My point is simply that we don't accept a belief without good evidence.

Science is an ideology, not a religion. — T Clark

Everything is ideology if you try hard enough.

Thank you for your extensive response.

But leaving that aside, naturalism also methodologically excludes the possibility that there might be alternative cognitive modes or ways-of-knowing about which the sensorily-grounded methods of empirical science can detect nothing. — Wayfarer

No I would say if it exists, we can investigate it. 'Might be' is not 'is'. Otherwise it is woo.

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, — Richard Lewontin

But this and the rest of what he says is just rhetoric without examples.

One of the things I think it says is that, to all intents, for this kind of thinking, science *is* a religion. Hence, 'the religion of scientism'. — Wayfarer

I don't think the case is made at all. All it is trying to do is say that isms are a dirty word and there's an attempt to turn the dreaded R word back on science.

I think anyone on a spiritual path has a sense of trying to navigate to a higher destiny. — Wayfarer

This quote and so many similar from people interested in spirituality just suggests (and you may not be like this) the underlying ethos of elitism and status seeking. I'm special because I have my God/Buddha/Guru/faith/Kabbalah... And of course by way of exquisite contrast the person who just wants evidence before accepting any claims is a lesser course human being. Not that you may be of this ilk.

St Augustine said that 'miracles are not against nature, they're against what we understand about nature'. — Wayfarer

Sophistry. If miracles happen then there would be evidence.

Proferssor Bart Ehrman is probably more nuanced. He thinks YbY was probably real but few of the stories are.

I guess I've just always come to the usual conclusions - why should I care what is written in any holy book?

The tantalizing proposal is that early Christian tradition may not have seen Jesus as divine nor risen from death. The later vulgar superhero twist to the story avoids engaging with the idea that this particular hero's journey may have been about self-knowledge, not everlasting life.

Sociologist and religious scholar John Carroll wrote an interesting book on Mark, with Jesus as an existential figure. The point was more (and I am putting this crudely) that Jesus ( traces of this are in Mark, the oldest Gospel - around 70 AD) was not interested in God and doctrine but in exploring the self - he died in despair and his rising again is tentative. There is a later end tacked onto Mark that tries to make it seem more glorious. Gnosis is perhaps an existential Jesus' answer to Camus' absurdity, to touch on another discussion.

If I were to say to you that you should not foist your view on others by not procreating other people who will have to take on the human enterprise who may not find this good, what would you say? I used an example of bowling for example. Just because I like bowling, should all of humanity bowl now? Why is the whole human project of having to exist and follow the structures of society be any different? — schopenhauer1

see my previous point.

Jesus is a real historical figure. — schopenhauer1

Actually there is no certainty on this. Some suggest the character may have been based on a real person - there were numerous itinerant messianic teachers at the time it is stated. There are branches of mythicists who argue he is a total fiction - Dr Richard Carrier is an exponent of this.

I personally don't care if he was based on a real man or not. The question is what status do we give the claims made in the stories about yeshua ben yosef - those from outside and inside the tradition.

Well, the antinatalist foists nothing on no one. Their political statement of "NO" to life, creates no forced dealing with participating and being forced to deal with the social-economic-cultural superstructure.

The procreation sympathizers do indeed foist their view on others, whether they can evaluate it negative or not. Their solution is these people better get with the program that they think is "good" or kill themselves. — schopenhauer1

Not sure this issue resonates with me vey much. I am simply making the point that your presuppositions here may not be recognizable to everyone.

don't think Wayfarer was talking about supernatural phenomena. We'll let him respond. — T Clark

Wayfarer doesn't really say where his ideas may lead, hence my earlier question. I am simply introducing this as part of the discussion as it is an obvious potential direction. But happy to be told it isn't relevant by W or you.

What is being made worse by making the political statement that one should not perpetuate the socio-economic-cultural project? Why is this necessary to perpetuate? — schopenhauer1

I don't understand the sentence.

he fact is, we as humans can evaluate something as negative while we are doing those things. We don't just "exist" but we know we like or don't like something as we are doing it. Why would we want to foist an existence where one not only has to survive, but can evaluate a negative value to this very act of having to survive? — schopenhauer1

The history of psychology and counselling would be at odds with this. The fact is, many, many people don't know they are unhappy and don't know what they want.

This leads to all sorts of problems. Is there another way, sure - look at the world, forgive me, holistically. As one unified system. There are sciences that do things that way - ecology, geology, evolutionary biology, hydrogeology. Observational rather than experimental sciences. — T Clark

Ok, holistically is fine - many disciplines that can come together usefully, based around evidence and demonstrable results. If it is observational, it is still part of the extant material world, so technically it is physical and measurable. But where someone says there is a supernatural explanation for a physical phenomenon, I would want demonstrated evidence that this is the case. It is a simple thing.

I am quite certain that science hasn't and perhaps can't explain everything. But the time to believe in a proposition is when there is evidence for it.

Why is a movement against perpetuating the package of social structure and negative evaluation of human activities needed to survive condemned off the bat — schopenhauer1

Well, it is not always a given that changes to undermine the stats quo are going to be good. It is always possible that you will make things worse. And people do not agree about ways forward.

Self-reflection. We can evaluate what we are doing in these social structures, and come to conclusions that we do not like doing these things while we are doing them. — schopenhauer1

I would want a much better understanding of whether this claim is true and in what ways. Not everyone can evaluate. Some people lack insight. Some are rewarded as much as they are penalized. Some do not experience harm even if it is present.

Since when is the ‘scientific method’ not itself a worldview.? — Joshs

Science is just a tool we can use that has demonstrated consistent reliability and its findings can be replicated or reviewed and perhaps found wanting. It probably never arrives at a final revelation, unlike say, organized religion.

Happy for you to enter into meta-discussion of science's alleged worldview al la Feyerabend, with whom I quite agree that science can go too far in its claims and it can be badly used, like any tool. Although I note that people like Feyeraband are quite pleased to seek evidence based medical treatment when sick, rather than a prayer group.

If you are going to say science is a worldview, fine. So is everything, from medicine to sport. But some worldviews are more helpful than others.

just scientism speaking — Wayfarer

Not that you meant this, perhaps, but isn't the tendency to use this word 'scientism' usually a patronizing label? Is applying it to Sagan useful?

Given you are pretty much an atheist (from our pervious conversation), as far as more literalist theists may be concerned, what benefits do you believe your worldview brings, which are not available to the person who thinks the scientific method is the only reliable pathway to truth available to us at the moment?

Forgive the crude summary and feel free to correct me - it sometimes seems to me that you are saying you have greater innate sensitivity because you know that the universe has more in it than matter. My question is where (in general terms) do your presuppositions actually lead you?

Delusion and self-deception are certainly pitfalls in any spiritual path. It doesn't mean that there isn't a path to follow. — Wayfarer

Never said there was not, only that we can't assert it is ipso facto better than naturalism.

There are ways of knowing the world that do not require an objective reality. — T Clark

What are you thinking?

There's a good argument to be made that objective reality is a human construct which boils down to that which can be perceived, conceived, and understood by humans. — T Clark

Yes, it is pretty tedious and there is no consensus on this.

"Truth" is generally defined as congruence with objective reality. — T Clark

'Correspondence' is probably a better word and comes with a venerable if much attacked theory.

Frankl didn't go into the camp unprepared. He didn't invent logotherapy from scratch while he was in the camp. — baker

Baker, I'm assuming you're jesting, right?

I am not talking about the gestation of Logotherapy in Frankl's mind. I am talking about it as a psychotherapeutic product in the existential psychology tradition today. As Frankle himself said (and it was the original title of Mans' Search for Meaning) - Logotherapy is a journey from "From Death Camp to Existentialism."

I have no real comment on Logotherapy's efficacy and developmental history - it has been memorably accused of being authoritarian by some existentialists - esp May. In essence L says, if you can identify a reason for living (meaning) you are likely get through adversity. In counselling this is also called identifying a client's strengths and or protective factors. In other words meaning is made from within by looking without.

perhaps the absurd opens relations with others once the usual drudgery of unquestioned social armour has been cracked and experience can be shared (like through books)? — Cate

No idea. Absurd can be kind of mysterious can't it? With Camus I always thought the word 'absurd' was really just his rage masquerading as alienation. Camus seemed to detest all the trappings and rituals of the middle class culture he knew - education, marriage, family, work, religion. There is a point where rage can have a blunting affect (as suggested by the character Meursault in The Stranger) which can make everything seem.... unreal... absurd. Now this can be used in two ways (maybe more) as a source of terror and retreat, or as a fulcrum for transformation.

Sure. My point is, it's backwards, which makes it useless. — baker

Jeez, Baker - the point I made has nothing to do about chronology. Logotherapy was developed as a tool to help people deal with adversity and was born in the experiences of the concentration camp. It's used in so many ways and has some application in helping people recover from substance use and anxiety.

If they were the proverbial trees with weak roots when they had to face the storm, how did the weather it? — baker

Sorry can you be clearer on this? Do you mean how does someone with no belief in a divine plan or purpose have the resilience and inward psychological strength to face life's considerable challenges - (especially in the face of poverty, sickness and death)?

Maybe true. Although the older atheists I have known got there despite being disowned and shunned by their working class communities and families.

Really? And you have empirical data to back this up? — baker

Of course not. But I think it would be safe to bet that of the many millions of atheists who have lived, millions of them have done just this.

No, that's not the right chronological order. — baker

Err... what order? I was simply saying that Logotherapy was developed with this in mind. I was not trying to classify it in any context other than the obvious.

Sure, science is indispensable, but without self-knowledge and practical wisdom it can be put to diabolical ends. Good people can be good scientists, but being a good scientist doesn't necessarily make you a good person. — Wayfarer

True. I would never say science is good. Just reliable. I would not say science is certain. Just reliable.

But the question of goodness or virtue is too complex and elusive to ever attach to any particular discipline or activity. It is equally true that being a good believer or philosopher does not necessarily make you a good person.

I would also not make a necessary connection between the pursuit of spirituality or philosophy with self knowledge either. It could just as readily be self-deception.

Yes Abrahamic religions are not "about morality" but about – Kierkegaard is instructive here – "the teleological suspension of the ethical" or, in lay terms, obeying the "will" (PLAN) of the ALMIGHTY — 180 Proof

This is clear even in the holy books. Simple divine command theory. I find it telling that God commands his people not to wear mixed fabrics or to eat shellfish but is fine with slavery. So we could add it is the divine command theory of a moral monster.

What would be an example of
: 'the efficacy of methodological realism as the only useful tool we have for determining the nature of our experience' in everyday life ? — Amity

All I am saying is that the scientific method remains the single most reliable pathway to truth. Can you name an alternative that can provide us with reliable knowledge about the world?

You mean psychoanalytic theory, S-R theory and cognitive behavioral theory are also inconsequential, — Joshs

Just that theories like these, for the most part, are imprecise, interpreted variously and lacking in precision. CBT or DBT has application in some instances to help change behaviour but it is not a robust epistemology.

This is of course a gross simplification, but I think it captures the idea enough. — Nagel

There are numerous possible uses of the term genius and it is one of those words that is overused and often used poorly when the word 'talented' or 'maverick' would be preferable. For me, the best examples refer to someone who is remarkable and unprecedented and possibly able to embrace a wide range of talents to a prodigious effect at once, like Da Vinci -someone who changes the world in some way though a great talent. But where is the line between a person of prodigious and conspicuous talent and a genius? One person's genius may be another's bete noir.

As far as the social sciences are concerned it is a different story, especially in psychology. Here we do have post-realist alternatives in hermeneutic, enactivist , constructivist, social constructionist, and phenomenological approaches. These accounts recognize that one can maintain naturalism while jettisoning realism. — Joshs

You will have to provide a simple example. If you're simply talking theory then this is largely inconsequential.

What this doesn’t see, is what the mind brings in order to make such judgements, even the judgement of what the world must be in the absence of observers. I say it is meaningless to contemplate a world as if seen from no point-of-view, as the very fabric of time and space itself has a subjective pole. — Wayfarer

I don't disagree with most of what you say but I don't think it makes an impact on the efficacy of methodological realism as the only useful tool we have for determining the nature of our experience.

Let's get the facts straight. We know, almost to the point of certainty, what to do and what not to do. — TheMadFool

I wish that were true.

No need for a cheap snipe D.

Making meaning, despite all absurdity, is Camus' solution. That's not the same thing as saying he resolved it. But he does see this as a pathway to a rewarding life. I'm saying we are radically free to choose our own meaning, but admittedly that reads more like Sartre.

If you have questions about biological processes, an answer based on materialism is probably what you're looking for, even if it is a polite fiction. It's really enough to get you to accurate predictions. As Dewey said, "truth is the end of inquiry." — Count Timothy von Icarus

In some ways, the history of philosophy has been the quest to deny the existence of the real world independent of our minds. Sure materialism is incomplete, like most science, but until there is evidence of a metaphysical world, we are stuck with the only one we can reliably identify.

But how did their life evolve? Earth is just a circumstantial prop in this debate of the origin of life (organism from the non-organic). — Outlander

How do you know that an alien from an alien cosmos are bound by rules of cause and effect? Any technology sufficiently advanced will look like magic to us. Any belief can be defended and if it looks dumb to you and me, our views look dumb to others. No different to the notion that God is a magic man and is exempt from cause and effect.

I like how your mind works but I guess (in case you hadn't guessed) we come to different conclusions on these issues. The devil is in the detail with all belief systems. Most atheists are battling against the vast mobilized army of literalists so they have no choice but to pitch the discussion at a vulgar level. Religion pitched at a vulgar level is harmful to human beings.

I don't think anyone should apologize for being an idealist as long as robust critical thinking has been undertaken to arrive at the position.

It's also easy to misread atheists. Most atheists I know don't concern themselves with believers who are progressive and have a sophisticated theology. Tillich or Bentley Hart's Gods are not worth contesting and ultimately do not contribute to life denying, bigotries and superstations that cause real harm in communities. Are they even theists?

There are many shoddy, untheorized atheists who are convinced theism can be disproven and that science has answered everything. There are atheists who believe in astrology and idealism. All a responsible atheist can say is there is no good reason to accept the preposition that a god exists. The idea hasn't met its burden of proof. And for any other proposition there ought to be a good reason. But certainty on anything is not possible. I understand that your epistemology doesn't appreciate this kind of frame.

However for me what matters is actually how people relate to their fellow creatures. The real test of a belief system is not how much 'metaphysics' or anti-realism it holds, but what it looks like in action in the world.

People don't necessarily proselytize to "prove the strength of their faith".
Some do it "to share the joy with others". — baker

Sure. I never said it was the only reason. I simply said not doing so suggested a more secure faith. That has certainly been my experience of Christians. Maybe I should have said It can be the sign of a secure faith. One is not always precise in typing.

So, the suggestion that living organisms can't be wholly understood through the objective sciences implies 'the supernatural'! — Wayfarer

I'd need know more about where you would take the notion of 'non-material things' because this can be a bit slippery. You hint/highlight that I keep coming back to the theme of the supernatural, or dualism or a superphysical proposal as some kind of unthinking, reactive blurt. Yes, you are partly right.

Because generally this is exactly where people go with these ideas. Maybe not you... By definition, if you say there are 'things which exist that are not verifiable as things' you heading towards a supernatural proposition, surely? Apologies to quantum theory, by the way. Can your non-material things be used to make predictions?

The more crassly expressed version of similar notions might be: 'There is a limit to science; therefore Jesus.' or Aliens. It can also lead to a kind of language game. A revived version of idealism proffered that studiously avoids talking about God in a deliberate way, but is clearly used as a foundation for some form of theism or prime mover - even Tillich's Ground of Being, say.

This is also a problem that has made itself clear through the observer problem or measurement problem in physics. — Wayfarer

Yes, agree. I've referenced this problem before and am quite partial to the idea. With a correspondence theory of truth it is argued you can't survey the relation between the evidence (say) and the reality. But is this just a confusion generated by conceptual language?

By doing instead of (over)-thinking, we are able to transcend the mistakes made by human misinterpretation and miscalculation (normal thinking) and live a better life without ever asking, "What's next?" — synthesis

This is nice idea - overthinking or analysis/paralysis is a pet hate of mine - but how do we put it into practice exactly? How do we determine the level of reflection versus action? Or am I overthinking it? :joke:

f one simlpy likes living, going to ones not-so-fantastic job, do whats needed in the family and then just chill, driving ones wife half crazy by saying no to all fany plans for the future, does that qualify a guy to the ranks of the soft nihilists? — Ansiktsburk

There is no reason why a nihilist needs to be living in miserable circumstances. In fact it could be argued if a person is living comfortably, and they accept nihilism, they are not merely reacting to their situation. They are actually choosing their ideas based on the merits of the idea. It would certainly be easier to be a nihilist whilst living in a Soviet gulag, say, in 1950. But do you really own a philosophical system brought on by circumstance? That's a thorny one.

When I worked in an acute admissions unit, a lot of the staff were very judgemental in their attitude and the term 'PD' was often used by some of the staff in a critical tone. — Jack Cummins

All over the world you find this. It is unfortunate, but a reflection of the difficulties of working with this cohort who are deemed almost untreatable (for the most part) and time consuming (as in needing years). This sets them up as 'difficult' in relation to the high volume, rapid turn around work of clinical services.

Methodological naturalism v philosophical naturalism.
What are they and why is it important to make the distinction ? — Amity

They are important because the first says it is not possible to gain reliable knowledge outside of using this method. The second, which I do not accept, is that all which is extant is natural subject to natural laws. We would need to demonstrate this before making that claim.