Banno
8.6k
...neither of us would feel comfortable with eating meat on Good Friday.
— Frank Apisa

Indeed, ritual runs deep. So on Good Friday I make a point of eating a roast leg and watching Life of Brian. — Banno

Yup, I know several ex-Catholics who do that.

I have a Jewish friend who makes a habit of ordering ham on rye in deli's.

I respect his right to do so...and I respect your right to do what you do.

:up:

I'm not alone in my realization that the Church peddled nonsense to me and I accepted it for years...but although I have broken away completely, there still is that regard for some of the "rigmarole" of the institution despite my resentment of it. — Frank Apisa

I think it is very difficult to frame theism in general in the context of any religion. Most modern religions have permuted many times over the generations. So much so, it is almost impossible to have philosophical discussions in the context of religious particulars - eg. eating meat.

Karen Armstrong argues that the value of religion is not concerned with whether it is 'true' or 'false'. The real value of religion is that it provides a practical context in which people can practice their faith. After all, religion is as practical as it is theological. It seems to me that modern people have difficulty accepting religion because it is wrapped in so much mythological symbolism. Maybe religion in the future will move on to a more direct expression of revelation.

Agreed.

Teilhard de Chardin’s writings are forgotten in name only. . . . Don't read him; he's naughty. The Pope says so. — Banno

Oh, but the naughty parts are the best parts. :wink:

Anyway, some 21st century scientists are finding (non-biblical) evidence for Teleology (directed evolution, downward causation) in the emerging complexity of the universe. For them, Evolution is viewed, not as a random flux of atoms, but as a self-directing "cybernetic system", otherwise known as a "complex adaptive system" or a "living organism". :nerd:


Downward Causation : cybernetic evolution by "information selection and control".
From Matter To Life : Living Through Downward Causation by Farnsworth, Ellis, & Jaeger of Santa Fe Institute. A think tank for cutting edge science.
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality/dp/1107150531/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=from+matter+to+life&link_code=qs&qid=1595179211&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-2&tag=mozilla-20

Worlds Hidden in Plain Sight : The Evolving Idea of Complexity at the Santa Fe Institute
https://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Hidden-Plain-Sight-Complexity/dp/1947864149/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

In other words I'm not interested in discussing religion and how it relates to society. — 3017amen

Then don't bring up the philosophy of religion or ethics. Sociology goes hand in hand with these.

Your socio-political view seem to be a bit rambling. — 3017amen

It literally didn't post quotes for some reason. I copied what I said but it apparently didn't post the quotes.

Unfortunately, most atheists fall into a similar extremist camp, much like the far-right fundamentalist's do. Meaning, it has the potential to become an antagonistic or resentful or 'I've got an axe to grind' exercise or mentality (even Einstein spoke to that). Nevertheless, as it relates to Philosophy, the irony is that over 75% of Philosophical domain's invoke God, like it or not, as an axiomatic standard by which things are judged.

Thank you (sarcasm) for comparing atheists and other respectable philosophers equivalent to far-right fundamentalists. For political philosophy it a question of sociology and the fact that although you or me may not hold a similar metaphysical position with respect to some general public (minority or majority) it still factors into a proper free system of governance that no one religion should take special precedence or political power directly, that is unless you desire to begin a modern religious crusade through avenues of persecution.

Also, in the philosophy of religion there is the study of religion which has god in it which mean that if you want to study religion which has god in you will study religion and also god. . . why this wouldn't be included you explain to me.

1. In Ethics: Christian ethics.
2. In Metaphysics: Descartes metaphysics
3. Epistemology: George Berkeley
4. Contemporary philosophy: Soren Kierkegaard
5. Logic: Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge
6. In the philosophy of Religion: God
7. Political philosophy: separation of church and state/In God we trust.

Ethics? The only ethics that should be of concern are our interpersonal relationships, values, particular situations, and our psychology which intermingle on a daily level. Even those who advocate christian ethics must at least admit that their metaphysical opinions to the subject matter take a second seat to pragmatic concerns. God isn't going to ever be called to a witness stand or be a part of a jury as it will always be humans judging humans.

Metaphysics and philosophy? There are people that are theists in philosophy and metaphysics. . . this is such a shock I would have never discovered it without your help. But for real, no atheist should be either denying that such philosophies or perspectives not exist let alone that such discussions have or do take place. At least I don't and I would take on such a label of atheist. . . don't straw man me please.

Personally, I have yet to find an atheist able to parse or explain the nature of our mental states from say our sensory perceptions in both a materialistic and non-materialistic way. A few examples are:

What method best explains my will to live or die?

What method can best explain the reason I choose to love or not love?

What method can best explain the nature of my sense of wonder ?

What method can best explain the nature of causation ? (Why should we believe that all events must have a cause.)

What method can best explain the nature of my reaction to seeing the color red, and/or my reaction to music that I love?

Why do I have the ability to perform gravitational calculations when dodging falling objects do not require those mathematical skills for survival? — 3017amen

Most of these questions seem to concern the scientific study of psychology, personal arbitrary convictions that may not possess a "best answer", or concern themselves with problems that metaphysicians who are atheist/theist will possess the same problem with. What exactly are you looking for? Metaphysics/philosophy in general has had a problem with understanding or coming to solutions for each of your listed problems.

What method best explains my will to live or die? — 3017amen

Are you talking about epistemology (what method), personal philosophy and introspection (why do I keep living), or psychology/evolutionary biology?

What method can best explain the reason I choose to love or not love? — 3017amen

Again, what are you talking about? Is this about what form of epistemology we can come to know that two people are in love? Are you talking about arbitrary but dictated choices in relationships (one night stand vs. long lasting relationship) which is highly personal? Or the biological indicators of people being in love or starting a relationship (psychology and sociology)?

What method can best explain the nature of causation ? (Why should we believe that all events must have a cause.) — 3017amen

Do all things have a cause? Or are there things that in fact violate say the Principle of Sufficient reason? What is causation? Is it Humean or non-Humean? I don't know. . . maybe we should investigate through scientific methodology and metaphysical introspection. Would you mind joining us?

What method can best explain the nature of my reaction to seeing the color red, and/or my reaction to music that I love? — 3017amen

Are you talking about neurobiology, psychology, or epistemology (scientific methodology)? What do you mean by method and explanation?

If those are the questions/concepts, correct me if I'm wrong, but you refused to attempt any explanation or possible answers to them. They are relative to the nature of [your] conscious existence. — 3017amen

Yes, and. . . it's on you to tell me any of them are meaningful or even possess answers once you have better worded them.

Should I take your inability or unwillingness to answer the metaphysical questions (the nature of your existence) as acquiescence by silence? For some reason, you're not the only one (atheist) who can't answer those questions (180 was pivoting on them too LOL).

I guess the most fundamental question remains. One central question relative to that existence becomes, how can the atheist make any objective statements about the non-existence of a God when he/she cannot even provide adequate explanations about the nature of their own existence?

It seems as though both of you cannot even explain the existence and non-existence of those things in themselves. How does atheism square the circle? LOL

Even those who advocate christian ethics must at least admit that their metaphysical opinions to the subject matter take a second seat to pragmatic concerns. God isn't going to ever be called to a witness stand or be a part of a jury as it will always be humans judging humans. — substantivalism

Well, two succinct points:

1. Ethics invokes God form philosophy class 101. I didn't personally design the curriculum.

2. With respect to pragmatics sure, what is the Golden Rule? Treat others as you would like to be treated. Christian Philosophy, no (NT/Mathew)?

Metaphysics and philosophy? There are people that are theists in philosophy and metaphysics. . . this is such a shock I would have never discovered it without your help. But for real, no atheist should be either denying that such philosophies or perspectives not exist let alone that such discussions have or do take place. — substantivalism

Sure. Then let's parse the metaphysical questions, shall we?

Most of these questions seem to concern the scientific study of psychology, personal arbitrary convictions that may not possess a "best answer", or concern themselves with problems that metaphysicians who are atheist/theist will possess the same problem with. What exactly are you looking for? Metaphysics/philosophy in general has had a problem with understanding or coming to solutions for each of your listed problems. — substantivalism

Nope. It's metaphysics. I'll give you a clue, ever study Kant and Schopenhauer?

Are you talking about epistemology (what method), personal philosophy and introspection (why do I keep living), or psychology/evolutionary biology? — substantivalism

Nice. Well there's a start. It could be any of those domains because they cover the nature of existing things, or the reality of nature, however you want to phrase it. The spectrum is broad, from cosmology to the human condition and everything in between. That's germane to the entire concept of a God, no?

With that said, why would you want to live when you can easily choose not to live? Sounds a bit nihilistic or existential, but your Will provides for that option.

What method can best explain the reason I choose to love or not love? — 3017amen
Again, what are you talking about? Is this about what form of epistemology we can come to know that two people are in love? Are you talking about arbitrary but dictated choices in relationships (one night stand vs. long lasting relationship) which is highly personal? Or the biological indicators of people being in love or starting a relationship (psychology and sociology)? — substantivalism

Great, thanks again for engaging. Let's talk about love, shall we? Firstly, can we agree that there are elements or phenomena associated with Love that are Metaphysical?

What method can best explain the nature of causation ? (Why should we believe that all events must have a cause.) — 3017amen
Do all things have a cause? Or are there things that in fact violate say the Principle of Sufficient reason? What is causation? Is it Humean or non-Humean? I don't know. . . maybe we should investigate through scientific methodology and metaphysical introspection. Would you mind joining us? — substantivalism

Great, thanks for engaging. Let's look at what Kant said initially, in the form of a three part question.

1. 'All events must have a cause', is that true or false? Or is there some other answer like, I don't know or maybe or... ?
2. What causes the person (through their consciousness/cognition) to infer that all events must have a cause? (Is having a sense of wonderment a human instinct?)
3. In your mind, how is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?

What method can best explain the nature of my reaction to seeing the color red, and/or my reaction to music that I love? — 3017amen
Are you talking about neurobiology, psychology, or epistemology (scientific methodology)? What do you mean by method and explanation? — substantivalism

Great, thanks for engaging. The phenomena relating to my feelings about the color red, or my feelings associated with music are what, metaphysical? Wait, it might be the thing called Qualia perhaps.
In either case, it is something that is not so concrete. Nor is it something that confers any biological advantages.

Does atheism have a material explanation for these things? I'm only suggesting materialism because these things don't seem to be material at all. In other words, there are many, many features associated with the human condition that seem transcendent or transcend the physical explanations of things..

Ah, you missed the sore arse and lifelong psychological damage. Good. — Banno

Well, the sore ass, at least. I represented a sufferer of priestly abuse, though.

Thanks for sharing your stories. — Frank Apisa

For me, it's a kind of nostalgia, largely associated with music, sound, colors, even smells. Listening to the Tantum Ergo being sung, the language--reciting the Credo and the Confiteor, the colors of the vestments, the smell of incense, the ringing of the bells during the Eucharist, the Gregorian Chant. An aesthetic nostalgia, so to speak. If you want you spectacle in your religion, it was hard to beat. I suspect the old pagan rituals were similar.

Then, of course, there's also Tom Lehrer's The Vatican Rag.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvhYqeGp_Do

Then, of course, there's also Tom Lehrer's The Vatican Rag.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvhYqeGp_Do — Ciceronianus the White

Absolutely loved it.

Day before yesterday, (because of a post in another forum) I had occasion to listen to Scott Joplin...and really enjoyed it. Rag is great...even this one.

Hi all!
A while ago I made a post in which i made clear that i'm an extreme noob when it comes to philosophy.
While having bought a history of philosophy book, I still have a few questions that I don't see will be answered by myself anytime soon. So to the question; What is the problem with the arguments that attempt to prove God? The kalam, The five ways, fine tuning, moral argument, ...

The reason why I ask is because I cannot differentiate bad philosophy from good philosophy. Neither do I know all of the intricacies of the structure arguments should have. (modus ponens, valid and sound) While there are a whole lot of people pushing these arguments. And there are also a whole lot of people pushing against them. I can't help but feel that the majority of the discussions that happen about these arguments aren't well grounded. And I'm assuming that people here know a fair deal and are able to give me a clear idea of what's wrong.

I would like to suppose that the arguments all try to deal with a deistic or theistic god.

Let me also add a subquestion to that and ask to the atheist. If these arguments are all a failure. Is that part of the reason why you are atheist?

Thank you! — DoppyTheElv

Philosophy means a love of knowledge. It has been specialized and given its own special terms that I do not understand. I am not a philosopher as many people here are philosophers. I am a pagan who loves knowledge, and when it comes to a belief in a deity, I think we should study all beliefs in deities. When we look at all the different beliefs we can see Christianity is is a combination of beliefs including Egyptian and Persian religions and Hellenism.

I think there is a huge benefit to nature-based gods and have a preference for the Greek gods and goddesses. Back in the day, everyone had a patron god or goddess, including the Hebrews who plagiarized Sumerian stories when they were in UR a former Sumerian city.

There is a theory the people of the God of Abraham came out of Eygpt when Akhenaten and his wife died. Akhenaten attempted to force on everyone, a religion with only one god. Akhenaten did this because his grandfather had ordered a search of the archives for the true God which came up as Ra the sun god. Akhenaten put religion above military concerns and this weakened Egypt and angered people, especially the military. He also put the traditional priest out of business and this frightened people and really angered the priest so when he and his wife died his holy city was razed to the ground and buried forcing his followers to flee. The idea is they entered the land that was once Sumer and researched its archives and blended Akhenaten's notions of one god with Sumerian stories, which we can read in the Torah and Christian Bible.

There is another line to god, threw the Greeks and that is the concept of " logos, reason, the control force of the universe made manifest in speech". This pops up as Jesus being the logos with god from the beginning. This line of to god is knowing god through science and it is the line to god I favor. Our democracy comes from this line but as Christians have done from the beginning they Christianized the good ideas and made them theirs. This politicization of God and tying it to patriotism is seriously problematic! Our democracy has been perverted by this and we need to correct this problem.


.

Teilhard de Chardin’s writings are forgotten in name only. . . . Don't read him; he's naughty. The Pope says so. — Banno

Oh, but the naughty parts are the best parts. :wink:

Anyway, some 21st century scientists are finding (non-biblical) evidence for Teleology (directed evolution, downward causation) in the emerging complexity of the universe. For them, Evolution is viewed, not as a random flux of atoms, but as a self-directing "cybernetic system", otherwise known as a "complex adaptive system" or a "living organism". :nerd:


Downward Causation : cybernetic evolution by "information selection and control".
From Matter To Life : Living Through Downward Causation by Farnsworth, Ellis, & Jaeger of Santa Fe Institute. A think tank for cutting edge science.
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality/dp/1107150531/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=from+matter+to+life&link_code=qs&qid=1595179211&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-2&tag=mozilla-20

Worlds Hidden in Plain Sight : The Evolving Idea of Complexity at the Santa Fe Institute
https://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Hidden-Plain-Sight-Complexity/dp/1947864149/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= — Gnomon

I like your post.

Chardin- evolution is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man.

When we look at all the different beliefs we can see Christianity is is a combination of beliefs including Egyptian and Persian religions and Hellenism. — Athena

Christianity was remarkable for it voracious assimilation of, and violent intolerance towards, the ancient pagan religions and philosophical traditions. Once its dominance was assured, of course, its view of pagan philosophy became less hostile.

Asked and answered many months ago. Stop trolling. :yawn:

Should I take your inability or unwillingness to answer the metaphysical questions (the nature of your existence) as acquiescence by silence? — 3017amen

No, and as I already said, it’s arguing in bad faith to even suggest that you might. That’s not how reasoned discourse works, and your petty schoolyard attempts at shaming others into engagement won’t work here.

Answered? Surely you're joking LOL.

I suggest you read what is writing. At least he's interested in Metaphysical discourse.

Not sure personal attacks helps your case Forrest. Hiding behind ad hominem only substantiates my argument that your so-called belief system has way too many holes LOL.

Pointing out someone else’s poor discourse is not an ad hominem.

Why do I even bother replying, everyone else can see how pointless this is and I’m sure as heck not going to get through to you.

Pointing out someone else’s poor
discourse is not an ad homing. — Pfhorrest

If I recall correctly, you were banned recently for ad hominem/personal attacks on other people. Karma is a mysterious thing. (I suggest you take 180's advice and stop trolling.)

honestly if anything you have been overgenerous to a poster who gives every indication of being a garden variety troll. I mean, he's now doing the "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" shtick (!!!), as if this was elementary school recess period and not a philosophy forum.

:up: :grin: :point:

The reason why I ask is because I cannot differentiate bad philosophy from good philosophy. — DoppyTheElv

Honestly, it's probably because most philosophy is bad philosophy. I believe it takes many years to develop a sense of what good thinking looks like, and to practice it yourself. The vast majority of human opinion is just bullshit, through-and-through.

My experience has led me to believe that it is easier to develop a bullshit-detector than it is to cleanse yourself of bullshit.

Neither do I know all of the intricacies of the structure arguments should have. (modus ponens, valid and sound) While there are a whole lot of people pushing these arguments. And there are also a whole lot of people pushing against them. I can't help but feel that the majority of the discussions that happen about these arguments aren't well grounded. — DoppyTheElv

A lot of people pretend and/or fool themselves into believing that they know how to think well, that their opinions are worth listening to, or that there is nothing wrong with bullshitting people.

I think you are absolutely correct to feel this way. Public discourse has little actual content. It is mostly noise produced by folk yakking about things they know nothing about.

At the beginning of our universe, using current observations, seems to be a super-event, that we have theorized is 'the big bang'; that leaves us with two options:

1. There was something before the big bang...
2. There was nothing before the big bang...

Options [1] and [2] both result in the big bang, at some point...

To think that [2] is the answer, in correlation to the super-event, means at least, there was a chain of events that led to the big bang.

To think that [1] is the answer, in correlation to the super-event, means at most, a species constructed something that led to the big bang.

In the case of [1], there can be other beginnings prior to the big bang; and in the case of [2] there is only one beginning.

Therefore, [2], that nothing resulted in the big bang, is legitimately the stupider guess that reduces the 'wild card' outer-limits, to our science, to the most secluded view.

Therefore, [1], the chain of events is God.

There could be many answers and to suggest that any one of them is correct is ideological from humanity's perspective.

I believe there were other beginnings, but I can't prove this, however I'm not foolish to believe in this...

I apologize if this seems structured poorly but I have suddenly become sick. I will edit this post very soon.

Well looky there another disgruntled atheist. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and answer some of these metaphysical questions, I'd love to hear your answers!