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

[The Belief Doctor]

Besides the obvious, weird, nonsensical disconnects required to believe in perfection (e.g. suggesting a WHOLE community of people is perfect, while some of its PARTS citizens aren't)>

Excerpt from Awkward Truths: Beyond the dogmas of science, religion and new-age philosophies (page 13):

if by perfection we mean a state that cannot be improved upon, then we must accept that such a state cannot change. Any change could result in a fatter, uglier, less perfect state. So we’d have a changeless state of what ... of stillness, stagnation, unending mind-numbing greyish sameness?

Hell’s bells.

Besides, in being perfect, there’d be no stuff-ups (imperfections) in the grand scheme of things. No-one could get it wrong, or be inharmonious in the least. No surprises. Perfect predictability – we’d know all future football scores for the rest of eternity. As explained earlier, we’re on a hiding to nothing if we think that’s going to be much fun.

But look, let’s assume we do get into this exalted state of perfect bliss and oneness at some point in the future. Just exactly how are we going to change from imperfection to perfection? At what exact point do we change from wherever we are (and whoever we are) to enter and become this supreme state? How long does it take to cross the threshold into this realm? If we’re halfway into perfection, are we half-perfect? Two-thirds of the way? How about ¾ of the way? Okay, how about if we’re 99.99999% there? Not quite, perhaps? What about 99.99999 ... to an infinite number of decimal places? Surely we’d be perfect then? Still not?

You see, no matter how far we go, or how fast we run toward perfection, it’s still just as far away.1 That’s the nature of perfection ... it’s always beyond whoever we happen to be, and wherever we happen to be. In other words, if you’re going to be perfect, you’ll have to be infinitely good ... and infinitely knowledgeable. Thus, God, being perfect (better Him than us, that’s for sure) is supposed to know everything – He’s gotta know an infinity of stuff, all before breakfast, no less. Talk about cramming and soggy cornflakes ... and all the while without any entertainment.

What’s more, we might expect that this working toward perfection (aka the infinitely good) could get a bit tiring. And just think, when we finally get there after an eternity (since infinity takes that long to get there), no jokes, surprises or entertainment.
So here’s a tip: if you find yourself being spruiked with the promise of absolute happiness, divine bliss, enlightened oneness or even perfect sex ... run away, quickly (well okay, maybe after the sex).

When you start digging into the idea of perfection, you find that it’s got a hell heaven of a lot to answer for ... like how it encourages the silliness of celibacy and detachment. And how it encourages guilt, shame and violence (never feeling good enough – a side effect of believing in perfection while not being perfect – predisposes not the odd few towards thumping others who remind them of such).

It also encourages drug dependency, which is merely the artificial means of achieving what we’re inherently capable of anyway, but don’t believe we’re capable of because ... we’re not good enough ... because we’re not perfect.

It also encourages a shipload of silliness concerning the sexes.

One could write a whole book on the silliness of perfection, and that of science, religion and new-age, and politics ...

Hang on a minute, someone already has

[The Belief Doctor]

Besides the obvious, weird, nonsensical disconnects required to believe in perfection (e.g. suggesting a WHOLE community of people is perfect, while some of its PARTS citizens aren't)>

Excerpt from Awkward Truths: Beyond the dogmas of science, religion and new-age philosophies (page 13):

if by perfection we mean a state that cannot be improved upon, then we must accept that such a state cannot change. Any change could result in a fatter, uglier, less perfect state. So we’d have a changeless state of what ... of stillness, stagnation, unending mind-numbing greyish sameness?

Hell’s bells.

Besides, in being perfect, there’d be no stuff-ups (imperfections) in the grand scheme of things. No-one could get it wrong, or be inharmonious in the least. No surprises. Perfect predictability – we’d know all future football scores for the rest of eternity. As explained earlier, we’re on a hiding to nothing if we think that’s going to be much fun.

But look, let’s assume we do get into this exalted state of perfect bliss and oneness at some point in the future. Just exactly how are we going to change from imperfection to perfection? At what exact point do we change from wherever we are (and whoever we are) to enter and become this supreme state? How long does it take to cross the threshold into this realm? If we’re halfway into perfection, are we half-perfect? Two-thirds of the way? How about ¾ of the way? Okay, how about if we’re 99.99999% there? Not quite, perhaps? What about 99.99999 ... to an infinite number of decimal places? Surely we’d be perfect then? Still not?

You see, no matter how far we go, or how fast we run toward perfection, it’s still just as far away.1 That’s the nature of perfection ... it’s always beyond whoever we happen to be, and wherever we happen to be. In other words, if you’re going to be perfect, you’ll have to be infinitely good ... and infinitely knowledgeable. Thus, God, being perfect (better Him than us, that’s for sure) is supposed to know everything – He’s gotta know an infinity of stuff, all before breakfast, no less. Talk about cramming and soggy cornflakes ... and all the while without any entertainment.

What’s more, we might expect that this working toward perfection (aka the infinitely good) could get a bit tiring. And just think, when we finally get there after an eternity (since infinity takes that long to get there), no jokes, surprises or entertainment.

So here’s a tip: if you find yourself being spruiked with the promise of absolute happiness, divine bliss, enlightened oneness or even perfect sex ... run away, quickly (well okay, maybe after the sex).

When you start digging into the idea of perfection, you find that it’s got a hell heaven of a lot to answer for ... like how it encourages the silliness of celibacy and detachment. And how it encourages guilt, shame and violence (never feeling good enough – a side effect of believing in perfection while not being perfect – predisposes not the odd few towards thumping others who remind them of such).

It also encourages drug dependency, which is merely the artificial means of achieving what we’re inherently capable of anyway, but don’t believe we’re capable of because ... we’re not good enough ... because we’re not perfect.

It also encourages a shipload of silliness concerning the sexes.

[© Steaphen Pirie, 2004]

One could write a whole book on the silliness of perfection, and that of science, religion and new-age, and politics ...

Hang on a minute, someone already has

whoops, almost forgot, as for the reply regarding "you can't know," yadda yadda

Anyway, one of the hugely satisfying and reassuring implications of the Pairadox Rule, is that (now, this gets a bit weird) any aspect of existence – be it the deepest physical laws of nature; the most complex mathematical expressions; all human behaviour, including that of whole societies; the nature of God, evil, or the beginning of the universe ... anything and everything – cannot be entirely, fully, completely divorced (divided, or separated) from our everyday lives, no matter how dull and boring said lives. In other words:

Awkward Truth: The seeds for understanding everything (no matter how complex, foreign, alien or “super-natural”) lies within ourselves and within our experiences of everyday life.

This Awkward Truth rather unavoidably follows from the Pairadox Rule, which states that nothing is entirely, totally, completely divided, separated or independent of anything else. So those seemingly perfect, mystical, blissful experiences of the great gurus are common (at least to some extent) to each of us. That means ...

[© Steaphen Pirie, 2004]

(Based on the straight-forward foundations of the Pairadox Rule.)

Awh, while I'm at it (taking a break from some course-development work):

(sans footnotes)
Awkward Truth: We can expect that there are dimensions to everyday personal experience that science has no possibility of ever fully explaining or understanding, let alone predicting ... or controlling.

Santa is alive and well, metaphorically speaking. Besides, if we achieved perfect science.1 (control, prediction) we’d want for nothing ... to do ... with it.

Backward thinking

Now, it might seem lad-silly to mention Santa, saints and miracles. But as mentioned, the Pairadox Rule says that whatever is magical, miraculous or otherwise cannot be totally separated from, foreign to, or unknown in our everyday lives. So, what is so miraculous about everyday life?

Try this not-so-quick Quick-Quiz: When and where do thoughts come from?

....

Scientists like to think
... that our thoughts come entirely from within our heads;
... that our brains work like some sort of complex machine;
... that our faith and confidence in the future is born of a few chemical reactions in the past.

Here’s another question: Who or what is holding the fort, so to speak, while we switch thoughts? What’s the ground under the constant jumping around that goes on in our heads?

Now, obviously (reasonably, logically, rationally) our past – in the form of genetic inheritance, experience, our physiology, stimuli from the local environment, learning and memories – “pushes”i1 us to think to, say, eat our cornflakes. Let’s face it, we all have to be taught, don’t we?.2,3

In a sense, many learn to walk, talk ... and consequently, stalk (the future).

... Bit of problem, though, explaining (shhh, quietly now) how we do anything new, if we only ever rely on the past to help us decide what to do. After all, if we only ever do what we’ve always done, aren’t we bound to always get what we’ve always got? As mentioned earlier, that’s a recipe for dishwater, sure as.

The thing is, if the whole shebang worked like some big machine, where would the surprise and mystery in life be?i1

And if our thinking were merely the result of a mechanical (chemical) process in the head, we’d need only dick a few dendrites, to fully figure faith, creativity and imagination. That is, we’d need only analyse the brain to know (and predict) everyone’s future behaviour (irrespective of external stimuli, environment, desires etc.).2

As earlier questioned, how many clever-dicks, and how many years is it going to take to fully factor creativity, intuition and imagination, not to mention the unmentionable future?.3

Reason and head,
incest partners, doubly wed
with measure and rule
squares our hardened set
of logical fools


[© Steaphen Pirie, 2004]

[Marabod]

Besides the obvious, weird, nonsensical disconnects required to believe in perfection (e.g. suggesting a WHOLE community of people is perfect, while some of its PARTS citizens aren't)

Mankind is most likely just a single one, and not the most significant, component of the Sapience in the Universe. Whatever is said about mankind said only about one specie - not about the Life or Sapience in the universal sense. I mean, I am not promoting the green aliens at all, but I hope you would agree that the study of the population of just one small planet is simply not enough for making global conclusions about the Universe. I thought we were talking the Universe before, not the life on Earth. At least the scientific issues used for the examples were related to the entire Universe, and on that level we can assume the perfection of Creation, as the religious philosophers like to say.

The mankind is only perfect if related to a single human, as "mankind" embraces all humans, the entire number of them. There is no humans existing outside mankind. So the criteria of perfection in your model have to be somehow adjusted - would the humans be perfect if they all become like yourself? Like the author of the book you quoted? Like Mozart? Like Christ? Like Mao Zedong?

[The Belief Doctor]

Besides the obvious, weird, nonsensical disconnects required to believe in perfection (e.g. suggesting a WHOLE community of people is perfect, while some of its PARTS citizens aren't)

Mankind is most likely just a single one, and not the most significant, component of the Sapience in the Universe. Whatever is said about mankind said only about one specie - not about the Life or Sapience in the universal sense. I mean, I am not promoting the green aliens at all, but I hope you would agree that the study of the population of just one small planet is simply not enough for making global conclusions about the Universe. I thought we were talking the Universe before, not the life on Earth. At least the scientific issues used for the examples were related to the entire Universe, and on that level we can assume the perfection of Creation, as the religious philosophers like to say.

The mankind is only perfect if related to a single human, as "mankind" embraces all humans, the entire number of them. There is no humans existing outside mankind. So the criteria of perfection in your model have to be somehow adjusted - would the humans be perfect if they all become like yourself? Like the author of the book you quoted? Like Mozart? Like Christ? Like Mao Zedong?

Um, not sure what you're point is. No perfection in the part, means no perfection in the whole.

Anything else requires weird, nonsensical disconnects between the part and the whole of which it is part.

In other words, taking all entities, particles, people, aliens (green or otherwise) within existence as being parts within an underlying whole (or oneness) of existence requires that no other parts can be perfect.

As within the part, so the whole.

Again, what part are you having trouble with.

Hm, maybe approach it from another angle. Where is the divide between your hand and your body? (rhetorical question).

where is the divide between an individual and the community (another rhetorical).

Whenever is there going to be a 'divide' between any part and its greater whole (of which it is part)?

All theories of perfection and the like require fundamental disconnects and exceptions --- and exceptions are limited perceptions within a deeper inclusiveness (of the whole).

IN everyday language to suggest that exceptions and disconnects have fundamental meaning would be to suggest that you can have a community, excepting all the people in it.

Or a body without any organs, parts, cells, limbs etc.

[Jester Gren]

Might the criteria for perfection be considered the ability of a system to change? As an option, it could reconcile the "perfection" of the universe.

[Belinda]

Meleagar quoted

The scientific theory of intelligent design cannot identify the designer, but only detects the past occurrence of intelligent design in the natural world. Intelligent design theory cannot name the designer because it works off the assumption that all intelligent agents would generally create certain types of informational patterns when they act. While we can detect that type of information in the natural world to infer intelligent design, finding that type of information does not give us any information about the nature or identity of the designer. All we can infer is that the object we are studying was designed. - Casey Luskin

Neither can many honest and well educated theologians identify the monotheistic god whose name is 'God'.All that can be said of the Almighty is that he/she/it knowingly intended his/her/its creation to exist. Or, conversely, any almighty agent that intends its creation to exist is God by name and God by nature.

While we can detect that type of information in the natural world to infer intelligent design, finding that type of information does not give us any information about the nature or identity of the designer.

There is no 'information' about the essence of God. Anyone who believes in God can only know God through his/her/its works(creation).

Anyone who wants to know God through the creation is doing the creator a disservice if the creation is not studied impartially, as if there were no intentional agent of creation.Unbelievers have no quarrel with those people who want to add the God hypothesis on to the creation in the absence of final cause. It is the imposition of final cause during the investigations that make the investigations partial and therefore distorted.

A parallel case would be trying to prove the guilt of some person suspected of a crime if the motivation is presumed without due evidence for the motivation.

There is no evidence for intelligent design in any particular case in nature. The argument from the particular to the general is the only way we can progress our beliefs without wishful thinking,rationalisation, or some other cultish trick.

[Marabod]

Um, not sure what you're point is. No perfection in the part, means no perfection in the whole.

Anything else requires weird, nonsensical disconnects between the part and the whole of which it is part.

In other words, taking all entities, particles, people, aliens (green or otherwise) within existence as being parts within an underlying whole (or oneness) of existence requires that no other parts can be perfect.

As within the part, so the whole.

Again, what part are you having trouble with.

Hm, maybe approach it from another angle. Where is the divide between your hand and your body? (rhetorical question).

where is the divide between an individual and the community (another rhetorical).

Whenever is there going to be a 'divide' between any part and its greater whole (of which it is part)?

All theories of perfection and the like require fundamental disconnects and exceptions --- and exceptions are limited perceptions within a deeper inclusiveness (of the whole).

IN everyday language to suggest that exceptions and disconnects have fundamental meaning would be to suggest that you can have a community, excepting all the people in it.

Or a body without any organs, parts, cells, limbs etc.

This your first statement... Where does it come from that you are so sure in it? Personally I hear the statement that "no perfection in a part means no perfection in the total" first time in my life. I was expecting you to respond with clarification - say to refer to some philosophical system which promotes such construct.

Say, an atom is a part of absolutely anything - and it is perfect in some sense, does not require any "improvements" at least. You also jump between the different meanings of "perfect", misapplying them. Which perfection you prefer to talk about first? If you clarify this, then the rest of your construct would be easier to understand. Just define "perfect" in a sense you like it applied, and then we can continue.

[Felix]

Belief Doctor said: "Whenever is there going to be a 'divide' between any part and its greater whole (of which it is part)?

All theories of perfection and the like require fundamental disconnects and exceptions - and exceptions are limited perceptions within a deeper inclusiveness (of the whole)."

By the above reasoning, the very idea of "part" is the imperfect product of limited perception, and therefore the whole is either perfect or not. Is man capable of knowing whether or not the whole is perfect?

[Meleagar]

There is no evidence for intelligent design in any particular case in nature.

I'd ask you to support this assertion, but of course you cannot. The statement is just ideological rhetoric.

Also, the scientific theory of intelligent design has nothing to do with any god, so most of your commetary here about god is irrelevent.

[Abacab]

Meleagar wrote

Belinda wrote:

There is no evidence for intelligent design in any particular case in nature.

I'd ask you to support this assertion, but of course you cannot. The statement is just ideological rhetoric.

Supported on the thread called Intelligent Design in the Science forum, the only rhetoric and smoke and mirrors is coming from the IDer`s in the room.

[Marabod]

There is no evidence for intelligent design in any particular case in nature.

I'd ask you to support this assertion, but of course you cannot. The statement is just ideological rhetoric.

Also, the scientific theory of intelligent design has nothing to do with any god, so most of your commetary here about god is irrelevent.

You forgot to add "denial", without this component the usual mantra is incomplete and may not achieve the desired magic outcome.

And what exactly is this "scientific theory of intelligent design"? The product of "Materialistic metaphysics"? You are an extremely efficient term-coiner! If this interesting "scientific" theory has nothing to do with God, then whose Intelligence was behind the design? Sure not the one of the creators of this scientific theory, as this one is not detectable.

[The Belief Doctor]

Belief Doctor said: "Whenever is there going to be a 'divide' between any part and its greater whole (of which it is part)?

All theories of perfection and the like require fundamental disconnects and exceptions - and exceptions are limited perceptions within a deeper inclusiveness (of the whole)."

By the above reasoning, the very idea of "part" is the imperfect product of limited perception, and therefore the whole is either perfect or not. Is man capable of knowing whether or not the whole is perfect?

No, the reasoning provided is not an "imperfect product" of anything. No perfection or imperfection, just that which is. 'Limited' is used in the simple context of it being finite, bounded -- not endless, or boundless.

The reasoning is sound. Once again: Whenever is there going to be a 'divide' between any part and its greater whole (of which it is part)?

As before, any suggested exceptions to the fundamental One within All model requires weird, nonsensical disconnects between the part and the whole of All of which it is part.

[Alun]

No time is better than page 26 to jump into a discussion. I believe that page 26 is also the best time to talk about evidence disproving materialism, as opposed to God, ID, determinism, or Meleagar's scholastic background.

Hi Meleagar, our discussions have just ended poorly in two other threads, so I thought that perhaps we might discover how deeply our differences run by switching to a more foundational topic.

My first question is: What is materialism? I suspect there are at least a couple formulations. Starting from the strongest:

SMaterialism - All things which actually exist are fundamentally composed of matter and their existence is not contingent upon any activities of the mind (which is also material) for their existence.

MMaterialism - All things which actually exist are fundamentally composed of matter, and their existence is not contingent upon anything which is not composed of matter.

WMaterialism - All phenomena can best be explained as stemming from the interactions of external matter with the matter which composes our minds.

Where I will assume 'matter' is a concept referring to a fundamentally uniform substance with well-defined causal properties; in the above definitions, what science refers to as 'energy' would be about as valid a candidate as what science refers to as 'spacetime.'

Now, it seems to me that the metaphysical postulates of SMaterialism and MMaterialism are impossible to prove or disprove via the phenomenological research of science. As far as I am concerned, science only determines consistent explanations of phenomena, not any knowledge of what actually exists. So my second question is: Do you also accept some premise about how science can arrive at metaphysical/existential conclusions?

If you do, then: What are the metaphysical implications of scientific results?

If you don't, then: How exactly do the scientific results in the opening post contradict WMaterialism?

[reflected_light]

I have a book which I have not yet cracked, it's title is Existential Phenomenology.
It may help answer your questions Alun.
I will read some over the weekend and see if there is anything of interest.

[Meleagar]

Where I will assume 'matter' is a concept referring to a fundamentally uniform substance with well-defined causal properties; in the above definitions, what science refers to as 'energy' would be about as valid a candidate as what science refers to as 'spacetime.'

What does "well-defined causal properties" mean?

Also, I suggest we stop referring to "matter" as our "substance" in contention, and substitute "quanta". We haven't established that quanta meets your definition of "matter", and the term "matter" predisposes the argument towards "materialism".

IOW, you haven't established that matter exists, according to your definition. Until you establish that matter exists according to your definition of matter, you have yet to even have a basis for claiming that materialism might be true.