would answer that question put to Bertrand Russell more or less the same way he does but with slight variations: (1) intellectually trust nothing but publicly accessible evidence and sound reasoning; (2) morally practice Hillel the Elder's principle: "What you find hateful (or harmful), do not do to anyone." — 180 Proof

I hate to say it, but it might be better if some people (me included) never read philosophy and theory, and just applied this and got on with fucking living - choosing, doing and staying silent. :razz:

In Plato's cave allegory it is the task of the philosopher. After escaping the cave, and getting a glimpse of the true reality, it is the responsibility of the philosopher to go back, and educate the others. The task is very difficult because the public, as you imply, is already happy in its current consumption — Metaphysician Undercover

People are very judgmental of the 'stupid, misled public' it often seems to me. They just want dumb things and are happy with the status quo...

I think it is true that people ignore philosophy (for the most part) but given the levels of chaos and dissatisfactions we find about us, I doubt people are happy with that they know.

Which philosopher would anyone read or listen to and why? The world is pullulating gurus, experts and sages - how would we establish where to begin? And it would seem that the case has not been made that philosophy is helpful.

I do not think a morality from a Creator deity/God is arbitrary. — Andrew4Handel

Of course it is. To begin with, no one can demonstrate what this morality consists of and everyone interprets their god's morality differently. In the end, humans cannot avoid morality as an expression of personal preference.

Saying there's a god which guarantees morality is essentially pointless since unless you can - 1) identify which god is real 2) identify that morality originates from that god 3) identify what that god's morality consists of - you are screwed. Here's a hint - god never shows up to explain morality, there are only old books which say a thing and humans who interpret the books or their understanding of god's will.

Why lie about who we are? Why become something we are not? — Shawn

I'm not convinced that many of us know who we are (whatever that might mean) or that we have much idea who we wish to be (same problem). Sure, we might make plans or attempt to tweak elements of behaviour (like quitting smoking) but how deep does this go and, if it does go deep, what are we really aware of?

That's worthy of any number of great thinkers.

The OP's to each of my threads serve just such a purpose... Now if folk would just stop disagreeing with them... — Banno

Ha! Yes, people are disappointing. I certainly appreciate how you lay out ideas and pose questions for us to work through. It's interesting how quickly people are affronted by this.

SO wanna coauthor a book? — Banno

Appreciate the invite, but I fear the only role I can play in an enterprise like this is as patsy to Socrates

Thanks, Joshs, this is a rich and interesting approach.

In sum , my atheism is not a matter of saying there is no god, but of saying there are as many meanings of that concept as there are selves within my body, or values within and between culture. So God can’t be used as a fundamental explanation or first cause. It is more of an effect of a process that philosophy can describe in other terms, such as Heidegger’s Beyng. — Joshs

God is something like the cumulative result of presuppositions and approaches to meaning which are not sustainable in their traditional sense.

Since we know so little about aliens — RogueAI

Do we know anything about aliens?

Leaving religion freed me from religious dogma and hypocrisy, abuse etc but it didn't answer any questions. I appreciate the question why is there something? The existence of even just only one atom would raise questions for me. if things can appear for nor reason then causality breaks down and reality makes no sense. — Andrew4Handel

You wouldn't be only one who thinks this. I suspect most metaphysical questions are likely to be unanswerable and often don't even make sense outside of a human frame of reference and values. A question like Why is there a universe? is of little interest to me and I suspect people who have grown up with fundamentalist religions, where everything around them is imbued with deliberate meaning, are probably left with a thirst for transcendence which is hard to quench.

I have partial recovered and become an agnostic not trusting any human absolutes. — Andrew4Handel

I'm an atheist and don't trust in any absolutes period. I think any notions of 'absolute truth' are just remnants of Greek philosophy (idealism) which infiltrated Christianity. For many former believers, this notion of an absolute truth or transcendent value is the last thing to be left behind. It is also a kind of trap door which can lead people back to theism.

Thanks. So in your case why not accept the reality of a god? Is your position beyond reason and more about an inability to believe? I am fascinated by forms of atheism which doesn’t rely on conventional arguments.

I have no commitment to aliens existing. And the notion of highest intelligence is a human construct which for me doesn't carry much more than a poetic meaning.

believe there is evidence of atheists literally blaming a god for human failings even whilst claiming one doesn't exist and pushing the idea that without god and religion (despite copious counter evidence) we suddenly become rational and moral. — Andrew4Handel

Of course it looks that way because atheism - especially in America - is dealing with literalist apologetics and has become stuck in the refutation of hypothetical theisms. Most Christian fundamentalist views make god look like a cunt.

My contention here is that if humans can design morals systems why can't gods? — Andrew4Handel

Sure, but why not aliens? You can keep the list of suspects coming, or does 'the magic man' theory help the buck stop somewhere in a way aliens do not?

Do you believe in god/s? and if so (or not) can you sketch out your thinking?

It took humans thousands of years to start understanding reality.

The notion is that we eventually uncover the correct morality which we discover is implanted by the gods or God.

Some people believe we already have god given moral intuitions and that we are just not following them correctly. — Andrew4Handel

Unconvincing (to me). Why would the creator not provide creation with clear unambiguous guidance from the start, to not only make its intentions clear but prevent suffering? Having us slide into wisdom so gradually across the millennia just seems absurd, not to mention cruel. Seems to me that as story telling creatures, we will always invent a narrative to try and provide transcendent meaning.

Of course who says god/s have anything to do with morality. If we are theists how do we know or demonstrate that morality comes from god?

Nihilism is not a good place to be. — Andrew4Handel

Some people find it so daunting and scary they can't even think about it without 'fleeing into the arms of Jesus'. Given that humans are scared little apes, it seems hardly surprising that we seek solace and protection in religions/politics/sport/drugs.

I am someone who left a religious cult — Andrew4Handel

You have my sympathy. I imagine it is a tough road full of terror and presuppositions to overcome and understand. But also rewards and peace. Best of luck.

I am playing devils advocate here. But I don't see a problem with a god like entity with powers like ours but greater. We invented this the internet we could end up creating an entire virtual reality playing God ourselves. — Andrew4Handel

I undertand.

If morality is the product of humans then why can't it be the products of gods?

If we think we can do a good job of creating a moral system then why couldn't a god? — Andrew4Handel

Well, firstly the time to believe in that is when there is robust evidence of it. And what kind of pissweak god would leave morality to old books, translations and interpretations? Where do we find this morality you claim is the product of some massive intelligence? Hasn't it or they done a stupid-ass job getting it out there?

Is God something we know and understand, such that saying "God did X" adds to our understanding of how/why X occurs? Or is it simply kicking the explanatory can down the road? — busycuttingcrap

Exactly. It's a placeholder statement rather than an explanation. We could equally posit magic or the work of aliens (as some are now doing) as equivalent explanations.

One thing In do believe is that morality cannot survive in a purely physical, design free world where we are just an another animal. — Andrew4Handel

And, as I often write, religions can't provide a foundation for morality either since there is no moral framework from the Koran or Bible that isn't also a case of subjective preferences and interpretation. Hence the multiple and conflicting views held by theists who cannot agree on anything. Morality, wherever wherever we say it comes from, is always the product of human agreement and disagreement.

I know we could all go read Austin, Searle, etc - but I have often thought it would be interesting to have some short essays posted on this site by members outlining a particular and common philosophical problem and the proposed way out. Just an overview or prompt, not a definitive answer.

Subjects might include this one, but also idealism, Stove's gem, science and the 'view from nowhere', quantum BS - you know the kind of thing. The threads themselves become so cluttered and desultory.

Nice.

so which is it? Is god's mind beyond our understanding, and hence not recognisably a mind, putting an end to the notion that we were made in his image? Or is god not omniscient? — Banno

Strewth! This is all beginning to read like footnotes to the ineffable thread... :razz:

The theist's so-called "ultimate answer" still falls back to "because it happens to be so," which isn't really that powerful or impressive.

On this view, theism doesn't really explain anything at all that nontheism can't. — Astro Cat

Yes, it's fairly clear that theism has no explanatory power. It is functionally no different to saying 'the magic man did it' or 'because the magic man says so'. As a 'reason' it's a manifestly shallow and open ended.

You can see how this generally works. If you already believe in god then the explanation god, our magic man did it or says so, is going to be convincing. Because this belief is already part of your worldview.

Atheism doesn't explain anything. Most atheists like the phase, "I don't know' when it comes to some of the more boutique questions we might have about the universe/reality. Atheism is the answer to just one question - are you convinced god/s exist?

I try not to judge atheism or theism by its idiots and fanatics.

All these isms take different forms and interact conceptually in different ways accordingly, so it seems to be complex picture taking shape, which seems fitting since this "debate" in all its forms is pretty much the story of western philosophy from its beginnings to now. — Janus

Indeed.

Thanks for that nicely worded overview.

Perhaps not. It all comes down to a unification of a perfect reasoning and perfect ethics as one undeniable unanimity. — Benj96

I'm not sure what you mean by this but that's perhaps because I am not keen on the word 'perfect' and do not think it's a genuine category, more like a superlative. I also don't fetishize reason - I think it is often the best we can do to identify useful approaches but I don't think it is a pathway to truth (another abstraction I am suspicious of and seems to mean different things in different areas).

One we have yet to approach, either for reasons of our own flawed logic or because it may not exist. — Benj96

:up:

I think this view is mistaken. Part of the way in which science reaches a consensus is that it frames its assertions so that they are true regardless of one's frame of reference. Scientific principles are the same regardless of where one is standing. In physics this is made clear in the Principle of Relativity.

Science does not seek a view from nowhere, it seeks explanations that work anywhere.

The claim that science tries to "stand outside of nature" is no more than rhetoric. — Banno

This is nice.

Would that not make them agnostic? — Benj96

Yes, as far as a knowledge claim is concerned; but atheism addresses belief. you are unconvinced a god exists. Knowledge claims are of a different order.

Hence in atheist communities I know people often say they are agnostic atheists. They have no certain knowledge of whether god exists, but based on what they do know they are unconvinced.

What if there was a description of a God that satisfies science, evolution, philosophy etc.

You can only be atheist to known religions — Benj96

To be atheist to "all gods" is equivalent to saying I don't believe in any ideas whatsoever. In essence "I believe in nothing, both now and in the future". — Benj96

The atheists I know tend to argue that they have not yet encountered a version of god they are convinced by and they are open to reconsidering their view if someone can make a case for something different that is convincing.

I feel much the same about the atheist, that they’ve given up the quest to find a deeper reality. — Art48

What does a quest to find a deeper reality mean? Are you referring to mysticism; meaning which transcends physicalism? I've kicked around with atheists for decades. Mostly an atheist is just someone who responds 'no' to a single question - Are you convinced a god exists?

As consequence, while an atheist might consider the idea of a god irrelevant to their daily experience, I have met many atheists who believe in idealism, astrology, reincarnation, tarot cards, ghosts, alien abduction, philosophy. Being an atheist does not make you a specific thing.

Of course, atheists may be right in that there is no deeper reality to be found, at least, not a reality that could in any sensible way be called “God.” But they may be wrong, too. — Art48

Seems to me that theism and atheism generally loiter at the superficial and glib end of philosophy. Most atheists and theists are satisfied with easy answers and unexamined doctrines. Theists tend to hold their beliefs because their parents did and atheists frequently accept science over theistic explanations because we live in secular times. In other words, neither come to their position through deep thinking. None of this says anything about the merits of atheism or theism in themselves.

What’s needed is an atheism that overcomes epistemological
method. I recommend Nietzsche, Foucault , Kuhn and Rouse. — Joshs

Without going into the details of these thinkers, can you describe in a few dot points what overcoming epistemological method looks like?

Sounds right. Do you think idealism is a coherent ontology, or is it largely a product of the limitations of direct realism and philosophical naturalism?

Could a "blind striving" ever fulfill such a role? Kastrup's philosophy sounds like it's plagued with inconsistency from what I've seen (which admittedly is very little). — Janus

I think he sets it out fairly well and with clarity. But I think it needs more than my brief, clumsy summary to gain a clear view of it. Idealism seems to be one of those subjects people may be sympathetic towards in theory, but when it comes to specific versions it may seem less compelling or convincing.

Berkeley's God (mind at large) is metacognitive, whereas Schopenhauer's Will is not and afaik is not thought of as "mind" or even as being cognitive at all, so Kastrup's notion looks like it resembles neither. — Janus

Could be. Kastrup describes his mind-at-large as a blind, striving and not metacognitive - this does resemble Will. He himself says Schopenhauer did most of the work for him.

The big problem raised (and I think we've talked this through before) is how reality is held together by this 'great mind' in what does resemble Berkeley - the overarching consciousness which ensures we all experience the same reality. You might even say by this that great mind plays the role of foundational guarantor - so beloved of the apologists. Are we essentially looking at an account of theism renovated using Plato and the world of Quantum speculations?

:up: :cool:

2) Solipsism says my mind creates other people. Let’s suppose some sort of universal mind creates me and everyone else. The idea is that a tiny bit of universal consciousness splits off and becomes me. I forget I’m a tiny part of universal consciousness and take myself to be a person, independently existing and free to choose. In effect, I am the Uncle Pete in the solipsist’s dream, thinking that I exist as an independent person when in reality I’m merely a figment of the solipsist’s consciousness. — Art48

This resembles a summary of philosopher Bernado Kastrup's idea of analytic idealism where all people are dissociated alters of mind at large (cosmic consciousness). The nature of this great mind is similar to Schopenhauer's notion of Will - it is instinctive, blind and striving, it is not metacognitive. In this view the entire world of physicality is the product or mind at large - the physical is simply what consciousness looks like when seen from a particular perspective. Kasturp argues that human beings might be attempts by mind at large to be metacognitive. Each alter is a separate expression of stand alone consciousnesses, behaving independently of the others while it briefly exists.

Paragraphs please, it's very hard to read massive slabs of text.

Mysticism is then nonsense, but it is an error to read "nonsense" here as a pejorative. — Banno

It would also be an error to read nonsense as a synonym for ineffable?

It is, ideally, merely a descriptive discipline, a cultivation of our ability to pay attention to our experiences. — Janus

Isn't phenomenology a collection of different ideas, with some shared approaches, themes and influences? I thought the original project of Husserl's was to create a new foundation for certain knowledge - a kind of rationalist, Platonist approach befitting a mathematician. :wink:

What happened to our Neanderthal cousins? — Agent Smith

Bugger them, I'm more concerned about Australopithecus. :yikes:

:lol:

It hinges on the nature of consciousness. It could be that consciousness goes to another realm or enters another body or entity as with reincarnation. — Andrew4Handel

As far as I can tell, some of the great philosophical questions (afterlife, idealism, reincarnation, god..) would not make a difference to how I live. I would still live as I do now, doing the best I can, with what I have, with an eye towards continual improvement, where possible.

Wow. A film lover? Do you still go to movies?