|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Greater simplicity of theism? Really?
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And the faithful will need to stop comparing faith as in the same category as science.
But isn't that the whole premise of the thread? That belief by faith (or other theistic construct) is in the same general category (explanation generators) as science? That they're both tools in the same tool box of cognition?
Doesn't make it less foolish.
It is a natural tendency to measure that which we find important against any ruler presented, but not all are relevant.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And the faithful will need to stop comparing faith as in the same category as science.
But isn't that the whole premise of the thread? That belief by faith (or other theistic construct) is in the same general category (explanation generators) as science? That they're both tools in the same tool box of cognition?
Let science do sciency things, and let other things be determined by other methods. If god fans would do the former, and science fans would do the latter, what a happier world this would be. Especially for people who are fans of both, but are told by monofans that they aren't allowed to be.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And the faithful will need to stop comparing faith as in the same category as science.
But isn't that the whole premise of the thread? That belief by faith (or other theistic construct) is in the same general category (explanation generators) as science? That they're both tools in the same tool box of cognition?
There are several conflations in this post and one outright fundamental logical error.
Conflations: we're conflating Evensong's assertion that theism provides explanations with Sarah G's assertion, which is more complex, and doesn't mention explanations. This I suppose goes along with a conflation of cognition with explanation generation. Furthermore, there's a conflation of 'faith' or 'belief by faith' with 'theism' or else with 'history, theology, and the humanities generally'. (There are rather a lot of agnostic and atheist scholars at work in history and the humanities generally; I think they'd be a bit put out at having their disciplines so casually conflated with belief by faith.)
The fundamental logical error is that explanation generators is a category. By logical definition, explanation generation isn't a category. Let us review what a category is.
Socrates is a human being. Also, Socrates is an Athenian. Also, Socrates is pale brown. Also, Socrates is in Athens. Also, Socrates is arguing about the nature of justice.
You will notice that each of these assertions, despite the apparent grammatical similarity, is in fact a different type of assertion. To assert that Socrates is a man has different kinds of logical consequence from asserting that he is in Athens. If Socrates ceases to be a human being, he ceases to be Socrates as we understand it. On the other hand, if he ceases to be in Athens the consequences do not follow. Aristotle thus constructed a theory of logical categories, which is to say types of assertion that have similar logical consequences, and which have logical interrelations. (Within a category, you can make logical deductions that if Socrates is a human being he is not a cat, or he is a mammal. Across categories the only deductions are empirical.)
So assertions within one category work in a different logical fashion from assertions in other categories. It follows that explanations of a fact in one category work in a different logical fashion from explanations of a fact in a different category. To explain how it is that Socrates is human is a logically different category of explanation from explaining how it is that Socrates is an Athenian.(*) Therefore, there can be no such thing as a category of explanations as such, or of explanation generators, since each category requires its own type of explanation.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Let science do sciency things, and let other things be determined by other methods. If god fans would do the former, and science fans would do the latter,what a happier world this would be.
I'm not convinced that theism is a "method" as such. It seems more like simply assuming your preferred beliefs are true. And where do you draw the line between "sciency things" and "other [theistic] methods"?
To take a non-DH example, if one person claims disease is caused by germs and another person claims disease is caused by witches consorting with spirits, how would we decide between these two ideas? On the one hand there's microscopic observations, animal experimentation, and other "sciency" stuff, and on the other Goody Proctor did float upon the water and was seen having conversation with a tall man in the woods, which I guess is an "other method".
The additional point I'm trying to make is that despite the alleged advantages of a theistic "method", it never seems to be argued on its own supposed strengths. The only argument ever made is the inadequacy of other methods, never the superiority or necessity of the incredibly vaguely defined theistic methodology. Let's hypothesize for a moment that the germ theory of disease has been completely discredited. This does not mean that the witchcraft theory of disease is therefore proven correct. (Maybe it's a miasma, or an imbalance of the bodily humors.) The amount of time spent trying to demonstrate how science or reason are bad is never matched with a similar amount of effort showing how whatever alternative methodology is valid and useful. Is there any case to be made for theism beyond a negative one?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Let science do sciency things, and let other things be determined by other methods. If god fans would do the former, and science fans would do the latter,what a happier world this would be.
I'm not convinced that theism is a "method" as such. It seems more like simply assuming your preferred beliefs are true.
Of course not.
quote:
And where do you draw the line between "sciency things" and "other [theistic] methods"?
You've made a dichotomy where there is none. There are many different methods of learning about the world. We've already talked about the historical method of looking at letters, artifacts, other documents, etc. There are legal methods that involve depositions and eyewitness testimony and such. Neither of those are scientific.
Theism is not a method; that's a category error. Are there theistic methods of discerning truth? One might say that theology is a way of discerning truth about the things of belief. (One might disagree, depending on who one is.)
Where does one draw the line? Things that can be studied using the scientific method are sciency things. This should be obvious. The problem is, which you have not really addressed, there are things that CANNOT be treated by scientific method. One glaring example already raised on this thread is history.
quote:
To take a non-DH example, if one person claims disease is caused by germs and another person claims disease is caused by witches consorting with spirits, how would we decide between these two ideas?
You seem to have completely missed the point of what I said, which is that things that are in the realm of science should be dealt with by science, and things that are not in the realm of science should not be. This is in the realm of science. I don't see why this even matters to what I said.
quote:
The additional point I'm trying to make is that despite the alleged advantages of a theistic "method", it never seems to be argued on its own supposed strengths. The only argument ever made is the inadequacy of other methods, never the superiority or necessity of the incredibly vaguely defined theistic methodology.
You seem to be now arguing about creationism as presented as an "alternative" to evolution. Which falls under the same description I offered above, and is therefore a non sequitur to the point I was making.
Humours theory is a scientific theory. It's just one that fails to take into account all we know and can observe of nature, so it has been discarded. It has nothing to do with theism and indeed predates Christianity. It is such a big non sequitur to this conversation that it probably deserves its own all-caps NON SEQUITUR WARNING.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There's a way to avoid that. Have science fans stop saying stupid things like "Science knows all, sees all, tells all." Then people won't try to come up with counterexamples.
I think you will need to cite a post where this sort of thing is said if you wish to make the point!!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There's a way to avoid that. Have science fans stop saying stupid things like "Science knows all, sees all, tells all." Then people won't try to come up with counterexamples.
I think you will need to cite a post where this sort of thing is said if you wish to make the point!!
Sure. For starters, there's this one.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Scientific knowledge does not begin to cover all knowledge.
However all that is known, i.e. not entirely subjective, can come under the heading of science, and all such knowledge and Theories can be updated and improved as more reliable information becomes available. quote:
The question of God's existence involves areas that are not scientifically testable...
Since these 'areas' are of the mind only, and for which no hypotheses can be formed because of a lack of any possible observations via the senses, then I agree they are not testable. quote:
.. (e.g.'s History, which is the study of the unrepeatable;
Yes, but much verification can be done with reference to multiple, supportive, written and physical evidence and resources. quote:
... Theology, which is the study of the unknowable;
I would go a little further and say it is the study of something entirely of the human imagination.
quote:
Science is a very useful tool, just not the only one in the box.
Could you say what other tools you are thinking of, and how and for what they could be used?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And the faithful will need to stop comparing faith as in the same category as science.
But isn't that the whole premise of the thread? That belief by faith (or other theistic construct) is in the same general category (explanation generators) as science? That they're both tools in the same tool box of cognition?
The tool box contains a variety of tools, the scientific method is one of them, to investigate the world - in the broadest possible sense of that, including the physical universe, our selves, our history, etc.
The difference between belief systems is not a different tool, or even a different tool box. It's a difference in the worker who uses the tools. An atheist comes to investigating the world with a belief that there is no god or supernatural, that may affect the questions asked and which particular tool they take from the box. A Christian theist comes to investigating the world with a belief in a Triune Creator God. Both may, and probably will, take the same tools from the box. I certainly see no reason why a Theist and an Atheist would approach investigating a physical phenomenum differently, or even something "softer" like psychology or history.
Of course there are some Theists who are simply incompetant at using the tools in the box, the equivalent of pulling out a paint brush to drive a nail into the wall. But, there are Atheists who are equally incompetant and attempt to paint the wall with a hammer. I see no value in using the practices of the incompetant to drive a discussion like this.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
... things that are in the realm of science should be dealt with by science, and things that are not in the realm of science should not be.
I don’t think NOMA is quite the Get Out of Jail card you seem to think it is. Many people have criticised it for the glaring holes in how the various magisteria do in fact overlap, often in highly complex ways. Indeed, as Dawkins the Great himself argued, I wonder how long you’d cling on to your Non-overlapping Shield of Impenetrable Logical Protection for theism if DNA evidence were found by science to prove Jesus Christ had no biological father. You’d be dropping it like a hot camel turd and rejoicing all the way up to the summit of Mount Smug, am I right?
But if you insist that science only speaks to sciencey things and faith only speaks to faithey things, which of these two would you say has the better claim to simplicity in its truth claims about natural physical reality?
[ 17. August 2016, 12:18: Message edited by: Yorick ]
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I wonder how long you’d cling on to your Non-overlapping Shield of Impenetrable Logical Protection for theism if DNA evidence were found by science to prove Jesus Christ had no biological father. You’d be dropping it like a hot camel turd and rejoicing all the way up to the summit of Mount Smug, am I right?
But that is a question that (in theory at least, the chances of finding suitable samples that can be reliable attributed and tested is not significantly different to zero) that can be answered by a scientific method. It might even be able to offer an explanation as to how that particular ovum in that particular human woman just happened to be able to develop into a viable independent life. But science would be able to go no further than that. It cannot say why whatever the necessary circumstances were happened to fall into place (or more precisely, cannot say without an infinite chain of recursion of circumstances)
Scientific method couldn't on the other hand provide any commentary on the interaction between the divine and human wills, whether they are united or not, within that particular example of a human being, because the divine will is not part of the created order.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Indeed, as Dawkins the Great himself argued, I wonder how long you’d cling on to your Non-overlapping Shield of Impenetrable Logical Protection for theism
I wonder if you can rephrase the question without the gratuitous insult? I admit skepticism. I have been arguing in good faith.
[ 17. August 2016, 16:20: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
There's a way to avoid that.. Have science fans stop saying stupid things like "Science knows all, sees all, tells all." Then people won't try to come up with counterexamples.
Having read carefully through the examples you give, I have (a) not said anything stupid!, (b) used verbs which convey possibility, such as ‘can be’, and (c) put forward points which, if refuted with evidence, wouldcorrect me.
My former reply to you should not have used the words, ‘this sort of thing’, I
should have said, cite posts where it has been said that science knows all,sees all, tells all’
________________________________________
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But if you insist that science only speaks to sciencey things and faith only speaks to faithey things, which of these two would you say has the better claim to simplicity in its truth claims about natural physical reality?
That's quite a different question from the first one you posited in the OP.
Of course the physical and biological sciences have a better hold on the truth claims of natural physical reality than Christian theology because that is not theology's primary interest.
The physical and biological sciences are part of Christian theology: they must inform it. But Christian theology is not limited to natural physical reality. It's much bigger than that. It's more interested in the why questions than the what questions because they inform everything else: including the what.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
There's a way to avoid that.. Have science fans stop saying stupid things like "Science knows all, sees all, tells all." Then people won't try to come up with counterexamples.
Having read carefully through the examples you give, I have (a) not said anything stupid!, (b) used verbs which convey possibility, such as ‘can be’, and (c) put forward points which, if refuted with evidence, wouldcorrect me.
My former reply to you should not have used the words, ‘this sort of thing’, I
should have said, cite posts where it has been said that science knows all,sees all, tells all’
Then you are being over-rigid in trying to take literally what was meant figuratively. I have given you the post I was reacting to. If you could speak to that, rather than play with my words, it would be appreciated.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The tool box contains a variety of tools, the scientific method is one of them, to investigate the world - in the broadest possible sense of that, including the physical universe, our selves, our history, etc.
The difference between belief systems is not a different tool, or even a different tool box. It's a difference in the worker who uses the tools.
And yet almost every discussion of the relative advantages of theism we have seems to follow the trajectory of "science [or reason, or observation, or other atheistic/non-theistic method] can't explain everything, therefore theism". Theism is never justified on its own terms. The case is made that science (or reason or whatever) sucks, with the implication left hanging that some "other [presumably theistic] method" can fill in the blanks. The exact way in which believing in Odin (or other theistic entity of your choice) will allow access to otherwise unattainable knowledge is left unspecified.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An atheist comes to investigating the world with a belief that there is no god or supernatural, that may affect the questions asked and which particular tool they take from the box. A Christian theist comes to investigating the world with a belief in a Triune Creator God. Both may, and probably will, take the same tools from the box. I certainly see no reason why a Theist and an Atheist would approach investigating a physical phenomenum differently, or even something "softer" like psychology or history.
And yet . . .
This is another snarl in MT's sciency/non-sciency dichotomy. Fluid mechanics and hydrology would seem to be sciency, but the Wrath of God would seem to be non-sciency. Which gets dibs in this situation?
[ 18. August 2016, 19:49: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Theism is never justified on its own terms. The case is made that science (or reason or whatever) sucks, with the implication left hanging that some "other [presumably theistic] method" can fill in the blanks.
Which is a theological error commonly called "God of the Gaps". It is a very weak position to argue for, and one I hope I haven't fallen into.
Evensong has just talked about science answering "what?" questions and theology "why?" ones. I'm going to disagree with her. I think that all studies, whether science or humanities, even theology, are about understanding the way the universe, in all it's complexity, works. Belief is different. Belief seeks to give meaning to what all our other yearning for understanding yields. Of course, for some, their beliefs would be that there is no meaning behind anything. For others they see a loving God seeking lost sheep, or a wrathful diety punishing the wicked. This meaning isn't dependent upon an understanding of what has happened or why, it's a completely different dimension in thinking. And, because exactly the same observations and explanations of those can have radically different meanings, belief doesn't even need to be founded upon those observations and explanations.
It is how theists can see God working miracles in events that can be entirely explained by science, or when something has no explanation from science see no evidence for God. It is how Atheists do not need proof that there is no God, nor even lack of proof that there is, to hold their belief that any meaning in the universe does not depend on a supernatural being. And, it's how a natural disaster such as a flood can be described as the judgement of God ...
quote:
And yet . . .
...
Which gets dibs in this situation?
I've not read the article, I expect that this particular pastor falls in the category I mentioned earlier of people who are incompetent at using the content of the toolbox and almost certainly holding a theology I would disagree with.
But, there should be no dibs. Both the Atheist saying "it's just a consequence of the weather, and the only meaning there is in these events is that we should probably think a bit more carefully about where we build and flood management", and the Theist saying "it's the judgement of God" (or, those getting out safely declaring that it was by the grace of God) do so on the basis of belief and a consequent understanding of meaning behind events. Neither approach is a better explanation of the way rivers flood, neither is simpler or more complex, the nature of belief is that it actually stands above such things.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
the nature of belief is that it actually stands above such things.
I wasn't positing a dichotomy of the what and why Alan, rather that the what informs the why but as you say above, the why stands above.
But I wouldn't put it above so much but as encompassing it all: holding the what within it. It's more of an "around".
Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I don't think you can have the why in a purely natural sciences sense without already having the (perhaps) subconscious sense of the why even it means believing there is no why.
I don't think humanity is capable of divorcing the what and the why.
[ 19. August 2016, 11:20: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't think humanity is capable of divorcing the what and the why.
Generally speaking, I agree that you are right, but I think there are enough people to form a substantial minority who are completely happy with 'we don't know' and 'there is not a reason why'. That is to say, there is not a reason why if that reason is supposed to include anything outside the material world.
As I said in an earlier post, it is understood that emotional and aesthetic ideas come from the brain. There is no evidence to the contrary as far as I know.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And yet . . .
...
Which gets dibs in this situation?
I've not read the article, I expect that this particular pastor falls in the category I mentioned earlier of people who are incompetent at using the content of the toolbox and almost certainly holding a theology I would disagree with.
A quick note of clarification. Despite the BBC's headline, Tony Perkins is not a "pastor" in the sense the term is usually understood. He has no formal pastoral education (unless you count getting an undergraduate degree, ironically a Bachelor of Science, from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University) and does not have the care of a congregation (unless you consider the SPLC-designated hate group he heads to be a "congregation"). I guess the confusion probably arose because Perkin's SPLC-designated hate group typically expresses its hate in religious terms.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, there should be no dibs. Both the Atheist saying "it's just a consequence of the weather, and the only meaning there is in these events is that we should probably think a bit more carefully about where we build and flood management", and the Theist saying "it's the judgement of God" (or, those getting out safely declaring that it was by the grace of God) do so on the basis of belief and a consequent understanding of meaning behind events. Neither approach is a better explanation of the way rivers flood, neither is simpler or more complex, the nature of belief is that it actually stands above such things.
Except in this case the theist is also talking about flood management. It's just that his idea of flood management involves criminalizing homosexuality and abortion rather than dams and levees. If those are the options presented, I have to disagree that neither one is better than the other.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't think humanity is capable of divorcing the what and the why.
Generally speaking, I agree that you are right, but I think there are enough people to form a substantial minority who are completely happy with 'we don't know' and 'there is not a reason why'. That is to say, there is not a reason why if that reason is supposed to include anything outside the material world.
As I said in an earlier post, it is understood that emotional and aesthetic ideas come from the brain. There is no evidence to the contrary as far as I know.
Yes. It does appear some people are quite happy not to know why we exist at all or think about the bigger questions of life.
Personally I don't understand that because I've always been a huge WHY person.
As for emotional and aesthetic ideas coming from the brain: sounds like you believe in the doctrine of scientific materialism.
Not my cup of tea I'm afraid. Too narrow. And also irrational as I understand it. David Bentley Hart ( the great philosopher on this topic) even calls it indistinguishable from pure magical thinking.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, there should be no dibs. Both the Atheist saying "it's just a consequence of the weather, and the only meaning there is in these events is that we should probably think a bit more carefully about where we build and flood management", and the Theist saying "it's the judgement of God" (or, those getting out safely declaring that it was by the grace of God) do so on the basis of belief and a consequent understanding of meaning behind events. Neither approach is a better explanation of the way rivers flood, neither is simpler or more complex, the nature of belief is that it actually stands above such things.
Except in this case the theist is also talking about flood management. It's just that his idea of flood management involves criminalizing homosexuality and abortion rather than dams and levees. If those are the options presented, I have to disagree that neither one is better than the other.
Except, those aren't the only options. The lunacy propounded by such self-appointed "pastors" is not representative of Christian theism. As I've said, I'm not sure what we gain by lumping people like that with theists.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't think humanity is capable of divorcing the what and the why.
Generally speaking, I agree that you are right, but I think there are enough people to form a substantial minority who are completely happy with 'we don't know' and 'there is not a reason why'. That is to say, there is not a reason why if that reason is supposed to include anything outside the material world.
As I said in an earlier post, it is understood that emotional and aesthetic ideas come from the brain. There is no evidence to the contrary as far as I know.
Yes. It does appear some people are quite happy not to know why we exist at all or think about the bigger questions of life.
Personally I don't understand that because I've always been a huge WHY person.
As for emotional and aesthetic ideas coming from the brain: sounds like you believe in the doctrine of scientific materialism.
Not my cup of tea I'm afraid. Too narrow. And also irrational as I understand it. David Bentley Hart ( the great philosopher on this topic) even calls it indistinguishable from pure magical thinking.
The vast majority of people couldn't care less, the more educated the less. A billion Muslims and a billion Hindus and a billion Catholics haven't had their search for meaning, their BIG WHY questions answered, as they've never asked them. They've been given stories that smother that. We're a spookable monkey, but rationalism, once realised, prevails.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Evensong
Very interesting as always. I've started a response which I'll try and post today, but then I'm away for a few days visiting granddaughters.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
I'm not really satisfied with this, but no more time today. quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes. It does appear some people are quite happy not to know why we exist at all or think about the bigger questions of life.
Personally I don't understand that because I've always been a huge WHY person.
We are all ‘why’ people, aren’t we? Maybe those who were born without the burning need to find out everything you can might have more of a smooth ride! Humans evolved to be curious. It is fortunate that, as a result, we have a just about infinite store of acquired knowledge … both useful and not so useful!
It is interesting that the philosophical questions which require thinking and reasoning, but do not result in any independent material outcome are called the ‘bigger’ questions. Perhaps they would be better called the long questions’, since there is no answer which does not rely on human imagination. Nothing wrong with making full use of that, though. quote:
As for emotional and aesthetic ideas coming from the brain: sounds like you believe in the doctrine of scientific materialism.
Anything that is classified as doctrine I’d see as open to challenge, but yes, I suppose I do. quote:
Not my cup of tea I'm afraid. Too narrow. And also
.irrational as I understand it.
I’m afraid I cannot think why scientific materialism (and materialists) could be called irrational., since all the non-believers I know and particularly those on message boards!, have wide interests which are most definitely not restricted to facts quote:
[QB]David Bentley Hart ( the great philosopher on this topic) even calls it indistinguishable from pure magical thinking.
Hmmm, I’ve just done a quick google and found this:[QUOTE] only 35 pages in, but it’s already clear that Hart in fact has little desire to provide evidence for God’s existence. In fact, he thinks that God’s existence is self-evident, and (à la Plantinga) says that our very ability to apprehend truth testifies to God’s existence,…
I’ll read more later this week.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Personally I don't understand that because I've always been a huge WHY person.
Boggles my freakin' mind as well, especially as many of them aren't good on how either, but they exist. And, ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif) they vote.
quote:
As for emotional and aesthetic ideas coming from the brain: sounds like you believe in the doctrine of scientific materialism.
ISTM theism* has little room to be snide to this, though.
quote:
Not my cup of tea I'm afraid. Too narrow. And also irrational as I understand it. David Bentley Hart ( the great philosopher on this topic) even calls it indistinguishable from pure magical thinking.
That is a suspect opinion, coming from a theist. Haven't read Hart, but it doesn't track, IMO.
*It doesn't quite fit with Buddhism either. I am not defending the idea, just the derisive rejection of it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Not my cup of tea I'm afraid. Too narrow. And also irrational as I understand it. David Bentley Hart ( the great philosopher on this topic) even calls it indistinguishable from pure magical thinking.
That is a suspect opinion, coming from a theist. Haven't read Hart, but it doesn't track, IMO.
You've created a very narrow place. No scientific materialist would say it's magical thinking. And you're not allowing a theist to say it, whether or not it's true seemingly. Who could possibly have the right to make this claim, then? Buddhists?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Not my cup of tea I'm afraid. Too narrow. And also irrational as I understand it. David Bentley Hart ( the great philosopher on this topic) even calls it indistinguishable from pure magical thinking.
That is a suspect opinion, coming from a theist. Haven't read Hart, but it doesn't track, IMO.
You've created a very narrow place. No scientific materialist would say it's magical thinking. And you're not allowing a theist to say it, whether or not it's true seemingly. Who could possibly have the right to make this claim, then? Buddhists?
I am not disallowing anyone. I am simply saying that theism has no logical advantage over materialism. At best, there is no substantive difference between I believe deity and I believe materialism.
[ 22. August 2016, 01:14: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Then I'm sure I don't understand what you mean by "That is a suspect opinion, coming from a theist." This seems to be saying a theist can't say this without coming under suspicion. Suspicion of what?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Then I'm sure I don't understand what you mean by "That is a suspect opinion, coming from a theist." This seems to be saying a theist can't say this without coming under suspicion. Suspicion of what?
I has written that originally in a very caustic phrase and was trying to make it less so.
Theism is in no rationally or logically superior position to any other philosophy in which faith or belief is a component.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Theism is in no rationally or logically superior position to any other philosophy in which faith or belief is a component.
Assuming that you mean by 'belief' belief not attaining the degree of confidence required to count as knowledge...
Firstly, in the relevant sense of 'philosophy' I think that covers all philosophies. As things stand, all philosophies are such that someone could rationally disagree with them.
Secondly, just because no philosophy is rationally compelling doesn't mean that there is no judgement about what is rationally superior to be made. It's usually more a case that each side makes some good arguments, and you have to decide which set of good arguments you think is more persuasive.
This gets us into deep waters about the nature of rationality, but it would be wrong to view it as a purely arational matter.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I'm not really satisfied with this, but no more time today. quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[qb] Yes. It does appear some people are quite happy not to know why we exist at all or think about the bigger questions of life.
Personally I don't understand that because I've always been a huge WHY person.
We are all ‘why’ people, aren’t we? Maybe those who were born without the burning need to find out everything you can might have more of a smooth ride! Humans evolved to be curious. It is fortunate that, as a result, we have a just about infinite store of acquired knowledge … both useful and not so useful!
It is interesting that the philosophical questions which require thinking and reasoning, but do not result in any independent material outcome are called the ‘bigger’ questions. Perhaps they would be better called the long questions’, since there is no answer which does not rely on human imagination. Nothing wrong with making full use of that, though. quote:
As for emotional and aesthetic ideas coming from the brain: sounds like you believe in the doctrine of scientific materialism.
Anything that is classified as doctrine I’d see as open to challenge, but yes, I suppose I do. quote:
Not my cup of tea I'm afraid. Too narrow. And also
.irrational as I understand it.
I’m afraid I cannot think why scientific materialism (and materialists) could be called irrational., since all the non-believers I know and particularly those on message boards!, have wide interests which are most definitely not restricted to facts quote:
David Bentley Hart ( the great philosopher on this topic) even calls it indistinguishable from pure magical thinking.
Hmmm, I’ve just done a quick google and found this:[QUOTE] only 35 pages in, but it’s already clear that Hart in fact has little desire to provide evidence for God’s existence. In fact, he thinks that God’s existence is self-evident, and (à la Plantinga) says that our very ability to apprehend truth testifies to God’s existence,…
I’ll read more later this week.
Forgive my inability to quote each response. The code would do my head in at the moment.
Re your first point. Yes I think we are a why people which is why I said above I don't really understand people that don't seem to be interested in the why and how those that believe there is no reason why are content with that belief. But as you say, it can lead to a smoother ride: at least on the surface of things.
I would disagree however with your statement that the why or philosophical questions do not result in material outcomes. I think they very much define how we live our lives and how we spend our time in a very concrete sense.
"Long questions" is a good phraseology if you prefer it to the "why" questions but to say all the answers come from imagination is spurious. The answers to the Christian long questions have a basis in history, experience and reason.
Re your third point why the doctrine or belief in scientific materialism could be called irrational. I don't think wide ranging, non factual interests is the issue. It has something to do with a reference point for reason, rationality and truth. At least that is how I understand David Bentley Hart's argument so far. But I haven't read the whole book yet.
Apparently the main premise of the book is to show how pure naturalism or scientific materialism is irrational. Sounds like an interesting read as some believe it is the epitome of rationality.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One of the problems with why is that it's ambiguous. One sense is to do with purpose - well, I don't go around wondering what the purpose of everything is, maybe others do.
The old question 'why is there anything at all?' seems a bit of a trick to me, as it has purpose already built in. But why should it be? (That's the use of 'why' as reason).
So being curious, which humans undoubtedly are, seems different to me from asking for a purpose. That usually indicates a religious frame of mind, doesn't it?
I've been reading Hart's 'The Experience of God', and I'm not hugely impressed. Big chunks of it strike me as a long version of the argument from incredulity - isn't it amazing that we are conscious, and we don't understand how the brain connects with this, therefore God.
Oh fuck all that, I read that stuff when I was about 17, along with Sartre and real deep stuff, man.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The other odd thing here is 'scientific materialism'. This seems confused to me. There is philosophical materialism, the idea that everything is made up of, well, whatever you think matter is, (itself highly contentious). But this is not a scientific claim - this is why you can have Christians who are scientists.
And there is methodological materialism, often linked with methodological naturalism, which refers to those methods used in science to examine nature.
I suppose you could call this scientific materialism, but it is not philosophical. You can practise such scientific methods and believe in fairies, the pipes of Pan, and the great Pantocrator, usually not all at once.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Forgive my inability to quote each response. The code would do my head in at the moment.
Thank you for your interesting post. I have no idea how the 'code' works! I type in the [] and QB etc in between as I go along.
quote:
Re your first point. Yes I think we are a why people which is why I said above I don't really understand people that don't seem to be interested in the why and how those that believe there is no reason why are content with that belief. But as you say, it can lead to a smoother ride: at least on the surface of things.
I would disagree however with your statement that the why or philosophical questions do not result in material outcomes. I think they very much define how we live our lives and how we spend our time in a very concrete sense.
Yes, it is not always clear whether the 'why' is referring to practical or philosophical ideas. quote:
"Long questions" is a good phraseology if you prefer it to the "why" questions but to say all the answers come from imagination is spurious. The answers to the Christian long questions have a basis in history, experience and reason.
Yes, the records of the Christian people in conjunction with other contemporary records, give us a good understanding of what and why people believed things. I think it also reveals what we now know to be personal incredulity.
The idea that scientific materialism is irrational needs a lot more consideration, I think. There is a local Philosophy group (connected with the U3A as far as I know) which starts up again in September. I shall give it a try - and take this question with me!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
