Would it be unnatural for example, for a human to try to live life as if they were an ant or a fish or a god? — universeness

No. It would be futile. Someone might have a very natural mental illness which makes them attempt this. But perhaps we are using the term natural in different ways.

One persons truth is another persons lie, is a fair definition of subjective truth, but I think if your epistemology is the scientific method or scientific empiricism, then I think increasing your credence level to a level of an (to you) acceptable truth, based on demonstration of a process with observable predicted outcomes, is valid. — universeness

I'm mostly there, but some subjects are not so neat and the 'evidence' is contested. Personally I don't think humans have access to reality or absolute truth, just provisional little truths which are useful for certain goals (or not). But this is for another thread.

Yeah, but does that make guns, atom bombs, gods and murder, natural, merely because they are products of the human mind and also, would it follow that the word unnatural has no existent. — universeness

How could they not be natural? If beaver's damns and bird's nests are natural, then guns and highways are too. The matter of human intervention on nature upsetting the natural balance may well be a fair point, but takes the discussion in a different direction. But I am willing to be corrected on this.

This is just the basis for the Kalam Cosmological argument, yes? Which has been fairly convincingly debunked, yes? — universeness

No. I am referring to a type of apologetics that is called presuppositional apologetics. Quite sophisticated and the best of them are provided by philosophy professors - like Alvin Plantinga. As a subsidiary argument, they also use the evolutionary argument against naturalism which is pretty cool too.

I always remember that whether an argument is debunked depends a lot on whether you are susceptible to or agree with the arguments made.

Do you think that it does not matter, either way? If so, why? — universeness

I don't care enough about theology to hairsplit the gradients of Nazarene identity and purpose.

The concept of natural can be so strongly related to 'moral' by nefarious individuals. — universeness

Indeed - some forget that arsenic, heroin and melanomas are perfectly natural.

3. The idea that some activities are "intrinsically worth while". This is a popular concept in philosophy of education. I learnt of it from R.S. Peters' work, but I don't know if he originated it. This amounts to declaring that some ends need no justification, though if you look at the examples (art, music, philosophy &c.), there is a widespread fondness for turning them into the means for other ends. Perhaps those are intrinsically worth while. I think the idea is that these are axioms, from which it is rational to deduce means. So this too amounts to incorporating means into a rational framework. — Ludwig V

Interesting. The challenge is how do we determine what is intrinsically worthwhile and what is not? This has to be based on a value system which is open to challenge. We all hold presuppositions as the building blocks for our views and actions. Some would say God is a necessary presupposition to explain why there's something rather than nothing, why there's intelligibility, morality and goodness. Christians and Muslims often argue this way. Kant and CS Lewis did.

4. Naturalization of values. By this I mean argument from what are posited as human needs or instincts, shaped by the natural and social context. — Ludwig V

Can you think of anything available to humans that is not natural? I don't know how far this gets us in practice. I tend to think that if we can do it or make it, it's natural... Whether it is 'good' or not is a separate matter.

But not the temporary death of god? — universeness

Whatever. :cool:

Winnie the Pooh taught me that people can be all different and all have different weaknesses and strengths, and yet be good friends to each other and live lovingly together even if they all make mistakes. — unenlightened

Lolita taught me that pedophilia is unacceptable, especially if you are an ironist with a baroque prose style.

The Star Wars stories are historical analogues of Beowulf repeated ad infinitum with Jane Austin thrown in for romantic interest. — Paine

:cool:

Thanks. By sacrifice I meant the temporary death of Jesus, the 'blood sacrifice'.

A thread on this would appeal greatly.

I think I agree. I like what you said about novelists as phenomenologists.

How about spiritual truth through scriptures? The non-literal sort. What ‘truths’ do we find in scripture? I can see how parables are like fables. But in relation to Christianity, I can make no use out of sacrifice and resurrection. You?

I guess what I’m wondering is can you name how a particular book contributed to truth or understanding? If fiction conveys truth then to me it’s ineffable. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever learned anything from an aesthetic experience, no matter how affecting.

Do you have an example from your experience?

The point is often missed that fiction and truth are not opposites. The point of most fiction, or at least the well written sort, is that it contains much truth.

That is where most truth, or at least the wisdom sort, is found. — Hanover

I hear this point made regularly (not least by a friend of mine who is a novelist) and I think it was Gore Vidal who used to say 'we only tell the truth in fiction.' Nevertheless, in my own experience, I can't think of anything I have gained in wisdom from a work of fiction. What I have learned, perhaps, is how words can be used to 'dress up' and develop ideas and evoke a mood or tone. The spectacular fiction of Saul Bellow and Vladimir Nabokov come to mind.

I don't even know anymore what to do, or even what to believe. I don't know what I did wrong. I don't even know anymore, if god does exist (or any 'spiritual' system like karma or "law of attraction" thing etc etc), what is my sins that somehow the universe just keep punishing me again & again & again, even when I've already at least tried to do good. Of course I know I'm far from perfect. I even admit that. I'm just only a human being, who can make mistakes. But why all of these happened to me — niki wonoto

It's hard to know what you are referring to since this is all quite vague - you seem to be saying you have unusually bad luck in life. What are you hoping to find by posting this here?

I hope too see the recent Dune too when I can sit still for longer than 15 minutes. :wink:

I see universal themes or themes from myth. I'm not especially interested in tracking it too strongly to Tao or Zoroastrian or Christian. The film seems to be a piece of post-modern pop, a hybrid of mythology and film history styles, so anything you want you will probably find in it - from pirate movie tropes to Cold War metaphors. :smile:

The interesting part is the hold it has had on culture.

Yep. Zoroastrianism had a final judgement, with redemption for all. Salvation was a Persian concept, as I understand it. But Star Wars is cod-mythology, so too much analysis will make it vanish, I suspect.

The Good vs. Evil plot, I think, is what makes me think of Christianity in particular, — Moliere

Actually, I always took that as the Zoroastrian contribution which takes light and darkness as a key theme. Later religions were influenced.

Also, the whole farm-boy to savior arc has Jesus all over it. — Moliere

That's one reading. The farm boy is the son of Lucifer the fallen angel, in this instance. :wink: Lucas borrowed this trope - the callow youth who goes out has adventures and returns as a hero/saviour from world mythology. It's a common story. No doubt we can see any religion in this story - A Japanese friend of mine was convinced the story had been borrowed from Japanese religion.

All these ideas are directly from A Hero With A Thousand Faces by Campbell, the source of the Star Wars storyline. Check it out. The evil father, the wise wizard, the tutelary guardians, the quest, the rescue and princess, the sister, facing the father, enlightenment, etc. As I recall, the Force was inspired by the Tao.

Sounds like you come at truth from a more spiritual or religious path - hence the role of transcendence in your formulation.

Metanarratives like God or Reality or Ultimate Truth seem to be interchangeable fantasies.

Truth is an abstraction. Better to talk about specific things and determine if they are the case or not. Truth is not a property that looks the same wherever it is found. Truth is established in different ways for different matters. Eg - mathematical truth, geographic, historical, legal, philosophical, etc.

We can’t dismiss truth out of hand since we are able to use maps to get to places and science to solve problems. We know what happens if we take arsenic, or if we use bad maths to build bridges. These things are true. But I don't see how we can magnify truth into a god surrogate, as the ultimate explanation for everything. I think humans have a craving for totalizing narratives because it is comforting. And because we can see small, quotidian truths at work in direct empirical terms, we believe we can magnify this into any number of overarching truth fables, from alchemy to Scientology.

"IMO, Absolute truth"-tellers e.g. gurus, sages, prophets ... are immoral insofar as they preach 'illusions of "absolute knowledge"' – ignorance – to their naive and gullible followers. Thus, philosophers (e.g. Socratics, Pyrrhonians) are the original cult deprogrammers. :fire: — 180 Proof

Nice.

But from same article: "Many historians believe that the Nazis intended to eradicate Christianity in Germany after victory in the war.[17]" — Hanover

Could be. Doesn't mean the Nazi's didn't make consistent and effective use of Christianity in 'productive' ways, tapping into associated anti-Semitism and nationalism, which so often accompany religious dogma. It's worth noting that Hitler killed allies and associates when he had strategic changes (e.g., Ernst Rohm and the SA, who were so useful in establishing Nazi power at the start). Even if Hitler was an atheist and even if Hitler wanted to vanquish Christianity after the war was won - has little bearing upon the cultural uses of Christianity in galvanizing the German Volk and supporting the Nazi worldview and plans. After all, even an assassin is likely to dispose of the rifle once the killing is done.

That's an elegant little piece of AC's writing.

Sure. I would not argue Hitler is a Christian any more that I would argue Trump (a very different figure) is a Christian. But they both galvanized Christians expertly to achieve their political ends. And drew upon existing bigotries and hatreds that the church had fermented for generations. That's bad enough. To argue, as some might, that there were some Christians against Hitler is beside the point. Over the years, I've met many staunch Catholics who were against the Vatican and various Popes. Religion follows complex, twisted pathways, like most human endeavors.

There's an old critique of A C Grayling which seems to agree with Un's view of this, its emphasis being that 'militant atheism' in a sense needs religious texts to be rendered literally, to make its literalist critique possible: — mcdoodle

I think Grayling quite rightly holds that sophisticated theologies like those held by David Bentley Hart are not a great concern to anyone in daily life. No one is at risk from the God of Paul Tillich. I have no doubt Grayling can explore more sophisticated philosophical accounts of god if pressed. But these are not a significant problem.

There's no question that in a world packed with various forms of religious fundamentalism, which can significantly damage a culture and disrupt the world - from Trump's evangelicals, to Modi's Hindu nationalists (and let's not forget Islam) - these ideas are worth resisting, debunking, challenging. Just as the ideas of secular dictators are also worth debunking and challenging.

You may be right. But there are some interesting associations in this space.

Martin Luther wrote the following - and it does sound suspiciously like most steps taken from Kristallnacht to the Final Solution:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians …"
"Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed."
"Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them."
"Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb …"
"Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside …"
"Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them …"
"Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow … But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., … then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country …

Hitler described Luther as a great German - hence:



The writing says:

Hitler’s fight and Luther’s teaching are the best defense for the German people.”

If the brain is a representation, then the consciousness that seems to reside there, and the self-model that comes with it must also be representations. The question then is what is doing the representing? Perhaps nothing? Or everything? — Janus

I like this question. I suspect that Kastrup would say that consciousness manifests as a brain, in a skull, in a body, in a world when viewed across the dissociative divide. It's just the form it appears to come in. Given that legs are as illusory as brains, I guess the functionality implied in a 'physical' body is a kind of combined hallucination to begin with. That's all I got....

I rather like the idea of, say, having an AI guide to Plato's Dialogues, which would read the text on demand, and then also provide commentary from authors of your choosing. I'm sure all this is going to be happening soon. — Wayfarer

I was thinking similarly re Heidegger. You could choose the AI guide of your preferences - the existentialist reading or the post-modern reading, say, and do immediate contrasts from the text. Do we need to get out more often?

They were formed by traveling pastors, often with limited education, with fire and brimstone speeches in their distinctive barking voice, with the powers of heaven causing wild gyrations, speaking in tongues, and protecting them from the serpents they handle. — Hanover

American expressions of culture and religion fascinate me. ( I say that as an Australian).

I think ‘radical’ depends upon your foundational beliefs. It’s one of those words. The Bishop here disdainfully called them 'maverick' priests.

The priest was obviously Catholic and would not have been as influenced by the Protestant traditions — Hanover

We spend a lot of time talking about radical priests - Thomas Merton, Richard Rohr - who are not always well liked by the church hierarchy and often influenced by mystic and Eastern spiritual traditions. The Catholic church is also engaged in a nasty internal culture war between progressives and conservatives. Doing good and making change in the world is far more important than doctrine for the progressives.

An interesting and paradoxical thing about many fundamentalists I have known is that they are not particularly familiar with the Bible - apart form a few frequently recycled quotes. Pastors may in theory have the same status as others in the congregation, but generally hold a degree of power over interpretation and the culture of their church, often through charisma or personality.

:up:

:up:

:up: I've always had time for J Krishnamurti - the anthology Think on These Things was revelatory in my youth three decades ago. But of course now I'm a somewhat tedious atheist and philosophical neophyte. :wink:

Thanks. That's a sophisticated lens you are applying. I'll need to think it over.

And then I would like to forbid any discussion about the existence or non-existence of these, because the game is to realise them in one's life — unenlightened

This reminds me of my friend John (who is a priest) who says 'Forget Jesus, be Christlike!' Is this the kind of thing you mean?

One might believe in 'truth, justice, and the American way', but no serious person could claim they exist, only that they seek to manifest them in the way they conduct own life. — unenlightened

Ok, there it is again. I think I get it. Does this come from a broader philosophical system or school? It seems to be focused on practice and virtue.

I'm not saying that Christianity has the answers, or that any religion has the answers. I'm not saying that things were better in the good old days. — unenlightened

I'm not saying that you did.

The scientific mythos is so impoverished as to be useless - mind as malfunctioning computer. — unenlightened

What do you mean by scientific mythos (and perhaps avoid fundamentalists like Dawkins in this)?

The language of human psychology is always mythological, because psyche cannot contain a complete understanding of itself — unenlightened

I often think all language is metaphor, whatever it might be.

Mainly what I am attacking is the implied moral superiority of the modern mind. It is the same mind as the primitive mind, but has lost the language with which to even talk about the conflict, never mind resolve it. — unenlightened

This is an interesting thesis. I've often argued that we replaced the worship of god with the worship of 'reality' and I don't think we have access to reality or can even define it, except in the shallowest terms.

Where do you see the solutions to these problems you have described?

I and others would give anything to not be this way, but we learn to deal because there is nothing else. It's almost like trying to acknowledge that fact would make folks question themselves. — Darkneos

I think that sounds fair enough. It can be aggravating to have people tell us that we can be the best we can if we just love ourselves and 'find strength' in our differences.

I hear you. I just wondered what the difference might be in behaviours between literalism as reaction and how to live as direction.

Are you seeing the triumph of open-minded tolerance all around you? — unenlightened

In the world I experience directly, yes. In the world provided to me through media, not much. Although tolerance is a funny word; do I want to be 'tolerated' or understood and accepted?

Do you have a view about what Christianity was like before this period of reaction against atheism? Was its concern with how people should live exercised with more tolerance and open mindedness?

I don't place Granny outside the time period described by unenlightened in his reference to the rise of Christian fundamentalism. — Hanover

Her chronological time is incidental, her faith came from a direct line going back to before the middle ages. :wink: Nevertheless she was unspoiled by media and modernism. And I wouldn't say she was a fundamentalist, more of a primitivist.

So critical intelligence is the cause of literal-minded ignorance? Freethinking causes unthinking violence? Logical thinking causes magical thinking? The decentering Mediocrity Principle & Darwinian Evolution cause reactionary Manichaean conspiracies & "end of days" cults? "Atheism" has caused the Christian blood libel of Jews, the Crusades against Muslims, millennia of Hindu castes, well over a millennium of pogroms persecutions tortures and executions of indigenous heathens, "heretics", Jews, Gypsies, "witches", homosexuals, et al culminating in cyclical fraternal blood orgies aka "Wars of Religion" principly in Europe & the Middle East? then modern day Jihadi & Zionist terrorisms? and all In The Name Of God ... "because of the infidels"?! :eyes: — 180 Proof

Nicely put. :clap: I suspect that religion has increasingly appeared more fundamentalist and inadequate as education and human knowledge have expanded, while the role of god has diminished. No doubt many practitioners of religion have had to double down, become louder and more truth denying in order to justify their unwarranted value systems and supernatural beliefs against reason and scepticism.

My grandma, who was born in the 1880's, was a typical European Christian of her time. In the 1970's she told me no one had ever gotten to the moon because God and heaven 'are in the sky and people can't get there until they die'. So much for post-Nietzschean, death-of-God nihilism. She was a sweet lady, but like most of her kind, celebrated ignorance because it glorified her scriptures and reinforced that faith alone was the right answer to every question. She got there without the help of any atheists.

However, since it is provably impossible for explain consciousness under physicalism, — Bob Ross

I wonder if this is a bit dogmatic? I don't think we can say it is impossible yet. I agree that there is no obvious answer at hand, but thinkers like Metzinger point in certain directions. But even if all forms of physicalism end up being superseded, this does not make mind-at-large necessary - there might be any number of other explanations we have not yet considered. I wonder about our expertise to make totalising statements on this highly complex and speculative subject. I also wonder about the limitations of human cognition to solve some of the problems we seem to identify.

Yes, I think that's very interesting too but conceptually very complex.

What we need to grasp is that all we know of existence — whether of the rock, or the screen you're looking at, or the Universe at large — is a function of our world-making intelligence, the activity of the hominid forebrain which sets us apart from other species. That’s what ‘empirical reality’ consists of. After all, the definition of ‘empirical’ is ‘based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience.’ So, asking of the Universe ‘How does it exist outside our observation or experience of it?’ is an unanswerable question. — Wayfarer

I think that's a helpful summary and I don't think I can do better as a provisional overview.

That synthesis constitutes our experience-of-the-world. It is not an hallucination or figment of the imagination, but the mind constitutes the imaginative matrix within which all of this exists. — Wayfarer

Almost a Kantian position.

Object permanence. My limited understanding of Berkeley is that things 'exist' when no one is looking because God is looking.