We're fast arriving at the point where some larrikin decides to demonstrate that 20th mass murder is the result of atheism (i.e., godless Communism), proving Friedrich Nietzsche right about the inimical consequences of the Death of God. I'll do it now to save time.

As Duchamp wrote: "All this twaddle, the existence of God, atheism, determinism, liberation, societies, death, etc., are pieces of a chess game called language, and they are amusing only if one does not preoccupy oneself with 'winning or losing this game of chess.” — RussellA

It's a relief to know that nothing exists and it's just all a case of words being naughty. But we are back to chess again. Can it be that the man who codified modern art for us by way of a parodic fountain can also reinvent epistemology through a 6th century Indian board game?

I've never been able to take chess seriously because it is essentially meaningless. :razz:

From what I've seen, religious people tend to forget about religion once the going gets tough. — baker

My own view is people often hold beliefs with minimal commitment to them. Sometimes beliefs are held lightly so a person can feel a sense of belonging in their community.

Furthermore, people often jettison belief systems when things get very hard. - whatever those beliefs may be. An ontological crisis can generate significant disruption wherein the old ideas no longer seem to work.

That said, it goes both ways. A significant crisis is also an opportunity to seek a new belief system, perhaps for consolation.

The secret to being happy in the foxholes is probably to expect chaos and suffering in the first place. Some people are fortunate and do not get to know the foxholes.

The saying there are no atheists in the foxholes refers specifically to the fact that otherwise secular people become superstitious and religious when facing death for the first time in a terrifying war
zone. This falls under what might be called 'folk wisdom.'

There are of course some people who thrive on crisis and chaos. Their beliefs are unlikely to change in the foxholes. If we are to take the 'foxholes' as standing in for the vicissitudes (fortunes and tragedies) encountered in life, then who knows?

I generally think people derive meaning from immediate things - possessions, relationships, community, work, friends, place, hobbies, nature, prejudices, hatreds and loves. I suspect the big questions relating to transcendence play a minor role. Theism or atheism refer to clubs people belong to, it's a rare individual who lives them with commitment.

I often find that when you get stuck on an idea in life it is surprising how often, if you check, the opposite may also be true. (And I am not aiming for some sort of dialectic here) One of my central beliefs is that we are drawn to ideas that confirm what we already think. I wonder how much of our study is really an attempt to shore up and embolden our prejudices, preconceptions or bigotries?

I wasn't intending to be negative; just asking the question. As you can see I think you can argue that the opposite is as true as your initial question.

Is this really a question worth asking?

Is human nature inherently creative or not?

You can find evidence for any question you care to pose. The answers that resonate are usually the ones that reflect a person's preexisting disposition.

You haven't seen my cat.

:up:

Psychiatry is a very broad area I have worked closely with quite a number of shrinks. Like any profession there is good and bad. I see no reason for fear or for claims of inherent mendacity although it's true that the media has demonised psychiatry for decades - Dr Lecter anyone...

Some shrinks practice psychotherapy; some work in diagnostic roles in hospitals; some work in research; some work in detox and drug rehabilitation programs, some work in the criminal justice sector. They are as diverse as any other occupations and although they can prescribe medication, the good ones privilege psychosocial interventions before medication. They usually conduct a robust differential diagnosis to rule out organic issues before making a tentative diagnosis based on the best available evidence they have.

The matter of therapy is a different one and there are a range of professions that practice interpersonal counselling and therapy modes. Again like any other profession there is good and bad. I've see this save too many lives to disregard its significance. But there is no question that there are dubious practitioners, just as there are dubious plumbers, lawyers, mechanics and teachers.

I agree. But we have the science of medicine based on the equally vague idea of 'promoting health' a subject that obviously looks different for everyone. It seems to work as a science.

Would it mean that if I saw you with a cheeseburger I should slap it out of your hand to stop you from eating something unhealthy? — BitconnectCarlos

Like anything, we need to separate out the goal from the methods of that goal's promotion. Not sure anyone would advocate this kind of vigilante interference in other's lives. But here is a more telling question - should a surgeon have the right to say 'I am not operating on anyone who is a smoker because if they can't take care of their own wellbeing why should I provide care for them?'

I tend to choose my behaviour based more on a virtue ethics position these days - morality is performative. It's loose but I can't think of anything else.

Taking "human flourishing" as one's main goal is so ripe for exploitation. — BitconnectCarlos

I agree. But for me all humans can do is set goals. The fact that goals can be hijacked is always a risk.

duplicate post

Is there a way to articulate this position to support your belief (I presume you hold) that "suffering is a bad thing"? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I can't speak for 180 Proof but many models of morality start with a supposition - e.g., that human flourishing should be the goal. This is not objective but objective standards can be built relative to this goal.

Is there a moral system that doesn't start with a supposition - whether it be religious or secular? Matter of fact if it is religious you then get into the subjective preferences of what moral behaviour you think a god wants. A muddle of subjective choices.

I'm a bat in a vat.

This is an assumption without fact, you cant assume there is no system or coherence without insight to how that individuals philosophy is made/percieved. (False cause fallacy) — Tiberiusmoon

That's true - it is not necessarily the case, but I believe it to be mostly true. It's certainly true for me.

Philosophy is the discovery of fundamental knowledge, critical thinking is the evaluation/validation of that knowledge. — Tiberiusmoon

That's pretty loose. When people are doing philosophy on this site is is generally reading and understanding other's discoveries and applying, or misapplying them - but not making any discoveries of their own. I would also think that people can do incisive critical thinking without any knowledge of philosophy.

Philosophy is not just theory, theory is an area of study that is outside its practical application — Tiberiusmoon

Yep. That's why I listed them as separate things.

But in all honesty I think to many people assume philosophy is just an expression of thought — Tiberiusmoon

Yes, this is my main point. In fact, see below:

Philosophy is the name given to the attempt of describing the guiding principles of one's life. — Book273

I call that opinions or views, not philosophy. People use the world philosophy in a non-specialised sense all the time, but having a worldview is not necessarily having a philosophy, even if there are tiny speckles of philosophy in there, like fools gold glittering in a broken rock.

philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge and if you have no philosophical approach to your own knowledge then it can lead to a philosophy based on a false premise. — Tiberiusmoon

It's equally possible to hold a rigorous philosophy based on a false premise. The conceptual space is highly speculative and contested and academic philosophers can be wrong about all kinds of things.

People use the term philosophy with cavalier imprecision. I frequently wonder what is the fault line between having a worldview and having a philosophy? What is the difference between critical thinking and philosophy?

Just holding a series of beliefs that are philosophically derived is not necessarily doing philosophy. That's more like a person who collects shiny things, like a magpie, with no real system or coherence. I hold positions on issues which sometimes conform to philosophical positions but I don't think of it as doing philosophy and I am not a theorist. At best I could say that I sometimes do philosophy by accident.

I'm not trying to be a dick but I am confused by what you say.

I think the pro-abortion materialist centered culture is worse off than religious people looking for pappa in the sky. — Gregory

You say "I think" so this is just your opinion? Who are the people looking for pappa in the sky? Is this an oblique reference to literalist versions of Abrahamic religions? What about Oceanic faiths?

People in the West struggle to find things that stimulate them anymore. — Gregory

Is this true and compared to people where else? Where are people more stimulated (not sure what this means)?

Those who embrace this instead of being Christian or finding a better way (what try to do) are nihilist by embracing pride in their modern world instead of being open to change — Gregory

I have no idea what this last sentence means. I think you are saying people who are not Christian are worse off in some way. Is that right? What is the 'open to change' reference - change into what?

Buddhism doesn't promote lack of meaning. The lack of meaning in life causes a lot of suffering in the West — Gregory

Are you answering me or someone else? My questions was how you calculate problems and what counts as nihilism.

Incidentally lack of meaning is not quite the same as nihilism. Not being able to find meaning is not the same as proposing there is no meaning.

Nihilism has caused more problems for the West than religion I think, — Gregory

How did you do that calculation? What do you count as nihilism?

Goodness. Where is this coming from?

Feel free to start a new thread on this if it interests you.

That's such an important starting point on this topic and so often forgotten. The literalist interpretations of The Bible (particularly the OT) are the least rewarding and most bereft of philosophical content from my perspective.

I wasn't thinking of a Republican's 1950's wet dream so much as Carl Jung's notion of Puer aeternus or puella aeterna - those who avoid emotional maturity. And yes, in some cases this consists of living at home with parents and on their dime at 35 years of age.

No idea if that is true Mr Martin. I don't have qualifications in the anthropology of ancient civilizations. I was simply making the point that in my experience people running away from problems is endemic - avoidant behaviour - taking refuge in substance use and travel is almost a hallmark of our era. Perhaps because many in the West have the luxury of being able to put off becoming a responsible adult for many years it seems.

Occams razor states that the simplest solution is generally always the best solution — Thinking

Occam's razor applies to candidate explanations. It actually says: More things should not be used than are necessary.

This means if there are several possible ways something might have happened, the way which uses the fewest guesses is probably the correct one. However, Occam's razor only applies when the simple explanation and complex explanation both work equally well. If a more complex explanation does a better job than a simpler one, then you should use the complex explanation.

Applied to explaining creation - physicalism versus theism what does O.R. tell us? Is the simplest explanation a god? Yep. But the more complex explanation does a better job here since we have evidence for it and using god to explain creation is using a mystery to explain a mystery.

And don't even start on abiogenesis... :razz:

According to reports, they can’t stand each other. I think Joyce passes the pub test for ‘despicable’ in a lot of people’s eyes (mine included). — Wayfarer

Doesn't matter if they hate each other. That's often par for the course (even within parties). BJ's a larger than life, larrikin original (even if he is a corporate shill and knob jockey) and that's all that seems to matter.

Inevitable and I am surprised it took this long. Barnaby and Scotty are going to be a part of our lives for the next few years, I'm afraid.

:lol: I hope people realise that was a joke...

We are are all socialised to see things certain ways. We hold views, we inherit views that are a product of family and culture. How do we recognise whether the beliefs we hold are sound? They may well be useful, even if wrong. What impels any given person (particularly in a culture where family and tradition is central) to break out of a mould and question suppositions?

Sexual orientation (as you've identified) or a relationship with someone from another (the wrong) faith may be the launching pad to embrace a new value system. Disruption of some sort seems to be key.

I have known kids in several families who have been taught tolerance and free thought since they could speak. Guess what values they hold as adults?

I also wish to add that I do believe that we need to 'earn' or find our own ideas for ourselves, but I am not sure that everyone does. — Jack Cummins

:up:

Leonardo da Vinci said that simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. A really talented God would have created a less complex, convoluted, intricate and labyrinthine universe.

I do think that it is brainwashing when people are taught a certain set of ideas or values in such a way that they are so restricted in being able to see outside of that set of values. — Jack Cummins

I think you are referring to socialisation rather than brainwashing (which has a bit of a judgy tone). Presumably if you are brought up to believe in equity and fairness and tolerance you are equally brainwashed/socialised. Note how no one says, 'I was brainwashed to be tolerant'. My view is that not enough people have thought things through for themselves and they are not really thinking if they are just following orders. Can they really be your values, I wonder, if you haven't earned them?

:up:

But I see logic as innate to the structure of the mind, an innate capacity. In that sense, I'm sympathetic to the generally platonist view. — Wayfarer

It is assumed that the sophistication of the brain allows for the origination of logic, but the principles of logic are discovered, not invented; however the brain evolves, it has to conform to them, it doesn't produce them out of itself. — Wayfarer

This is a good idea for a new thread. This particular issue has preoccupied me for years. It relates also to some Christian/Islamic apologists (via Kant's transcendental argument) and their proposition that atheism/physicalism/evolution is self-refuting - no meaning can come from no meaning.

I have no substantive view on this as I am not a philosopher, but I would be interested to hear a strong physicalist rebuttal of this. The argument to develop, I assume, is is how do the structures of logic and language humans appear to have as innate occur in a physicalist universe? Did Chomksy plead mysterianism to this one too?

Is this not analogous to the argument that math is discovered, not invented? Morality? I think the basic principle can be applied to many things.

Is the Platonic interpretation of this however more of a 'magical warehouse' we point to where things we can't explain are 'stored'? It seems to me that with a putative realm of Platonic forms we explain a mystery with another mystery. And I appreciate the venerable tradition in Western culture of such idealist positions before science started to cut away ideas that were not directly empirical. I guess the next step in this thesis is that all ideas are held in the mind of God and we partake of this higher consciousness in our own small ways.

...my mother once told me, “your solution to problems is to run away from them”. — Todd Martin

I would have thought that was the hallmark of our era.

I really wonder if there is much available information to suggest whether we are in a secular age, and how this is even measured. — Jack Cummins

The data is there - Steven Pinker, for example, has certainly used it in his writings. Based on census data and surveys, no doubt.

But for me the point isn't whether people are going to church or identifying as atheists. The point is, is their belief based on careful consideration, or are they just following...

It does seem that for many people ideas such as those in the sciences, especially physics, are treated in almost the same way as previous religious ideas. People may not always understand the logistics of evolution or quantum physics, but they may be filled with awe, or even be mystified by them. — Jack Cummins

Yep. I am convinced that many people who have a secular orientation in a secular world do not actually have the capacity to defend their worldview and don't really understand it. They are socialised into a world of secular sensibilities - one which privileges 'science over superstition' without understanding much at all. They may even identify as atheist as opposed to believing in a 'magic man' but are likely to have a cartoon view of religion/god and no real grasp of secularism or skepticism.

We keep talking about this being a secular age, which it is to some extent, but I suspect the age is more secular than the people in it... I am not convinced the average person has an intellectual commitment to the ideas of secularism or an understanding of the principles their view of reality is founded upon. Just as in pervious eras people often inherited a religious worldview without really comprehending it.

OK. Sounds like you're one of millions of people who are dissatisfied and are searching. That's fine. This can either lead you to philosophy or to move away from it.

— Iris0

Give me what science at the core has that I have not studied and found circular - and I will give you right. — Iris0

You seem to be swerving all over the place with your ideas. Are you ok?

If you are looking for certainty you'll readily find it if you can accept fundamentalism. I suspect this is why many religions are attractive - they can also function as the last bastions of certainty and comfort in an uncertain world. Sounds like you gave scientism a try and found it wanting.

Tell me if you know the answer... — Iris0

That is a question that assumes there's one answer when you must realise that people do things for many reasons. Conversion stories seem to have a hold on you - why would that be?

Firstly, many people who are secular have no real scientific knowledge or interest and are not well educated and in fact do not have the answers. They often don't even have the right questions. They hold their secular views because of socialization rather than hard won knowledge. Such people can be easily swayed.

People change their beliefs in every direction all the time. From religion to atheism. Form homophobia to tolerance. From left wing to right wing. From making money to giving back. So what?