That does not demonstrate god/s, nor can you establish what you say about thought to be true. Do you have anything more?

The power of reason in our minds is God. All mind is ultimately God's Mind. — EnPassant

That's the claim, what's the evidence? Which make of god are you referring to, if any?

Did your answer disappear? :wink:

But for our purposes here, it might be useful for folk to contemplate what it means to tell children that things can get better. — Banno

That's a powerful point.

Cultural problem solving is not about accurately representing an independent world. It is about construing and reconstruing our relation to the social and natural world from our own perspective in ways that allow us to see the behavior and thinking of other people in increasingly integral ways. Progress in cultural
problem solving is about anticipating the actions and motives of others (and ourselves) in ways that transcend concepts like evil or selfish intent. It is not that we become more
moral or more rational over time (Pinker’s claim is that the formation of the scientific method made us more rational). We were always moral and rational in the sense that we have always been motivated to solve puzzles. What progress in puzzle solving allows us to do is to see others as like ourselves on more and more dimensions of similarity. — Joshs

This is fascinating. Big question: what does the following look like in action -
Progress in cultural problem solving is about anticipating the actions and motives of others (and ourselves) in ways that transcend concepts like evil or selfish intent.

From what I know about you, I take this at face value, yes? Sorry, there are so many sarcastic posters here, myself very much included, that I have to do a double take — Noble Dust

I generally don't do sarcasm on line. I was sincerely referring to my completely missing an obvious aspect to this discussion about Enlightenment. I do wear a felt hat - it's fuckin' Australia, Mate!

It's something we should probably explore further in other threads, given the courage. — Noble Dust

Good idea. George Lakoff's notion of framing is interesting in this space too.

That's very helpful. Thanks. I totally forgot about notions of the evolving consciousness of human beings.

One belief of mine that's probably pretty important is that there's a sense in which each of us lives in our own world. That just means that our thoughts and beliefs shape the world we see around us. — Noble Dust

Yes. I hold to this too.

Yes, it is a bit and perhaps a digression. I guess your approach to evaluating beliefs is different to mine, I was curious about your approach and whether you identify progress as a tangible phenomenon and to what extent you see secularism as being a barrier to or carrier of progress.

Out of interest, what framework do you use to determine if someone holds acceptable or unacceptable beliefs? Do you hold to notions of progress?

TC, thanks, you're being kind. I do sometimes say terrible things. Often I find that trying to shoehorn complex ideas into a few sentences here ends up distorting what I want to say, sometimes eccentuating the wrong parts.

I'm not sure I have much to offer any discussions about theism or religion. I get involved when I hear the odd clanger from someone and then almost immediately regret what I said in response. This stuff is personal and for it to matter, I think it has to be.

When it comes to the crux, the attribute I dislike most in any field (politics or faith) is the gatekeeper who thinks they can tell ordinary people how they should live their lives and judges others for making different choices. The problem is, we all have to make calls on what we think is reasonable and we can't accept every possible position going - so where and how do we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable? I think this is my key problem in critical thinking.

My point was that it's a problem of large institutions, not religion. Atheism is a lack of belief in God, not an antipathy to large institutions in general. — T Clark

I have problems with many practices in politics, atheism, religion, science - any belief system that causes harm (as I see it). Now I happen to think religions are experts in causing harm (based largely upon personal experience and familiarity with their works) but religions are by no means alone in this. I don't just think it's a question of being large. I think there are plenty of small organisations that commit abuse upon their adherents/members. I do hold antipathy towards institutions. I don't think this comes out of atheism, more out of skepticism and perhaps nascent or inchoate anarchism. But that's for a different thread.

Do you think that conditions in Iran or Saudi Arabia today are worse than those in China during the cultural revolution, the USSR during Stalinism, or Cambodia during the rule of the Khmer Rouge? — T Clark

That's a classic equivocation fallacy. Who is saying religion is the only source of evil shit on earth? I'm saying it's one of the main players. I have no more love for politics than I have for religion. I am a political bigot too. :wink:

Now it feels like postmodernism, with its scepticism towards both Enlightenment universalism and the individual subject of experience, is precisely the kind of philosophy that suits modern society, with its fragmented public sphere and atomized populace. That is, it doesn’t seem like much of a challenge to the status quo, not significantly critical at all, despite sometimes seeming to be. — Jamal

Postmodernism passé? I often wonder to what extent it ever emerged from academe, other than through a few slogans and misunderstood terms. I think you're right that its tendencies broadly seem to match those of mainstream Western culture. But what drove what?

EDIT: I just realized: in fact, self-critical Enlightenment has not only led to postmodernist anti-humanism and anti-universalism; it has also led to philosophers like Zizek, who (I think) has made it his mission to rehabilitate both universalism and the subject. So all is not lost! — Jamal

Sounds like this could be its own OP. Deliverance by Zizek. I note that in a 2004 interview, Zizek observed-

Often, the worst way to become prisoner of a system is to have a dream that things may turn better, there is always the possibility of change. Because it is precisely this secret dream that keeps you enslaved to the system.

Could Enlightenment be that dream?

The motives of both the atheist and theist to spouse their different world views remain alien to me. What concern is it to either if one believes or not ? — invicta

Perhaps think bigger. Religions actively shape world politics and nationalism and supports legislative change which impact on millions of people - everything from gay rights, the rights of women, capital punishment, euthanasia, contraception, abortion, what books which can be read, etc, etc. It's not just America and stacking the Supreme Court. Pernicious social policies and practices are rife in places like Modi's Hindu nationalist India and Saudi Arabia through the impact of Wahhabi Islam.

Christ promises everlasting life in the Gospels, not eternal life. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Huh? Is there a difference? Eternal life was the term we used in our Baptist Church. Probably from John 12:25 Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. From Luke 18:18- 30. Teacher what must I do to inherit eternal life? My Dad who grew up in the Protestant Reformed church was taught that the ordinary life was for 'toil and suffering' the only life which matters being your reward in the next realm. That was much Christianity in the 20th Century, the cult of worldly suffering which Nietzsche so despised. But no doubt expressions of Christian doctrine vary. :wink:

:up:

Nice work.

Enlightenment cannot stop questioning the way things are, or it’s not Enlightenment any more — Jamal

Can this process eventually transcend Enlightenment? Is post-modern thinking an inevitable outcome of such an Enlightenment process? Isn't the eventual trajectory of questioning and more questioning anti-foundationalism?

If eternal life was offered not by God but by the universe (let’s say you stumbled upon some sort of secret) would you refuse ? — invicta

Yes.

I find it odd if not bizarre that every conceivable human emotion, memory all but disappear entailing that your life really meant nothing despite its ups and downs, moments of joy sorrow and everything in between.

It all meant nothing …every struggle … without any meaning. — invicta

That's a choice. You could equally say how much more precious is an experience which is evanescent. Where does it say an experience is only valuable if it endures? What has chronology got to do with anything? Sounds like a Christian value system at work here. E.g., the only life which matters is eternal life not the filthy, degraded thing we have here on earth.

Pinker is good at making things sound simple. His rhetorical style and approach reminds me of Sam Harris in The Moral Landscape.

What is progress? You might think that the question is so subjective and culturally relative as to be forever unanswerable. In fact, it’s one of the easier questions to answer. Most people agree that life is better than death. Health is better than sickness. Sustenance is better than hunger. Abundance is better than poverty. Peace is better than war. Safety is better than danger. Freedom is better than tyranny. Equal rights are better than bigotry and discrimination. Literacy is better than illiteracy. Knowledge is better than ignorance. Intelligence is better than dull-wittedness. Happiness is better than misery. Opportunities to enjoy family, friends, culture, and nature are better than drudgery and monotony. All these things can be measured. If they have increased over time, that is progress.

― Steven Pinker, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress

I can't help but feel Pinker is an old fashioned figure, the kind of public educator with faith in progress I grew up with. My question for you is could his position be enhanced by more rigorous philosophical knowledge? Is he essentially just another nostalgic modernist liberal?

I was struck by this:

Don't confuse pessimism with profundity: problems are inevitable, but problems are solvable, and diagnosing every setback as a symptom of a sick society is a cheap grab for gravitas. Finally, drop the Nietzsche. His ideas may seem edgy, authentic, baad, while humanism seems sappy, unhip, uncool But what's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?

In short, given the choice of belief in God versus non-belief, believers often stick with God. But a believer may be much more receptive to arguments that label silly religious beliefs as lies about God. When the atheist ask a believer to give up belief in God, the result is that the believer often rejects the atheist’s argument and, if anything, believes more strongly. Thus, atheism, in some cases, helps reinforce religious belief. — Art48

Depending upon the type of believer/atheist, I would have thought that atheists and believers generally talk past each other and don't comprehend each other's language or frames of reference.

But it is also the case that many atheists were once believers, often fundamentalist believers. People do find their way out of religion and the old arguments seem to lose their traction and believability, perhaps more so than atheist arguments gain appeal. Many atheists I have met from fundamentalist backgrounds take similar journey's from fundamentalist Christianity to progressive Christianity, to deism, to Wicca/Eastern mysticism, to skepticism and eventually to atheism. The sustaining strand is transcendence and eventually this too is forsaken.

:up: Interesting, BC. Thanks.

Cool. I wasn't sure what it was about either.

Just that I am wondering if anyone has any attachments to materialism these days, enough to speculate on these questions.

Are there any materialists these days? Isn't methodological naturalism the most commonly held theory these days amongst the 'non-woo' approaches.

Essentially my actions and life and all my accomplishments being reduced to nothing. — invicta

I often find it interesting that some people think this way. I don't see how death has anything to do with a negation of life and any accomplishments.

I don't enjoy a meal any less knowing it will be over in an hour or two. I don't enjoy my car any less knowing it will be a heap of rust in 20-30 years, I don't appreciate my friends any less knowing that in a few decades they will be dead. Things are for the moment and for the memories.

I just find it a massive tease to be granted existence and yet only experience it for a brief spell. — invicta

I think this is really just a matter of personal taste. I was talking to my partner about this. Neither of us is particularly worried by the thought of dying in the next 15-30 years (we are in our 50's). It's been a perfectly contented life, but I don't find the experience so compelling that I need to linger longer.

I forget what this thread is about. I think I was simply making the point that of the supernatural matters commonly posited - ghosts, gods, demons, spirits - I'm not inclined to belief in them even if there are lots of anecdotes in their support. I might have skipped the term anecdote and used 'personal experience' instead. Either way, it's getting late here, I have Covid and I may start speaking in tongues soon.

Sure - sloppy of me. I worked with a guy who says it is proof. That's his understanding of anecdotes in action. I'm all across tic tac reports.

Sorry I screwed up the formatting of my earlier post and deleted it.

Right but in a philosophy forum it is an immediate claim to dualism — Bylaw

I don't think it necessitates dualism. Idealism, a monist ontology might be an equal explanation. But even if it does imply dualism, what of it?

Hundreds of folk say they saw Elvis alive after 1977. Apparently he must have faked his death and lives amongst us. He even showed up as an extra in Home Alone. :razz:

You may be right. I was talking specifically if we should believe claims about the 'supernatural' based on anecdotes. Needless to say this is a discussion lacking in precision and clarity and where supernatural begins and ends or what counts as supernatural is still open. I don't consider claims about animal behaviour supernatural, but I am not a scientist, so I'll leave it to others to comment further on this. I am also not trying to set myself up as some kind of scientistic fiend.

We parent, vote, try to find romantic partners, succeed at work and in freetime activities, based on all sorts of anecdotal and other less than scientific research level rigor sources. — Bylaw

Indeed, but I don't know what this has to do with my position. I never claimed people make all decisions based on careful reasoning and evidence. I certainly don't - I go by intuition a lot. (This still contains experience and judgement.) I simply made comment on whether I would accept a belief in supernatural claims (let's say gods, ghosts, demons) based on anecdotes. Answer: no.

One person complaining to the city council about the new stoplight could be ignored, but 500 complaints means something got screwed up. The plural of anecdote clearly is data. — RogueAI

You're confusing categories - perhaps an equivocation fallacy. We are talking here about feedback regarding a tangible matter of council business, not an anecdote about the improbable or impossible. Try getting council to deal with the matter of 'invisible vampires' hovering near the local tip....

What would you believe after that conversation. — RogueAI

I would believe nothing in either direction, it's just an anecdote. Isn't this the point we have been addressing?

If I cared about ESP testing I might say - 'So you think you have a good candidate for someone who has an ability? Let's test it independently with stringent conditions.'

I think we are probably done. You think anecdotes count as good evidence, I don't consider them good evidence. I get it... :wink:

My point is that when enough anecdotal evidence piles up, it's OK to conclude something strange is going on. — RogueAI

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Do we have good reason to deny all these anecdotes? — RogueAI

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

That said, I think anecdotes can sometimes be interesting and they may well form a reason to investigate something further. But for the most part they are fairly useless in themselves.

I'll be a lot more interested the moment Southern Baptist's start seeing visions of Shiva and Hindus start seeing Mary Magdalene... :wink:

f a friend calls and says your house is on fire do you dismiss it because it's anecdotal information? — RogueAI

Nice try but unrelated to the matter at hand. I wouldn't compare a piece of information like that - about a mundane event, coming to me from someone I have a trusted relationship with, about something which can be tested empirically - to an anecdote about a supernatural event.

I don't generally accept anecdotes as conclusive evidence about a given matter. But the more important part of this is context: where the anecdote is about, for instance, laws of physics being contradicted, I am going to need more than a personal experience account, right? If someone tells me they bought a kitten on the weekend I am unlikely to be sceptical and need more. If they tell me they bought a unicorn, I'm going to need more.

Pretty sure we can find thousands of people today who have been 'abducted and probed by aliens'. Do we have good reason to accept all these anecdotes? I would say no. The stories may well be interesting and may well be evaluated separately, but that's just the beginning of a process where actual evidence must be considered before any conclusion can be reached.

he identification of gun ownership with appeals to Jesus is itself a particularly revolting aspect of American conservatism. Really signals a very deep and dangerous confusion as far as I can tell. It's diabolical. — Wayfarer

I hear you. I doubt that much of this is held in place by a deep reading of politics or scripture. It seems more emotional, a form of tribalism which has become embedded in cultural identity in some parts of the US. I wonder if it even properly counts as Christianity? It seems somehow too shallow and propagandistic.

I couldn't work out if he was mocking them or not.... But it gave me a laugh. — Banno

Funny you should say that... I can't tell if Chalmers is being serious in relation to most things...

:ok:

That's better. Can we think of any examples of this happening that are beyond myth or anecdote?

When you hear or read a statement, how do you decide whether to believe it? — Vera Mont

Depends on the statement. A lot of the time I have no special interest in knowing if something is true or not. I understand that most statements are subject to a particular perspective or worldview. Like most people I generally use intuition (experience) and sources I hold more credible than others - certain journalists, experts, etc.