La Rochefoucauld wrote something like only vanity is offended by vanity. How dare you claim to have the secret or be special! I have it, you silly motherfucker! — norm

Nice quote.

Silence is more sinister in our cacophonous world.

The other, somewhat more interesting question from my perspective is, how is your life different if you doubt fundamental first principles?

For the person who says matter is an illusion and only consciousness is real, what are the practical day-to-day consequences of that view?

Everyone thinks their beliefs are reasonable — khaled

That may not be the whole story though. Reasonable applied to what? If your staring point is less dogmatic, standards of reasonableness have less extreme implications. I am not a philosopher and have no idea but the starting point for me is nothing is 100% certain and there is no agreement about how we can access truth. I would venture that capital T truth may not exist. But is certainty and truth necessary?

Politicians say 'no comment' because their default setting (and their job) is never to give the game away. Someone is always looking to nail a politician for something (media, the other side, lobby groups), no comment serves to minimize potential ammunition.

No comment is best not read into as it contains a universe of potential meanings - including: 'Fuck you!', 'I don't know', 'I don't feel like sharing now', 'I have no views', 'I feel safer saying nothing as it might be problematic if I comment', 'I don't talk about that subject'.

No comment gains power when attached to some kinds questions and is some contexts. Such as, 'Did you hit that person?' No comment here could be read as an admission of guilt. And on it goes...

No comment is a holding statement and rich in potential interpretations.

That's where I am now. The rest is a long story. — T Clark

Thanks for that response. My problem is that people feel or experience all manner of things, from the risen Christ to self transcendence and connection with higher consciousness. And being creative beings, people make all-sorts of connections and symbolic meaning. We are meaning making animals - that much seems clear.

Problem is how do we determine something that is real or useful from something which is an internal conscious state, a hallucination, or a belief, or a feeling?

There are atheists like Dr Susan Blackmore and Sam Harris who practice contemplative techniques, mindfulness, mediation, Dzogchen, Zazen - whatever it might be - and they do not come to the conclusion that science is anything but the primary mode of acquiring reliable knowledge. And all their critics will do is resort to ad hominem attacks - 'they are doing it wrong' or 'they are blocked'.

Seems that introspective experiences like intuitions of transcendence have no more impact on a belief in a higher consciousness or the notion of one mind, say, than an LSD trip. And the frequent connection of these subjective experiences to spooky physics and this or that spiritual tradition does not seem warranted.

Science does not have a privileged viewpoint on reality. It's a way of seeing things, but not the only, and not always the best, way.

I'm just repeating myself. — T Clark

You're not repeating, you're clarifying. I would argue that science does have a privileged position - that's one area we differ. Can you describe these other was of seeing briefly or in dot points and outline what was seen exactly? What can you know spiritually speaking (or whatever word you wish to use by contrast with science.

That's like asking if there is one robust documented example of anything scientific existing — T Clark

You're right, I expressed this poorly. I have no problem with meditation and focused self-awareness and contemplation. Some atheist materialists practice mediation and even accept models of non-duality.

My problem is when people make truth claims they cannot justify - such as there is a higher consciousness that they can access. That there is reincarnation. That there is a soul. Etc. I have no quarrel with people who enjoy Zen mysticism or similar practices and quietly feel better about their lives as a consequence.

Now most of my social circle would likely me label me as nuts for thinking this way, but I suspect that within the group of philosophers in here, there are others who take a similar perspective. Am I wrong? — dazed

Fifty is pretty young to be thinking like this, even with some modest health issues.

It strikes me that 10 years from now is a pretty safe and distant time. I wonder if this is a serious idea or if it is a coping tool for your managing now. For instance - I have a way out on the horizon so I need not be too concerned by the present. This approach has a range of functions depending upon how one is living or thinking about life.

My overall approach when talking to people who are experiencing suicidal ideation (not you, naturally) is to establish what their reasons for living are. If these are sufficiently strong, the reasons for dying are generally overcome.

In my opinion, — Enrique

Are you even qualified to venture an opinion on this subject - what science qualification do you have?

Spiritual causes are not immaterial, they are natural and must participate in evolution defined broadly as organized, self-selective change in substance. If spirits drive change in substance, that will eventually show up as a facet of the theory of evolution. — Enrique

Is there one robust documented example of anything spiritual existing?

So I'm offering my system, and I'm asking you to tell me what's wrong with my system. You haven;t done that, you're just rejecting it for some unknown reason that you haven't explained yet. — Dharmi

If that's what you think you either haven't read me or are not able to understand. You sound like a Christian apologist except with Deepak Chopra instead of Jesus. No thanks.

There is no right or wrong here but only asking which direction attracts you the most: the attraction to wholeness or to fragmentation when appreciating beauty? — Nikolas

Neither of those quotes mean much to me and they seem to reflect personalities rather than shed any insights on the nominal subject.

Feynman seems to be associating beauty with the numinous and I guess that's fine. The defended self of the scientist so often accused of using a sponge to wipe away the entire horizon.

Weil's comments become poetic blarney. From the thematic arrangement of the words in the first part of the quote I would guess she fears beauty. If I read this from anyone else I would say they had palpable unresolved conflicts.

I personally struggle to tell what is beautiful from what is striking or arresting or even from what is a visual cliche.

So why is it that when someone says they are (or in more likely aren't since that seems to rub folks the wrong way) attracted to a certain race people call them racist? — Darkneos

Depends on why. Caucasian guy I knew was attracted to Asian women. Unpacked it with him and the following reason was provided. "They are more likely not to answer back and make their partners happy compared to white women.' A racist trope, surely. I think it would be interesting in some cases to learn what is behind the attraction and what that race represents, perhaps even subconsciously.

I'll stick with scientology for now — norm

I'm running with A Course In Miracles, it changed my life.

So are you just an anti-Foundationalist Skeptic? I don't know at all where you're coming from. — Dharmi

I am not a philosopher. I practice critical thinking with a philosophical bent. I'm not into labels. I have spelled out what I consider to be reliable and non reliable pathways to knowledge. I do privilege empiricism and methodological naturalism but I don't think we can be 100% certain of anything. To be called an anti foundational skeptic is thematically close, but way too grand and extreme. I am still working out what I am. Sorry if that sounds inadequate.

That's fine, but I'm asking you, what do you consider genuine epistemology? You can't have this double standard where I have to provide my epistemology but you don't have to provide yours. — Dharmi

I have provided it numerous times. No point repeating myself.

Just because an atheist has asked a question that might seem to go against atheism, it doesn’t mean you should just reject it.
— Franz Liszt

What do you mean by "reject it". You mean dismiss the argument? No, my main drag was not to dismiss your argument but to question your authenticity.

I admit, you can't do anything to convince me that you are not a theist. I may change my opinion as time goes on. However, you made a few statements OUTSIDE your argument, that an atheist well versed in philosophy would never say, but a theist well versed in philosophy would definitely say. For instance:

We believe that we are just biological animals or just chemicals grouped together through evolution
— Franz Liszt — god must be atheist

GMBA - nice work. I would say the same. FL may be an atheist but the trajectory of FL's ideas are word for word apologist-protesting-the-atheist-worldview 101. I find it unlikely anyone could have an atheist worldview with these sorts of classically described reservations.

FL is at best a theist-curious agnostic.

Like I said, the demonstration is through the third form of epistemology, which is consciousness. Through consciousness, we can know the Supreme Consciousness. This is what yoga aims to do. Yoga in Sanskrit means "unification" with ourselves, then the Divine. You have to do the proper yoga system under the guidance of a proper guru, that's the experiment. — Dharmi

Thank you, I thought you might have more detail. But this is fine for now.

I have no reason to accept that there is supreme consciousness - this needs to be demonstrated. The fact that Yoga means unification is understood, but so what? Sikh, for instance, means 'seeker of truth', is there evidence Sikhism has access to the truth? No. The notion that you have to do a proper Yoga system is exactly the kind of thing every cult, religion and belief system would maintain. How could they not? By what criteria do you tell genuine claims like this from phoney ones?

t's not unknowable. That's what I am saying. It's very knowable, you just need to do the experiment. What you're saying is like what people would argue about quantum particles and atoms in the ancient world. "We can't see them, we don't know they're there, they're unknowable, there's no known method to know about them, we have to raise our hands up and just give up!" This is the type of reasoning you're using. And I'm telling you the method. — Dharmi

You have given me no useful information about method or experiment or even what it is that is being tested. Just claims. By the way, ancient people would have been correct in not accepting something until it can be demonstrated. The bit about raising hands and giving up is not really related and seems to be surplus, emotive dramatisation. Main point: once we can reliably test for it then we know it is likely to be true.

Are you assuming that materialism is "natural"? That's question begging (or circular reasoning, I always get those two mixed up). — RogueAI

I'm comfortable with saying materialism is the natural world or physicalism.

I'm also comfortable with saying reason works as the most reliable tool we have to explore ideas. But I recognise that I am using reason to justify reason and that too is question begging. There are presuppositions we have to make and these have been addressed several times.

I think it's significant that you see the problem in terms of immaterial beings conceived as ghosts or souls. I see that as due to the influence of Descartes' particular form of dualism. As Edmund Husserl notes in The Crisis of Western Science, Descartes' intuition of consciousness as the fundamental ground of existence is profound and basically true, but he errs in treating the 'cogito' as an object, 'a little tag end of the world', is how he puts it.

The way I would explain it, is that the subject, the 'res cogitans', is never an object of cognition, except metaphorically. You can never actually make an object of the knowing subject. And there's no such thing as 'mind', either, except by inference. Mind is the subject of experience, or the subjective pole of experience, but is never an object of cognition, as such (which is why eliminativists insist it can't be considered as real.)

This has resulted in a deep-seated tendency in modern thought which was described by the philosopher Richard Bernstein as:

Cartesian anxiety, which refers to the notion that, since René Descartes posited his influential form of body-mind dualism, Western civilization has suffered from a longing for ontological certainty, or feeling that scientific methods, and especially the study of the world as a thing separate from ourselves, should be able to lead us to a firm and unchanging knowledge of ourselves and the world around us. The term is named after Descartes because of his well-known emphasis on "mind" as different from "body", "self" as different from "other". — Wayfarer

I only raise souls or ghosts because they often come up, and these ideas can stand in as place holders for pretty much any claim of access to a different realm outside naturalism.

I've already addressed the limits of materialism elsewhere and that is not the key subject. The subject/question is what can we demonstrate to be the most reliable source of information about the world? No one has offered anything alternate yet other than some vague claims and an undifferentiated whinge about empiricism.

So, it follows, that the only way you can prove "God-thing" is through a similar methodology? Do you disagree? — Dharmi

Yes, I disagree but I certainly understand the thinking and have often heard it before. For starters no one has established what a 'God-thing' even is to any agreement. It is unknowable how a phenomenological/personal experience type method of verifying something can work.

So let me ask you, suppose we jump forward in time 5,000 years and amazing technological progress has been made, but scientists are still stumped about how matter produces consciousness. Wouldn't you question materialism at that point? — RogueAI

No. Timeframes have no bearing on the truth of an idea. If however evidence of a supernatural is found. Then fine.

If we follow the yoga system, and have proper predisposition, then one can "know" God, and other entities too theoretically. But you have to do the experiment. That's the requirement. — Dharmi

That seems unverifiable. And Scientologists, say, would argue the same point. What method do we use to determine which occult system is true? If someone doubts matter on epistemological grounds, how can they accept 'knowledge of God' as a sound premise.

s ‘reliable knowledge’ a pragmatic construction that is simply useful in relation to human goals or an attempt to make knowledge
correspond to an independently existing external
world? Is science simply a relation between propositions or the relation between a proposition and ‘the way the world really is’? — Joshs

I don't know. Good questions. I do think an element of pragmatism ( a presupposition, if you like) is involved in as much as none of us can prove that we are not all simulations living in the laboratory of an extra terrestrial, who has created the illusion of our universe, complete with the illusion of physical laws.

Are you going to take up smoking and heroin use on the basis that we can't demonstrate to 100% that materialism is what our perceptions tell us it is?

The point for me is economical. It is not about endless parsing of the questions; Is all this a dream? What is perception? etc. It's that I fail to see how we have a choice but to accept that we live in a reality that we all share (despite the shades of grey in the word 'reality'). We need an epistemology in order to survive and make plans. What else can we use but methodological naturalism?

I fail to see how, for instance, mysticism, faith, religious visions, necromancy, astrology - insert alternative reality of your choice - can assist us in any way. The results are not demonstrable.

What reliable knowledge do you think methodological naturalism has provided us? That is to say, how do you know this sentence is false: "methodological naturalism does a great job of describing the dream world I've created" — RogueAI

There is no end of games we can play with language and ideas. I can't, for instance refute the problem of hard solipsism. The question for me is this: do I have a good reason to deny the physical world? Can I just walk out in front of a bus or drink acid? 'No' seems the most reliable answer - I would even venture to call this knowledge. Now I am not 100% certain of this knowledge, but I think it is a reasonable position that can be justified. Knowledge is never about ultimate truth, it is about what we can justify with reasonable confidence. What is the alternative?

What we empirically experience is not 'material stuff' but merely qualities of experience. Someone, somewhere, sometime, decided to call these qualities 'material' but there's no actual reason to do so. And as far as I know, nobody has ever given a reason to do so. — Dharmi

Yes, this is a robust and familiar argument against materialism. Bertrand Russell described this one well decades ago in the History of Western Philosophy. John Searle has a series of rebuttals to this argument which I will try to dig up.

I think the best we can do is say this - as soon as someone can find a way to acquire reliable knowledge outside of what we call methodological naturalism, let's hear it. Until then we have no choice but to assume that physicalism is all we have access to and can measure. It serves us well.

Qualities exist, what they are called is, as far as I can tell, irrelevant. The real question is: are these qualities true, and real? — Dharmi

For me it comes back to the question what alternative epistemology we should be using to decide what we will call true? (Bear in mind that a methodological naturalist generally does not believe in certainty or capital T truths, just truth we can justify.)

I think coming down too hard on religious people instead of being respectful and open-minded might qualify as bigotry? — Athena

One last thing. In the 1980's I knew some people from South Africa. I was against apartheid. They were not. They were devout church going Christians. I asked them why separate black people from white people. They responded, 'It is God's will. We have it on faith that black people are not equal to white people apartheid is a necessary step.' I will spare you the other views they held on faith. Over the decades I have met dozens of people (and we know there must be millions) who hold similarly inadequate views as a matter of faith. Faith has no quality control and because it is not based on reason, it is not open to scrutiny.

Materialism needs to acknowledge the things that appear to contradict it. — Gary Enfield

When they contradict, perhaps. But hey, I am methodological naturalist as I have said. Not a philosophical naturalist - that would also require evidence. Few people say that materialism is the whole story, Gary - what we say is it is the only reliable model we have access to.

What I hold is that all we have access to is the physical world and the only reliable knowledge we can acquire for now (and perhaps forever) is through this lens. If tomorrow we prove there are souls or ghosts with evidence, I'll be happy to accept it.

Let's not argue about whether or not my characterization is true for now. How should I have responded to you? — T Clark

Reflection is a good thing. I think there's an easy distinction to make - you comment on the ideas not the person's character. In this case you could have said, "To me this response sounds a little smug and satisfied.... and explained why. Reasons are important, as you know. This could then be explored.

And when I say, 'look out someone might get hurt' I am referring to the fact that when people meet ideas that challenge them, it often lands as an ontological shock. It's hard to mitigate against that.

I disagree and will continue to argue "faith" can have a magical effect including healing us and achieving more than we believe we can. The nature of faith proves to religious people, and especially Christians, that what they believe is true. Faith can be very empowering and I don't think we should underestimate that. So can self-confidence. — Athena

I doubt there is any evidence for what you say, but that said, faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have a good reason. What can you not justify with an appeal to faith? Faith is used daily by millions to justify any number of bigotries.

I think coming down too hard on religious people instead of being respectful and open-minded might qualify as bigotry? — Athena

Sure. But as I said 'where they happen' coming down on people too hard is not possible if they are homophobic, transphobic, racist and misogynist as some religious people often are and proudly so.

Many religious people (Christians especially) don't accept the big bang.

Big bang cosmology can be described to fit any version of God and visa versa. Since God, as a fictional character, can be said to be omnipotent and is generally described as the creator of the laws of physics then God can do whatever it wants.

I’m a sort of deist/atheist but the logical problem of evil is one I believe we should reject. I — Franz Liszt

You can only reject it if you are a mystic or deist wherein God is imprecise and ill defined.

Where there are specific faith traditions/scriptures that make the claim that God is good and perfect, the problem of evil is a critical one.

How could I answer. There are texts in the corpus of world literature that I think speak legitimately of Capital T Truth. But you’re not going to find the kind of evidence you’re looking for. — Wayfarer

Appreciate this perspective, thanks. Yep, we may be stuck here in the badlands forever. As you would no doubt expect from me, I would say texts are not evidence, they are claims. Claims need to be examined and tested to determine if they are sound.

How can you tell which text has capital T truth and which text is false? Surely the whole problem inherent in this worldview is the notion that telling good from bad, true from false rests on no sound epistemological basis.

Etc, etc.

Any particular texts you consider to be profound in this way?

Who said God was morally perfect? It is said that God has many human emotions as well including rage, jealously, compassion, etc. — Outlander

I understand the folk who said God had human emotions - rage, jealousy compassion also said God was morally perfect. But that was the Bible and Koran. Your God, however, may be of the more elusive, personal hard to pin down variety.

Your argument goes like this: "1. a person who believes in god 2. claims that he understands god and has direct evidence of god's existence in his mind." This is circular reasoning in one short step. Back to square one, without even ever having left it. — god must be atheist

I was unclear - I agree with you. My point was that believers keep making this old argument from personal experience . The problem with it is we may know it is BS, but how do we help them understand it is?

I once shook up a Baptist fundamentalist by saying - "Everything you've told me, every single point I have heard exactly the same from a Muslim in defence of Allah and the idea that Jesus is not divine but a human. How can anyone from outside tell the difference between your personal experience of truth and the Muslims?' There was a long silence and a frown, followed by, "I guess you can't.'

I'm simply commenting on the declaration that 'we' - presumably all of humanity - doesn't know Capital T truth - is presumptious. — Wayfarer

The reason I said who are you is presumably you might have felt not part of 'we'. You were speaking for others, perhaps 'enlightened' parties.

I think I can stand by this claim. What evidence do you have that someone knows capital T truth? What evidence do you have there is a capital T truth. I am presumptuous, but for the Left.... Sorry, old Woody Allen joke.

The whole experience of having a body affects us on a personal and social level. I am referring to the subjective experience of how we see ourselves and how others see us on a social level. — Jack Cummins

180 Proof is a hard act to follow and he provides a good roadmap of approaches. I would add media driven images of beauty and attractiveness as a continual influence, a kind of acid rain of images that fall into all our lives. I am interested in how people's self image often translate into whether they consider themselves to be good or not, or worthy or not. It's almost as if perceptions of attractiveness serves to build a narrative about what is or is not possible.