How? There doesn't need to be an actual God for human beings to act as though they were such a being. Atheists can still be guilty of hubris!

With all due respect, if it wasn't for people like you, Dawkins would not be as vocal in this area as he has been, and it would be very much easier to argue against him if he was.

Is it death (no longer being) or dying (the process of deterioration to the point of no longer being able to sustain life) that they are afraid of (given that for many people the latter is sufficient motivation to hasten the former)?

you need physical evidence to prove classical logic — wuliheron

No, you absolutely do not. Logicists hold that all truths within any system of logic can be deduced from logical propositions within it. Godel proved that this is fallacious. Neither appeals to external evidence physical or otherwise.

Nobody thinks we are playing God when we look for cancer treatments and new antibiotics — Bitter Crank

Nobody? I think you'll find that a long way from the truth!

Where God-acting comes in most critically is genetic research on animals, plants, bacteria, viruses, fungi, et al (including our esteemed selves) that may reverberate far beyond the vision of the researchers involved. — Bitter Crank

I fear that as the first recorded example of genetic engineering occurs in the Old Testament this is rather shutting the gate long after the horse has bolted. As for mono-cropping the idea that this is somehow linked to advances in genetic engineering is surely unsupportable. It's been happening for as long as there has been agriculture, it's most obvious 'disaster' being the desertification of most of Northern Africa!

Then your original post makes no sense. If all this is subconscious how can we be in touch with it? Surely that requires that it be brought to consciousness at which point it ceases to be what you say it is. In any case what one Earth does 'genuine' mean in this context? It appears to have no philosophical significance at all.

For the most part? And your statements don't make any sense. In 1) you claim coercion and then say that it's preference or habit. It can't be both! In that respect I therefore see no manifest difference at all between 1) and 2).

Yes and no. We can and do (theoretical physics is pretty much nothing but, for example) and sometimes must simply to survive (the Torah's sanitary laws may be justified by false aetiologies but that doesn't make them any the less sound as guards against disease and sickness). However, there is always a limit to what collectively we can believe and this acts as a powerful corrective. It may take centuries or hours but the literally incredible nature of even the most widely accepted truths has a tendency to out. This role is often claimed exclusively for post-Enlightenment science, of course, but there is clear evidence of it throughout human history.

No need to apologise at all. I think there is a very real sense in which everyone is wrong about literally everything! At the very least it should be in our minds as a possibility as a corrective to hubris!

Self-evidently, yes (at least until we find an equivalent alien race with who we can compare notes) but I don't see how any of the remainder of your questions are logical consequences. Clearly by 'man' in the statement we don't mean 'a man' or more specifically 'any old man' but a corrective collective. It's not in any way a justification for the kind of extreme individualism that you're suggesting.

They're all mentioned in a work entitled "Where God went wrong" which fell through a black hole in 3016 and emerged in Peterborough in 1936 only to lay hidden beneath a discarded Ford Model T until a recent land reclamation project? As good as any other answer!

3rd cousins on the distaff side!

(Y) I was gonna go with 'a load of dingo's kidneys' but it looks a bit inadequate now! X-)

I am posting here in order to solicit constructive feedback. — Philo Sofer

What suggests to you that I have either the time or the interest for a critique of your personal mindset. At least buy me dinner first!

I've honestly given up trying to make sense of anything wuliheron says. He seems to be post-linguistic!

Basic Language: has nothing but present tense, and can't be used to express abstractions or universals. It can't be used pass on old sayings like "Never eat the yellow snow", because it doesn't contain the word "never." — Mongrel

You gotta love speculative pseudo science, aintcha?! Here's a thought. Just throw it out there. What if the reason for the development of language is precisely the need to express abstract thought? We know that the basics of survival, finding food sources or hunting, parenting, even tool use etc. can all be achieved easily without any form of language because every creature on the planet does just that.

Seems like a thoroughly sound assumption to me. Given the human beings can start an argument in an empty room 1000 miles from any other soul the idea that they could ever be satisfied with any state of things, no matter how perfect it may seem initially, is frankly preposterous. That's one of the reasons C S Lewis postulated that there would be work for us still in heaven and pictures it in the Narnia books as an infinite process of moving further up and further in.

By all means travel hopefully but do not wish to arrive.

You know what they say. Don't find perfection. You'll only ruin it!

And what sensory experience leads you to posit the square root of -1, pray tell!

I know for a fact you aren't born one. — Ozymandiaz

No you don't!

Of course we would have to define what sacred means for everyone first. — Benjamin Dovano

Er ... yes ... that would be kinda helpful, so where's your take. At the moment you might as well be asking "Is there anything gezornenplat in life?" (Don't bother looking it up; I fabricated this word as a placeholder in a humorous article many years ago!) for all the context we have available to us.

As soon as we start theorizing about new or different methods of doing something, we are implicitly leaving behind pragmatism. — darthbarracuda

I'm not sure I follow the logic of this at all. It's entirely pragmatic to want to do the things you do better surely? That requires constant review and occasional innovation. It seems to me entirely unpragmatic to think that one has reached a state of acceptable efficiency and sufficiency in a world where needs are constantly changing.

A great deal of my life is a rather enjoyable experience and this is true of many people. — m-theory

Whilst I'm glad that you find this to be the case I would suggest that it is not something you should advertise around the suicidally depressed. One is ill advised to add a sense of injustice to their woes.

Color perception is impossible! >:)

The reason life is colorful is because light has different wave lengths. — m-theory

Er .. no .. it's because we have the ability to detect electromagnetic waves of varying wavelengths in a particular band and discriminate between them (albeit somewhat inconsistently!) The colour is not inherent to the light or a property of its wavelength. Colour is simply the way that the varying wavelengths are registered by our brains. It has no independent existence.

Yes, we are. Time isn't. So, if you insist on using the term speed, it is we that have it, not time.

Both those outcomes are extremely unlikely - it may be possible to win a referendum in Scotland though I doubt it but not in Northern Ireland - but neither would precipitate a constitutional crisis because it does not mount a challenge to the Government's right and ability to govern.

On the contrary, there is a strong bias toward therapy throughout the history of philosophy. 'Get the world straight in your head and psychological health will follow' is a theme for many philosophers including Socrates, Heidegger and Wittgenstein. The therapeutic value of philosophy has been the theme of Alain De Botton's work for many years and his 'School of Life' would very much be a practical example of cognitive therapy administered by philosophers.

Should the courts find against the Government the constitutional crisis that follows will make Brexit itself seem like very small beer! I'm not sure those bringing the case have really considered the implications of winning it!

Isn't that precisely what cognitive therapy is supposed to do? Are you saying that there have been no cognitive therapy successes?

And if the result's the same will that put an end to this nonsensical campaign to overturn a decision that's been made for better or worse or will there be cries for a third vote and then a fourth? And if the result is different do you imagine that the other side then won't start calling for a best of three, or four or five? The one thing that will unquestionably do damage is doing nothing while no decision is made at all. The vote is binding and must be so. How about the losers stop whining about it and actually put some effort into making the best possible and most dignified exit if the claim to be so enamoured of the country they are apparently hjappy to throw into a state of permanent limbo.

affection is good for humans. — unenlightened

Not always!

And thus you can see why a basic moral precept, like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", makes natural sense. — apokrisis

Except that it doesn't. Quite apart from encouraging potentiallty damaging co-dependency even to the point of deviancy (sado-masochism, for example) reciprocity is not a desirable feature in most relationships. A teacher doesn't wish to be taught by his pupils, a parent doesn't seek discipline from offspring, a policeman doesn't wish to be arrested, a soldier certainly does not expect to be killed. It's clear that for most acts of public service then 'do as you would be done by' is a wholly inadequate explanation of motivation for what is in many cases decidedly 'unnatural' behaviour.

Otherwise chocolate and beer would be the highest good. :) — apokrisis

They aren't? Well that's my life's work down the pan then!

Really? So how would you set about testing and falsifying a philosophical theory? — tom

Easy. If it's my theory it's correct. If it's anyone else's theory it's wrong. Can't get any more scientific than that!

science is more useful to us because it has reliable predictive power — VagabondSpectre

I can't help[ feeling that reliable predictive powers were granted us long before 'science'. After all knowledge of the acceleration due to gravity is neither necessary nor useful if there is a piano falling on you from a great height nor to my dog when she's happily catching biscuits tossed across the room to her.

Oh I don't know. Isn't 'serious philosophy' something of a joke in itself?

Eschew obfuscation. — Wosret

That's a 90% reduction in posts then! ;)

You know, Hegel drank a bottle of wine a day. — Wosret

Sounds like a cue for a song! >:)