Zizek believes atheism is ideological

[RestlessSoul]

No, too simplistic and lack of understanding of the above. Science has an adequate objective understanding of the predictable nature of the above and they are predictable properties of our universe, @Aupmanyav is correct,

Appealing to unknowns does not limit does not negate the scientific understanding of the above.

Given that there is no consensus among physicists regarding the ontological implications of quantum physics, nor even whether physics requires or can offer an ontology at all (Niels Bohr thought not), I think we can safely reject the notion that there is an adequate objective understanding of the subject.

Little, in terms of the collective understanding of the scientific community, has changed since since Feynman observed that “no one understands quantum mechanics.”

 

[Nimos]

Still remains a confusing misuse of humanism as it would be understood in the context to this thread concerning atheism.

Social Sciences are not totally subjective sciences. They re a blend of objective evidence and subjective judgement to reach their conclusions. Over time the social sciences utilize more objective evidence and methodology particularly i archaeology and anthropology,

The relevance to the question of humanistic approach to atheism is described in #286
In English the humanistic approach

Agree that it is confusing and it is on me and @mikkel_the_dane for using the wrong word

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Agree that it is confusing and it is on me and @mikkel_the_dane for using the wrong word

We made a detour around science and the different versions of it. So it is okay.

 

[Aupmanyav]

And all roads will lead us, ultimately, to the consciousness of the observer, without a full understanding of which no description of a system, from science or philosophy, can ever be complete. So again we will be faced with the limitations of the human condition: there is no view from everywhere, every view is a view from somewhere; unless there be a God’s eye view, of course.

What do you mean here? We are already conscious. 'We will not know', this is a prophecy. If it was so then we would still be having stone tools.
We have understood a little about Quantum Mechanics. What human limitations will not allow us to progress? Relativity takes in to account the particular views.

 

[AppieB]

The difference between non-belief and a stance can be described like this:
Non-belief is a state of not having a belief or opinion about a particular subject. It's the absence of a belief, whether positive or negative. It implies a lack of commitment or involvement. On the other hand, a stance is a clear and conscious position or viewpoint on a subject. It involves taking a stand or expressing a strong opinion or belief one way or another. It indicates a clear and often active commitment to a particular position. Atheism is a stance not mere passive non-belief but an active position people take.

I don't think the active position is atheism itself, but something like skepticism (or similar). Atheism is the result of that active position. Atheism isn't a belief system, but no doubt that atheists have (al kind of different) belief systems.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What do you mean here? We are already conscious. 'We will not know', this is a prophecy. If it was so then we would still be having stone tools.
We have understood a little about Quantum Mechanics. What human limitations will not allow us to progress? Relativity takes in to account the particular views.

Relativity tells us that facts about time, space, and motion are not absolute nor universal, but depend upon a frame of reference, which is different for each observer.

Quantum contextuality and non-locality tell us that an object, it’s observer, and the act of observation are intrinsically connected, and distinctions between them, like distinctions between any object and it’s context, are arbitrary. As a student of Buddhist philosophy, you should be able to appreciate this.

So where does this leave our search for objectivity? Adrift on the sea of consciousness, which is necessarily subjective, it would appear. Subjective yet also, perhaps, fundamental. Fundamental anyway, to human experience.

Yes, we are already conscious, but out consciousness is limited both by our senses, by the capacity of our brains to process information, and by the ability of our minds to transcend the subjectivity of our personal experience. How conscious is a flower, a bee, a bird? Do we see exponentially further and deeper than they? Perhaps we do, but it would be rather arrogant to think we see everything, even within the range of our senses; aided or unaided by technology.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Subjective yet also, perhaps, fundamental. Fundamental anyway, to human experience.

Yes, we are already conscious, but out consciousness is limited both by our senses, by the capacity of our brains to process information, and by the ability of our minds to transcend the subjectivity of our personal experience. How conscious is a flower, a bee, a bird? Do we see exponentially further and deeper than they? Perhaps we do, but it would be rather arrogant to think we see everything, even within the range of our senses; aided or unaided by technology.

Fundamental, that is what science is searching for. Example, just one of the many, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research.
Human experience is irrelevant when it comes to fundamentals.
Sure, we have not been able to see all, perhaps some time in future, perhaps one or two generations later, not in our time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fundamental, that is what science is searching for. Example, just one of the many, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research.
Human experience is irrelevant when it comes to fundamentals.
Sure, we have not been able to see all, perhaps some time in future, perhaps one or two generations later, not in our time.

The problem is that the bold one only makes sense in your mind as an experience. In a sense human experince is fundamental, because of the 3 parts in ths - I know something. Now try as you might and you still need all 3 parts.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Fundamental, that is what science is searching for. Example, just one of the many, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research.
Human experience is irrelevant when it comes to fundamentals.
Sure, we have not been able to see all, perhaps some time in future, perhaps one or two generations later, not in our time.

Congratulations on identifying the paradox at the heart of the search for objective reality. If human experience is irrelevant to fundamental reality, yet experience and observation are the means by which humans learn, then how are we to identify, let alone understand, what is objectively real?

 

[Madsaac]

So where does this leave our search for objectivity? Adrift on the sea of consciousness, which is necessarily subjective, it would appear. Subjective yet also, perhaps, fundamental. Fundamental anyway, to human experience.

Yes, we are already conscious, but out consciousness is limited both by our senses, by the capacity of our brains to process information, and by the ability of our minds to transcend the subjectivity of our personal experience. How conscious is a flower, a bee, a bird? Do we see exponentially further and deeper than they? Perhaps we do, but it would be rather arrogant to think we see everything, even within the range of our senses; aided or unaided by technology.

Congratulations on identifying the paradox at the heart of the search for objective reality. If human experience is irrelevant to fundamental reality, yet experience and observation are the means by which humans learn, then how are we to identify, let alone understand, what is objectively real?

Sounds interesting.

What does this have to do with what an individual believes to be true? (Just trying to understand and learn)

And how does this relate to what Daniel Dennett believes consciousness to be?

 

[paarsurrey]

Sounds interesting.

What does this have to do with what an individual believes to be true? (Just trying to understand and learn)

And how does this relate to what Daniel Dennett believes consciousness to be?

But why us philosophical terminology of objectivity and subjectivity, why not keep it simple reasonable, please, for learning the truthful Religion instead, right???!!!

Regards

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sounds interesting.

What does this have to do with what an individual believes to be true? (Just trying to understand and learn)

And how does this relate to what Daniel Dennett believes consciousness to be?

Dennett considers consciousness to be an illusion, but I can't say I'm over familiar with his arguments. John Wheeler and David Bohm were two theoretical physicists who considered the concept of consciousness as fundamental, in the same way time and space are fundamental. Quantum Beyesianism (Qbism) is an interpretation of quantum theory which attempts to integrate consciousness with fundamental physics, by way of 'participatory realism'.

Guilio Tononi is a neurologist and psychologist who has been trying to develop a model for consciousness as both fundamental and universal. David Chalmers, who is credited with identifying the 'hard problem of consciousness' Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia, believes consciousness to be an emergent property of physical systems, but argues that it's qualitative nature means it cannot be explained by reduction to it's physical correlates in the brain.

Chalmers, who describes himself as a naturalist and a scientific materialist, nevertheless rejects physicalism, since physicalism alone cannot possibly account for experience.

 

[Audie]

Dennett considers consciousness to be an illusion, but I can't say I'm over familiar with his arguments. John Wheeler and David Bohm were two theoretical physicists who considered the concept of consciousness as fundamental, in the same way time and space are fundamental. Quantum Beyesianism (Qbism) is an interpretation of quantum theory which attempts to integrate consciousness with fundamental physics, by way of 'collaborative realism'.

Guilio Tononi is a neurologist and psychologist who has been trying to develop a model for consciousness as both fundamental and universal. David Chalmers, who is credited with identifying the 'hard problem of consciousness' Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia, believes consciousness to be an emergent property of physical systems, but argues that it's qualitative nature means it cannot be explained by reduction to it's physical correlates in the brain.

Chalmers, who describes himself as a naturalist and a scientific materialist, nevertheless rejects physicalism, since physicalism alone cannot possibly account for experience.

"Cannot possibly"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Zizek believes atheism is ideological

Do the Atheism (all hues/shades/denominations of Western Atheism-a flip side of Pauline-Christendom) people agree, please, right?

There is a disagreement voice, here some post later, please, right, or I misunderstood it?

Regards

Zizek's argument, basically, is that he can infer the defining characteristics of atheism from trends he sees in atheists.

Think about all the Muslims you know: the opinions they express, their behaviours, their likes and dislikes, etc. You'll probably be able to find lots of things that are generally common to most of them... right?

Now think about all those commonalities; how many of them are actually defining characteristics of Islam? Probably not all of them, right? Zizek's arguments would imply - if he applied them consistently - that all of them are integral parts of Islam.

There's an episode of the Irish TV show Derry Girls where they list similarities and differences between Catholic and Protestant Christians. Most of the differences they list are things like "Protestants love soup" and "Catholics love bingo" and and "Protestants keep their toasters in the cupboard" and "Protestants support sports team A while Catholics support sports team B."

A reasonable person can recognize that these are all generally true (at least in Ireland where the show is set) without it meaning that there's some tenet of the Protestant belief system that says "you must keep your toaster in the cupboard." But Zizek's argument - i.e. that we can infer the belief system of a group from what the group members commonly say and do - would suggest that where a person stores their toaster really is a defining aspect of these belief systems.

IOW, Zizek - despite being a philosophy professor - can't understand that there's a difference between a correlation and a fundamental property.

We can all recognize that this approach is nonsense when applied generally. It would be nice if the people here understood that it's still nonsense when applied to atheists.

 

[Audie]

Zizek's argument, basically, is that he can infer the defining characteristics of atheism from trends he sees in atheists.

Think about all the Muslims you know: the opinions they express, their behaviours, their likes and dislikes, etc. You'll probably be able to find lots of things that are generally common to most of them... right?

Now think about all those commonalities; how many of them are actually defining characteristics of Islam? Probably not all of them, right? Zizek's arguments would imply - if he applied them consistently - that all of them are integral parts of Islam.

There's an episode of the Irish TV show Derry Girls where they list similarities and differences between Catholic and Protestant Christians. Most of the differences they list are things like "Protestants love soup" and "Catholics love bingo" and and "Protestants keep their toasters in the cupboard" and "Protestants support sports team A while Catholics support sports team B."

A reasonable person can recognize that these are all generally true (at least in Ireland where the show is set) without it meaning that there's some tenet of the Protestant belief system that says "you must keep your toaster in the cupboard." But Zizek's argument - i.e. that we can infer the belief system of a group from what the group members commonly say and do - would suggest that where a person stores their toaster really is a defining aspect of these belief systems.

IOW, Zizek - despite being a philosophy professor - can't understand that there's a difference between a correlation and a fundamental property.

We can all recognize that this approach is nonsense when applied generally. It would be nice if the people here understood that it's still nonsense when applied to atheists.

Clear case of seeing what he chooses

 

[paarsurrey]

Zizek's argument, basically, is that he can infer the defining characteristics of atheism from trends he sees in atheists.

Think about all the Muslims you know: the opinions they express, their behaviours, their likes and dislikes, etc. You'll probably be able to find lots of things that are generally common to most of them... right?

Now think about all those commonalities; how many of them are actually defining characteristics of Islam? Probably not all of them, right? Zizek's arguments would imply - if he applied them consistently - that all of them are integral parts of Islam.

There's an episode of the Irish TV show Derry Girls where they list similarities and differences between Catholic and Protestant Christians. Most of the differences they list are things like "Protestants love soup" and "Catholics love bingo" and and "Protestants keep their toasters in the cupboard" and "Protestants support sports team A while Catholics support sports team B."

A reasonable person can recognize that these are all generally true (at least in Ireland where the show is set) without it meaning that there's some tenet of the Protestant belief system that says "you must keep your toaster in the cupboard." But Zizek's argument - i.e. that we can infer the belief system of a group from what the group members commonly say and do - would suggest that where a person stores their toaster really is a defining aspect of these belief systems.

IOW, Zizek - despite being a philosophy professor - can't understand that there's a difference between a correlation and a fundamental property.

We can all recognize that this approach is nonsense when applied generally. It would be nice if the people here understood that it's still nonsense when applied to atheists.

What a great comments/post by friend @9-10ths_Penguin !

Not only Zizek but even the "Cultural Christian" one of the four horsemen (the horse was limping, I understand), I mean the famous Richard Dawkins of "God Delusion" made the same mistake, right, please? Well, I didn't read his book, though.

Regards

 

[Madsaac]

Dennett considers consciousness to be an illusion, but I can't say I'm over familiar with his arguments. John Wheeler and David Bohm were two theoretical physicists who considered the concept of consciousness as fundamental, in the same way time and space are fundamental. Quantum Beyesianism (Qbism) is an interpretation of quantum theory which attempts to integrate consciousness with fundamental physics, by way of 'collaborative realism'.

Guilio Tononi is a neurologist and psychologist who has been trying to develop a model for consciousness as both fundamental and universal. David Chalmers, who is credited with identifying the 'hard problem of consciousness' Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia, believes consciousness to be an emergent property of physical systems, but argues that it's qualitative nature means it cannot be explained by reduction to it's physical correlates in the brain.

Chalmers, who describes himself as a naturalist and a scientific materialist, nevertheless rejects physicalism, since physicalism alone cannot possibly account for experience.

Thanks