The author of the OP of this thread included this in his OP:

With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion, — 3017amen

Some of you may have noticed I have been trying to get him to clarify/explain his statement, asking him more than ten times to reply and make sense, if he can, of his apparent claim that religion is a natural/physical science. And he will not give a substantive response. He did offer an online reference, but it had nothing to do with his claim.

So I would like to request some help in getting him to answer. And two reasons: first, any person who posts should be prepared to reply to questions about his or her post, and 2) the question itself seems to me a perfectly good one. Claiming that religion is any kind of science seems to me outrageous, and anyone who makes such a claim properly called to account for it. @3017amen, then, in refusing to reply, breaks the rule of civility, which though often stretched, otherwise holds and remains in place and holds us all together.

Anyone who wants to take on the question on behalf of @3017amen is welcome to do so. Otherwise I request that others ask him the same question and keep asking until he does answer, or, that folks simply refrain from discussion with him. For what is the worth of conversation with one who makes absurd claims and refuses to respond to questions about them?

With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion, ideally or theoretically, should philosophy and [physical] science work together to help better understand consciousness? — 3017amen

Can you kindly explain in what sense religion is a "natural/physical science"? Thank you.

If I am self aware one way and you are self aware in another way, can it be said we are self aware? — Pop

This makes me think of the distinctions between objective truth and subjective truth. We can assume objectively that we all have self-awareness, but we know with a higher degree of certainty that our own truth is pure subjectivity.

But since we're discussing metaphysics, there are two opposing views from Berkeley and Hegel. The former known as subjective idealism and the latter objective idealism. Are you familiar with Hegel? Your philosophy of consciousness/metaphysics seems to parallel his...

Can you kindly explain in what sense religion is a "natural/physical science"? Thank you. — EricH

Natural science>life science>cognitive science>phenomenology>religion

Natural science>life science>cognitive science>phenomenology>religion — 3017amen

Sorry, what does this mean? Why are you so evasive? What are you afraid of?

a monist ( where everything is made of the same stuff ) and a believer in phenomenology I wonder If emotions play a role at the fundamental level in the same way they do in consciousness, causing integrity. The best way that I can currently put it is that things are biased to integrate, and a bias is an emotion! It sounds crazy in our time, but I can not absolutely exclude it, and I am attracted to the idea of a world where everything is conscious and emotional. I think it would be an improvement on the world we currently have. Any thoughts? — Pop

Pop! That's a great question! I'll certainly defer to 180 sharing his thoughts, especially concerning human sentience, but wanted to assist in another possibility ( though I don't think Schop. posits sentience here):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_as_Will_and_Representation

Natural science>life science>cognitive science>phenomenology>religion — 3017amen

I have no idea what that means. Would you please clarify that? Thank you.

Here's a good reference:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science

You provided this before. It has zero relevance to your posts. You are being evasive and disingenuous, and that being for no good reason becomes pathological - or vicious or both. So I'll ask you straight out: are you crazy?

Mr Wood,

I'm so sorry.

Please be well my friend.

Sorry for what? That you cannot or will not answer a fair question about something you wrote in your OP? That you play around with being provocative, providing either irrelevant websites for your readers to waste my time on, or give incoherent replies and refuse to make sense of them? My question still pending and it's not going away. Because unlike some of the others posting, I know you have returned, almost book and verse to old habits of evasion.

So just for the heck of it, how did religion become a science, and what does "Natural science>life science>cognitive science>phenomenology>religion" mean?

To be truly self aware, I think, one needs a theory of everything to compare oneself against. We don't have that — Pop

Can it be said that to be truly self-aware means to recognize, itemize, hence understand the necessary grounds of one’s mental activities? And can it be said that a theory of everything would limit itself to the exposition of those grounds, sufficient for any human, rational self to compare against?

If so, I submit Kant’s tripartite critique fits the requirements.

Keyword, of course....theory.

So I'll ask you [@3017amen] straight out: are you crazy? — tim wood

Must already be time again for new meds.

Unfortunately, using logic, the subconscious and conscious mind would transcend common logic. Like the law of bivalence, one cannot clearly delineate the object perceived as being unitary, or describe it in a unitary fashion without contradiction. For instance, driving while daydreaming, then crashing and dying, provides for the phenomenon of the mind performing two functions simultaneously. In that case, either the conscious or subconscious mind was driving, not dreaming of a beach in the Med.. And so in that strict sense neither the conscious nor the subconscious was driving, there was some combination of both at work.

And that suggests, although a great description (yours!) in its own right, a self-organized mind or entity is nonetheless incomplete, in a strict logical sense. And accordingly, we know Heisenberg and /Gödel demonstrated the flaws in logic's completeness and resulting randomness, which perhaps leads us to this... . — 3017amen
Good point. I guess this is based on Kant's pure reason? This is applicable to all and every thought. It is really a criticism of dualism. — Pop

Thanks Pop, I think I missed this. No, it's my own philosophy, but it is inspired by Kant; existentialism, cognitive science, theoretical physicist Paul Davies, and other's. Coming back to Kantian metaphysics, and the critique of logic, it is worth noting a distinction here.

The main tenants of Logical Positive (LP) was that there are only two types of knowledge; logical reasoning and empirical experience. While experience and testing is most definitely helpful in all walks of life, it doesn't account for things that are fixed, innate and intrinsic to cognition. For example, the aforementioned LP's analytic a priori and synthetic a posteriori (respectively) does not consider the reason why we wonder about causation (synthetic a priori judgements/propositions). Synthetic a priori propositions are almost always used to poisit a theory so it can be tested. And accordingly, this is why much of science debunked LP (vis-a-vis synthetic propositions like all events must have a cause) in that it does not complete the 'metaphysical picture' of the nature of reality-why/how we are here. (Or what's behind our intrinsic need need to know.) And that is part of consciousness. It's more of a complete picture of human reason. Kant saw the deficiency there.

So, all are good, depending of what we're parsing. We must know which hats to wear when questions are posed. Ironically enough, being reasonable essentially means treating like cases likely, different cases differently.

To this end, can you describe your thoughts and interpretations relative to dualism v. monism?

WTF :lol:



I don't read the OP as claiming that "religion IS a natural/physical science"; 3017amen's awkward grammar aside, I read the sentence in question as comparing the prospect of "philosophy and science" collaborating on consciousnes to (i.e. "like") that of the late Scholastic, early Enlightenment collaboration-rivalry of "religion and science" (i.e. natural theology and natural philosophy) on problems of cosmology.

Or maybe I'm missing something ...?

Just curious as to your take on this. Do you think Kantian intuition, noumenon, etc. is closely related to Christian Revelation (revelatory knowledge about a novel thing)? — 3017amen
Yes! The underlying idea is that Reality is a Unity as described by the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity. Kant got most of the way there but we have to go beyond Kant for an understanding of the noumenal. .
. . — FrancisRay

FR! Thank you for your response. I agree that there are gaps (some of which obviously having to do with recent discoveries over time...) but what is your take on that notion of DDS?

I'm not sure I'm following that. If we could create something from nothing, to posit meaninglessness, frankly, would not even be an issue or concern.

Ex nihilo creation is logically absurd. Thus if it is true the universe is logically absurd. It would then be incomprehensible and mysticism would not exist. If the idea is that God created it from nothing then this is not an ex nihilo theory. — FrancisRay

FR! Sorry for the piece meal, but your thread was a bit long, and for cogency sake, I'm allowing for each subject matter to stand on its own merits as it were:

What then, would be your creation ex nihilo theory? Consider then, metaphysically, one would have to reconcile timelessness with temporal time. Meaning, an agent who/that exists outside of time (think relativity, speed of light, eternity) would have to, in theory, come into time to create time as we know it. In other words, in layman's terms, (from our sense of logic) an eternal truth or Being or force with mathematical properties (like those of mathematical structures) would somehow have to exist to create creation itself ( as we know it).

And so my point is there, if we do not have the capacity to understand that (premise) then it is conceivable that (as part of the cosmological argument) the nature of our existence and its properties lie outside the usual categories of human thought. Enter, mysticism, revelation, etc. etc. all aided by Kantian intuition.

I tried but I find that interpretation a real stretch. But if indeed that's what the OP is trying to say, then they could/should simply say it. E.g.,

I was comparing the prospect of "philosophy and science" collaborating on consciousness to (i.e. "like") that of the late Scholastic, early Enlightenment collaboration-rivalry of "religion and science" (i.e. natural theology and natural philosophy) on problems of cosmology. — 180 Proof

Or something equivalent.

Instead we get this non-answer

Natural science>life science>cognitive science>phenomenology>religion — 3017amen

Okay guys, let's have some fun!!! I've got some time now to address the peanut gallery :gasp:
But be quick!!!

...let's see, isn't it ironic, that in a Metaphysic's thread, religion, once again rears its head!? No wonder that over 75% of philosophical domains posit EOG. As an atheist (from memory, I think you indicated that you were-perhaps even a Einsteinian fanatical one) do you need to know what EOG stands for too? LOL

To that end, care to share any theories? After all, the thread is about Metaphysics you know~. Did you watch the video?

Surely you're not just trolling (like your fanatical atheist friend ) this thread... :joke:

Giving the OP too much credit? I've fallen into that trap with him/her before. You may be right. 3017 only seems to post on TPF when s/he's off of his/her meds.

180!

Thanks, but I'm not sure I'm following your logic. Does this quote apply to you too brother? Or does it just apply to

“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim


No matter, I do seem to recall, just for clarification purposes (since you like references) that Einstein had a shared concern about your belief system (particularly when it comes to disparaging people's character and personal attacks). Does all this apply to you as well, I wonder?:

'The fanatical atheists, are like [ prisoners] who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who — in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' — cannot hear the music of the spheres.'" --Albert Einstein

Put your big boy pants on, I can troll with the best of them :joke:

Warranted criticism is not "belittling", you fuckin' half-wit. :snicker:

you fuckin' half-wit. :snicker: — 180 Proof

You stand corrected:

“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

LOL

I guess that went miles over your head. My apologies ...

Apology accepted!!

You of all people 180 should know that internet forums leave little room for inflection :nerd:

Afterall: Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation---William James

LOL

I can troll with the best of them — 3017amen

Actually, you cannot, because you are disturbed, toxic, fanatical, dishonest, incoherent, and shallow.

I Invite all tempted to interact with @3017amen to review his comments and judge whether it's worth your time and trouble. He is honest and responsive as Trump pays bills.

Invite all tempted to interact with 3017amen to review his comments and judge whether it's worth your time and trouble — tim wood

Indeed!!!!

Please be well Mr. Wood.

Actually your participation in this thread is not welcomed.

Let me offer this to you. Your intent is to clearly troll the thread and disparage and discredit people. Unless you have something constructive to add ( review the video) your presence in my thread is no longer welcomed.

Furthermore I have answered your question and you failed to dig through the referenced material I offered you. Do your homework mr. Wood.

And if you continue to send me private messages to harass me I will report you to the moderators.

Now I'm on a roll. Why don't you put up and shut up and open a thread and call it something like the existence of God thread. I challenge you to debate me one on one.

I have asked you more than ten times to respond to a question about something you wrote, which you have wriggled away from like a weasel from fire, refusing to respond. So I won't ask. I will simply observe that when you imply that religion is akin to a "natural/physical science," you're simply making clear that you do not know what religion is, you do not know what science is, that in short you do not know what you're talking about nor are interested in knowing. And your persistent evasion reveals itself as an ultimately vicious pathology. So I'll leave you for now, as the weasel you have revealed yourself as.