional topic which supersedes rational thought". In other words, she chose to encourage the slaughter of innocent animals so as to harm people she doesn't like. Thankfully, on philosophy forums, things are usually a little more grown up.

By "grown up", do you mean "based on rational arguments stemming from empirical evidence" or something like that? On a philosophy forum we do naturally tend to assume that the discussions should be a set of opposing rational arguments. But it's difficult to maintain that. We're all emotional creatures. Maybe we should be emotional. Maybe sometimes we should simply react, with a visceral gut reaction.

Londoner wrote: ↑January 5th, 2018, 7:28 am Spectrum, for example, has very strong opinions on the right or wrong way to think and behave. He may argue against religions, but he is fundamentally on the same page as them, in that he thinks such questions are meaningful. But you cannot draw meaning from science or maths or logic.
....

Belindi wrote: ↑January 5th, 2018, 9:30 am Spectrum, some people, when they might say "I believe in God" actually mean that they trust in God. The word 'believe' has at least two meanings.
You may say that you believe that when your tooth is extracted you may bleed, but that is not the same as saying that you believe in the dentist.

• 1. will listen and answers their prayers
  2. promise and will deliver them to heaven with eternal life.
  3. do other supernatural things

Greta wrote: ↑January 5th, 2018, 7:53 pm Note that the OP's claim about God being impossible cannot logically apply to pantheism and panentheism. One may disagree with those interpretations, but to say these things are "impossible" is to falsely lump those more sophisticated conceptions with the simplistic anthropomorphic Santa-like God. Thus, many believers see organised religion as misguided and corrupt while many theists question the sincerity of the unaffiliated.

Dark Matter wrote: ↑January 5th, 2018, 2:59 pm

Londoner wrote: ↑January 5th, 2018, 7:28 am Spectrum, for example, has very strong opinions on the right or wrong way to think and behave. He may argue against religions, but he is fundamentally on the same page as them, in that he thinks such questions are meaningful. But you cannot draw meaning from science or maths or logic.

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

Spectrum wrote: ↑January 5th, 2018, 10:18 pm

Greta wrote: ↑January 5th, 2018, 7:53 pm Note that the OP's claim about God being impossible cannot logically apply to pantheism and panentheism. One may disagree with those interpretations, but to say these things are "impossible" is to falsely lump those more sophisticated conceptions with the simplistic anthropomorphic Santa-like God. Thus, many believers see organised religion as misguided and corrupt while many theists question the sincerity of the unaffiliated.

I don't regard pantheism or panentheism as an issue to the main reason of why I am criticizing theism in general in the strongest sense. I have not come across any significant evils or violence from pantheism or panentheism

The critical root cause [the 80 of Pareto's 80/20] of theistic evils/violence are from the theistic beliefs of the Abrahamic religions [especially "The Religion of Peace"].

Spectrum wrote:To effectively address theistic-based evils and violence around the World which is mainly from the Abrahamic theism, one need completeness control and thus has to rope in deism, pantheism, panentheism to deal with theism-in-general. However with reservation, the focus on theistic-based evils is not on deism, pantheism, nor panentheism.

Greta wrote: ↑January 5th, 2018, 11:13 pm How far does the Inquisition extend? Are Spinozan pantheists to be included?

That's politics. I'm more interested in the in/validity of pan/entheist and atheist concepts, which are more enduring than the inevitable surface turmoil of power struggles, which come and go in quick succession and basically only serve as entropic rejuvenation.

Spectrum wrote: ↑January 5th, 2018, 11:34 pm

Greta wrote: ↑January 5th, 2018, 11:13 pm How far does the Inquisition extend? Are Spinozan pantheists to be included?

That's politics. I'm more interested in the in/validity of pan/entheist and atheist concepts, which are more enduring than the inevitable surface turmoil of power struggles, which come and go in quick succession and basically only serve as entropic rejuvenation.

It is not politics but rather Morality and Ethics [a major topic of philosophy].
The concern here is how to get rid of theistic-based evils and violence totally in the future [not now].

Whilst deism, pantheism and panentheism are not serious issues at all by themselves, they are nevertheless a hindrance to the concept of completeness control. For example, when hauling up a school of fish, we must ensure 100% there are no holes [escapable] at all in the net as it encloses the school of fish.

I am optimistic in future [not possible now], humanity will be able to come up with foolproof non-theistic spiritual approaches [not exactly but Buddhism-liked] to replace deism, pantheism and panentheism in dealing with the same inherent psychological issue.

Greta wrote: ↑January 6th, 2018, 12:08 am

Spectrum wrote: ↑January 5th, 2018, 11:34 pm It is not politics but rather Morality and Ethics [a major topic of philosophy].
The concern here is how to get rid of theistic-based evils and violence totally in the future [not now].
...

Not wishing to be a nitpicker (much) but you did post this in the Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology section rather than in Ethics and Morality

I would think that "completeness of control" was exactly what we don't want. After all, it took humanity centuries to shake off the shackles of complete control (apologies to Derek Young and Joe Strummer) enjoyed by Christianity. I would rather not replace one tyrant for another, if that is at all possible.

I am an agnostic, and my doubt has nothing to do with emotionality but my interpretations of evidence and the apparent potentials of life. I simply think that the inevitable result of evolution in a universe with billions of galaxies with many billions of worlds over what is anticipated to be another trillion years of star formation will be beings, or a collective being, that can even solve the problem of galactic destruction. Godlike. What if this is not the first universe but the billionth? What if each universe left over some extraordinary being that survives even the death of its universe, extracting energy directly from space itself?

This seems possible to me; after all, just ten thousand years ago who would have imagined humanity to be as it is today? Anyone who suggested it would be accused of overdoing the ayahuasca! Now consider how much progress could be achieved by an advanced society over a billion, or many billions, of years. Mind blowing.

However, since all this is unprovable and speculative, I am agnostic - with no emotions needed. However, it's seems extremely likely that some species, somewhere, sometime will evolve into something godlike and there is no way of knowing if this is the first or only universe or the billionth. Maybe some future findings will sway me to this modernised conception of the Omega Point. I would hardly see that as problematic to society.

If, of course, you can think of a way of showing people who cling to their anthropomorphic gods like a security blanket that such gods don't exist, good luck to you

Spectrum wrote: ↑January 6th, 2018, 12:42 am

I would think that "completeness of control" was exactly what we don't want. After all, it took humanity centuries to shake off the shackles of complete control (apologies to Derek Young and Joe Strummer) enjoyed by Christianity. I would rather not replace one tyrant for another, if that is at all possible.

I have stated many times, one of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques [related to career] and the concept of 'completeness control' is one of the most critical requirement to solve any problem effectively.
When one do not take 'completeness control' into account like getting rid of all the weeds as the root level, what is left out can continually create more problems later.

Spectrum wrote:

This seems possible to me; after all, just ten thousand years ago who would have imagined humanity to be as it is today? Anyone who suggested it would be accused of overdoing the ayahuasca! Now consider how much progress could be achieved by an advanced society over a billion, or many billions, of years. Mind blowing.

However, since all this is unprovable and speculative, I am agnostic - with no emotions needed. However, it's seems extremely likely that some species, somewhere, sometime will evolve into something godlike and there is no way of knowing if this is the first or only universe or the billionth. Maybe some future findings will sway me to this modernised conception of the Omega Point. I would hardly see that as problematic to society.

If, of course, you can think of a way of showing people who cling to their anthropomorphic gods like a security blanket that such gods don't exist, good luck to you :)

You may think consciously there are no emotions involved.
However what control the human beings is 90% within the subconscious.
Note the research of Antonio Damasio and others who revealed the emotional basis of human behaviors at the sub-conscious levels.

If you say you are a non-theist then there is no psychological-theistic influence in you.
A non-theistic will have no psychological-theistic influence but may have other non-theistic psychological issues.

Greta wrote: ↑January 6th, 2018, 1:25 am

Spectrum wrote: ↑January 6th, 2018, 12:42 amI have stated many times, one of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques [related to career] and the concept of 'completeness control' is one of the most critical requirement to solve any problem effectively.
When one do not take 'completeness control' into account like getting rid of all the weeds as the root level, what is left out can continually create more problems later.

We will have to agree to disagree, Spec. I think your "cure" of sterility and homogeneity - the inevitable results of complete control - is worse than weeds.

Spectrum wrote:You may think consciously there are no emotions involved.
However what control the human beings is 90% within the subconscious.
Note the research of Antonio Damasio and others who revealed the emotional basis of human behaviors at the sub-conscious levels.

If you say you are a non-theist then there is no psychological-theistic influence in you.
A non-theistic will have no psychological-theistic influence but may have other non-theistic psychological issues.

I suggest that your strict atheism is more emotionally driven than my agnosticism.

If you retain your atheist stance after my comment above then you 1) probably believe in the Great Filter hypothesis that intelligent life always destroys itself (which is an emotional hypothesis in itself, based mostly on disappointment with humans) and 2) you must be pretty sure this is the first and only universe. Otherwise you would have sufficient doubt to be agnostic.

Greta wrote: ↑January 5th, 2018, 7:53 pm I would also parse those who are "believers" and those who are "religious", the former tending to lean towards pantheistic or panenthistic ideas while the latter being more likely to be literalists. Note that the OP's claim about God being impossible cannot logically apply to pantheism and panentheism. One may disagree with those interpretations, but to say these things are "impossible" is to falsely lump those more sophisticated conceptions with the simplistic anthropomorphic Santa-like God. Thus, many believers see organised religion as misguided and corrupt while many theists question the sincerity of the unaffiliated.