Brings back memories - I spent much of the 1980's with the theosophists and lived in their Melbourne (Russell Street) bookshop and library. I blame Alan Watts and Krishnamurti who ignited my curiosity.

Interesting. I think I agree. Can you say some more?

People have tried to define religion - religious scholar Karen Armstrong writes about this - there's no one definition, or bespoke definition, that covers off on what religion is, probably because the subject itself is so multifactorial and diverse. Reducing it to a few motherhood statements is likely to do it a disservice.

Their view seems to amount to thinking that there can be no common framework that would provide the pathway of reasoning to a "correct" answer with regards to religious questions. In other words that religious disputes cannot be solved because there's no reliable source of reason for solving them? It seems to be a view a lot of atheists and agnostics have. — Hallucinogen

As an atheist, I have some sympathy for this view. There is also a position called ignosticism which says that the concept of god's and goddesses are meaningless since there are no coherent or unambiguous definitions. I also have sympathy for this. Gods may be seen as either as a kind of magic man, or as a benign, unknowable, essentially amorphous 'energy' or force. It does seem incoherent.

Obviously there are venerable and comprehensive traditions of syncretism and perennialism - which seek to find (often rather crudely) common themes and values of religions, or seek to blend traditions in the hope of arriving at an overarching truth - but it's worth remembering that since religion can't really be defined in the first place ( a discussion elsewhere on the forum), this kind of enterprise might be seen to be precarious, muddled and insecure.

By all means question or be sceptical of idea such as god, but to knock it down altogether is to remain ever in infancy. — invicta

Hmm, look above I also wrote this:

Like anything human, it may be awful and great. — Tom Storm

And whilst that may be true of any religion it could also be true of atheists in their every day beliefs about the world. — invicta

I have no special fondness for atheists. Especially those who are libertarians or scientistic thinkers. Or worse, occultists...

But when I look at what is happening in America with Trump and evangelical white nationalists, and in India with Modi and Hindu nationalists and Saudi Arabia with Wahhabi nationalists and Myanmar and its extreme Buddhist nationalists and... etc, etc. This is no small thing. And sure, the religion of Communism as instantiated in China sucks too. You're right, I'm intolerant about these things.

To our surprise, the lecturer was able to demonstrate that every definition was incomplete or inaccurate. We couldn't, in the end, come up with a definition. — Wayfarer

Indeed. Karen Armstrong has written compellingly about this. Religion is one of those things that we struggle to define, but we know it when we see it. Like anything human, it may be awful and great. For years I felt slightly ashamed for my bias against religion until I met a couple of Catholic priests, one of them is now friend. He used to say - 'Religion is all too frequently deficient - people use relgion as a place to hide.'

Most of my criticism of religion I found in Krishnamurti, Fr Richard Rohr and Bishop Shelby Spong - all robust critics of the more popular expressions of faith. I think it was Christian thinker David Bentley Hart who said that Evangelicalism is not really Christianity, it is type of capitalist cult.

I don't think there is a 'spiritual' or theistic urge specifically which people share that explains the persistence of religions, I think it's just the urge to have metanarratives which are transcendence as foundational story. Which is why in some moods I would put Communism and Scientism down as expressions of religion. I don't think they are sublimated or distorted transcendence; they are the real deal, the 'urge' incarnate.

I have read Sam Harris and was disappointed. — Mark S

Thanks. I was just curious. I was unable to get though it as it's quite dull.

Your point in the essay:

This contradicts Sam Harris’ claim that, as a matter of science, the goal of moral behavior is fixed as well-being.

Is this what Harris is arguing? I thought he was saying that wellbeing is generally what morality amounts to (no matter what the source) and this might be a better goal overall than pleasing gods? Looks to me like altruistic cooperation strategies are one potential expression of wellbeing in action. Cooperation being a stepping stone to a goal (wellbeing or flourishing), not the goal itself.

A closed loop does not answer Aristotle's quest for an explanation of Causation itself. Note that in the Ouroboros symbol, the snake that seems to be recreating itself, actually has a head and tail, a beginning and end. A true infinite loop would have no head or tail. — Gnomon

That's actually a good point I have sometimes mused over. Perhaps the symbol is eternity as devourer of itself.

Thanks Mark, that is interesting. I came on here with a similar but less scholarly goal. I was reasonably curious where morality sat in philosophy these days (as well as other subjects). Mostly I am interested to hear what others think and why. I stupidly present some of my own beliefs/judgements from time to time, which is fun, but no doubt superfluous to requirements.

That I can make a small contribution to making moral philosophy more culturally useful based on understanding human morality’s function is solving cooperation problems. — Mark S

I'm not sure I endorse this thinking for reasons others have written, but best of luck hashing something out. I wonder if you need to drill down and examine more closely your presuppositions of well informed and rational. Perhaps you haven't appreciated the extent to which this is perspectival?

Due to our evolutionary origins, we share some needs and preferences that are generated by our genes. To the extent we share genes, we share at least some needs and preferences. Assumed shared needs and preferences are the basis of the ideas that the goals of moral behavior should be increasing "well-being" or flourishing. — Mark S

I get where you are coming from. I am less convinced in a rational morality which can be rolled out consistently the way a factory manufactures a car. I'll continue to watch from the sidelines, but I am not a philosopher.

Have you read Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape, I forget if you have or not.

There’s nothing naive about those values, calling them naive with expanding on why strikes me as unjustifed judgment. — invicta

I didn't say the values were naïve, I said they are motherhood statements that almost all believers, no matter how intolerant and dreadful, profess to share.

It seems naïve to assume that you putting them here in any way clarifies things since these values are interpreted differently by all and sundry.

On what grounds do you disagree with these moral teachings irrespective of a creator God? — invicta

I'm not talking about morality - that's a separate matter. I'm talking about the difference between what people say and how they are.

Perhaps this example will assist. Some years back I spent time with some South Africans who were supporters of apartheid. Turns out they were also devout Christians. Over the course of a meal it was clear they professed compassion, forgiveness, humility, tolerance and love yet simultaneously they denigrated black people and spoke of their contempt for homosexuals and women who are not homemakers. They supported capital punishment for dug users and revered 'white blood'. Their faith and the Bible 'told' them these where core moral values from God. Needless to say we can easily find Christians who are in opposition to these positions.

I'd be interested briefly to understand why you are exploring this subject? Are you hoping to change how humans understand morality, or is this an academic exercise, a hobby?

In other words, what's your end game?

Thanks. My intuition sides with Rouse on this matter. I have held a version of this notion since I was quite young.

Sure if you disagree agree against the precepts of humility, compassion, kindness and the discouragement of vanity and revenge. If your values as an atheist are superior to these then by all means keep them to yourself. — invicta

This seems naive. Firstly, it goes to my point that most, if not all theists, would class themsleves as the good guys - with a series of similar motherhood statements you've provided - compassion, humility etc. I heard a similar list recently from a Muslim taxi driver.

As I said, believers of any stripe ususally think they have the right interpretation, not realising the bedrock of subjectivity that underpins their faith.

Secondly, atheism is the answer to a single question - whether you are convinced a god exists. Atheism isn't a system. There are atheists who are libertarians or Marxists, some even believe in reincarnation and astrology. What you may be thinking of, perhaps, is secular humanism which also includes the sorts of homilies you have described above.

The point with morality is not what people say they value and do, it is what they actually value and do.

So handpicked values, and I only pick the best — invicta

That's what they all say.

No, I beat stupid people all the time, especially at logic and chess. — invicta

Sounds like winning is important to you. I'm too stupid to understand chess or logic. A woman tried to teach me chess, but I found it insufferably boring as I do all games.

I've been an atheist since I was young. I have a number of theist friends, but some dislike religion as much or more than I. What I have learned about belief is that there is no such thing as a Christian or a Hindu as such. Believers tend to embody a version of a faith they think is correct. It is often at odds with other believer's versions of the same faith. And all of them believe they have the correct interpretation. Lots of dogma and certainty going in this space and yet no way to demonstrate which version is correct.

How would you would describe your variety of Christianity? Why does it matter to you?

So what do you do? — invicta

About stupidity? I think stupidity is an unwinnable war.

I just accept stupidity as one of those fecund qualities humans are naturally endowed with. What are the real world consequences you see - climate change, the rise of religious nationalism, teen suicide rates - or do you hold to more of a conservative worldview?

Stupid is dismissively concluding crap such as god’s existence or not existence. Tom Storm — invicta

Well, many atheists don't conclude there is no god. I don't. I simply say I am not convinced. I think we've had this discussion.

I've also noticed that many theists are against religion and favour science, so the debate is a lot more nuanced than some people think.

Ok. But what counts as stupid? If we are able to identify stupidity then are we saying we are not stupid - we are above it in some way, no?

I’m angry at stupidity because it leads to ignorance and ignorance leads to evil. — invicta

The stupidity of religious people and atheists? Or are only atheists stupid?

Yup I’m angry at stupidity an all it’s forms and guises, problem ? — invicta

Just that you're like the mirror image of the angry atheist, making the same sorts of claims about stupidity.

So whilst they’re happy to dismiss God for lack of proof they’re yet to dismiss the graviton, the messiah to their gravity for lack of proof.

Hypocritical, blind and stupid. — invicta

We get it you're an angry theist. So?

No, religion as an explanation system comes out of the need for a simple comforting answer, comfort comes first. In science, there could be a level of comfort in trying to find answers, but scientists actively scale off comfort as it is the foundation of scientific biases. — Christoffer

I think we see this differently. Explanations are explanations. Besides religious explanations do not always provide comfort. They often provide fear and trembling and terrifying obligations. The point for me is that both world views attempt to make sense of the world - explanations. How they go about it is of course quite different but that has no impact on the fact they are both trying to explain reality.

As it happens, I have known a number of former evangelicals who have deconverted and most of them have stated that science has made the world a whole lot less scary on account of the supernatural not being the explanation of why we are here.

I’d like to be proven wrong. — invicta

Well, you'll need to start by demonstrating evidence of your claim first.

Not sure how you would do this - you'd probaly need to provide a list of all the most significant scientists (that won't be controversial at all!) then you'd need to demonstrate who was a theist and what kind and who was an atheist.

Not something I imagine you can do. But who cares? As I already said above -

A little or a lot of science won't necessarily replace the supernatural in the minds of some.' — Tom Storm

Einstein? He's like a Rorschach inkblot on theism. A believer in a Spinoza's God. Famously in his notorious 1954 letter Einstein wrote:

The word God is for me nothing but the expression of and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends.. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.

And

For me the unadulterated Jewish religion is, like all other religions, an incarnation of primitive superstition.

I think it's clear that Einstein preferred science to religion.

Religion has a totally other function than science and the idea that science will replace religion is based on the idea that religion has an equal measure of explaining the universe, which it clearly does not when looking at the track record. — Christoffer

Yes, but isn't the point that science and religion are both in the explanation business? Religious explanations are often fixed and doctrinaire. Those of science are ususally evidence based and may change as knowledge increases.

I suspect Pasteur is wrong about this since many people who know a lot of science are still atheists. Possibly most.

Maybe Pasteur should have said - 'A little or a lot of science won't necessarily replace the supernatural in the minds of some.' And we can't argue with that. :wink:

I honestly don't see the point of that, other than control, and control is the basic point of religion. It would essentially be replacing religion. I say let it die and DON'T TRY TO REPLACE IT. — praxis

Religion has effectively died out amongst large groups of people in the west. The kinds of religion that is growing widely around the world - evangelical Christianity (in Asia and Africa) and fundamentalist Islam are often so shallow that they scarcely count as religions the way we used to think of them. Doctrines waver and bend and almost no one knows any scripture or reads the holy books. I was talking to some Chinese former evangelicals and in their view it's just about professing belief and makings things up using a jumble of terminology (a bit like some people on this forum seem to do :wink:) sin, Satan and the love of Christ.

I support those atheist evangelists who help people to deconstruct from fundamentalist religion. I think this is a worthy thing to do and I have donated money. There seems to be a lot of folk wanting to leave and leaving behind the festering hatreds of fundamentalism and evangelical religion and they are looking for support in their emerging skepticism and critical thinking.

or truth — Joshs

Is there a useful thread here on post modernism and truth? I would be keen to read something accessible on the subject.

I've made my point. You failed to define scientism correctly. The rest of this discussion is superfluous.

But I still wonder if you appreciate the difference between science and scientism.

You've got my "no authority" assertion turned around backward. I said "there is no single authority in Science". — Gnomon

No. You got this wrong too. You originally used this as a poor definition of scientism not science.

Here:

For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon

Note again - you used the word scientism. As I have pointed out several times now scientism is certain about science as a single source of authority on truth and how the world works.

And then (as a separate matter) I asked the follow up question; can you cite any example of a single authority on the Truth? Since you seemed to be suggesting that this was a type of misplaced skepticism, I wonder if there is an alternative you can point too?

But perhaps this discussion has become too complex and you are a bit lost in it? I understand, this sometimes happens to me.

Let's not waste any more time on this. I wish to hear no more about scientism. I am not interested in pursuing this any further. Take care.

This is the question that the article proposes to address:

Why is there any such thing as what philosophers call ‘phenomenal experience’ or qualia – our subjective, personal sense of interacting with stimuli arriving via our sense organs? Not only in the case of vision, but across all sense modalities: the redness of red; the saltiness of salt; the paininess of pain – what does this extra dimension of experience amount to? What’s it for?
— Nicholas Humphries

Isn't it rather a strange question? — Wayfarer

The syntax, I grant you, is inelegant and wordy, but it doesn't seem an especially strange series of questions, given variations of questions just like it come up constantly, here and elsewhere.

So in philosophical mode my question in place of Humphrey's would be something like, "what is it about a scientific view that makes phenomenal experience look so puzzling?" — Jamal

Fair. It certainly benefits from sharpening.

Interestingly, I've noticed that a lot of public atheism in America is conducted by former evangelicals who no longer find the dubious stories in the Bible convincing. But they are now 'preachers' and 'evangelists' for atheism and secular humanism. Same shit different bucket. That said, at least most of them are no longer racist, homophobic, trans-hating, misogynist, superstitious Trumpistas - so scientism is definitely an improvement on theism in these instances. And I'd rather discuss the world with a scientistic fuck-knuckle than a theistic one.

Henry James is the worst writer of all times — Largo

I think The Turn of the Screw is a little masterpiece but he is difficult for modern sensibilities.

I studied philosophy at university briefly in 1988 (I think). We didn't read books, we were given photocopied extracts to learn. I never read them. I read Henry James instead of William James and Jane Austin instead of J.L Austin. I found philosophy (as an academic subject) insufferably boring and pointless. These days I am interested in what people believe and why.

there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon

Given what you say here, can you demonstrate the single source of authority on The Truth? I suspect a Noble Price might be waiting if you can do this.

Actually your account of scientism here seems erroneous:

For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon

I understand scientism as the opposite of this. It is an unassailable certainty that science is right and not tentative. In other words, the single source of authority about how the world works is science - hence scientism.

I was merely pointing-out that there is no authorized compendium of "settled science" to serve as the Bible of Scientism. — Gnomon

I was merely pointing out the difference between scientism and science. An important distinction.

Thanks.

Could such behaviour have been prevented with the right nurture or educational socialisation do you think ? — invicta

I have worked with many prisoners over the years. People who have done unspeakable things - murder, child abuse, kidnapping, maiming, arson, pyromania, violent assault, abuse of women, you name it. I have never met anyone who wasn't made that way or distorted by upbringing or by abuse, trauma, neglect, mental disfunction. And almost all have been male.

I understand that Pol Pot is called pure evil but to me this doesn't help us to make sense of the behaviour. Pol Pot may well have thought he was acting towards the common good, trying to improve the world according to a plan, even if that plan involved an awful but necessary price to pay. Žižek talks about this in relation to Stalinism and other totalitarian expressions. The people who burned witches likely thought they were doing the right thing too. I think pure evil is the term we use when we can't make sense of behaviour. But I understand the attraction to such terms.

I get what you are saying. But I sometimes look at fish and wish more people were just like them. The no talking, swimming away bit is especially attractive.

It may be a question of preferences here. I am not really fond of terms like superior or apex or crowing achievement. I don't see a hierarchy of evolution but I know humans like to put themselves at the top of every list. I acknowledge that some innate capacities (in humans or animals) are better for a certain purpose, but I don't overplay this card. But there's no reason to explore this further, it's a side issue.

My position is that we’re inherently good, but it’s jealousy, hate and thirst for power that leads us astray as well as the desire to subjugate or subdue our fellow man. — invicta

I think love and generosity and nurturing also frequently lead us astray. Hence the archaic expression that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

man as the crowning achievement of such process sits right at the top by fact of us being able to subdue beast and to some extent nature itself that gave rise to us. — invicta

I'm not convinced that this 'crowning achievement' is a useful frame as I said earlier. Humans are often very cocky and smug about our technology and our metacognition, but it's a form of question begging. How can a human perspective be used to justify the 'greatness' of the human perspective? While I am as speciesist as the next person and would save my daughter over my cat (if I had to), what I would be doing here is responding to biological programming and shared cultural values and preferences that are likely hard wired into most of us by socialisation.