"Scientism" on Wikipedia ...

[wandering peacefully]

You make things up about the both of us which are untrue.

Apologies to both for any untrue statements. Like you I can't seem to get enough time to be a reliable poster! I appreciate your response and am going to get back asap which is probably tomorrow. You are correct about some things and I need adequate time to think about before responding. Have a good day.

 

[wandering peacefully]

What you don't seem to grasp is that understanding the physical mechanisms by which such experiences happen in no way (logically or otherwise) negates their being actual experiences of a divine nature. Just as cosmology and evolution do not logically or otherwise negate the supposition of a creator God. What happens to us and how we understand what happens to us are not equivalent. Though, for us, they sure seem like it. And often, because we have no practical alternative, we have to take them as being equivalent.

I have personally had such a 'god experience' and can personally attest to the fact I have no idea what it was. Or if it was what I thought it was at the time. I was only a small child, and was not under any particular stress at the time, so I find it very unlikely that my 6-year-old mind conjured up such an elaborate and spectacular experience all on it's own. Though I do suspect that whatever it was that was happening, I was interpreting it in the only way I could given my very limited understanding of the world at that age. This does not, however, negate the wonder and power of the experience. And even now, many years later, I still cannot explain to myself or to anyone else what "really" happened, as you seem to do.

I don't talk about it because I honestly don't know what to say about it. Nor do I know what to say when others share their similar inexplicable "spiritual" experiences. They happen. They are inexplicable. That's about all I can say.

Ditto to you. Thank you for your reply. I will get back tomorrow hopefully. I like to have time to ponder responses and reply properly.

 

[Windwalker]

OK, but that pretty much is just giving the name God to things unknown. I don't see value in doing that. In fact, one needs to be careful with that word if one wants to be understood. I'm only just now learning what you mean by the word, and it turns out not to be anything that I don't refer to in the kind of language I've used in this post. Look at the mess Einstein created with his use of the word God, meaning something closer to the laws of physics or the universe. The word carries baggage. It implies belief in a conscious creator. I'll give the praise and credit to the universe, whatever its provenance, whatever its nature.

I disagree with the idea that Einstein, or I, or anyone else who speaks of the Universe as "God" are suggesting basically 'just the laws of physics', 'so therefore why say God?', type of understanding. Richard Dawkins reflects this view when he refers to pantheism as "sexed up atheism". No it is not "sexed up atheism". He cannot see beyond a rationalist framework of reality, the way Einstein was. You can see clearly in his quote I'm fond of posting, that he was not speaking of the laws of physics.

"To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."​

Why would he be saying it is impenetrable to us by our reason and rationality, if he was speaking about the laws of physics? Why would he say it is the heart of true religiousness, something of the heart, and not the mind, if it was just the laws of the universe he was speaking of?

As far as giving the name God to the 'unknown', I both agree and disagree. If it's unknown in the sense of at this point in our scientific knowledge so far, I disagree. It's not using "God" to fill in the gaps of knowledge. It's not a placeholder for a 'mystery' we have yet to solve. It is definitely not a "God of the gaps" idea I mean. It is pointing to the Mystery, which is beyond our ability to ever solve, ever, using the tools of the rational mind.

Where I do agree that God is as a name for the 'unknown', it is when we capitalize that word as the Unknown, that great Mystery, the Abyss, the Void, etc., which is pointing to something transrational, ever and always beyond what the rational mind and its tools of logic, reason, and science will ever be able to penetrate. It is, will always remain "impenetrable to us", with the dull tools of logic, reason, and our sciences. That is the great Mystery of which Einstein, and the mystics of the ages have always recognized. But, we can know, it "really exists", not with the mind, but with that part of ourselves that can connect and understand 'beyond reason'.

The crux of the difference here is that positivism assumes that there is nothing that reason itself will at some point be able to penetrate. Yet Einstein was saying, that that Mystery is "impenetrable". That is the sharp dividing line between scientism, and 'true science' as Einstein referred to it. It's something Popper recognized as well. As did Sartre. As did Camus. As did a long list of atheists and physicists, as well as the mystics of all ages.

I think that we're not so different you and I. We mostly just use different language to describe roughly the same thing, although judging by what follows, I think you don't recognize that. I think you see people like me as incomplete:

I disagree.

I'm a logical positivist, and strict empiricist - what you call rudder dominance. Somehow, people who say what I say - empiricism, not faith, is the way to decide what is true about the world - are heard as saying that reason is their only mode of conscious thought, like Mr. Spock from Star Trek, half a person, no soul, no love or sense of the beautiful. This is contrasted with the passionate Captain Kirk. But that's a caricature that describes almost nobody.

I'll take what you say about the Mr. Spock reference. In some cases that is true, but not in all cases. I think there are those who are very much not in touch with the subtle and nuanced textures of the interior landscapes, and are 'all in the head'. Certainly you aren't impressing me as one of those. I think that was the point of Sartre and his Existentialist philosophy, pointing to the positivists and saying that even though they claim reason tells us everything, they don't actually live true to that. Nobody really actually lives that way, in other words. It's a good argument, but doesn't really fit reality in how we live as human beings in practice.

When I mentioned 'rudder dominance' that doesn't mean someone doesn't actually feel the wind blowing, has that sail in the wind, in addition to using the rudder to steer the vessel. I suppose to carry the analogy further, is that if the focus of the captain of the boat is all about the rudder, they aren't necessarily paying as much attention to the other elements and the efficiency of the journey across the lake can suffer. There is a certain danger or risk if your eye is always on the rudder, as you're not necessarily paying attention to the sail. It could stall or even capsize the boat.

And vice versa is true as well. Those who are all about the 'spiritual experience' of the wind and the sail, aren't paying as close attention to keeping the ship on course, and they could run aground and crash into the rocks straight ahead of them. If for instance, they think "only the Bible has all the answers. Trust in the word only", they surely are going to have some serious issues navigating the waters of a world 2000 years removed from the original map maker's views of the sea at that time. It's pretty hard to translate, "beyond here lay dragons" into sailing through modern shipping lanes.

And it's consistent with the attitude atheists see from theists and spiritualists quite often - we're empty, lacking purpose, living a black and white existence like a mindless robot:

I see that as also true going from the atheist to the theist, that they are all believing in unsportable, prerational twaddle. I think that bias goes both ways. This is why you hear me say more than infrequently, I see it as flipsides of the same coin. Each side presuming themselves to have the "real truth", and the other as wrong, or out of touch with reality.

I like to share this story of my friend from Bible college I graduated together with. Both of us had abandoned our beliefs and called ourselves atheists at the time this was said. We were out at lunch, and he said to me reflecting back on those days in school. "I'm so glad that I know the truth now!" I thought for a minute and remarked back. "But I remember the two of us saying that exact same thing back when we were in Bible college together". He paused and then responded, "Yeah, but the difference is, now I really DO have the truth".

My point is, what we believe is true at one point in our lives, can be held with just as much assurity and confidence as at another time as it was previously. Always assuming before we were wrong, but now we are right. And what about tomorrow? And the day after that? You see? It's not what we believe is true, but how we believe it, how we hold our beliefs about our beliefs that really makes a difference. How firmly, or lightly or provisionally do we hold them? How seriously do we take them? How seriously do we need to take them?

"Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see." This is from Deepak Chopra, and earned a chuckle from me. Look at us atheists, just mindless robotic vacuums, no experience at all, just bumping into walls to take measurements and change direction when it detects an obstruction

As an example of assuming the other side's points of view about us, your quote here is in fact not from Deepak Chopra, but from John Lennon from the song Strawberry Fields. Are you sure those words are an attack against atheism?

. I like the way he used the opportunity to demean the religionists on the way :

View attachment 58178

Well, I think his comparison is between beliefs about Ultimate Reality, and experience. He puts atheism and religion in the same boat. I don't necessarily disagree with that, if the "ism" is where you place your self identity. That's not to say neither atheists nor religionists do not have spiritual experiences. Of ocourse But where do you self-identify primarily?

For me, I am finding the term SBNR, spiritual but not religious, a much better fit for me. That's why I no longer identify as either a theist or an atheist per se, which what I do believe can hold and embrace both. Spirituality can hold both, but is itself neither. Those are just flipsides of the same "belief" coin. Spirituality goes beyond belief.

I think that most accurately states my position here.

I'll address my final thoughts to your post later on. I have another poster I need to respond to after that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is definitely not a "God of the gaps" idea I mean. It is pointing to the Mystery, which is beyond our ability to ever solve, ever, using the tools of the rational mind.

OK. When I refer to the unknown, I don't use the word God or think in those terms. It's just one possibility, and adds nothing for me. It is not explanatory or predictive. It answers no questions. Why is there something rather than nothing? It doesn't answer that question. Why are life and mind even possible? Because God wanted it? Not an answer. Why is there a conscious God in that case? Why is that possible, and if it is, why did it come to pass that a God should actually exist. No meaningful answers are available at this time. So for me, the answer is, why guess? I'm good with there being a god and good with there not being a god. I don't feel a need to guess. In fact, I feel an obligation to the principles of critical thinking to not guess, as that would lead to a conclusion not supported by what came before - non sequitur.

If it's important to one to be correct and not believe wrong things, then one should no go beyond what reason supports: the question is unanswerable, and nothing more can be said other than that there might or might not be gods.

So what would be the cost to me if I did start calling the mystery God, apart from sinning against myself by taking that leap of faith, assuming that were possible (I'd have to undergo some major cognitive transformation for that to be possible again, something I couldn't accomplish by will)? Well, if I could really believe that and did, I might end up back in religion, or make mistakes again like I did the first time, believing that I was receiving messages from God and following them based on nothing more than that.

Usually this was harmless, or cost little, as when I believed I had a duty to proselytize, which temporarily alienated friends and family, but I also married badly using this method. I had a spiritual experience sitting on some steps with my Christian girlfriend in the evening, when I looked up at the crepuscular rays piercing through the clouds, and experienced a frisson that I interpreted as the Holy Spirit telling me to marry her. It was a poor match and ended in divorce after a few years.

I contrast that with my second attempt 31 years ago, where I used reason and experience to make that decision, and this time, married my atheist girlfriend with whom I was well suited, and have been happily married since. That's a pretty significant life lesson to me. Do not make decisions based in faith. It's the easiest way to be wrong.

The crux of the difference here is that positivism assumes that there is nothing that reason itself will at some point be able to penetrate.

I call myself a logical positivist, and what I mean by that is knowledge comes from reasoning and empiricism, and that statements that are not tethered to testable reality, so called metaphysical ideas, or unfalsifiable ideas, cannot be called right or wrong, and are thus meaningless, or as some say, not even wrong. This is roughly the same as calling myself an empiricist.

What I do not say is that reason or experience can answer all questions, just that that is the only path to answering the ones that can be answered. All knowledge, by which I mean useful ideas - the kind that can be used to accurately predict outcomes - is empirically derived. Other things that people call knowledge or truth are neither of those things to me. Even if there is a God, I don't believe that anybody can know that, and so the claim of a theist to know God is rejected. It's not that I know he's wrong, but rather, that he can't know he's right, and so, his belief that he is right is not knowledge as I have defined it, even if it's a lucky correct guess.

As an example of assuming the other side's points of view about us, your quote here is in fact not from Deepak Chopra, but from John Lennon from the song Strawberry Fields. Are you sure those words are an attack against atheism?

I guess I was ambiguous. The Chopra quote to which I referred was in the graphic. As you can imagine, I'm quite familiar with the Beatles and their lyrics. I thought the Lennon quote was apt, but the way I wrote, I can see you thinking I meant the Lennon quote was from Chopra. And no, those words are not an attack on atheism. "Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see." was a poetic representation of Chopra's depiction of atheists as "empty, lacking purpose, living a black and white existence like a mindless robot" (my words for his description of atheists having no experience except measurements).

Do you know what I have never seen from you or @PureX ? Any acknowledgement at all of the spiritual experiences both I and @It Aint Necessarily So have described in the open for all to see. Even though neither of us find it important to explain those experiences. We both have had the same experiences in different format that you two have.

What you don't seem to grasp is that understanding the physical mechanisms by which such experiences happen in no way (logically or otherwise) negates their being actual experiences of a divine nature. Just as cosmology and evolution do not logically or otherwise negate the supposition of a creator God. What happens to us and how we understand what happens to us are not equivalent. Though, for us, they sure seem like it. And often, because we have no practical alternative, we have to take them as being equivalent.

You ignored his post, which was about you previously ignoring his (and my) words on spiritual experiences without invoking spirits, and went into a straw man argument about your own experiences, implying that you have been told that they cannot be of a God (I never said or saw that from anybody else). What you were actually told is that WE don't frame it that way.

What message do you think that sends? You're not even listening to others. Look at the discussion @Windwalker and I are having. I write something, he addresses it, telling me when he agrees, and when he doesn't what he finds faulty in my case. And then I do the same for him. It's an actual discussion, with both parties listening to the other. How rare it is on RF to see two people disagreeing and actually engaged in dialectic. That didn't happen here with you, which the usual experience the critical thinker has interacting with the faith-based thinker. You chose to not address the comments made to you, but rather, begin discussing yourself some more, a meaningless answer about how you can't separate the experience from a God interpretation to people who can, and who were hoping that you would engage in a discussion of something meaningful to them.

I'm also curious about what you think of our godless spiritual experiences. Perhaps you think like we do, that your experiences and ours are similar, but we misinterpret them, failing to recognize the God there. Or maybe you could have said that perhaps we are correct that no God is involved, but you don't think so, or prefer to think otherwise. Or maybe you think we have no such experiences, or that we have vacuous experiences not worth having, but calling them spiritual anyway.

I asked you what message you think you sent by failing to acknowledge him complaining that you had already failed to acknowledge him. It says tome that you don't consider the experience worth anything, not even an answer, if its not like yours. It says to me that you consider his experience and mine invalid and empty. Moreover, you have started threads lamenting the foolishness and hubris of atheists denying this wonderful gift that you are offering, the gift of belief in a God. Why won't they take this free and valuable gift? What is wrong with them?

It is amazing to me how 'gnostic' most atheists are. How strongly they believe that if God exists, they would certainly be able to know it based on the overwhelming power of "logic and evidence".

Another straw man. Nobody has said that to you. That's your extrapolation of the skeptic's position that he won't believe without compelling supporting evidence. You hear that as requesting your evidence, which he knows you don't have, and then interpret that as you did above.

In fact, I just said the opposite of what you wrote to Windwalker. I just said that I acknowledge that a God might exist and that that might be unknowable. And I have told you the same before as well. But whereas Windwalker and I had a discussion, you and I don't. You post, I comment on it. You ignore that and post some more. I comment, and on it goes. That's not a discussion. Only one of us is listening to the other.

 

[PureX]

Nobody has said that to you. That's your extrapolation of the skeptic's position that he won't believe without compelling supporting evidence. You hear that as requesting your evidence, which he knows you don't have, and then interpret that as you did above.

In fact, I just said the opposite of what you wrote to Windwalker. I just said that I acknowledge that a God might exist and that that might be unknowable. And I have told you the same before as well. But whereas Windwalker and I had a discussion, you and I don't. You post, I comment on it. You ignore that and post some more. I comment, and on it goes. That's not a discussion. Only one of us is listening to the other.

You reject theism because you have no evidence of God existing. Thus, you presume that if God existed, you could/would be presented with evidence of it (that there would be evidence of it). Claiming that it's possible that you could be wrong doesn't change that. Nor does blaming me for pointing it out.

 

[Yazata]

You assume, maybe coz I am from Hong Kong,
that I am familiar with Taoism, Buddhism, folk religions
and even Christianity?

I have no idea where you live, nor do I particularly care.

I definitely dont need a lesson.

What you need to do is address the counterexamples that I presented. You stated (or at least suggested) that "religious atheism" is a contradiction in terms. So I provided several examples of what is arguably religious atheism.

Buddhism and Jainism are undeniably religions, and they don't have any monotheistic-style creator gods, and in some of their modernist variants don't have any deities at all. Their existence appears to falsify your assertion.

John Scotus Eriugena was undeniably a Christian and he is on record as saying that "literally God is not" (in the manner that everything else exists) so that the word 'exists' is not applicable to God.

I am also familiar with the English language,
various definitions and, with the vice of equivocation.
All religions involve a belief in supernatural beings.
That is what a religion is.

If you want to make that assertion, then you need to defend it. I attacked it with several examples that would seem to falsify it, so you need to address that apparent difficulty in your position.

In real-life Audie, defining the word "religion" is one of the fundamental questions of the philosophy of religion. A satisfactory definition has yet to be produced, and in the view of most philosophers, will never be forthcoming.

If we consider the variety of religious ideas, expressions and practices around the world, there doesn't seem to be any essential characteristic that all religions share in common and that only religions possess. What the word 'religion' seems to be is what philosophers call a 'family resemblance concept'. These all resemble each other, without them all sharing any single quality in common. So that what makes something a 'religion' is that it shares a sufficient number of characteristics found in other paradigmatic examples of religions.

Given that kind of understanding of what a religion is, it's easy to see how evangelical atheism can be called a 'religion', provided only that it shares enough qualifies in common with other things already recognized as religions.

Family resemblance - Wikipedia

I dont do gods. (Supernatural beings)
I dont believe in them. I have no religion

But I wasn't talking about you Audie. I was addressing the idea that "religious atheism" is a contradiction in terms.

Any claim that i do, that "atheist religion" exists,
is nothing but an insensible contradiction.

My examples seem to prove you wrong about the latter bit.

Which, btw for all the excursions into
" Eriugna" or whatev, you never addressed.

John Scotus Eriugena, very famous early medieval Christian philosopher. The fact that you have never heard of him suggests that perhaps you might need to study the history and philosophy of religion a bit more than you have.

Religious atheist is a contradiction,
like hot ice or stationary movement.

Do you understand that?

I undertand what you are saying. But I think that your position is rather naive, to say nothing of false.

 

[lukethethird]

You reject theism because you have no evidence of God existing. Thus, you presume that if God existed, you could/would be presented with evidence of it (that there would be evidence of it). Claiming that it's possible that you could be wrong doesn't change that. Nor does blaming me for pointing it out.

So? I could change my mind about rainbows if I find a pot of gold at the end of one, so what? In the meantime I am not going to pretend that there is gold at the end of rainbows.

 

[Audie]

I have no idea where you live, nor do I particularly care.



What you need to do is address the counterexamples that I presented. You stated (or at least suggested) that "religious atheism" is a contradiction in terms. So I provided several examples of what is arguably religious atheism.

Buddhism and Jainism are undeniably religions, and they don't have any monotheistic-style creator gods, and in some of their modernist variants don't have any deities at all. Their existence appears to falsify your assertion.

John Scotus Eriugena was undeniably a Christian and he is on record as saying that "literally God is not" (in the manner that everything else exists) so that the word 'exists' is not applicable to God.



If you want to make that assertion, then you need to defend it. I attacked it with several examples that would seem to falsify it, so you need to address that apparent difficulty in your position.

In real-life Audie, defining the word "religion" is one of the fundamental questions of the philosophy of religion. A satisfactory definition has yet to be produced, and in the view of most philosophers, will never be forthcoming.

If we consider the variety of religious ideas, expressions and practices around the world, there doesn't seem to be any essential characteristic that all religions share in common and that only religions possess. What the word 'religion' seems to be is what philosophers call a 'family resemblance concept'. These all resemble each other, without them all sharing any single quality in common. So that what makes something a 'religion' is that it shares a sufficient number of characteristics found in other paradigmatic examples of religions.

Given that kind of understanding of what a religion is, it's easy to see how evangelical atheism can be called a 'religion', provided only that it shares enough qualifies in common with other things already recognized as religions.

Family resemblance - Wikipedia



But I wasn't talking about you Audie. I was addressing the idea that "religious atheism" is a contradiction in terms.



My examples seem to prove you wrong about the latter bit.



John Scotus Eriugena, very famous early medieval Christian philosopher. The fact that you have never heard of him suggests that perhaps you might need to study the history and philosophy of religion a bit more than you have.



I undertand what you are saying. But I think that your position is rather naive, to say nothing of false.

Whatevs

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Another straw man. Nobody has said that to you. That's your extrapolation of the skeptic's position that he won't believe without compelling supporting evidence. You hear that as requesting your evidence, which he knows you don't have, and then interpret that as you did above. In fact, I just said the opposite of what you wrote to Windwalker. I just said that I acknowledge that a God might exist and that that might be unknowable. And I have told you the same before as well. But whereas Windwalker and I had a discussion, you and I don't. You post, I comment on it. You ignore that and post some more. I comment, and on it goes. That's not a discussion. Only one of us is listening to the other.

You reject theism because you have no evidence of God existing. Thus, you presume that if God existed, you could/would be presented with evidence of it (that there would be evidence of it). Claiming that it's possible that you could be wrong doesn't change that. Nor does blaming me for pointing it out.

This is a nice example of what I mean by you not listening, not paying attention to what is said to you. How could you possibly write, "you presume that if God existed, you could/would be presented with evidence of it" immediately after reading, "I acknowledge that a God might exist and that that might be unknowable." Seriously? That's interesting to me. How does this happen? No disrespect intended, but I wonder if you do this in all discussion, and if you do, how you get through a day. When somebody tells you that they won't be home until four o'clock, do you know what that means, and do you respond to that responsively, like saying, "OK, then I won't show up before four," or are your answers like these in this thread, answers that would suggest that you weren't even listening? Do you show up at three confused that nobody is home? I don't see how a person could function like that, so I presume you do better there than here. But why?

You still failed to comment on the the spiritual experiences of the atheists here. You don't seem to know it was asked. If you did, wouldn't that be reflected somewhere in your replay, even if only to say that you have no opinion, or any other words to reflect that you weren't having a petit mal seizure while reading it.

These are not discussions. They are you in a bubble and me trying to analyze what I am seeing here and reporting it to the thread. What else is left for me to do if you insist on that behavior? Do you understand that that question is not for you, that it is a rhetorical question commenting on your posting behavior, or that based on past experience with you, I don't expect you to understand or assimilate it?

Buddhism and Jainism are undeniably religions, and they don't have any monotheistic-style creator gods, and in some of their modernist variants don't have any deities at all. Their existence appears to falsify your assertion.

Undeniably religions? I don't consider them religions. Naturalistic worldviews are not included in my definition of the word.

If you want to make that assertion, then you need to defend it. I attacked it with several examples that would seem to falsify it, so you need to address that apparent difficulty in your position.

It's a definition, not an assertion. You offering a different definition for religion doesn't require her to change hers or defend it. It works for her, just as it works for me. Why would I want to detach a couple of naturalistic worldviews and group them with the faith-based ones? Because some other people call them religions? These are likely the same people who define atheism as the explicit rejection of the existence of gods, another definition that doesn't work for me, since it would exclude me as an atheist. We define words in ways that separate things that one wants to discuss as a collective from all other things.

In real-life Audie, defining the word "religion" is one of the fundamental questions of the philosophy of religion. A satisfactory definition has yet to be produced, and in the view of most philosophers, will never be forthcoming.

Not her dilemma, nor mine. I have a satisfactory definition of religion. It's the very short one I just gave you, which it seems is the same one @Audie gave you earlier. All one need do is choose a definition that works for you, and then move on with it. No need or value in belaboring the matter further. I've never had a problem using that definition, so the matter is settled until I do have a problem with it, at which time I will have a reason to revise it.

Of course, we'll encounter the strict lexical prescriptionists, who will insist that we conform to their preferred definition, telling others, "You can't just make up your own definition." Well, yes we can. All we need do is let others know what we mean when we use the word. Now they know that when I say religion, atheistic worldviews are not included. If that's a point that the collocutor can't get past, and wants to argue about how the word must be used, the discussion is over before it begins. That's a person not interested in discussion, but in controlling how language is to be used. Not interesting. Next.

I like to give the example in contract bridge of partners having different meanings for the same bid. Ideally, we mean the same thing whenever either of us makes a given bid in a given context, but it's not necessary as long as we each know what the other is telling us. One place experienced players differ is in the meaning of the 1 No Trump opening bid. Some will make it with five hearts or spades, some won't. I'm in the latter camp. With 5 hearts or spades, I will not open 1NT. In case you don't know, the partners are looking first for 8 or more hearts or spades in the combined hands. When I open 1NT, and my partner has no more than three hearts or spades (called the major suits), he already knows that their is no heart or spade fit, and begins looking for other denominations to play in.

But if he opens 1NT, and I know that he may have a five-card major, I have to let him know I have 3 in either major if I do. We both do that with a 2 club response to 1NT, but when I make it, I am only promising a 3-card major, whereas when he makes that call, I know that he has at least one 4-card major. We're speaking in different languages, but just as effectively as if we used the same definitions for these bids, since we know what the other means once he's explained how he uses the bid. There is no reason to insist that he use my definition or I his (that's not strictly true, as the American Contract Bridge League insists that partners play the same card in sanctioned competition, so we'd have to agree, but there would be no difficulty or contention there).

 

[PureX]

This is a nice example of what I mean by you not listening, not paying attention to what is said to you. How could you possibly write, "you presume that if God existed, you could/would be presented with evidence of it" immediately after reading, "I acknowledge that a God might exist and that that might be unknowable." Seriously? That's interesting to me. How does this happen?

It happens because you won't connect 1 + 1. And I will.

You don't believe God exists because no one has given you any evidence that God exists. (No one has given you any evidence that God does not exist, either, but you ignore this.) But then you say that you could be wrong and that God actually may exist even though you have no evidence of it. But obviously you don't believe that you are wrong, because you don't believe God exists. (You are a self-proclaimed atheist, after all.) And it's all based on the fact that you have no evidence, even though you claim your thinking is all evidence based, but that it could be wrong.

Are you starting to see the problem, here? None of this is logical OR evidence based. And none of this is agnosticism. It's ALL about you thinking that if God exists you would know it, which is why you believe God doesn't exist. Yet, as soon as I point this out, you will immediately proclaim that you are not an atheist after all, that you believe maybe God does exist, but that you just don't know if God exists or not because there is no evidence of it. Again, proclaiming your agnosticism based on the failure of your previous gnostic assumption that unless you see evidence, you must believe that no gods exist.

And roundy-rosy the nonsense continues. You are an atheist but you aren't really an atheist, just a skeptic.. You are agnostic but you aren't really agnostic because you believe you would know if God existed, if God exists, unless you're wrong about that ... and then you get upset when I call all this silly incoherent gibberish disingenuous. Probably because it IS.

It's not my fault that your proclaimed position is silly, incoherent, and looks pretty disingenuous when you continually refuse to take any responsibility for it. I know you think this is all settled and logical in your own head, but dude, looking at it from the outside in, it's just a confused mess of contradictions and dancing goal posts trying not to hold itself to the same scrutiny it so dearly loves to subject everyone else's position to.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Do you know what I have never seen from you or @PureX ?

Any acknowledgement at all of the spiritual experiences both I and @It Aint Necessarily So have described in the open for all to see. Even though neither of us find it important to explain those experiences. We both have had the same experiences in different format that you two have.

As well as millions of other humans have since the dawn of human imagination capability.

The only difference between us and them is the fact we are able to acknowledge these experiences are derived through the evolved and complex mind of the human animal.

Neither of you are willing to give up the cozy comfortable feeling that these special experiences are a result of evolution of the human mind and not some universal causation , being magically brought about by some totally uninvolved, totally invisible and immeasurable, non-substance which you try to communicate as some god.

How about speaking to the experience of the now rational atheists have experienced and expressed?

Have you been a deer running through the snow in the forest? Leaving only deer prints? Well, I have. At the time, I was in a state of belief about magic.
How are you going to explain that other than I have acquired knowledge about how and where deer run, because I've been following their tracks for 45 years?

This is not all about you and your ignorance of what agnostic atheists believe because you have been told many times what this is.

You ignore those aspects of our stories because you are scared your stories may not be realistic.

Sounds to me like you have lifted a corner of the veil - or had it lifted for you - but that subsequently, for whatever reason or reasons, you dismissed the validity of your own experience. The doors of perception, to use another metaphor - from William Blake this time - were briefly opened; but now the ego, assuming the guise of the rational mind, has persuaded you that what you experienced was an illusion, a trick of the mind.

Have you considered, however, that it may be the material world which is the illusion? And that the great reality is that which lies both beyond and within (Beyond the ego but within the higher self)?

 

[Sheldon]

Have you considered, however, that it may be the material world which is the illusion? And that the great reality is that which lies both beyond and within (Beyond the ego but within the higher self)?

Can't say I have, I mean how would we even know?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Can't say I have, I mean how would we even know?

I could recommend some reading, if you like? You might be interested to learn what some interpretations of quantum mechanics have to say about the insubstantiality of the material world at the sub atomic level.

 

[Audie]

I could recommend some reading, if you like? You might be interested to learn what some interpretations of quantum mechanics have to say about the insubstantiality of the material world at the sub atomic level.

Try Tegmark, The Mathematical Universe

 

[Windwalker]

Most theists believe a deity interacts with humans which would effect probabilities and could be shown that way.
Most theists also believe a scripture like the Bible. The Bible has many claims of God physically being on Earth, speaking to humans and miracles, destroying cities and so on.

There are lots of ways theists imagine God. All of the above can be understood in a myriad of different ways, from literal, to symbolic. But I don't think that most Christians literally do believe God has a physical body. God appearing on earth for example, are considered as 'theophanies' or temporary physical manifestations. Not that God has a literal body, like Mormons believe. They are pretty unique in that regard.

No but we all know that when we say we love someone that we are saying the emotions are in my brain. Metaphorically we also say they are in our heart. Nowhere in there is there any concept of love that exists outside of our minds when this is said. Love in our mind is real? It doesn't invalidate love just because it's in out brain?

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think when a mature person says to someone else that they love them, they aren't thinking of their immediate emotional states. A teenager or a small child might, but an adult is generally speaking of an attitude of commitment and respect with which they esteem that other person. Deeper still, love is a philosophy of life. And that is something that exists outside the person. Love is timeless, as the poets all know. Love is eternal as the mystic knows.

The Stages of Faith According to James W. Fowler | Thomas Armstrong, Ph.D.
"These personalized experiences, according to Fowler, essentially translate into feelings of trust and assurance in the universe and harmony with the divine. "

Harmony with the divine? No, you have to demonstrate there is a divine? He is a theologian - James W. Fowler (1940-2015) was an American theologian who was Professor of Theology

Yeah, that was my doing where I was citing from. That was how that person was reading Fowler's work. Fowler himself, doesn't use that language necessarily. And it matters not actually, as he did follow the rigors of scientific research, and his work is cited by numerous other academics as valid developmental research.

I think the best, neutral term to use is what Paul Tillich calls faith, as one's "Ultimate Concern". That can be understood in many ways, so long as it touches upon the depth of the "Ultimate". Fowler's research is not about the nature of God, or the Divine. It's about how people approach meaning making in regards to their perceived "Ultimate Concern".

Theology studies things like scripture, God, the divine.....as if they are real. There is no attempt to find the origins of the beliefs or question if they are true.

That is untrue. It does delve into the nature of faith and its human origins. It's not a God-biased theological work. Not at all.

You assume the subject of study is real.

I'm not assuming it. I know it is. You are assuming it's a religious treatise, which it is not.

Yes, I have a visceral experience of Thor after watching the movie and reading some comics. In my imagination he is very real. If I listen to metal and watch clips I feel inspired and full of energy. If I listened to inspirational music and read about a demigod who loved me and was always wanting to help I would be completely taken by emotion and bliss. Yet none of these things are real outside of my mind.

However an experience of music is different because I can demonstrate the music exists outside of my mind.

If you think what I am talking about relates to a Marvel movie experience, you are either mocking it, or you simply don't understand the nature of what peak experiences are. In which case, this is not an actual discussion about what I'm talking about.

sam Harris took years to go through the enlightenment process through strict meditation with a guru. He finds it is an interesting state to enter but in no way points to something outside our mind.

Why do you keep assuming I am saying God or the Divine is outside of you? This is a hangover from mythic-literal Christianity that sees God as external to oneself an creation at large. That's simply a mental device to think of God as 'other' to oneself. But as far as Sam Harris being Enlightened? Does he claim he is? That's news to me.

There are no studies of experiences that any qualified researchers have that they have all reached some consensus that "this experience is the one that is the Divine" ?

You don't like the word Divine. Okay, "this experience is transcendent". "This experience of of the Absolute". Any better? And yes, there is by an large agreement on what that means by researchers. You may chose to disregard those because you "don't believe it", but that's not due to anything other than person biases and chosen disbelief and cynicism. Not actual scholarly dispute.

Something like that doesn't even exist a little.

And you say this based upon what, other than cynicism? I've experienced it myself. So have many others. That is what researchers are looking at. Real experiences. Just because you wish to pollute those experiences with theological boogeymen of your own projected fears, does not mean any of us see those experiences that way. That, if anything, is "all in your own head".

Enlightenment has some correlations and does not in any way provide evidence that there is a God or a divine. It is evidence out mind can reach a state we call enlightenment.

I've never claimed it does. Why are you supplying that in this conversation? Is that something you fear might be real because you were made afraid of it by fundamentalists in your life?

You haven't explained a theistic view that can be demonstrated to exist outside of our mind. Or a way to investigate it to determine if it's more than just something entirely in ones mind.

I've remarked to others in this thread how this enters into the discussion completly from the minds of those projecting their own fears. You'll never find me making these claims. Who is it you are actually debating here? Your own demons?

Anyway, I think the rest is just more of the same, so I'll leave it here.

 

[joelr]

I am not a religious person in the standard sense.
And stop claiming that your assumption, that the universe is physical, is a fact. It is not a fact, because you can't do everything you do as a human only using your methodology,
In your text are words, which have no objective referent in combaition. You can't even show them to be real outside your mind, as they only refer back to your first personal mental understanding.
So here is your magic. You think the universe is physical, therefor it is a fact, that it is physical.
As a skeptic I haven't been able to do that and nor can I do an objective God.

There are 3 versions at play here.

1. The universe is physical.
2. The universe is from God.
3. I can't get neither to work.

I am of the 3rd version.

You are just using unfalsifiable statements. I cannot prove it's a fact that Superman isn't real. Processes in the mind are physical, we have no reason to think they are not. simple life forms with very simple nervous systems can be understood. Insect brains can be understood. We know our brains evolved from simple life. There is no point where suddenly brains are so complicated that you need invoke "non-physical" properties.
It's the same logic as when hominids became human then they suddenly get a soul and can go to an afterlife.
Brains and mental states evolved from simpler versions which were physical. They still are. I haven't seen any papers from neuro-science where brains produce mental states and therefore cannot be part of physical reality?
We cannot demonstrate thoughts because our technology is limited and there are restrictions on studying living brains. It's possible one day an advanced enough supercomputer will explain the details of consciousness at the quantum level processes in the brain.
At best you can only assert thoughts are metaphysical, no different than claims of Gods that has no evidence.

 

[joelr]

You are using the word ‘information’ in the way physicists use the word, ie in it’s physical rather than it’s semantic sense. Information not in the sense of meaning conveyed and ideas exchanged, but in the sense in which a physical variable is itself information (a specific temperature, say, or the rate of acceleration of an object)

So you have reduced the interpretation of a word, but you have not reduced the universe.

In any case information even in the sense you have used it, is both finite and inexhaustible. There is a limit up to which we can measure physical variables. This a function of of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, measurable by the Planck constant. But it is always possible to learn something new about an object, because when we gather information on it’s position, we lose information on it’s speed, for example.

Functions and behaviours of natural phenomena can be interpreted and predicted probabilistically, but I think you are wrong to say that the universe is reducible, or even that all it’s laws (which are human constructs anyway) can be understood. This is hubris, and the Classical Gods abhorred hubris.

“And the abyss shouts from her depth laid bare,
Heaven, hast though secrets? Man unveils me; I have none.”
- Percy Shelley, Prometheus Unbound

The context of the statement was a response to the idea that the universe isn't objective and reducible. But the uncertainty principle and the standard model follow objective rules. We can reduce the universe to basic laws and there are limits to the amount of information that is available. The amount may be large but there are only so many variables to each Planck volume, eventually there is a limit less than infinity.
The universe can be reduced to the basic components? Why not?

 

[Sheldon]

I could recommend some reading, if you like? You might be interested to learn what some interpretations of quantum mechanics have to say about the insubstantiality of the material world at the sub atomic level.

That doesn't suggest we are living in a simulation though, and it certainly isn't a reason to doubt the physical universe is real.

It is amazing to me how 'gnostic' most atheists are. How strongly they believe that if God exists, they would certainly be able to know it based on the overwhelming power of "logic and evidence".

Still banging the same gong, and still the same hollow sound from it.

 

[PureX]

You are just using unfalsifiable statements. I cannot prove it's a fact that Superman isn't real. Processes in the mind are physical, we have no reason to think they are not. simple life forms with very simple nervous systems can be understood. Insect brains can be understood. We know our brains evolved from simple life. There is no point where suddenly brains are so complicated that you need invoke "non-physical" properties.

Superman is real. That is a self evident fact. What you can't prove is that Superman is a living physical being. And that is the difference between physical reality and metaphysical reality. Both exist, but they are not both physically extant. One is physically extant and the other is conceptually extant. Both are real, and they both interact with and effect the other.

Which is why philosophical materialism was long ago declared a failed reality paradigm. And I don't understand why so many folks, here, insist on trying to maintain it.

 

[PureX]

Can't say I have, I mean how would we even know?

And yet you are SO certain that the material world is all there is.

What, do you suppose, is fueling all that certainty?