Is The Lord of the Rings evidence that elves exist? — Harry Hindu

You don't need The Lord of the Rings. Just follow these instructions:

1. Pick any item that you know exists.
2. Call it "elves".

Now elves exist. Impressive, huh?

I really don't understand this comment. I could draw you a unit circle, show you tangents and whatever else you need if you really want me to graph out the basis of trigonometry. That the measurement system is arbitrary (360 degrees as opposed to 100 degrees in a circle) hardly impacts the validity or usefulness of the conclusions. And, even to the extent that mathematics is abstract, it hardly puts it in the same epistemological class as religion. — Hanover

Without the measurement system, there is no procedure. You cannot proceed without accepting on faith, these arbitrary assumptions, the numerals. You could draw me circles, and whatever shapes you like, showing me how they are related, but these are useless without the numerals.

The best I can decipher this argument is that you're saying that the world's a complex, confusing place, and there are things none of us understand in the physical world, so it's just as acceptable to posit religious truths as explanations. — Hanover

The argument is that faith underlies all we do. To reject something simply because it is faith based, is an unjustified rejection.

The reason "2" means 2 is because someone declared it a while ago. How's that mysterious? The reason we refer to transubstantiation as "transubstantiation" is for the same reason. That's not where the mystery lies. The mystery lies in how bread becomes the flesh of a guy who died thousands of years ago. — Hanover

You haven't quite stated the analogy properly here. We interpret "2" not as 2, but as having a meaning, "2" has a meaning. The meaning is roughly one individual is grouped with another individual, to make a unit, and this unit of distinct individuals is signified by one symbol, "2". That is how I interpret "2", maybe you don't interpret the meaning in exactly the same way as I do, but we do not interpret the meaning of "2" as 2 because that is circular and it doesn't give us any meaning at all. Further, the reason why "2" has such a meaning is not because someone declared it as such, but because this belief is upheld, and this is faith.

You interpret "transubstantiation" as "bread becomes the flesh of a guy who died thousands of years ago". As is the case with "2", the reason why "transubstantiation" means this is because the belief that this is what it means, is upheld, and this is faith. You say that it's a mystery as to how bread becomes the flesh of a guy who died a thousand years ago. I say that it is a mystery as to how one individual is grouped with another individual to make one unit. Why are they one unit under the symbol "2", which is what is declared in mathematical proceedings, and they are not two distinct units, as the meaning of "2" indicates? Now how is your mystery any more mysterious than my mystery?

This isn't the starting point for a conversation about God, it's the ending point. — Hanover

I don't think so. In order to determine whether God exists or not, then we must first agree on a definition. If you go back as far as Socrates and Plato, you will find that before going any further, any philosophical discussion must agree on definitions (and that doesn't mean purely agreeing on the words of a definition, but more importantly on their meaning). For how can we answer the question of whether there is a God or there is not a God if we don't first agree what God refers to or means?

The problem here is precisely that atheists don't want, by sheer will, to agree with the definitions provided by the theists. The theists aren't interested to discuss the strawman God (or transubstantiation) of the atheists on the other hand. So no progress can be made. I told you to accept the definitions of the theist, for the sake of progress, and because, the theist studying these aspects of reality more, is likely more aware than you what God refers to.

What you've done here is no different than it would be if I simply declared myself an authority on any subject, declared I knew better than you, and then proclaimed that you should defer to me for guidance. That posits you as Socrates, where I suppose I'm supposed to listen carefully to your comments and questions and try to obtain your wisdom. Anyway, this entire line of conversation hinges upon the fallacy of appealing to authority, although in this case, you appeal to yourself as the authority. — Hanover

That's not true, but if you want to discuss transubstantiation or God, you must agree with the definitions of the person you seek to combat in this case, or otherwise make clear why you disagree. Without agreeing to the definitions you are actually discussing something different.

I don't agree with this. We've all been relying upon the Catholic definition of the term throughout. — Hanover

Yes, we've been using the same words, BUT with different meanings. That's exactly the problem. You understand by "literal change" something different than I - or other believers - understand by a literal change.

You don't need The Lord of the Rings. Just follow these instructions:

1. Pick any item that you know exists.
2. Call it "elves".

Now elves exist. Impressive, huh? — Sapientia

No, that's not what is being said. You have to go to the propositional content of the words. When you call any item that exists as "elves", assuming that others adopt that usage of the word elves, that means that elves has taken on the propositional content of whatever item you have picked. So when used in those particular contexts, elves now refers to whatever that item refers to. Elves could also have other meanings (referents) in different contexts - in the context of Lord of the Rings, it refers to particular humanoid characters which have certain traits.

And no, Lord of the Rings isn't evidence that elves exist, the same way that the Bible isn't evidence that there was a literal flood of water in Noah's day that covered the whole geographic surface of the Earth.

But the Lord of the Rings is evidence that, for example, power corrupts, the same way that the Bible is evidence that immorality is self-destructive. You have to understand the literary genre of what you're reading. If you read the Bible like an asinus (much like many incapable New Atheists or fundamentalists are doing), taking it as a book of latest physics, you're going to miss the whole point.

The problem here is precisely that atheists don't want, by sheer will, to agree with the definitions provided by the theists. — Agustino

Agreeing to the theist's definition of terms is a slippery slope when the definitions themselves allow for zero disagreement once accepted. If an unbeliever is foolish enough to agree terms, then they've already lost and will only proceed down a rabbit hole.

Agreeing to the theist's definition of terms is a slippery slope when the definitions themselves allow for zero disagreement once accepted. If an unbeliever is foolish enough to agree terms, then they've already lost and will only proceed down a rabbit hole. — Buxtebuddha

Why do you think so? In order to have a conversation with a physicist about quarks, I must agree with his use of the term quarks - namely that quarks are the smallest known particle, and they have such and such properties which can be detected in such and such ways. If we don't start from his definition of quarks, then whatsoever I'm talking about with him will clearly not be what he means by quarks.

I may very well think, as a non-physicist, that quarks are pink balls or whatever, but that's irrelevant. To have a conversation with a physicist, I must accept his definition. So likewise, to have a conversation with a theist about transubstantiation in this case, the atheist must accept the definition of transubstantiation that the theist provides. This seems entirely natural.

Why do you think so? In order to have a conversation with a physicist about quarks, I must agree with his use of the term quarks - namely that quarks are the smallest known particle, and they have such and such properties which can be detected in such and such ways. If we don't start from his definition of quarks, then whatsoever I'm talking about with him will clearly not be what he means by quarks.

I may very well think, as a non-physicist, that quarks are pink balls or whatever, but that's irrelevant. To have a conversation with a physicist, I must accept his definition. So likewise, to have a conversation with a theist about transubstantiation in this case, the atheist must accept the definition of transubstantiation that the theist provides. This seems entirely natural. — Agustino

You can define it, but I don't have to believe it. One issue in this thread is the suggestion that defining it entails believing it to be real, which is dubious.

You can define it, but I don't have to believe it. One issue in this thread is the suggestion that defining it entails believing it to be real, which is dubious. — Buxtebuddha

Where was that suggested?

That seems to be MU's argument as I see it.

I haven't yet read the latest of MU's post, but then you should be addressing MU not me :P

I told you to accept the definitions of the theist, for the sake of progress, and because, the theist studying these aspects of reality more, is likely more aware than you what God refers to. — Agustino

This is wrong for a number of reasons. First, it suggests that the theist has some superior method of understanding God, as if the skeptic lacks the capacity at the same understanding, that the skeptic hasn't spent just as long as the theist in considering these issues, and that the skeptic might not have reached a very different conclusion than the theist. It's also very wrong to think that there is some monolithic thought process among theists, ignoring that the definition of God that one theist might have from another may vary widely even in the same church and same pew on any given Sunday. And, of course there are very different views from one church to the other, one denomination to another, and certainly one religion than another. Then there are those who take the idea of God very seriously but who find that no religious doctrine does it justice and who find that the study of religious literature is not the avenue to enlightenment in that area.

Your assertions that you know exactly what God is and that you stand with some authority on that question speaks loudly that your views bear no relation to my own, as I see one's relationship with God as personal, subjective, unprovable, and unverifiable by definition. To present God as this object fully subject to a complete knowable definition candidly feels to me like you have no idea what god is, but are instead just trying to define another object. Consistent with what I've said though, you may have that belief, and it is certainly yours to have, but it offers nothing for me, seems overly simplistic, and by positing yourself as a guru of sorts, it makes it impossible for me to take you seriously.

Yes, we've been using the same words, BUT with different meanings. That's exactly the problem. You understand by "literal change" something different than I - or other believers - understand by a literal change. — Agustino

By literal change, I mean not symbolic. The bread is the same in substance than it was before and after the prayer.

Without the measurement system, there is no procedure. You cannot proceed without accepting on faith, these arbitrary assumptions, the numerals. You could draw me circles, and whatever shapes you like, showing me how they are related, but these are useless without the numerals. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm not following your argument that "arbitrary" = "faith." I don't see the correlation and I don't understand why I can't accept that we use all sorts of arbitrary symbols to describe reality without having faith.

The argument is that faith underlies all we do. To reject something simply because it is faith based, is an unjustified rejection. — Metaphysician Undercover

There are foundational beliefs that anchor us into reality, sure. We might accept that our senses report to us what is occurring in the real world, and we might accept that reason and logic provide us insights into reality. Those foundational beliefs might at some level have to be accepted on faith, simply because a foundational belief can't have a further foundation; it's the origin of our belief.

If you're saying that your foundational belief is whatever the Catholic Church happens to tell you is true, I'd say that foundation is a much less rudimentary foundation than mine that no doubt relies upon many other more rudimentary beliefs, thus making it not truly foundational.

I say that it is a mystery as to how one individual is grouped with another individual to make one unit. Why are they one unit under the symbol "2", which is what is declared in mathematical proceedings, and they are not two distinct units, as the meaning of "2" indicates? Now how is your mystery any more mysterious than my mystery? — Metaphysician Undercover

You find it mysterious why people notice similarities among things and group them into categories?

I'm struggling to see how that's not a statement clearly suggesting that an accurate assessment of the Church's virtues is essential to good philosophy on this subject. Apart, it would seem, if you want to conclude that the Church has little or no net virtue when all of a sudden you're claiming it becomes irrelevant. This is just fashionable fence-sitting. — Inter Alia

Sorry. I don't understand what you're trying to say. I went back and looked at what I wrote and I can't figure it out.

I find your dismissive lack of value for human life and dignity quite shocking. The Catholic Church killed tens of thousands of people and subjected probably ten times that amount to abuse in the form emotional and physical torture in the name of it's bullshit religion, Nothing... absolutely nothing makes up for that. — Inter Alia

You didn't read my post carefully. Actually, it's significantly worse than you say. I said the church, in complicity with Spain, is responsible for the deaths and slavery of millions in the new world. So, do we say that Spain has no value? How about Great Britain, Germany, the US, etc., etc. They are all responsible for the deaths of millions and 10s of millions. Are they without value. Are their cultures without value.

I'm perfectly willing to accept it as reasonable if you answer "yes" to those questions, although I disagree. If you don't, then you are applying your rules in an inconsistent manner.

You might have, I'm not familiar with your posts on the subject. On it's own the sentence is meaningless and not something I can really respond to. Perhaps if you link me to the relevant thread I can give you a more substantive reply as it's quite a claim. Theist seem to have an understanding of nature that you happen to agree with. That's very nice. — Benkei

I can not figure how to link to one of my old posts on a different thread. The thread is called "objective reality vs. the Tao". I'll go learn how to link.

Doesn't make sense to start this discussion up again here. If you want to open a new thread, I'll participate.

I don't agree with the understanding of nature theists have. Did I say that? Is it an ad hominem attack if I call you Mr. Snooty-pants?

Why not? All theists have is tradition, a couple of anecdotes and a few books as proof. And of course faith. Mustn't forget that one. In light of the weak evidence (e.g. none whatsoever) and the failure of every conceivable philosophical argument for God then it's entirely reasonable to dismiss it out of hand. Out of "respect" for religious freedoms we just don't dismiss it out of hand, which in itself is an archaic remainder of an overly religious society. — Benkei

I've already responded to your comment.

Out of "respect" for religious freedoms we just don't dismiss it out of hand, which in itself is an archaic remainder of an overly religious society. — Benkei

Yes, I agree. And when you and I are in charge, we can stomp religion out. We'll get the NSA to do something really useful for once.

@Agustino, I have no particular reason or obligation to take the countless human claims of supernatural deities, their elaborate plans, what they want, require or demand, etc, seriously.

If some deity of theism existed and wanted me to know it did, or had critically important messages for me, then it would have no problems what so ever letting me in on that.

Isn't that what qualifies something as a deity in the first place (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, non-deceptive, trustworthy, etc)? And, ex hypothesi, such a deity would be the only authority on its messages. It's not like I'm strangely "resistant" or anything, and such a deity would know that already.

Meanwhile, I'm certainly not going to take all the incompatible, ambiguous, inconsistent, spurious words of fallible humans for it. Why would anyone? (Could anyone, even, given all the incompatibilities, ambiguities, inconsistencies, ...?) Requiring other humans to indoctrinate me isn't something I'd expect of a worthwhile deity. No, that's just gullible, biased, non-thinking tomfoolery. (Perhaps akin to delusion, as mentioned by @Harry Hindu.)

Where does that leave things? Those claims can't all be right, but they could all be wrong. What's the simplest coherent explanation?

The problem with your assessment is that it neglects to mention that this discussion is not about the theistic crowd, but specifically about the Eastern Orthodox or Catholic interpretation of transubstantiation. As the instigator of this discussion, I think that I have greater authority than others when it comes to what we're supposed to be talking about here. And, contrary to the rather misleading impression that you create, and as the preceding discussion demonstrates, not only is my definition of transubstantiation in sync with that of the Eastern Orthodox Church and Catholicism, Metaphysician Undercover's is not, despite my association with the secular crowd and his association with the theistic crowd.

Sorry. I don't understand what you're trying to say. I went back and looked at what I wrote and I can't figure it out. — T Clark

You wrote

Well, we're not talking about Nazism here. It's Catholicism - a world view followed by hundreds of millions of people over two thousand years. It would take monstrous hubris to claim it has nothing of value to offer. To come to a discussion without that understanding is the sign of a poor philosopher. — T Clark

and

I think that theists and mystics have a better overall understanding of the nature of reality than atheists do. — T Clark

From those statements I understood that;
1. To come to a discussion without understanding the good things the Church had to offer was the sign of a bad philosopher (virtually word for word what you said). It seems then completely prejudicial to say that bringing to the discussion all the bad things that same church has caused is pointless, "so what?" as you put it.
2.You suggest that, were we talking about Nazism, this would somehow be different. i.e an accurate assessment of the net harms/benefits of the institution would become relevant. After all, Nazism brought full employment, security, gave a lot of people hope and a sense of identity but you're implying that, were we talking about Nazism, we would not have to bear these benefits in mind alone because they would be outweighed by the atrocities, and yet you seem unwilling to carry out the same calculation with Catholicism.
3. You feel something, directly resulting from being Catholic (or some other theist position), provides an enlightenment about reality (from your last statement above). This means the question of Spain (I understood the reference, by the way), Great Britain, Germany etc is irrelevant because you're not claiming that something intrinsic about being Spanish, British or German provides any benefit unavailable to other nationalities. Were you to claim such a thing I would indeed point to the atrocities carried out by these countries as evidence against such an argument, so there is no inconsistency in the application of my rules. If the enlightenment you're referring to still encourages people to engage in genocide then I'm not interested in it.

Basically, I'm struggling to understand why mention of the atrocities carried out by the Catholic Church (or any other religion) is constantly being stonewalled on this thread.

That would be boring and not the issue in this specific thread. — Benkei

The question isn't whether it has nothing (as in zero) to offer. The question is whether its fundamental beliefs are true, from the resurrection to transubstantiation. — Hanover

So what? — T Clark

My understanding was that the question centred around why someone would have the faith they do in something as seemingly inexplicable as transubstantiation. Answers given seem to revolve around the fact that faith in Catholicism is not like faith in unicorns or Santa Claus because the catholic church is a meaningful organisation. An assessment of what it means to be part of the catholic church seems to be the crucial next step in that discussion, but everyone seems to want to avoid that in favour of a further 6 pages of "I believe this...well I don't...well I do...well I don't" ad infinitum. If that's what you guys enjoy, I will leave you to it.

That's the same reasoning employed by Metaphysician Undercover in his argument about transubstantiation. His argument has been refuted by a reduction to the absurd.

I don't disagree with what you said after you stated your disagreement, but that doesn't change anything. You're just preaching to the choir and missing the point. Of course, if I were to call my cat "elves", then, in this language, which I'll call "Sapienglish", "elves" would "take on that propositional content", i.e. it would mean my cat. That's just meaning as use, which I have stated my agreement with. But Sapienglish is not English as we know it, it's just a made up language.

Now, if you relate this back to what Metaphysician Undercover is doing, hopefully you'll see the problem. Benkei was right to draw attention to the idiosyncrasy of his language use, and I was right earlier on to question whether Metaphysician Undercover was speaking English, despite that being taken out of context and used against me by Buxtebuddha in a fairly successful attempt at character assassination. Metaphysician Undercover is not, despite the appearance, speaking the same language as the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is your own church, yet your inclination seems to be to jump to his defence, despite the implications of doing so, perhaps because you associate yourself with him as part of the theistic crowd, which you contrast with the secular crowd which you associate with myself and others. Tribalism can be an unfortunate distraction.

With regards to the meaning of "literal", this shouldn't even be an issue. I put the matter to rest twenty pages back and ten days ago by copy-pasting from two different dictionaries and giving an example. I don't recall getting any disagreement. Others here have affirmed this meaning on both sides of the debate. So why are people still bringing this up? I did not think that Hanover was speaking a language alien to myself and others, although I wouldn't put it past some people. I thought that he meant what he said, and that, if he had meant something else, then he would have used a different word or made that clear in some way. Hanover is sensible like that, but unfortunately not everyone is like that.

Spoiler: he's still making the same errors that he has been making from the beginning.

Depends what the terms are in question are

So, again, how is it knowledge if the terms they use refer to non-existent things - like the influence of the planets and stars on your life? — Harry Hindu

That's not non-existent things. I imagine they must make predictions based on the planets and stars that the state of my life. Those predictions can be verified, once you understand what they are and what they mean.. — Agustino

Let's pick some astrological terms then:
http://www.crawfordperspectives.com/astro_gloss.html
Take your pick.

Looking at those terms, is seems to me that astronomers, use many of those terms as well, and would know what they mean. It's only astrologers that add more "meaning", that can't be falsified, and therefore can't be predicted. Horoscopes are to general to mean anything. Reading horoscopes of other signs that I am not indicate that I share traits of all of them, not just one.

And what about the 72 year old Muslim, or Hindu, who has studied their religion their whole life and disagrees with what your word, "God" refers to? — Harry Hindu

Depends on the particular person. Study time is necessary to know better, but not also sufficient.

And I doubt they'd disagree. As it has already been said by multiple people in this thread, there is a mystical core that all religions agree to in one way or another. They may disagree about the path to get there, but not about the destination. — Agustino

This is an appeal to popularity - a logical fallacy (tell me how you are using reason to get at your truths again). At one point in history, most people believed the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe. Did that make them right? This is just evidence of a mass delusion. Most humans fear death, including atheists. It's just atheists have rejected or haven't succumbed to the delusion the fear feeds. We accept our finite existence and get on with our lives as atheists understand better than any theist the value of life. An afterlife diminishes the value of this life, the only one we have. Imagine how much more precious this life is without an afterlife.

I cannot give you evidence, as I said evidence is found in your own experiences. — Agustino

Watch this video. This video was done in Brazil, which has the largest number of Catholics in the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUD4cuTQn2E

The people in the elevator experienced something different than what a scientifically-minded atheist would experience. Why?

Isn't it because they already accepted the premise of spirits, devils, angels, gods, etc. and THAT influences how they interpret their experiences, which is no different than your interpretation of your experiences? You're simply misconstruing the meaning of your experience based on a faulty premise.

You're simply misconstruing the meaning of your experience based on a faulty premise. — Harry Hindu

Quite right.

I also think that @Inter Alia was onto something when he mentioned fashionable fence-sitting and apologetics. Prejudice against that which is associated with New Atheism might be another factor. It's like some people find it so distasteful that they overcompensate, tiptoe around certain subjects, and give credit where it's not due.

Prejudice against that which is associated with New Atheism might be another factor. — Sapientia

It's not prejudiced. New Atheism is actually recognised as entirely childish and not worthy of intellectual respect. It's so intellectually dishonest, I wouldn't even give it a second glance. They don't even understand what they're talking about. And that's a fact. Anyone who understands theism - even if they are an atheist and disagree with it - will actually agree.

I think that that just demonstrates my point. Bravo.

I think that that just demonstrates my point. Bravo. — Sapientia

You can think what you want, doesn't make it true.

You should tell that to yourself.

Same for you.

Now I will need to address the serious comments in this thread (including yours) when I get more time.