Yes, religions tend to perpetuate and promote 'communities' of magical thinkers who talk to – placate – ghosts. :sparkle: :eyes:.Does religion perpetuate and promote a regressive worldview? — Art48
It is customary to blame secular science and anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for its own defeats.
Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid.
When faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline, love by habit; when the crisis of today is ignored because of the splendor of the past; when faith becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion – its message becomes meaningless. — Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel
Prejudices are what fools use for reason. — Voltaire
:100:I spit on all notions of aristocracy, no matter how you try to dress such a category up, to make such seem clean and attractive. — universeness
Thus, my metaethics is Ethical Naturalism (i.e. "good" is agency (i.e. capabilities – virtues, habits – for nonzero sum caring for the functional defects of self, others & commons) optimized by praxes of preventing and reducing harms & injustices, respectively); my normative ethics is Negative Hedonic Utilitarianism (i.e. "right" judgments and conduct which prevent or reduce harm); and my applied ethics is Negative Preference Consequentialism (i.e. "right" policies-practices which prevent or reduce injustice). — 180 Proof
:up: I agree.It seems a bit like projecting one's own tastes as matter of fact masked in the form of an intuition. Likewise, if there really are non-natural moral facts (that are something akin to platonic forms), then what faculty do we have to intuiting them? It seems, to me, like we don't. — Bob Ross
:ok:... re-situate the basis of objectivity within intersubjectivity. Not just human intersubjectivity but the intra-agential relations within non-human nature. — Joshs
A philosophical 'doctrine' coopted by early Church theologians but "Neoplatonism" was not itself ever a creedal or congregational religion, or religious practice. Doesn't meet my stated criteria (re: Pascal's distinction of the religious 'God of Abraham', not a conceptual 'god of philosophy').Neoplatonism? — Count Timothy von Icarus
:smirk:Stupidity: n, thinking philosophy can be found in a dictionary. :wink: — unenlightened
And how does it "appear to undermine" "objectivity"? With objective findings. Your argument(?), sir, is as self-refuting as a 'positivist' argument. :lol:The fact that quantum physics appears to undemine the concept of objectivity — Wayfarer
This brain rot is virulent in Britain, Germany, Hungary, Turkey & Poland too. :eyes:Is this because they are dumb, or has the American system (education / media / corporate influence) failed people, making them rubes and willing victims of a demagogue? — Tom Storm
No, we can't. We have to out-vote them (and continue to out-breed them). :mask:We can't use CBT for political stupidity can we?
Not at all, sir: what is simulated – the natural world, 'subject-invariant' reality – is approximately known with respect to the scope precision and fidelity of the simulation (à la mapping territory which necessarily exceeds mapping). Dispense with the outdated Kantianism, sir, epistemology as well as science has developed two and have centuries past his (anti-Copernican) transcendental anthropocentricity and occult ding-an-sich.The whole point is that'what it simulates' is an unknown. — Wayfarer
Those "implications" are nothing more than second-order interpretations of first-order models. You're merely referring to "the nature" of the simulation, Wayfarer, and not what it simulates.The implications of the nature of the wavefunction are significant. — Wayfarer
That's like saying an asexual person is simply someone denies the existence of sex. :roll:I would think an atheist is simply anyone who denies the existence of God ... — Count Timothy von Icarus
I.e. lucidly thinking for oneself ...So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. — Betrand Russell
Do you think this "incapacity" is (1) either... an incapacity for sound judgment. — Tom Storm
Really? FWIW, my understanding is that "the nature of the wavefunction" is a mathematical artifact of the set ups of QM experiments. Philosophers of physics, in contrast to philosophically sophisticated physicists, wantonly and unparsimoniously (mis/over)interpret this mathematical artifact which is, as is often pointed out, of little to no significance to theoretical physicists. Like every other theory in science, QFT is only a simulation of the world and not 'the world itself'; thus, "the nature of the wavefunction" is nothing more than an extension of "the nature" of QFT (i.e. simulation). Re: model-dependent realism.Nevertheless it is indisputable that 'the nature of the wave function' is among the great unresolved issues in philosophy of physics. — Wayfarer
So stupidity would be not desiring to correct one's own deficits. — Pantagruel
Stupidity is extreme bias — Christoffer
That looks like stupidity to me. A pervasive refusal to try to learn. — fdrake
And at long last I've finally realized that it's stupid to tell stupid people that they are stupid. — 180 Proof
What? :chin:It is here that the nature of propositions themselves may be flimsy because they are based on interpretative understandings and hermeneutic assumptions. — Jack Cummins
For the rest of the earth’s organisms, existence is relatively uncomplicated. Their lives are about three things: survival, reproduction, death—and nothing else. But we know too much to content ourselves with surviving, reproducing, dying—and nothing else. We know we are alive and know we will die. We also know we will suffer during our lives before suffering—slowly or quickly—as we draw near to death. This is the knowledge we “enjoy” as the most intelligent organisms to gush from the womb of nature. And being so, we feel shortchanged if there is nothing else for us than to survive, reproduce, and die. We want there to be more to it than that, or to think there is. This is the tragedy: Consciousness has forced us into the paradoxical position of striving to be unself-conscious of what we are—hunks of spoiling flesh on disintegrating bones. — Thomas Ligotti
Okay, this is where we differ: I think meta-statements are either interpretative or suppositional and only object-statements are propositional. To my mind, "theories" may be epistemic objects.Metaphysical "propositions" are indeed propositions - but they are higher order propositions about theories, as opposed to being first-order propositions that are expressed by those theories. — sime