As we all should be.

Indeed. We agree here too.

Right, because reason is a 'god.' For you, (the concept of ) reason is authoritative. And that's my 'religion' too, mostly. — joshua

No. You believe only god? I believe the weather report. I believe when my neighbour says he is going to go the barber shop. I believe my x wife when she says she'll pick up the grandchildren after 8.

You are copmletely driven by your desire to prove that atheists have gods. No, they don't. Your examples are fit for a congregation in Baptist church, but they are shown to be wrong by someone who is a cliritcal thinker, not a blind follower of a faith in god along with all other accoutraments of a god worship.

You are copmletely driven by your desire to prove that atheists have gods. — god must be atheist

I'm a hard-core atheist. Maybe that will help.

What I'm trying to point out is that anti-religious role-play tends to be blind in its own investment in spectral entities ---like truth, justice, progress, etc. This is not to say that such entities make bad 'gods.'

Your examples are fit for a congregation in Baptist church, but they are shown to be wrong by someone who is a cliritcal thinker, not a blind follower of a faith in god along with all other accoutraments of a god worship. — god must be atheist

Indeed, the 'critical thinker' is the 'Christ image' (the what-we-should-be) of (negative/critical) philosophy. Just as the vegetarian is proud to abstain from meat and the Christian to abstain from sin, so the critical thinker is proud to abstain from superstition -- from un-criticized/un-purified belief. Less meat/sin/superstition means more virtue and higher status -- at least among those who fly the same flag. But why? Assuming that superstition was good for the individual animal (helped him thrive and reproduce within his superstitious tribe by keeping his morale up), the 'religiously' critical mind would choose the cross capital T of Truth, looking forward to vindication in some virtual future.

If it helps, I'm criticizing you not from the under the flag of traditional religion...but instead from under our shared flag. To me you are being insufficiently critical of your own criticism, which is to say insufficiently self-conscious. Seemingly locked in a anti-'Baptist' framework, it seems that you were 'forced' to assume that I'm a bible-thumper. Instead I've moved on to put more vital 'gods' in question (like progress.) And then to put my motives for doing so in question. And all of these moves are at least 150 years old.

As far as I can tell, not much has happened since then in the realm of intellectuals. Obviously these old ideas have become popular. We now have bestsellers that cast religion as the great enemy of progress. To me it's just one more one-issue fantasy. If only the world's problems had a simple center like religion....

Joshua, I don't believe you are an atheist. You wouldn't have written your post above if you were. You are blinded by your faith, and can't see beyond your nose. These previous statements by me are opinions, not facts, but I hold these opinions about you because of the many references you wrote all favouring Christianity in spirit and in emotion.

You are not saying the truth when you say you're a hard core atheist, is my opinion, and I stand by that opinion. Again, I state that as an opinion, not as a fact.

I have seen many, many wolves in sheep's clothing. It's the oldest trick in the book that you are practicing: declaring you're atheist, then praising Christianity non-stop.

You must think I am so stupid as not to see through your thin veneer.

Joshua, I don't believe you are an atheist. You wouldn't have written your post above if you were. — god must be atheist

That you would think that suggest to me just how boxed-in you are. For me the god-issue has been dead for ~20 years. That's how long I've been a total atheist.

These previous statements by me are opinions, not facts, but I hold these opinions about you because of the many references you wrote all favouring Christianity in spirit and in emotion. — god must be atheist

What I think you are missing is that critical thinking and the religion of progress evolved (largely) from Christianity. You can see a good version of this transformation in the Left Hegelians. Heaven is brought down to earth. Humanity grows up and puts away its otherwordly fantasies. It become 'our' job to build 'Heaven' down here. We just have to eradicate poverty, superstition, injustice. Maybe nationalism is on the list of superstitions. So we all just need to wake up and be purified, rational beings, one species under the flag of Reason. I'm not knocking this fantasy. I feel its pull. But notice how apocalyptic and conspiratorial our pop culture is these days. Just as Satan was the lord of this world in Christianity, we see a repetition of string-pullers in high places as the bogey man (perhaps Christianity itself is Satan the adversary.)

I say look at 'grand narratives' as the essence of 'religion.' Instead of demons and angels, we have more worldly superstitions these days (unrealistically diabolical politicians and billionaires and institutions). When we don't see ourselves in the adversary at all (when we think we are totally pure and at war with total filth), that is an indicator of superstition --in my book, anyway.

I have seen many, many wolves in sheep's clothing. It's the oldest trick in the book that you are practicing: declaring you're atheist, then praising Christianity non-stop.

You must think I am so stupid as not to see through your thin veneer. — god must be atheist

I almost envy your belief in my belief. Note that you are enjoying the usual conspiracy theory here. 'Everyone is wearing a mask. Nothing is as it seems.' The first shall be last and the last shall be first.

Conspiracy theory is a primary form of religion these days. The world is out of control. Conspiracy theory is the comforting idea that some bad people are in control. So all we need to do is grab the controls from them, wake up, etc. I don't think so. But I would only bother to say so to others who identity with 'truth.' Why kill the buzz of strangers? If I have no solution?

Not every, but almost every word you wrote reflects misinformations, lies, and outrageous claims.

I wish you would stop writing to me, because your so-called facts are wholly unworthy. Please stop responding to me and I promise I shall do the same, that is, I won't respond to you.

This has been a truly sickening thread. It's not healthy to communicate with a person who lies his or her way through an entire debate.

You really disgust me, Joshua.

Again, nothing personal, no claims of fact about your personality... it's just that you make me wanna puke.

Weak.


Goodbye.

Right. This phrase:

what the Empiricist speaks of and describes as sense-knowledge is not exactly sense-knowledge, but sense-knowledge plus unconsciously introduced intellective ingredients, -- sense-knowledge in which he has made room for reason without recognizing it.


explains a great deal. — Wayfarer

Right, but Maritain was by no means the first to question the empiricist idea of "raw sense data". Kant already critiques that idea with his "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind".

And to suggest that modern philosophy, whether continental, phenomenological, existential or analytic, typically retains this outmoded idea, is to attack a strawman. I can't think of one philosopher after Russell (and perhaps only early Russell at that) whose philosophy promotes or relies upon the idea of raw sense data. Can you?

:fire:

All naive realism does. Academic philosophy, not so much, but it permeates popular philosophy. It comes up in the inability to distinguish human intelligence from animal intelligence i.e. ‘we’re basically just apes’. It is also what is behind eliminative materialism - it is precisely because of the inability to recognize what the mind does that makes that argument possible. And for that matter it’s also behind ‘the blind spot of science’.

Kant already critiques that idea with his "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind". — Janus

And you could count on one hand the number of posters on this forum who understand this point.

It seems here like @Wayfarer is concerned with the general layman's viewpoint and it's broad cultural significance, and with the zeitgeist of TPF in general, while @Janus is less concerned with that and more so with fine tuned, microscopic philosophical accuracy? Is that a fair assessment of the differences I always see you two getting into? (I don't know why I'm playing ref here)

I lean towards spiritual philosophy, Janus is adamantly naturalist. In some ways I feel strong affinity with Thomist philosophy although I’m not Catholic.

I lean towards spiritual philosophy as well; a fools game of sorts, on the TPF. Hence why I sometimes label myself the joker...

I lean towards spiritual philosophy, Janus is adamantly naturalist. — Wayfarer

I just have a broader conception of spiritual philosophy than you do. All good philosophy is spiritual. As I see it you only count as spiritual the philosophy that you can interpret to be in accordance with your dogmatic view of what spirituality is.

It comes up in the inability to distinguish human intelligence from animal intelligence i.e. ‘we’re basically just apes’. — Wayfarer

Why? I don't think it is any more sensible to say that animals perceive raw sense data than it is to say that humans do. We are evolved animals, that is virtually undeniable. The only differences between us and animals are larger brains, opposable thumb and language ability.

And you could count on one hand the number of posters on this forum who understand this point. — Wayfarer

I don't think that is anywhere near being an accurate assessment.

Perhaps there is something in how you characterize Wayfarer and myself, but I think "broad social significance" is more of a sociological issue than a philosophical.

In any case I don't agree that the "common person" thinks any more in terms of raw sense data than modern philosophers do, and even if they did it would be because they are behind the times regarding the changes in philosophical thought; which is just what you would expect given the general lack of interest in ideas.

If the concern is with the poverty of spirit of the times; I think consumerism and what we take for granted, obscene prosperity, and the sense of entitlement it fosters are far more potent influences producing self-indulgence, mean spiritedness or poor quality of spirit, or whatever you want to call it, than the idea of raw sense data is, or for that matter the metaphysical ideas of materialism or naturalism are.

So, in short to me it often seems that @Wayfarer is bemoaning and disapproving of what I think are precisely the wrong things.

We are evolved animals, that is virtually undeniable. The only differences between us and animals are larger brains, opposable thumb and language ability. — Janus

The only difference between living and dying is a heartbeat.

I lean towards spiritual philosophy as well; a fools game of sorts, on the TPF. — Noble Dust

I see Western culture as being predominantly concerned with what have been called 'sensate values'. So, when you remove Christianity from Western culture, what remains is some form of materialism. When I say that I don't mean people who are obsessed with material wealth; it's a matter of cultural psychology. But modern Western culture can only conceive of the real in terms of what is measurable in terms of science.

'The defining cultural principle is that true reality is sensory – only the material world is real. There is no other reality or source of values.

This becomes the organizing principle of society. It permeates every aspect of culture and defines the basic mentality. People are unable to think in any other terms.

Sensate culture pursues science and technology, but dedicates little creative thought to spirituality or religion.

Dominant values are wealth, health, bodily comfort, sensual pleasures, power and fame.

Ethics, politics, and economics are utilitarian and hedonistic. All ethical and legal precepts are considered mere man-made conventions, relative and changeable.

Art and entertainment emphasize sensory stimulation. In the decadent stages of Sensate culture there is a frenzied emphasis on the new and the shocking (literally, sensationalism).

Religious institutions are mere relics of previous epochs, stripped of their original substance, and tending to fundamentalism and exaggerated fideism (the view that faith is not compatible with reason).'

~ Pitimkin Sorokin


That is why space travel and science fiction movies are so central - it's the sublimated memory of heaven, now transposed literally into physical space, which it never has been. (And we might get to Mars, but I'm convinced that interstellar is forever beyond physical travel.)

I have found the alternatives to modern naturalism through a patchwork of philosophies - Platonist and Indian, mainly - that still understand 'philosophy as a way of life' and as the seeking of a vision of a higher truth. It's a hard path, and I'm really not doing very well at traversing it but I do like to sound off about it. :smile:

The only difference between living and dying is a heartbeat — Wayfarer

You keep confirming my impression that you are not seriously interested in considering alternative views, and that your own views are not well-considered.

OK to answer your question, I think there is an ontological distinction between human and animal life, that we’re different in kind to animals, despite the shared evolutionary heritage which I don’t doubt we have. But from experience, when I argue for this, it involves distinctions which are generally not recognised by naturalism, as naturalism generally won’t recognise such ontological distinctions, as they’re just the kinds of distinctions which naturalism is based on avoiding.

As it happens, the ground of the argument for human distinction is usually bound up with the Christian dogma of man as imago dei and then dismissed on those grounds. I argue for it philosophically, on the basis that humans have the capacity to realise the rational order of the Universe. But that’s just the kind of argument that is now categorised as being religious and therefore inadmissible.

And so it goes.

The defining cultural principle is that true reality is sensory – only the material world is real. There is no other reality or source of values. — Sorokin

Do we see the resonance between this, and what is nowadays extolled as ‘scientific empiricism’? Doesn’t scientific empiricism simply mean that whatever is real ultimately comes down to ‘what can be seen and touched’ (bearing in mind that sight and touch are amplified by instruments). Man has no intuitive sense to grasp the nature of reality aside from what can be thus encountered. Even though it’s so immensely complicated, it’s also very simple.

Surely there must be a version of what people in their heart of hearts want from "empiricism" or "positivism" that acknowledges and benefits from the value of multi-layered reality.

Seeing that hygiene is about a place for everything and everything in its place - good boundaries - which becomes visually harmonious.

My only brush with Maritain was on a forum where it was pointed out he trenchantly criticised some serious manifestations of bad church organisation that had had huge bad effects. You have reminded me I must go out of my way to get hold of him. Everyone that will pass as agnostic, I want to know better.

I'm one of those "terrors" heavily dependent on secondary sources - so far! Kant is growing on me.

There is an ontological distinction between human and animal, and it consist in different ways of being. There are ontological distinction between all kinds of beings insofar as they have different ways of being. We are different in kinds from other animals, and other animals are all different in kind from other kinds of animals. All of this makes perfect sense in the context of naturalist thought.

As to the human ability to "realize the rational order of the universe'; it is true that humans can think about the universe, try to understand things discursively, and they can do this because they have evolved the ability to use conceptual language. Of course this is a giant step away from the other animals; who would deny that? It is not a given however, that there is an objective "rational order of the universe" independent from human thought, though. To say there is is a kind of a conceptual equivalent to asserting naive realism; that things just are, independently of human cognition, the way we cognize them to be.

. We are different in kinds from other animals, and other animals are all different in kind from other kinds of animals. All of this makes perfect sense in the context of naturalist thought. — Janus

But the fact of the difference between birds and bats, or lizards and fish, is not an ontological distinction, but a taxonomic one. In fact to view h. sapiens as 'a species' is also a taxonomic perspective, situating humans with the biological order, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to do from the perspective of a biologist. But h. sapiens transcends a purely biological description - 'sapience' is wisdom, and wisdom is capable of an understanding that other species cannot attain. I am saying, and indeed Jacques Maritain often said, that naturalism generally occludes or obscures this distinction.

It is not a given however, that there is an objective "rational order of the universe" independent from human thought, though. — Janus

No, it is not a given, and it is often disputed. Hence my argument!

My only brush with Maritain was on a forum where it was pointed out he trenchantly criticised some serious manifestations of bad church organisation that had had huge bad effects. — Fine Doubter

I am by no means a Maritain scholar, but have read some of his essays and reviews and parts of some of his books. Interesting to note that he is generally understood as being on the political left. Anyway, have a glance at that essay linked above.

The defining cultural principle is that true reality is sensory – only the material world is real. There is no other reality or source of values. — Sorokin

Naturalistic-minded Realists can, and often do, say that only a vanishingly small portion of reality is accessible to the senses. Perhaps you are confusing empiricists with realists. The former are often phenomenalists and claim that only what is experienced is real; and this is not a realist claim at all.

But the fact of the difference between birds and bats, or lizards and fish, is not an ontological distinction, but a taxonomic one. — Wayfarer

I disagree because as I said different kinds of beings have different ways of being. We can argue about whether our taxonomies reflect anything beyond our understanding, but this is just back to the "rational order" question again.

situating humans with the biological order — Wayfarer

If our observations and understandings reflect anything beyond them, then we are certainly biological beings. How can there be any doubt about that considering the findings of the genome project?

But h. sapiens transcends a purely biological description - 'sapience' is wisdom, and wisdom is capable of an understanding that other species cannot attain. — Wayfarer

The other animals must transcend the biological order too, for they have their own kinds of wisdom that we cannot attain. There are as many kinds of animal wisdom as there are animals, if what we observe of the natural world is any indication.

I am saying, and indeed Jacques Maritain often said, that naturalism generally occludes or obscures this distinction. — Wayfarer

That is one way of interpreting the situation. Another is that human hubris leads us to think we are superior to, and more important and entitled than, the other animals. And look at what devastation that attitude has brought to the welfare of the biome!

To think in terms of human specialness, privelege and superioirty is part, a huge part, of the problem, not part of the solution.

It's scientism that is hubristic. It holds the human capacity for measurement to be the sole arbiter of reality. That is one of the factors leading to disaster. Our economic model needs to incorporate a means of recognizing transcendental wisdom as an end its own right. That way the massive human populace won't be solely focused on material well-being. Not that I think there's a snowflakes chance of it being realised.

I think that's just not true. The problems the world faces have nothing to do with scientism or lack of thinking about the transcendental. They do have to do with the consumerism/ profit-driven rampant development of technology, which is metaphysical-ideology neutral, except for its obvious link to capitalism and neo-liberalism, which are themselves based on the human tendency to ignore anything other than monetary costs until forced to, and the hubristic tendency to diminish the importance of the natural world compared to making immediate profits and ensuring our comfortable lifestyles will continue at all costs.

It is not that we need to give up being focused on material well-being but that we need to realize that material well-being comes down to adequate food and shelter, and does not rely on owning cars, getting everything done as quickly as possible, enjoying holidays overseas, eating foods from all around the world whenever we like, owning all the newest gadgets, having air-conditioning even if your age and health don't require it and so on.

It is an incredibly complex problem, and the answer is not for everyone to become religious believers; there are still plenty of those and they are just as consumerist and uncaring about the environment as everyone else, if not characteristically more so. The answer is for everyone to become more involved in the life of the community, the whole community, including our fellow animals; which even though unlikely until forced, is more likely than that people will start thinking about the transcendental, which is vanishingly unlikely as you acknowledge yourself

disagree because as I said different kinds of beings have different ways of being. — Janus

How would the difference between the different ways of being, which are proper to the different kinds of beings, be fundamentally different from the difference between the different ways of being which are proper to the different kinds of human beings? For example, beavers make dams while birds make nests, and engineers make dams while homemakers make nests. Each individual being has a different way of being.

Sure human individuals have more diverse ways of being compared to one another than individual animals of other species do. But again that is on account of the elaboration of social diversity made possible by language. No supernatural explanation for that is required.

It's not just humans though, each individual animal has its own way of being.