Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:Science, being a study of patterns, has always struggled to deal with the sporadic and the unexpected. To simplify, they must operate on the theoretical assumption that anything that lacks evidence does not exist. Some take the simplification to heart and believe it.

But science is only the study of patterns in material phenomena under controlled conditions. If that does not exhaust "the real," then science isn't a comprehensive explanation of everything, but rather a very good tool for explaining a limited set of things (composed only of material phenomena).

There's the laboratory work and the forensics - analysing situations and, like Sherlock Holmes, piecing together the clues. Each is augmented and either verified by, or cast doubt about, by math and theoretical physics. There's great scope, but not unlimited. The real sticking point is we are on the inside and ourselves in a sense an intrinsic part of what we study. It is not a researcher and a subjects so much as an interaction.

Immanuel Can wrote:You're right: science is a kind of "simplification," a heuristic tool for investigating material phenomena.

Yes, a sketch, if you like.

Immanuel Can wrote:But it cannot answer the question, "Are material phenomena all that exists?" for two reasons: one is that science needs us to accept the limitation of the field to material phenomena before it can launch it's methodology and provide results -- it does not give us proof of that assumption.

Aesthetics is one example. Consciousness would be another. Or rationality -- science needs consciousness and rationality in order to work at all; so it cannot be the grounds to justify things like those. Ethics is another one. Science (i.e. sociological studies) can tell us what people DO: but it cannot tell us what makes it "right" or "wrong" for them to do it.

To be fair, science tried for over a century to find even a shred of evidence from theistic claims, so it's understandable that they gave it up as a waste of time and resources because they continually came up empty. Dr Ian Stevenson spent decades in India interviewing children regarding reincarnation claims, recorded with care and rigour to avoid the usual slapdash, wishful-thinking approach of many paranormal researchers. Not that his work - with some mind bending results - was taken seriously, as per your post

So far it looks like physical phenomena is all that exists. However, as Galen Strawson notes, matter is actually a strange and mysterious thing. As with consciousness or aesthetics we assume we know all about it because we deal with it every day, but we do not understand it. At all. Personally, I reckon the whole box and dice is a living system in some way that we don't understand because we are inside of it - but I have no proof, hence "I reckon" rather than "I believe". I suspect that our definitions of "life" and "consciousness" are relative, not absolutes.

So matter itself is a weirdly mystical thing, which is why no one knows what it is - not from first principles, only relativities and derivations. Perhaps we need to change the way we understand and value matter itself to appreciate what's going on with reality?

thedoc wrote:I have had several people tell me that they can't understand the language of Shakespeare, and had problems understanding the KJV Bible.

That's something I can't quite correlate. The purpose of the KJV was to use relatively simple and direct language their goal being precision. This the committee succeeded in beyond expectations. They managed to turn simplicity into poetry and I have no doubt that the power of it amounting to near verbal numinosity in many of its chapters still causes people to believe.

Without getting into details, Shakespeare was much more complex containing endless metaphors, allusions, nuances not normally contained in the Bible. The challenge in reading Shakespeare far exceeds that of the KJV through vocabulary alone. The same can be said for Milton.

Greta wrote:

seeds wrote:

Greta wrote:The Sun is an "it" and it is the closest thing we have to a deity - it created us and we are made from its body, and it sustains us 24/7, making all that we value possible. An it. Another notable "it" - the Earth.

The sun didn’t create us.

The sun is just as oblivious to the ultimate truth of its own creation and existence as we are of ours.

Furthermore (and assuming that she too is not a “horrid old bat” like the one you quoted ), would you refer to your mom as an “it”?

If not, then don’t you think that “God” (another problematic word) deserves to be viewed as something more than just an “it”?
_______

Would I refer any women or girl as "it"? No. Nor would I refer to them as "he". This issue actually has nothing to do with respect and everything to with veracity. A pretty lie remains a lie. Propagate a lie knowingly, even if for aesthetic properties, and you unwittingly promote lies and delusion in the literal minded impressionable people.

I note a focus on hierarchy, which then brings us back why the pronoun "he". "She" would be insulting because God could not be a a female since women are lesser beings than males (ahem). Meanwhile, "it" suggests something that is not human, and since humans are the ultimate entities (ahem), then "it" suggests subhuman. The idea that God is beyond human and beyond gender is an unpopular one, although given due lip service when the dissonance of the position is pointed out.

Then everyone goes back to "He" again. I have been on these forums for years and I have tested theists with this for that long, and never once has one changed their conception of God to neutral - it remains masculine because, the pronouns immediately confers gender. The very moment you give a deity a pronoun, it has a gender. I gave up on any chance of getting through in the slightest years ago, but it's still interesting to see what people say to try to work around it.

If you don't believe me, try referring to God as "she", especially to other theists, and see what kind of response you get.

Your comment about the Sun suggests that you believe that all creation must require agency, ie. that no creation can occur without a conscious humanlike mind guiding every step. All evidence points away from this idea. I am surprised that you would deny the idea of "planetary seeds" created and fostered by the Sun in the protoplanetary disc.

Presumably when people refer to 'God' they are talking about the Abrahamic Mr. God of the bible. That character is a 'he', so I have no more problem referring to him as 'he' than I do Voldemort, or Lord Foul. The men are welcome to him.

seeds wrote:
The sun is just as oblivious to the ultimate truth of its own creation and existence as we are of ours.

Furthermore (and assuming that she too is not a “horrid old bat” like the one you quoted ), would you refer to your mom as an “it”?

If not, then don’t you think that “God” (another problematic word) deserves to be viewed as something more than just an “it”?
_______

Every thing is IT

No human knows what IT is ..only that IT is....label IT whatever, and that's only ever IT what ever IT is...naming IT SELF what it isn't?

When the rain or sunshine is observed - it's often noted as ...IT's raining, or IT's sunny....it's not said... God's raining or God's sunning... is it?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:The men are welcome to him.

We don't want him either. He's consigned to IT for good!

Dubious wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:The men are welcome to him.

We don't want him either.

Immanuel Can wrote:
What evidence convinces you of that? I'm assuming it's not just an Atheist presupposition you are floating there...it would have some evidence, no?

I would imagine it is the same type of evidence that presupposes there is a divine law giver.

Immanuel Can wrote: I could show you why that's wrong, but it's a big, big task, since Kant is quite complex. Instead, let me point you again to Joel Marks; or even better, to the recent critical work on Kant by Allen W. Wood, one of the leading scholars on Kant. He argues very convincingly that Kant had a teleological view of ethics, one derived from his Protestant pietistic background, and one that he took for granted. And you can really see Wood is right, if you consider Kant's #2 version of the categorical imperative, also called "The Humanity Formula." It presumes (without proof of any kind) that human beings have an unalienable right to be treated as "ends in themselves." This he clearly got from his Protestant suppositions, because nothing in Atheism or even a neutral secularism gives us a reason to know why it's true.

No need to worry, I have a very good understanding of Kantian ethics. Firstly, it is totally irrelevant if Kant was a Protestant or a Calathumpian. All that matters is the quality of his arguments. Secondly, it makes little difference if Kantian ethics is deontological or teleological the claim is still the same. Ethics is grounded in human reason. Having said that I would reject the claim that Kantian ethics is teleological. I could show you why but it would be a big, big task.

Immanuel Can wrote: It's a nice idea...but Kant had no grounding for it. He never even tried, because he seemed to think everybody would just accept it. And maybe, in his society, most people would...maybe. But whatever the case, he never thought to say why we ought to believe it.

Kant is appealing to our autonomy as rational agents for a justification. You seem to be denying the possibility of apriori knowledge.

Greta wrote: I note a focus on hierarchy, which then brings us back why the pronoun "he". "She" would be insulting because God could not be a a female since women are lesser beings than males (ahem). Meanwhile, "it" suggests something that is not human, and since humans are the ultimate entities (ahem), then "it" suggests subhuman. The idea that God is beyond human and beyond gender is an unpopular one, although given due lip service when the dissonance of the position is pointed out.

Then everyone goes back to "He" again. I have been on these forums for years and I have tested theists with this for that long, and never once has one changed their conception of God to neutral - it remains masculine because, the pronouns immediately confers gender. The very moment you give a deity a pronoun, it has a gender. I gave up on any chance of getting through in the slightest years ago, but it's still interesting to see what people say to try to work around it.

If you don't believe me, try referring to God as "she", especially to other theists, and see what kind of response you get.

Then you either haven't been paying attention, have me on ignore, or don't read my posts very closely. I always refer to God as God and avoid having yo choose which pronoun to use, but I'm coming more and more to thinking about God as a neutral gender, or a composite, having both qualities in one being. The Bible is written with the masculine pronoun because it was written for a patriarchal society and that is just the way it was then, now the Bible would be written differently, if there were no history to it. In the church I attend God is often referred to with a feminine pronoun and no-one even blinks an eye, it's like water off a ducks back, so apparently you have not been associating with the same Christians that I have. I have 2 daughters and 5 granddaughters and I will argue as hard as anyone for their equality to men, I certainly do not see them as inferior to men in any sense.

thedoc wrote:

Greta wrote: I note a focus on hierarchy, which then brings us back why the pronoun "he". "She" would be insulting because God could not be a a female since women are lesser beings than males (ahem). Meanwhile, "it" suggests something that is not human, and since humans are the ultimate entities (ahem), then "it" suggests subhuman. The idea that God is beyond human and beyond gender is an unpopular one, although given due lip service when the dissonance of the position is pointed out.

Then everyone goes back to "He" again. I have been on these forums for years and I have tested theists with this for that long, and never once has one changed their conception of God to neutral - it remains masculine because, the pronouns immediately confers gender. The very moment you give a deity a pronoun, it has a gender. I gave up on any chance of getting through in the slightest years ago, but it's still interesting to see what people say to try to work around it.

If you don't believe me, try referring to God as "she", especially to other theists, and see what kind of response you get.

Then you either haven't been paying attention, have me on ignore, or don't read my posts very closely. I always refer to God as God and avoid having yo choose which pronoun to use, but I'm coming more and more to thinking about God as a neutral gender, or a composite, having both qualities in one being. The Bible is written with the masculine pronoun because it was written for a patriarchal society and that is just the way it was then, now the Bible would be written differently, if there were no history to it. In the church I attend God is often referred to with a feminine pronoun and no-one even blinks an eye, it's like water off a ducks back, so apparently you have not been associating with the same Christians that I have. I have 2 daughters and 5 granddaughters and I will argue as hard as anyone for their equality to men, I certainly do not see them as inferior to men in any sense.

Calling God He

Has a long history

Calling God She

Is a brief whimsy

Long history presumes thoughtless inertia

Whimsy presumes free-thinking unbound by tradition

But it ain’t necessarily so

Maybe He is less limited in definition

Than what enforced PC dictates

Greta wrote:The real sticking point is we are on the inside and ourselves in a sense an intrinsic part of what we study. It is not a researcher and a subjects so much as an interaction.

That's what's called, "The New Hermeneutics" that you're channeling there. I think it's a half truth, at best. Yes, it's true we are involved with our studies as the instruments of them, and that interpretation is required. Absolutely.

But that's a far cry from saying that there is no objective truth, and no possible way to find it. It just means that human knowledge is probabilistic, not absolute. But probability is still a fine, fine thing, and much better than random guesses.

To be fair, science tried for over a century to find even a shred of evidence from theistic claims,

Historically inaccurate, I'm afraid. It's just that there are no things that Atheists will allow to be interpreted AS evidence: it's not that the evidence doesn't exist. It seems that those who know the evidence tend to become Theists. Those who refuse to consider any evidence stay Atheists.

Case in point: Anthony Flew, the renowned (ex-)Atheist writer.

So far it looks like physical phenomena is all that exists.

It looks like that to Materialists, yes. But that's because of their prior commitment to Materialism. It doesn't look like that to Atheist Thomas Nagel, who is much more fair-minded about that than many Atheists want to be.

Perhaps we need to change the way we understand and value matter itself to appreciate what's going on with reality

That would already take for granted Materialism -- and given that Materialism itself is not a provable hypothesis, that would be a gratuitous move. We have no way of knowing that the answers will be findable if we confine ourselves to mere "materials," and every instinctive reason to think they won't, I would say.

Ginkgo wrote:I would imagine it is the same type of evidence that presupposes there is a divine law giver.

No, I wouldn't think so. So to what "evidence" do you refer here?

Immanuel Can wrote: it makes little difference if Kantian ethics is deontological or teleological the claim is still the same.

Well, then you don't understand Kant the way Kant understood Kant. He was quite explicit that any element of Consequentialist-type calculation was an utter denial of The Good Will. The Good Will, he said, has to operate without all such considerations.

Ethics is grounded in human reason. Having said that I would reject the claim that Kantian ethics is teleological. I could show you why but it would be a big, big task.

Your argument is really with Wood, who is known as one of the foremost scholars on Kant today. I'm of his party on that one. Personally, I find his argument the best explanation of Kant's apparent inconsistencies. He glues Kant together very nicely.

In other words, I just think you're incorrect about that.

Kant is appealing to our autonomy as rational agents for a justification. You seem to be denying the possibility of apriori knowledge

.

Explain, please...why do you suppose that?

Immanuel Can wrote:Atheism is amoral. And because it is amoral, someone who consistently believes it cannot ground any moral judgment at all.

Mr Can, I am astonished that you have managed to distil so much of your dishonesty, obstinacy and illogic into just twenty words. It is so dense with delusion that it is difficult to unravel. But I'll give it a go.

Mr Can wrote: Atheism is amoral.

Several people have made the point that atheism is only a moral position to people, like you, who believe that good is whatever, by their interpretation, god says it is. So a flood that wipes out almost the entire human race, is good. Abandoning your dependents to follow Jesus, is good. A god that can do, or advocate either, is not good by any criterion that is acceptable to a human being, or god, that isn't a sociopath.

Mr Can wrote:And because it is amoral...

There is no because. The only thing that follows from Atheism is amoral, is Atheism is amoral. That is true even of your personal capitalised Atheism.

Mr Can wrote: ...someone who consistently believes it...

Given that you recently said:

On Mon Dec 12, 2016 7:33 pm, p83 to be precise, Mr Can wrote:Actually, Henry, I think I would now distinguish three types of Atheist...

It is dishonest, obstinate, illogical or perhaps just plain stupid that you now fail to acknowledge the difference between:
1. I do not believe god exists.
2. I believe god does not exist.
Perhaps it would help to add that, as an atheist, I do not believe that god doesn't exist. There is, in fact, no belief that is a necessary condition of atheism. On the contrary, it is precisely the absence of believe that defines atheism.

Mr Can wrote:...cannot ground any moral judgment at all.

Well, since atheism is not a belief, nobody has ever tried to ground any moral at all in it.
This though, wins the cigar:

Mr Can wrote:For instance, you saw uwot pop up "The Golden Rule." But whenever you see an Atheist pop up a virtue claim, you will find that it will turn out to be some sort of Theistic borrowing...

Look again, Mr Can.

On Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:22 am, p97, I wrote: Here are some examples of non-christians, including atheists, who performed that rationalisation before Jesus was ever born/invented:

Egypt: That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another. Late period papyrus.

China: Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself. Confucius.

India: Treat others as you treat yourself. Mahābhārata,

Ancient Greece: Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing. Thales.

All from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Note that all of these sources pre-date Jesus Christ by several hundred years and both Confucius and Thales were atheists.
From what I gather, Mr Can, you are prepared to do whatever it takes to promote your vision of god, because in your mind that is 'good'. I assume you believe that your god made you in its own image, too bad your god is dishonest, obstinate, illogical and vain.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:To be fair, science tried for over a century to find even a shred of evidence from theistic claims,

Historically inaccurate, I'm afraid. It's just that there are no things that Atheists will allow to be interpreted AS evidence: it's not that the evidence doesn't exist. It seems that those who know the evidence tend to become Theists. Those who refuse to consider any evidence stay Atheists.

More nonsense. It is not that atheists will not allow anything to be interpreted as evidence, rather there is nothing that presents itself that can only be attributed to a supernatural cause. The point has been made that presents under the Christmas tree is evidence of Santa. If you happen to believe in Santa, the evidence will support that belief, but it will only convert the most credulous of witnesses.

Immanuel Can wrote:Well, then you don't understand Kant the way Kant understood Kant. He was quite explicit that any element of Consequentialist-type calculation was an utter denial of The Good Will. The Good Will, he said, has to operate without all such considerations.

The point Kant was making, that you don't understand the way Kant understood Kant, is that if we have to calculate the consequences of our behaviour with regard to how god will favour us, we are not free moral agents. Good Will means nothing if it is corrupted by threats and bribery.

thedoc wrote:

Greta wrote: I note a focus on hierarchy, which then brings us back why the pronoun "he". "She" would be insulting because God could not be a a female since women are lesser beings than males (ahem). Meanwhile, "it" suggests something that is not human, and since humans are the ultimate entities (ahem), then "it" suggests subhuman. The idea that God is beyond human and beyond gender is an unpopular one, although given due lip service when the dissonance of the position is pointed out.

Then everyone goes back to "He" again. I have been on these forums for years and I have tested theists with this for that long, and never once has one changed their conception of God to neutral - it remains masculine because, the pronouns immediately confers gender. The very moment you give a deity a pronoun, it has a gender. I gave up on any chance of getting through in the slightest years ago, but it's still interesting to see what people say to try to work around it.

If you don't believe me, try referring to God as "she", especially to other theists, and see what kind of response you get.

Then you either haven't been paying attention, have me on ignore, or don't read my posts very closely. I always refer to God as God and avoid having yo choose which pronoun to use, but I'm coming more and more to thinking about God as a neutral gender, or a composite, having both qualities in one being. The Bible is written with the masculine pronoun because it was written for a patriarchal society and that is just the way it was then, now the Bible would be written differently, if there were no history to it. In the church I attend God is often referred to with a feminine pronoun and no-one even blinks an eye, it's like water off a ducks back, so apparently you have not been associating with the same Christians that I have. I have 2 daughters and 5 granddaughters and I will argue as hard as anyone for their equality to men, I certainly do not see them as inferior to men in any sense.

I didn't pick up your non use of deity pronouns, sorry. I suppose it's like music, a mistake is jarring but otherwise one just takes it on board.

I agree with your post. The idea of a deity limited to one gender is, as you say, the product of ancient patriarchies.