"Scientism" on Wikipedia ...

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fire with fire, dumb with dumb

Come on. Solve all the problems in philosophy that nobody has solved so far. 2 of them are around 2000 years old. I know you can do it, because you use science, right?

 

[Sheldon]

Ya'll stoop to the DUMBEST arguments!

It was your argument, not mine. All I did was point out how dumb it was.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It also seems PureX doesn't seem to realize that his claim would negate the possibility of any atheist resorting to scientism, by definition, oopsy. Atheists don't believe in any deity or deities.

Well, at least one of the assumption is from Christianity and philosophy in combination.
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
Others are pure philosophy and in effect make the human intellect God.

 

[joelr]

Planck time and length have theoretical physical properties, the postulate being that they are the minimal levels of precision by which any measurement can be made; the limits of reduction beyond which no further division is possible. But what we are really discussing here is a language by which we understand and describe the universe; and language is a metaphysical human construct. So as soon as we begin trying to make sense of the physical world using semantics, mathematics, or laws of science, we are as @mikkel_the_dane says, well into the realm of philosophy. There may be Science without a philosophy of science, but that will not serve to give us a full understanding of the universe

I don't see the point. The Planck length may be theoretical but it's theoretical based on quantum mechanics which is the most precise theory ever discovered. Mathematics is not philosophy. You can make predictions using the laws of physics and they will happen consistently. The math has also shown physical phenomenon that we didn't know about and under investigation they turned out to be real. The universe it only divisible up to a point then it can no longer be divided.

 

[joelr]

Yeah, now express the meaning of the bold one in physical measurements. But you can't, so you have done something which has no one to one physical measurements.

Did I not say I don't care about what was in bold?

 

[joelr]

Right along side 'truth', 'reality', 'existence', and 'objective physical evidence'.

Turns out that physicality without metaphysicality is ... nothing at all. Of no consequence whatever.

Objective evidence is not like Superman and all Gods ever. We can demonstrate evidence. Any science team can arrive at the same conclusions and confirm evidence. Physical laws are demonstrable. Gods are not. A metaphysical reality is not demonstrable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Did I not say I don't care about what was in bold?

Yeah, we are all subjective sometimes and express something, which is without physical/objective evidence.

 

[joelr]

You speak as if theists all think about God with all the same ideas. Just your language here says that you see their idea of God as other to humans, outside of them, coming to their homes to answer prayers, from his perch up in the heavens somewhere, or something like like that. Are you sure all theists imagine God they way you are imagining God is to them?

The theists I speak with here have all the same general concepts. If one imagines a God as part of themselves they are not a theist.

So does all your concepts of reality. But if you want to talk about these things as outside of people's minds, you have already provided your own evidence in the above sentence. You are speaking of these as objective things which we can talk about.

Yes it's all in one's mind. When we talk of concepts like love then it's assumed it's a similar feeling that all people share and understand. It's still all in the mind.
It isn't a big secret that when you spend time with others every aspect of daily experience is similar. We all have similar reactions to events and circumstances. All of this is in the mind. Humans have similar experiences. I do not care about this type of philosophy. I'm debunking supernatural wu. Philosophical double talk is pointless for this discussion.

They aren't just inside your own head, but are something in shared mutual spaces which we are able to form ideas and concepts around them in order to think about them, interact with them, and talk about them in this discussion. You are pointing to them as things, as objective of discussion. They things humans experience and share in common spaces. They have actual reality in order for that to be.

In this case they are in the head of everyone in the discussion. Again, quibbling about this isn't interesting.

Think of it in terms of a tornado. Is a tornado something in itself, without the winds that create it? Yet we all know a tornado is something real, even if it exists through emergent processes. Try thinking outside the box a little here.

A tornado is 2 things. A concept in out mind. A rotating mesocyclone that pulls in RFD and winds from the storm center and forms a consendation funnel.

Oh dear god. You don't get it, do you? Does he have to? That's not the point of the research. It's about people's faith in whatever they place that into - including atheism. It's about meaning making. Not about proving God, or some other such complete twaddle.

Atheism is not faith based. It's a lack of belief in certain Gods. You don't seem to get it. I am arguing against supernatural wu being real. I don't care what meaning people place on myths. The point here is to explain that they are not real.

You assume this. You are wrong.

I have been studying theologians here and there. Every single one makes the assumption the religion they study is real.
"
Christian theology is the theology of Christian belief and practice.[1] Such study concentrates primarily upon the texts of the Old Testament and of the New Testament, as well as on Christian tradition. Christian theologians use biblical exegesis, rational analysis and argument. Theologians may undertake the study of Christian theology for a variety of reasons, such as in order to:

• help them better understand Christian tenets[2]
• make comparisons between Christianity and other traditions[3]
• defend Christianity against objections and criticism
• facilitate reforms in the Christian church[4]
• assist in the propagation of Christianity[5]
• draw on the resources of the Christian tradition to address some present situation or perceived need[6]"

This really bothers you, doesn't it? That if somehow what others call the divine is a real thing, that must mean the God of Fear from your childhood might actually be true and come to get you, or something, right? Why such a closed mind on the topic, boxing it into a corner of your own fears if it's not the case?

The "childhood fear" thing has been wrong all along, I pointed it out passively but you didn't get it. Now it just sound dumb.
Your spin on theology is also wrong. People often use the work of theologians as a source too prove something in a religious argument. I keep having to point out that the work from a theologian isn't interested in finding out the source of the myths and such. They analyze the scripture as if it's divine. SO it isn't a credible source when debating the truth of a religion.
In your article, the "divine" was introduced into the mix with no demonstration that such a thing is even real. Hence it sounds like a theologian, and it was.

You sound like you're trying to convince yourself, more than anyone else. BTW, I've never said that the Divine is not Nature. I view Nature with a capital N, meaning it is Divine. But you see it as nothing but rocks. I see it as something more than that. Seeing the Divine, is a matter of perception. Not whether or not it is actually rocks. Of course a rock is a rock. But you see only a rock. I see an expression of the Divine.

Oh wow, you don't just see rocks and you use special capital letters, do you have a bumper sticker explaining how you are so much more spiritually advanced then others?
Or do you have an expression of the divine that sticks to your bumper (also an expression of the divine)......yeah, don't care.

I suppose you could. But you'd need to describe the nature of it for me to consider it as fitting an authentic peak experience. I doubt that, based on your completely flattened ideas of reality expressed in your comments and feedback to what I'm posting. You simply can't see or hear anything that is being said.

Oh I could, but I would have to run it by the master of perception first. LOL I can hear what is being said. I'm simply sticking to the original point that there are no external divine realms that can be demonstrated and these concepts are in our minds. I have zero care in comparing how many Deepak CHopra books I've read and can also pretend I'm this super Carlos Casteneda percieving spiritualist. It's funny to hear you be a spiritual elitist and reminds me how full of crap a lot of that stuff is.

You're trying to box this discussion into a strawman argument of your own design. You're not having a conversation with me, but with your own fears.

I could continue and respond to each of your other comments, but you're just repeating the same things. You're having a debate with your own fears, not with me.

No, I've made the same point right from the start. I am arguing against supernatural wu that has no evidence and arguing for critical thinking. You decided to drag this into something else then went all ego and can't stop expressing how spiritually elite you are (and how I'm not). Which actually ruins that whole point?

Your belief that you found some old fear is simply wrong. Even when told this you cannot grasp it? I also told you I'm not interested in spiritual mumbo-jumbo. That causes people to say ridiculous stuff like "you see rocks, I see the Divine".
Even worse, you have no idea in what people see in nature in terms of transcendent experiences?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The theists I speak with here have all the same general concepts. If one imagines a God as part of themselves they are not a theist.



Yes it's all in one's mind. When we talk of concepts like love then it's assumed it's a similar feeling that all people share and understand. It's still all in the mind.
It isn't a big secret that when you spend time with others every aspect of daily experience is similar. We all have similar reactions to events and circumstances. All of this is in the mind. Humans have similar experiences. I do not care about this type of philosophy. I'm debunking supernatural wu. Philosophical double talk is pointless for this discussion.



In this case they are in the head of everyone in the discussion. Again, quibbling about this isn't interesting.



A tornado is 2 things. A concept in out mind. A rotating mesocyclone that pulls in RFD and winds from the storm center and forms a consendation funnel.



Atheism is not faith based. It's a lack of belief in certain Gods. You don't seem to get it. I am arguing against supernatural wu being real. I don't care what meaning people place on myths. The point here is to explain that they are not real.




I have been studying theologians here and there. Every single one makes the assumption the religion they study is real.
"
Christian theology is the theology of Christian belief and practice.[1] Such study concentrates primarily upon the texts of the Old Testament and of the New Testament, as well as on Christian tradition. Christian theologians use biblical exegesis, rational analysis and argument. Theologians may undertake the study of Christian theology for a variety of reasons, such as in order to:

• help them better understand Christian tenets[2]
• make comparisons between Christianity and other traditions[3]
• defend Christianity against objections and criticism
• facilitate reforms in the Christian church[4]
• assist in the propagation of Christianity[5]
• draw on the resources of the Christian tradition to address some present situation or perceived need[6]"

The "childhood fear" thing has been wrong all along, I pointed it out passively but you didn't get it. Now it just sound dumb.
Your spin on theology is also wrong. People often use the work of theologians as a source too prove something in a religious argument. I keep having to point out that the work from a theologian isn't interested in finding out the source of the myths and such. They analyze the scripture as if it's divine. SO it isn't a credible source when debating the truth of a religion.
In your article, the "divine" was introduced into the mix with no demonstration that such a thing is even real. Hence it sounds like a theologian, and it was.




Oh wow, you don't just see rocks and you use special capital letters, do you have a bumper sticker explaining how you are so much more spiritually advanced then others?
Or do you have an expression of the divine that sticks to your bumper (also an expression of the divine)......yeah, don't care.




Oh I could, but I would have to run it by the master of perception first. LOL I can hear what is being said. I'm simply sticking to the original point that there are no external divine realms that can be demonstrated and these concepts are in our minds. I have zero care in comparing how many Deepak CHopra books I've read and can also pretend I'm this super Carlos Casteneda percieving spiritualist. It's funny to hear you be a spiritual elitist and reminds me how full of crap a lot of that stuff is.





No, I've made the same point right from the start. I am arguing against supernatural wu that has no evidence and arguing for critical thinking. You decided to drag this into something else then went all ego and can't stop expressing how spiritually elite you are (and how I'm not). Which actually ruins that whole point?

Your belief that you found some old fear is simply wrong. Even when told this you cannot grasp it? I also told you I'm not interested in spiritual mumbo-jumbo. That causes people to say ridiculous stuff like "you see rocks, I see the Divine".
Even worse, you have no idea in what people see in nature in terms of transcendent experiences?

All fine and well. The problem is that when I apply critical thinking to the word "real" it is in the mind and connected to philosophy.
It ends here for 3 positions.
Metaphysically real as for naturalism and all the other similar variants.
Metaphysically real as for ontological idealism.
No positive claim of metaphysics.

So we are in practice for the everyday world playing limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism for all those words in the mind including real.

 

[joelr]

It is you hearing this in terms of a radical dualistic perception of reality. That is that if someone speaks of the Divine, it has to be other to me as the subject. You are forcing things into this framework, and therefore what is being said doesn't compute for you.

I believe that subject and object duality is a construct. Not reality. It's a matter of language and perception. Not actuality. The Divine is in fact neither subjective nor objective in that sense. It just IS. It exists in me, as me, and in the tree, as the tree, in everything and in nothing. Language is ill equipped to speak of "it" because language is dualistic in nature.

So we can in fact speak of the Divine from a subjective set of eyes, speaking of the Divine as an "object" outside of ourselves. But we can equally speak of the Divine as our true Self, subjectively looking within. And when we do that, at a certain point in breaking down this construct of a dualistic reality as a matter of perception, we find that common experience expressed as "Oneness", or the nondual.

"God" is not other to owns own self. But the idea of separate self is also itself dissolved and is now gone. That separation between the self and the divine is moved beyond. It itself is exposed an illusion of the mind, which we mistook as the actuality of Reality. It is a perception of reality, a relative truth, not an absolute Reality. It is "functionally true", but not Absolutely true. The separate self is as much an illusion of the mind and language, as imagining the Divine as outside oneselves or creation as a whole is.

So no, it's not outside yourself. But you are also not separate either. Both are an illusion of the mind. So when you say "It's all just in your mind". that is false. That presumes a separate self, outside the world, just like it imagines God to be.

You will probably call this vague or 'wishy washy", but that is because you will be struggling to try to fit it into your idea of reality, which itself exits, "only in your head". Everything you say about God not being real, can equally be said about your own idea of yourself as a separate object existing in reality disconnected and isolated from others also. It too is just a mental construct. So it's not just imagining God as a being outside yourself, but imagining yourself as a being outside God.

oh no I'm struggling so much.... Yeah I understand nondualism.

I don't care if I'm outside or inside a God. The difference between my idea of myself as a separate object existing in reality disconnected and isolated from others and the God being outside or inside myself is that I can demonstrate I am real.
If you are calling everything the Divine then you are just renaming nature. What you are discussing would be in the philospphy debates section.

 

[joelr]

Having read this post of yours it sounds like you are opposed to scientism.

Maybe you read it wrong?

 

[joelr]

Yeah, we are all subjective sometimes and express something, which is without physical/objective evidence.

Yes and I don't claim it's my personal savior deity or that it wrote a book of laws everyone should follow.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes and I don't claim it's my personal savior deity or that it wrote a book of laws everyone should follow.

But since you seem to use nature/natural as an objective real fact with evidence or what not, I will treat you as a believer in philosophical naturalism, and accept if you correct me and point out that you are only doing cognitive methodological.
As for whether you are real or not, that is philosophy as connected to "I think, therefore I am".

 

[joelr]

All fine and well. The problem is that when I apply critical thinking to the word "real" it is in the mind and connected to philosophy.
It ends here for 3 positions.
Metaphysically real as for naturalism and all the other similar variants.
Metaphysically real as for ontological idealism.
No positive claim of metaphysics.

So we are in practice for the everyday world playing limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism for all those words in the mind including real.

In the philosophy forum it might be different.
All I'm interested in here is for something to be real we can show methods of measuring, verifying, evaluate evidence and can be repeated and show consistent results. I believe germs are real. I do not believe Roswell aliens are real. The standard for "real" is something in the physical world that meets these standards of evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In the philosophy forum it might be different.
All I'm interested in here is for something to be real we can show methods of measuring, verifying, evaluate evidence and can be repeated and show consistent results. I believe germs are real. I do not believe Roswell aliens are real. The standard for "real" is something in the physical world that meets these standards of evidence.

That is your standard for real. Not mine. And no, I am not religious. So you are doing a claim of a standard that is not universal, just as when some people claim God as a standard.
Your bold one is as for the sentence not real itself, as it is a rule in your mind. You are using a subjective norm for behaviour. That is okay. I use another.

 

[PureX]

Objective evidence is not like Superman and all Gods ever. We can demonstrate evidence. Any science team can arrive at the same conclusions and confirm evidence. Physical laws are demonstrable. Gods are not. A metaphysical reality is not demonstrable.

But all any of this can tell us is how physicality functions. And that's not enough.

 

[joelr]

But since you seem to use nature/natural as an objective real fact with evidence or what not, I will treat you as a believer in philosophical naturalism, and accept if you correct me and point out that you are only doing cognitive methodological.
As for whether you are real or not, that is philosophy as connected to "I think, therefore I am".

Yes truth in a scientific way.

 

[joelr]

That is your standard for real. Not mine. And no, I am not religious. So you are doing a claim of a standard that is not universal, just as when some people claim God as a standard.
Your bold one is as for the sentence not real itself, as it is a rule in your mind. You are using a subjective norm for behaviour. That is okay. I use another.

No it is not like using God as a standard. A scientific standard is not the same as saying my pet rock is the standard or my favorite comic book character is the standard.
What is your standard for real?

 

[joelr]

But all any of this can tell us is how physicality functions. And that's not enough.

It tells us there are things we can do experiments on and get predictable results and other lines of evidence that these are real. Gods and superman have no evidence for them being real and evidence they are not real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes truth in a scientific way.

Yes, but that is not the only truth for the everyday world.
As far as I can tell there are at least 7 versions in one sense and in another 5 and yet in another 3. There is in practice no single universal truth for all of the everyday world. Nobody in recorded history has been able to do that for a single or a combination. Not with science, philosophy and/or religion.