I find that kind of theological noncognitivism really hard to discuss. — Pfhorrest
And there are religious scientists - George Lemaître, as I'm sure you know, published the first paper on what came to be called 'big bang theory'. When it was published a lot of people thought it sounded too much like 'creation ex nihilo' - so much so that 'By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism.[36] However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[37][38][17] Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's scientific advisor, persuaded the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly, and to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[39] Lemaître was a devout Catholic, but opposed mixing science with religion,[40] although he held that the two fields were not in conflict.[41] (Wikipedia). — Wayfarer
That seems to be what my mom believes, and she'll try to talk "philosophy" with me and tell me how to her, God means believing in beauty and a kind of inner light permeating the world and uplifting people, doing good and trying to create good and beauty for other people, and she'll ask me don't I believe in that, and... I don't know how to respond, because it's not a propositionally coherent question. I agree completely with the goals of creating good and beauty, and uplifting people, and generally being positive and optimistic, but I don't know how to translate agreement with that goal into an answer to a question about what exists. It's really frustrating.
The claim "The Christian God exists" should be treated with the same epistemic standards as "Rocks exist" or "Joy exists", but its interpretation for those who believe refers to the ineluctable mysticism that fogs their thinking. — fdrake
It seems to me Lemaitre's wisdom was the secular insight to separate religious belief from rational thought. — fdrake
There aren't domain experts on that which cannot be understood. — fdrake
The double negative there has me completely stumped, but I bet that if I asked you for an example of what 'mysticism' is, or a paraphrase of its meaning, you would be unable to oblige. — Wayfarer
don’t expect that to be understood, but it is an understanding with a long pedigree — Wayfarer
You can't become an expert (on mysticism); cognizable, articulable understanding; on that which cannot be understood; the mystical; affective, non-articulable understanding. — fdrake
But apparently it's a taboo to believe in this stuff, so I guess that's ok. — fdrake
The point you argue for is always argued for in terms of its consistency with other points; never a demonstration of truth, only a demonstration of consistency. And that will not do. — fdrake
You can, although it's certainly not something I claim to be. But it is a domain of discourse, with recognized luminaries, and wide historical scope. I could provide some references and further argument, but I know what the response would be. — Wayfarer
Because the kind of truth that it's a demonstration of, is not objective by definition, but existential. It's concerned with the notion of truth in the first person, — Wayfarer
It's concerned with the notion of truth in the first person, which is always going to escape third-person, objective description - one of the points coming out of the 'Blind Spot of Science' article a few months back (which again, elicited remarkable hostility.) — Wayfarer
It's one big cluster you're very devoted to, you've studied a lot, and when challenged on a single part of it you use the rest of it to argue for the challenged part. — fdrake
... it is a domain of discourse, with recognized luminaries, and wide historical scope. I could provide some references... — Wayfarer
... One of the books that got me interested in the subject... — Wayfarer
'... [insert long entirely subjective quote] .' ~ Paul Tyson, Defragmenting Modernity... . — Wayfarer
... one of the points coming out of the 'Blind Spot of Science' article a few months back... — Wayfarer
I doubt you care about that, because it's not what you believe. — fdrake
you argue in a way in which you do not seek to demonstrate the truth of your beliefs to others. — fdrake
the reason you argue in this way is because you know you can't demonstrate any of your points. — fdrake
As it is, I argue that the kind of materialist theory of mind that Dennett and others argue for, adopts the rhetorical and technical vocabulary of philosophy, to argue that wisdom proper, sapience, is an illusory byproducts of the Darwinian algorithm. — Wayfarer
Brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, the motion of water molecules, electrical current, and any other physical phenomenon you can think of, seem clearly devoid of any inherent meaning. By themselves they are simply meaningless patterns of electrochemical activity. Yet our thoughts do have inherent meaning – that’s how they are able to impart it to otherwise meaningless ink marks, sound waves, etc. In that case, though, it seems that our thoughts cannot be identified with any physical processes in the brain. In short: Thoughts and the like possess inherent meaning or intentionality; brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, and the like, are utterly devoid of any inherent meaning or intentionality; so thoughts and the like cannot possibly be identified with brain processes.
Secular culture provides no criterion for differentiating Scientology from Catholicism, but I think it's a crock, and he was a fraud. — Wayfarer
My beliefs are generally compatible with Christian Platonism, which I often argue for. But you have to be willing to accept the premisses, and no better thread than this to demonstrate the implications of that, eh? — Wayfarer
As it is, I argue that the kind of materialist theory of mind that Dennett and others argue for, adopts the rhetorical and technical vocabulary of philosophy, to argue that wisdom proper, sapience, is an illusory byproducts of the Darwinian algorithm. — Wayfarer
Again - this is a thread about (a)theism, right? So the implications of my philosophy are, let's say, spiritual if not religious. So if you're interacting with atheism, then what would it take to 'demonstrate' it? You know the scholastic 'proofs of God' were never intended as rhetorical or apologetic tools to convert the unbeliever; they were exercises of edification for the faithful. — Wayfarer
What's your alternative? I suppose you can't say, because that's "third person". — fdrake
Actually yeah it does. Catholicism is an ancient religion with a storied history, it's worldwide, commonly accepted, has had professional theologians for years, believes in Jesus etc. Scientology is a recently invented cult by a terrible science fiction writer structured like a pyramid scheme. You can secularly distinguish them very easily, using stuff that does not commit you to the truth of any account — fdrake
What's the alternative? I suppose you can't say, because that's "third person". — fdrake
Tell me what you believe, and I'll tell you if I think it's false. — fdrake
Like, I don't deny *any* of the facts of evolution or cosmology or any of the other sciences - to me, the question is about meaning and interpretation. — Wayfarer
Whereas in the secular view, meaning *can only be* subjective and personal. — Wayfarer
Brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, the motion of water molecules, electrical current, and any other physical phenomenon you can think of, seem clearly devoid of any inherent meaning.
By themselves they are simply meaningless patterns of electrochemical activity.
Yet our thoughts do have inherent meaning – that’s how they are able to impart it to otherwise meaningless ink marks, sound waves, etc.
In that case, though, it seems that our thoughts cannot be identified with any physical processes in the brain.
Thoughts and the like possess inherent meaning or intentionality; brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, and the like, are utterly devoid of any inherent meaning or intentionality; so thoughts and the like cannot possibly be identified with brain processes.
Like, I don't deny *any* of the facts of evolution or cosmology or any of the other sciences - to me, the question is about meaning and interpretation.
— Wayfarer
But you do think they're over emphasised in our understanding of the true nature of reality? I do not. — fdrake
(2) Humans were preceded historically by the universe without us (Y/N)? — fdrake
(3) Human minds are ape minds. (Y/N)? — fdrake
Brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, the motion of water molecules, electrical current, and any other physical phenomenon you can think of, seem clearly devoid of any inherent meaning.
Subjective opinion. — Isaac
if we accept this, we've simply eliminated, without argument, the eliminative position already. — Isaac
But the debate is about A, not about whether B follows from it. — Isaac
The debate - atheism/theism, idealism/physicalism...is about the very premises you present as axiomatic to your 'arguments'. — Isaac
This kind of approach suffuces philosophical discussion here — Isaac
Very perceptive, and also accurate. Why? Because the kind of truth that it's a demonstration of, is not objective by definition, but existential. It's (mystical truth - me) concerned with the notion of truth in the first person, which is always going to escape third-person, objective description - one of the points coming out of the 'Blind Spot of Science' article a few months back (which again, elicited remarkable hostility.) — Wayfarer
Modern thought is not over-emphasizing reason. It's over-emphasizing sensate values, what can be weighed, measured, felt and touched. That's what 'empiricism' means, after all - we have to sensorily experience it for it to be real (where 'sensorily experience' includes instruments.) — Wayfarer
"If you believe A then B follows". But the debate is about A, not about whether B follows from it.
This is the issue that @fdrake has already highlighted above. You have to buy into the main crucial beliefs, only then do the utterly trivial conclusions follow from them. The debate - atheism/theism, idealism/physicalism...is about the very premises you present as axiomatic to your 'arguments'. So you're not arguing in favour of one position, you're presuming one position and arguing that trivial truisms follow once you've accepted it. — Isaac
This kind of approach suffuces philosophical discussion here "it seems obvious to me, therefore it's a fact of reality" — Isaac
How do you know that what seems to you to be the case has any bearing at all on what actually is the case? — Isaac
Basically half the threads here could be summarised as "I feel like X is the case therefore it is the case, if you don't agree with me it's because you don't understand the argument" — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.