Maybe the problem here lies in my definition of faith. I see faith as being knowledge without justification. I have knowledge beyond reasonable doubt that the future will be like the past, but I wouldn't say that is unjustified because I see it as being unreasonable that the future not be like the past in cases of natural law. Isn't that the point of investigating natural law?

I'm sorry if I offended you by insinuating that the article you posted was religious bullshit. I don't have a very favorable opinion of religious belief. I see it as corrupting the minds of the youth and damaging our scientific advancement towards a better tomorrow. This article was from a website called sciencemeetsreligion.org . The whole concept here seems that religion should't have to be subject to the scientific method because science is a religion in itself and I find that claim to be laughable.

""But religion is not the only victim of this worldview. If we fully accept scientific materialism, we would also have to discard art, literature, music, and many other fields of human endeavor that are essential aspects of our modern world. More importantly, we need to ask what is the status of scientific materialism itself under this worldview. As John Haught observes [Haught2008, pg. 45]""

Why would we have to discard art, literature, music etc by operating under the perspective of materialism?

"When scientists ridicule religious faith, it is worth observing that scientists also take faith with them into the research laboratory. As British philosopher Alfred North Whitehead has noted, modern science, as it developed in the West, was based on a faith in the existence of rational, discoverable laws"

It's not faith if it produces verifiable results.

you just said it's 'religious bullshit' - so what's to discuss? — Wayfarer

Your opinion, not the propagandist one of that article. I don't see any rational reason to believe anything other than what I can prove beyond reasonable doubt. Accepting that proof isn't everything is slowing down the progression of mankind. However I am very open to new ideas. If I seem hostile in presentation it is because I'm quitting smoking and haven't smoked a cigarette in a week. You disagree with me and that leaves me with room to learn. I would appreciate it if you could explain why you disagree with me.

If you have a point you should be able to articulate it. All you did was say I was wrong and pull up an article weakly supporting your belief. The reason I'm posting my viewpoint on here is because I want people to disagree with me. You disagree, and you went through the effort of commenting, but now It's not up to you to educate me??. Is that the case or do you just not have an actual argument and you're trying to back out.

Instead of trying to do so, I should stop wasting time thinking about it and just accept that I am nobody. That gives me the freedom to be whoever I want instead of "being myself", whatever that means. — MonfortS26

In hindsight, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I am me, but my idea of me is not an accurate perception of who I am. I am whoever I want to be and me is what I perceive myself to be. What I perceive myself to be is based off of what other people perceive me to be and is therefore irrelevant.

I read your article, and I find it to be religious bullshit. To argue that scientists have "faith" in science is a joke. It's not having faith in something if it produces reliable results. Religion does not. I don't see any logical attack on scientific materialism or naturalism for that matter that isn't in defense of a religion.

What do you mean?

I don't put very much thought into my past whatsoever, the only thing I regret is the time wasted by the way Christianity contorted my perspective on life.

If you say "I am an honest man. I am an authentic being. I am proud of my self." you are not speaking circularly -- you, the subject, are speaking about yourself, an object. We can do that. What is circular is saying something like "I don't exist because I am a product of my imagination." It's contradictory — Bitter Crank

You could say that, but stating that your an honest man implies that you don't lie. How on earth could I trust anyone using that statement? Everybody lies. When you say that you are authentic, I would ask in relation to what? And i'm not saying I don't exist because I am a product of my imagination. I'm saying that it is impossible for me to perceive an accurate view of who I really am. Instead of trying to do so, I should stop wasting time thinking about it and just accept that I am nobody. That gives me the freedom to be whoever I want instead of "being myself", whatever that means.

People who feel those words have meaning that is

This is circular. In order to imagine a self, you have to be a self, so the self isn't an illusion. The self can certainly imagine itself to be different than it is (actually we do this quite a bit -- we would like to be a different self sometimes). — Bitter Crank

I think that any argument involving what defines one as a person is circular. That seems to be up to the person defining themselves. The same goes for most abstract concepts. Everyone has their own idea of truth, beauty, knowledge, love. The best way to view those concepts would be from a perspective where they are all unified. They are nothing more than ideas that are used as a means to an end. They are empty words that can be used to summon people into action.

our sense of self is an illusion HOW DO YOU KNOW? — Bitter Crank

This is just a perspective that I have. I know nothing, but I will explore any idea.

and everything that makes up any of our preferences is simply the outer world reflecting back into us SO? If we have unique taste, the outer world will reflect back uniqueness, won't it? — Bitter Crank

But where did that uniqueness come from?

The majority of people are looking to fit in TRUE WHY WOULD THEY NOT? — Bitter Crank

I'm not saying that they shouldn't, but most people care more about themselves than others in society. They put more substantially more effort into fitting in and what is best for them then they do into serving society.

and don't put a terrible amount of thought into their lives FALSE — Bitter Crank

I was raised in Christianity and I didn't question it until last year. I was afraid of questioning anything because I felt I would go to hell if I were to think critically about my life. I wasn't putting much thought into my life and spent most of my teenage years as an outcast because one of the beliefs I had adopted is that it isn't important to fit in and I didn't put any effort into life whatsoever. I just coasted through everything. If this can be true about me, then it can certainly be true about other people.

Any industry of art could capitalize off of that easily by using small variations of very basic ideas repeatedly TRUE BUT HAVEN'T RIP OFF ARTISTS BEEN DOING THAT FOR DECADES? — Bitter Crank

Yes and morally we should do what we can to enlighten people to that vulnerability

To me this is a morally corrupt action because it cripples our sources of individuality and harms our ability to critically think. TRUE, WHATEVER CRIPPLES OUR INDIVIDUALITY AND HARMS OUR ABILITY TO THINK CRITICALLY IS BAD NEWS. — Bitter Crank

True

Like I said, you don't seem to be feeling well. Take some Pepto Bismol; it has bismuth in it -- it works. — Bitter Crank

I'm really not sure what you mean by that

When I say illusion, I mean something that is not what it appears. What I mean when I say the self is an illusion is that any conception of myself is a product of my imagination. We are given the impression of being individuals when we are given a name at birth and we model our sense of self around the other people in our lives. All of our ability for abstraction is grasped intuitively and shaped by the people who influence us at a young age without much second thought. That would include beauty The reason most if not all abstract ideas are illusions is because EVERYONE's sense of abstraction is grasped intuitively. They are based on the false assumption that the abstract idea has real purpose in the first place and isn't just bullshit that was created to push an agenda that we have adapted to and consider a real part of daily life.

No provide examples. First of all you are saying that money isn't everything. While I would agree, that isn't what I mean when referring to materialism. Materialism is the belief that the material world is all that there is. You seem to be proposing some other idea and I'm curious as to what that idea could be.

Such as?

But the scientific method definitely seems to be the most accurate source of knowledge in the world

It's not necessarily at all! But, it's beyond the scope of materialism. And they're actually two different things. — Wayfarer

What makes you say that?

So are you saying that emotion responses are differential and logical responses are integral?

When I was 24 I grew a beard to look more bohemian hippy (1970). When it got long enough to call it a beard, I recognized it as being ME, not a mask. I've kept the beard for 46 years. (It's now white, where it was then a nice brown.) It is still me. — Bitter Crank

Hippy would be an accurate description of me, but I don't want people to associate me with that culture because I feel it would be harmful to my reputation in my future career. I would rather be a "free-spirit" that blends in instead of trying to be different for the sake of appearing different because I feel that would be more beneficial for me in the long run

It is fantastic for a huge range of things but when it is applied to questions beyond its scope is when it morphs into scientism. — Wayfarer

I'll check the book out. What makes you think that the understanding of the mind is beyond the scope of science though?

So it sounds like the key to an accurate intuition is exposure? What do you mean by differentials?

Click the philosophy forum logo on the top left and you will see your name slightly below it and start new discussion slightly below that.

Yes but someone has to pave the way in the sciences. There may be no justification for my view, but in order to justify my view all other views must first be ruled out. My understanding is that most science is a reductionist philosophy, so viewing the mind from a strictly materialistic perspective is the best way achieve as much of an understanding of it as possible. If there is more than "the product of evolution" in relation to intelligence, then what might that be?

Emotions provide the fastest and most efficient way to process information. — wuliheron

Is it the most accurate way of processing information though?

Mostly, though, our emotions are vitally important parts of our private discourse among sensory input, memory, thought, and emotion. Further, emotions have been at the center of mental activity in our evolutionary predecessors for a very long time. — Bitter Crank

So you believe that emotions are the driving force of humans?

I'm wondering what we would be obliged to acknowledge if it became evident that the fundamental constituents of the Universe are not actually physical. And I think that day approaches. — Wayfarer

I meant this part. I would agree that intelligence is likely a product of matter and energy though. I've always felt Descartes had it backwards and that it should be "I am therefore I think".

What kind of social masks do you wear?

What do you mean by that?

How can we prevent hubris in ourselves?

So how can you wear masks without getting confused? And what if you're already confused? Wouldn't any sense of self be a mask?

Lolol Alright then. I'd say I have what I needed. Thanks

What do you mean by masks? How can we be anything other than who we are?

Ideally individuality and the freedom to believe what you want are only valuable in a society where individuals have to put in effort for survival. If society was self-sustaining and an easy life was entitled would we still need said individuality and freedom? Would we even want it?

I think it has more to do with women being unequal or "sex objects" than it has to do with sexuality in general. I'm all for making sexuality a common aspect of the public sphere. But I think there might be some issues with putting sexuality where it isn't needed, i.e. women being used to garner profits. — darthbarracuda

I don't think women being viewed as sex objects makes is necessarily a bad thing. That is a benefit of being sexually attractive in both genders. It gives people power to be viewed as "objects" so I don't really see what the problem is with "objectification" anyway.

That's good. I like that

Do we as a society have any sort of guidelines to prevent that from happening?

I would say probably a little bit of both

We can be in touch with it by understanding what our subconscious desires are on a basic level and trusting our subconscious to act accordingly in the moment instead of logically analyzing every instant of living. And by genuine I mean authentic. Being an authentic person. That may have no philosophical significance to you but it is certainly an idea I would like to explore.

Considering there probably isn't a God, this question becomes irrelevant. — darthbarracuda

Perhaps "playing nature"is a better way of putting it.

Two greek words: hubris and nemesis. Hubris, the excessive pride, Nemesis, the punishment. — Bitter Crank

What is wrong with hubris?

Does suppressing the bad in ourselves actually do anything to get rid of it in humanity or does it just make us acceptable by society? Morality might be a way for us to function as society but it seems to be more of a Band-Aid to the problem rather than a solution

My understanding of intuition is innate knowledge. Instinctive truths that are our subconscious pilots in life.

"Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem undermines logicism because it shows that no particular axiomatization of mathematics can decide all statements" Can anyone explain to me why the theorems undermine logicism?

Do you happen to have a link to this study? I would be interested to read it.