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.

Can you list 3 ways in which it might benefit us, in real, daily-job terms? — baker

I doubt it. I have yet to see how philosophy of this kind is of use in my daily life - except as a general belief that I might have larger models of speculative reality to play with when I have spare time. And I suspect that one of the consolations of philosophy is that it's often the conceptual version of getting a new toy. Does this suggest decadence or futility? I'm not one to say. I think others take the pursuit more seriously.

As I have said elsewhere - if we are living in a simulation, or if idealism (however this is understood) is true, I don't think it makes any difference to how I go about my business in life.

At a deeper more optimistic level, I think it is quite enough to arrive at a point where you are aware that potentially all of your assumptions and values, your world are constructed and not an immutable, transcendent reality. It might well help us to be less dogmatic in our thinking and actions.

‘Ultimately, what we call “reality” is so deeply suffused with mind- and language-dependent structures that it is altogether impossible to make a neat distinction between those parts of our beliefs that reflect the world “in itself” and those parts of our beliefs that simply express “our conceptual contribution.” The very idea that our cognition should be nothing but a re-presentation of something mind-independent consequently has to be abandoned.’

- Dan Zahavi

This quote does resonate. And it leaves me with the helpful perspective that I am not going to solve any of the big questions of philosophy - the nature of reality, what is consciousness, is moral realism true, etc. These questions are too difficult to unpack (certainly for the non-specialist) and there's reason to think that we are all caught up in traps of language, perception and cognition which may well be difficult or impossible to escape from. But I am happy to hear the arguments against this.

What makes anyone think that there is a system that works? What even is the measure or criterion of 'working'? What constitutes failure? Are you and yours the measure of success? — unenlightened

Good point. I'm not sure that I would argue that capitalism is working, but as you say, what constitutes failure or success? No doubt anything can be spun in any direction.

The fact that democracy hasn't yet worked doesn't mean that it couldn't..... — Pantagruel

Reminds me of that G.K. Chesterton quote:

The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.

we need to keep in mind that the very concept of perspective is completely unreliable, because, after all, it remains a hidden way of saying that there is an objective reality, from which perspective tries to be different. — Angelo Cannata

Interesting. Are you saying that you can't have perspectives without an objective reality from which perspectives are derived? I've never given it much thought, but I am unsure if this is necessarily the case. I will need to think it over. Can I get back to you in 20 years? Perhaps the word perspective is inadequate and just the best we can do to try and convey a set of relationships.

I even think that Socrate’s knowing that he didn’t know nothing is already knowing too much, it is actually a claim of knowing really a lot. — Angelo Cannata

Yes, the comments sometimes sounds like false modesty.

I think the best we can do is to go to our humanity, psichology, emotions, literature, myths. Not in an obscurantist mentality, but exactly after being enriched by the research we have made about metaphysics, perspectives, criticism and self-criticism. — Angelo Cannata

Perhaps. My answer to this has often been that these sorts of questions are probably unsolvable by me and in the end will do nothing to help other people, so best I just get on with my day job...

I think @Wayfarer's idea of extended naturalism does offer potential insights into how we co-create the reality we experience and how it might benefit us to realise the tentative nature of many of our positions.

If you truly want to take perspectives into account, you should consider that the whole idea of reality imagined by perspectives is itself a perspective. Talking about perspectives is itself a perspective. — Angelo Cannata

I can see your point here but then we would also probably need to say that your perspective that it's a perspective is itself a perspective... and I fear we can keep doing this until we become a spinning top of infinite recursion.

Nicely done. A lucid articulation and a useful, accessible summary. I read your full piece.

What I’m calling attention to is 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. This oversight imbues the phenomenal world — the world as it appears to us — with a kind of inherent reality that it doesn’t possess — Wayfarer

This is the key for me. You said something similar here some months back and it helped me to understand your perspective on idealism - a much more straight forward and, dare I say it, naturalistic account. I can certainly see an argument for the world arising or co-arising as a dynamic interplay of subject and object.

If AI can produce a believable Picasso, isn't it worth the same as a genuine one? — Tim3003

No. That is no different to an art forgery by a person and those works are not worth the same as a Picasso. What we are paying for in a Picasso is not the art, so much, but the provenance and the fact Picasso did it. Can a fake sell for the same price as the real thing? Yes, if the right academics vouch for its authenticity. But the price is only high if it is believed Picasso made it.

If AI can produce a concerto indistinguishable from one by Mozart can you call it inferior? — Tim3003

It will definitely be an inferior Mozart because it won't be Mozart. I think there have been humans who have copied works in Mozart's style before and those works are generally experienced as derivative. I suspect that a musicologist will always be able to tell a Mozart from an ersatz Mozart, no matter how good the latter. The rest of us may not pick it up. But let's say no one can tell them apart. In this case what we have is a work people would say has many of the attributes of a real Mozart and it may well be enjoyed by many as such. I guess we could still say it is inferior in as much as no human made it. So the extraordinary effort of a single person's compressed creativity and innovation is not on show.

Where this relationship obtains, you have meaning. And you can ask of anything, what is a/the Y to this X? — hypericin

I have some sympathy for post-structuralist notions of meaning in as much as this approach seems to contend that signs and signifiers are arbitrary, and meaning is not fixed but constructed within specific cultural and historical contexts.

I am not a Platonist, or a believer in any grand narratives which transcend contingent human meaning.

What is the meaning of the usages of "meaning" that unites them? Is there a unitary concept they share? — hypericin

Like the notion of truth, meaning is an abstract with a range of usages. The 'meaning' of a road sign is not the same usage as the 'meaning' of life. Meaning is not a property that operates identically wherever it is found. Although some might take the view that every variation of meaning is merely the interplay of signs and signifiers.

What unites them? When anyone asks; what does X mean/what does life mean/what does Hamlet mean? we are essentially asking what sense did you make out of this artifact, behavior or phenomena, which is an open question. Even identifying an object as a particular thing, a screwdriver, say, is a form of sense making. This is a cardinal activity of humans as meaning making creatures.

I think it’s the nature of public service workers to be somewhat complacent or lazy when it comes to work ethic, not bound for any need for profit this phenomena is widespread in the west too. — simplyG

I don't think that is always true across the board these days. Many public service workers I know have to meet strict KPI's and productivity outcomes. And a worker's time and use of breaks are monitored and contracts are revoked it workers step out of strict program guidelines. The fact is that many public service roles these days are overseen by neo-liberal mechanisms which are generated by the same rapacious cocksuckers who dominate corporations - Deloitte, KPMG, McKinsey &Co, Nous Group etc.

science and spirituality cannot be separate and only through Jesus can man be saved. — Isaiasb

This is a philosophy site not a site for proselytizing.

All you've done here again is provide a series of claims - this time in the form of cherry picked, disembodied quotes. There needs to be demonstration that any of the claims are true.

Here's a cherry picked quote response for you from Christian author and cleric Bishop Spong:-

Atonement theology assumes that we were created in some kind of original perfection. We now know that life has emerged from a single cell that evolved into self-conscious complexity over billions of years. There was no original perfection. If there was no original perfection, then there could never have been a fall from perfection. If there was no fall, then there is no such thing as “original sin” and thus no need for the waters of baptism to wash our sins away. If there was no fall into sin, then there is also no need to be rescued. How can one be rescued from a fall that never happened? How can one be restored to a status of perfection that he or she never possessed? So most of our Christology today is bankrupt. Many popular titles that we have applied to Jesus, such as “savior,” “redeemer,” and “rescuer,” no longer make sense...”
― John Shelby Spong, Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy: A Journey into a New Christianity Through the Doorway of Matthew's Gospel

Science is just a tool, an approach for acquiring reliable knowledge and getting things done. It doesn't really share space with religion, which serves other functions.

Interesting TC.

I can't say I like any of the images - it's predominantly theatrical - fantasy/sci/fi/surrealism and to my taste overstated and derivative. I wonder if it primarily appeals to a certain type of male taste.

Mind you, there's a lot of art painted by highly skilled human beings for the market that I experience as empty and device ridden. If I sense a vitality and a distinctive point of view in a work, I tend to like it. But this is entirely personal.

You can certainly see how AI could replace generic commercial art such as appears in advertising and on some book covers.

He is the measure of Truth, he is the measuring stick not the highest point on the stick.
— Isaiasb
Hmm. So back to the Euthyphro. Is something true because god says, or does god say it is true because it is? — Banno

This argument seems to be similar to the presuppositionalist position and some forms of classical theism. God is the ultimate source and standard of goodness. In this view, goodness is not something external to god that god adheres to, but is inherent to god's nature. God is not merely good; god is goodness itself. This view seems to align with classical theism's concept of divine simplicity, where all of god's attributes are unified in his essence.

To get out of the Euthyphro dilemma it might be argued that if goodness is grounded in god's unchanging nature, moral truths are objective and founded on divine essence - not based solely on 'divine commands'.

I think this is generally how Christian thinking constructs its response.

The substantive problem of course is that we have yet to demonstrate there is a god from which anything can emanate and even if there is a god or several gods, how can we tell that goodness emanates from this deity? All we have are claims - even if some of them are old and venerable.

Sounds like we are not getting anywhere and from my perspective you seem to avoid answering the tough questions.

I explained previously many times that I see Absolute Truth as Truth that is unchanging and "absolute". — Isaiasb

That's like saying that a liberal democracy is a democracy that is 'liberal'. Doesn't really answer the question.

This is like comparing a green and yellow bannana and asking why they taste different, they have differences but that isn't one of them. — Isaiasb

As I said, this is a distraction from the actual point. Which was:

apologists from both (Islam and Christianity) make the same appeals, inferences and arguments towards exclusivity and truth. In other words they rely on the same foundations even if their 'truths' are divergent. — Tom Storm

What you seem to have is a justification for an exclusive truth which shares the same reasoning as many other claims for such exclusivity. In other words, there needs to be something better or the claim isn't justified. The arguments you employ can be used to support any number of religious beliefs, not solely the idea of an 'absolute' Christianity.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion, you have been very civil. :wink:

Comparing Islam and Christianity is odd considering they have such similar views on the authority of God. — Isaiasb

I don't think it is odd to compare things which are similar. Isn't that what a comparison is? But you're missing my point by focusing on that. My point is that apologists from both make the same appeals, inferences and arguments towards exclusivity and truth. In other words they rely on the same foundations even if their 'truths' are divergent.

Note however, also we've been talking about Christ - a man who wasn't crucified, according to Islam, the resurrected god, according to many Christians. That's different enough, right?

Given your post is about Absolute Truth - your choice here - I find it curious that you are unable to say what absolute truth is (and what 'absolute' adds to the idea of truth) apart from a reference to Platonism. And your truth relies on the same inferences that other truths rely upon, making it less 'absolute' and more interpretive.

I would need something more than just claims being made. What is your demonstration that your version of a particular god is truth incarnate? And you can't just 'it says in the Bible'. We've already dealt with that one.

The major difference in Islam and Christianity is obviously its views on Jesus, but the authority of God we agree on. — Isaiasb

I think we need to recognize that Christianity itself is diverse and holds very different often incompatible accounts of Jesus. There is no single interpretation although it is clear that many groups believe every one else is wrong and only they have the truth. Is that how you see things?

It isn’t nonsense outside of a close minded materialistic viewpoint. — Isaiasb

I think there might be many spiritually inclined, even theistic individuals who would find this reasoning muddy and the conclusions unwarranted. It's not about materialism.

He is the measure of Truth, he is the measuring stick not the highest point on the stick. — Isaiasb

This is basic presuppositionalist apologetics wherein a little game is played appointing whichever god you hold exists as the foundational guarantor of all things - the necessary condition of coherence and goodness. Interestingly these identical arguments are used by Muslim apologists too. Apparently their god is also the measure of truth. So many gods, so much truth...

:up:

So it remains that "God is truth" and such aphorisms do not convey factual information. Theology, taken literally, is nonsense. — Banno

It's hard to see how this is not the case. Perhaps at best we can call it a form of poetry that hints at human hopes and wishes.

I think claims about the Bible being a record of absolute truth fall into pretty immediate problems. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Indeed. According to academic and theologian David Bentley Hart, literal interpretations of the Bible as records of absolute truth are a more recent approach. The Bible was generally seen as allegorical tales to teach people larger truths. While I am unclear what a larger truth might be, I know growing up in the Baptist tradition we were taught the Bible stories were just stories, many of which did not take place.

We can probably see the Bible as a kind of fan fiction to god. I always found that left us with a problem of what bits to take seriously and why? And why not Hindu texts instead of Christian texts?

It's not just atheists who hold Bible accounts to be a flawed and limited. Christian writer and Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong put the matter succinctly:-

This point must be heard: the Gospels are first-century narrations based on first-century interpretations. Therefore they are a first-century filtering of the experience of Jesus. They have never been other than that. We must read them today not to discover the literal truth about Jesus, but rather to be led into the Jesus experience they were seeking to convey. That experience always lies behind the distortions, which are inevitable since words are limited.

Mormons are derived from Christianity so they would say that. — Isaiasb

As a Jewish friend once said - Christianity was derived from Judaism by a mad rabbi.

Such claims are not philosophy.

And Mohammad claimed to deliver truth but he didn’t claim to be Truth. That’s the difference between Mohammad and Jesus. — Isaiasb

Word games. If all you have to hold this argument is a claim that someone said a thing about themselves in a book, then you're in big trouble. And here again the book is being used to establish the truth of the book.

Are you a fundamentalist, perhaps? Do you think every word in The Bible is inerrant, the way many Muslims think every word of the Koran contains the unaltered and direct words of god?

Problems with this argument for me - apart from being spectacularly unconvincing- is that I’ve heard Islamic apologists make the same argument. Also Mormons. Your understanding of Islamic apologists seems inadequate. They will tell you that Mohammad helped deliver the final and only true revelation.

He's already said the god in his story is Jesus. — Vera Mont

I realize this, but the question beyond his particularism remains; which god is true and how do we establish this? It's the salient question for any theist.

It's simple, if God is Truth, then anything of God is true. So then verification comes from deciphering if it is of God or not, we us both the Holy Ghost and Scripture to figure this out. — Isaiasb

That seems to be some pretty mediocre apologetics. Simplistic, not 'simple'.

If God is truth - which God and how do we establish this god is true AND that you know what this god wants? No one has yet pulled this one off. Islamic apologists seem to think they have done the best job.

How do you use the Holy Spirit and Scripture to figure out anything?

You need to demonstrate that there is a holy spirit. Good luck with that. And how do you know scripture is true? We're back at circular reasoning, right? The Bible/Koran is true because it says it is true.

I don't think you lied. I think you have a particular value system that constructs atheism in a way which suits that system and the rhetoric which supports it. Most people have these kinds of foibles.

I'm more interested in your idea of absolute truth. Why would you not just defend Platonic idealism or similar and leave out Christianity, which will only get you into proselytizing territory?

If someone believes in the Orthodox Christian God, the belief in Truth becomes easy to conceptualize because John 14:6 specifies Jesus is truth — Isaiasb

This is weak. Many Christians recognize that the Bible is allegory and don't consider it literally true. As I said earlier, this appears to be appealing to claims in a book to prove the claims in a book. "The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true."

Agnostics and atheists alike fight for their belief in nonbelief, and their desire to be contemptuous in believing nothing. — Isaiasb

What is this meant to mean? Seems like you have a poor knowledge of atheism. Most contemporary atheists hold that atheism applies to one thing only - whether you have good reason to believe in gods. It does not necessarily say there are no gods, just that there isn’t good reason to accept the proposition. I know atheists who believe in astrology, ghosts, reincarnation all kinds of things. Believing in nothing is unusual.

The platonic definition of Truth — Isaiasb

Meaning what? You are a Christian idealist?

What is your definition of absolute truth?

This looks more like proselytising than philosophy.

I think you need to make an actual argument and provide some sort of supporting evidence (as opposed to a claim) for why Christianity and not Islam or Zoroastrianism or Hinduism, etc holds the truth.

You can't use a holy book to prove the contents of that holy book, as this is circular logic (using the Bible/Koran to prove the Bible/Koran is a rookie mistake) and the world is full of holy books with claims. Which to pick? Faith? Appeals to faith are common and unfortunately there's nothing you can't justify using such a flexible and emotionally driven approach. Faith has justified slavery, Apartheid, Nazism, the persecution of minorities as well as good things, so it is defiantly not a reliable tool.

I personally don't beleive in 'absolute truth'. The word 'absolute' is superfluous. It's enough to be getting on with just identifying truth. Truth is an abstract that consists of different things in different situations. E.g., the truth about how you feel about a parent, for instance, is different to the type of truth that tells us what year Kennedy was assassinated. Truth is slippery.

Perhaps you could try to demonstrate the truth of your belief without making appeals to an old book to prove the claims in that old book. Circularity is unhelpful. :wink:

Ironically I have been an atheist longer than I have a Christian. — Isaiasb

Not sure that is ironic. Many people go back and forth and there are some very poor atheists out there.

That's your view. I don't believe in gods so my interest in this is in the logic of myth and storytelling

Human beings cannot discern spiritual truth by their own means. It must be given to them. Philosophy has failed in its task to answer the big questions. We must be guided by revelation and awareness. — EnPassant

I consider revelation to be contrived fiction, so we're not going to find any common ground. Thanks.

What were these confused people really trying to do in these subjective 'mistakes' that they made? — kudos

I'm saying the policy is confused - for instance it never made much sense for cannabis to be illegal on the grounds of harmfulness, while alcohol was legal. Not sure who the 'people' you are referring to might be. I see this issue more as a case of the participation and influence of multiple stakeholders: governments, law enforcement, voters, media, corporations, lobbyists, people who use substances.

Can it be taken into a subjective point of view to say, 'They should legalize because of this' or 'They should make it illegal because of that,' and completely set aside the whole historical and political context because it is against the subjective enlightenment of the elites? — kudos

'Subjective enlightenment of elites' sounds like a right wing talking point. I have not mentioned right wing lobbyists in my discussion, but some have certainly played a role in spreading fear about substance use. I don't know who elites are meant to be. Many of the people who want drug law reform are actually social workers, police officers, users of substances and parents of users who died of overdoses or are in jail. They can see first hand that prohibition and current but outdated thinking doesn't work for what is essentially a health problem.

While I agree, that historical and political decisions are mostly driven by corrupt ambitions and necessity, this in itself does not constitute an antithesis to reason a priori. — kudos

My point (perhaps requiring clarification) is that the reasoning behind why some drugs are legal and others are not, is an unsystematic historical legacy of confusions and the work of interest groups. Like many things in history. I wasn't intending to explore the extent and limitations of reason as a metanarrative. :wink:

Good example.

Its a big statement to say history and politics don’t follow reason. Care to unpack that one? — kudos

Is there anything much to unpack here? Look at the trajectory of most political and historical decisions. This demonstrates that what dominates is not a free process of careful reasoning, but a variety of other factors that impose on decisions - power, vested interests, strategy, improvising, realpolitik, accident, etc. My point is the process isn't following some grand narrative of reason and discernment.

And why, do you think, they do take them? — kudos

Why do people go to movies, read novels, play sports, go to circuses, seek thrills, etc? The salient question is why do some people transcend recreational use and misuse substances, or become dependent? Usual explanations are situational difficulties and trauma. That's certainly what I have seen. Hence the term self-medication.

Alcohol and tobacco are legal drugs and are two of the most harmful substances available to people. It's clear that policies of interdiction and prohibition are historical and political and don't follow reason. I think the community will come to agreements about this and we will see more decriminalization - except where religions or other vested interest groups can influence public policy.

I mean, how many drug users do you know whom you would call satisfied and fulfilled individuals (… be honest)? — kudos

Quite a few, but they tend to be wealthier and therefore do not experience many ill effects of their substance use. Many of the ill effects of substance use are a byproduct of their illegality, not their properties. But most foods and substances can be abused - from Coca Cola to cocaine. The impact drugs have on people is often more about why they take them and how they take them.

Ok. Does it actually say that in the Bible or is this your interpretation? Any reason why we should take these myths more seriously than any other tradition's scriptures?

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean and how you arrived at that. Citations?

What is it about walking that is so great for thought, creativity, reflection? — Mikie

Don't know, I think repetitive activity and movement appeals to some people. English travel writer Bruce Chatwin described this phenomenon too - the notion walking away from illness and into new ideas features in Nicholas Shakespeare's excellent biography of Chatwin.

My God is the God of Walkers. If you walk hard enough, you probably don't need any other god.
- Bruce Chatwin

Personally, I don't find walking enjoyable or conducive to thought and I am virtually indifferent to nature. I walk a lot in the city and when I visit other cities and towns. If I can be distracted by interesting people and architecture, I don't notice that I am walking.

Perverse perhaps, but I find staff meetings and insufferable conferences a good place to zone out and start some creative thinking.

I’ve recently discovered this term “apolitical” and since political opinions are tied to values most of the time, I was wondering what an “apolitical” person without values would be like. — Skalidris

To me all apolitical means is someone who is not interested in politics. The fact that they hold values and beliefs is a separate matter. An apolitical person may be inclined to think that politics is not a vehicle where values can be successfully instantiated or fulfilled.

I wasn't aware I had given an actual argument. I simply made the observation that a bad person may produce good things, which can be bundled with a number of other statements made herein.

Ok. Well then I don't know what this debate is about. I thought the central focus was about whether H's work is contaminated or undermined by his Nazism. Since I have no expertise in Nazism or Heidegger's particular type of existential phenomenology, I should probably leave this to the cognoscenti. :wink: