Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:06 pm

RWStanding wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 7:23 am Christianity
Britain used to refer to itself as a Christian country.
There seems to be little agreement as to what we are today.
In modern terms:
Christianity is not about simple freedom of the individual will.
Christianity is not about simple obedience to moral codes.
Christianity is about informed conformity to altruist values.
Human and other rights and duties are legal constructs based on values.

Christianity is all of those things and none of them.
It is a hodge podge of diverse, contradictions.
It's time to grow up and drop it.

What do you suggest to replace ALL of "christianity" with, EXACTLY?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:25 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:23 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 3:58 pm...Sure, within the realm to which science and measurement devote themselves.

What is measurable that science can't measure?

That is not quite the right question, at least for me to answer. The question is What lies outside of the capacity of science to measure?

And I think the answer is meaning. The meaning of something -- an event, a relationship, an occurrence. How is it that things are determined by as to have meaning, the be meaningful -- I think that is one area in which 'science measurement' and the methods of science has no way of addressing.

If you REALLY do NOT YET KNOW the answer to; 'How is it that things are determined by as to have meaning?' then you REALLY do have a LONG, LONG way to go.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:25 pm What life is, why life is, why I have this life, why I am alive and perceive, and of course what I believe, feel and determine I must do with this life -- these are obviously questions that the typical science we are all familiar with declines to answer. It is not in its domain to answer.

That is BECAUSE 'science', itself, is NOT a thing that could answer absolutely ANY thing.

The human beings, in the days when this was being written, REALLY DID KEEP FORGETTING what some 'things' ACTUALLY ARE. As CLEARLY SHOWN here.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:29 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:25 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:23 pm What is measurable that science can't measure?

That is not quite the right question, at least for me to answer. The question is What lies outside of the capacity of science to measure?

And I think the answer is meaning. The meaning of something -- an event, a relationship, an occurrence. How is it that things are determined by as to have meaning, the be meaningful -- I think that is one area in which 'science measurement' and the methods of science has no way of addressing.

What life is, why life is, why I have this life, why I am alive and perceive, and of course what I believe, feel and determine I must do with this life -- these are obviously questions that the typical science we are all familiar with declines to answer. It is not in its domain to answer.

You can ask empty quesions till you are blue in the face and then one day you die never knowing there aint no answer.

And do 'you', "sculptor", KNOW, FOR SURE, WITHOUT ABSOLUTELY ANY DOUBT AT ALL, that there are some questions that for absolutely FOREVERMORE there will be ABSOLUTELY NO answers for?

If yes, then would you like to share some of those questions here with us readers?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:31 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 5:23 pmWell done you. So what is science?

I have learned that it is unwise to respond to the incessant questioning mode.

WHY?

1. Because you will like STUPID if you provide the False, Wrong, or Incorrect answers.

2. You REALLY do NOT KNOW the answers ANYWAY.

3. You are just AFRAID to answer clarifying questions posed to you?

Or,

4. For some other reason?

If your answer is number 4. then what OTHER reason, EXACTLY?

Oh, and by the way, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is there was ONLY one question directed to you. So, your CLAIM that there is an "incessant questioning mode" here is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:31 pm What I would appreciate from you would be that you take the time -- your own time -- to write out careful responses in relation to specific elements in this on-going conversation.

You write here and say and CLAIM what 'science' does and does NOT do. Yet, when you are just asked to CLARIFY 'What is 'science', to you?

You crumble and fall without even attempting to CLARIFY, which some MEANS that you do NOT even KNOW what 'science' is, or that you had NEVER really even thought about, 'what is 'science' ACTUALLY?

From what you have written above in this forum it appears that you REALLY do NOT YET EVEN KNOW what 'science' IS, ACTUALLY. But do NOT feel to bad, you are CERTAINLY NOT ALONE here.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:31 pm And I also think that you should answer your own question, which I think is what you desire to do.

You may well find that what you think here is completely and utterly Wrong.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:40 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:29 pmYou can ask empty questions till you are blue in the face and then one day you die never knowing there ain't no answer.

In some sense I agree with you. But that is because I do recognize that we, as instruments of perception, are not sufficient to the task -- but here I qualify this by saying 'in an absolute sense'. What I mean is that we are imperfect instruments, fallible instruments. I believe that we need to know this . . . and examine our certainties, or lack of them, in that light.

I base my own understanding (in relation to the questions I do ask and when *meaning* is considered)(and I certainly recognize *meaning* as a key element in my own life and view) on what I refer to as intimations.

And I will also say that as I conceive of Holy Spirit (the means through which higher orders of intelligence can and do communicate with us) is essentially through intimation. The instrument of our self has to be willing to receive. Also it may have to *give permission*.

What is the list of so-called "higher orders of intelligence", and, how do "they" communicate with 'you'?

Or, is this ANOTHER CLARIFYING question, which you have, supposedly, "learned that it is unwise to respond to"?

If it is, then I suggest from refraining to CLAIM or even say ANY thing, in a philosophy forum.

See, if you have learned to become SO WISE to NOT respond to questions regarding your OWN CLAIMS and STATEMENTS, then surely would have also become SO WISE to NOT put your OWN CLAIMS and STATEMENTS in a philosophy forum, correct?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:31 pm

[Latin intimāre, intimāt-, to make known, from intimus, innermost; see en in Indo-European roots.]

1. A subtle pointing out:
clue, cue, hint, suggestion.

My view is that the most subtle of men (people) are those who work within this realm. So for this reason I do not and cannot dismiss the poets who, it seems to me, operate in realms of intimation, intuition, inner sense -- meaning in the sense I brought to Uwot's attention.

The other aspect of my own view is that spiritual and religious life is a sort of tuning-in to what is intimated. But how can this be explained to someone (some other person) who does not approach life in this way?

I see *good theology* in this sense as the outcome of sound reasoning on those themes which are intimated as being true.

What 'themes' are intimated as being true?

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:08 pm By Age:

“Also, finding, or coming to, 'wisdom', and then just leaving there, behind, to some, is NOT REALLY the BEST thing to do AT ALL. But these ones do feel, and have, a sense of responsibility for ALL, and not just to their OWN 'self'. In other words, they are NOT as selfish and greedy.”

By owl of Minerva:

You have a point there. I am just pointing out what generally happens to wisdom.

I was just pointing out that 'metaphors' or 'adages' can be seen in many different ways, and ONLY thee one who wrote or said the 'metaphor', in the beginning, KNOWS the way they meant it to mean.

Also, you NEVER even mentioned the word 'wisdom' before now, so HOW could you have been just pointing out what generally happens to 'wisdom'?

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:08 pm Not to mention to those who reveal it. In the Dark Ages it was a hazardous thing to do. Today it does not generally lead to personal harm. But once it is the the public domaine it can be turned into something quite other. But truth-sharers have to live with that and not take umbrage at distortion nor feel responsible for where, or what, their insights leads to.

So, someone could say, for example, "They are taking over our country", which is the truth to that one, and so that one is just being, literally, 'a truth-sharer', but if this so-called "insight" leads to say, the taking over of the place where that country is run from by an angry mob, then the so-called "truth -sharer" does NOT have feel responsible for what their so-called "insights" lead to, correct?

owl of Minerva wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:08 pm A few seeds may fall on fertile ground, making it worthwhile.

How about instead of ALL of the metaphors, adages, allusions, insinuations, meaning something other than what is said, and all of the other forms of NOT just speaking and writing what is thee ACTUAL Truth ONLY, just writing what is thee ACTUAL Truth ONLY. That way there will be NO misunderstanding NOR wrong meaning obtained.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:32 pm God does not suffer at all

You know this how?

God is a person: persons suffer.

LOL
LOL
LOL "henry quirk".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:37 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:22 pm With regard to your last two paragraphs that are crucial to a discussion of the problem of evil, we poor creatures
1. do the suffering

Would you rather not have free will or your "self," your own identity, if you could avoid suffering altogether?

whereas God does not suffer at all .

The crucifixion definitively proves otherwise.

Are you ANOTHER one who says and CLAIMS that God, Itself, is a person?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:37 pm

...to give God a blank cheque...

Heh.

Who made man "God's banker"? Who made man God's judge? And what does God "owe" us? What "higher court" will you appeal to, in order to "get" what you think you are "owed" from God?

Meanwhile, He's given us life, freedom, choice, identity, truth, love and the offer of His salvation, which He paid for personally, in Jesus Christ His Son. He never "owed" us any of that, but He gave it anyway.

LOL Here is a GREAT EXAMPLE of just how Wrong human beings used to MISINTERPRET things.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:37 pm On our side, we gave Him back rebellion, hatred, bitterness, anger, pride, cruelty, ignorance, insults and contempt.

So who "owes" Whom what?

And when the court finally sits, what will the judgment be?

THEE EXACT SAME for EVERY one, OBVIOUSLY.

If, and when, 'you', adult human beings, learn HOW and WHY 'you' ALL do Wrong, then what the judgement will be, and ACTUALLY WAS, BECOMES KNOWN.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:44 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:39 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:32 pm God does not suffer at all

You know this how?

God is a person: persons suffer.

I understand this perspective. I don't hold to it because it demotes God to the status of the most magnificent human being.

No it promotes man who was made in His image.

We are like Him.

If the human being known as "henry quirk" here was born with a vagina, then does "henry quirk" think that it would write so 'male' gendered centric here now?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:54 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:50 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:44 pm

No it promotes man who was made in His image.

We are like Him.

Who told you to say that?

It is idolatry to claim we poor animals are like the Almighty. We aim to be like His incarnation or his prophets and that is the most we are capable of.

I'm a deist: all that means nuthin' to me.

What does a 'deist' mean or refer to, to you?

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:19 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:25 pmThe question is What lies outside of the capacity of science to measure?

And I think the answer is meaning.

Well Gus, that is why people distinguish between science and philosophy. It is broadly understood that science does the observation and measurement and that philosophy does the meaning. The thing is, while in theory we all have access to the same data, we will not all attach the same meaning to it, and everyone in either field knows it. Here's a snip from something I wrote for the magazine a couple of years ago:

The ‘theory-dependence of observation’ is this idea that exactly the same information can be interpreted in different ways. Kuhn argued that just as your worldview is influenced by your experience, so your scientific paradigm is determined in part by the education you’ve had. This led to accusations of relativism, which Kuhn tried to counter by saying that there are objective criteria for deciding between paradigmatic theories:
1. How accurately a theory agrees with the evidence.
2. It’s consistent within itself and with other accepted theories.
3. It should explain more than just the phenomenon it was designed to explain.
4. The simplest explanation is the best. (In other words, apply Occam’s Razor.)
5. It should make predictions that come true.
However, Kuhn had to concede that there is no objective way to establish which of those criteria is the most important, and so scientists would make their own mind up for subjective reasons. In choosing between competing theories, two scientists “fully committed to the same list of criteria for choice may nevertheless reach different conclusions.” https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996

Yeah, you can't measure meaning.

'you' may NOT be able to measure 'meaning', but this is NOT to say that 'meaning' can NOT be measured.

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:24 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:42 pmI wonder if the irony in, "It is written in peer-reviewed scientific text. Therefore, it must be true", is also missed?

Age, who are you quoting?

The people that think, say, or write that.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:16 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:59 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:54 pm

I'm a deist: all that means nuthin' to me.

A deist recognises humans are animals and a deist does not recognise an ongoing supernatural Being. A deist claims God made all this and then left it all to its own devices.

As with theism, deism has different strains.

In mine: man is not just an animal;

In yours, 'God' is a person, and 'man' is not just an animal. So, to you, what is 'man' or what does the word 'man' refer to, EXACTLY, and what is an 'animal', EXACTLY?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:16 pm God exists and has an interest in His Creation(s);

How EXACTLY does this male gendered person, who, supposedly, created ALL of Creation, have an interest in ALL of its Creation.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:16 pm His interventions are indirect (specifically by way of a man's conscience).

God's current interventions, to 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written, are indirect to 'you', specifically by way of the conscience within 'you', human beings, is a fairly good and very accurate way to put that.

However, God's DIRECT interventions can be FAR MORE CLEARLY SEEN and RECOGNIZED, to those PASSED that OLD WAY of living, looking at, and seeing things.

uwot wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:40 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:34 pm No, uwot ...

Thank you for your concern old buddy, it's just a bit of mischief.

This is just MORE EXAMPLE of when the human beings, in those days, could NOT COUNTER what I say and claim, or would NOT CLARIFY what they say and claim.

Their INABILITIES and FEAR SHONE through BRIGHTLY.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:12 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:39 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:48 pm
You yourself are weighing Him in the balance see your second and third paragraphs

No, no I'm not. I'm asking you on what basis you even raise the allegation? Since God has done so much for you, what does He now "owe" you?

Do you think God wants us to abandon reasoning?

No: He wants us to start using it. Good reasoning will tell you that you owe far more than you can ever claim.

Incarnated God is a flexible concept.

Not a bit of it. It's Jesus Christ.

I have endured labour pains and to a specifiable extent they are worth suffering as they are productive pains that enhance life. I have a cracked rib at present and the tenderness is worth while as it warns me to avoid pushing on the fragile bit. Pain is sometimes life enhancing. But I challenge you to tell me what is life enhancing about the pain of cancer.

What is life enhancing about the pain of cancer is the RESPECT gained for having being ALIVE. The wisdom learned in NOW FULLY REALIZING that the 'i' was NOT invincible NOR ever-lasting. And, the lessons I can TEACH about just LIVING life, as it is MEANT TO BE LIVED.

And, if one has STILL NOT YET learned that last lesson, then MAYBE more, so-called, "pain" was NEEDED.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:12 pm Or the suffering of an African boy with harelip and cleft palate. Etc. etc.

But HOW, EXACTLY, does the boy "suffer" here?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:12 pm I choose to avoid all suffering that does not enhance a life.

Well you are in for a "ONE HELL OF A VERY RUDE SHOCK", as some would say.
____________________

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:12 pm I have already endorsed the sacrifice that God made by incarnating with the maximum of pains and
sorrows.
___________________________________

So who "owes" Whom what?

you ask. I have had a particularly easy life so far. Many others have had lives of unremitting and severe suffering. You would do better to ask those others who owes whom what.

WHO and HOW, EXACTLY, have "had lives of unremitting and severe suffering"?

Until they are EXPOSED and SHARED, and we can DELVE into this CLAIM, NOTHING of ANY REAL SUBSTANCE is ACTUALLY being said and claimed here.
________________

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:12 pm Jesus Christ is a flexible concept. Christ is a myth.

What does the saying, "christ is a myth", ACTUALLY REALLY MEAN?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:12 pm Myths can be read literally or figuratively.

But, if 'myths' are just stories, which are NOT actually True, then WHY NOT just ready 'myths' as 'myths' and NOT ANY thing else?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 9:12 pm The hero of the myth, Jesus Christ, may be taken to be an historical person, or he may be taken to stand for the ephemeral glimpses we get of pure goodness especially when the goodness is manifested by the action of someone poor or oppressed.

HOW, EXACTLY, could ANY one take ANY one, hero or not, of A 'myth' to be an ACTUAL 'historical person'?

What does the word 'myth' mean or refer to, to you "belinda"?