:up:

:up:

I admit the story is as far-fetched as it is incomprehensible. — Fire Ologist

:up:

On a personal level a theistic me is a stronger & healthier me. — BitconnectCarlos

Which of course doesn't say anything about whether it is true or not. A Sikh colleague says the same thing. There are vegans and techno pagans saying it too.

My theism is intuitive and derived from the Bible and life events. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure. My atheism is intuitive and derived from literature and life events.

the bible is the greatest work of literature ever written. — BitconnectCarlos

I prefer The Good Soldier Švejk as literature, although I suspect as religious texts go, the Mahabharata is possibly the greatest one, but personal taste is subjective.

And you don't need Jesus to be a theist. — BitconnectCarlos

True. But this still doesn't address which god is true, if truth is what matters. Or should we do the populist dance of syncretism and say all gods point to the same divine principle?

If God intervened more, than what good would my friendship with him be? What good would our friendship with each other be, if we were not free to seek our own minds, our own wills and share our own hearts with each other. God wants us to be us, so he doesn’t intervene; but God wants us to be friends with him and each other, so he shows us what friends do, how friends talk to one another, how to love not matter what the cross. — Fire Ologist

To me this story doesn't make sense.

You are simply speculating on why god doesn't intervene. You cannot demonstrate this is the reason.

Remember that god not intervening is a more recent thing. He intervenes and appears in person to prophets and figures throughout the Bible. Why no more? (that's rhetorical - there is no proper answer)

Naturally, for me god doesn't intervene because there is no god.

Or why was it God himself becoming a man, living poor and being killed, so that he could rise again? Why is the incarnation leading to poverty and bloody death needed?

And if God was here, walking the earth to found a church, why did he not write one word down, not one written word by Jesus, to found a 2000 plus year old institution? — Fire Ologist

Let's face it, this God is a sloppy worker and doesn't pay attention. Hence we now have thousands of Christian sects, some mutually hateful towards each other over doctrine and dogma. All interpreting god's will differently. God could settle this in a minute if he intervened.

Jesus being sacrificed was really just a weekend ruined. I think gods can take this kind of stuff in their stride. I never understood this tale of ritualistic blood sacrifice, which seems absurd more than anything else. God could have provided redemption any number of ways but settled on this piss-poor piece of theatre. What do some atheists say - Why did God sacrifice Himself to Himself to save us from Himself because of a rule He made Himself?

I don't beleive we are in a simulation, but this is my reaction to your points.

First, if the world is simulated, why don't its 'designers' simply 'pop out' at times and leave us with some trace of their existence? — jasonm

Why would or should they?

Similarly, why don't we sometimes notice violations of the laws of physics? — jasonm

Why should we? The model may be perfectly coherent.

Third: what type of computing power would be required to 'house' this virtual universe? — jasonm

If we are a simulation and there is a world outside ours, how would we know what is possible? Since we know nothing of the world outside the simulation, we don't even know if it is done via computers. Would it not be a mistake to assume that what applies in our world applies outside it? This seems an odd position to take.

...insofar as a deity is described without any predicates which entail this deity has caused changes (events) in the world, then there are not any purported facts of the matter to investigate, and such a deity is ontologically indistinguishable from an idea or fiction. — 180 Proof

Fair enough. How do you respond to those who might argue that the Bible is allegorical and that it contains a 'broader truth' about Yahweh, who does not always conform to the stories, except through fable?

My questions around this have generally been: if so, then what do we know about this deity if all we have are stories? Do we have any reason to accept this deity exists, except as a character in allegorical tales? Etc.

Out of interest are there any other frames you know of a believer might use to preserve belief in Yahweh without literalist scripture?

I think I probably read and write more with the arrival of the internet because there's just more information out there to digest. — Hanover

I think I do too.

But I've always been drawn to cosmic philosophies, which are somewhat religious in nature. Not necessarily theistic, and in the sense of a cosmic-director God not at all, but something nearer the convergence of dharma and logos - that by discovering and being true to your purpose, you are doing your part in the grand scheme. — Wayfarer

Well I can't find anything much to criticize in this. Certain things attract us. But it does seem to be the expression of a preference - one predicated on emotional or aesthetic satisfaction perhaps - just as mine is - I've never been drawn to cosmic philosophy or religions, they don't assist my sense making process. However, I do appreciate a dialogue between the different worldviews and I'd much rather discuss matters of meaning with a spiritually inclined person that the average atheist.

And the atheists think the theists are being unreasonable, but it's really the other way around because the atheists are denying themselves the capacity to understand, and that is being unreasonable. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am an atheist but I don't think theists are being unreasonable.

Quite simply, God is the source of purpose. — Metaphysician Undercover

How do we demonstrate such a statement? Which god, by the way?

So I invite you to think again. — tim wood

I've done creative things which others appreciated and made changes, but no feelings of perfection or moments of reverie, I'm afraid.

Have you ever had any moment of the kind of perfection, that you recognized as such, in which you knew there was no how or why or what for beyond it? — tim wood

Not that I recall.

So, in the context of pre-modern philosophy, it was simply assumed that everything exists for a reason, and that this reason is discernable by nous, intellect. — Wayfarer

But was the assumption warranted? Was it not simply a stage of culture? Obviously there are some nostalgic, romantic projects that wish to overturn the modern world and its perceived bereftness but I think a good argument for this seems to be elusive. It all generally coalesces around the idea: "Oh, isn't the modern period hideously ugly and consumerist.' No doubt the premodern period was hideously ugly in its own ways, transcendent meaning or not.

Whereas the naturalist account comprises trying to discern only a material causal sequence, leaving out the broader sense of reason as the ancients understood it. — Wayfarer

But what's the case that this is warranted? Why does it matter what the ancients thought?

:up: Indeed. I can't imagine saying that I know there are no gods.

... do you suppose that there might be something primordial, in the sense of an idea and not necessarily temporally, on which purpose is founded and out of which it arises. — tim wood

How might we demonstrate this? My intuition is that the organizing principles organisms employ to survive build purpose and meaning. We seek comfort and sustenance - these are achieved through purposeful goal setting and may eventually becoming culture.

Atheists don’t need “beliefs” in the religious sense. Scientifically, there is no evidence for God (unless you believed eyewitness accounts of miraculous physical events maybe). Without evidence, there is nothing to examine, so nothing to conclude. Therefore, it is illogical to conclude there is no God. — Fire Ologist

Atheists do not always conclude there are no gods. I am an atheist. My position, like that of many other contemporary atheists, is that I have encountered no good reason to believe the proposition that gods exist. I am familiar with the classical arguments but none of them resonate.

I do not believe in gods. This is all it takes to be an atheist. Whether gods can be demonstrated to exist by some evidence in the future, or an as yet to be identified compelling argument remains open.

Interesting. Aust and US are more similar that I would have guessed. I remember having critical thinking taught to me in around 1983. It was also called 'argument analysis'. I found if fairly easy but many students really struggled to follow the concepts.

The questions here are, then, what is purpose (in itself), where does it come from, what is its ground? Or, what exactly gives it all meaning, makes it all worthwhile? — tim wood

Isn't purpose contingent on culture and language - an indication of worldviews and values and how we like to privilege our time? I've generally held that there is no intrinsic meaning or purpose and that purpose can be found in destruction as much as creation. No doubt there are evolutionary advantages in many forms of purpose (social cohesion, reproduction, survival, wellbeing) and perhaps people often follow a purpose they are not fully convinced of, but undertake that path out of obligation and enculturation. I don't think purpose is necessarily rewarding or worthwhile to the person pursuing it.

Where does it come from? Being human, the act of making sense and having to make choices.

According to ChatGPT - if this is correct - we have this:

Some countries where rote learning has historically been more prevalent include:

China: Traditional Chinese education has often emphasized rote memorization, especially in subjects like mathematics and language.
India: Rote learning has been a significant part of the education system in India, particularly in subjects like mathematics and science.
Japan: Japanese education has traditionally valued memorization and repetition, although recent reforms have aimed to encourage more critical thinking and creativity.
South Korea: Rote learning has been a common method in South Korean education, particularly for preparing for standardized tests.
Singapore: Singapore's education system has historically placed a strong emphasis on rote learning, although there have been efforts in recent years to promote more holistic learning approaches.
Some Middle Eastern countries: In some Middle Eastern countries, rote learning has been prevalent, particularly in religious education and language studies.

And France?

This is somewhat a strawman commentary on a point I never actually made. — Benj96

Ha! No, I'd say it is more a reasonable response to what you asked -

Pray tell, what is your opinion on the state of global education. — Benj96

But in my nation as with my neighbouring one, the concensus is that rote learning is alive and well in many "big players" of the west. — Benj96

Consensus? Which big players? I wish I had had more rote learning and less discursive lessons. At school, the flaccid discussions bored me, so I paid little attention. Talk is cheap.

I would imagine rote learning has been replaced in many countries - especially those which emphasise conceptual understanding versus facts.

I'd be interested if you had any empirical data on the prevalence of rote learning versus other styles in world education practices.

A concerted engagement with the texts is needed if one is to decide for oneself. — Paine

Could be. Not being a philosopher, I’m mainly interested in behaviour.

That is interesting. Cheers.

Not sure it is a movement as such and I haven't made a survey of this, but it seems to be an emerging view here in some of the posts and orientations of members (and various people I know personally) and you can count thinkers like Canadian academic John Vervaeke, David Bentley Hart, even Jordan Peterson likes to potter about in this space.

I was first conscious of a contra-enlightenment school when sociologist John Carroll wrote a polemical text called Humanism 1993. The argument (and I am simplifying) generally points to the consumerism and toxic relativism of contemporary culture, pins this 'loss of meaning' on enlightenment thinking (death of God) and recommends we return to Aristotle (and, if Christian, Aquinas).

Moreover, it's not so clear what "propaganda" is, either. But we would not want to make this a discussion about the use of "words..." — Banno

1) yes I was going to make the same point and 2) clever bugger.

Keep in mind that the folk hereabouts are not philosophers. — Banno

Thank goodness. Do you think the emerging romantics who want to go back to the Greeks count as philosophy or is this just a romantic nostalgia project?

Not so sure philosopher and critical thinker are one and the same. — jgill

That's for sure. I could even say that one of the most nuanced philosophical thinkers of the 20th century (Heidegger) seemed to find the Nazi narrative acceptable. But that might be gauche.

Pray tell, what is your opinion on the state of global education. For me, the critical thinker is resilient to rhetoric and propaganda, the fact learner is however....not. — Benj96

Is anyone on earth an expert on global education? Who would even know 1% of what takes place in the realm of education on the planet?

Even the term 'critical thinking' is contextualised through interpretations and iterations and is always subject to a criterion of value which is itself contingent.

Too many education systems rely heavily on "fact-spouting" and "rote learning" over "debate/discussion/discourse". — Benj96

Really? Rote learning seems to have been out of favour for decades. There are some
vestigial traces of it left, but education in parts of the West seems to have moved on. Even when I was at school, we did not have to learn dates and facts. They were seen as the product of outmoded Victorian era educational practices.

My daughter's generation (she is 27) were very much given a discussion/debate/discourse model of education. But as I hinted above, different countries do different things.

What we probably need to do is cite specific educational approaches as implemented and then subject them to some evidence based scrutiny rather than just present untheorized opinions on 'education'.

So far, I don't see reason to think so. I think you were just really fortunate not to have had your spirit crushed early on. From what you've said so far, I surmise you can't take credit for being a happy nihilist.

Not to focus on you in particular, but we could use you as a case study in how happy nihilists come about. — baker

I don't take credit for being a cheerful. I don't think we can take full credit for our emotional lives.

Those who can't do this probably have some survival deficits.
— Tom Storm
Braggart. — baker

Not really. Most people in Australia seem to apprehend no meaning or purpose outside of their own experiences and appear content with what Joshs calls 'concrete experience'. However if one is afflicted by illness or hardship this may change things.

I've never believed that everything must mean something or that we are part of an absolute purpose, or that there is an ultimate reality humans can understand. There's a hole in reality. We are adrift and we seem to invent stories to help ourselves cope. Some of those tales have a type of magic for a period of time, even centuries, and eventually those stories lose power. Right now we seem to be in a transitional period and are overwhelmed by pluralism. We don't seem to know who should be in charge any more, Some people want to go back to the Greeks, others want more scientistic approaches. Some want to reconcile the two. I'm not an academic, so I'm happy to watch from the sidelines. But I suspect we need fresh world views and models rather than romantic nostalgia projects.

Only if one ties the value of those day to day events with some overarching or absolutist meaning of life, and rejects such an absolute, is one a nihilist about concrete experience. — Joshs

That seems right to me.

Thanks for the nuanced response.

It was more of a "do they practice what they preach" thought than an actual question. — Sir2u

Ok. In that case, no they often don't.

The bible is a collection of life guides that was collected from many ancient cultures. — Sir2u

I particularly appreciate the advice it provides me on how to select and treat my slaves. :wink:

...his insistence on the "solidarity" of our existence, yet not really having this solidarity evidenced in his basic philosophy; just the opposite: truth is made not discovered, he writes in Irony, Contingency and Solidarity. From whence comes this allegiance to reason given that reason itself, as Hume said long ago, has no ethical content, no content at all. Reason as such would just as soon wipe out all humanity without flinching. — Astrophel

I don't have philosophical background but you've concisely summarized a reaction I had to Rorty which I assumed might have been my lack of philosophical sophistication. How do you imagine Rorty might respond to this frame of his ideas? Surely it was put to him as it seems an obvious critique.

I remember hearing a lecture by Rorty (early 2000's) He said something like - 'If life has a meaning it is to make things better for our descendants.' How would he provide justification? I tend to think that Rorty, despite the Irony and anti-metaphysics, was essentially a romantic figure.

When he knew was dying of inoperable cancer he wrote -

...I now wish that I had spent somewhat more of my life with verse. This is not because I fear having missed out on truths that are incapable of statement in prose. There are no such truths; there is nothing about death that Swinburne and Landor knew but Epicurus and Heidegger failed to grasp. Rather, it is because I would have lived more fully if I had been able to rattle off more old chestnuts — just as I would have if I had made more close friends. Cultures with richer vocabularies are more fully human — farther removed from the beasts — than those with poorer ones; individual men and women are more fully human when their memories are amply stocked with verses.


I wonder if his solidarity is a vestigial trace of Romanticism.

Sounds like a case of this:

It is incredibly easy to control people when you have them afraid. — Scarecow

What always amazes me is the fact that despite so many people writing articles and even books about this topic, there are literally hundreds of them online, so many people live unhappy lives. — Sir2u

Isn't this the self-help Ouroboros in action? The more unhappy people seem to be, the more the market peddles solutions.

I would really like to see some statistics about the writes of these ideas to see if they have achieved what they preach using the ideas they tell others to use. — Sir2u

Well Jordan Peterson, a recent prime example, has become one of the richest, unhappy men on the planet. Not that long ago, he nearly died following a benzo addiction and a nervous breakdown. Alan Watts, an influential early self-help figure and counter culture icon tackled his sorrows with booze rather than the spiritual teachings he was famous for. I remember meeting a rather famous Buddhist teacher here who drank close to a bottle of Johnnie Walker a day and seemed untouched by his own teachings.

I suspect that those who can, do, those who can't, teach. But that doesn't mean what they teach is useless. It would be a logical fallacy to argue that someone who is flawed can't also be a conduit for wisdom.

It is incredibly easy to control people when you have them afraid. Under the rule of Enver Hoxha, citizens were not only afraid of the government, but also of the outside world. — Scarecow

A common enough tool. Consider the West's decades of bombastic Cold War rhetoric and syphoning of funding out of the public sphere into military spending and it's apogee, the Military Industrial Complex. All in the name of freedom.

It seems the best of philosophers have something in common, which is that they saw philosophy as bringing us to that more aesthetic/holistic understanding of reality. Perhaps philosophy (similar to religion), is cosplay fantasy, to give reality a more interesting sense to it, and nothing more than this sensibility. What is this impulse in philosophy for an aesthetic view? What does it matter if the aesthetic view exists? Why are some people drawn to it and some not? — schopenhauer1

I have often wondered this myself. I tend to think that aesthetics and emotion are foundational to people's beliefs - explaining the ideas they are drawn to and what characterises their sense making process. Some find the idea of a world of transcendence more beautiful and pleasing. The theme that the world has become disenchanted by unattractive and instrumentalist post enlightenment thinking and scientism seems to bring many people back to classical ideas and a search for harmony and metanarratives.

Can’t disagree with that.

It is interesting to think about the way in which ideas of religion may hinder ideas of morality and ethics — Jack Cummins

The issue is that there is no objective basis for morality under religion; it always comes down to personal preferences or interpretation of what gods want. Hence, even within one religion, views on a single given moral problem vary considerably. Personal preference and culture seem to be the source of our ethics.

As for nihilists "jumping out of bed glad to be alive" I think it is difficult to maintain the joy. I used to associate with a particular group of socialists who were something like the Russian nihilists. They had reached the point where they approved of NOTHING in capitalist society. They were not good socialists, they were bitter old men.

A problem with the term nihilist is that it is absolute and without nuance. It's like "anarchist" in that way -- when used by adolescents it has an extreme, unmodified meaning.

Whether nihilism is a good term or not, carry on with your program of joy. — BC

You raise some good points. I don't want to create the impression that I live in a Panglossian or Disneyesque place of happiness and tap dancing. But most days have some joy in them.

Bitterness, as you describe it so well, is something which corrodes many peoples lives.

From Wiki:

Nihilism (pronounced: /ˈnaɪ.ɨlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɨlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) refers to sets of beliefs which negate one or more apparently meaningful aspects of Reality. Some are forms of existential nihilism, which argue that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived.

I think what bugs me most about people's reaction to nihilism (at least as I have understood it) is this idea - 'If you think there no inherent meaning to life then you must be marooned in meaninglessness." This echoes the OP wherein depression and nihilism were connected.

Sure, many depressed people appear nihilistic in the common usage of the word. But more accurately they are likely to be experiencing anhedonia.

I consider myself a nihilist, if by this expression we believe that there is no meaning to human life and no transcendent meaning to reality (whatever that is). I can't be certain, but I recall that this is the conclusion I came to as a boy. It just seemed to fit my sense making process and was not the product of any trauma. Perhaps this makes me an antifoundationalist.

But as a romantic and perhaps an absurdist, a la Camus, I find that meaning is something we make as individuals and as families, or friends or communities. We can't help ourselves. All any of us have is the exercise of personal preferences, which creates our worlds. Even the religious can't escape this process. Their understanding of god's will is also the exercise of individual preferences and interpretations of what they think god is and wants.

As for nihilists "jumping out of bed glad to be alive" I think it is difficult to maintain the joy. — BC

Yes, it sounds like Monty Python by way of Nietzsche. The Joyous Nihilist.

Thanks Mark,

:up:

This is territory you understand very well. Maybe you can help me tweak my position here. Camus insists on seeing Sisyphus happy. Is this something approaching my position? Am I, perhaps, an absurdist too?

I take nihilism to be a lack of intrinsic meaning or purpose - a lack of transcendent meaning. I will concede however that people view nihilism variously.

Surely this has no bearing upon what I love and enjoy or whether it’s worth getting up in the morning?

There's a difference between Meaning and meaning if you catch my drift. My joy matters to me and some of the folk I know, but it matters not a jot to the universe. It is of no importance.

It’s not intrinsically meaningful.