Yeah, that might be an interesting exercise, but I'm not here to play devil's advocate. I understand that that's what you want me to do, but I'm more concerned with a genuine discussion than pretend play. — S

Why is intellectual honesty, the challenging of all positions with equal enthusiasm, "pretend play"?

Why is intellectual honesty, the challenging of all positions with equal enthusiasm, "pretend play"? — Jake

That's not intellectual honesty. I don't have to have equal enthusiasm for challenging all positions to be intellectually honest. You're just making that up.

Pretend play is a disparaging way to refer to the practice of playing devil's advocate. (You know, kinda like your disparaging way of referring to people who don't challenge their own position on request as "just another holy war ideologue waving a flag").

Playing devil's advocate is similar in appearance to intellectual dishonesty, and the two can be confused if you're not clear about what you're doing from the outset.

Refusing to humour you by playing devil's advocate does not mean that I'm being intellectually dishonest. I have been intellectually honest and I will continue to be intellectually honest.

I don't have to have equal enthusiasm for challenging all positions to be intellectually honest. — S

Being intellectually honest is examining all positions dispassionately as if one has no dog in the fight. All positions get subjected to the same process. As example, the authorities theism is based on are asked to prove their qualifications, just as the authority atheism is based on is asked to prove it's qualifications.

Being a flag waving ideologue is the relentless selling of a single position. This is what you are doing. You are only challenging the other guy's claims and chosen authorities, never your own. All positions are not subjected to the same process.

You aren't doing reason. You're doing ideology. That is, you're replicating in your own process the very thing about religion which you reasonably object to. You have met the enemy, and he is you. :smile:

PS: Everybody obviously has the right to be an ideologue. We just don't get to call that reason, that's all. Well, we can call it reason if we want to, at the cost of losing credibility.

Being intellectually honest is examining all positions dispassionately as if one has no dog in the fight. All positions get subjected to the same process. As example, the authorities theism is based on are asked to prove their qualifications, just as the authority atheism is based on is asked to prove it's qualifications. — Jake

So being intellectually honest involves being intellectually dishonest by pretending that one doesn't have a dog in the fight when one does have a dog in the fight. Yeah, that makes sense. If you're an atheist, you have a dog in the fight. If you're a theist, you have a dog in the fight. If you're an agnostic, you have a dog in the fight. Unless you have no position, you have a dog in the fight.

Like I've said, I'm okay with attempting a justification for a claim that I've made, and that can begin with a simple request.

Being a flag waving ideologue is the relentless selling of a single position. This is what you are doing. You are only challenging the other guy's claims and chosen authorities, never your own. All positions are not subjected to the same process. — Jake

So present a challenge. Or quit pestering me.

So being intellectually honest involves being intellectually dishonest by pretending that one doesn't have a dog in the fight when one does have a dog in the fight. — S

No pretending is necessary, as you could easily figure out for yourself if your ideologist's mind wasn't set on auto-rejection mode.

"Although I would label myself as an XYZ, in this thread I'd like to spend some time examining any possible weaknesses in the XYZ position."

Isn't this just what you'd hope theists would do? If a theist did that they would gain credibility with you, right?

So present a challenge. Or quit pestering me. — S

I've just presented a challenge to you in my last few posts above. You're not up to meeting that challenge, so you're running away in fear. And BTW, I don't have the power to pester you. If you don't wish to read my posts, don't read them, no problem.

I'm not claiming a God exists, or that any doctrines that arise from that belief need to be believed. However, should a God exist, it seems reasonable and sensible to propose that it is, or may be, above logic.

God is typically proposed to be the essence of reality, the creator of reality, a form of hyper-intelligence etc. That is, the God idea is in one way or another attempting to explain the very largest of scale.

Logic is the poorly developed ability of a single half insane species recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies etc. Human reason exists on a tiny local scale.

It seems quite speculative to presume that something as small and imperfect as the rules of human reason would be binding on everything everywhere (scope of God claims), a realm we can't even define in even the most basic manner. If someone wishes to assert this to be true it seems entirely reasonable to ask them to prove it, just as it's entirely reasonable to ask theists to prove the huge claims being made in their holy books.

We might reflect on the influence of scale upon observation.

The classic example of course is that from the surface of the Earth (a very local scale) there is a compelling illusion that all of reality is orbiting around the Earth. When the scale is enlarged to give a wider perspective this perception is seen to be thoroughly untrue, entirely wrong.

Another more modern example is the discovery that time runs at different rates, depending on the relationship between the observer and large bodies such as planets. On the surface of the Earth, a very local scale, the different rates of time are so small (billionths of a second) that they aren't noticed and are a meaningless factor. However, when the scale is expanded, we see that GPS satellites have to take the time speed difference in to account or their location data would be way off.

What's happening with our relationship with logic is that from our human scale it seems an obvious given that logic is binding on everything, and in our day to day lives this is true. But the sample of reality being examined here is extremely small. It's huge to us, but in comparison to reality it barely exists.

Another problem is that we are comparing our intelligence to the only other forms of intelligence ever observed, animals on Earth. And in that limited local scale comparison we look like geniuses, and thus this comparison is very popular. :smile: But when discussing infinite scale ideas like God, that comparison is worthless. If there is any God like thing capable of creating galaxies etc, it's intelligence would be so far beyond our own as to render the concept of intelligence meaningless.

Finally, we've all observed how Christians presume that all of reality is basically about us. We are Gods most important project etc. If one is not a Christian it's extremely easy to doubt such a wild assumption.

But atheists are doing essentially the same thing. They are assuming without proof, and typically without even realizing it, that human logic is binding on all of reality, and thus upon any gods who may be contained within. And like the Christians, their human-centric bias is so strong that it rarely seems to dawn on them that we can't define "all of reality" in even the most basic manner, such as size and shape.

Both Christians and atheists are attempting to reduce all of reality down to human scale so that we can comfort ourselves with the fantasy that we have at least some idea what is going on. This might be compared to little children who have absolute faith in their parents, an assumption born of the fear which arises from a near complete dependence. — Jake

I almost missed this reply. I accept that I could be wrong, but if the law of noncontradiction can be violated, then anything goes, literally, as per the principle of explosion. And that's a really big problem. An unacceptable consequence. So through a reduction to absurdity, I can demonstrate that a rejection of a God which can violate the law of noncontradiction is justified.

What typically happens to make a person an ideologist is that they use an ideology to enhance their self image.

This process is easy to see in some of the more annoying nose in the air theists. "We are the chosen people, we are saved, we are holy, we are morally superior, we have God's ear etc." The purpose of such statements is to position the speaker as being above somebody else.

We're probably all guilty of this emotional agenda to some degree or another, but some folks get really carried away with it. To the degree that this happens we tend to become imperious to reason because our primary focus is not really the topic itself, but our relationship with ourselves.

I accept that I could be wrong, but if the law of noncontradiction can be violated, then anything goes, literally, as per the principle of explosion. And that's a really big problem. — S

Aha, now you are getting somewhere, bravo.

Yes, whether one is a theist or atheist, the possibility that there might not be any authority which we can place our trust in can be troubling indeed. Imagine that we don't know the laws of the country we live, and have no method of learning those laws. This is a perilous position, as we could be arrested at any moment and not even know why. And so many or most people reject this possibility for the simple understandable reason that they don't want to deal with uncertainty. And then they turn to some authority or another to tell them how to think.

What I've been attempting to articulate in many of posts is that the God debate is the biggest longest investigation in human history, and it has yielded useful information. The evidence clearly shows that nobody can prove anything. So if we are people of reason, if we listen to the evidence, we don't really have any choice but to accept that on these subjects there is no proven authority that we can reference.

Is this a really big problem? No, because as the evidence clearly shows theists, atheists and agnostics have all proven they can have rewarding lives without having a proven authority to reference. Many people have a rewarding life in one position, then change that position, and go right on having rewarding lives.

Ignorance is not automatically a problem, as the following example will hope to illustrate.

Let's say you've met some guy or gal at the bus stop and they've invited you home for lunch. A few hours later you're walking hand in hand in to the bedroom. What makes this a special event which you may remember for the rest of your life? Ignorance!

Now let's say that you marry this person and 30 years later you're walking in to the bedroom with them again. What makes this an experience you may not remember until next Tuesday? Not enough ignorance!

Ignorance is much of what makes life a rich experience. If we can examine the God debate as people of reason, and not as ideologists honking memorized slogans, we might see that the God debate is trying to teach us something important.

We don't know.

And that can be a very good thing.

Perhaps this becomes easier to see as one ages. Some aspects of life which would engage a younger person become boring over time because we've already seen those same human ego melodrama situations a million times.

So through a reduction to absurdity, I can demonstrate that a rejection of a God which can violate the law of noncontradiction is justified. — S

It's justified emotionally. We all have the right to seek comfort where ever we can find it. And we all have the right to reject or ignore inconvenient posters such as myself who put that comfort at risk.

To the degree that one wishes to walk the path of reason, one sacrifices this right as the price of doing business. In the purest sense (which few of us ever realize) reason is just like faith, it's a process one surrenders to. We aren't the driver of the bus, but merely a passenger. We don't get to choose the destination of the bus, we don't get to use the bus of reason to travel to our preferred destination.

All of these problems are removed if one is honest enough to simply declare oneself an ideologist. In that case one is not bound by the process summarized above and is free to drive the imaginary bus to any glorious imaginary destination one desires. Thus, ideology is very popular.

No pretending is necessary, as you could easily figure out for yourself if your ideologist's mind wasn't set on auto-rejection mode. — Jake

Okay then, forget rejection for a minute. Let's do some examining. If no pretending is necessary, then how am I supposed to act as though I have no dog in the fight when I do have a dog in the fight? Wouldn't that involve a kind of pretence?

"Although I would label myself as an XYZ, in this thread I'd like to spend some time examining any possible weaknesses in the XYZ position." — Jake

And, in regard to my own position, I created a discussion for that very purpose, as you know. I would like to spend some time examining any possible weaknesses in that position, in a place where it's on-topic, and I have made that possible by presenting it on a philosophy forum for members of that forum to examine and comment upon. Unfortunately, your replies were insubstantial. That was a disappointment, as I expected more.

Isn't this just what you'd hope theists would do? If a theist did that they would gain credibility with you, right? — Jake

There's a time and a place for that. I've told you that I'm not interested in trying to pick apart my own position singlehandedly. I don't need you or anyone else for that. But you keep pressing for me to do what you want, irrespective of what I've said.

But if you, or anyone else here, want to try to pick it apart, then you are welcome to do so. Get the ball rolling.

I've just presented a challenge to you in my last few posts above. You're not up to meeting that challenge, so you're running away in fear. And BTW, I don't have the power to pester you. If you don't wish to read my posts, don't read them, no problem. — Jake

Yes, you've challenged me to challenge myself, so that you don't have to. I can challenge myself in my own time, when I feel like it, without you badgering me.

If no pretending is necessary, then how am I supposed to act as though I have no dog in the fight when I do have a dog in the fight? Wouldn't that involve a kind of pretence? — S

It could, but isn't required to. Take something easier as example. Let's say we're not all that political really, but we lean left. We can honestly disclose that we lean left, while at the same time pointing to problems within the Democratic Party. Ok, so this gets harder as one addresses issues that are more important to us, but it''s still possible.

I've told you that I'm not interested in trying to pick apart my own position singlehandedly. I don't need you or anyone else for that. But you keep pressing for me to do what you want, irrespective of what I've said. — S

Yes, I'm a reason evangelist, and like all evangelists (we won't mention any other names here) I'm annoying. Not only annoying, but truly illogical too, because none of this is ever going to lead to much of anything, thus I'm mostly wasting my life typing to hear myself talk. But please recall, the glory of this medium is that we can simply scroll right on by annoying people.

Yes, you've challenged me to challenge myself, so that you don't have to. — S

So I don't have to? Have you noticed that I'm investing a lot of time in to challenging you? I'm just not challenging you the way you want to be challenged, that's all.

It's possible I'm three times your age and am going too fast. Ok, if that's the case, then feel free to scroll right on by me, no offense will be taken.

So, to boil all of that down, basically, you say we don't know, we're ignorant, and ignorance can be good.

Sure.

But the question then is obviously what do we know and what don't we know, how much do we or don't we know, what is the extent of our ignorance, what are we ignorant of and what aren't we ignorant of, and of that ignorance, what counts as the good kind and what counts as the bad kind.

That's what's arguable.

(And yes, I'm aware that much of that was grammatically redundant. I don't know why I did that, but hey ho).

It's justified emotionally. We all have the right to seek comfort where ever we can find it. And we all have the right to reject or ignore inconvenient posters such as myself who put that comfort at risk. — Jake

Yeah, you're a real gadfly, Socrates. Nooo. Please stop. Me just a stupey horsey. Me no like sting. You drink hemlock. Leave horsey be. :lol:

It's justified through reason. It's more reasonable to go with a theory with far superior explanatory power than a theory with nothing going for it which clashes with everything that reason has lead me to believe. Reason has lead me to believe that this isn't a world where anything goes, full of contradiction, that makes no sense whatsoever.

It could, but isn't required to. Take something easier as example. Let's say we're not all that political really, but we lean left. We can honestly disclose that we lean left, while at the same time pointing to problems within the Democratic Party. Ok, so this gets harder as one addresses issues that are more important to us, but it''s still possible. — Jake

You mean like being an atheist of a sort, but at the same time pointing to problems with atheism? Yes, I've done that. Sometimes atheists get it wrong. Sometimes they go too far.

Yes, I'm a reason evangelist, and like all evangelists (we won't mention any other names here) I'm annoying. Not only annoying, but truly illogical too, because none of this is ever going to lead to much of anything, thus I'm mostly wasting my life typing to hear myself talk. But please recall, the glory of this medium is that we can simply scroll right on by annoying people. — Jake

Where one party is unwilling, that time would be better spent by the other party producing criticism of his own. Where both parties are unwilling, we won't get anywhere. Not unless one of us budges, and that hasn't happened yet.

So I don't have to? Have you noticed that I'm investing a lot of time in to challenging you? I'm just not challenging you the way you want to be challenged, that's all. — Jake

But you're not really challenging me, because I already have that challenge. That's there by default. I've already considered my position, and this is where I'm at. Now, you might have noticed that I have yet to abandon it. Perhaps consider why that is? Could it be that, instead of being ideologically or emotionally attached to it, which is how you're spinning it, rather, in my reasoned assessment, I have found it to be better than the alternatives?

It's possible I'm three times your age and am going too fast. Ok, if that's the case, then feel free to scroll right on by me, no offense will be taken. — Jake

If you were three times my age, then you would be old enough for it to be a real possibility that the aging process has hindered your mental capabilities. You'd be lucky not to have popped your clogs. But you seem to be doing okay, if not quite as polished as you might see yourself. :up:

But you're not really challenging me, because I already have that challenge. That's there by default. I've already considered my position, and this is where I'm at. Now, you might have noticed that I have yet to abandon it. Perhaps consider why that is? Could it be that, instead of being ideologically or emotionally attached to it, which is how you're spinning it, rather, in my reasoned assessment, I have found it to be better than the alternatives? — S

You love to do this typing back and forth, back and forth, but you never quite get around to questioning your own chosen authority in the same way you reasonably question the theist's chosen authorities. Your "reasoned assessment" is always aimed outward, at somebody else's process, somebody else's chosen authority, somebody else's conclusions. How can you "find something better than the alternatives" if your lens is aimed only in one direction?

It's justified through reason. It's more reasonable to go with a theory with far superior explanatory power than a theory with nothing going for it which clashes with everything that reason has lead me to believe. Reason has lead me to believe that this isn't a world where anything goes, full of contradiction, that makes no sense whatsoever. — S

Yes, reason has led you to believe this, reason has led you to believe that. But you never apply the processes of reason to reason itself. You're accepting the unlimited qualifications of human reason as a matter of faith, taking them to be an obvious given. This faith position is easily challenged given how incredibly small human beings are in relation to the arena which god claims address, the fundamental nature of everything everywhere.

Your position is like an unchallenged assumption that bacteria could understand the Internet. You're not standing on a solid rock as you appear to believe.

By the way, in your defense, you are in very good company in making these faith based assumptions.

So, to boil all of that down, basically, you say we don't know, we're ignorant, and ignorance can be good. — S

That's a beginning to it, yes.

But the question then is obviously what do we know and what don't we know, how much do we or don't we know, what is the extent of our ignorance, what are we ignorant of and what aren't we ignorant of, and of that ignorance, what counts as the good kind and what counts as the bad kind. — S

One could explore in that direction. And/or, one could ask..

We've discovered all this ignorance through a long investigation. What constructive use can be made of this abundant asset?

A claim demands justification, otherwise it can rightly be dismissed. — S

If you subscribe to logic, and a logical viewpoint, then you don't just dismiss things without a logical reason.

I agree. Though I think if any of the current religions is to survive the ongoing onslaught, it must address the evils perpetrated by its misguided adherents in a very direct way. Most of the religions must also be universalised with every tribal aspect being eliminated and every metaphysics must be revealed to be conceptual. Otherwise, it would just be inviting more chaos.

but if the law of noncontradiction can be violated, then anything goes... — S

So it does. Science-types say this sort of thing a lot. But contain your outrage for a moment and think. Yes, if your aim is formal and rigid structured logic, then you need such 'laws' to operate. On the other hand, if you are someone who tries to study reality, without placing artificial limits on what might or might not be studied, then maybe you don't. Of course, things would be a lot easier if these 'laws' applied universally, but that seems not always to be the case in the real world. :confused:

So we have a choice. We, like science, can limit ourselves to the easy problems, the ones that (seem to) conform to these 'laws'. Or, we can attempt some of the more difficult stuff, but only if we are prepared to study with less of a safety net (or without one altogether). Even science acknowledges some uncertainty in the world, via QM, Godel et al or wave-particle duality in light (a contradiction if ever I saw one). Maybe we should try a bit harder with the harder problems? :chin:

Religion is socialized art and socialized expression. — Blue Lux

This is as redundant as saying ‘socialized language’. Also, aesthetic experience and expression do not require religion. Not that you were saying it does.

Religion and spirituality represent very meaningful experiences for people, and in every church there is undoubtedly something different but a part of a whole. This whole is the meaning there, as a social unit, in reaction to the civilized attitudes, dilemmas and norms they have to assimilate. Not always is religion or spirituality harmful. I recently read something about A. Crowley or I think that is how you spell his name. He said certain magical rituals have powerful psychological meaning, within the repetition, faith, interest and the ritualistic aspect. The Book is the Lesser (something) of Soloman

Religion and spirituality represent very meaningful experiences for people, and in every church there is undoubtedly something different but a part of a whole. This whole is the meaning there, as a social unit, in reaction to the civilized attitudes, dilemmas and norms they have to assimilate. Not always is religion or spirituality harmful. — Blue Lux

True enough. And thanks to the improving social harmony across the globe, religious terrorism is on the decline. Hopefully, eventually and soon, there will be an instinctive inclination towards sharing of spiritual practices and, consequently, a coalition of religions. Maybe the 'whole' will become the new focus of religions instead of the many seemingly separate parts.

A. Crowley — Blue Lux

Don't like his teachings. He didn't apply a strict ethical orientation to his teachings which gave them the appeal of black magic.

Your "reasoned assessment" is always aimed outward, at somebody else's process, somebody else's chosen authority, somebody else's conclusions. — Jake

I read an insightful and witty analysis of ‘Internet atheism’ once, comparing the species to the moray eel. Morays are always located in a crevice from which nothing can approach them from behind, and from which they will dart and sieze prey when it strays into their orbit. Ambush predators.

medieval latin rituals are cool though, id say...

I’ve run across many moray eels while diving but I’ve never seen one crewing on its own tail like some samsaric uroborus.

I have a ring of the ouroboros. Wonderful alchemical asset.

Religion for sure is complicated to talk about so just keep in mind that this is my opinion, so it can be wrong. — Yuuky002

Nice preface.

Religion today is really a big deal, not more that before in the medieval time, but i think that if you are a religious representative such as the Papa, you have more power than many countrys around.
Religion can be a way of uniting people all around the world for one only cause, that can variate, for a common god, for a life stile, but can also be for non acceptance, chaos and deaf.
I think that the pure concept of each religion is beautiful, no religion talks about deaf, no religion talks about non acceptance. The big problem is that no religion seems to follow there truth meaning and goal. when you go to the catholic church it fells more like a brainwash than anything else. — Yuuky002

Yeah, it sounds like people have more of a love/hate relationship with religion here. Can't say I blame them.

Yes, I think perhaps the main problem with religion is humans.... :confused: