*1. Accidentalism is a philosophical theory that some events occur without a cause, or that events can happen by chance or haphazardly. It's related to other theories such as indeterminism and tychism. ___Google AI overview — Gnomon

An aside. One of the problems for me is the emotional ladenness of this kind of wording. 'Accident' is already contrived as unfortunate. 'Chance' and 'haphazard' also sound like they have a criticism built into the very wording. It's a way of wrapping it all up as 'meaningful' versus 'dumb luck'... Essentially a William Lane Craig move.

The term "natural laws" also carries the implication of a lawmaker, illustrating how our choice of language can guide us toward specific conclusions and shape a realm of imaginative possibilities. Similarly, the word "design" implies the presence of a designer, though it might more accurately be described as something that 'appears' to exhibit design when viewed from a particular perspective.

I'm not an academic in this field of cosmology, so I won't allow myself the luxury to speculate on things only a handful of experts can understand.

It often feels to me that these kinds of arguments come from former devout Muslim or Christians who in the deconstruction of their faith need to salvage some notions of teleological purpose, but frame them in a scientific language to, perhaps, feel less embarrassed about the conclusion.

No

No, it was a gradual change, which is why I have insisted here that the difference between philosophical and other modes of expression has to be understood in terms of a spectrum involving qualities auch as depth and comprehensiveness of articulation. — Joshs

I understand. But you appear to have a high intelligence and an innate capacity for speculative thought and high theory. I'm not sure how common this is. Hell, you even know how to read Heidegger :wink:

:rofl:

Speaking of 'elitism', did you ever happen upon John Fowles foray into philosophy, The Aristos? I only read it once, many years ago, but it left an impression. — Wayfarer

Yes, thanks for reminding me. I read it in the mid 1980's and it made an impact.

That is true and that’s a shameful failure of philosophy. The way I see it, wisdom can and does come from anywhere, from anyone at any moment. It’s always a surprise. Wisdom is not merely some reward for the philosopher, or even the mystic. — Fire Ologist

Sure. When I said elitist, it wasn't meant as adverse criticism, more of a context.

I wonder if philosophy is too sprawling an enterprise to narrow it down to wisdom or self-awareness. Not that it can't be those.

I'm more interested in questions of epistemology and metaphysics and those are pretty much off limits unless you are a serious reader and thinker. How many people can truly gain a useful reading of Heidegger or Deleuze, say? Or Kant?

As for wisdom - most of the really wise I have known have not been big readers. They have tended to have a disposition that allows for accumulating wisdom directly through personal experience.

I rather like to think that philosophy is concerned with reality as lived. It's in that sense that it is concerned with the nature and meaning of being rather than the study of what can be objectively assessess and measured. — Wayfarer

This is an interesting strand. I suspect that philosophy is unattainable for most people who lead lives where the barriers to philosophy are significant and sometimes insurmountable. We're never going to understand the difficult problems or comprehend works by significant thinkers. The barriers might be culture, time, priorities, available energy, disposition, lack of education, capacity to engage with the unfamiliar and the complex, etc.

There is something essentially elitist about philosophy, inasmuch as only those with sharp minds and time can really formulate theorised responses to the issues. And sure, all this doesn't stop people from doing the best they can with what they have, but there's a big difference between having read a Camus novel and having a substantive understanding of the subject. As we so often see on this site.

I'm not convinced that even having a smattering of philosophy is helpful. Dare I raise the lamentable matter of the Dunning Kruger effect... That said, I'm not arguing against philosophy, I'm just noting some limitations.

Or... maybe I'm full of shit and we are all fucked. — Fooloso4

That gave me a good laugh. Thanks.

For someone like me, philosophy can only ever be a type of curiosity about what others might be thinking - esp metaphysics and epistemology. I am unlikely ever to get a worthwhile reading of Heidegger, say, or the aforementioned Gerson (whose lectures I have enjoyed). So for me, it's about getting a better overview, especially regarding the ideas which don't instantly resonate with me. I am really keen to better understand ideas I am not drawn to as this may be a clue about what I might need to develop. Someone else out there has to do the mind numbing work on logic and language as well.

It’s a cultural issue. That excerpt basically says that academic philosophy is no longer concerned with deep philosophy, but with the minutia of technicalities. — Wayfarer

This may well be accurate, but it seems to me that the word philosophy is an umbrella term for a range of activities, from the liberating and poetic, to the stultifying and administrative. But most of it probably needs to be tackled and not everyone has the disposition or capacity to embrace each domain of the disciple.

It is the assumption that I question. I think it has more to do with dissatisfaction with the economy, the way they believe the country is going, and a belief that Trump will fix it; or, that any change will be better than what we have now. — Fooloso4

I've watched this from a distance, so I don't really know what happened. A lot of comment on this election result seems to focus on questions of perception. It's payback for the neoliberal elites, sneering at the uneducated in the fly over states; it's perceptions of the economy tanking when it is actually doing ok; it's moral panic - a nation at risk of transgender reassignment; It's a choice between more neoliberalism or embracing an exciting wrecking crew that will dismantle the entrenched old guard.

To what extent was this election driven by a declining faith in established systems and a demand for bold, culture-busting reforms symbolized by Trump? And, if this is the case, is this driven by intensifying polarization and a clash of worldviews?

Quantum mechanics seems to be intelligible via mathematics and it certainly seems to be based on observations of phenomena. — Janus

Ok. I'm not a physicist, but I am reminded of the famous Feynman quote, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

Is there not also a difference between science's predictive success versus knowing why?

I think they already do explain their respective phenomenal fields, although perhaps not to the satisfaction of some who demand total unity and comprehensiveness. — Janus

Yes, I suppose this works. I'm curious what others might say. It seems to be a tendentious area.

Give it time and it might explain these phenomena. — jgill

Is that a faith based position? :wink:

I don't see why it needs such a presupposition. Humans have found that nature is intelligible. — Janus

Interesting. Does nature include quantum mechanics and consciousness?

I might say something like "Trying to find a reasonable middle ground between unsustainable foundationalist claims about knowledge and the complete abandonment of rationality and values." — J

Nice.

Science relies for its practice on no particular metaphysical beliefs. — Janus

Doesn't it rest upon a metaphysical presupposition that reality can be understood?

That seems like an odd comment to make. As it happens I've spent 30 years working with people on the fringes, including Aboriginal Australians and people what are homeless. None of them have watches or clocks. Their main fear of death is annihilation, not being remembered and a fear of being judged.

I don't understand your statement.

We are only concerned with mortality if we are concerned with time. — I like sushi

Maybe. I'm not sure. Say some more. For me people also seem to have a fear of oblivion or a fear of the unknown. Some even fear judgement and suffering after death. I've met many in this camp.

:up:

Not propaganda, just hypocritical nonsense, I think, designed to support the emotional responses to politicians you abhor. I was guilty of doing this, as a 'democrat', for like a decade. — AmadeusD

I don't like any politicians.

What I am looking for is an answer to the quesion is it true when commentators say -

...he has zero convictions and merely harnesses the fears and bigotries of the unsophisticated to propel his movement. — Tom Storm

claim to be an astronomer. I don;'t know what a tensor equation is. Answers the OP?

I claim to be an adherent Buddhist, but I compete in Jiu jitsu, having broken several limbs and am somewhat proud of that fact. Answers the OP?

Self identification must be the weakest defence for someone meeting a criteria which others must share. — AmadeusD

I see why you might argue this but I disagree with aspects of your approach. I'm also not making that argument and I said many not 'all'.

If you say you are an astronomer or a doctor (something highly technical and measurable) then self-identification alone is clearly inadequate. Not all identities are built on the same foundational footing.

But the issue with a religious belief is that there is no clear way to identify what's valid and what's not. Who wants to get into the 'no true Scotsman fallacy' here?

Besides, the people I referred to were theologians and Christian thinkers, not just some dead shit who likes the sound of a particular word.

I hear you when you say only those who believe JC was a real person who was resurrected after execution can call themselves Christians. I just don't agree with you.

Or do both ideas come to a species at the same time, one impossible without the other? — Patterner

Yes, that seems to be the question. From an early age I always saw death as its own reward. Assuming death means non-existance. I have heard no convincing reason to think otherwise. I think not existing seems pretty cool and overall desirable. But such a view is likely to be dispositional and subject to contingent factors like culture and experience. And this does not imply a death wish on my part.

This seems like a mental or emotional health issue. There are people who aren't concerned with dying, but apparently because they simply never think about it. — Patterner

People seem to have a range of reactions to death. Most of us have an inbuilt (most would say evolved) desire to keep living. But the experince of being, even in a privileged country, with every benefit and good fortune (health/wealth/stability) can be a bit of a drag, I find. I have rarely been a 'suck the marrow out of life' style of person and am somewhat suspicious of those who are. Overcompensating? And seeing the misery and suffering of others, takes the sheen out of most things. But I do find the notion that life has no real purpose intermittently exciting as it affords us creative opportunities to make our own.

What I wonder is, is it possible for a species to gain existential self-awareness, and the awareness of their own mortality, but NOT be able to deal with it emotionally? I don't think I would expect the ... maturity? ... to ALSO be part of the package. It seems to be asking a lot for awareness of self, awareness of mortality, and the ability to deal with it, to all arrive together. — Patterner

I think so. But maybe less prevalent in Western cultures, where Christianity has seeped into most of our cultural and psychological cracks. My father didn't appear to be moved by death - he made it to 98. I find I think more about the death of others than my own death. When I do think about mine I am mainly curious as to where will it happen. Is the place where I will die already known to me? Do I walk past it every day. Is it my bed? Is it a familiar street corner? A hospital ward. A cave in the wilderness? The clock is ticking...

Nice work. The history of Christianity doesn't matter to me. All I know is that there are many people who self-identify as Christians and who do not believe in the resurrection or miracle stories. Some of them are clerics. This answers the OP's quesion. :wink:

On the broader question as to who should qualify as Christian, there is no certain answer since Christianity maintains beliefs and practices that often (as Bishop John Shelby Spong points out) support violence and bigotry and are antithetical to Christian teaching. Christianity is not monolithic or consistent or reasonable. Like most human enterprises.

The only way to bring back Trump-supporting workers, business owners and scholars is either to abandon economic and social policies based on social I.Q. (which is what most liberal-pprogressive economic policy is based on), or change Trump-supporters’ value systems, which cannot be done externally. They have to evolve on their own terms , at their own pace, incrementally over a long period of time. — Joshs

Sounds like a lethal impasse for the next 10 or 20 years.

Trump thinks like his supporters, so in that sense he is sincere. That doesn’t mean that he isn’t an opportunist, but he’s an opportunist who sees the world the way they do. — Joshs

That's an interesting take. I don't think I've heard it said that Trump shares the views of his base. The only commentary I am familiar with is that he has zero convictions and merely harnesses the fears and bigotries of the unsophisticated to propel his movement. Liberal propaganda?

I watched some Trump speeches and saw him on Rogan and found him spontaneous, engaging and self-deprecating, I can see why people like him.

I think you’re making a colossal mistake in judgement. American right wing populism isnt driven from the top down, but from the bottom up. It’s a grass roots movement driven by your neighbors outside of your urban bubble. — Joshs

I suspect this is correct. In your assessment, is Trump sincere or simply harnessing the available populism?

I suggest that it is not cognitive dissonance that is causing the anger among social conservatives, but the justified sense that they are being talked down to by people like you who believe they have some superior moral or objective vantage and try to shove it down their throats. I am a progressive , but I dont claim that my perspective is morally or objectively superior to other ways of thinking. — Joshs

I think I agree with this for the most part. What reason do you have or holding progressive values if you do not consider them in some sense superior than a range of alternatives you could hold?

I'm not an American, but do you think there has been an increase in deceptive behavior from politicians in recent times?

Do these thinkers have a different conception of what God the Father is like? And how do they imagine Christian salvation working? Does it still work through faith in Jesus? — BT

I'm not immersed in their specific theologies but generally they hold a 'ground of being' style god (to use Tillich's famous phrase). The non-literal believers tend not to see god as any kind of anthropomorphism or 'father'. Salvation holds little significance. There is no requirement to be saved.

Spong is probably the most readable and accessible and anathema for many traditionalists.

“The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.”

Bishop John Shelby Spong

I don't know what it would mean for a word or a text to be divinely inspired. Can you show me the difference between divinely inspired and not divinely inspired words/text? — BitconnectCarlos

That's exactly the quesion you would need to ask them. When Zoroastrians, Muslims and Christians tell us their scriptures are divinely inspired, what do they mean? Which religion is correct about this claim and how do we demonstrate it? We can guess the range of answers possible.

I also found nuggets of wisdom in there that fundamentally changed my life outlook. I guess some could call that revealed wisdom or revealed truth. — BitconnectCarlos

I see no real problem with this. We find this amongst followers of most religions. I guess where it matters is if violent interference with others is the product of revealed wisdom.

I consider the parable of the good Samaritan to hold particular significance.

It's a shame that atheists dismiss it like this because the book really does have some amazing and corroborated (by other ancient sources) ancient history in it — BitconnectCarlos

No question. Most scriptures from world religions are fascinating documents which contain historic and cultural narratives.

But my point is not about atheism - it is about theologians and Christians who are non-literalists.

I could not believe that anyone who has read this book would be so foolish as to proclaim that the Bible in every literal word was the divinely inspired, inerrant word of God. Have these people simply not read the text? Are they hopelessly misinformed? Is there a different Bible? Are they blinded by a combination of ego needs and naïveté?

Bishop John Shelby Spong

I think it is a good quesion to ask such believers - which bits matter and which bits do not and how did you determine why?

The Spiderman comment is a simple distillation of the idea that even if a book contains valuable information about history and culture, this does not mean the entire book is true. This is actually a quip I first heard from a Jesuit Priest.

New York is a real place, this doesn't mean Spiderman is real. I'm not getting into the weeds about what bits in the Bible may be historical and which bits are legends and myth. Plenty of that stuff on line already.

:up:

There are many Christians who consider the Resurrection to be a myth. The story does not need to gain its power from being literally true. Some religious thinkers who held views along these lines include - Paul Tillich, Don Cupitt, Rudolf Bultmann, John Shelby Spong, David Friedrich Strauss. I grew up within the Baptist tradition and was sent to a religious school. We were taught to read the Bible as allegorical. Of course, none of this will stop some Christians from considering such views as blasphemous or 'not truly Christian.' But should we care about that? The history of Christianity is one of acrimonious sectarian divisions and differences, with the followers of Christ often trying to murder each other in the name of brotherly love.

1) If Jesus did not rise from the dead, can there be a rational belief in Christianity? and 2) If one is not sure if Jesus actually rose from the dead, can they still have a rational belief in Christianity? — Brenner T

Yes. There are Christians who are not even certain that the Jesus of the New Testament even lived. Perhaps the Jesus story was based on some radical teacher after whom a mythology was built. They see the narrative and tradition as providing lessons and a way of life through allegory. Belief is complex.

This reminds of one of Ashleigh Brilliant's sayings: "My biggest problem is what to do about all the things I can't do anything about".

Perhaps the philosophers' biggest problem is what to say about all the things they cannot say anything about. — Janus

Nice.

As I noted, for me, high-fallutin language grasps for an exalted level of significance, which I reject. — T Clark

Maybe I misunderstand this point. By high-fallutin do you mean technically complicated language, such as that used by educated professionals? Or do you mean bullshit masquerading as insight?

They refused to accept his lie or to let him off the hook for it. That we need across the board. We should have started with his claims that his first inauguration was "larger" than his predecessor's first. An obvious and absurd lie. — tim wood

Yes! I was also trying to pinpoint when the bullshit began and I came to the same conclusion. He was let off the hook. But the old saying that if you give them enough rope, they'll hang themselves has not applied. Here, if you give them enough rope, it's us who hang...

Nice.

"Post truth" suggests we are done with truth. With bullshit, there are still truths, they are just denied for expediency. — Banno

I think this crystallises it.

That's hilarious. Great song. I was going to post Cohen's Everybody Knows.

I think the phrase obscurantist terrorism is indeed true,like politicians or priests trying to appear profound. And because of this I exercise my discretion.One has to believe in oneself! It's often the writer not the reader who is at fault. We don't need to defer because of reputation. — Swanty

Unpacking this I would say that we still need to identify what counts as merit and the issue of complexity (baroque prose) in itself can't be grounds for dismissal. Nor can a subjective trust in one's personal 'bullshit detector'.

I certainly read based on my personal reactions and taste, but I don't confuse this with an objective assessment about the work I privilege or detract. Thoughts?

I'm not sure what it even means to be without limits? Is this a capacity we have for reinvention, redefinition and ceaseless change, or does it refer to some transcendental factor? Or something else?

Nietzsche once wrote that bad writers write ALL their thoughts rather than just the final "percolated" product.[/quote]

Not coming from a background in the subject, I find most philosophical writing either dull or incomprehensible. That's mainly on me. Wish I could do better.

I find Nietzsche fairly unreadable too - having read 4 of his works and unable to get much from them.

Hume and Schopenhauer are readable. But I don't associate readability with highest quality. That argument sounds a bit like Orwell's famous polemical essay about politics and language.

I'm suspicious of long winded writers,it's like a long list of apologies and overwrought justifications,showing how the writer is unsure of his ideas! — Swanty

There's a significant prejudice ageist writers we find difficult as we tend to assume the fault lies with them, not our abilities to comprehend.

I think John Searle quotes Foucault about Derrida's writing as a type of 'obscurantist terrorism'. The idea being that some French post structuralists wrote deliberately complex language to appear profound. This has become a worn trope and gives us an excuse not to try to understand.

But my quesion is this: how do we tell apart the complex prose that is insightful, from that which is empty bluster? All we can really do is read and provide assessments based on some other criterion of value. I don't know how tenable it is to dismiss a writer just because of baroque or highly technical language.