Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Because men are scared of life and death, and because prejudice is easier than knowledge, mockery is easier than reason, self-satisfaction is more pleasant than self-examination, mutual congratulation is more companionable than the lone quest for truth, they invent God to salve their childish fear in the face of death, rather than go through the labour of science and truth.

Sure. That’s it. And what about those truths that science is not equipped to investigate?

Reflex wrote: I think the anonymous author of The Cloud said it best.

Beautiful book, authored by the unwritten, read by no one.

The reasons I have to invent myself as something other than what I am already goes far, far beyond being for the the sake of human communication. Is it not also a way of escaping the experiential limitations of unqualified infinity?

Dontaskme wrote:

Reflex wrote: I think the anonymous author of The Cloud said it best.

Beautiful book, authored by the unwritten, read by no one.

No argument from me, but do you think my critics can grasp what you're saying here?

Reflex wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: But Santa is also a metaphysical entity.

What isn't? For all we know, we're a brain in vat somewhere.

In which case the brains, the vats and the somewhere wouldn't be metaphysical, but I take your point. The point about empiricism is that it doesn't claim to be certain. Empiricism is entirely compatible with the idealism of Berkeley, for instance, the idea that phenomena are all present in the mind of god. That may be true, but there are a great many other interpretations and there are no phenomena that can only be interpreted as an act some god. If you choose to believe in any particular hypothesis, that is your business, but to insist that it is right is dogmatic and unwarranted. It is poor philosophy and useless science.

uwot wrote:

Reflex wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: But Santa is also a metaphysical entity.

What isn't? For all we know, we're a brain in vat somewhere.

In which case the brains, the vats and the somewhere wouldn't be metaphysical, but I take your point. The point about empiricism is that it doesn't claim to be certain. Empiricism is entirely compatible with the idealism of Berkeley, for instance, the idea that phenomena are all present in the mind of god. That may be true, but there are a great many other interpretations and there are no phenomena that can only be interpreted as an act some god. If you choose to believe in any particular hypothesis, that is your business, but to insist that it is right is dogmatic and unwarranted. It is poor philosophy and useless science.

It would be nice if Hobbes made that much sense, though you lost it a bit with "some god." That's invoking the illegitimate 'Santa' hypothesis. I'm not being dogmatic here; I'm just saying that clarity requires a proper understanding of the object being talked about and "some god" points in the wrong direction: it points to a Mt. Everest type of being, which belongs to a different category of existence than what I'm talking about when I use the word "God."

I just hope that you understand that theism, too, is entirely compatible with empiricism (not logical positivism) if it’s formulated to be that way.

Reflex wrote:... "some god" points in the wrong direction: it points to a Mt. Everest type of being, which belongs to a different category of existence than what I'm talking about when I use the word "God."

Fair enough. So what do you mean by " God"?

Reflex, what if the term in uwot's post was rephrased?

uwot (with slight amendments) wrote:The point about empiricism is that it doesn't claim to be certain. Empiricism is entirely compatible with the idealism of Berkeley, for instance, the idea that phenomena are all present in the mind of god. That may be true, but there are a great many other interpretations and there are no phenomena that can only be interpreted as an act of a deity. If you choose to believe in any particular hypothesis, that is your business, but to insist that it is right is dogmatic and unwarranted. It is poor philosophy and useless science.

I agree with uwot. Logically, if you know enough about something to make a serious reality claim then you don't need to believe, just as we don't need to believe in the keyboards or keypads we're typing on. Thus, reality claims by believers should be treated like any other unsubstantiated claims about the nature of reality. One more speculative model.

Besides, if an all-pervading form infuses all things and resides within, then belief is an entirely personal matter that can make very few external reality claims, and logically would not seek to do so..

uwot wrote:

Reflex wrote:... "some god" points in the wrong direction: it points to a Mt. Everest type of being, which belongs to a different category of existence than what I'm talking about when I use the word "God."

Fair enough. So what do you mean by " God"?

That which cannot not exist, which is why understanding why the distinction between contingent and non-contingent being is critical.

Sorry Reflex, you keep editing. Yes I do accept that theism is compatible with empiricism. Empiricism doesn't have to be formulated in any particular way, because it is simply the observation, measuring and manipulation of phenomena. Theism, if it is formulated as metaphysical, is totally compatible with that.
And technically, it is not that theism is incompatible with logical positivism, rather logical positivists (of which very few survive) insist that talk of any sort that is not empirically verifiable is meaningless; thereby shooting themselves in the foot, because the the verification principle itself is not empirically verifiable.

Reflex wrote:That which cannot not exist, which is why understanding why the distinction between contingent and non-contingent being is critical.

This sounds like a version of ontological argument. I understand the meaning of the words contingent and necessary, but I have not yet seen a sound argument that proves the existence of anything non-contingent.

Greta wrote:Reflex, what if the term in uwot's post was rephrased?

uwot (with slight amendments) wrote:The point about empiricism is that it doesn't claim to be certain. Empiricism is entirely compatible with the idealism of Berkeley, for instance, the idea that phenomena are all present in the mind of god. That may be true, but there are a great many other interpretations and there are no phenomena that can only be interpreted as an act of a deity. If you choose to believe in any particular hypothesis, that is your business, but to insist that it is right is dogmatic and unwarranted. It is poor philosophy and useless science.

I agree with uwot. Logically, if you know enough about something to make a serious reality claim then you don't need to believe, just as we don't need to believe in the keyboards or keypads we're typing on. Thus, reality claims by believers should be treated like any other unsubstantiated claims about the nature of reality. One more speculative model.

Besides, if an all-pervading form infuses all things and resides within, then belief is an entirely personal matter that can make very few external reality claims, and logically would not seek to do so..

Yeah, I do a lot of editing. Sorry about that.

It's all speculative; it's just that some ideas are more useful than others with respect to truth, goodness and beauty. Science and reason aren't the sole detrmining factors.

uwot wrote:

Reflex wrote:That which cannot not exist, which is why understanding why the distinction between contingent and non-contingent being is critical.

This sounds like a version of ontological argument. I understand the meaning of the words contingent and necessary, but I have not yet seen a sound argument that proves the existence of anything non-contingent.

Yeah, and I don't think you ever will. A fish doesn't come the realization of the water in which it swims through sound argument because argument has the nature of a reef.

Reflex wrote:

Greta wrote:Reflex, what if the term in uwot's post was rephrased?

uwot (with slight amendments) wrote:The point about empiricism is that it doesn't claim to be certain. Empiricism is entirely compatible with the idealism of Berkeley, for instance, the idea that phenomena are all present in the mind of god. That may be true, but there are a great many other interpretations and there are no phenomena that can only be interpreted as an act of a deity. If you choose to believe in any particular hypothesis, that is your business, but to insist that it is right is dogmatic and unwarranted. It is poor philosophy and useless science.

I agree with uwot. Logically, if you know enough about something to make a serious reality claim then you don't need to believe, just as we don't need to believe in the keyboards or keypads we're typing on. Thus, reality claims by believers should be treated like any other unsubstantiated claims about the nature of reality. One more speculative model.

Besides, if an all-pervading form infuses all things and resides within, then belief is an entirely personal matter that can make very few external reality claims, and logically would not seek to do so..

Yeah, I do a lot of editing. Sorry about that.

It's all speculative; it's just that some ideas are more useful than others with respect to truth, goodness and beauty. Science and reason aren't the sole detrmining factors.

In considering usefulness, I think it's hard to go past science and reason. Art, relationships and spiritual practices and other aspects of our personal and cultural lives are important for quality of life after use of the scientific method enables our survival.

No doubt the conception of a deity can provide believers with a conduit to their spiritual selves. Some need that inner conversation so as to access their inner wisdom. Others access it via other means. Others don't access it at all. Many find that nature (and, increasingly, technology) can evoke spiritual feelings of awe and wonder. Belief, or not, seems to come down to how each individual decides to configure their mind and attitudes so as to feel most comfortable.

Reflex wrote:It's all speculative; it's just that some ideas are more useful than others with respect to truth, goodness and beauty.

True, and whatever ideas you find useful for finding truth, goodness and beauty should be cherished, so long as they respect ideas that others find those things with.

Reflex wrote:Science and reason aren't the sole detrmining factors.

Science and reason, empiricism and logic, are the things we should be able to agree on, but I agree they are not the whole of truth, goodness and beauty.