By definition, the transcendent is unknowable — Real Gone Cat

Then the definition is wrong. Apart from the sense there are ways to contemplate this reality.

Umm, your missing the point. Either the transcendent exists or it doesn't. — Real Gone Cat

But what is the transcendent?

We must agree though that the secular worldview is in perfect agreement with the the secular economic activities. Religion forms an obstacle as it views creation as divine, not to be touched upon too much. Economic activity exploits that creation to a large extent. As does science. The scientific imperative dictates to discover and explore in all direction relentlessly. Helium is liquefied, xenon and neon isolated, matter is probed up to micro scales in the largest most expensive machines, nature including us (the creation of the gods) is being worked on as never before and the atheist attitude puts no limits in this workings.

What do you mean with transcendent nature? How things really are?

Physical matter is an idea. Without this idea it doesn't exist.

Physicalism is saying, "no, actually what you experience isn't the real deal. You essentially hallucinate a world. The real stuff is the abstract model of the world we use to understand and predict observations. Yes this abstraction is only accessible as a component of thought, but it is actually ontologically basic." — Count Timothy von Icarus

The physical world proposed to lay behind the perceived qualiatic world is just as an idealist world as the directly. If the directly perceived world, the empirical world of the sense, were all there is, what would be the difference between a real person and a dreamt one?

Maybe I got you wrong then. What then do you mean that they add nothing to our understanding?

Kant wrote in his Critique of the Power of Judgement : "We can only cognize objects that we can, in principle, intuit. Consequently, we can only cognize objects in space and time, appearances. We cannot cognize things in themselves". (A239). Foundational to all our understanding of what we observe is our innate understanding of space and time: "Space and time are merely the forms of our sensible intuition of objects. They are not beings that exist independently of our intuition (things in themselves), nor are they properties of, nor relations among, such beings". (A26, A33) — RussellA

And here Kant makes a false or pretentious assumption at least. Namely that we kant cognize the Ding an Sich. People have the power to become, to empathize, to become, to magine, to live oneself in das Ding.

It is not as if I expect you to see this and it does take work to familiarize yourself. But if all you read is science, you will never grasp phenomenology — Constance

I don't read science only. Theology is a firmer base of knowledge and offers a firmer ground for understanding phenomena or their nature.

Phenomenoa lay at the base of knowledge. Our brain, by means of its virtual infinite formal capacity, structures the phenomena and the structures behind it, while it gets informed by these structures at the same time.

The point is that idealism is unnecessary. It adds nothing to understanding — Real Gone Cat

Except that without ideas our attempts to understand will be in vain.

Another question - Where would I draw the line if the one person in question was my daughter. — T Clark

You would let a million die to dont let her die, wontya?

The book appears to be interesting. Im not sure though if the "main barrier" to the widespread acceptance of idealism is about to collapse. Idealism lacks a massive nucleus and it appears to me that there is no difference between the dreamt world and the world of wakefulness.

Neither am I convinced that a major inflection point in modern intellectual history is close at hand. Though it might offer useful information about a dualistic view, tying together ideas and physics.

"Go gently in the dark", Scotsman! Don't look too deep in the bottle! Thnx for the ever exciting exchange.

Is there nothing there theology cannot handle? Something that persists regardless? — Constance

The eternal universe made by the gods.

Less rocket science, more brain surgery. — unenlightened

:lol:

we don't need a washing machine each, we can share. — unenlightened

That's my idea too. We can do the same for many things. And indeed, reducing the speed, intensity, of the economic machine. A sober material lifestyle re-establishes contact with our nature.

We could say non-egg laying chicken evolved into egg-laying chicken and be done with it, ja? — Agent Smith

Nee. For the chicken to evolve it needs a next generation to be born. By creating an egg. The egg is an extension of the ribosome that once developed in protein life structures. These resemble the proto chicken. The primordial chicken came first.

Religion tries to take credit for almost everything science discovers. — universeness

Religion takes credit for no scientific discoveries. It can help though in formulating or inventing models.

I just dont agree. — universeness

Dogma is used in molecular biology, if you agree or not.

Apart from complete morons like Ken Ham and his 'answers in genisis,' cronies, most religions now accept evolution from natural selection but claim it as god(s) work. Compare that to the days of the Scopes monkey trial and the treatment of Giordano Bruno and Galileo. — universeness

I agree with the moron claim! Galileo was banned on rational grounds. There was no evidence for his claims yet. I would let the man be. Why bother? He lived a good last part of his life though. His case is merely used by atheists to show the stupidity of the church. And like I told you before, the church was actually right! General relativity shows that even rotation is relative.

But then, why are we born to suffer and die? — Constance

That depends on your theology.

I was just about to quote "knitting with an attitude"...

By the way, the dogma has been proven in a very tiny amount of actual organisms. In very limited experimental set ups, not occurring in real life.

I criticized it at a biology forum. Banned!

In the same way you take the opposite view. — universeness

I don't say there is a chance of being right, or that therd is a chance that there are gods. It's a ridiculous statement.

A single counter example can be 'an exception to the rule,' it does not necessarily invalidate the rule. — universeness

There is no denial possible, universeness. Dogma is being used in science. It's even your hero using it!

In science, one example is never sufficient evidence — universeness

We dont talk science. We talk about science. In math one counter example disproves a claim. I disproved your claim that science aint about dogma.

I mean what he claims in his books. It's based on the central dogma. BTW, how can you be 99.9% certain?

Don't remind me of activities better than being on this forum, EugeneW — Agent Smith

:lol:

Is that a proposal...?

Between the world of "Perfect" and "Fuck you!" lays the world of the perfect fuck.

Is this the only use of the term Dogma being used to aid the understanding of a scientific paper, that you have encountered? This is hardly overwhelming evidence that all of science is intrinsically dogmatic. — universeness

One example is sufficient evidence. Science uses dogma! The area it covers is immense.

Dogma is described as a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. — universeness

Which is exactly what our good friend Dawkins does.

Reminds me of a story. "Fuck you fuck you!" "Fuck you!"

What you need is evidence that being does exist outside perception, but such evidence is seemingly impossible to produce. — Count Timothy von Icarus

If there was no being inside the perceived, outside perception, we could just as well spend the rest of our lives dreaming.

The same goes for other world leaders, single individuals for whom the entire nation is sacrificed if it comes to that! — Agent Smith

I would order my 1001th nation army to fight until death so I could reach you alive, Agent Smith, my dear love! :hearts:

All I can suggest is that you read the words you typed above back to yourself in as calm and subjective a manner as you can. Decide if you think your own words might read as bitter and angry when others read them. — universeness

Dont you think I did that? Its exactly meant as I wrote. I feel bitter for them. Not for me.

I don't associate words like 'doctrine' and 'dogma' with science/biology, you do — universeness

Central dogma of molecular biology

Not my words, Uni.

An Ellipsis is ALWAYS a set of three dots.

After a period at the end of a sentence, an ellipsis is part of a set of four dots, but still three dots. — Joe Mello

Everything okay, uncle Joe? Im a bit worried actually. Do they let you walk in the fresh outside air once in a while? Can you walk unguidedly already? Try start conversation with the inmates! Will do you good! Good for your thinking! If there is anything you need or want me to come along, you can always ask that sweet nurse to call me!

Best wishes, cousin Eugene.

It's too rigorous to be considered philosophy. :cool:
9h — jgill

It's a quite perverted mode of thinking though. In that sense it finds a good place in philosophy!

More important, what to do about it?

This just comes from your own musings EugeneW — universeness

That's how it actually is. They unconsciously worship. Why else should they be so condemning of atheism? Because theists worship something they cant understand and threatens their position? Because misery flows from theism. Hands cut off and stoning? Like I said, I can give you more examples of misery caused by science.

Maybe he was just a nutter or a patsy as he claimed. — universeness

Maybe Dawkins is one too. Without claiming it though... A mental case, a sufferer from a psychosis. Atheist psychosis.

This just comes from your own musings EugeneW. This is an example of the kind of typing from you that I DO think is based on your bitterness towards the current influential Cosmologists not responding to you with the consideration you feel you deserve. The DIMP guy and the Klien Bottle/Mobius guy felt the exact same way as you do minus your wink towards theism — universeness

That's you projecting on me. Do you really think I care for some cosmologists not responding? I pity them arrogant bastard! Safely in their self erected towers of scientific ivory. I dont even try anymore to reach out (I asked a question on the podcast. No reply. Why not? Because I know things they dont and they are afraid of the unknown. Ooookhhh. Someone going against established order. They cant have someone knowing it better. But they cant prevent me thinking my thoughts. And I just know what the cosmos looks like on the fundamental level, unlike them, in their oh so important search for quantum gravity, or whatever silly approach. Like string theory. Nice theory but totally besides the truth. A fancy full fairytale. And they are content. So let them be happy. Let them wallow in their self-assigned importance and people watching in awe as if they are the possessors of some deep unknown truth knowable to the chosen ones, the lucky few only. There's your worshipping. It's the scientists that are worshipped...

I don't hear scientists call any science book 'holy,' they prove this by constantly challenging and reviewing their contents — universeness

That's part of the doctrine. But what about the dogma of molecular biology?

Mental Masturbation is a thing. — Joe Mello

It sure it is, uncle Crazy Mello Joe! Im sure you know everything about it. Im sure you practice a lot! What are your thoughts while mentally blowing yourself?

The Supreme Fascist! That's what Paul Erdős, Hungarian mathematician, called God. — Agent Smith

Being a mathematical ratio fascist himself that comes as no surprise. Clash of the titans. Difference being, good old Paul is no real titan. Just a confused thinker translating the universal language into his limited symbolics and numerology, assigning meaning to numbers and creating silly formula and spells to play with them in infinite vector spaces and Lie algebras introducing Lie brackets or derivatives. But if it rocks his boat. Let him rock in peace! He dont need no lullaby!