Now, this last option is true, and if we left it at that, reality would be a brute fact in every sense (and also paradoxical I believe). However, there's more to it. You see, there is a reason for why this last option is true. A reason for a reason, or the lack thereof, is a meta-reason; so, we now have meta-reason for reality. But what is the reason for this? Well, that would be some self-referential reason. I think one could formulate this ultimate self-referential reason in such a way so as to include the meta-reason, though in order to make the full explanation as clear as possible, I think it is prudent to separate them. — Ø implies everything

I have no idea what any of this means. Sorry. This may well be on me.

Without this certitude, everything of value is lost to the absurdity of absolute skepticism — Ø implies everything

No one is arguing for absolute skepticism.

How can I know something is good for me if I don't even know I exist? — Ø implies everything

Is anyone arguing this?

one could make the conscious choice to not give a damn about the technicalities and roll the boulder anyways, and this might be what I have to resort to if my project fails. — Ø implies everything

This is my choice. I'm not sure if I subscribe entirely to absurdity and the Sisyphus metaphor, but it has more going for it (in my assessment) than religion or abstract metaphysical speculations.

I am of the view that there is no "normal" reason for reality, but there is a reason for why there must be no reason. — Ø implies everything

I struggle with these sports of sentences. What does it mean?

In general, I don't think humans have the capacity to understand reality beyond certain parameters. What we can do is generate ideas that are of use and appeal aesthetically. We can prevent suffering. We can work together. Beyond that...

How does that sit with you? — Moliere

The only interest I have in Epicurus is how I might adapt some of his ideas for myself. I am naturally inclined to many similar approaches - I am a minimalist. I have no interest in luxury. I have never chased ambition or status. I am mostly indifferent to food. This is I believe my authentic orientation. I can't speak for anyone else and, since I am not a very social person, the idea of any kind of an Epicurean community fills me with horror.

I'm giving leeway because I sincerely don't believe in as fixed a human nature as the Epicurean philosophy seems to, and so I believe people have to find these things for themselves. — Moliere

Agree. Of course people only tend to find things if they are aware such options are available or supported to pursue them. It seems to me most people are not aware there may be better alternatives to how they are living.

But it's not authenticity that brings about happiness (after all, we could authentically desire to be immortal, and pursue that, and it would cause anxiety because it's a groundless desire), but the pruning of desire such that one can be happy. (though authenticity does seem to be a thing we hold onto, so it relates.) — Moliere

I hear you, but I think authenticity, being who you are, is a better path towards happiness than trying to live up to impossible standards, or following some else's plans for your life. There are of course limits to how far authenticity can take you. But anything can be made to look bad if taken to an extreme example. There big problem with authenticity is how do you determine who you really are? Therein lies the challenge.

Sure. Nothingness is inconceivable by definition. We can't demonstrate that there was ever 'nothing'.

Why is there something rather than nothing is one of the Christian/Muslim apologist's favorite standbys. It is meant to provide an irresistible inference to god. More sophisticated apologists now just ask, why is there sentient life?

.. there may be no ultimate reason for existence; it may be that reality is a brute fact. — Ø implies everything

People find this aesthetically unattractive and insist on more pleasing stories. I came to this view as a small child and all that I've seen and read has not led me to an alternative narrative.

Basically if we're confident that most people don't know what they want, and we know a set of wants which produce happiness, then why bother giving people the freedom to hurt themselves when it's ignorance which is the culprit of their misery? — Moliere

I don't see how this follows. We can't make people take up 'better' or choices. I also don't see who is 'giving' anyone else freedom. People make their choices, the end. If they arrive at a personal understanding that they can do better and be more authentic, then great. But authenticity can't be mandated.

I can’t speak to perversion and desire. But I am confident that most people don’t know what they want and their active pursuits and ostensible meaning are derived through goals provided by enculturation and marketing. The person who has reflected and worked to transcend these has a better shot at happiness. I suspect this is close to Epicurus.

I grew up with the latter. As such, it is my opinion that they think of religion as objective and public. Certainly not subjective. — baker

Agree. I think the majority of the world’s believers probably hold such a view. In my experience, even those who think their holy book is largely allegorical still hold that the rest of us should accept those allegories as critical and transformational and essentially true.

Yes, you're essentially describing my position on the claims of religion - as someone who prefers empiricism over rationalism or faith, I do tend to privilege evidence. My personal judgement (and others can do differently) is that I see no good evidence to accept religious claims about reality - the mystical ones are vague and barely matter (to me) and the specific claims - eg Christ rose from the dead or an angel spoke to Mohammad - for my money are BS. For me, religion seems to be an aesthetic appreciation of the world through a specific lens which seeks unity, truth and meaning (via some often charming mythic narratives). Who can blame people for trying to achieve this?

But do these systems contradict? Not especially, if they are setting out to do different things. I'm not sure I would go as far as Gould's non-overlapping magisteria, but I do think this frame has some merit.

But in the end, the question of contradiction or worse, conflict, all depends upon how militant and extreme the science or religion is and what each one seeks to action in the world and by what means.

Nothing at work is going to fulfill you like your family will
— ButyDude

I don't think this is true for everyone. — Apustimelogist

Absolutely. I've known many people for whom: 'Nothing at home will fulfill you like your work will.' I think the problem with these sorts of homilies is they are based on presuppositions which rely upon contingencies.

How is young Jordan, I wonder? — Banno

Nicely done.

I expect he is still making profitable use of the vacuum in many people's lives, like L Ron Hubbard, Ayn Rand and many others before him. With his strangulated voice and perpetual strained visage, he's more than merely constipated, he's hard to listen to or watch, and seems to be somewhat at war with himself.

Nothing to support your view that hierarchies are necessary, let alone that they are a genetic result of masculinity. But keep digging, you may find something. — Banno

Hierarchies are necessary because Jordan Peterson has said so. :wink:

Ha! Nice try. I’m not buying into your shtick. This thread’s about science and religion. Cheers.

So you are agnostic, more or less. — ButyDude

No. These days many atheists would spell it out as follows. Gnosticism goes to knowledge, atheism goes to belief. I (like many contemporary atheists) am an agnostic atheist. In other words, I don't know whether or not there are gods, however I see no good reason to believe. It's pretty straight forward. But in the end labels don't really matter all that much.

I know that your simple refutation is not enough, as well as my simple explanation is not nearly enough. — ButyDude

I haven't refuted an argument since an argument has not been made. But I hear you. It can get complicated. Most theistic arguments I have heard (and I have been reading and listening to them for 35 years, along with extensive history in the Theosophical Society and growing up in the Baptist tradition) are (as I see it) basic fallacies - appeals to ignorance or fallacies from incredulity. But in the end, where you sit on this matter is based on how you interpret the inferences. Everyone is different. Argument is fairly pointless.

I think that the arguments in support of gods are just like belief in gods itself. You either believe or you don't. I don't. But as I have said a couple of times, this fits better with a range of other threads already commenced on the site.

I do not argue that it is irrational to believe in god. I do not argue that believers are mentally ill. Some atheists like some believers are shrill and fanatical.

Fine Tuning argument - the constants of physics, such as g, k, G, and many more, are so precise that if they were any different the universe would not be physically possible. There is simply no explanation for this. Infinite universes and bounce-back universe are disproven. — ButyDude

I don't think those are scientific arguments as such. They are god of the gaps arguments. The argument is essentially - "How else can we explain x...?" It's also a fallacy from incredulity.

I'm not sure this is the place for atheism /theism arguments 101. They seem to crop up all over this site.

My position on any of this stuff - cosmological, ontological, Aquinas's five proofs, whatever it is is this: we don't have to know why the universe is what it is or what it is. I generally like, "I don't know," as my go to answer. But posing gods provides no explanation either because gods have no explanatory power, it is no different than saying 'the magic man did it, how else can you explain it." Problem with magic men is we still don't know how or why or what the situation was. So no explanation at all, just 'magic'.

Do you have an argument for religion and science being incompatible? What is your stance? — ButyDude

I don't think the question is clear. It's so broad as to be virtually meaningless. Which science versus which religion?

I believe that this bishop’s literal interpretation of the “fall from perfection” is inappropriate and theologically inaccurate. My personal understanding (I didn’t think of this myself, just what I believe) of the “fall from perfection” is more like an awakening from unconscious to conscious. — ButyDude

So you have an interpretation (or one seemingly borrowed form Jordan Peterson). How do you measure the validity of one interpretation against that of another?

However, even with most scientists being atheists, believing in God is rational and there are scientific arguments for God. I wish for you to respond. — ButyDude

I don't care what most scientists believe - atheist or Hindu. There are threads about whether gods are 'true' or not all over this site. I have participated in many. Not sure this is the place for arguments about the validity of gods. I am not aware of scientific arguments for gods. But I am aware of people using gaps in science to assert gods.

Welcome.

It would help if you used more paragraphs to separate your ideas for clarity.

This argument you put is a standard argument, frequently put by conservatives like Stephen Hicks and Jordan Peterson. Nothing new is arguing that the power trope (which seems to originate with Foucault) is incomplete.

But above and beyond the conservative professors mentioned above, this kind of argument was commonly being put by detractors of feminism decades ago. Especially these kinds of points -

Women are much better at taking care of children, and at being the one to teach, be patient with, and see to the development of the child into a grown adult. Most women are simply not capable, by biology, to be the providers, builders, and organizers of society at large, because they do not fit cleanly into hierarchical structures. — ButyDude

What you have done here is not provide an argument. You have simply made a claim. Can you demonstrate these claims?

To do justice to these kinds of arguments one needs to have expertise in anthropology and history. Personally, I eschew these kinds of arguments, as they often end up being about as useful as debates over the meaning of Bible verses.

He's a little like a cross between a carny barker and Schopenhauer's account of will - blind, striving, instinctive and a teller of whoppers.

Trump recognizes how easily large groups of disaffected people can be galvanized by insinuating paranoiac conspiracies - so he uses it. It's a fairly straight forward transaction. I'm not convinced Trump believes anything at all, except that he should be in charge.

I used to know a girl, a flatmate of a friend, who firmly believed 'the news is all made up'. I wondered what she thought was really going on, if the news is all, as DJT insists, fake, but I didn't want to open that can of worms. — Wayfarer

I think we've all known people like that. Unfortunately that group seems to have swollen to significant proportions. I recently saw a podcast wherein Rosanne Barr (yeah, I know) argued that the UN runs a project to kill as many civilians around the world as it can in order to make the planet more habitable for a chosen minority. Covid vax and all manner of nasties are a conspiracy to reduce the population.

Deliverance from sin and its consequences. I think the consequences of sin is basically suffering and that’s not unique to any tradition. — praxis

I think the question is vague. For whom are these consequences felt? The sinner or the sinned against? Or does it depend? There are many sinners who benefit enormously from sinning. But again, what counts as sinning? Blasphemy, homosexuality, adultery, using curse words, killing?

And sin is not an idea I have encountered outside of Abrahamic traditions. Are you using the term loosely? Or are you referring to wrongdoing in general?

'Religion" is not a strictly definitive term, but an "umbrella" term under which what are generally soteriological practices and / or beliefs can be understood to be ranged. — Janus

Indeed. I personally don't find the term all that useful but you have to start somewhere. Karen Armstrong, a mainstream scholar of religion, famously said religion may not be definable.

Do you know of anyone who religion has provided deliverance from sin and its consequences? — praxis

I'm assuming this only applies to Christian traditions. I don't know what 'deliverance from sin' means except as a tentative goal of the pious, subject to certain traditions and certain definitions of sin. The only person who knows if this is successful is the individual believer, I guess.

That notion of self-knowledge is unproblematic—it is a matter of developing awareness of what is being felt, thought and done and how those feelings, thoughts and doings are affecting personal happiness and health, one's own and others'. — Janus

That's a pretty good definition. It does (to me) slot into a psychological zone as much as, if not more than, a philosophical one.

I can also see how an enhanced awareness of epistemology might lead one away from, let's say, Islamic fundamentalism and into a more nuanced, allegorical read of the Koran. This could make you a better person - more aware of and accepting of other ways of living and the benefits of diversity and non-dogmatic, less judgmental modes of living. Or something like this.

:up:

I always thought the maxim 'know thyself' was simply about seeing through your own delusions and false hopes. — Wayfarer

Cool. Nice to see a definition. I also think that this self-knowledge is being aware of and being able to manage flaws or patterns in one's thinking and behavior. It seems to be a synonym for a type of self-improvement. This does not necessarily track back to philosophy from what I can see. Although @Joshs made an interesting point about the arrogance of not seeing one's own unexamined and unprovable presuppositions. We are often keen to share our values with others without the benefit of having scrupulously examined those values.

Thank you. Yes, Carroll seems fairly smug at times.

Phenomenology gives us a way to identity and protect the unique perspectives of all participants in a community even when their views deviate from the dominant scientific conventions. — Joshs

Maybe not for this thread, but what would a culture look like which did this well - I am assuming the notion of a mainstream or dominant culture would dissolve or go. I can't imagine how humans would organize themselves according to this and I wonder what protection of unique perspectives would look like. Do you think we will get there?

When Husserl says that through empirical knowledge we come to see our perception of a thing as only our subjective perspective on the ‘same’ thing that others see, he means that it is the peculiar function of empirical objectivity to give the impression , through apperceptive idealization, of a unity where there is only similarity. — Joshs

Sounds like an important point. I can guess at the answer, but for you, as a long time student of phenomenology, what is the significance of this point for how humans live with each other? Can it be applied in a practical way?

Hello, Tom Storm, can you render an opinion on the link below? — ucarr

No. Physics or logic (or speculative fiction) are not my expertise - hence why I don't usually participate in speculative discussions.

Cuz I can’t make heads or tails out of self-knowledge. — Mww

It's not just me then... :wink:

I lean towards the idea that intuition might sometimes give us insight into the nature of reality — Janus

And I often wonder how having an insight into the nature of reality matters? What happens then... chop wood, carry water?

Sometimes it seems to me that the quest to gain glimpses of transcendence is more about self-aggrandizement or a kind of metaphysical tourism.

It is really difficult to tell if I'm actually learning something or progressing or whether I'm chasing rainbows (hence the icon.) — Wayfarer

:up: It's a very interesting question for us all here. I think terms like 'self-knowledge' are used imprecisely by many of us and self-knowledge is automatically assumed to be a virtue we don't really question. I think what we do here mainly is engage in disputes over contesting epistemologies, often slogged out through metaphysical presuppositions. I don't see where self-knowledge comes into it much except perhaps in understanding the limitations of our own positions and knowledge.

the tendency to take for granted the reality of the world as it appears to us, without taking into account the role the mind plays in its constitution. — Wayfarer

Agree. And it's a point well made. I think this kind of thread is rich in potential triggers for all sorts of other related discussions.

one of the over-arching themes of philosophy since ancient times has been the possibility of self-knowledge. — Wayfarer

I'm aware of this view (Know Thyself, Delphic maxims, etc) but I've not seen philosophy as playing an extensive role in self-knowledge. The self-knowledge (insight) I am aware of (and I doubt people much acquire it except through experience) is generally acquired through the process of living or through therapy/counselling/meaningful interventions/dialogue from/with others.

Can you give me a couple of examples of self-knowledge arrived at through philosophy?

Well, we do live in an era where expertise has been diminished and is often looked upon with scorn. Everyone believes that can say something profound, whether it is about socialism or the role of quantum entanglement in proving spiritual truths.

I am in agreement. Seems this kind of leaves us with the phenomenal world as our only domain for fruitful exploration. Which for me, as someone who probably qualifies as scientist in orientation, leaves us with science as the primary (but not sole) source of reliable information about the world we inhabit. I remain however, somewhat fascinated with phenomenology and process of human interaction with the world and co-creation (if that is the right word) of our reality.

Is such work 'physics without maths', or is it speculative fiction based on Dunning-Kruger level physics?

I'm not thinking of anyone in particular, but I am often astonished by people's assumptions of competence or mastery of subjects they have no expertise in.

Would physics be just one aspect of how things appear to or are understood by us?

I guess the only place to look for reality independent of human experience might be in the putative claims of mysticism or higher awareness? I guess inevitably this is the elephant in the room for threads like this and most discussions of idealism.

I'm guessing not. I don't think there is a way to understand your question, Janus. — Banno

Is this the same as saying - if there is a reality outside of physics and how we understand our world, we are unable to access this and therefore can say nothing meaningful about it? (I wasn't thinking of Kant's noumena but I guess it amounts to the same point)

:up:

I think I understand their thinking and for me it holds up ok as these things go. I'm an atheist in as much as I have no belief in gods and find the idea incoherent. To me, it's like hearing about the powers of superheroes, subject to a fantasy universe.

I wonder how they would explain the emotions that motivate killers when they commit murder. Surely that doesn't emanate from God's nature. — praxis

That would be the other guy...

As an aside - I don't know if I've mentioned that the article that lead me to forums was Terry Eagleton's review of The God Delusion — Wayfarer

Yes, I read that too. I've intermittently followed Eagleton's work in the area of literary theory and cultural criticism for some time.

I think it's easy be ambivalent or hostile towards Dawkins and like many atheists, he is often a polemicist. Many in the secular humanist community are now hostile to him owing to his perceived anti-trans comments.

I think it's an interesting point. Can religion explain the love that motivates a poet to write a sonnet? — praxis

Depends on the religion. Many apologists would argue that love emanates from God's nature and our ability to feel it is evidence of God in action in our lives.

I guess by this my own position is close to the dreaded scientism in as much as -

Scientism is, according to Wikipedia, 'the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.' — Wayfarer

I do think science is the most reliable way (but not the only way) to acquire tentative knowledge about the world. I would not use the word truth.

The Dawkins quote above I would agree with for the most part, but I would not state my position with the same level of militancy.

I would think that Dawkins would say that science renders God superfluous. Disproving theism is a different, more technical exercise which I don't think can be done.