There's no mention of race in the quoted post. There's only a reference to "white-Jesusism" which is the racist idea that Jesus was white. — Baden

Yes, that's what the poster claimed. As I noted, I think that is disingenuous. Rather than arguing about that I'll just ask - if I text were about white people, would it be acceptable.

For Strawson "metaphysics" is about the nature of the world, but part of it is a-priori. But as he says, some a-priori facts are facts about reality, just as much as empirical demonstrations are matters of fact. But not everything in metaphysics can be settled, far from it. — Manuel

As I said, in my understanding metaphysical statements cannot be true or false. They are useful or not useful in a particular situation. Here are a list of issues I think are metaphysical:

• As you noted - monism, pluralism, dualism, idealism, physicalism and so on
• Free will vs. determinism
• The existence of objective reality
• The mind/body problem

It is not my intention to go into these subjects any deeper here. I think they are off-topic a bit.

Well yes, that's true actually. What I should have said is that I don't think that science is the whole of metaphysics. I'm using science extremely narrowly here meaning physics basically. — Manuel

I've spent a lot of time thinking and writing about the differences between science and metaphysics. I think it's an important distinction that is sometimes hard to keep straight. I sometimes have a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to these types of discussions. I think I jumped on you a bit.

I think what I wrote is important, but it does go both ways. I strongly resist the idea that quantum mechanics has any metaphysical implications. It's physics. That's hard for me to maintain sometimes, given how much it has changed the way people think about the world. It's probably true that keeping the distinctions clear and definite has become something of an ideology for me. I probably need to work on that.

In my understanding, scientific statements have truth values, they are either true or false, while metaphysical statements do not. I get a lot of my thinking on this subject from Collingwood's "Essay on Metaphysics." If we let the distinction between physics and metaphysics become too porous, we get the unending arguments about the nature of reality we have here.

But I think the whole of science includes much more than physics. One such domain where we know very little is in psychology which includes our conception of the world, our perceptions too. These latter aspects can be called "philosophical", without too much controversy I'd think, although parts of perception and common-sense conceptions can be studied empirically. — Manuel

I agree. I find this frustrating in discussions of consciousness. That's another place where the distinction between science and philosophy can get lost. On the forum we see a lot of seems-to-me theories about consciousness that don't take the results of lots of fairly recent work into consideration.

Then there's the topic of monism, pluralism, dualism, idealism, physicalism and so on. At this point we just call these topics "metaphysical" ones, because I don't think these can be settled by empirical demonstrations. — Manuel

I don't think they can be settled at all in any global sense. My party line on metaphysical conceptions is that they are not true or false, they are more or less useful in different situations.

you might want to take a look at his An Outline of Philosophy — Manuel

I haven't had much luck with Russell in the past. I'll take another look.

Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover. — Wayfarer

The relationship between science and mathematics is one that perplexes me. This is an interesting quote. It has set me thinking.

it's never been to clear to me how much science should play a role, say, in metaphysics — Manuel

It's the other way around - metaphysics plays a role in science. It sets the ground rules. The scientific method is metaphysics. The Principle of Relativity we've been talking about is metaphysics.

They would kill. — SimpleUser

Yes. Kill the pig! Cut her throat! Spill her blood!

The anxiety over contingency is nonetheless a valid anxiety because without some necessary being - such as God - the drive towards the intelligibility of the universe, which is the foundational drive of science, hits a brick wall with existence itself, which remains radically unintelligible, without explanation, unless it is related in some way to necessary being. — Neil Ormerod, The Metaphysical Muddle of Lawrence Krauss

This is exactly right - the universe is ultimately radically unintelligible and without explanation. I'm cool with that.

That's not obvious. It sounds like your more a skeptic than I am — Gregory

This whole idea has been around for a long time. I didn't come up with it. The idea of God changing our memories has always been part of it.

The one we live IN. That is key. Do you appreciate how old 14 billions years is and how big trillions of light years of space is? There are things that are too old and too big for us to know anything about. That's my view and I think i have a good intuition of time and how causality can change over epochs. There are few things that I can say I know them for sure, but other writers on this forum think cosmology as understood nowadays is very highly reliable. I'm not convinced that is the case. One billion years can erase billions of traces of the casual series — Gregory

Whatever you believe, however skeptical you are, no matter how much you don't like it, science is explicitly and definitively built on the foundation of the Principle of Relativity. Those of us who accept and use the scientific method are fish swimming in the water of relativity. Perhaps you are the wise fisherman on the shore watching us in amusement as we swim around in our wrong-headedness.

Unless we're in a black hole. — frank

Or a bowl of Frosted Flakes. Or Silvester Stallone's back pocket. Or Kankakee Illinois.

They speculate anyway. Watch more PBS Space Time on the YouTube. — frank

Whether or not something exists outside our local space-time continuum, everything I've said about the Principle of Relativity relates this one here. The one where we live. If other continua exist outside this one, they may have very different laws and parameters.

When they talk about where the big bang came from, they're expanding the meaning of "universe". — frank

From the point of view of the Principle of Relativity, the universe we are talking about is the expanding space in which we live. It was created, according to widely accepted theory, during a big bang that happened about 14 billion years ago. We cannot, and may never be able to, know if there is anything beyond those limits.

He wrote that causality applies within the universe but not necessarily to the universe as a whole. — Gregory

I was mistaken. Since we had been talking about Hume's problem of induction, I assumed that's what you were referring.

Also, God could not have created the universe 3 seconds ago because I infallibly remember the universe existing since as far back as my memories go (age 3). So the universe from my perspective has certainly existed for 32 years, and possibly for much longer — Gregory

The obvious answer is that God could have created your memories along with all the rest of the universe.

Principles that must apply to things on earth (such that we can rewind causes to find an origin) don't apply to the universe at large. Aka, Hume's theory — Gregory

First off, your statement has nothing to do with the Problem of Induction as described by Hume.

What you have described is the Reverse Principle of Relativity - we can never know anything because everything changes everywhere and always. As I noted, you're welcome to that assumption, but it takes you outside of science. You have to play the science game by the science rules. As in the common example, God could have created the universe complete as we find it three seconds ago. In order to go about our business in the world, we assume that didn't happen.

Ok, I understand that foundational value of assuming the reliability of of certain laws of physics. Like axioms but so far infallibly reliable.
Does science actually operate under the assumption that the laws of physics will always be the same everywhere and always though? — DingoJones

This is from Einstein's original paper on Special Relativity:

Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”)

I thought that science would be open to them changing or operating differently somewhere in the universe, wherever the method takes them. Are you saying that it is necessary for science to assume that anything contradicting those foundational assumptions is erroneous and they should try and find data that supports those foundational assumptions? — DingoJones

Identified scientific laws have changed over the years as we've gained more knowledge. New laws are generated, e.g. the old Laws of Conservation of Matter and Conservation of Energy had to be revised following Special Relativity, which showed that matter and energy are the same thing. It became Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. That has always happened and will continue. The Principle of Relativity doesn't say that laws won't change. It says that whatever new laws are developed, they will apply everywhere.

I mentioned quantum mechanics because our understanding of physics breaks down the quantum level, and perhaps naively I thought of the quantum level as somewhere in the universe as well. That would contradict the portions I quoted of yours wouldn’t it? — DingoJones

I don't think this has anything to do with quantum mechanics. QM is just one more of those laws that apply everywhere.

I'd class the Principle of Relativity as a grammatical rule; that is, if we find a violation, then that means we've made a mistake - like finding both bishops on Black squares. — Banno

I'm not sure if that's different from what I'm saying or not.

What is the speed of light outside the universe? — Gregory

I don't know what, if anything, is going on outside our universe. My formulation of the Principle of Relativity specifically indicated it deals with what is going on in this universe. The one where we live that started expanding about 14 billion years ago.

if the universe turns inside out the speed of light changes. So the laws may not be the same for future eternity. — Gregory

I don't know what "the universe turns inside out" means.

I’m not sure that’s the case...”everywhere in the universe”? ”will be the same forever”?

Aren’t both of those disproven by quantum mechanics? How does science account for variables of what is surely a vast amount of knowledge we do NOT posses about the way the laws of physics work? — DingoJones

I'll respond without trying to fool you even once. As I said, this is an assumption. It underlies all of science. It hasn't been proven and can't really be. You skepticism is an instance of Hume's problem of induction. How do we know that induction is valid? We know it inductively by observing it's effectiveness. Ditto with the Principle of Relativity. We know it because that's how it's worked so far.

Coincidentally, I've just started reading a science fiction book, "The Three Body Problem." In it, physicists discover a violation of the principle. That's as far as I've gotten so far. Please - no spoilers.

I do have a specific point and have not changed my views. We know certain elements have specific effects but other things can have this as well. So we can know "so-and-so causes cancer" but not what happened millions of years ago because other things (call it a dragon, exotic matters, parallel worlds, God, or whatever) could have caused the effect ("now") other than the causes they assign to it — Gregory

It is a fundamental assumption of all science that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in our universe, have been the same since the universe began, and will be the same forever. This is no secret, it has been stated explicitly time and again. You are calling that into question. That's fine as far as it goes. Problem is, it seems to be working pretty well so far.

If you take this fundamental assumption away, you are no longer talking science. People aren't going to give you any credence unless you provide some reason to take your skepticism seriously - some reason that the assumption is wrong. I doubt you can do that.

You know what's really funny? The predictable reactionary posts, when the focus shifts from the topic to the person. It's the first sign of a failure of intelligence and the taking over of emotional hissies, as can be seen in your laced posts. But then finger pointing doesn't interest me so carry on. — skyblack

Your OP and subsequent posts are really condescending. Given that, you should expect unsympathetic responses.

In his constant effort to fix his problems by looking into the solutions proposed by the various brokers (Secular or Religious), it is clear the human has descended into a pattern of conformity, thus making the mind and the heart dull, insensitive, sluggish, blind, unresponsive, almost lifeless. A second hand machine at best, that constantly breaks down. — skyblack

This is from the Tao Te Ching, Verse 20, Stephen Mitchell's translation.

Stop thinking, and end your problems.
What difference between yes and no?
What difference between success and failure?
Must you value what others value,
avoid what others avoid?
How ridiculous!

Other people are excited,
as though they were at a parade.
I alone don't care,
I alone am expressionless,
like an infant before it can smile.

Other people have what they need;
I alone possess nothing.
I alone drift about,
like someone without a home.
I am like an idiot, my mind is so empty.

Other people are bright;
I alone am dark.
Other people are sharper;
I alone am dull.
Other people have a purpose;
I alone don't know.
I drift like a wave on the ocean,
I blow as aimless as the wind.

I think the sentiment here is similar to the one you expressing. The difference is that Lao Tzu feels compassion for the people he describes. You seem to feel contempt. You don't seem to like people very much.

At least this verse shows that the "conformity" you're talking about has been around for at least 2,500 years. More likely it's been around since before humans evolved. Some level of submission to a hierarchical system is probably necessary for large groups of people to live together.

The Tao Te Ching and other spiritual/religious paths offer the possibility of a more authentic approach to life. I think it's also possible for people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and find it for themselves.

How can such a burdened human ever be free to meet a new unknown moment. How will such a weighed consciousness penetrate the tenuous workings of their own mind, and that of the universe. — skyblack

How are you dealing with this problem for yourself?

That'll be because I haven't replied — Banno

Are you going to?

You're going to have to engage with the science, though, if you wish to have an opinion on anything from climate change through to viruses. Deliberately ignoring any science with political import would be absurd. — Banno

When we're trying to use science to develop policy, especially in an urgent situation like the pandemic, there comes a time when you have to make a decision. When that happens, the right choice is generally to follow the scientific consensus, even if it is imperfect.

I suppose there could be religious people who really, genuinely believe what they say. I just haven't met any. — baker

I have met many. Just because someone isn't as self-aware of their beliefs as you think they should be, I don't hold that against them. @Tom Storm wrote previously, most people don't really examine their beliefs and the consequences of them.

@Banno is wonderful. [irony]I don't care what everybody anybody says.[/irony]

You wrote this:

Would you guys please get back on topic? There's plenty of places to discuss race and god; this is a thread about science. At least make some attempt to relate the discussion to the OP, perhaps? — Banno

I responded this:

I don't understand. My posts have been all about science including the response to the pandemic in particular. I don't see how that is off topic at all. I went back and checked all my posts in this thread for the last 3 days and couldn't find anything about race or god. Did I miss one? — T Clark

I haven't seen a reply from you yet.

Would you guys please get back on topic? There's plenty of places to discuss race and god; this is a thread about science. At least make some attempt to relate the discussion to the OP, perhaps? — Banno

I don't understand. My posts have been all about science including the response to the pandemic in particular. I don't see how that is off topic at all. I went back and checked all my posts in this thread for the last 3 days and couldn't find anything about race or god. Did I miss one?

What have been the most worthwhile threads on the forums? — Banno

Obviously, the threads/posts I identify are the ones that have meant the most to me personally.

First - Beautiful Things. Sorry, it's one I started. I was surprised, more than surprised, at how much this one meant to me. A lot of other people I liked and respected contributed. I still go back from time to time to look at all the things people chose.

On the transition from non-life to life started by @javra three years ago. In that thread, @apokrisis recommended "Life's Ratchet," a book that changed the way I see life, science, and reality.

I don't remember the thread. In it @StreetlightX wrote some posts about how genes interact to express as traits. Again, it changed the way I think about how the world works - how complex processes interact to lead to unified systems.

I find most of western philosophy hard to take seriously sometimes. Needlessly complex, but unclear. In several threads, I was moved by how these guys - Kant, Schopenhaur, you know, those guys, had made big impacts on people's lives in very personal ways. I remember a couple of discussions with TimeLine in particular.

I've always liked @fdrake's posts about science and statistics. He can really cut through the crap.

I like @Wayfarer's posts. He and I seem to be trying to walk the same tightrope between science and inner experience. He definitely leaves me behind sometimes. A bit too...spiritual. That's not right. I'm not sure of the right word.

I do love my My favorite verses from the Tao Te Ching. It's slowed way down now, but I still plan to keep it chugging along.

An attempt to clarify my thoughts about metaphysics. Another of mine. In it, @tim wood steered me toward Collinwood's "An Essay on Metaphysics," which really has helped me with my understanding.

Geez, no fair responding to my posts from deep in the past. I've probably changed my mind since then.

He finally admitted it after a year denying it, and there has been no new evidence. The evidence was there all along, as were the many reputable scientists pointing that out all year. All that's changed is that the MSM can no longer keep a lid on the truth. — fishfry

I'm not knowledgeable enough to respond in any detail. Here is a summary from Newsweek that summarizes Fauci's comments on the origin. His comments seem straightforward and reasonable to me. Of course Newsweek is part of the "MSM."

In terms of the response, not much difference at all. — fishfry

That's what matters to me. That's where the science has made a difference.

In terms of preventing the next similar incident, it makes all the difference in the world. — fishfry

Agreed. I am skeptical of your contention that there is any intended coverup.

The Federalist has a conservative take on the news, but I would not call them a knee-jerk right-wing rag, — fishfry

I repeat - they endorsed and promoted the stolen election story. They denied the seriousness of the Covid pandemic. Nuff said.

unless you also admitted that by the same criterion, the NYT is a knee-jerk left-wing rag. — fishfry

I do not consider the NYT an unbiased source of information on the political ramifications of this issue and others.

Panic and hysteria are never appropriate responses. — fishfry

What you call "panic and hysteria" I call a reasonable and fairly effective response to the situation. To the extent it wasn't, that was caused by political interference by the Republican Party in general and Donald Trump in particular.

John Kass wrote a piece about this. The Wuhan Story That Finally Has Legs, Now That Trump Is Gone — fishfry

I read the article and found it unconvincing. The fact that you seem to find the origin story more important than the response story does not make sense to me.

This is very important in a thread about the goodness of science. — fishfry

Now that's science. It can feed you or gas you to death. It can cure your disease, or give you a disease that you otherwise wouldn't have gotten. Science is a double-edged sword. — fishfry

I was commenting on several specific comments you made about the Covid response, not on the value of science. In my previous posts I have expressed concerns about the possible consequences of scientific "progress."

Banned Zenny for refusing moderation by repeatedly posting off-topic posts in the religion thread — Baden

Gonna ban me too?

empirically right. — 180 Proof

I'm not sure what that means.

I’m always suspicious of people who “wear their religion on their sleeves” — praxis

I'm not.

No, it's not true. That's been established as far as I'm concerned. Nothing racist was said. The accusations were false. As for the rest, read what I wrote and stop being a drama queen. Or if you must, take it to the other thread. — Baden

So then, the answer is "yes." If I don't say the things you want, you will stop me from writing in this thread.

The religious are not an ethnic group. And if you think their ideas should be protected then the same principle applies to the ideas of those who reject religion. If you have any other complaints, you can start a feedback thread or send a PM but your comparison is invalid. — Baden

It's not clear to me. Are you threatening to stop my posts on this subject?

For the record - @baker wrote that few Christians actually believe in God. I responded describing my experience in the southern US. @180 Proof responded describing the characteristics of white southerners in his usual extravagant way - with lots of bolded words and insults. Then I responded saying that you and your co-ideologs would not allow that to be said about any group other than whites, which is true. I never mentioned religious prejudice, as you incorrectly stated.

I'll ask again, are you threatening to shut down my voice because I don't toe your party line.

@Tom Storm and @baker said not many religious followers actually believe in God. I said that is not true. I don't see how anything you've written has any relevance to that.

@Baden and his social justice posse would shut down a post like yours for any ethnic or racial group other than white people. The kind of contempt you show goes a long way toward explaining the political problems we have in the US these days and the popularity of Donald Trump.

It describes the scenario here for many, but I never said 'all'. — Tom Storm

You and @Baker have agreed that not many religious followers actually believe in God. I think my criticism is reasonable.

Not everyone is like the 'Muricans. — baker

But I think we can all agree they should be.

I disagree that science continues to be ‘the injured party’(‘but they started it!’), and I also disagree that science has the answer - it simply has a plausible theory, a way forward. Science has claimed ‘limitless clean energy’ before and been wrong, and has claimed ‘the solution’ before and caused irreparable damage, so anything that sounds too good to be true and relies on claims of singularity or infinity needs to be recognised as an ideology: an affected (positive/negative) spin from a limited perspective on available data. — Possibility

This is well put.

For one, I doubt that many who profess to believe in such an external powerful entity actually believe in it. I know many monotheists, but there isn't a single one for which I could confidently say that they actually believe in God. — baker

I have often thought this too, but for different reasons. Religions are social clubs and come with a set of 'off the rack' beliefs, so you don't need to work at independent thought. God 'belief' is the price you pay for admittance and because the idea is ineffable, you need not engage with it. — Tom Storm

This is laughable. Do you know any religious people? I spent some time in the southern USA a few years ago. Down there, they wear their religion on their sleeves more than people in the north. I was always moved by how big a influence religion and God had in their lives. You can see they look to them for guidance on a daily basis. It is unpremeditated and sincere.

I ran across a video of a woman being tased for refusing to put on a mask. — fishfry

What does this have to do with the issue we are discussing?

Fauci finally admitted that covid might have a lab origin. — fishfry

First - No, he did not admit that Covid might have a lab origin. He became open to the possibility based on new evidence. Second - In terms of how the pandemic has been handled here, what difference does it make where it came from?

This morning The Federalist ran a long piece about how sensible independent thought regarding the origin of covid was systematically suppressed. — fishfry

Again, what difference does it make in terms of our pandemic response? Also, "The Federalist" is a knee-jerk right-wing rag. They've spread misinformation about Covid from the start and promoted the stolen election lie.

Most of what comes from our authorities these days is absolute bullshit. I can't understand the mindset of people who uncritically accept everything without question. — fishfry

As I wrote previously, I've been impressed by how well the US responded to the pandemic, even given the jerky start and all the zig-zags. A lot of those missteps came from right-wing political sources like "The Federalist." I think you are a reverse conspiracy theorist. It's not that people are conspiring to do bad things, it's that people are conspiring not to do good things.

A method to share a ideology, not to force it upon others.
A way that is accepting to expand awareness or knowledge in this modern day. — Tiberiusmoon

I think it is not possible without coercion.