I’m amazed that anyone of little acquaintance with pop/rock/rap music could be found nowadays. It plays everywhere you go, or if you stay home. — Todd Martin

I know hardly any music from the period of my youth 1970's and 1980's - I find it ugly. I too stick with 18th to early 20th century music for the most part. I find it more accurately reflects my experiences. I do listen to some jazz (Coltrane, Davis, Monk) and some Blues (Muddy Waters/John Lee Hooker/ Little Walter/Albert King).

Monotheism is not the insistence that God is a superior member of the set of beings hitherto designated 'the gods', although, considering the historical origins of monotheism, that is an all-to-understandable attitude. — Wayfarer

Further digression. You may well be correct but my understanding of the Old Testament is the other gods referred to as false gods (Baal, Moloch, etc) are not denied as such, they are just not the true God of the Jews. Forgive the crassness of this comparison but I always took 'the one and only true god' to be analogous to the way film goers describe Connery 'as the one and only true Bond'.. Is there a reference that determines that these other 'false gods' do not exist? Additionally isn't Satan essentially a god too?

I have always found the novel to be a far better expression of truth and wisdom than academic philosophy and science.
For instance dickens is far superior to Wittgenstein and any neuroscientists publications.
Do you agree or disagree?
What are your reasons? — Mystic

Not an unpopular view - perhaps because novels are easier to read? There are of course different types of novels.

I would ask how do you demonstrate that this is the case?

I find Dickens far more enjoyable that Wittgenstein (who I find unreadable) but that says more about my preferences than the texts at hand, surely? I've read around 9 Dickens novels and would be hard pressed to say what I have learned from them. Probably chiefly that optimism and cheerfulness can be transformative. Anything else? Depends on the reading, huh?

Novels, in my view, are generally like contrived case studies designed to prove a point about human nature, they are essentially emotional rather than rational. Discuss...

What is faith though? Faith when given as a reason for believing in something is an empty placeholder for an actual reason. If the person actually had a reason they would just state that reason but they don’t so they say “faith” — DingoJones

Indeed so. Faith is more of an excuse you give for believing when you have no good reasons. And the problem is faith has no quality control. You might well have faith in the inferiority of certain cultures or in Islamic fundamentalism. Faith is a chaotic mess.

Now when a theist says, by way of riposte - 'but atheists have faith in all kinds of things, like that planes will fly' - this is not faith. This is a 'reasonable confidence based on empirical evidence' that planes do fly, that there is physics behind them, there are engineers and mechanics and people who are trained to fly them. Unlike God, a plane can be demonstrated and in almost all cases they will fly safely. But, naturally, no one can have absolute certainty in anything.

I just want to say something really quick and end. When you give rebuttals (though you call it "alternatives") , it affects the person's credibility if they switch ans say "oh, i was just giving some alternatives, these aren't my rebuttals". Something to think about if you wish. — skyblack

You're welcome to think that. I disagree totally. What we often do here is explore propositions and how likely they are. Sometimes the best way to demonstrate that a proposition is inadequate is to show how an alternative would fit just as well. You do not have to agree with the alternative to use it. It does its job by demonstrating that the argument made by the other person is far from certain.

Quantum mechanics has no bearing on my life either but it sure matters. Lot's of things don't matter to a person's quotidian life. Doesn't make those subjects irrelevant.

Truth CAN be identified? So we don't have access to innate truths? Only philosophical questioning determines truth?
I like food. Do I need philosophy to determine if this is true! — Mystic

Philosophy generally struggles to identify what truth is. Hence the various theories of truth.

I have argued many times that philosophy doesn't matter much in ordinary life. So what?

:roll:

I was making the point that what the OP said can go in many directions. The very opposite of a self-esteem problem is just as likely. I gave two versions of an alternative. Neither of which I am committed too.

In this text Foucault defends "the ordinary of things" — besserlernen

Or was this a reference to Foucault most famous work The Order of Things?

Plenty of material you can find on goggle. I would have thought history and art lend themselves to the approach.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia
3.2.3 Language and “Man”
At this point, The Order of Things introduces the two central features of thought after Kant: the return of language and the “birth of man”. Our discussion above readily explains why Foucault talks of a return of language: it now has an independent and essential role that it did not have in the Classical view. But the return is not a monolithic phenomenon. Language is related to knowledge in diverse ways, each of which corresponds a distinctive sort of “return”. So, for example, the history of natural languages has introduced confusions and distortions that we can try to eliminate through techniques of formalization. On the other hand, this same history may have deposited fundamental truths in our languages that we can unearth only by the methods of hermeneutic interpretation. (So these two apparently opposed approaches—underlying the division of analytic and continental philosophy—are in fact, according to Foucault, complementary projects of modern thought.) But there is yet another possibility: freed from its subordination to ideas, language can function (as in the Renaissance) as an autonomous reality—indeed as even more deeply autonomous than Renaissance language, since there is no system of resemblances binding it to the world. Even more, Foucault suggests, language is a truth unto itself, speaking nothing other than its own meaning. This is the realm of “pure literature”, evoked by Mallarmé when he answered Nietzsche’s (genealogical) question, “Who is speaking?” with, “Language itself”. In contrast to the Renaissance, however, there is no divine Word underlying and giving unique truth to the words of language. Literature is literally nothing but language—or rather many languages, speaking for and of themselves.

Seems to me I need to make the point again. Morality is not about collectives, it's about the Other. The poverty of the myth of the individual is that it just fails to address the Other, and so fails to enter into moral discussion. Self-interest cannot form the basis for morality, because morality begins when one puts the interests of an Other ahead of one's own interests. In this sense individualism is the antithesis of morality.

The Other is not a collective; it is the person before you, now. The plurality is not a collective, but the Other. — Banno

That's an elegant way to put this, B.

Then arrogance is stupidity (un-intelligent), isn't it? Rather silly and worthless, considering it has no legs to stand on. It isn't backed by anything other than delusions of grandeur. — skyblack

I am not committed that that view I simply put it as an alternative to what the OP provided us. It seems to me that he OP's thesis could go in several directions. Maybe what I should have said is that philosophical questions are propelled by human confidence that truth can be identified.

How else to explain doubting the senses, solipsism, descartes demon etc,etc. — Mystic

Not sure you have made a strong case. I think you could equally argue philosophical doubt (as distinct from self doubt) emerges from the human arrogance to know all there is and be in control of all things.

Humans are meaning making creatures, we are bound to speculate endlessly in order to shore up our grip on reality.

How we interpret the Bible depends largely on our education. Liberal education prepared everyone to think abstractly and this makes mythology, stories, parables, not literally God's truth. A god did not make a man of mud and a woman from his rib. Christians who interpret the Bible literally have trouble with science, and education for technology dropped education for abstract thinking and we are in a mess now! Interpreting the Bible literally pits people against science and that works against our survival, turning those who rely on science firmly against religious folks. Who is the liar? Science and Satan or the religious community that denies science? — Athena

Nicely put.

Curiously I rarely met any literalist Bible believers in the 1970's; we were always taught that the Bible was an allegory and according to Theologian David Bentley Hart, this was a strong tradition for centuries, with literalists being a comparatively new thing. Sounds counterintuitive. These days literal believers are everywhere. I guess the internet makes them a viable worldwide community and emboldens their thinking. I wonder if people head towards the comfort of fundamentalism's certainty when they fear the world, and with science comes little else but continual change.

t is not so simple. It is not a matter of ethical principles but of whether particular acts are just or unjust. In a healthy society it is not enough that a sufficient number, (what number?),do something in order for it to be permissible. If we agree that murder is wrong, are we then wrong or is it both right and wrong if some group shouts "death to the infidels" and starts killing people? They consider themselves to be pious followers doing the will of their god, for which they will be rewarded. — Fooloso4

Yep - the problem with religious ethics is they have no foundation. It is entirely down to people using personal preferences to determine what the correct interpretation of God's will might be. 'Thou shalt not kill' may be a commandment, but killing is clearly the Biblical way for so many situations and interpreted by followers in any number of additional ways.

Please remember, if your daughter isn't a virgin on her wedding night, she is to be stonned to death on her father's porch. I've always considered this especially pious advice.

Nice.

Susan Haack (interview) on science:

There is no “Scientific Method,” I argue: i.e., no mode of inference or procedure of inquiry used by all and only scientists, and explaining the successes of the sciences. There are only:

The inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers (make an informed guess as to the explanation of some puzzling phenomenon, check how well it stands up to the evidence you have, and any further evidence you can get); these are not used only by scientists.

The special tools and techniques gradually developed by scientists over the centuries (instruments of observation, the calculus, statistical techniques, models and metaphors, computers and computer programs, social helps such as peer-review, etc., etc.); which, being often local, and always evolving, are not used by all AND:

The involvement in scientific work of many people, who may be thousands of miles, or centuries, apart.
Together, this is what explains how the sciences have managed to get more evidence, appraise its worth better, keep people honest, encourage creativity, and so on; and hence, their successes.

I was not referring to philosophical communities. Those philosophers were talking about people generally. Prehistory? I guess we'll never know given the lack of empirical studies from that period. My intuition is depression is a part of the human.

Now i have no idea what level of depression people had back then if they even had any at all?
My personal assumption is that depression wasn't even a thing back then and that's just my assumption basses on the few tribes still around today and the little bit that we know about them . — MAYAEL

There's no reason to think that depression is new. Symptoms are definitely mentioned by Hippocrates, Plato, Aristotle (as melancholia). The word depression is modern. The experience not. (Andrew Solomon's tome on depression - The Noonday Demon is pretty interesting on this.

does Craig's response mean that God's goodness is coincidental/accidental? (Seems a bit like kicking the can down the road.)
On another note, what does Craig's identity (God himself = the paradigm of goodness) mean for people doing the right thing (irrespective of their beliefs)? Coincidental/accidental? Say, do they somehow become part of God or something (un/wittingly)? Surely Aboriginal Australians did some good things before being polluted with ideas of Craig's God, err before the European invasions. — jorndoe

I believe Craig would argue that people know what is right and good because it is built into their being by God. Hence the good things done by people who are ignorant of the Abrahamic God.

I don't care about "philosophers".

I've never once in this thread asked about "philosophers". — Need Logic Help

WTF? This is a philosophy forum.

I don't take religious apologists seriously. I'm asking about serious philsci-experts, serious logicians, etc. — Need Logic Help

I never once in this thread mentioned apologists.

If you cherry pick who you will accept as authoritative you are committing bad philosophy.

Does any serious/leading scholar of epistemology challenge the notion that nonbelief (in supernatural/religious claims) is rational? I would love to read their argument, if so. I don't imagine that that's controversial.

The word "atheism" is extremely loaded, so I avoid it. I only care about whether nonbelief is rational. "Atheism" is a nightmare of a term, since it might imply an assertion about God not existing or some such thing. I try to avoid that term at all costs, to avoid massive confusions. — Need Logic Help

I think we may be stuck, I am not addressing rationality. The word 'rational' is as loaded as atheism. Be careful not to worship it. Remember many philosophers argue that theism is rational too. Rational is not a synonym for true. Sound logic doesn't make something true either.

Thanks for responding. I want to clarify something absolutely crucial.

I would imagine:

--nonbelief (in supernatural/religious claims) is not remotely controversial among leading scholars of epistemology

--serious scholars will not challenge "atheist" commentators on the issue of whether nonbelief is rational

--nonbelief is fully rational based on the most rigorous thinking in epistemology

--"atheist" commentators probably make all sorts of philosophical mistakes, despite being correct in their conclusion that nonbelief is rational — Need Logic Help

Read any critique about atheism and you will see what I mean. Things being rational or not are not always the main game.

I'm just interested in the questions that I asked in the post about whether there's any bad philosophy being spread. — Need Logic Help

As I've already said, it could be considered 'bad' by those who thinks physicalism is wrong and limited. Most of the usual critiques made against atheism apply to D, except that his form of atheism is agnostic atheism which is not making any positive claims. There are many competent philosophers who would argue that atheism is bad philosophy period....

As you probably know, anything any atheist or believer says is able to be critiqued from some perspective or another. Whether one agrees often depends on one's bias rather than the merit of the argument. That much we can see from how people argue on this site.

When you mention the "commonly cited" textbook, is that something that Dillahunty cites? — Need Logic Help

Dillahunty.

Sounds like you don't like him and are looking for 'evidence' to have a go at his work. No?

Maybe it wanted to have the experience of getting up late one morning and ambling down to the store to buy a lemon gelato. — Wayfarer

I think this is the most reasonable conclusion.

Thanks. I'm just pushing this idea as a potential fact: "the religious people are way off-base and Dillahunty also commits major errors when he wades into the pools of phil and philsci and logic and epistemology".

I just want to make that clear, since it's a false choice to say that either Matt is solid or his religious interlocutors are solid; they could both be wrong about various things in philosophy. — Need Logic Help

D may be crusty but never makes claims about truth and seems open to hearing where he might be wrong, so go to it.

Seems to me he never really goes beyond undergraduate levels of logic and epistemology, so I doubt there is anything especially 'wrong' with his substantive material. But it is likely to be seen as limited from a bigger picture academic perspective - theoretical physics, for one

The best way to view D (I think) is as a polemicist who uses critical thinking techniques to debunk supernatural belief systems. Perhaps best seen as a first step towards learning more and not an end in itself.

There seems to be a potential major error here. If not, I apologize. — Need Logic Help

I'm not making a logical argument, I am simply making the observation that physicalism is contested in philosophical circles and by some on this site. There are people who would dub his ideas as irresponsible or inadequate because they ignore alternative traditions and 'evidence' and centuries of Western idealist traditions.

Dillahunty has no problem talking about philosophy without having any philosophers check whether his philosophy commentaries are solid — Need Logic Help

Cool.

The issue is you can find philosophers to support whatever belief you have. Whose assessment of Dillahunty would be useful? He does liaise with academics and sometimes interviews them.

Dillahunty presents basic forms of fallibilism and skepticism which does not seem irresponsible unless you have already decided that God exists and empiricism is not a sound epistemological approach. There are many who would argue this.

:100: It certainly reads this way.

And are those bullet-points (the ones that relates to philsci) all solid points to make? I realize that in order to know if those bullet-points contrast with anything that Dillahunty has ever said, one needs to be familiar with Dillahunty's commentary on science. — Need Logic Help

My understanding of DIllahunty is that he was a Southern Baptist who became an atheist after exposing himself to the arguments of skeptics and secular humanists, ostensibly in an attempt to improve his own arguments in defence of Christianity. He wanted to be a preacher.

He would be the first to tell you he is not a scientist or philosopher so he would likely ask you to go elsewhere for knowledge on these subjects. His primary work consists of examining the reasons people offer for believing in God and deconstructing these based on critical thinking and basic skepticism. A commonly cited text book is A Concise Introduction to Logic by Hurley and Watson.

Most of his work is debating literalist fundamentalists so not a lot of substantive philosophy taking place. He has cited Susan Haack as an influence on this thinking about science. He does not accept that science is in the business of making truth proclamations.

No doubt many would disparage his position based on the fact that Dillahunty is essentially a physicalist with all the potential baggage and limitations this approach may have.

So the question is, is stuff good because it is loved by god, or is it loved by god because it is good? — Banno

That's definitely the question.

I wonder - if all that is good emanates from god's nature then what is meant to be the case when a person does good? Is this a person simply embodying God's nature in some way, or are they making their own good? If it is their own good then God would love it because it is good?

since I can do evil, I can do something that god cannot do. So I am in at least one way more able than god. — Banno

It would seem so. Is this because god is unable to do what he doesn't 'want' to do or is it because god's nature makes it impossible for him to do evil? Would the logic underpinning this mean that if god did evil (by our standards) - a human race destroying flood, for instance, it becomes good?

Hurt's character doesn't make a final conclusion. The film shows us an ending and we are to interpret it.

No question.

David Graeber was an anthropologist, and he also mentioned the same thing, in less detail though. — Manuel

He as actually a committed anarchist too.

Christian apologists have also tried to deal with the Euthyphro dilema.

Here's Dr William Lane Craig (one of the more competent).

Dr. Craig: For those that aren't familiar with it, the question is: does God will something because it is good, or is something good because God wills it? If the theist says that God wills something because it is good then the good is independent of God and, in fact then, moral values are not based in God. They are independent of him. On the other hand, if you say something is good because God wills it then that would seem to make what is good and evil arbitrary. God could have willed that hatred is good; then we would be morally obligated to hate one another, which seems crazy. Some moral values seem to be necessary, and therefore there would be no possible world in which hatred is good. So the claim is that this shows that morality cannot be based in God.

I think it is clearly a false dilemma because the alternatives are not of the form “A or not-A” which would be an inescapable dilemma. The alternatives are like “A or B.” In that case you can always add a third one, C, and escape the horns of the dilemma. I think in this case there is a third alternative which is to say that God wills something because he is good. That is to say, God himself is the paradigm of goodness, and his will reflects his character. God is by nature loving, kind, fair, impartial, generous, and so forth. Therefore, he could not have willed that, for example, hatred be good. That would be to contradict his very own nature.

So God's commands to us are not arbitrary, but neither are they based upon something independent of God. Rather, God himself is the paradigm of goodness.

Ok. Can't see how any of this gets you to:

What if we are not the source of intelligence but rather receivers, much as a television reads and interprets a signal from beyond itself? — Foghorn

Ok. I see no need or evidence for this. Why go here?

As I currently understand this theory, the signal is not from beyond itself. — Foghorn

They were your words not mine.

Can you provide examples of intelligence in operation that can't be explained by physicalist answers?

What if we are not the source of intelligence but rather receivers, much as a television reads and interprets a signal from beyond itself? — Foghorn

This just leads to an old argument about Platonic realms and the nature of consciousness. I know there is some sympathy here from one or two people for the notion that someone born with prodigious gifts (music, art, maths) may be bringing in experience from a previous life (not something I believe).

Intelligence is a rather more rubbery notion. There are people who read a lot and have astonishing memories. There are those who are able to synthesise information and see patterns. The mind can do amazing things. So what? What is it about intelligence that suggests an otherworldly dimension? Why the need for a 'signal from beyond itself'. Can you provide examples of intelligence in operation that can't be explained by physicalist answers?

When Scotty from Marketing set out his approach with the slogan "If you have a go, you get a go", he was espousing the social contract Midgley critiques; he disenfranchises those who cannot, or will not, as he puts it, 'have a go' - children, the disabled, indigenous communities, the poor. — Banno

Good example - more footnotes to Thatcherism. Discourse shifted from community to individuals and then the idea that an ideal individual was best conceptualised as a consumer. A good sign of leaking, stinking pipes. The entire 'user pays' model has almost replaced the notion of the 'common good'. Seems that some people are so poisoned by those leaking pipes they think this trend is a promising sign of increasing liberty.

Communities are still 'useful' to some political discourse, but only for marginalising them - now visualised as out groups - the homeless; the unemployed; the refugees, etc.

If we were to edit that claim to read our relationship with science, then the claim has some merit.

Blaming science would be like blaming a hammer for someone's bashed in head. Science is a tool for developing new knowledge. It works. It's us that doesn't work so well. — Foghorn

The salient point is people disparage science and aren't interested in the subject - I find that interesting in a so called science obsessed society.

Midgely also says that philosophers should 'stop imitating Hegel.' — Jack Cummins

Russell memorably wrote that Hegel's work 'illustrates an important truth, namely that the worse your logic, the more interesting the circumstances to which it gives rise.'