That's alright, I never understood the point of your responses from the start of the present conversation.

See how interesting the topic is? — frank

It may be interesting in the context of the history of ideas. I know Christianity absorbed and repurposed some Neoplatonic ideas, but there is no personal God in Neoplatonism, so the central plank is derived from elsewhere.

He had multiple proofs of God. Aquinas' proofs are modeled on them. The Christian founders approved of the use of ancient Greek philosophers in Christian thinking. What's your expert opinion on that? — frank

I already told I don't have expert opinions. I know Aristotle had multiple proofs of a first cause, a "designer", I just don't remember what they all were, and I can't be bothered looking them up. How about you present them and then we can discuss. I don't believe they were arguments for God as conceived by the Christian founders, but I am aware that they were adapted by the latter to support their Christian theology.

Anyway, I'm not seeing the relevance to this thread. I understand philosophy to be about questioning all and any presuppositions, apart from the most basic general ones which make it possible at all, so perhaps in the time of the Greeks, there were those kinds of basic presuppositions for them, which are no longer part of our contemporary set, and if so, that would amount to a "shared context of faith". Our overarching contemporary shared context of faith is not in question, it cannot be, because it is necessary for any discussion at all to proceed.

Aristotle made proofs of God as well. What's your expert opinion on that? — frank

I don't have an "expert opinion" since I am not a scholar of Ancient Greek philosophy, but the argument from first causes, for example, presupposes the ancient Greek understanding of causation. Also, unless I am mistaken, Aristotle did not argue for a personal creator God, but for a "Prime Mover" or demiurge.

Scholastic philosophers taught the skill of argumentation by having students create proofs of God on their own, and their arguments would be critiqued. For a newbie, it's very fertile ground. It's like a philosophy gymnasium. — frank

Sure, but that is "a shared context of faith": scholastic philosophers presupposed the validity of orthodox theology.

For example, Anselm's 'ontological argument' presupposes faith, and in its presentation of it he makes that explicit.

You put it much more succinctly than I did. — Mikie

:cool:

The thread has generated some rich discussions. I love that we can put things out here and be open to revising our thinking and, where necessary, tweak, or change our views. This is what philosophy is about. — Tom Storm

:100:

I don't think so. I think you really are missing the point of unenlightened's post. Questions about divinity and Christianity aren't as simple as you're making them out to be. I would encourage you to delve into them and find out. — frank

Treating religious stories as literature, which may convey wisdom, as any good literature may, is not the same as arguing pointlessly over the existence of God or gods or the reality of ideas like karma or rebirth.

Those ideas may have their place in theology or discussion within the context of shared faith, but not in philosophy, whereas the practical human wisdom (phronesis) which may be exemplified in literature, including religious scriptures, does have a place in philosophy.

That's my take, anyway, which makes the criticism @unenlightened levelled against @MIkie seem inapt to me.

Perhaps its your assessment/interpretation of my postings that cause you to judge my viewpoints as simplistic. That's not my problem, it's more your inability to interpret my postings in the same way I do.
I fully accept that this is a very common circumstance, that we have no choice but to each endure in our own way. — universeness

If I misunderstood you, and you are not condemning religion holus bolus, then perhaps we have no argument after all.

:kiss:

When it comes to politics and economy, very much so. — javra

Do you mean important for determining what will come about in politics and economy, or determining the truth or determining whether there is a truth?

In any case the issue was whether or not material prosperity is necessary for happiness or will necessarily make those who have it happier than those who don't. In that connection the issue of what actually will happen politically and economically seems irrelevant.

You're addressing poetic truths. I'm addressing the technicality of reality. No person is devoid of ego, of I-ness - unless they happen to be comatose. Besides, I haven't commented on what you should do with your life. Please don't comment on what I should do with mine. — javra

I'm not addressing poetic truths but the question of whether an attitude of openness is more likely to lead to happiness than an attitude of closedness. Also I don't agree that no person is devoid of ego; I think it is possible, and some of the reports of people like Ramana Maharshi reinforce that opinion. I don't claim to know for sure that it is possible, but then in order to know it is impossible I would have to know everyone on the planet, which is itself impossible.

I have encountered people with varying degrees of ego-focus, some intensely egotistical and others seemingly with little (I won't say no) ego, and that was why I suggested getting out more. I think it is most likely a spectrum, from extreme egotism to none.

It directly addresses identity of being. You rely on a theory of identity based on memory: — javra

That's because I understand identity as being an idea; I don't think anyone actually is an identity; I think that is an illusion based on the fact of difference, which makes people identifiable. Identifiability is as far as identity goes in my view. Anyway, it doesn't bother me if you don't want to discuss it further.

Well there are conceptual or abstract entities: for example numbers or generalities. An entity as I use the term is anything identifiable, whether concrete or abstract.

'Being' for me is a verb, not a noun, an a tivity or process, not a substance. So be-ing is an activity that goes along with thinking, feeling, experien ing,

Isn't this where Kant's theory of transcendental apperception comes in? Which is designated in Kant as the transcendental ego, and was also accepted by Husserl. — Quixodian

Right, but I don't accept the idea myself: I think it is underdetermined, and that it seems more plausible to think that there is a primordial sense of self associated with the body's perceived difference from the rest of the world, and that sense gets transformed in thought into the "master" thought of "I".

The other point is that the idea of an actual transcendental ego is meaningless without thinking it as a transcendent substance, which would take us back to Cartesian dualism, and if we think of it as just an idea, then it is no different than the idea of a "master-idea-as-self". Such an idea would then be transcendental only in the sense that it is not empirically observable, but then no thoughts are, so in that sense all thoughts would be transcendental.

:cool:

Finally, it's not a matter of knowing that we exist (Descartes cogito). It's a brute fact that's not in need of justification. What would it mean to even doubt one's existence? Explaining this would take us into Wittgenstein. — Sam26

As I understand it Kant asserted that every thought is. implicitly at least, an "I think", but he does not take this to entail that the I is something, a substantial entity, that is itself something more than a thought. Kant saw the I as a kind of master thought that is implicit in all the others.

It is not a matter of doubting our own existence, but of knowing what we are. the most immediate certainty is that there is thought, sensation, feeling, experience. It does not follow that there is any substantial entity thinking, sensing, feeling, experiencing,

:up:

My old friend Wayfarer would have agreed with me... maybe not. — T Clark

Yes, well he's become...quixotic...

Yes — if this were India I’d be saying the same things about Brahman and Hinduism.

Thanks for reading the OP and not simply reacting to what you think the OP is saying. Appreciated. — Mikie

Cheers, I appreciate the appreciation.

All religion can be used for nefarious purposes and can destroy peoples lives. — universeness

In that case, don't take a simplistic view, but instead a nuanced one, and condemn the nefarious purposes and not religion as a whole. It's pretty obvious that most things in human life have both positive and negative aspects.

In your first part I understand you to mean you think religious votaries should be confined to interactions with other religious votaries. I see this as a partial curtailment of free speech. — ucarr

It may not have been clear, but I wasn't advocating judicial curtailments of discussion; I was merely saying that in my opinion theology is not a part of general philosophy; they are separate disciplines for good reason.

Most I think would not find the openness of someone who is homeless and starving to be a happier, or else more preferable, state than the closedness of someone who is a multimillionaire. — javra

Do you think that what "most" think is important? That aside, I haven't said anything about different economic conditions as related to happiness, but now that you've brought it up, I doubt there is a clear correlation between economic prosperity and happiness. I'm sure there have been studies conducted that you could consult if you are interested.

Because such openness can result in the absence of egoic interests? I’ve yet to witness this, even in examples such as that of Mother Teresa or of Gandhi, and find it exceedingly unrealistic. — javra

The openness I'm speaking about is the absence of egoic interests. If you haven't encountered that in people, all I can suggest is that you get out more. Did you perchance know Mother Theresa and Gandhi personally?

I disagree with the rest, but don’t want to turn the thread into a discussion on the logic of reincarnation. — javra

I don't see why not since this thread has hardly been a paragon of staying on topic, and I wouldn't see such a discussion as being off-topic anyway. @Mikie was not just addressing God and Christianity, which should be clear if you read the OP. If you want to argue for reincarnation, then you must think it is special, so have at it...or not...but if not, then be honest and say you don't want to instead of hiding behind the excuse that it would be off-topic.

You won't be surprised to learn that I agree with you, by and large. I maybe have some small things I would argue, but by and large, I'm of agreement. — Noble Dust

You are right I'm not surprised at all. :smile: :cool:

I want to point out that the same should be said for all those who uphold the existential finality of worldly death. — javra

What we do in this life is more than just about this life; its very much also about what follows. — javra

To give better context to this, for one example, one of the pragmatic benefits to belief in reincarnation (its reality or lack of here overlooked) is that one cares about the world one helps to produce today because it will be the world into which one will be birthed into tomorrow. — javra

In direct contrast to this, if one were to reason with “all I am vanishes with my death”, then there is no valid reason to give a shit about others that will live tomorrow. — javra

I think there should be motive enough for extending what one cares about beyond the self in the fact that caring only for the self is an attitude based on a self-protective closing off to the rest of life, whereas caring about others and even about all life is based on being relaxed and open to whatever life brings to the self. The first is a shrinking away and the second is an opening up, and I don't think it takes much imagination or intelligence to be able to recognize which is the happier state.

I agree therefore that what one does is about more than just this present life of one's own, it's about what follows in this life for others. So the focus is still on this life, not on an imagined afterlife.

The problem with the idea of rebirth is that concern about one's own state, whether in this life or the next, is an impediment to the kind of openness I'm talking about. And with the Buddhist model, there is even less motivation given that, even if is there is rebirth, we don't remember our past lives, so from the individual egoic perspective there would be no more connection between me in this life and 'me' in the next life than there would be between me in this life and anybody else in the next life. So, in short, I don't see how egoic concerns about one's rebirth could reasonably be any kind of motivation; I think such stories would only work on those who don't think about it much, and I doubt it would lead to any genuine openness anyway.

So that means that you accept that x = not-x, or a tree = not-a-tree. I’m sorry but there’s no greater reduction than that, saying that a thing is not what it is. — ItIsWhatItIs

No, it does not follow that if something is defined in terms of not being something else, that it is that thing. In fact, it's precisely the opposite, the tree is defined, not only in terms of what it is, but what it is not.

It’s quite simple actually... do multiple things make up a relation? If so, what’s the fewest amount of things that can form a relation? If you don’t get the question now, then, yeah, I think that you’re just being difficult, l.o.l.. Yet that’s no problem. — ItIsWhatItIs

I understood it that time. In theory something could have a relation with just one other thing, but I doubt that is possible in actuality. Take anything you like: I think the relations that thing has with other things cannot be quantified.

So, you’re saying thar the definition of “x” includes “not-‘x,’” or the definition of tree includes not-tree? — ItIsWhatItIs

Yes.

I wasn't suggesting that irreligious philosophers are not interested in arguing their viewpoint against religion when they are presented with claims that religious beliefs can be justified by logic; I meant that they have no interest in religion itself.

I personally think that religious discussion should be confined to religion, and as you should know from my posting history I have no argument with people's personal religious beliefs, but when they seek to justify those beliefs in a public forum then they make themselves fair game.

I do think that all the ontological and cosmological arguments for religious beliefs are dismal failures, and I also doubt that anyone is really motivated to religious belief by those kinds of arguments.

The claim that there is a "taboo" against religion is, in my view, a lame apologetic. It is a kind of ad hominem that suggest that people are blinkered by introjected social taboos, and that if only they could get past their blind spots, they would become religious. I think that is not only nonsense but is an insult to the intelligence of those who simply do not have any motivation to religious belief.

People are led to religious belief by personal experiences, which they have every right to consider as evidence for them—but have no justification to consider as evidence for others who do not share their experiences and/ or interpretations of such experiences.

No, that's not what I meant. I meant what I said - there's a taboo on ideas associated with religious philosophy. — Quixodian

That's because religious philosophy only has meaning to the religious, it's not so much a taboo as a rejection based on lack of interest on the part of the irreligious. Why should religious people be concerned with trying to convince others of their intersubjectively groundless convictions?

Sorry, but, no. I mean exactly what I asked: according to you, is there a relation wherein the number of members can’t possibly decrease, i.e., a “smallest possible relation”? If so, how many things comprise it, i.e., is it in the single, double, or however many, digits? — ItIsWhatItIs

Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, but the question is incoherent to me: I cannot get any conceptual grasp on it.

A lot of this turns what you mean precisely by “polar opposite,” & yet that’s ultimately unimportant, so allow me to ask you: does the definition of “x” include “not-‘x?’” — ItIsWhatItIs

From memory and roughly paraphrased, Hegel said something like "every determination is a determinate negation". So a tree, for example, is defined as much by what it is not as what it is. It is not a shrub, or a mountain, a river, or an animal. This is how the game of "twenty questions" proceeds.

I appreciate the effort to give a least a small benefit of the doubt.

It’s not a waste of time for believers. That’s theology— which is fine by me. — Mikie

Right, I should have explicitly included that, but I understood that was implicit in what I said, since I think that part of religious practice includes, or at least should include, since we should want to exercise our intelligenece as much as possible in relation to any of our practices, theology.

How does this not then apply to the metaphysical conviction that anything which some might deem “spiritual” – such as the belief that death to this world does not equate to an absolute cessation of personal being – can only be baloney?

After all: materialism, too, is but only a metaphysical conviction. — javra

That conviction is fine for individuals to hold, but should not affect our political or economic lives, which are rightly only concerned with the life that is evident— this life.

Why the hell not? What could be more constructive than undermining BAD personal convictions? — BC

If they are socially harmful convictions then, sure. Or if people want to discuss their convictions with others who don't share them, then that's fair game too, because it is then not undermining, but simply presenting alternative perspectives, which is what the person seeking discussion is surely asking for. Beyond those caveats, I don't see anything positive, I only see arrogance, in trying to control what others believe.

To be fair, I don't really care either way too. I'm just providing an alternative to the EP assumptions. — schopenhauer1

Going back to the OP, I agree that EP, in its extreme from is implausible. I don't buy the idea that the genesis of every social phenomenon can somehow be comprehensively explained in terms of its being reproductively advantageous.

It's like you see mating strategies in birds and mammals and you say, "We are mammals, so therefore we must have mating strategies like the other animals." — schopenhauer1

Right, but I haven't been saying that; I have been, more modestly, saying that given our animal ancestry and our hormonal commonalities with animals, it is plausible to think that there remains a basic, animal, instinctive component to human sexuality, which would mean that it is primordially other-oriented. In just the same way as our basic sociality is not plausibly thought to be, by me at least, to be entirely socio-culturally constructed.

Philosophy used to be under the aegis of religion, now it has become secular, which really just amounts to becoming concerned with this world rather than some imagined afterlife or higher realm.

This is in general how modern Western civilization has gone too, and the changes in philosophical approaches reflect that. We cannot project ourselves back into the philosophical shoes of the medievals and the ancients, to attempt that would be anachronistic.

Religious voices don't stand much of a chance here on the forum. Anything that shows even mild respect for religious ideas is attacked and ridiculed. Proselytization is much more likely to come from the atheist side than from believers. — T Clark

I think you're exaggerating.

I don’t think religion is a waste of time
— Mikie

It’s a waste of time.
— Mikie — BC

How about some nuance, some context? I think @Mikie means that talk about religion and Gods is a waste of time, not that practicing religion is, for the faithful, a waste of time. No doubt he will correct me if I have misrepresented his view.

There can be no evidence of such a thing
— Janus

From the theistic perspective, the Universe is the evidence. — Quixodian

The Universe cannot be evidence of anything other than what studying it reveals. Studying it has not revealed that there is a governing intelligence. Lawlike behavior is observed, but we don't know what the explanation for that is, or even if any explanation for it is possible.

There's an interesting internet anecdote about a well-known atheist philosopher, now deceased, by the name of Antony Flew, who's convictions were changed towards the end of his life by this very observation. There are large numbers of respected scientists who share the conviction. It's not empirically demonstrable, but then, it's not an empirical question (although of course for positivism, if it's not an empirical question, then it's nonsensical.) — Quixodian

I'm not clear which observation you are referring to.

Personally, I am never impressed by the fact that many intelligent people are devout Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or anything else. I would never try to undermine anyone's personal convictions, but I don't believe anyone's personal convictions that something is the case, metaphysically speaking, can constitute good evidence for it being the case. I also don't believe that many people having a certain personal metaphysical conviction is good evidence for the truth of the conviction. To say it is evidence would be an argument from authority, and we all know such arguments are fallacious.

Let's hope I said what I was trying to say then. — Srap Tasmaner

Perhaps that's all any of us can reasonably hope for.

The question of whether there is a "governing intelligence of the Cosmos" is answerable only by faith. There can be no evidence of such a thing, which means that, absent any personal feeling that there is such a thing, there could be no reason to believe it. Personal feelings may satisfy the criterion of evidence for the individual with the feeling but cannot constitute evidence for anyone else.

How do you suggest we help those who continue to be manipulated by any pernicious uses of theism? — universeness

Anti-religion and its concerns are as much a distraction from what really matters as religion and its concerns. You don't need to worry about saving anyone.

There are substantive philosophical questions entailed by religious belief. — Quixodian

People do say that, and yet they never seem to be able to say just what those substantive philosophical questions are. I don't see why religion has anything more to do with philosophy than any other cultural phenomenon.

I agree with everything you've said there, particularly this:

As I've said, I think the big lesson of the last hundred and fifty years is that we're apes that wear clothes. — Srap Tasmaner

If that lesson were more generally taken on board, with the realization that we are not as god-like as we like to believe, I think we would have a better chance of dealing with the real problems we currently collectively face.

The problem is, we have very little we can test for adult behaviors that are not already pre-determined culturally. — schopenhauer1

For that we need to look at the few primal cultures still around and at animal, particularly primate, behavior in order to get an idea of what is predominately culturally determined and what is not. Of course, the other aspect of this question is as to whether it really matters very much, and whether it is not a distraction from what does matter.

I suspect your underlying motivation for wanting to believe that sexuality is entirely culturally conditioned is your attachment to anti-natalism. In a couple of ways I'm a kind of anti-natalist myself: firstly, for myself I never wanted nor had (as far as I know) children, and secondly, I think overpopulation is a huge component of the problems we currently face, so I would encourage people not to reproduce, but to adopt children from the less prosperous regions, for that reason. But, that a whole other can of worms.

Which would comprise what, exactly? Transformed how? Into what? — Quixodian

Into whatever the nature of the human organism makes possible. Into a less self-obsessed, egocentric state of mind. Into a less anxious, more open state. Into a less conventionally constrained, more creative state. Into a less angry, more loving state. Into a less competitive, more cooperative state. Into a less acquisitive, more inquisitive state. Into a less dogmatic, more uncertain and open state.

Vervaeke says here and elsewhere that he's committed to naturalism, but that he doesn't accept materialist reductionism. — Quixodian

I don't see materialism as a bogeyman as you apparently do. For me the reductive face of materialism shows itself in the claim that everything can be adequately explained in terms of physics, an obviously absurd claim which I don't think anyone with any understanding would make. In the sciences we see emergent hierarchies, and the lower do provide the foundations for the higher, but it certainly doesn't follow that the higher can be exhaustively explained or adequately described in terms of the lower.

When it comes to personal transformation, what is possible is determined by the nature of the brain/body. So, one can alter their state of mind in the ways I listed above regardless of one's ontological opinions or commitments and regardless of whether one even bothers to worry about whether this ism or that ism is the truer to some imagined "ultimate" reality.

That said, some people may find certain ideas more congenial and thus more enabling than others, but that is a matter for the individual; there are no general rules. Diversity is the only rule.

Unlike you, I don't believe that enlightenment or ego loss are philosophical matters. As Hadot tells us the old philosophical schools had different sets of ideas, which were unquestioned; their purpose being to provide a framework and inspiration for the practice of spiritual exercises. I don't believe such a thing is possible these days, and I also don't think such frameworks are necessary for personal transformation.

According to you, is there a smallest possible relation? — ItIsWhatItIs

Do you mean relations between the smallest possible things?

They actually do, just no novel information.

There’s no way to argue that “X = X” can’t express “the nature” of “X,” granted that it doesn’t express any (relatively) new information about it. — ItIsWhatItIs

I think that the only information about things is given by their relations, not by their identity. Identity itself is nothing without difference.

Is what’s “not relative to any other or context” conceivable? If not, why do you speak on something that’s not thought? — ItIsWhatItIs

But the absolute is thought as the polar opposite to the relative.

Or are you saying that any relationship excludes a thing from being “absolute”? — ItIsWhatItIs

I'm saying that the nature of anything which depends on its relations with other things is relative, not absolute. In philosophy, historically speaking, the only entity which qualified as absolute was the Absolute: namely God, because God was thought to be the only being whose existence did not depend on anything else.

That's why I think it's so important to find a basis of real values other than continued growth and economic improvement. But there's nothing necessarily within liberal democracy or naturalism which provides a basis for that, other than better technology and engineering. Like, there's no rationale corresponding to the role that mokṣa plays in Hinduism. — Quixodian

These days I tend to think that religion is the last thing we need to motivate interest in ecology and economic fairness. The idea of karma justifies people being in poor circumstances, the idea of a God playing favorites does the same and any notion of being rewarded in an afterlife devalues this life and demotivates interest with the problems of this life.

Catholicism, notably, is guilty of working against the provision of contraceptives where they are most sorely needed, and many religions condemn abortion, which contributes to over-population and social problems. Christianity in general has promoted the idea of human exceptionalism, and that this world was created by God just for us to use as we see fit provided, we have faith in the Lord, which I think has been, and probably still is, a major part of the problem.

Some religious orders fight against the very sensible idea of teaching ethics in schools, probably for fear that they will become redundant if people realize that ethics can stand on its own. I don't go as far as to say that religion ought to be banned, or that enlightened thinkers should actively work against religion: I think that would be counterproductive given the perversity of human nature, but I think that solutions, if they can be found, will have nothing at all to do with religion.

These social, economic and ecological problems are, after all, secular political issues which require social, economic and ecological solutions. I also think one of the most important positive influences would be ensuring that as many people as possible receive a good grounding in science, because it is only from the sciences, including psychology and sociology that we can expect the much-needed solutions.

So, in general I have much more sympathy for individuals finding their own set of spiritual values and much less time for organized religion, which always seems to become corrupted by power, just as it happens in politics and finance. I don't care what people believe provided it doesn't interfere with their giving first priority to this life, which includes all life.

i.e. adolescence of the species ... — 180 Proof

I think that is a good analogy. Obsession with personal spiritual growth, in some of its forms and in relation to some of its attendant beliefs, seems to be, ironically, egoically or fear driven.

Our interest in and capacity for sex is down to its reproductive function, and hence an obvious result of natural selection. — Srap Tasmaner

It seems we part company here, as I don't believe our interest in sex is entirely down to its reproductive function. Sexual interest can be cultivated or allowed to languish, like any other habit. I agree that the existence of sex in the first place is down to reproductive function, but that is almost tautologically, and hence trivially, true. I think we also agree that sexual desire is in part hormonal and in part conditioned by socio-cultural influences.

I think we are addressing different questions. I agree that sexual activity in animals is, and has been, driven by reproduction on account of natural selection. My point was that with the advent of more effective contraception the reproduction and the desire for sex are separable. It seems likely that some have an instinctive desire for children and others not.