It gives you something to cling to when you feel the ground beneath you falling away. — Wayfarer

Hmmm. I guess I consider myself something of a handrail physicalist so I have empathy for him. It was the tone of it that stuck me, perhaps a by-product of needing to compress arguments for a such a brief opinion piece.

Scientism is destroying science's credibility in society the world over. :shade: — javra

Yes, I wonder what the answer to that might be. People seem to need to worship things and this cast of mind necessarily turns science into the flip side and vanquisher of religion. An old criticism.

Your impromptu definition of empirical science is nicely done.

You can feel the fear in that article. — Wayfarer

It's quite the mini-manifesto - one feels there was a tirigger. Who is he trying to reassure, himself or someone close?

An accurate and complete physical explanation of my raising my hand, including descriptions of the neurones, muscle, bones and other bits involved, would be would be useless as an explanation of why I raised my hand. But "I wanted to scratch my eye" suffices in a few words.

So it might be that we have two ways of talking about how things are - one physical, the other intentional. They are about the very same thing, but are quite different.

Thinking in this way, we may be able to have our cake and eat it; retaining a belief that there are only physical occurrences in the world, while accepting that we can describe these occurrences in terms of such mental properties as beliefs, desires and sensations. — Banno

I'm not a philosopher but wouldn't one of the potential comebacks to this be: who is the I who holds those beliefs, desires and sensations? And suddenly some of us are back pondering the 'hard problem'.

I find myself agreeing with most of this.

Do you think that in early Christianity God was understood more along the lines of the Logos? Certainly this informs the Gospel of John's orientation. I guess we could call Christian enlightenment salvation and ponder what it might be to seek union with Logos rather than follow the commands of Yahweh. To my thinking this neo-Platonic philosophy underpinning the work of a wandering teacher certainly provides Christianity with a more mystical framework towards self-realisation and not just (but not merely) the Golden Rule.

But you hold to humanism with your gut feeling, don't you?
Or do you feel an overwhelming certainty that humanism is the right doctrine, for which you are willing to live, die, and kill? — baker

I have reasons for privileging humanism over other belief systems. Are the presuppositions I hold informed by gut feelings? Are all people's belief systems in the end expressions of emotional states? I've often thought so.

I don't have certainty about anything. I'm probably willing to live and die by my beliefs, but kill? I leave killing to fanatics. But there might be a context where I could do it... :death:

So my question is: why would one choose to pursue truth over peace of soul and pleasure? — smartmonkey1

Nietzsche didn't really believe in capital T truth at all. As far as Nietzsche on Christianity goes - he found the stories implausible and the value system insufferable and he lacked a sensus divinitatis. N didn't choose truth over peace - I doubt that anyone can 'choose' their beliefs, you either do or don't believe something.

I suspect that coming from a long line of Lutheran pastors may have added to N's personal sense of rebellion against (religio-cultural) tradition. Nietzsche was a kind of a romantic figure who was ambitious to obliterate sacred cows and foundational meta-narratives and start new ways of seeing. He deconstructed truths. He was probably the first post-modernist.

t seems the discussion is somehow taboo. The arguments against the OP amount to no more than "Banno, you can't say that!" — Banno

Sacred cows and their defenders... I've been watching with some surprise. Curious that people sniff out 'bigotry' when a perfectly reasonable critique of a doctrine is provided. It's as if there's a need to call it prejudice in order to distract from a psychologically difficult truth.

This, to me, is a form of enlightenment: either you submit to rigor and pain, or you go do something else. — ToothyMaw

Consider also spiritual pain - we know the world is full of people who are wretched and miserable for, shall we say, psychological reasons? Perhaps this can be understood partly as people chasing after the things of this world and forsaking higher truths. Apologies for the whiff of Platonism here.

As I understand it, there are robust Christian and Buddhist traditions situating suffering as a conduit to enlightenment. In Christianity enlightenment may be described as union with higher consciousness or Salvation. Rev. Dr. Cynthia Bourgeault, an Episcopal priest frequently talks about this tradition.

But then I began to study Aquinas, and found that he explicitly rejects this theory, and he refers to Aristotle for the principles of his rejection. I was taken aback, and had to reread a lot of Aristotle's material to find where I misunderstood. The point of revelation for me was what is referred to as the cosmological argument. This is where he lays down the difference between potential and actual in a temporal framework. What he shows, Metaphysics Bk.9, is that actuality must be prior to potentiality in an absolute way. This is because any potential needs something to actualize it (efficient cause), So if potentiality was prior to actuality, in an absolute way, that potential could not ever be actualized. Therefore, he concludes that anything eternal must be actual. (This is a fundamental difference between Christian theology which holds the eternal God to be actual, and Neo-Platonism of Plotinus, which holds the first principle, the One, to be an unlimited potency.)

The ideas only have actual existence after being discovered, and prior to being discovered they exist only potentially. But according to the cosmological argument, these "potential" ideas cannot be eternal. So this effectively refutes Pythagorean idealism, and what Aristotle referred to as "some Platonists" who posited these ideas as eternal.

That revelation inspired me to revisit Plato, and there I saw the seed for the division between human Ideas, which are passive potential, as tools in the minds of human beings, and the divine Forms which are separate, and active in the causal creation of the world. The material world, I now see as a medium of separation between the human minds seeking to understand reality, and the divine Forms which are separate, independent, and active in the creation of the material world. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is interesting to me even as a lazy physicalist who has never taken much interest in idealism. Other than scholarly interest, how does this model of reality play out in your daily life? What value is there in accepting this version of idealism?

How does Aristotle demonstrate that if ideas exist prior to being "discovered" by human minds, it is the activity of the human mind, which discovers and actualizes these ideas? Do you have any views about how this model reflects upon the nature of the human mind? It seems to be something more than a receiver, but more of a collaborator.

My God.... what have i started!!! :razz:

There are 2 kinds of atheists, those who don't believe in God and those who believe there is no God, they are a sort of believers.

You see, those who believe there is no God will defend atheism and sometimes attack those who believe in God, while those who just don't believe don't give a sh* about what believers believe, they simply don't believe God exists.

Therefore if you ever see someone "revenging" at atheists, it must be defense of their own faith rather than attacking atheists. — SpaceDweller

Atheism is a bit more nuanced than this.

From American Atheists:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

I am an atheist about gods in the same way as I lack belief about the Loch Ness Monster. There is no compelling reason for belief. But I do not say that Nessie does not exist. That would be making a positive claim.

The problem is that it's objectionable per your standards (well, and those of your cronies, if you have them). Your standards are based on nothing but your gut feelings.

Someone who believes their standards are based on more than just their own gut feelings can object much more powerfully than you; they can make their objection matter, while you can't. — baker

All you you seem to be saying here is that some people who believe that an old book says a thing think they have more authority than someone who challenges received opinion. They might object more powerfully me, sure, and still be wrong. My standards are based on humanism rather more than a gut feeling.

Let's see what she says:

Compassion has been advocated by all the great faiths because it has been found to be the safest and surest means of attaining enlightenment.

No, it hasn't been advocated as such, certaintly not by "all the great faiths".
Mahayana emphasizes it, but not as "the safest and surest means of attaining enlightenment".

It dethrones the ego from the center of our lives and puts others there, breaking down the carapace of selfishness

That's idiot compassion.

And it gives us ecstasy, broadening our perspectives and giving us a larger, enhanced vision.

This describes zoning out.

As a very early Buddhist poem puts it: 'May our loving thoughts fill the whole world; above, below, across — without limit; a boundless goodwill toward the whole world, unrestricted, free of hatred and enmity.'

She should read the whole poem.

We are liberated from personal likes and dislikes that limit our vision, and are able to go beyond ourselves."

New Age talk.


There's a lot more I could say ... — baker

I appreciate the effort but this just demonstrates a difference of opinion with Armstrong's reading and use of language. That's part of the territory. I still don't see a case for idiot compassion much as I would like to.

We're done - all you do is make assertions and never answer questions posed. Bye.

What I mean is that we don't need science to arrive at knowledge. — AgentTangarine

Another assertion without evidence - what does that mean? What kind of knowledge are you referring to? If you mean there is knowledge that can be arrived at without science then I agree.

Sorry TA, the quote makes no sense to me no matter what word you use.

My problem is the unclear English used and not whether this is science versus god language.

One last try then. When you said this for instance:

For others money, there are other most reliable pathways. There simply is not one path which is the only enlightened one, as much as it says to be so. I realize I'm cursing in church, but that's simply how it is. — AgentTangarine

You didn't provide any kind of argument and simply made an assertion. This is not much use. And no one talked about 'enlightened' paths. I just said 'most reliable'. So what you need to do in a rebuttal is demonstrate how your different pathways provide reliable knowledge about reality - evidence would be useful.

Because you speak one language only. — AgentTangarine

WHat language is that AT?

You're right, it seems we don't understand each other. Maybe another time.

Not sure you'll get an A but I'm happy you put in the effort. :wink:

I’m not sure you can really understand that life without living it. I don’t, and I don’t, that’s all I can say. — Srap Tasmaner

That could be partly true but I don't think you need to understand a life to understand where it is objectionable. After all (to change focus from Christianity for a moment) fundamentalist Islam likes to kill gay people - do we need to understand the life in order to understand and incorporate this perception of homosexuality? Surely, no.

What do you think? To show there is no difference between the God story and the science story of course! — AgentTangarine

There's no 'of course' here at all. This seems to me to be a kind of content free assertion and lacks meaning. In what sense no difference? Details please otherwise it's just an empty aphorism.

but that doesn't mean God is currently one of the most valuable tools we have to accurately assess the world. — AgentTangarine

Are you arguing against belief in gods now, or did you leave out a word?

The rest of your reply I am unable to follow, sorry.

There's no doubt that people see reliable pathways in everything from astrology to handling snakes. The issue is demonstrating their reliability - separate from how they feel emotionally about them.

Just replace "science" by "God" — AgentTangarine

To what end? You can play a word substitution game with anything. Why not replace God with teddy bear?

The rational arguments it uses to convince others won't work if you haven't already accepted its rationality. — AgentTangarine

I'm not talking about rationality, I am talking evidence and results. Even the fundamentalist relies on the fruits of science when they have a ruptured appendix. Sure, they can claim a speedy recovery on God - but medicine did the hard work.

What Armstrong is describing there is closer to what is termed "idiot compassion" (look it up, there are several understandings of the term) or pathological altruism. — baker

That's a very negative reading of Armstrong's few words on compassion. I've tried a few times to re-read it wearing my cap of cynicism and still can't see what you see in those words. That said, Armstrong may well practice a form of idiot compassion in her life, but this isn't clear from those few sentences.

I used to smoke a couple of packs a day - loved it. Quit 15 years ago. I always found that those moments having a smoke on some back staircase, or on a balcony somewhere involved a kind of contemplative act and some fruitful ideas were born this way. Now I contemplate with cups of tea....

Of course some people use drugs without developing addictions but it is a real risk - especially if that drug is crystal meth or heroin... Do you smoke cigarettes?

What do drugs do then? — Agent Smith

To make life more bearable and/or for fun. Most people are not Aldous Huxley.

What's beautiful is all that counts, pal. That's ALL that counts. — Jack Nicholson

What Nicholson should have said.

"What counts as beautiful, Pal? That's ALL that counts. "

What is the best thing that could happen to someone? — jasonm

What is the worst thing that could happen to someone? — jasonm

What is poetic justice? — jasonm

What is the best thing that could happen to two friends? — jasonm

For me these sorts of questions are not very useful. They lack specificity and while anyone can free associate to them until the cows come home, what would this achieve?

Let's just take number one - best thing that could happen? For some people it might be giving up smoking so they don't die of cancer at 45. (Success is meaningless if you are dead.) Or it might be not catching a plane which happens to crash on landing. Or it might be getting a guitar for a birthday and discovering a talent for music and decades of aesthetic pleasure.

Is the 'best thing' assessed by the person or by society? The best thing that could happen to Rupert Murdoch right now would be a fatal heart attack. But that would be what's best for society rather than Rupert.

The best thing that could happen might be something more like taking a moral position in the face of evil choices? For instance, it's Germany in 1933 - do you support the Nazis or do you oppose them?

A person who achieves all their dreams (let's say these are vulgar materialistic ones) may well end up being a worse person for this experience - it could make them narcissistic, spoilt and indifferent to others. It can see them damage relationships and bring division into their family. So success, 'achieving one's dreams' is not always the 'best thing'. There are just too many variables in this kind of question to have a clear answers.

Wasn't going for disdainful, more like incisive social comment... :razz:

Haven't seen it but if it is (and it's not just one reading), wouldn't that be an obvious borrowing? Films frequently (and often necessarily) filch from life to help audiences 'recognise' what they are watching. Some writers regard themselves as precocious allegorists.

How does anyone actually stomach words like these? Or is it that they believe _other_ people should be like that, ie. that _other_ people should have compassion, _other_ people should overcome their egos, etc.? — baker

I think compassion is something you either understand or don't. A little like having theory of mind - not sure it can be taught.

1. they generally lack ambition in spiritual life;
2. they believe they are already enlightened;
3. they believe they are inevitably close to being enlightened;
4. they believe enlightenment is an ancient, "highfalutin" idea that has no place in modern life;
5. they flat-out don't care about whether they become enlightened or not. — baker

You may be right. I have no grounds to believe in rebirth. Not sure I believe in enlightenment either. But I do believe that people might develop personal qualities that some might describe as enlightened. A type of sagacity perhaps? I think I am somewhere between a one and a five on your list.

But since all kinds of people claim to be messengers for God, claiming all kinds of things, how are we to know who is a genuine one and who isn't? — baker

That really is one of the most sensible questions one can ask of these claims.

It's in this lecture by Grayling on Wittgenstein and Language Games. Don't remember the time - near the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmckTveYNI8

Wittgenstein didn't understand the point. He boasted he'd never read Aristotle. But I've never read Wittgenstein, so I'd better shut up. — Wayfarer

Wittgenstein, AC Grayling tells us, read almost no philosophy at all. Perhaps like J Krishnamurti he was a kind of seer.

Not what I was saying and missing the point of this discussion. — Srap Tasmaner

ST I was just riffing off a theme for mild comic relief - sorry about that. The joke was referencing progressive Christians who energetically jettison the obvious discordant morsels of scripture in order to favor the construction of a liberal church built from a bowdlerized Bible.

Well, yes, there are doubtless different, creative ways of reading the scriptures that excuse god from being a bit of a bastard. The need to engage in such a process speaks loudly to the poverty of those scriptures. — Banno

The bit in the Bible that mentions loving thy neighbor are true - all that other stuff about genocide, rape, torture, retribution, judgment, misogyny and homophobia and never wearing mixed fabrics - that stuff is allegorical.

What the stories are meant to convey is a certain way of living a spiritual life, so if you focus on the fairy tale, religious folks will always feel like you don't really get it. Every time you say "evidence", for instance, believers yawn. — Srap Tasmaner

How does one determine the difference between the extraneous 'fairy tale' and the significant 'spiritual life'? How do you know what's in and what's out?

I have an additional moral question which may not have been directly flagged. What are we to make of an insuperable entity that insists on being worshiped and thanked in perpetuity? Set the punishment aside for a moment. What's up with the perpetual need for devotion and praise? This creature knocks out a cosmos and then require endless thanks? In human terms this sounds egomaniacal. It's certainly not a gracious or humble use of power.

Hope you don't mind my chipping in here. There are domains of discourse within which meanings are fixed. Those classical domains, such as classical theology or Advaita Vedanta, have deep roots, i.e. their basic terms are defined in terms of fundamental values. The fact that they are so defined doesn't guarantee their veracity, although I think their longevity and adaptability provide support for that. Within those domains, there is what amounts to 'peer review', in that successive generations of adherents of those traditions authenticate the various texts and ideas of the domains. That is also the basis of the idea of lineage. In fact arguably those practices were the origins of peer review in science itself. — Wayfarer

Always welcome, W. Heading towards the intersubjective communities of phenomenology. I should point out that I often ask questions even if I have answers (well, mine anyway) I am interested to hear how others make sense of things - especially when the worldview is not one I necessarily subscribe to. I am always trying to break out of my own perspective. The chances that I have stumbled onto 'truth' being highly unlikely.

I suppose the marvel universe is very effective at providing meaning within its particular domain (let's call that the realm of the imaginary). — emancipate

I think it's more than imaginary. It's metaphor and allegory used to provide comfort and guidance. At least that's what I've seen. And yes, imaginative power can guide or temper behavior in real life.

There doesn't need to be any criteria distinguishing validity or invalidity in this case because they each have their own respective, and different, domains. Choosing the valid/invalid modes would only be needed if science and the marvel universe covered the same domain. Obviously they do not, and no one seriously claims that they do. — emancipate

I agree, but it is tricky. I know of a young man who is guided by Spiderman (as metaphor) when psychology might be more useful. I think it can sometimes be hard to determine which mode to apply to which domain. What are the rules (or practice principles) for determining where science should be and where religion should be for instance?

Ok, but by extension couldn't the Marvel universe also provide much meaning to some people - millions possibly? What criteria is used to distinguish valid from invalid?

If traditional culture, with all its faults, has been merely replaced with an artificial pseudo-culture with its own fabricated mythology and propaganda, and revolving on Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, the Kardashians, gangsta rap, posing on Instagram, and wearing face masks, then it seems difficult to claim that it has been an unmitigated success. — Apollodorus

You left out Marvel and Star Wars, (the replacements for Homer and the Old Testament) the true source of Mythos for most Westerners these days.