No True Skeptic...would commit faerself. I'm not sure though.

Before we get to beliefs, atheism being one, we need to take care of the issue of justifcation, specifically are justifications any good.

1. Either there are good justifications or there are no good justifications (true/tautology)

2. If there are good justifications then circular argument (justifying there are good justifications presupposes there are good justifications)

3. If there are no good justifications then contradiction (to justify there are no good justifications we presuppose there are good justifications)

Ergo, the dilemma

4. Either circular argument or contradiction (1, 2, 3 CD)

Note: The dilemma only arises if you commit to a standpoint i.e. you must claim either that there are good justifications or that there are no good justifications.

Hence, the skeptic only asserts,

1. Either there are good justifications or there are no good justifications (true because tautology and ergo, it itself needs no justification)

Also, remember to assert either of the two disjuncts in 1 is to claim there are good justifications i.e. neither represent the skeptic's viewpoint which is simply that nothing more can be said apart from 1 Either there are good justifications or there are no good justifications.

Thus, every proposition p can't progress beyond p v ~p.

Theism v Atheism

End of story!

N.B. I'm not sure about all I said above.

beliefs in God are prominent amongst amateurs — Banno

Thereby hangs a tale, a very important one.

Thales of Miletus, the first philosopher in the Greek tradition

Thales is recognized for breaking from the use of mythology to explain the world and the universe, and instead explaining natural objects and phenomena by naturalistic theories and hypotheses, in a precursor to modern science. — Wikipedia

Mythology evolved into Theism as we know it. In a sense then, all amateur philosophers/thinkers are reenacting the journey Thales took from God(s) to Philosophy proper roughly 2,500 years ago.

Crucifixion in the Philippines is a devotional practice held every Good Friday, and is part of the local observance of Holy Week. Devotees or penitents called magdarame in Kapampangan are willingly crucified in imitation of Jesus Christ's suffering and death, while related practices include carrying wooden crosses, crawling on rough pavement, and self-flagellation. Penitents consider these acts to be mortification of the flesh, and undertake these to ask forgiveness for sins, to fulfil a panatà (Filipino, "vow"), or to express gratitude for favours granted. In the most famous case, Ruben Enaje drives four-inch nails into both hands and feet and then he is lifted on a wooden cross for around five minutes. — Wikipedia

Theism (mythology) then is The Greatest Lie Ever Told that flags off the journey towards Truth (Philosophy).

Agnosticism is, therefore, a valid form of belief. — Banno

I've noticed, assuming my powers of observation are any good, that the word "agnostic" has become a general term for uncertainty e.g. people say, "I'm agnostic about ghosts, fairies, and leprechauns." Uncertainty is the meat and potatoes of skepticism - a refusal to commit to a position, any position which appears in the form of a disjunction for a given proposition p viz. p v ~p.

Though there's a similarity between religious agnosticism and skepticism as displayed in their concordance on God which is either God exists or God doesn't exist and nothing further is known or can be known, the difference is that in religious agnosticism, good justifications exist, it's just that specific justifications for God's existence/nonexistence aren't good i.e. they can be refuted while in skepticism, the existence of good justifications is a question mark.

It seems possible to make the case that religious agnosticism, taken to its logical conclusion is nothing but skepticisim - agnosticism, after all, is the claim that God's existence isn't known (failure of individual justifications) or can't be known (are there such things as good justifications? or more accurately insofar as skepticism is concerned, is it possible that there are no good justifications?). Talking to an agnostic is like talking to skeptic just as talking to an engineer is like talking to a physicist.

To start with premise (1), how do you figure its verity? For: If good justifications exist, then Agrippa’s trilemma indeed matters, this because it is of itself concluded from good justifications. And until the trilemma is solved, it presents the fallibly proven truth (fallible because the trilemma can be applied to the trilemma’s own justification) that no infallibly proven truth can be obtained as far as we (fallibly) know. Which, apropos, is the only rational way I can make sense of Nietzsche’s mindset of there being no (infallible) truth. — javra

My argument gets to that part in lines 1 to 4 which basically states that If good justifications exist then, if Agrippa's trilemma doesn't matter then, Agrippa's trilemma matters!

The skeptic, it seems, is in a quandary because the moment he tries to justify his position that knowledge is impossible because of issues with justification, he shoots himself in the foot. The skeptic believes justification is no good. Then the skeptic attempts to justify that but then to do so he assumes justification is good.. Thus, the skeptic contradicts himself: justification is good & justification is no good. More on this later...

However, things don't look so good on the other side as well. To justify that there are good justifications, one has to presuppose there are good justifications. A circulus in probando.

Now, let's look at another way of approaching this issue.

Good justifications exist = G
Agrippa's trilemma matters = A

1. G -> (A & ~A) [that's what you said]
2. G [assume for reductio ad absurdum]
3. A & ~A [1, 2 MP]
Ergo,
4. ~G [2 - 3 reductio ad absurdum] [assume for reductio ad absurdum]
5. ~G -> G [the justification for ~G is a good justification]
6. G [4, 5 MP]
7. G & ~G [4, 6 Conj]
Ergo,
8. G [4 - 7 reductio ad absurdum]

The argument loops:

9. G -> ~G [2 - 4]
10. ~G -> G [4 - 8]
11. G -> G [9 - 10 HS]
12. ~G v G [11 Imp]
13. G v ~G [12 Comm]

13. G v ~G is exactly what skepticism is. A skeptic doesn't commit to either p or ~p for any proposition p. A skeptic would never even dream of saying there are no good justifications - a mistake that I and perhaps you committed.

What exactly has the skeptic achieved here? All fae's done is show that G v ~G and that's precisely what's required to undermine the belief that knowledge is possible, a position that would require G to be true but assuming G to be true leads to the possibility that ~G as in 13. G v ~G. The skeptic's job is done!

That's a quite badly written Wikipedia page about The Seven World Riddles, and it doesn't list the seven, and nor do you! — counterpunch

As a school in my locality likes to point out. Wikipedia isn't what it used to be. Quality deterioration over time is the norm rather than the exception. Still, as some say, something's better than nothing. I hope to see Wikipedia resuscitated and back in the game in a coupla years, fingers crossed. Plus, interest fades.

I'm surprised though that Wikipedia is first on a Google search list.

Ignoramus Et Ignoramibus

In 1880 Emil du Bois-Reymond delivered a speech to the Berlin Academy of Sciences enumerating seven "world riddles" or "shortcomings" of science:

1. the ultimate nature of matter and force;

2. the origin of motion;

3. the origin of life;

4. the "apparently teleological arrangements of nature" (not an "absolutely transcendent riddle");

5. the origin of simple sensations ("a quite transcendent" question);

6. the origin of intelligent thought and language (which might be known if the origin of sensations could be known);

and

7. the question of free will.

Concerning numbers 1, 2 and 5 he proclaimed "Ignorabimus" ("we will never know"). Concerning number 7 he proclaimed "Dubitemus" ("we doubt it').

What on earth are you on about?? — Bartricks

:rofl: It got too technical. Sorry, my bad! It doesn't matter because it wasn't as good an argument as I'd hoped.

Let me see...

You're saying God doesn't know some of our thoughts because God's omnibenevolent and wouldn't want to violate our privacy but he would still be omniscient.

It's a dilemma.

1. Either God knows our thoughts or God doesn't know our thoughts.
2. If God knows our thoughts, God isn't omnibenevolent.

3. If God doesn't know our thoughts, God isn't omniscient.

Ergo,

4. Either God isn't omniscient or God isn't omnibenevolent.

You're taking the dilemma by the horns and saying premise 3 is false. It's possible and also true that God doesn't know our thoughts and yet God is omniscient.

The only way God can not know our private thoughts is if fae doesn't get inside our heads. Fae has to be like normal people - only taking verbal or physical information people are willing to share. The moment God can read minds (telepathy), all bets are off because before I decide that a certain thought is off-limits for others, I have to think it. In other words, God would already know the thoughts we want to keep from faer prying eyes. Hence, God mustn't read minds.

If so, God simply can't know any of our thoughts be they those we want to share or those we don't want to share. Our brains, assuming that's the organ that thinks, carry a sign, God and people not allowed.

When someone asks me a question along the lines of "are you sure?" or "are you certain?" I very rarely say "yes". I always reply by saying "I think this is what I saw" or "it's likely", but I cannot for the life of me say "I'm certain" or "I'm sure". — Manuel

A short(?) argument for your reading pleasure

Argument A

1. If good justifications exist, Agrippa's trilemma doesn't matter

2. If Agrippa's trilemma doesn't matter, Agrippa's trilemma argument is good

3. If Agrippa's trilemma argument is good, good justifications don't exist

4. If good justifications exist, Agrippa's trilemma argument is good [1, 2 HS]

5. If good justifications exist, good justifications don't exist

6. Good justifications exist [assume for reductio ad absurdum]

7. Good justifications don't exist [5, 6 MP]

8. Good justificiations exist & Good justifications don't exist [6, 7 Conj]

9. Good justifications don't exist [6 - 8 reductio ad absurdum]

Argument B

10. If good justifications don't exist, argument A is not a good justification

11. If argument A is not a good justification, good justifications don't exist (9), is not justified

12. If good justifications don't exist, good justifications don't exist (9), is not justified

13. Good justifications don't exist (9) is not justified [9, 12 MP]

Argument C

14. If good justifications don't exist, Argument B is not a good justification

15. If argument B is not a good justification, good justifications don't exist (9) is not justified is not justified

16. If good justifications don't exist, good justifications don't exist (9) is not justified is not justified

17. Good justifications don't exist (9) is not justified is not justified [9, 16 MP]
.
.
.
18. Good justifications don't exist (9) is not justified is not justified is not justified is not justified...ad infinitum/ad nauseum.

However, look closely at 9. Good justifications don't exist. For me it was a Zen moment?! Mu?!

Another way of looking at it would be,

G = Good justifications exist

19. G -> ~G [3 above]

20. ~G -> G [if ~G is true, there has to be good justifications, the justification for ~G]

21. G -> G [19, 20, HS]

22. ~G v G [21, Imp]

23. G v ~G [22 Comm]

It may seem that the skeptic lost but look cloesely, G v ~G undermines G and ~G but both of them are something someone who believes knowledge is possible would say. The skeptic, true to his beliefs, would say precisely what line 23 says G v ~G.

What then happens is, for every proposition p, p v ~p but ask which is true, p or ~p, and like you, the skeptic will reply, "I'm not sure."

"there are no accidents" and "everything happens for a reason" – the folk psychologism of misapplying the Principle of Sufficient Reason. — 180 Proof

Thanks for the info 180 Proof. My views on the matter are that those who think, "there are no accidents" or that "everything happens for a reason" experience certain events tha were favorable/unfavorable to a person. Later on these very events turn out to be precisely what was required for a certain good/bad outcome. The events, disjoint initially, finally begin to make sense at a psychological level. An example would be a person who breaks his leg in a car accident and takes sick leave; the day he misses work, fire guts his office killing everyone inside. This would prompt him to think of his car accident as meant to save him from the blaze.

The Principle Of Sufficeint Reason, on the other hand, is more about physical phenomena. It was never meant for interpretations of causal significance in a psychological context.

Let's examine the story of the person above. Clearly, the leg fracture caused the person to miss work and prevented a fiery death at the office. We can't doubt that. The PSR is applicable in full. Why is it that something seems off when someone comes over to his house and tells him, "everything happens for a reason" or "there are no accidents"? The mistake, to my reckoning, is what's being implied is that the car accident that broke this person's leg was deliberately caused to keep him away from the office that fateful day - the "someone's watching over him" sentiment. A supernatural hand is being suggested if not explicitly stated.

There's more that can be said. I'll wait for your remarks on what I said.

So what to do? I think I'd prefer to have been not been embodied in the first place. — Inyenzi

What the hell is embodied?

Deep interpersonal connections are a myth. So, if you keep at this, it's not going to end well with you. Why the deep qualifier for interpersonal connections? What does that even mean? I manage with extremely superficial "interpersonal connections" It's I suppose less demanding on other people and many are willing to connect at that level which I find uplifting because they're really being generous with their time and, as they say, keeping it real!

Have you checked the statistics? Divorce rates were rising last I checked! Implying? The deep interpersonal connections you seek are simply a flash in the pan, they fizzle out faster than you can say Jack Robinson or it's all an illusion that sooner or later is broken into a million pieces which, if you turn out to be the losing party, you'll have to pick up and dispose of (preferrably safely).

All that said, given how unpredictable the world is, miracles do occur, people do win the jackpot! I suppose it's time for a basic math lesson. Impossible is not the same as improbable. Sometimes they look the same but the (subtle) difference may mean either you find your...er...soulmate or end up Waiting For Godot.

That's bible stuff, right? I said God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. I said don't pack more into it. You're packing more into it. I don't care what the bible says. It is not a work of philosophy. — Bartricks

Why reinvent the wheel? Why waste a good idea? Good in the sense appropritate for the occasion.

A good person wouldn't want to know all truths about a person. God is all knowing. Are those compatible? I am showing that they are. For if God does not favour himself believing all true propositions about you, then those true propositions are not items of knowledge. That would be a case of there being no knowledge there for God to know, rather than there being 'nothing' there for God to know. — Bartricks

Your argument nested in My argument

1. God's omnibenevolent [God's definition]
2. God's omniscient [God's definition]
3. If God knows what we think then, God hurts us [privacy]
4. If God hurts us then, God isn't omnibenevolent [premise]
5. If God's omniscient & Stuff that we think is knowledge then, God knows what we think [premise]
6. Stuff that we think is knowledege [assume for reductio ad absurdum]
7. God's omniscient & Stuff that we think is knowledge [2, 6 Conj]

[Your argument starts]
8. God knows what we think [5, 7 MP]
9. If God knows what we think then, God isn't omnibenevolent [3, 4 HS]
10. God doesn't know what we think [1, 9 MT]
11. If God doesn't know what we think then, God's not omniscient [premise]

Ergo,

12. God's not omniscient [10, 11 MP]
[Your argument ends]

13. God's omniscient & God's not omniscient [2, 12 Conj]

Ergo,

14. Stuff that we think isn't knowledge [6 - 13 reductio ad absurdum] including this argument! :rofl:

Agrippa's trilemma!!! :chin: Descartes' deus deceptor (Cartesian skepticism). Skepticism on steroids!

Remember that God's definition can't change. If God is no longer omniscient then why stop there? He may well not be omnibenevolent (you lose your case) or omnipotent but then we're no longer talking about God.

Isn't it? Purely elementary! Something educated idiots can learn about.

BTW sarcasm and wit, which yours truly can use if the need be, isn't a quality he cherishes or cares for. As it has the stench of subtle violence. Let's see if we can put that aside. — skyblack

:ok:

. In this way, then, God can make himself ignorant of what innocent people think, desire and intend and yet remain all-knowing. For it remains the case that he knows all items of knowledge. — Bartricks

A noble way to look at God's omniscience and how it relates to privacy but a coupla points that seem germane.

1. If it's not WYSIWYG then people, everyone, are/is pretending.

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts [...] — Shakespeare

It's all for the cameras, putting on a show so to speak. Given this God would need to know what goes on inside our heads - someone has to know who we truly are, right?

This ain't really much of an issue because in medicine, patients routinely disclose personal information to doctors as this might contain vital clues to an illness but, the doctor is legally bound to respect and uphold patient confidentiality.

Original sin declares us all as sick. God's the doctor. We must tell fae of our deepest and darkest secrets if we're to ever become whole in body, mind and spirit. Omniscience is just that in a way, right?

2. This is a more intriguing possibility. Who says there's any information in our thoughts? In other words, does what goes through our minds constitute knowledge?

After all, it could be that thoughts = no thoughts = nothing/zip/nought/nada. Nothing there for god to know!

As to using mathematics, i am not sure we have to be an educated idiot when we can use simple ways like observation and common sense to arrive at the same determinations. But it's just my take. Doesn't have to be anyone else's. — skyblack

Observation & common sense - killing combination, Sherlock!

Now that you put it that way, it's likely you have seen me share my thoughts on the subject matter of present discussion. It's few comments back, probably in the previous page. — skyblack

I'll go read your posts and will get back to you if I can pick up anything that might interest you.

Go back to what you are good at, i.e, posting videos about "enough talk, let's fight". Get a seat in the peanut gallery and watch the big boys. — skyblack

:ok: You seem to be in a not-so-good mood. I'll leave you to cool off, if that's even possible. I'm pleasantly surprised that I'm on your radar but don't waste your time on people like me. I'm sure you have better things to do than that! Right?

Not sure why you are tagging me on a post which was clearly on different context, and addressed to the OP, And also why you are asking me to see your previous post. Are you seeking a discussion. Because last time you tried that, i am guessing it didn't go well for you. — skyblack

Neo: Whoa, deja vu.

Trinity: What did you just say?

Neo: Nothing, I just had a little deja vu.
.
.
.
Trinity: Deja vu is usually a glitch in the Matrix. It happens when they change something.

Pascal’s wager does it for the gain — Deus

Who doesn't? Everyone is in it for something - a prayer answered, improving the circumstances of one's future reincarnation, a heavenly slot, improvement of one's social standing, reciprocation of love, etc.! Right?!

Indeed sir, Pascal’s wager does it for the gain. I did not wish to get involved in that as a loving diety would not cause his creatures and doom them to non existence even if they were atheist hence me trying to avoid the wager. — Deus

I thought belief was key to salvation. That raises an important question in ethics :point: Belief In God Necessary For Being Good. The related issues are that of Original Sin and Divine Grace. All this implying the God Pascal's wager's about is the Christian God. Nevertheless, I don't think any God, Christian or not, would give us free access to heaven - we need to pay for the ticket and the accepted form of payment in all religions seems to be virtuous thoughts/words/deeds and for that, luckily or not, one might need to...believe.

On a more serious note, i think you will agree that "not-knowing" cannot be claimed by any TDH, as it requires one to exhaust the entire field and go beyond the frontiers by one's own effort. So it isn't a cheap and weak claim like "oh i am ok with not-knowing". Only someone that has exhausted the limits of knowing can make that claim, right? — Deus

Correct, however, Pascal's wager takes that - limits of knowing - into account. Hence, it's a probability argument, the very essence of this branch of math being about ignorance and how to tackle it in a rational way. If I claim I don't know if God exists or not, I mean that, mathematically speaking, the probability that God exists = the probability that God doesn't exist = 50%. Once we have a number, plug it into a formula and out pops the relevant result (see my previous post)!

It depends a lot on the risk.

Let's take a look at (Blaise) Pascal's (founder of probability with Pierre de Fermat) wager.

.......................God exists......................God doesn't exist
Theist............Infinite gain..................Finite loss
Atheist..........Infinite loss...................Finite gain

Being an agnostic implies the chances of god existing is 50/50. Given these odds, the expected value for a theist (+ infinity) is greater than the expected value for an atheist (- infinity). You should bet your money on theism and not atheism.

Agnosticism isn't as reasonable/rational as it's made out to be. That's because agnosticism hinges on possibility alone. Pascal's wager, because it uses probability (math), manages to produce a clearer picture of the situation, making a decision possible. The verdict is, agnosticism and atheism are guilty of crimes against logic!

Not all Psychopaths are serial killers. — SteveMinjares

What if all serial killers are psychopaths?

I've always wondered which is more insulting, all men are fools or all fools are men? In the former case, you can't be a man and smart! In the latter case, you can. Hmmm...I suppose all men are fools is gonna hurt more than all fools are men. Let's try this analysis on the issue at hand,

1. All psychopaths are serial killers.

2. All serial killers are psychopaths.

If 1, there's absolutely no hope for a psychopath who'll eventually become, at one point, a serial killer. If 2, things don't look so bad, a psychopath needn't become a serial killer.

So, yeah, not all psychopaths are killers sounds as good as it was meant to. :smile:

I spent over 2 hours mulling over this and all I could muster is, psychopathy is the scientific (assuming psychology is considered on) term for evil. It squares with what I said,

3. (Not) All evil people are serial killers

but,

4. All serial killers are evil people

I

The world when viewed from Nietzschean power game lens leaves no room for a benevolent God of the Christian kind. The weak, if only they realize how miserable their condition is, will quickly lose faith. The rich, despite the numerous occasions in their lives that may evoke the sentiment of "I'm feeling blessed", will only have to look at the condition of the weak to convince them that those are empty words. There really is no way a God, a benevolent, one can fit into all that's happening around us. Hence, I guess, Antichrist.

Another interesting observation, true or not, is the weak want to be powerful and the powerful don't want to be weak. In either case, weakness is a viewed as a problem to be solved instead of an asset that needs nurture. In one sense, the weak are, in a roundabout way, condemning their own existence which fits like a glove with Nietzsche's beliefs.

Then there's the matter of how Nietzsche seems to view life as a competition or a war. A soccer team manager will pick and choose his side has the crème de la crème. The military will only accept the healthiest of applicants. Nietzsche's views make sense in this context. No competitive enterprise can afford weakness.

Continuing with the military analogy, if life is war, imagine a band of commandos on a mission. If the mission is in progress and one of the commandos gets badly hurt, it's time for fae to say, "it's too late for me, save yourselves." These words are meant to be uttered by the weak. However, if the war is over, the mission accomplished, the commandos, exhausted or injured, would be looked after. They did have a big role to play in the success of the mission. Quite possibly, Christianity, by virtue of its emphasis on the weak, reflects the general sentiment among the people, elaborated by few people like Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, that our "military" objectives have been completed and we can now, without any danger of jeopardizing our well-being, tend to the weak.

If only it was simulation. As it is, I phone home to my mother and update her each evening, tidy up my bed, wash, stop looking at my phone before going to bed, and start the process again the next day. I think that I am starting to describe the absurdity described by Camus. No wonder I need this site, to structure meaning, and I don't even have the time for video games, preferring music on headphones before going to sleep, reflecting on the mixture of social dramas, or lack of them. — Jack Cummins

Bullseye, Jack. You taught me something today, not your first though. I finally got Camus' Sisyphusian analogy of the meaninglessness of life. Let's take the life of an ordinary person - fae's born (Sisyphus starts rolling the rock up the hill), nursed until fae becomes a toddler, fae'll then attend school, college? possibly but no guarantees, then employment, maybe fae'll marry and have kids but this too is a question mark, then retirement and finally, finally, fae passes away (Sisyphus reaches the top of the hill with the rock and the rock starts rolling downhill) , the eulogy, the burial, from flesh to bones, bones to dust, and dust to dust. Some will remember fae, talk about him, keep fae's memory alive but eventually nothing of/about fae'll remain, not even memories (Sisyphus's rock is back where it was, at the bottom of the hill. It's as if fae never even existed (Sisyphus having not existed is the same as Sisyphus having rolled the rock up the hill only for it to roll back to where it was).

I've recommended SEP to you a few times. I often check on topics there before I go to wiki to read the same; whichever seems clearer and uses less jargon I tend to link in my replies. SEP articles are comprehensive (& often technical) and wiki articles tend to be summaries (and incomplete). Also, I've found SEP's bibliographies much more detailed and useful than wiki's. Mostly I use SEP to help specify my Google searches when I'm really digging deep. YMMV. — 180 Proof

:up: I'm in your debt, as always!

But, I don't play video games, or even have a way of playing them and I feel that I am on a quest daily, in real life interaction, this site, finding books and music, and so much more — Jack Cummins

Simulation Hypothesis

human quest — Jack Cummins

When I see the word "quest" I feel like I'm in a video game! :smile:

If meaningful interpersonal connections are the only meaning of life, then a life without any interpersonal connections is totally meaningless. — Kaveski

Loneliness -> Depression -> Suicide

Extreme suffering -> Depression -> Suicide

I guess there's not much of a difference between loneliness & extreme suffering!

accent — JohnLocke

The accent, huh? That's both amazing and scary. Amazing because, an accent is like a ID tag that, the moment you open your mouth, gives away to the other person the income bracket you fall in, the company you keep, what kinda political affiliations you might have, your educational achievements (if any), and it may even be possible to narrow down your address to the street where you live, so and so forth. Scary, for the exact same reasons.

An accent then reveals a lot of your personal information without the the listener having to make even the slightest effort. It's a kinda sorta dilemma: either you expose yourself or you zip it. Speech is silver, silence is golden. It all hangs together.

You don't love a person because you love his body; you only start to love his body after you start to love his person. — Kaveski

So, what's new?

Not worth my time. Have a good one. — 180 Proof

Being worth the time is a relationship that's non-symmetric. Sad but true.

Wiki, huh? :roll: — 180 Proof

Could you help me out? I need a reliable/trustworthy web resource - (an) alternative(s) to Wikipedia whose credibility seems to be declining precipitously going by how very few people on the forum cite it these days.

Oh sorry! Didn't read your question properly. My bad. Firstly, I could be a brain in a vat and ergo, whatever I perceive could be an illusion including the perception that I'm a brain in a skull!

Alright then, what is the situation your end? Are you a BiV or a BiS? — Olivier5

I don't know. That's the point!

I don't think "personhood" is a relevant concern — 180 Proof

I'm disappointed that we don't see eye to eye on this.

In the history of religion, pan-theism seems the corollary to animism, not pan-deism. — 180 Proof

Pandeism = pantheism (animism) + deism according to web resources.

Anthropocene [isn't] an auto-extinction event — 180 Proof

That's what I was trying to get at. Animism is as old as the hills, it's a genuine candidate as the oldest form of religion. To make my point, I'd like to use the indigenous people of North America as an index case. Look how they lived even though consisting of multiple tribes each probably numbering in the thousands. Their way of life was largely guided by respecting nature which was a natural consequence of animism, the prevalent religion. They lived in harmony with the earth for millenia and this to reiterate, in no small part due to animism. They couldn't do as it pleased them - plundering, pillaging the earth was not an option. Rocks, trees, rivers, mountains, natural features had souls and were to be revered or at the very least treated as equals, part of the tribe.

Fast forward to the arrival of Europeans and animism was replaced in full or partly by, inter alia, science & technology. What followed is no secret - destruction of swathes of pristine forests, converting vast expanses of grassland for cultivation and livestock, mining at a scale that boggles the mind, so on.

I'm fairly certain that some if not all of North America's ecological disasters that've happened, are happening, or will happen can be traced back to the incapacitation or death of animism.

A similar story may emerge in other parts of the world that practiced animism including the fall guy in this story, Europe itself.


Thus, one solution could be to go back to the old days of animism and this is precisely what Environmental Personhood (see OP) is. Of course, animism might need to be tweaked a little to adapt it to modern realities but the basic idea seems understood. It worked before for millenia. It should work now too, right?

Here is why I think you have reached a false conclusion. You did not consider that thoughts are always inseparable from the neurons/brain matter that contain them. By observation they always go together. Bipartite and irreducible. Neurons are matter so your argument is not complete in its analysis. — Mark Nyquist

My conclusion has nothing to do with "...thoughts are always inseperable..." Even if that were true, thoughts can be nonphysical. Mind you, just because something is nonphysical doesn't imply it's independent of the physical or that it doesn't experience its own kind of death!

When all matter is Divine it seems to me human nature is then drawn to animals for an answer to life's questions, as if they had the wisdom we need. A rock might do this but it's less communicative — Gregory

I feel you're conflating Animism and animal. Same etymology (from Latin: anima, 'breath, spirit, life') yes but completely different concepts. Rock, rivers, mountains, seas, etc. have souls just like animals are believed to possess souls but rocks, rivers, mountains, seas, etc. aren't animals.

Relationship with animals is easier than with a stone so animists build totems and look into the eyes of animals to see their reflection — Gregory

Right but I've seen people worship boulders that don't resemble animals and no attempt is made to make it look like one.

1. By infinity would you accept the term or concept of eternity as one in the same?
2. The concept of infinities and finites, can they be analogous to (or treated like) temporal time/space time and eternal time as a unity of opposite concept? — 3017amen

1. Temporal infinity is, to me, a type of infinity.

2. Why not? I took a finite 15 minutes to finish my tea while the future is infinite.

I think animism actually regards animals as the highest expression of mother nature and holds them as God-like, hence the connections with environmental concerns — Gregory

Animism encompasses the beliefs that all material phenomena have agency, that there exists no categorical distinction between the spiritual and physical (or material) world and that soul or spirit or sentience exists not only in humans but also in other animals, plants, rocks, geographic features such as mountains or rivers or other entities of the natural environment: water sprites, vegetation deities, tree sprites, etc. — Wikipedia

Anthropomorphism of some kind. Life in general and humans in particular attempting to bring the rest of the natural world into its fold - an extended family of sorts.

They invented philosophy, so probably.

Should animism be legitimized as a bona fide, preferred (?), religion?
No. At most, pandeism + ethical & scientific naturalisms. — 180 Proof

Your reluctance to have animism as a religion might be because religion has issues and not because animism is flawed. Anyway, you don't seem to mind pandeism of which animism can be taken as a corollary.

Also, I want to run this by you. Ethics is ultimately about personhood - a thing that basically has rights & responsibilities which must be respected - and all modern movements that link to increasing awareness of the importance of the ecology (Environmentalism) seem to be about reworking the old, now unsustainable deal between man and nature (exploiter-exploited) into that of a more rational contract between equal partners, one party us, the other party nature. You can't be an equal partner with humans unless you're given the status of a person.