Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Currently, there are following religions:
1. religion with a god or gods of choice
2. atheism, which is religion declining existence of any god
3. agnosticism, which is religion of intellectualism, not having gut to choose one of the above yet pretending to be pseudo spiritual
4. science as religion of those, who believe that they can find answers to any question by mechanical investigations and discarding any spiritual options
5. COVID. That is a new god.
None of those are religions except #1, although there are other religions.
Then why do you post since you also snipe and carp? You just bury your attacks in your substantial posts. Your misrepresentation of legitimate criticism as 'baggage', for example.
75% of the reason I post here or anywhere else is self-amusement. I create a persona that is some aspect of me and turn him loose. I've been doing it on the internet for 25 years. This is the same sort of creative outlet as the humorous fiction I've written. Fortunately for me, I've always been my own best audience.
15% of the reason would be mental exercise - organizing my own thoughts and keeping the old brain lubricated now that I'm fully retired.
10% of the reason would be the faint and slightly delusional hope that my thinking may resonate with and assist a fellow seeker. On these forums, that hope is perhaps more faint and delusional than anywhere I've posted.
I suppose there's some notion that my own thinking may be challenged, changed or improved, but that would scarcely be a blip on the radar screen here. I suppose I have gained some useful insight into the way others think about some issues.
Sniping and carping is part of who Irkle is. I myself am naturally sarcastic and don't suffer fools gladly. I welcome and appreciate sniping and carping if it's at least witty. I believe an objective assessment would rate the sniping and carping on these forums rather low on the wittiness scale. There seems to moi to be way more disdain and anger than wittiness. (A reliance on emojis is rather a strong indicator of non-wittiness, IMHO.)
If you think Irkle takes any of this seriously, you are badly mistaken. Irkle jousts with you in the manner he does because you take him and yourself soooo seriously and are soooo determined to posture yourself as more than you obviously are. Have a few Guinness Stouts and you'll see Irkle's posts in an entirely different light.
You misunderstood the "baggage" comment. I wasn't talking about Irkle at all. I meant that the longtime regulars here have such a history with each other that they instantly go into knee-jerk "cheerleading" mode or "attack" mode as soon as they see a particular name. All substance vanishes and every thread is derailed as they snipe back and forth about pretty much nothing. As Exhibit A, I give you: This thread. Oh, well, it was fun for a few posts.
Thanks to Mystic for at least engaging substantively.
Your comment that "nobody does" scientism is nonsense. LearnMe does scientism - or didn't you read his Ten Truths? There is a reason that organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science publish pieces like the one I quoted.
I will agree that scientism is a larger problem within the lay community than the scientific community. Many laymen have drunk the Kool-Aid and place far more reliance on science in matters outside the realm of science than they should. However, within the scientific community itself philosophical naturalism has been the dominant paradigm for decades. It is crumbling at a pace that would have been difficult to foresee, but it is still defended with shrieks and howls as Thomas Kuhn would've predicted. I was reading a book just last night that made the point that philosophical naturalism in science has just about killed all creative thought within the realm of philosophy.
75% of the reason I post here or anywhere else is self-amusement. I create a persona that is some aspect of me and turn him loose. I've been doing it on the internet for 25 years. This is the same sort of creative outlet as the humorous fiction I've written. Fortunately for me, I've always been my own best audience.
15% of the reason would be mental exercise - organizing my own thoughts and keeping the old brain lubricated now that I'm fully retired.
10% of the reason would be the faint and slightly delusional hope that my thinking may resonate with and assist a fellow seeker. On these forums, that hope is perhaps more faint and delusional than anywhere I've posted.
I suppose there's some notion that my own thinking may be challenged, changed or improved, but that would scarcely be a blip on the radar screen here. I suppose I have gained some useful insight into the way others think about some issues.
Sniping and carping is part of who Irkle is. I myself am naturally sarcastic and don't suffer fools gladly. I welcome and appreciate sniping and carping if it's at least witty. I believe an objective assessment would rate the sniping and carping on these forums rather low on the wittiness scale. There seems to moi to be way more disdain and anger than wittiness. (A reliance on emojis is rather a strong indicator of non-wittiness, IMHO.)
If you think Irkle takes any of this seriously, you are badly mistaken. Irkle jousts with you in the manner he does because you take him and yourself soooo seriously and are soooo determined to posture yourself as more than you obviously are. Have a few Guinness Stouts and you'll see Irkle's posts in an entirely different light.
You misunderstood the "baggage" comment. I wasn't talking about Irkle at all. I meant that the longtime regulars here have such a history with each other that they instantly go into knee-jerk "cheerleading" mode or "attack" mode as soon as they see a particular name. All substance vanishes and every thread is derailed as they snipe back and forth about pretty much nothing. As Exhibit A, I give you: This thread. Oh, well, it was fun for a few posts.
Thanks to Mystic for at least engaging substantively.
Your comment that "nobody does" scientism is nonsense. LearnMe does scientism - or didn't you read his Ten Truths? There is a reason that organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science publish pieces like the one I quoted.
I will agree that scientism is a larger problem within the lay community than the scientific community. Many laymen have drunk the Kool-Aid and place far more reliance on science in matters outside the realm of science than they should. However, within the scientific community itself philosophical naturalism has been the dominant paradigm for decades. It is crumbling at a pace that would have been difficult to foresee, but it is still defended with shrieks and howls as Thomas Kuhn would've predicted. I was reading a book just last night that made the point that philosophical naturalism in science has just about killed all creative thought within the realm of philosophy.
bold above,
yes it is demonstrated on a regular basis here on CD, among many different posts, and by different voices across different threads.
75% of the reason I post here or anywhere else is self-amusement. I create a persona that is some aspect of me and turn him loose. I've been doing it on the internet for 25 years. This is the same sort of creative outlet as the humorous fiction I've written. Fortunately for me, I've always been my own best audience.
15% of the reason would be mental exercise - organizing my own thoughts and keeping the old brain lubricated now that I'm fully retired.
10% of the reason would be the faint and slightly delusional hope that my thinking may resonate with and assist a fellow seeker. On these forums, that hope is perhaps more faint and delusional than anywhere I've posted.
I suppose there's some notion that my own thinking may be challenged, changed or improved, but that would scarcely be a blip on the radar screen here. I suppose I have gained some useful insight into the way others think about some issues.
Sniping and carping is part of who Irkle is. I myself am naturally sarcastic and don't suffer fools gladly. I welcome and appreciate sniping and carping if it's at least witty. I believe an objective assessment would rate the sniping and carping on these forums rather low on the wittiness scale. There seems to moi to be way more disdain and anger than wittiness. (A reliance on emojis is rather a strong indicator of non-wittiness, IMHO.)
If you think Irkle takes any of this seriously, you are badly mistaken. Irkle jousts with you in the manner he does because you take him and yourself soooo seriously and are soooo determined to posture yourself as more than you obviously are. Have a few Guinness Stouts and you'll see Irkle's posts in an entirely different light.
You misunderstood the "baggage" comment. I wasn't talking about Irkle at all. I meant that the longtime regulars here have such a history with each other that they instantly go into knee-jerk "cheerleading" mode or "attack" mode as soon as they see a particular name. All substance vanishes and every thread is derailed as they snipe back and forth about pretty much nothing. As Exhibit A, I give you: This thread. Oh, well, it was fun for a few posts.
Thanks to Mystic for at least engaging substantively.
Your comment that "nobody does" scientism is nonsense. LearnMe does scientism - or didn't you read his Ten Truths? There is a reason that organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science publish pieces like the one I quoted.
I will agree that scientism is a larger problem within the lay community than the scientific community. Many laymen have drunk the Kool-Aid and place far more reliance on science in matters outside the realm of science than they should. However, within the scientific community itself, philosophical naturalism has been the dominant paradigm for decades. It is crumbling at a pace that would have been difficult to foresee, but it is still defended with shrieks and howls as Thomas Kuhn would've predicted. I was reading a book just last night that made the point that philosophical naturalism in science has just about killed all creative thought within the realm of philosophy.
I have enormous respect for the intellect and accomplishments of the person behind the persona of Irkle and am at a loss as to why so many others have difficulty seeing it. My own experiences here tend to make it understandable but still bemusing. My own motivations differ radically from Irkle's and were far more serious initially.
My experiences place the God issue at the apex of my concerns. I truly believe the syncretic Christian narrative (as reinterpreted) IS the spiritual template for understanding God once all the barbaric and primitive baggage is removed.
75% of the reason I post here or anywhere else is self-amusement. I create a persona that is some aspect of me and turn him loose. I've been doing it on the internet for 25 years. This is the same sort of creative outlet as the humorous fiction I've written. Fortunately for me, I've always been my own best audience.
15% of the reason would be mental exercise - organizing my own thoughts and keeping the old brain lubricated now that I'm fully retired.
10% of the reason would be the faint and slightly delusional hope that my thinking may resonate with and assist a fellow seeker. On these forums, that hope is perhaps more faint and delusional than anywhere I've posted.
I suppose there's some notion that my own thinking may be challenged, changed or improved, but that would scarcely be a blip on the radar screen here. I suppose I have gained some useful insight into the way others think about some issues.
Sniping and carping is part of who Irkle is. I myself am naturally sarcastic and don't suffer fools gladly. I welcome and appreciate sniping and carping if it's at least witty. I believe an objective assessment would rate the sniping and carping on these forums rather low on the wittiness scale. There seems to moi to be way more disdain and anger than wittiness. (A reliance on emojis is rather a strong indicator of non-wittiness, IMHO.)
But your sniping and carping is never witty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
If you think Irkle takes any of this seriously, you are badly mistaken. Irkle jousts with you in the manner he does because you take him and yourself soooo seriously and are soooo determined to posture yourself as more than you obviously are. Have a few Guinness Stouts and you'll see Irkle's posts in an entirely different light.
My posts stand for themselves. Your misrepresentations, fallacies and defense of ID shows who is posturing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
You misunderstood the "baggage" comment. I wasn't talking about Irkle at all.
I know. So I guess I did understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
I meant that the longtime regulars here have such a history with each other that they instantly go into knee-jerk "cheerleading" mode or "attack" mode as soon as they see a particular name. All substance vanishes and every thread is derailed as they snipe back and forth about pretty much nothing. As Exhibit A, I give you: This thread. Oh, well, it was fun for a few posts.
Thanks to Mystic for at least engaging substantively.
Perhaps if the theists actually posted substantive content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
Your comment that "nobody does" scientism is nonsense. LearnMe does scientism - or didn't you read his Ten Truths? There is a reason that organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science publish pieces like the one I quoted.
No, I have not read his 10 truths or your response in the OP. Mr Yap needed his morning exercise. But from his posts I have read, he does not rely on science. No one here does, although some use it more than others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
I will agree that scientism is a larger problem within the lay community than the scientific community. Many laymen have drunk the Kool-Aid and place far more reliance on science in matters outside the realm of science than they should. However, within the scientific community itself philosophical naturalism has been the dominant paradigm for decades. It is crumbling at a pace that would have been difficult to foresee, but it is still defended with shrieks and howls as Thomas Kuhn would've predicted.
Probably it is the dominant paradigm because philosophical naturalism is a conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
I was reading a book just last night that made the point that philosophical naturalism in science has just about killed all creative thought within the realm of philosophy.
Probably because creative thought that produces false results (such as Plantinga's tiger) is the cause of the crisis in modern philosophy, a crisis that philosophers seem unaware of.
But your sniping and carping is never witty.
My posts stand for themselves. Your misrepresentations, fallacies, and defense of ID shows who is posturing.
I told you the baggage of ID automatically resigns you to the crackpot category of intellects, Irkle!
Quote:
I know. So I guess I did understand.
Perhaps if the theists actually posted substantive content.
I can only attribute your lack of ability to perceive the substantive content to language differences and cognitive dissonance bias. You seem otherwise intellectually capable.
Quote:
No, I have not read his 10 truths or your response in the OP. Mr. Yap needed his morning exercise. But from his posts I have read, he does not rely on science. No one here does, although some use it more than others.
You're one of the more ardent promoters of scientism as is LearnMe.
Quote:
Probably it is the dominant paradigm because philosophical naturalism is a conclusion.
It is not a conclusion, it is a philosophical perspective that has not and cannot be conclusively established. Science has no such capability.
Quote:
Probably because creative thought that produces false results (such as Plantinga's tiger) is the cause of the crisis in modern philosophy, a crisis that philosophers seem unaware of.
The crisis in philosophy is within those who adhere to philosophical naturalism which has pretty much been blown out of the water by QFT and the efforts to resolve its implications with the Relativity theories.
Some time ago, LearnMe started a thread about the "Ten Truths" that are the foundation his thinking. That thread predictably veered off into other areas. More recently, a discussion of the Ten Truths surfaced on another unrelated thread. LearnMe suggested that I and perhaps others had mischaracterized and too quickly dismissed his Ten Truths. He invited a more substantive response, specifically from me but surely from others who also think deeply about these matters.
This is my more substantive response. I’ll simply offer my observations on each Truth. I’ll try to stay as neutral and non-snarky as I can. It would be wonderful – but perhaps I’m hoping against all hope – if the thread could remain substantive, free of the non-sequiturs, inane cheerleading, mindless emojis and snarky one-liners that substitute for thought and quickly derail almost every thread.
TEN TRUTHS
ONE: There are essentially two realities for all human beings. One reality is as we perceive it to be, our personal reality. The second reality is all that truly exists in the universe, the same for all of us. Our universal truth.
I’d say there are three realities: (1) ourselves, as we perceive ourselves to be; (2) external reality as we perceive it with our senses and analyze it with our minds; and (3) ultimate ontological reality – i.e., the Truth – about ourselves and external reality.
The first one is a big one. Who and what are we? This mystery is what led Descartes to conclude that all he could really know was “I think, therefore I am.â€
What are my senses and mind? Can I trust them? Must I not be as skeptical of myself as I am of all externalities? This is one of the points that famed epistemologist Alvin Plantinga raises in his worthwhile book, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Particularly if the naturalistic evolutionary paradigm were correct, what reason would I have for trusting my own thought processes, for believing they are reliable truth-recognizing and truth-analyzing tools?
We do, of course, all believe they are reliable, or the quest for Truth would be hopeless. Even at a less philosophical level, however, each individual must still must assess his or her own cognitive faculties. We aren’t all equally intelligent or rational. Even the most intelligent and rational of us have cognitive biases and quirks. Sometimes we can’t explain them even if we’re aware of them.
I’d thus say “Know yourself†is the first critical stage of a quest for Truth. This seems to be completely absent from LearnMe’s Ten Truths.
My other observation would be that LearnMe appears to equate ultimate ontological reality with “all that truly exists in the universe.†This begs the question, assumes the answer. What reason do we have for assuming a priori that “the universe†is the ultimate ontological reality?
Philosophical naturalism does make this assumption. But it’s merely a belief system like any other. This assumption is no more warranted in the abstract than is an a priori assumption there is a higher realty and perhaps a creator.
The fact is, science is capable of investigating and analyzing only the natural order. If there is a higher reality, science isn’t any more capable of discovering it than is philosophy or religion.
All that science, religion or philosophy can do is speculate about the existence and nature of a higher reality. But there is no reason to assume a priori that there is or isn’t a higher reality. This is the mistake of philosophical naturalism.
Scientific research and evidence are certainly relevant to the issue. This is the point of the Intelligent Design theorists, and it seems entirely valid to me: Let the best evidence – the best scientific evidence – speak for itself and lead where it leads. If it leads to “design†and the likelihood of an external designer as the best explanation, so be it. If it doesn’t, so be it.
TWO: Human beings cannot know all that exists in the universe. The universe is forever in flux, full of mystery that will forever be marveled and explored by Man as long as he survives.
Surely, this is true. As I’ve said, however, there does seem to be an uncanny relationship between (1) an orderly universe that operates according to discernible laws and principles, and (2) the existence of humans with minds and faculties capable of investigating and analyzing this universe. I find this somewhat evidential in its own right, even apart from any arguments about the extraordinary fine-tuning of the universe and our little corner for the existence of life.
This second Truth just underscores what I said about the First. If the natural order (universe) is beyond our full comprehension, then any higher reality certainly is. We can know this higher reality – if it exists – only as it reveals itself or otherwise intrudes into our reality.
THREE: The first reality for human beings manifests itself in all the great many beliefs and faiths throughout the world; from Astrology to Zoraoastianism. Many books also stem from these beliefs; the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, Speaking of Faith, The Celestine Prophecy, the Book of Mormon and others. These are the books about men such as Jesus, Mohammad, Moses and Joseph Smith.
This loses me. LearnMe’s “first reality†is “personal reality,†meaning reality as we perceive it. I don’t see why he would equate this with religious beliefs and faiths.
I’d say our first level of personal reality is our assessment of what science teaches about the natural order. Even here, science isn't even close to being a monolithic entity. Each individual must decide for himself what constitutes the best scientific evidence and thinking about the natural order. With something like geology, there may be close to a scientific consensus. But in disciplines like physics, cosmology and consciousness studies, however, there is a wide diversity of views and much speculation.
Perhaps an individual concludes that the best scientific evidence and thinking point toward atheistic naturalism. This, then, is his personal reality, with no need for religious belief or faith. But perhaps he concludes that the best evidence and thinking point to something more, a higher reality. Science can’t take him any further. If he wants to go further, he must look elsewhere. The search may culminate in agnosticism or some level of atheistic or theistic conviction. A rational individual accepts that he will never achieve certainty.
The various scriptures are irrelevant at this point. Unless and until I reach a conviction about Christianity (for example), the Bible is irrelevant. It doesn’t define my personal reality or assist me in defining it to any greater extent than does the Koran, the Gita or the atheistic philosophy of Bertrand Russell.
FOUR: The second reality, all that exists in the universe, known or unknown, is disclosed to Man most accurately and peacefully by way of well documented history (rather than religious books) and empirical science (rather than theology). Universal truth is all we can accept as reality, the truth, with the most certainty and least conflict. What we can all most reasonably accept as true for all concerned.
I once again make essentially the same point. Yes, science – with all its flaws and checkered history – is our most reliable tool for investigating and analyzing the natural order.
But you can see once again what LearnMe has done here. He has assumed a priori that “the universe†is equivalent to “reality.†This is an unwarranted assumption. This is philosophical naturalism.
As I’ve suggested above, if science proceeded solely on the basis of methodological naturalism rather than the question-begging and answer-assuming basis of philosophical naturalism, the best scientific theory might well be “an intelligent designer occupying a higher reality, even though science can take us no further.†Philosophical naturalism forecloses any such theory from the get-go. Any other theory, no matter how utterly speculative and unfalsifiable, is entitled to a fair hearing so long as it posits an explanation that may be characterized as naturalistic.
FIVE: Faith is spawned from the human inclination to speculate or suppose beyond universal truth as determined and defined by science. Such notions, religions, often involve spirituality or a belief in an energy, power or force. A belief in a deity, god or gods, the supernatural. These notions that go beyond common human awareness are typically based or recognized more by emotions and feelings rather than facts, reason and logic. They typically call for faith rather than proof, all stemming from personal experience rather than common observation or scientific verification.
This seems to me to go off the rails.
LearnMe once again tips his hand: “universal truth as determined and defined by science.†Science investigates and analyzes the natural order. If the natural order were all that existed, and if science were able to explain it to a level of scientific certainty, then it would be appropriate to speak of science as determining and defining universal truth.
But this is the key question to which LearnMe simply assumes the answer: Is the natural order in fact all that exists?
Even for many renowned scientists, ancient and modern, the answer has been a resounding no. This fact in itself should give anyone pause about LearnMe’s perspective.
People, including scientists, look beyond science precisely because they conclude that (1) what science does teach about the natural order isn’t a completely satisfactory explanation of ultimate ontological reality and may in fact point to a higher reality, and (2) other avenues of inquiry may have as much or more bearing on the existence and nature of a higher reality.
These other avenues of inquiry may include the individual’s own experiences and observations; the experiences and observations of others; the individual’s studies in history, philosophy and theology; and the individual’s reflection and intuition.
LearnMe says that notions of a higher reality “go beyond common human awareness.†No, they certainly don’t. They are often grounded precisely in common human experience and awareness. This is surely why the vast majority of humans have arrived at some species of theist belief, even though the specific beliefs may vary widely.
LearnMe further says that such notions “are typically based or recognized more by emotions and feelings rather than facts, reason and logic. They typically call for faith rather than proof, all stemming from personal experience rather than common observation or scientific verification.â€
As I’ve asked previously, what does someone like LearnMe think occurs when a Nobel laureate chemist or biologist holds theistic beliefs? Is the scientist overwhelmed by emotion in this one area of his life for some mysterious reason? Does he mysteriously lose all ability to think logically and rationally?
LearnMe’s statements reflect the arrogance of one wedded to philosophical naturalism and indeed Scientism. They reflect a complete misunderstanding as to how a diligent seeker goes about the quest for Truth and of the evidence that is available.
I happen to have had a number of experiences pointing toward the survival of consciousness, the existence of a higher reality and the falseness of the naturalistic paradigm. Literally hundreds of millions of people across recorded history have had identical experiences. These experiences and the people who have them have been investigated and assessed to the extent science is able. Only someone wedded to philosophical naturalism insists that this vast body of evidence – which admittedly may or may not point in the direction it seems to point – must be ignored or ridiculed because it challenges the naturalistic paradigm.
Areas of science point in the same direction. Big Bang cosmology, Intelligent Design, anthropomorphic fine-tuning, laboratory PSI studies, quantum physics, origin-of-life studies, consciousness studies, and on and on. Do all or any of these point unequivocally to a higher reality? No, but much of the increasingly mainstream thinking in these areas is at least consistent with the notion and is very challenging to the naturalistic paradigm. I've previously mentioned Bernardo Kastrup, who publishes almost exclusively in peer-reviewed journals and who believes the model most consistent with the evidence is idealism (i.e., consciousness as fundamental - pretty much the opposite of naturalism). Only someone wedded to philosophical naturalism insists this is all bogus, all pseudoscience, all unworthy of even being considered.
The point being, such a quest is not necessarily driven by emotions and feelings any more (or less) than is an a priori commitment to philosophical naturalism. It can be as logical and rational as any purely scientific quest. The evidence is as compelling or deficient as the quality of the quest. What brings one person to a particular conviction may bring someone else to a different conviction.
LearnMe doesn't get to decide for me or anyone else (1) whether the best science should lead to philosophical naturalism (it doesn’t do this even for many of the best scientists); (2) what bodies of evidence (scientific and otherwise) and what inferences and arguments (scientific and otherwise) we should rely upon in our quest for a higher reality; and (3) what conclusions we should reach and what convictions we should hold.
One major problem I'll acknowledge is that disturbed individuals, frightening zealots, mindless cultists, credulous dupes and people driven entirely by emotions are undeniably over-represented in the ranks of religious believers. This can certainly create the appearance that religion is only for the simple-minded and uncritical. But this is by no means always the case. LearnMe’s dismissive characterization paints with far too broad a brush.
SIX: Man’s ability to theorize is a faculty that allows Man to advance toward greater awareness and understanding of universal truth. The theoretical guides Man to further scientific discovery. However, when conjecture about the supernatural leads to faith and religious inculcation rather facts, reason and logic, great harm can and does come to Man instead. This is because the great majority of people still today cannot accept the confines of science. Instead conjecture is continuously promoted as truth ultimately to the point of creating profound divisions between people resulting in great conflict, violence and war still raging to this day; the Crusades, Protestants v Catholics, Jews v Muslims, Shiites v Sunnis.
This seems to go even further off the rails.
The “great majority of people still today cannot accept the confines of science.†Why should any human being uncritically accept the “confines of science†(a peculiarly apt phrase, since philosophical naturalism and Scientism are indeed an intellectual straitjacket)? Science may or may not provide a fully satisfactory explanation of reality. For most people, including me, it doesn’t. In any event, we are entitled to evaluate the merits and decide for ourselves.
LearnMe again assumes without warrant that beliefs about a higher reality are inevitably grounded in nothing more than uninformed “conjecture about the supernatural.†This is arrogant and false.
Certainly, people who have reached strong convictions about the nature of a higher reality are going to promote and defend them, particularly if their religion demands this. Few wars, however, have had religious differences at their core. The human lust for power, as well as political, economic and social differences, are what mostly keep people and nations at each other’s throats. It’s perhaps noteworthy that scientific advancements have been largely in the direction of making conflict and war ever more ghastly.
SEVEN: The alternative skeptical challenge and test of faith to limit spiritual conjecture is to foster a greater respect for the truth as currently defined or understood by science. Science is the most universally accepted effort to arrive at truth with no agenda other than greater knowledge and understanding of universal truth for all human beings. This path or quest of scientific discovery offers the way to peace instead of the sure madness that arises from the significant amount of conflict between differing faiths. As Man learns to universally accept both the great promise and reasonable limits of what science can teach, the source of conflict between Man is diminished, the path toward progress cleared and the prospect of peace improved.
This is just naïve - almost utopian - Scientism.
As a believer, I welcome skeptical challenge. I have religious convictions, but none that place me in a straitjacket as confining as philosophical naturalism.
LearnMe’s hope is to “foster greater respect for the truth as currently defined or understood by science.†How does this differ qualitatively from the hope of a Christian proselytizer or Muslim jihadist to convert the world to their truth? It seems to LearnMe to differ only because he is convinced philosophical naturalism is the answer.
My objective is the best possible understanding of ultimate ontological reality that I can achieve in this lifetime. If I thought science had been capable of providing that understanding, I would’ve limited my inquiry to science – but I didn’t, and neither do many other sincere and diligent seekers.
“Science is the most universally accepted effort to arrive at truth with no agenda other than greater knowledge and understanding of universal truth for all human beings.†Again, this is a quasi-religious sentiment. It assumes, once again, that ultimate ontological truth lies within the natural order. Worse, the “no agenda†remark naively assumes that scientists are free from human nature. Even science doesn’t assume this, which is why it demands falsifiability and peer review. Science is an area of human endeavor, no better or worse than any other.
Science “offers the way to peace.†Really – is this what LearnMe thinks history shows? Science isn’t, in the abstract, the way to either peace or conflict. It has greatly facilitated conflict, but this is the fault of human nature rather than science.
Once again, LearnMe’s sentiments are quasi-religious. The fact is, worldwide conflict would be reduced just as much (or more) if all humans were committed Christian fundamentalists, Islamic fundamentalists or Scientologists as if all humans were naturalistic atheists.
EIGHT: Science fosters the peace of a universal patience and acceptance of our common condition and experience as humans. Faith forbids followers to question thus retarding Man's progress. Science encourages inquiry thus expanding Man's awareness and enlightenment. Faith typically deems any question about God's existence as evil in nature, not to be tolerated. Science has no such restrictions or judgement. Accordingly, there is no manner in which to reconcile these two competing approaches toward revealing Man's universal truth.
I won't keep beating this to death.
“Faith typically deems any question about God's existence as evil in nature, not to be tolerated.†This is just absurd. LearnMe’s view of religion is as skewed as his view of science. He apparently thinks all religious believers are closed-minded, wild-eyed zealots. How many religious believers whom you know fit this description? Almost all Christian denominations and almost all other religions have a long history of ecumenical dialogue and welcome scrutiny of their claims.
NINE: Faith can and does promote goodwill between some people. Creation of beautiful places of worship, help for those in need, community and comfort through difficult times. Even a code of conduct necessary for some to be moral. Yes of course, but with the good there is no need for the bad or falsehoods. Truth is best realized and peace most successfully promoted as more people patiently accept and embrace Man's common reality as revealed, defined and/or revised by science. The movement toward this patience and acceptance very slowly growing from one century to the next is the maturing of Man. His best chance for lasting peace and true understanding of all that exists in the universe, proven or yet to be proven.
No further comment. This is pure Scientism, science as the religion of the future. I'm guessing LearnMe is a big sci-fi fan.
TEN: People of faith will deny if not condemn these truths for many reasons; from fear of god to fear of no god. Fear of death to fear of Hell. Typically beginning with the significant influence of inculcation at a young impressionable age, the subsequent effects of confirmation bias over time, development of ego and bigotry all prevent objective reason and logic to prevail for Man as quickly as it should. Instead the condemnation persists even to this day much like when Galileo was even imprisoned for attempting to overcome these same obstacles centuries ago. Much like the Jesuits denounced Elvis Presley. Much like Harry Potter books are banned in Catholic schools today. The ignorance and intolerance persists. Much like the ongoing effort to overcome the ills of racism, sexism, xenophobia and homophobia that also still persist today, the effort to overcome these backward ways very slowly and painfully is the progress of Man that each generation represents better than the last.
LearnMe seems unaware of the actual beneficial effects of religion – and specifically Christianity – on science and every other aspect of human civilization and culture, even on the various “ills†he cites. Even atheists have acknowledged and written about it – quite extensively. The examples LearnMe cites – did the Jesuits denounce Elvis? – are childish and reflect a woefully uninformed perspective.
It seems to me that the Ten Truths deteriorate badly as one progresses through them. It seems to me that the Scientism and disdain for religion become ever-more-apparent. Just as LearnMe might say about me or any other religious believer, his Ten Truths seem transparently to be driven by emotions and feelings more than reason and logic. Certainly by the time we reach Truth Five and beyond, something other than logic and clear thinking is driving the bus.
Science is an activity that seeks to explore the natural world using well-established, clearly-delineated methods. Given the complexity of the universe, from the very big to very small, from inorganic to organic, there is a vast array of scientific disciplines, each with its own specific techniques. The number of different specializations is constantly increasing, leading to more questions and areas of exploration than ever before. Science expands our understanding, rather than limiting it.
Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. Despite the fact that there are millions of species on our planet, scientism focuses an inordinate amount of its attention on human behavior and beliefs. Rather than working within carefully constructed boundaries and methodologies established by researchers, it broadly generalizes entire fields of academic expertise and dismisses many of them as inferior. With scientism, you will regularly hear explanations that rely on words like “merelyâ€, “onlyâ€, “simplyâ€, or “nothing more thanâ€. Scientism restricts human inquiry.
It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can’t catch in his nets does not exist. Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific.
First of all, this is hands down, the best thread I have read in 10 years on this forum.
Thanks to LearnMe for the initial intro to his 'truths' and to Irkle for his considered responses.
It's refreshing to see two intelligently thought out perspectives on some of the big questions. Very good. A joy to read.
I'm not sure I can comment on each point (though I would love to). A three-way commentary would be both too confusing and too tedious for others to read so I will just try to pick out some of the more salient points that stuck out to me and try to offer a more generalised response.
LearnMe I'll address first your ten truths. Not sure how I missed your ten truths thread first time around. I was probably taking one of my hiatuses from the forum.
Just a point I would make about the formatting of your truths that I hope you find constructive.
I'm not sure there are 10 truths here:
For example, in Truth One, you talk about two realities and then in Truths Three and Four you expand on those realities. So isn't that only two truths total, not three? I feel like point One is more of an introduction to your two realities. But then there is a separate Truth 2 in-between.
Along those same lines, there is a lot of crossover between the truths. Truth 10 seems to be a conclusion while at the same time being another point, and so I find your numbering system a bit confusing.
I'd have probably found it easier to read as one piece of prose without the numbers and with a clear introduction and conclusion. Overall I'm left not really knowing what overall point you are making.
I hope that is helpful.
Secondly I'm not sure you can label them 'truths'. I'm not sure 'truths' is the right choice of word. It kind of gives the impression that your truths are facts when some of it is facts and some of it is opinion.
For example I don't share either yours or Irkle's view that there are either two or three realities.
In my view there is only one reality. And that's my view or my opinion. Not fact or 'a truth' in the same way you use it. I have no way of knowing how many realities there are.
I'm a very straightforward person so I prefer to believe that there is only one reality but that everyone perceives it differently. Who knows? There could be multiple realities, but I have no way of proving it.
My overall impression is that you are trying to place 'faith' and 'science' as if you can only choose one or the other and that they compete with one another.
Objectively science has nothing to do with faith. Science in of itself has nothing to say about god.
Science is about the pursuit of knowledge of the natural world.
But while they are separate entities it is true that when you get people in the religion camp and people in the science camp, people use their (for want of a better word) ideology as a stick to beat the other side with.
Irkle I'm going to focus on this paragraph which seems to me to summarize all your commentary on LearnMe's truths, so I will use that as a starting off point.
Quote:
It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can’t catch in his nets does not exist. Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific.
I mean, yes and no.
Yes, obviously so much of our knowledge falls outside the scope of science.
For one thing the scientific method as we know it today was only born in the 1500's. Obviously there was much knowledge accumulated for millennia before 'science' came about. People discovered things, they built things, they learned things, they observed things, they hunted things, they cooked things, etc.
Apart from these practical aspects of knowledge, scientific enquiry had also been going on for millennia before people knew they were doing science.
I'm not sure that scientism is unscientific. Seems to be a contradiction in terms.
But I know what it's getting at.
And I know that what you are talking about is knowledge that falls outside of the scope of science.
I haven't come across anyone on this forum that has been able to provide a better insight than you have in explaining your conviction for why you have faith.
I have been able to pretty much fully comprehend everything you said.
No fluffy language, no vague wooly references. It's great.
I would say that while I come to different conclusions, I can get on board with a lot of your reasoning.
While I'm a great advocate of science I'm a skeptic of a lot of the theoretical scientific hypothesis that float around. I'm not a person that just buys every new theory that is thrown out there particularly if they just don't seem to fall in line with common sense.
Sometimes I agree that some avenues of scientific hypothesis border on the religious. Definitely.
I'm a longtime follower of one of my favorite scientists Roger Penrose. He also says as much about many of the various 'multiverse' theories floating about. He's not a fan and neither am I.
I think there is much that is unknowable. And rather than take a position on the unknowable I prefer to say I just don't know than wildly speculate on what might or might not be.
That's all I have time for today. I have other things to say about the thread but I will have to come back later.
First of all, this is hands down, the best thread I have read in 10 years on this forum.
Thanks to LearnMe for the initial intro to his 'truths' and to Irkle for his considered responses.
It's refreshing to see two intelligently thought out perspectives on some of the big questions. Very good. A joy to read.
I'm not sure I can comment on each point (though I would love to). A three-way commentary would be both too confusing and too tedious for others to read so I will just try to pick out some of the more salient points that stuck out to me and try to offer a more generalised response.
LearnMe I'll address first your ten truths. Not sure how I missed your ten truths thread first time around. I was probably taking one of my hiatuses from the forum.
Just a point I would make about the formatting of your truths that I hope you find constructive.
I'm not sure there are 10 truths here:
For example, in Truth One, you talk about two realities and then in Truths Three and Four you expand on those realities. So isn't that only two truths total, not three? I feel like point One is more of an introduction to your two realities. But then there is a separate Truth 2 in-between.
Along those same lines, there is a lot of crossover between the truths. Truth 10 seems to be a conclusion while at the same time being another point, and so I find your numbering system a bit confusing.
I'd have probably found it easier to read as one piece of prose without the numbers and with a clear introduction and conclusion. Overall I'm left not really knowing what overall point you are making.
I hope that is helpful.
Secondly I'm not sure you can label them 'truths'. I'm not sure 'truths' is the right choice of word. It kind of gives the impression that your truths are facts when some of it is facts and some of it is opinion.
For example I don't share either yours or Irkle's view that there are either two or three realities.
In my view there is only one reality. And that's my view or my opinion. Not fact or 'a truth' in the same way you use it. I have no way of knowing how many realities there are.
I'm a very straightforward person so I prefer to believe that there is only one reality but that everyone perceives it differently. Who knows? There could be multiple realities, but I have no way of proving it.
My overall impression is that you are trying to place 'faith' and 'science' as if you can only choose one or the other and that they compete with one another.
Objectively science has nothing to do with faith. Science in of itself has nothing to say about god.
Science is about the pursuit of knowledge of the natural world.
But while they are separate entities it is true that when you get people in the religion camp and people in the science camp, people use their (for want of a better word) ideology as a stick to beat the other side with.
Irkle I'm going to focus on this paragraph which seems to me to summarize all your commentary on LearnMe's truths, so I will use that as a starting off point.
I mean, yes and no.
Yes, obviously so much of our knowledge falls outside the scope of science.
For one thing the scientific method as we know it today was only born in the 1500's. Obviously there was much knowledge accumulated for millennia before 'science' came about. People discovered things, they built things, they learned things, they observed things, they hunted things, they cooked things, etc.
Apart from these practical aspects of knowledge, scientific enquiry had also been going on for millennia before people knew they were doing science.
I'm not sure that scientism is unscientific. Seems to be a contradiction in terms.
But I know what it's getting at.
And I know that what you are talking about is knowledge that falls outside of the scope of science.
I haven't come across anyone on this forum that has been able to provide a better insight than you have in explaining your conviction for why you have faith.
I have been able to pretty much fully comprehend everything you said.
No fluffy language, no vague wooly references. It's great.
I would say that while I come to different conclusions, I can get on board with a lot of your reasoning.
While I'm a great advocate of science I'm a skeptic of a lot of the theoretical scientific hypothesis that float around. I'm not a person that just buys every new theory that is thrown out there particularly if they just don't seem to fall in line with common sense.
Sometimes I agree that some avenues of scientific hypothesis border on the religious. Definitely.
I'm a longtime follower of one of my favorite scientists Roger Penrose. He also says as much about many of the various 'multiverse' theories floating about. He's not a fan and neither am I.
I think there is much that is unknowable. And rather than take a position on the unknowable I prefer to say I just don't know than wildly speculate on what might or might not be.
That's all I have time for today. I have other things to say about the thread but I will have to come back later.
I'll just leave this here for additional info. I love this guy.
Penrose is one of my mentors as well, Cruithne, and there IS only one Reality. What Irkle and LearnMe were alluding to are our perceptions of it, as you suggest. I will only suggest to you that not all speculations on the unknown are "wildly speculative" especially mine which is decidedly based on solidly known science including that posited by Penrose and Hameroff.
Irkle is easily the wittiest person I know. I don't believe you've imbibed the three Guinness Stouts I prescribed.
Quote:
My posts stand for themselves. Your misrepresentations, fallacies and defense of ID shows who is posturing.
As stated, the ID movement both predates and exists independently of the Discovery Institute. I have no embarrassment about embracing the work done by the proponents of ID. It stands to reason that those scientists with an interest in ID are going to be ones not wedded to the naturalistic paradigm. By no means, however, are they all Christians or even theists. Even if they in fact were all closet Creationists, this would have absolutely no bearing on the merits of the work.
I've read literally boxes of ID-related materials across multiple scientific disciplines. I don't claim to have the scientific expertise to fully evaluate the merits, and thus like any layman I must rely to a large degree on a scientist's academic and professional credentials and my informed assessment of his arguments and those of his critics. As a whole, I find the ID literature impressive. I find the opposition to ID to be largely philosophical - it arguably threatens the naturalistic paradigm, and thus the guardians of the paradigm must shout it down rather deal with it honestly.
There is no question that, as the ID proponents assert, ID would not necessarily equate to theism and certainly not to Christian Creationism. The notion of our reality as a virtual one, a simulation, has been taken increasingly seriously in physics and is discussed throughout the mainstream literature - yet for some reason this possibility is entertained without all the brouhaha surrounding ID. No one claims it's closet Creationism. I find this dichotomy bizarre.
You love to bandy around statements such as "Your misrepresentations, fallacies and defense of ID ..." as though their truth should be self-evident to readers. What are those misrepresentations and fallacies? If you think there are misrepresentations and fallacies, spell them out and address them. You do this repeatedly - simply assert "fallacy" in circumstances where it not only doesn't fit but doesn't even make sense.
Quote:
Perhaps if the theists actually posted substantive content.
You say this repeatedly, but your own posts are surely among the least substantive in the entire forum. It has reached the point that I truly have no idea what you're even talking about with this complaint. Are you expecting people on an internet discussion forum to hash out technical issues in physics and cosmology? Do you do that? Not that I've seen.
I issued a challenge to you: Lay out your full Bayesian attack on theism, and I will respond to it - just as LearnMe invited me to tackle his Ten Truths in depth, and I did so by starting this thread. Come on, Mr. Substance, let's see your best work.
Quote:
No, I have not read his 10 truths or your response in the OP. Mr Yap needed his morning exercise. But from his posts I have read, he does not rely on science. No one here does, although some use it more than others.
This is like your "lack of substance" comment. From the Ten Truths LearnMe has propounded, I assume he does reach his conclusions on the basis of what he regards as the best scientific evidence. Why would I not take him at his word and give him credit for that?
These discussions, almost all of them, focus on the process by which people have arrived at their beliefs and why. I'm really not interested in what LearnMe thinks about quantum physics any more than he is interested in what I think. An internet forum is hardly the place for two laymen to debate scientific evidence and theories; people do it, of course, and generally make complete fools of themselves in the process. Suffice it to say, I've read a great deal of popular-level work in the area of quantum physics, have an intelligent layman's grasp of it, and factor my understanding into my belief system. I assume LearnMe has done the same.
If you, Mr. Substance, think the forum needs more substantive science - bring it on. We'll address it if we're able.
Quote:
Probably because creative thought that produces false results (such as Plantinga's tiger) is the cause of the crisis in modern philosophy, a crisis that philosophers seem unaware of.
Here, the irrepressible Harry has taken a page from Richard Carrier, the foaming-at-the-mouth atheist who insists Jesus never existed (and, as I recall, has the Bayesian analysis to demonstrate it!). Carrier calls Alvin Plantinga a "terrible" and "awful" philosopher. He has written extensively and dismissively about "Plantinga's tiger," which is the only reason Harry knows anything about it. See https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13180. Carrier says erudite things about Plantinga like "Both prongs of his argument are **** philosophy."
The American Philosophical Association annually awards the Alvin Plantinga Prize for "original essays that engage philosophical issues about or in substantial ways related to theism." Elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1975, Plantinga was awarded the prestigious Templeton Prize in 2017; previous winners include Mother Teresa, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama. In 2012, the University of Pittsburgh's Philosophy Department, History and Philosophy of Science Department, and the Center for the History and Philosophy of Science co-awarded Plantinga the Nicholas Rescher Prize for Systematic Philosophy. Plantinga retired after decades as the John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame. He is widely regarded as one of the most influential philosophers of the Twentieth Century and is in the upper ranks of philosophers most cited by other philosophers.
Richard Carrier? Read the Wikipedia article, and I guarantee you'll be reduced to giggles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier. He holds no meaningful position, largely self-publishes, has a "just slightly" bizarre sexual history, and is pretty much regarded as an intelligent nutcase.
First of all, this is hands down, the best thread I have read in 10 years on this forum.
Thanks for your nice comments and insights, Cruithne! I'll look forward to whatever else you have to add.
This is one of those odd synchronicities that seem to pepper my life: I'm well-aware of Roger Penrose, but I hadn't really given him much thought in years. However, just last night my reading on panpsychism happened to be almost entirely about his theory whereby (as summarized by Wikipedia) "Penrose and Hameroff have argued that consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in microtubules, which they dubbed Orch-OR (orchestrated objective reduction)." (Don't ask me what that means.)
The book, if anyone cares, is Panpsychism in the West by David Skrbina and published by MIT Press, https://www.amazon.com/Panpsychism-W.../dp/0262693518. It's an extremely thorough history of panpsychist and quasi-panpsychist philosophy from the Ancient Greeks to the present.
Genuinely complex incidents of synchronicity - and I've had some doozies - are sufficient in themselves to make me say "Hmmm ... I don't think so" in regard to hardcore materialism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have enormous respect for the intellect and accomplishments of the person behind the persona of Irkle and am at a loss as to why so many others have difficulty seeing it. My own experiences here tend to make it understandable but still bemusing. My own motivations differ radically from Irkle's and were far more serious initially. 
