|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
3rd May 2013, 10:45 AM | #7521 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
3rd May 2013, 01:11 PM | #7522 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
5th May 2013, 04:44 PM | #7523 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 36,111
|
That's an interesting take on it. But even assuming for the moment that you're right about action being more important than belief, does this not depend ultimately on your belief that the thing acted on is true? In other words, what is not important is not, whether God exists, but whether a person under discussion believes it.
What I mean is that if there really is a god, then a person of somewhat liberal mindset who is not wedded to ideas of given grace might well believe, as you do, that it is more important to act as if there's a god than to possess a grand theology. But the assumption here remains that there is a god whether some specific person in question believes it. But does this whole idea not fall apart if there truly is no god? Certainly acting well in the assumption that a non-existent god wishes you to act well is still good, and if you need a god to make you do it, so be it, but the criterion for acting well is not, itself, theological. |
__________________
Like many humorless and indignant people, he is hard on everybody but himself, and does not perceive it when he fails his own ideal (Molière) A pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw cross-sections of the details (John Ciardi) |
|
7th May 2013, 12:06 AM | #7524 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
Yes I agree on this point, for someone who believes it is the belief which is the important motivator to action not the fact of the existence of God. Because they will act the same way whether God exists or not. But that belief is not a requirement, only the action is what counts, however the person gets there. There are for example a number of people who act in this "good" way out of choice, as a gift. For such people the issue of the existence of God is of little importance as they will act out of selflessness.
Quote:
Quote:
An important milestone on the spiritual path is that point where the person does not doubt (in the case of someone who believes) or question any more the existence of god. Because the answer and the question have become entirely irrelevant to them. They have realized a set of goals and practices which they will carry out regardless. Backed up by an understanding of a purpose behind this world of existence we find ourselves in. |
7th May 2013, 12:18 AM | #7525 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
It depends what value you are looking for. Science has very little value in its ability to inform us of what we should do and for what purpose. Whereas mysticism has quite a high value in this regard.
Lets take for example the issue of genetic manipulation. What does science tell us we should do with the discoveries in this field and for what purpose? A mystic would say that genetic manipulation is something to be carried out under the scrutiny of the highest ideals of conscience and consideration for the entire ecosystem. |
7th May 2013, 12:24 AM | #7526 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
|
|
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers |
|
7th May 2013, 12:55 AM | #7527 |
Ovis ex Machina
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
|
Science has proven its ability to deliver things that work. That's why it's high value. Why would I listen to a mystic, or a preacher, or an imam, or an anarchist, or a nazi, or a homeopath, or any other group that claims to know what to do and for what purpose?
Claims are easy, but without a track record or reason for me to believe a claim, why would I think that mysticism has a high value in telling me what I should do? |
__________________
I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett |
|
7th May 2013, 01:02 AM | #7528 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
|
7th May 2013, 01:07 AM | #7529 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
|
7th May 2013, 01:09 AM | #7530 |
Ovis ex Machina
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
|
|
__________________
I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett |
|
7th May 2013, 01:14 AM | #7531 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
|
7th May 2013, 01:15 AM | #7532 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,399
|
Oh do be quiet...ethics is multidisciplinary. Psychology, sociology, medicine hell science in GENERAL. Legal ethics are informed by multiple disciplines including science, logic, history etc etc. Naturalism isn't some discipline, you don't get to point a finger and demand it play a tune.
Oh you're infuriating sometimes. Mysticism is a philosophy it's not a discipline. It's a hedger's game at most. I haven't accused mysticism of being useless because it's not meant to be used; it's the bumper sticker that says "Keep myself weird". Any hippy or stoner can throw their card into ethics; you're a stakeholder in the conversation after all. But if you want to use a discipline you can't say "aha mysticism" any more than I can say "aha naturalism". I'd say "aha epidemiology" or "aha legal ethics". Naturalism and mysticism INFORM views they don't have an "answer" because values don't HAVE ANSWERS they have positions. Science and naturalism inform them, mysticism does too. But mysticism does not act as a discipline. You don't practice dualism as a method of investigation you use it to inform your investigation. And all things considered mysticism SUCKS compared to naturalism as means to inform on ethics. I do a lot of epidemiological analysis. I've had to take qualitative assessments of sociological studies and make a priori analysis. I don't use mysticism to inform me of these because mysticism is complete horsecrap. I use naturalism to inform me. I use toxicology information, I use psychology information. I have yet to garner any success with dualism and I've tried. The study of likelihood and personal values is actually VERY naturalistic though. |
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers |
|
7th May 2013, 01:20 AM | #7533 |
Ovis ex Machina
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
|
|
__________________
I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett |
|
7th May 2013, 04:28 AM | #7534 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
I apologize for being infuriating, I know that I can be at times. I suggest you focus on the bigger picture of what I am doing here as I pointed out in post 7201. I didn't come here to do this, but fell into it as a hole needing to be filled.
Quote:
Surely if "naturalism" is going to "explain" existence then it must straddle the philosophy of existence, metaphysics, at the outset.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As I said I have no intention of taking mysticism into the realm of ethics. If I do it will be on your invitation. |
7th May 2013, 04:42 AM | #7535 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
Alternately, relevant subsets of naturalism could simply demonstrate that an explanation for "existence" in the first place is not necessary. Admittedly, logic does play a part in that, as it does in all of naturalism.
That, in fact, appears to be the case, which renders the subset of philosophy that you speak of rather moot. |
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
7th May 2013, 05:56 AM | #7536 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 36,111
|
|
__________________
Like many humorless and indignant people, he is hard on everybody but himself, and does not perceive it when he fails his own ideal (Molière) A pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw cross-sections of the details (John Ciardi) |
|
7th May 2013, 06:12 AM | #7537 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
Of course there is no necessity for an explanation of existence in our daily lives, it just is the way it is and we get on with it. However when the question is asked, as it is from time to time, to suggest that there is a naturalistic explanation is misleading. I am not saying that there is an explanation provided by mysticism either, only a recognition that there is a mystery there and to reconcile ourself/ourselves with it.
Quote:
|
7th May 2013, 06:23 AM | #7538 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
|
7th May 2013, 06:23 AM | #7539 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
7th May 2013, 06:47 AM | #7540 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
This is dodging, punshhh. It does not address what I said.
I think your comprehension of what was said is questionable, again. I didn't state that there was a naturalistic explanation, but rather that the relevant subsets of naturalism point to there being no explanation necessary. Those are two rather different things. I'll agree that there's a lack of certainty when it comes to questions that cannot be investigated and a lack of complete certainty even for many or most questions that can be investigated. That's not really relevant to what I said, though, nor is it a stance remotely unique to mysticism. Either way, you may not have noticed, but I've refrained from commenting on mysticism, unlike some other posters here. Thus, there's really no need to try to insert a defense of mysticism into responses to me. You realize that you're literally just contradicting yourself here and nothing more? You're not even addressing what I said there, for that matter. |
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
7th May 2013, 07:22 AM | #7541 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
7th May 2013, 07:40 AM | #7542 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
|
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
7th May 2013, 07:59 AM | #7543 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
You must close your eyes to see the Truth.
He who loses his life for my sake will save it. “There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.” ― William James That which we cannot speak of is the one thing about whom and to whom we must never stop speaking.” ― Peter Rollins “As his (C. S. Lewis's) good friend Owen Barfield once remarked, Lewis radiated a sense that the spiritual world is home, that we are always coming back to a place we have never yet reached.” ― David C. Downing, Into the Region of Awe: Mysticism in C. S. Lewis And 97 others here: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/mysticism |
7th May 2013, 08:44 AM | #7544 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
You'll have to give an explanation or example of naturalism demonstrating that an explanation is not necessary. As I said, no matter what justification you come up with, the question will still be asked. There's no escaping it.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
7th May 2013, 09:05 AM | #7545 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
7th May 2013, 03:36 PM | #7546 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
IanS gave a few. Do the better ones really need to be restated?
As for the rest, that a question is asked is not an indication that it is particularly relevant to reality. No explanation necessary because there may well be nothing to explain in the first place. I'd suggest that this is not the thread for a discussion on that topic, but... meh. You were contradicting yourself. "X is not the case, however, X is the case" is exactly what you said. Again, though, worse than contradicting yourself, it was irrelevant. What I actually said was that the relevant area of philosophy is rendered moot under the stated conditions. You then trying to answer with an abstraction that might maybe be potentially relevant if I had said that something was the case and not that the issue itself was moot, is, well, a bad answer. Either way, I'm pretty sure that I've accepted the truth of the situation, too. |
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
7th May 2013, 04:02 PM | #7547 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Here Now
Posts: 12,229
|
|
7th May 2013, 11:22 PM | #7548 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
IanS gave some good summaries of current physics, but nothing relating to the question of existence.
Quote:
Quote:
Reality either had an origin, which is currently unknown, or no origin and is doomed to regression (well its doomed to regression either way). It's a lack of logic all the way down, I'm afraid.
Quote:
Its not one or the other in all cases, such an assumption is highly illogical. |
7th May 2013, 11:25 PM | #7549 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
|
7th May 2013, 11:32 PM | #7550 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
|
|
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities. - Voltaire. |
|
7th May 2013, 11:43 PM | #7551 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
8th May 2013, 01:28 AM | #7552 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
To really find out about the world we are in we use science. You are describing imagination. Einstein imagined lots of things, but he was proven to be correct by experiment. How many mystics have had their imaginings tested and proven to be correct? I have inserted an important comma into your post.
|
8th May 2013, 05:21 AM | #7553 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
Actually, some of it was indeed relevant, even if it was simply supporting one of the available options.
As opposed to reality and existence simply being one and the same? And... I never found this line of argument convincing, for the same reasons why I never found the "but there must have been a beginning" objection to "something always existed" to be convincing. Either way, scientifically and philosophically, we really don't have any better reason to accept that questioning this proposed origin of existence is valid than we have for accepting that questioning what the last argument that Merlin and Gandhi had before they created our universe is valid. I'm afraid that I don't understand what premises you're using to try to make this statement. In particular, I don't understand what, exactly, the "doomed to regression" is referring to. Are you narrowing the "reality" to mean only our current universe? If so, it does become understandable, but rather irrelevant to the topic that we were on. If it's on the same line as before? Then I'm simply at a loss to how you could reasonably say that. Feel free to try to enlighten me. I did just get off a long night of work, so I might be missing something. Admittedly, I'm not really seeing the validity of yours. You realize that differentiation is important, when using a subject in multiple ways in the same statement? Unless, of course, you really want to appear to be conflating concepts dishonestly. Either way, two points of direct note. First, again, logic was not being used to provide an explanation in the first place, which makes your point irrelevant. Second, you still haven't addressed what I originally said. Generally, something either is or is not the case. When it's both, it's generally due to ambiguities in what's being questioned. |
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|