Cause i know some of you are curious

[blue2blue]

I hear a little 2.7 db peak around theology and the church with you. No? >> <.> No arguments will come from me on what you say regarding the old church or the modern church for that matter. It's seems so tired and done and not worth discussing to me, it's just a given. But what of the public, were the church to say be all of a sudden disintegrated totally? Do you deny it leave us with a societal void, one that if not acknowledge and filled will re-percuss in horrible ways?. The so called liberation from your age of enlightenment has made steps and progress in removing the church. But why is it so single minded in it's pursuit that it ignores that the masses need and want to be led. And they are afraid of death and they don't have ways to reconcile it. So far, and i would be willing to bet far far far into the future, this painfully bleak "no explanation for our conscious existence or justification for our sense of self importance" that this new age of philosophy offers remains to be useless to the morality of humanity, in fact in that regard it is useless. So that doesn't fill the void. So where do we go with that in your opinion?

This element of the masses does not want to be led -- nor does he want to be fed a spiritual diet of predigested pie in the sky -- I think that's an insult to man and to that which remains to man unknowable.

 

 

Why did you skip the point about our relationship with our planet?

I must have missed that.

[roomjello]

 

This element of the masses does not want to be led -- nor does he want to be fed a spiritual diet of predigested pie in the sky -- I think that's an insult to man and to that which remains to man unknowable.

 

Ok, so then that makes you a leader.

You can coast of coarse but, that will not fulfill your spirit ;o

So here we are, talking about what to do with our people. It's sort of like that don't you think?

If you are above it, you still need the rest of humanity. Should you not take care of them or at least consider it?.

This is what i am pointing at with these posts

[roomjello]

 

I can't agree at all with your first point but let's leave that aside. .

 

I don't mean you or anyone in particular have those needs, many people don't.

But many do. And to varying degrees. It's not something that can be ignored, regardless of one's personal feelings about it.

[temnov]

I don't mean you or anyone in particular have those needs, many people don't. But many do. And to varying degrees

 

 

Well, yes. And sometimes it leads directly to suicide bomber school, too. Do their needs count, eh?

 

It's a long shot but still goes there, too.

[blue2blue]

 

Ok, so then that makes you a leader. You can coast of coarse but, that will not fulfill your spirit ;o So here we are, talking about what to do with our people. It's sort of like that don't you think? If you are above it, you still need the rest of humanity. Should you not take care of them or at least consider it?. This is what i am pointing at with these posts

I don't think that infantalizing people is 'taking care' of them. I think it cripples them. And, if there is something like God (with 'His' eye on the cosmos and the sparrow), I should think that that -- crippling someone's spiritual growth by giving them easy, simplistic answers, no matter how comforting -- would be a sort of blasphemy, itself.

 

 

And, with regard to simplistic dichotomies like dividing humanity up into 'leaders' and 'followers' -- I'd say that that, too, is an insult to man and nature, at the very least, since it ignores the obvious complexity of both the individual and society. Any world view that is obviously contradicted by easy observation of the phenomenological world is one that has failed at its core.

[roomjello]

Sure, agreed.

It's you who keeps coming back to the heavy hand of the church(theology) so to speak in your comments on this.

Oppression is bad, dictatorship is bad. Agreed.

 

But example in thought and action is good. Where is it today, on a social level?

[roomjello]

 

Well, yes. And sometimes it leads directly to suicide bomber school, too. Do their needs count, eh? It's a long shot but still goes there, too.

 

 

Please note that i say this not disregarding the many dead from 'Terrorism';

Yes, their needs count.

Forget their skin color and location on the planet and different language and VERY different environment of upbringing....

Those guys are just like you and the people in your neighborhood.

Their situation, oppressive belief system, religion and external society taught them that path.

So were they taken care of or used as pawns?

You can't judge those guys, if they are that impressionable, you can judge their leaders though.

[blue2blue]

Sure, agreed. It's you who keeps coming back to the heavy hand of the church(theology) so to speak in your comments on this. Oppression is bad, dictatorship is bad. Agreed. But example in thought and action is good. Where is it today, on a social level?

It certainly seemed to me that it was you who was emphasizing the importance of authority and the childlike nature of most people. Perhaps I misunderstood.

[Lee Flier]

The pursuit of knowledge should be driven and shaped by a desire for psychic comfort and an escape from fear of death? I've often wondered why it is that so many people who profess absolute belief in a 'heavenly reward' I run into seem to be obsessed with fear of death, while many rationalists, humanists, pagans, Taoists, Buddhists, etc, seem to shrug it off...

 

I haven't really found that to be the case. That is, I know people like that but I also know plenty of people who are the reverse.

 

BUT - I think maybe Jello's point (and I'd agree with him if so) is that there are a lot of people in general who require a certain degree of existential comfort in order to accept something, and therefore it doesn't matter how much "logic" you use when talking to such a person - if the emotional and ethical component isn't addressed, they're going to reject it.

 

And that's where the rejection of science often comes in. Scientists naturally pride themselves on being "objective" and not letting emotions "cloud their thinking." So the image they present can often be one that feels cold and heartless, and in fact some people seem to take downright pleasure in being "skeptics" and debunking everything that can't be empirically proven, usually with a good measure of ridicule toward the "believers." They take their cue from people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, who love nothing more than to rant about how utterly useless and evil all religion is and ridicule anyone who dares to have one.

 

Sorry people, but that approach simply is never going to get you anywhere. The very people you'd like to accept what you have to say, are never going to. You're gonna end up preaching to the choir (and sounding really obnoxious doing it, probably alienating a number of people who might otherwise fall more into your camp). The fact is that we can only experience the world through the lens of our human experience, which means it's going to be "colored" by emotions and that doesn't have to be treated as such a bad thing. In fact, it seems to be an emotional drive in itself on the part of some individuals to want to believe that everything is mechanistic and can be quantified, to experience extreme discomfort with anything that can't be measured or controlled and therefore deny it or ridicule anyone who dares to think such things might exist. Again, this is not a blanket statement about anybody including scientists. But it's a thing that happens.

 

So, yeah, I would say that more people could accept the findings of science if the emotional and ethical components that underlie it were acknowledged. No doubt this is going to touch off a whole round of "I'm not going to dress up my cold hard scientific facts with a bunch of touchy feely stuff just to kiss people's ass" or whatever obligatory hardassed comments are going to ensue. But of course that isn't actually what I mean.

[roomjello]

 

It certainly seemed to me that it was you who was emphasizing the importance of authority and the childlike nature of most people. Perhaps I misunderstood.

 

 

Not Authority ever, you did misunderstand that. Simply an alternative avenue without authority as an option.

[Surrealistic]

... there are a lot of people in general who require a certain degree of existential comfort in order to accept something, and therefore it doesn't matter how much "logic" you use when talking to such a person - if the emotional and ethical component isn't addressed, they're going to reject it ... Sorry people, but that approach simply is never going to get you anywhere. The very people you'd like to accept what you have to say, are never going to.

 

 

I think Richard Dawkins (for one, as you mentioned him) wouldn't disagree. I think he's hopeful that maybe a few fence-sitters might come to see some value in what he's saying but I suspect he knows most aren't even open to considering the merits of his point of view. Shame if you ask me but what can you do? Toning it down might make some people feel all warm and fuzzy but it still wouldn't get them to climb up and look at the view from the top of the fence, let alone jump over it.

[roomjello]

 

In fact, it seems to be an emotional drive in itself on the part of some individuals to want to believe that everything is mechanistic and can be quantified, to experience extreme discomfort with anything that can't be measured or controlled and therefore deny it or ridicule anyone who dares to think such things might exist.

 

 

So well said, and so true.

[Lee Flier]

 

I think Richard Dawkins (for one, as you mentioned him) wouldn't disagree. I think he's hopeful that maybe a few fence-sitters might come to see some value in what he's saying but I suspect he knows most aren't even open to considering the merits of his point of view. Shame if you ask me but what can you do? Toning it down might make some people feel all warm and fuzzy but it still wouldn't get them to climb up and look at the view from the top of the fence, let alone jump over it.

 

 

I'm not talking about "toning anything down," I'm talking about addressing the emotional and ethical issues head on in the context of science, which I think would benefit both the scientist and the "anti-scientist," but not if the scientist persists in having a superiority complex.

 

In other words, it seems to me not to be accomplishing anything at all to have an attitude like Dawkins'. If anything it will alienate just as many fence sitters as it convinces. So all that's left is for him to feel good about himself by ranting about how superior his worldview is to all these "other people" who refuse to accept what he has to say. That doesn't accomplish anything except to feed Dawkins' ego and anybody else's ego who sits around and smugly agrees with him.

[Surrealistic]

I can see your point Lee but I guess if Richard Dawkins were here to answer he might say that when 40% of Americans supposedly believe in the story of the Ark as being literally true, someone needs to point out the obvious problems with that line of thinking, and if that makes some people think he's being smug or superior then so be it.

[blue2blue]

Ah! Absolutely... when I wrote "I've often wondered why it is that so many people who profess absolute belief in a 'heavenly reward' I run into seem to be obsessed with fear of death [...] " I didn't mean to suggest -- by any means -- that every body or a majority of those I know who believe in that form of afterlife are fearful of death. By any means. But I have run into what I find to be significant number of, particularly, Christians who, when speaking frankly of matters of life and death, seemed to me surprisingly fearful, given their professed beliefs. I guess, in a sense, I'm surprised by the seeming contradictions and that makes them stand out in my mind. Of course, the number of people I talk to at that level of intimacy and frankness is considerably more limited than those with whom I might discuss general subjects of religion, philosophy, and life with.

[blue2blue]

BUT - I think maybe Jello's point (and I'd agree with him if so) is that there are a lot of people in general who require a certain degree of existential comfort in order to accept something, and therefore it doesn't matter how much "logic" you use when talking to such a person - if the emotional and ethical component isn't addressed, they're going to reject it. And that's where the rejection of science often comes in. Scientists naturally pride themselves on being "objective" and not letting emotions "cloud their thinking." So the image they present can often be one that feels cold and heartless, and in fact some people seem to take downright pleasure in being "skeptics" and debunking everything that can't be empirically proven, usually with a good measure of ridicule toward the "believers." They take their cue from people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, who love nothing more than to rant about how utterly useless and evil all religion is and ridicule anyone who dares to have one. Sorry people, but that approach simply is never going to get you anywhere. The very people you'd like to accept what you have to say, are never going to. You're gonna end up preaching to the choir (and sounding really obnoxious doing it, probably alienating a number of people who might otherwise fall more into your camp). The fact is that we can only experience the world through the lens of our human experience, which means it's going to be "colored" by emotions and that doesn't have to be treated as such a bad thing. In fact, it seems to be an emotional drive in itself on the part of some individuals to want to believe that everything is mechanistic and can be quantified, to experience extreme discomfort with anything that can't be measured or controlled and therefore deny it or ridicule anyone who dares to think such things might exist. Again, this is not a blanket statement about anybody including scientists. But it's a thing that happens. So, yeah, I would say that more people could accept the findings of science if the emotional and ethical components that underlie it were acknowledged. No doubt this is going to touch off a whole round of "I'm not going to dress up my cold hard scientific facts with a bunch of touchy feely stuff just to kiss people's ass" or whatever obligatory hardassed comments are going to ensue. But of course that isn't actually what I mean.

Philosophy, in the classic sense (not in the sense of what some call a philosophy of life, which of course is an ethos, not a philosophy), seems to me to be of surprisingly resilient interest -- considering, in particular, that I'm such a hard headed empiricist that my idealism surpasses even that of Hume and Berkeley (at least if I remember their positions correctly). What can be known for certain is only that "I" experience something. It may be a steady state, a moment of fantasy, a story that 'ends' in the eternal now that may well be all there is or ever will be -- a fantastical moment frozen outside of any illusion of time. That level of idealism -- call it solipsism if you will -- is, obviously, of limited practical value. (Yet I still find various attempts to discuss the subject of what can be known quite interesting at times.)

 

Science proceeds from the assumption that there are real phenomena of some sort that somehow correspond to or give rise to that impression of time and continuity. It attempts to give us a method for observing, measuring, and making sense of those phenomena. By its very ethos, the conclusions which can be derived from that method are necessarily limited. Those who attempt to over-extend science to conclusions which can't be reasonably derived from the evidence rendered by that method, in order to justify their own preferred beliefs -- whether deist, atheist, or something else, altogether -- seem to me to work against knowledge and subvert the acceptance of scientific thinking and rationalism.

 

 

Science may fill us with awe and wonder -- and that may, itself, be a spur toward spiritual endeavor, but spirit is and will remain for the foreseeable future (assuming time and the phenomenological world actually exist of course ) a subject which science can have no purview. (Of course, some have made the same argument about religion and spirit. )

 

I would no sooner go to the O.T. looking for phenomenological accuracy than I would expect science to tell me what is right or good. Science may well suggest a practical ethos -- it seems to me that, if one sorts the data in the right fashions, our existing social science, for instance, can offer pragmatic suggestions for behaviors and even attitudes that result in greater personal satisfaction and social harmony... but beyond the practical? The spiritual, the metaphysical? It's simply not within the scope of science, as we now (and for any foreseeable future) know the endeavor.

[Lee Flier]

Science proceeds from the assumption that there are real phenomena of some sort that somehow correspond to or give rise to that impression of time and continuity. It attempts to give us a method for observing, measuring, and making sense of those phenomena. By its very ethos, the conclusions which can be derived from that method are necessarily limited. Those who attempt to over-extend science to conclusions which can't be reasonably derived from the evidence rendered by that method, in order to justify their own preferred beliefs -- whether deist, atheist, or something else, altogether -- seem to me to work against knowledge and subvert the acceptance of scientific thinking and rationalism.

 

Totally agree.

 

Science may fill us with awe and wonder -- and that may, itself, be a spur toward spiritual endeavor, but spirit is and will remain for the foreseeable future (assuming time and the phenomenological world actually exist of course ) a subject which science can have no purview. (Of course, some have made the same argument about religion and spirit. ) I would no sooner go to the O.T. looking for phenomenological accuracy than I would expect science to tell me what is right or good. Science may well suggest a practical ethos -- it seems to me that, if one sorts the data in the right fashions, our existing social science, for instance, can offer pragmatic suggestions for behaviors and even attitudes that result in greater personal satisfaction and social harmony... but beyond the practical? The spiritual, the metaphysical? It's simply not within the scope of science, as we now (and for any foreseeable future) know the endeavor.

 

I didn't even mention the spiritual or metaphysical - I said emotional and ethical. Science certainly can address those concerns. As to the spiritual and metaphysical, even if scientists were to acknowledge that "this stuff may exist, but it's outside the purview of science so there's really no reason to argue about it" as opposed to "If science can't prove it exists, it doesn't exist, and you're some kind of nutball if you believe in sky fairies" would go a long way. Granted there are lots of actual scientists who don't have that kind of attitude, but a lot of armchair scientists who are fans of the Dawkins/Hitchens crew certainly do.

[blue2blue]

 

Totally agree. I didn't even mention the spiritual or metaphysical - I said emotional and ethical . Science certainly can address those concerns. As to the spiritual and metaphysical, even if scientists were to acknowledge that "this stuff may exist, but it's outside the purview of science so there's really no reason to argue about it" as opposed to "If science can't prove it exists, it doesn't exist, and you're some kind of nutball if you believe in sky fairies" would go a long way. Granted there are lots of actual scientists who don't have that kind of attitude, but a lot of armchair scientists who are fans of the Dawkins/Hitchens crew certainly do.

 

Oh, yeah, I was actually just jumping off from my agreement with your basic points... actually, I was probably still arguing against some of what I perceived rj's points to be.

 

FWIW, I have no problem with folks who believe in things they can't prove -- and I certainly have some sympathy with those who express frustration that proving a negative is difficult -- but those who publicly insist that they have the ultimate answers on that which lies beyond our universe, our experience, and that anyone who doesn't believe precisely as they do is a self-deluded fool, do indeed kind of annoy me. Pretty much like getting buttonholed by any other true-believer evangelist, whether they are deist or atheist.

[Lee Flier]

I can see your point Lee but I guess if Richard Dawkins were here to answer he might say that when 40% of Americans supposedly believe in the story of the Ark as being literally true, someone needs to point out the obvious problems with that line of thinking, and if that makes some people think he's being smug or superior then so be it.

 

But what good does it do, again, to point it out if it's done in such a way that the person listening is going to reject it outright?

 

I think part of the very reason a lot of people cling to a literalist interpretation like that is that science (the populist version anyway) has promoted this idea that if something isn't literally factual, it's worthless. This is bankrupt thinking, and will not satisfy much of anybody ultimately. I don't blame anyone for rejecting that idea.

[roomjello]

I can see your point Lee but I guess if Richard Dawkins were here to answer he might say that when 40% of Americans supposedly believe in the story of the Ark as being literally true, someone needs to point out the obvious problems with that line of thinking, and if that makes some people think he's being smug or superior then so be it.

 

 

Careful, that whole arc thing isn't that unbelievable these days. Have a look at those vids of Japan. Maybe not all species but a large boat a premonition and a farm ready to be packed up...

More believable than a lot of that nonsense in those books.

[Surrealistic]

You have to be kidding me - aren't you?

From where I'm sitting Richard Dawkins actually takes great pains to tiptoe around any area in which it might be considered that he's overstepping the boundaries of what can be stated confidently without reasonable doubt. He comes across to me not at all as proselytising or evangelically atheistic (if such a thing can be said to exist - probably it can, but I digress ) but as someone who genuinely feels that some things need to be looked at square in the face and questioned ... and if the answers to the questions don't make people feel warm and fuzzy then so be it.

I'm fully on board with the idea that not everything fits comfortably into the realm of science - really I am. Love, art, friendship, fun, sex and, of course music have elements that science can cast light on but as I said before science can't explain how it feels to experience these things - and nor should it try (probably). However, where science has a torch (flashlight, I believe Americans call it) that it can shine onto something then I think it has a duty to do so, no matter how we might feel about the results.

[roomjello]

Perhaps you need to remove yourself from modern times to see it.

The world has been in may states. Not just as it is now.

[Lee Flier]

From where I'm sitting Richard Dawkins actually takes great pains to tiptoe around any area in which it might be considered that he's overstepping the boundaries of what can be stated confidently without reasonable doubt. He comes across to me not at all as proselytising or evangelically atheistic (if such a thing can be said to exist - probably it can, but I digress ) but as someone who genuinely feels that some things need to be looked at square in the face and questioned ... and if the answers to the questions don't make people feel warm and fuzzy then so be it.

 

He's not so bad in that area, I'll grant you - Hitchens and Harris are the main offenders in that department, and a lot of people on Internet forums seem to take a cue from those guys.

 

I'm fully on board with the idea that not everything fits comfortably into the realm of science - really I am. Love, art, friendship, fun, sex and, of course music have elements that science can cast light on but as I said before science can't explain how it feels to experience these things - and nor should it try (probably). However, where science has a torch (flashlight, I believe Americans call it) that it can shine onto something then I think it has a duty to do so, no matter how we might feel about the results.

 

Of course it has a duty. I don't question that. But the way it is done and, more particularly, how conversations are broached with people who may not be so accepting of those results, matters a lot. It's a context thing, really.

[nat whilk II]

Philosophy, in the classic sense (not in the sense of what some call a philosophy of life, which of course is an ethos , not a philosophy), seems to me to be of surprisingly resilient interest -- considering, in particular, that I'm such a hard headed empiricist that my idealism surpasses even that of Hume and Berkeley (at least if I remember their positions correctly). What can be known for certain is only that "I" experience something . It may be a steady state, a moment of fantasy, a story that 'ends' in the eternal now that may well be all there is or ever will be -- a fantastical moment frozen outside of any illusion of time. That level of idealism -- call it solipsism if you will -- is, obviously, of limited practical value. (Yet I still find various attempts to discuss the subject of what can be known quite interesting at times.) Science proceeds from the assumption that there are real phenomena of some sort that somehow correspond to or give rise to that impression of time and continuity. It attempts to give us a method for observing, measuring, and making sense of those phenomena. By its very ethos, the conclusions which can be derived from that method are necessarily limited. Those who attempt to over-extend science to conclusions which can't be reasonably derived from the evidence rendered by that method, in order to justify their own preferred beliefs -- whether deist, atheist, or something else, altogether -- seem to me to work against knowledge and subvert the acceptance of scientific thinking and rationalism. Science may fill us with awe and wonder -- and that may, itself, be a spur toward spiritual endeavor, but spirit is and will remain for the foreseeable future (assuming time and the phenomenological world actually exist of course ) a subject which science can have no purview. (Of course, some have made the same argument about religion and spirit. ) I would no sooner go to the O.T. looking for phenomenological accuracy than I would expect science to tell me what is right or good. Science may well suggest a practical ethos -- it seems to me that, if one sorts the data in the right fashions, our existing social science, for instance, can offer pragmatic suggestions for behaviors and even attitudes that result in greater personal satisfaction and social harmony... but beyond the practical? The spiritual, the metaphysical? It's simply not within the scope of science, as we now (and for any foreseeable future) know the endeavor.

To dust off some of the old philosophical conundrums:

The era of Berkeley, Hume, and Kant clearly defined the subjective/objective distinction, which has given everyone a problem that has avoided any lasting solutions - although there are fantastically brilliant attempts.

It's that GAP that is the rub - the how do you get from the HERE (the subjective perception of phenomena) to the THERE (the objective existence of things "in themselves" apart from perceptions).

There is an implicit belief among the scientifically minded that things exists objectively apart from the vaguaries of perception. But the philosophical community has in large part abandoned this objective numenal world as a chimera.

Kant believed there was more than one mode of knowledge - one of them being a type of knowledge that came without the need for perception. And that morals, and God, and logic, and other ineffable a priori items were accessible in the numenal world, not as things to be observed and noted on a pad, but as things to intuitively know in an absolute fashion. So he had phenomena on one hand - things perceived, things about which there could never be absolute certainty (agreeing with Hume there), and on the other hand, numena, things that by their nature are known with absolute certainty apart from perception (religious people tend to find in Kant something of a kindred spirit.)

For example, from a phenomenal perspective, I can't say that any scientific theory is absolutely true, nor can I say that I know in advance that if I recount my fingers that I will always come up with the same ten. That sort of certainty, which we almost all intuitively have, comes according to Kant, from the numenal a priori structure of logic (and the numenal universe). According to Hume, that certainty comes merely from "habit and custom".

There's a real underlying tension and fundamental self-contradiction in the modern, typically scientific mindset - the belief in a world "out there" independent of perception, is a common, pre-critical belief for the scientifically minded, but it has it's roots in a clearly non-perceptive, non-empirical, intuitive "leap" of faith. "It all has to make sense somehow" is one of the holy commandments of science - but this is an item of faith, not of science.

This ties back to the discussion about morals and values, and whether they are fit subjects for philosophy or science. I'm heavily attracted to the idea that morals and value judgements permeate all human activity, scientific or otherwise. And as an example, in my description of the fundamental item of faith that is common to the scientifically-minded, there is clearly an assumption of value - a value judgement - that knowledge is better than ignorance, that sense is better than nonsense, and an item of faith that the universe is not fundamentally chaotic and unknowable. Of course, there is self-interest in this belief and value judgment for the scientist - he/she won't be ultimately wasting his/her time, and that the scientific way will always prove to be the most reliable, most productive, most respectable way to achieve a higher mode of life for humans...inspiring and, well, self-serving ideas at the same time.


nat whilk ii

[blue2blue]

But what good does it do, again, to point it out if it's done in such a way that the person listening is going to reject it outright? I think part of the very reason a lot of people cling to a literalist interpretation like that is that science (the populist version anyway) has promoted this idea that if something isn't literally factual, it's worthless. This is bankrupt thinking, and will not satisfy much of anybody ultimately. I don't blame anyone for rejecting that idea.

Science doesn't have a 'problem' with literature -- unless someone is insisting something is literally true but not offering any evidence.

 

For instance, I think it's fair to say science doesn't have a problem with Moby Dick when it's understood as literature. But if Melville had insisted it was true, there might well have been some early marine zoologists who wanted to hear more about that white whale.

 

 

[Not being up on my marine biology, I'll cop that that might be a poor analogy if white whales actually are common.]