What is naturalism?

[blü 2]

Good, this is the first assumption beyond evidence. It is unknown whether you live in a real universe or an unreal one.

Yes, that's implicit in what I've been telling you from the start.

BUT I've also pointed out that YOU assume there's a world external to the self, because if you didn't, you wouldn't post here.

AND I've also pointed out that YOU assume our senses are capable of informing us about that world, because if you didn't, again, you wouldn't post here ─ which involves reading my posts and regarding them as real and responding to them.

AND I've also pointed out that YOU assume reason is a valid tool, since you use reason here.

AND SINCE WE AGREE ON THOSE ASSUMPTIONS we can proceed to talk, with that as the background.

You can assume that you live in a real one, but that doesn't make it real with evidence.

YES, THAT'S WHY IT HAS TO BE AN ASSUMPTION. The idea of evidence arises only AFTER we make all three of the assumptions above.

It makes it real that you assume you live in a real universe. The same with materialism, that is also an assumption and you can't demand evidence for other assumptions than materialism. How? Because assumptions are without evidence. That is what makes them assumptions.

So what, since you agree with and act on the basis of those assumptions ─ just like everyone else?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, that's implicit in what I've been telling you from the start.

BUT I've also pointed out that YOU assume there's a world external to the self, because if you didn't, you wouldn't post here.

AND I've also pointed out that YOU assume our senses are capable of informing us about that world, because if you didn't, again, you wouldn't post here ─ which involves reading my posts and regarding them as real and responding to them.

AND I've also pointed out that YOU assume reason is a valid tool, since you use reason here.

AND SINCE WE AGREE ON THOSE ASSUMPTIONS we can proceed to talk, with that as the background.
YES, THAT'S WHY IT HAS TO BE AN ASSUMPTION. The idea of evidence arises only AFTER we make all three of the assumptions above.
So what, since you agree with and act on the basis of those assumptions ─ just like everyone else?

No, I don't agree that reason is a valid tool. That one is not true based on the assumptions of that the universe is real and that we can learn about the universe, but doesn't mean that reason is a valid tool. It is a limited way of understanding and not valid.
You can't with reason decide between 2 different possible options, which are mutually exclusive. That is the limited of reason.

 

[blü 2]

No, I don't agree that reason is a valid tool.

Then either you've confused yourself because you still use reason, or you admit your entire argument is illogical, unreasonable, yes?

That one is not true based on the assumptions of that the universe is real and that we can learn about the universe

It's not based on the other two assumptions. Like them, it's a full assumption in its own right.

but doesn't mean that reason is a valid tool.

I said we proceed on the basis that it IS a valid tool. I do that. And despite your words, you continue to proceed on that basis as well.

It is a limited way of understanding and not valid.

You've neither shown it's invalid, nor suggested a demonstration of its invalidity that doesn't involve reason. What you appear to mean is that you find reason inconvenient.

You can't with reason decide between 2 different possible options, which are mutually exclusive.

Of course you can. You do it all the time. You catch the train instead of the bus BECAUSE it's quicker / closer / less crowded &c.

That is the limited of reason.

Just because many of our emotions lead us to act in ways that are not objectively reasonable doesn't invalidate reason (as any reasonable person will acknowledge).

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
One may like to see Religious Method reasonably applied to Christianity, in Post #68 in another thread, please. Right, please?

But you still haven't told me the principles of Religious Method.

Two examples:

Which does Religious Method say is correct, the Sunni or the Shia?

And which does it say is superior, Buddhism or Islam?

Please talk me through the examples, setting out the principles of the Religious Method and demonstrating how they work in action.

As per the Religious Method the religious issues are to be sorted out from the claim in the Book one is certain to be true together with the gist of reason/argument from it.
Whatever the issue, the Method is equitable for all the religions and their denominations, I understand.
Right, please?

Regards

 

[blü 2]

paarsurrey said: ↑
One may like to see Religious Method reasonably applied to Christianity, in Post #68 in another thread, please. Right, please?


As per the Religious Method the religious issues are to be sorted out from the claim in the Book one is certain to be true together with the gist of reason/argument from it.
Whatever the issue, the Method is equitable for all the religions and their denominations, I understand.
Right, please?

Regards

A problem I see with that is that no objective test will tell you whether any religious statement is true or not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Of course you can. You do it all the time. You catch the train instead of the bus BECAUSE it's quicker / closer / less crowded &c.
Just because many of our emotions lead us to act in ways that are not objectively reasonable doesn't invalidate reason (as any reasonable person will acknowledge).

You have to show how that is objectively reasonable.

 

[atanu]

Yes, that's implicit in what I've been telling you from the start.
BUT I've also pointed out that YOU assume there's a world external to the self, because if you didn't, you wouldn't post here.

Sir. This statement is not correct for the simple reason that you have an unverified definition of self as a localised object.

 

[atanu]

A problem I see with that is that no objective test will tell you whether any religious statement is true or not.

That again is wrong.

 

[blü 2]

You have to show how that is objectively reasonable.

Nothing is "objectively" reasonable ─ only in the context of human values and purposes, where better and worse are meaningful terms. You have a purpose to travel to a particular place. If you take the bus then you don't take the train and vice versa ─ in this instance the two are mutually exclusive as you said. You therefore use reason to choose the one that best suits your priorities ─ you reason that the bus goes closer to your destination, or the train is quicker, or the bus is cleaner or the train is safer, or as the case may be.

 

[blü 2]

Sir. This statement is not correct for the simple reason that you have an unverified definition of self as a localised object.

My self has reliable traveled with me through space and time all my life ─ you'd swear it was part of me! If yours has somehow escaped and left you on your own, I'm sorry to hear it.

But I hope all things are going well at your house otherwise.

blü 2: no objective test will tell you whether any religious statement is true or not.

atanu: that is wrong.​

I apologies for my error, then, and seize this opportunity to learn something.

What objective test will tell me whether any religious statement is true or not?

 

[blü 2]

That again is wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nothing is "objectively" reasonable ─ only in the context of human values and purposes, where better and worse are meaningful terms. You have a purpose to travel to a particular place. If you take the bus then you don't take the train and vice versa ─ in this instance the two are mutually exclusive as you said. You therefore use reason to choose the one that best suits your priorities ─ you reason that the bus goes closer to your destination, or the train is quicker, or the bus is cleaner or the train is safer, or as the case may be.

You haven't explained how that is objective or what objective is.

 

[blü 2]

You haven't explained how that is objective or what objective is.

Objective reality is that which exists in the world external to the self.

Attitudes, judgments, categorizations, generalizations, enumerations, quantifications, of that reality are all human ways of looking at reality, and none is wholly free of the subjective element. However, reasoned enquiry, of which scientific method is a subset, takes that element into account and does its best to maximize objectivity so that the most accurate statements possible can be made about reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Objective reality is that which exists in the world external to the self.

Attitudes, judgments, categorizations, generalizations, enumerations, quantifications, of that reality are all human ways of looking at reality, and none is wholly free of the subjective element. However, reasoned enquiry, of which scientific method is a subset, takes that element into account and does its best to maximize objectivity so that the most accurate statements possible can be made about reality.

I have to get from A to B. How do I decide that if say I could use a helicopter, a car, a train, a bus, motorcycle, bicycle, walk or a horse in some combination or only use one method. Say a short trip I could walk in a day or for which I have several options. Please account for all relevant factor.
And what is to maximize objectivity? Those are just words unless you give an explanation and an example.

 

[blü 2]

I have to get from A to B. How do I decide that if say I could use a helicopter, a car, a train, a bus, motorcycle, bicycle, walk or a horse in some combination or only use one method. Say a short trip I could walk in a day or for which I have several options. Please account for all relevant factor.

Surely to goodness you can work that out for yourself, since you do it many times a day?

And what is to maximize objectivity? Those are just words unless you give an explanation and an example.

To maximize objectivity, you at all times ─

proceed in a skeptical and open-minded manner;
hence be alert to your own expectations and possible biases;
inform yourself of the learning of the subject;
argue transparently and honestly from examinable evidence;
if you use induction, set out your data;
clearly describe your methods so that others can repeat your experiments;
when sampling with humans, whether as to opinions, behaviors, reactions, effects of treatments, or the like, use stringent double blind methods;
express your conclusions in terms of falsifiable propositions;
publish your results in respected peer-reviewed journals of science (or history &c);
expect and address informed criticism from your peers;
re-test your former conclusions, knowing they're not absolute​

and so on.

 

[paarsurrey]

A problem I see with that is that no objective test will tell you whether any religious statement is true or not.

That is the requirement of Science/Scientific Method, but not of Religion/Religious Method as it a different dimension/domain/realm altogether. Right, please?

Regards

 

[blü 2]

That is the requirement of Science/Scientific Method, but not of Religion/Religious Method as it a different dimension/domain/realm altogether. Right, please?

Regards

Indeed. But it doesn't fit my present understanding of what 'truth' means.

If it were true, why would blasphemy ever be a crime?

 

[paarsurrey]

Indeed. But it doesn't fit my present understanding of what 'truth' means.

If it were true, why would blasphemy ever be a crime?

If we change it with reality will that be OK, please?

Regards

 

[blü 2]

If we change it with reality will that be OK, please?

Regards

I confess to a fondness, a prejudice if you like, in favor of the real.

 

[atanu]

My self has reliable traveled with me through space and time all my life ─ you'd swear it was part of me! If yours has somehow escaped and left you on your own, I'm sorry to hear it.

But I hope all things are going well at your house otherwise.

Self has travelled with you? Okay. But do you really know its nature? Your statement "YOU assume there's a world external to the self, because if you didn't, you wouldn't post here.", presumes a localised object as the self. But what actually is the form of self?

Sarcasm will not do, sir.

blü 2: no objective test will tell you whether any religious statement is true or not.

atanu: that is wrong.

I apologies for my error, then, and seize this opportunity to learn something.

What objective test will tell me whether any religious statement is true or not?

Do you have any doubt that you exist? That is the teaching of vedanta.

I can answer for Vedanta. The self, the awareness "I exist" is more intimate than an apple on your palm.

It is the subject that illumines and knows the objects, including the body and the thoughts, emotions, imaginations that comprise the mind. As it is the very subject that knows, it is naive to search for it presuming that it is an object. Vedanta prescribes neti-neti (not-this not-this) enquiry process to strip away all objects that we take as 'Me' to unravel the subject.

Even as sub-atomic scale objects are not what they seem to the senses, the self is not what it seems to the senses. And you can KNOW its nature -- but not as an object. If you are aware but have not a single thought, you know the self.

I know that this answer will not satisfy you and you will continue as Trump "I already won", or like many statements of our PM.