Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote:

BradburyPound wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Both NDE and the experience of an afterlife could be attributed to the brain activity right before the cessation of activity. Since time is subjective to the perception of the brain, a lot can happen in those last few moments. Dying doesn't suspend the laws of physics, but the perception of time could vary during that experience.

Within those obvious limits I have no objection. I do feel however that even the subjective experience of time still has limits due to the simple restriction of the speed of the neural impulse, and that even if time might seem to stretch we are very much limited by the objective time that is necessary for ANY experience to occur.

... based on the physics we understand at this stage.

And the tooth fairy exists, and lives in a tumble-down cottage with her best friends Dinkly-dell the Piskie, and Dumbshoe the Bolger .... but they might not exist based on current knowledge.

BradburyPound wrote:

Greta wrote:

BradburyPound wrote:
Within those obvious limits I have no objection. I do feel however that even the subjective experience of time still has limits due to the simple restriction of the speed of the neural impulse, and that even if time might seem to stretch we are very much limited by the objective time that is necessary for ANY experience to occur.

... based on the physics we understand at this stage.

And the tooth fairy exists, and lives in a tumble-down cottage with her best friends Dinkly-dell the Piskie, and Dumbshoe the Bolger .... but they might not exist based on current knowledge.

I'll just leave you to it.

Sorry for the break, G. I'm back. Hope you had good holidays.

Ginkgo wrote:I wasn't talking about Neo-Kantianism.

Well, if Wood is right (and I do think he is) then Neo-Kantianism is all there really is of Kantianism. For Kant did not say what many people take him to have said...namely, that teleology is irrelevant to ethics, and that ethics is demonstrable on rational grounds. If I recall correctly, that's exactly how you originally wished to make use of him...but now we find we can't, if Wood is on point.

Kant would not be appalled, just inconsistent. He is a deontologist who also talks about consequences as well. This is probably why some commentators claim he is a teleologist.

That is, in fact, what Wood shows. But then we've lost Kant as any exemplar of a strictly rational ethics. He's just another teleologist who owes us to show us why his particular teleological goal is right.

Immanuel Can wrote: Moreover, what if, as a thief, I decide I don't fear that prospect of being caught enough to care. Beyond the pale threat of being caught, is theft really "wrong"? Why should I not do it, if I'm happy to take the risk -- especially in circumstances in which I am reasonably sure I won't get caught?

According to Kant you would be acting immorally.

Yes, but why does it matter? "Kant wouldn't like it," is all that that means. Kant could "like" anything he wished, and I could "like" something different. What makes him right, and me wrong? Kant's whole project was designed for the purpose of showing that -- that he failed in it only makes his case worse.

Still we are without a reason: if I am reasonably sure I won't get caught, or don't care about the risk, what actually makes my action of theft "bad"?

seeds wrote:_______

Immanuel Can wrote: ...For there is no other "door" to God but Christ. And if a person won't walk through that door, then he/she will have to find whatever other place to inhabit they wish.

But sadly, I am quite sure that it will not be with God...

He just cannot seem to understand that had he awakened into the arms of Hindu parents in India, or Buddhist parents in Tibet, or head hunting parents in the Amazonian jungles, or died as an infant, then it would be he himself who is on the receiving end of his reasons for why God would be rejecting him.

Why would you think so? Would the fact that I was born in, say, a Hindu culture prove I couldn't learn about God? Why? Because I was "fated" to stay a Hindu? That hardly seems true, since many people have chosen to convert to other faiths or none at all.

The fact is that you have absolutely no idea what would or would not be true for me, had my circumstances been different. In fact, even supposing some sort of geographic fatalism (which I would say is ridiculous, given the number of counter-cases), and supposing the existence of an all-knowing God, could not such a God determine that I would be born where I would hear what I needed to hear, and those who were born elsewhere were also those who would not have responded to it anyway? Surely, if we accept the first two premises, that conclusion cannot be ruled out for any sensible reason.

If it can, show why, I beg you.

Again, it seems to me that you're worrying about non-cases...situations you are only imagining, have no reason to think exist, and can't know exist at all. But I would say you'd be wiser to focus instead on yourself: you are not a Borneo headhunter or a Tibetan Buddhist. You can and should know and do know what you need to know.

So what are you doing with the real case, the one you actually do know, which is your own?

Immanuel Can wrote:

seeds wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: ...For there is no other "door" to God but Christ. And if a person won't walk through that door, then he/she will have to find whatever other place to inhabit they wish.

But sadly, I am quite sure that it will not be with God...

He just cannot seem to understand that had he awakened into the arms of Hindu parents in India, or Buddhist parents in Tibet, or head hunting parents in the Amazonian jungles, or died as an infant, then it would be he himself who is on the receiving end of his reasons for why God would be rejecting him.

Why would you think so? Would the fact that I was born in, say, a Hindu culture prove I couldn't learn about God? Why? Because I was "fated" to stay a Hindu? That hardly seems true, since many people have chosen to convert to other faiths or none at all.

The fact is that you have absolutely no idea what would or would not be true for me, had my circumstances been different. In fact, even supposing some sort of geographic fatalism (which I would say is ridiculous, given the number of counter-cases), and supposing the existence of an all-knowing God, could not such a God determine that I would be born where I would hear what I needed to hear, and those who were born elsewhere were also those who would not have responded to it anyway? Surely, if we accept the first two premises, that conclusion cannot be ruled out for any sensible reason.

If it can, show why, I beg you.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Let me try to simplify it as much as possible.

You have insisted that the only “door” to God is through Christ.

In which case, what do you suppose your own personal fate would be had you died as a one year old child who, for obvious reasons, had not the slightest comprehension of what Christ was all about?

Do you think that you would be denied access to a life with God under those circumstances?
_______

seeds wrote: Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Because the dilemma as you are currently framing it requires assumptions that I think are simply fallacious; and questions based on fallacious premises cannot be answered coherently.

So I'm questioning those assumptions, in order to clarify the truth and arrive at the right question. No ire, just curiosity at how you got such strange assumptions.

Let me try to simplify it as much as possible.

You have insisted that the only “door” to God is through Christ.

In which case, what do you suppose your own personal fate would be had you died as a one year old child who, for obvious reasons, had not the slightest comprehension of what Christ was all about?

I don't know. I'm not a one-year-old-child, and I don't have any information from God as to what pertains in their cases.

But to assume that they are lost or doomed is as unnecessary as to assume that they are saved: we simply do not have the information. That means we have no grounds for worry, and no grounds for confidence. We simply have no further information, so if we make it some kind of theoretical problem, then it's we who have done it.

Do you think that you would be denied access to a life with God under those circumstances?

Honestly, the plain truth is that I can't say. And what I "think" about those "circumstances" will not change whatever is the real case -- so it's a funny question, unless you have some personal stake in it that I don't know about...is that possible? I would not want to be insensitive to some pain you personally felt.

So let me be as sensitive as I legitimately can. What I can tell you is this: I do know is that God is good, that He loves children every bit as much as adults, and that He desires our fellowship with Him. I know He does not lose any person that is His, and He always does what is just and fair. This I know from His self-revelation and His actions toward me, so I have confidence about that. But how it plays out in the particular circumstances of one-year-old-infants, I just can't say. I would be lying to you if I gave you an answer: for I'm neither them nor God.

So I trust. I think that if God thought I needed to know the answer to that particular issue, He would have told me. Right now, I know God will do right, and I leave it with Him.

I would say only this: that nothing that is truly His is ever lost. That I know.

seeds wrote: Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Immanuel Can wrote: Because the dilemma as you are currently framing it requires assumptions that I think are simply fallacious; and questions based on fallacious premises cannot be answered coherently.

I am basing the “dilemma” on the implications of your own words.

Let me repeat them back to you once again:

“...there is no other ‘door’ to God but Christ.”

Therefore, what is so fallacious about wondering what happens to anyone (in this case, a one year old child) who dies without the slightest idea of who Christ is?

Immanuel Can wrote: I think that if God thought I needed to know the answer to that particular issue, He would have told me.

No, God provided you with the inherent ability to reason certain things out on your own, and he shouldn’t need to tell you the answers to questions that common sense reveals.

Immanuel Can wrote: Right now, I know God will do right, and I leave it with Him.

Great!

Then can we amend your previous hardcore assertion of “...there is no other ‘door’ to God but Christ...” with a softer and more reasonable claim that “...God will do right, and I leave it with Him...”?
_______

seeds wrote:Therefore, what is so fallacious about wondering what happens to anyone (in this case, a one year old child) who dies without the slightest idea of who Christ is?

I was referring to the sort of implied ideas in your proposed dilemma, such as that a) children who wear costumes are from other ideological "cultures," and not Christians, b) once you're "born" something, that's what you are, and c) Christians have to believe God doesn't have an answer to where children go...none of which seem to me plausible.

First of all, Christianity is supra-cultural. Jesus Christ was Jewish, as were all his disciples. The greatest NT writer wrote in Greek. One of the first converts was Ethiopian. Today, there are more Christians overall in China than anywhere, millions more in India, a huge population in South America, and more per capita than anywhere else in Korea.

Secondly, this securely puts the lie to the idea that being born somewhere "makes" someone something religiously.

And finally, if there's a Supreme Being, it would be absurd to suppose He wouldn't know what happens to children; and whether or not He choses to explain everything to us would simply be immaterial to that.

If we correct those premises, then posting a few pictures of babies in costume doesn't even raise a question, let alone suggest an answer to it. So it's necessary, before we go on, to straighten out the implied fallacies.

Immanuel Can wrote: I think that if God thought I needed to know the answer to that particular issue, He would have told me.

No, God provided you with the inherent ability to reason certain things out on your own, and he shouldn’t need to tell you the answers to questions that common sense reveals.

Ha. Entertaining, but not at all true. "Common sense" is a great thing for "common" sorts of issues: but it runs out pretty fast when the issues move beyond the "common."

If we suppose otherwise, please tell me: what is your "common sense" answer to how many planets are in the universe?

There are some things we know, some things we could know but don't, and some things we just don't know. Blessed is (s)he who has some idea of the difference.

Immanuel Can wrote: Right now, I know God will do right, and I leave it with Him.

Great!

Then can we amend your previous hardcore assertion of “...there is no other ‘door’ to God but Christ...” with a softer and more reasonable claim that “...God will do right, and I leave it with Him...”?

Not if we can read.

For the first question (children's destiny) we do not have answers written anywhere, to my knowledge. For the second one, we have much written, such as this:

[Jesus said,] "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6)

As I said, blessed is (s)he who can tell the difference.

Greta wrote:

BradburyPound wrote:

Greta wrote: ... based on the physics we understand at this stage.

And the tooth fairy exists, and lives in a tumble-down cottage with her best friends Dinkly-dell the Piskie, and Dumbshoe the Bolger .... but they might not exist based on current knowledge.

I'll just leave you to it.

Don't you believe me?

BradburyPound wrote:

Greta wrote:

BradburyPound wrote:
And the tooth fairy exists, and lives in a tumble-down cottage with her best friends Dinkly-dell the Piskie, and Dumbshoe the Bolger .... but they might not exist based on current knowledge.

I'll just leave you to it.

Don't you believe me?

Behave yourself, Hobbes

I understand cynicism towards mysterianism, but logically we should remain open to many possibilities in reality that have not yet been considered - Rummy's "unknown unknowns" - not least because our sense of moving through time is not necessarily in touch with the reality.

Greta wrote:

BradburyPound wrote:

Greta wrote: I'll just leave you to it.

Don't you believe me?

Behave yourself, Hobbes

I understand cynicism towards mysterianism, but logically we should remain open to many possibilities in reality that have not yet been considered - Rummy's "unknown unknowns" - not least because our sense of moving through time is not necessarily in touch with the reality.

About unknown unknowns we may say nothing, and as such my tooth fairy as more ontological validity than anything yet on this thread.
What I'm more interested in is Zizek's unknown knowns which you are exhibiting. Your attempts at mystical speculation say more about you than you realise.
I don't think Thomas Hobbes is relevant, though. He considered God to be material. That's about as useful as your own speculations. Where did Hobbes think God actually lived??

BradburyPound wrote:

Greta wrote:

BradburyPound wrote:
Don't you believe me?

Behave yourself, Hobbes

I understand cynicism towards mysterianism, but logically we should remain open to many possibilities in reality that have not yet been considered - Rummy's "unknown unknowns" - not least because our sense of moving through time is not necessarily in touch with the reality.

About unknown unknowns we may say nothing, and as such my tooth fairy as more ontological validity than anything yet on this thread.
What I'm more interested in is Zizek's unknown knowns which you are exhibiting. Your attempts at mystical speculation say more about you than you realise.
I don't think Thomas Hobbes is relevant, though. He considered God to be material. That's about as useful as your own speculations. Where did Hobbes think God actually lived??

Not the case, oh mysterious stranger. Unknown unknowns remind us to be cautious about making claims with certainty. Your comments say rather more about you than you realise too ... the walls have eyes and ears, Hob ... er ... Brad.

I don't think there's any reason to entertain the existence of Iron Age myths, but there is cause to entertain the possibility that the way we perceive reality is more limited than we realise.

Greta wrote:

BradburyPound wrote:

Greta wrote: Behave yourself, Hobbes

I understand cynicism towards mysterianism, but logically we should remain open to many possibilities in reality that have not yet been considered - Rummy's "unknown unknowns" - not least because our sense of moving through time is not necessarily in touch with the reality.

About unknown unknowns we may say nothing, and as such my tooth fairy as more ontological validity than anything yet on this thread.
What I'm more interested in is Zizek's unknown knowns which you are exhibiting. Your attempts at mystical speculation say more about you than you realise.
I don't think Thomas Hobbes is relevant, though. He considered God to be material. That's about as useful as your own speculations. Where did Hobbes think God actually lived??

Not the case, oh mysterious stranger. Unknown unknowns remind us to be cautious about making claims with certainty. Your comments say rather more about you than you realise too ... the walls have eyes and ears, Hob ... er ... Brad.

I don't think there's any reason to entertain the existence of Iron Age myths, but there is cause to entertain the possibility that the way we perceive reality is more limited than we realise.

The point about unknown unknowns is that they are UNKNOWN. Thus you can only remain mute on them. They are powerless to remind us of anything.
And what you seem to be doing is filling an unknown space you reserve for unknown unknowns with your set of unrealised unknown knowns (based largely on your childish preconceptions of mysticism).

If you are serious about not entertaining Iron Age myths then desist.

BradburyPound wrote:

Greta wrote:

BradburyPound wrote:
About unknown unknowns we may say nothing, and as such my tooth fairy as more ontological validity than anything yet on this thread.
What I'm more interested in is Zizek's unknown knowns which you are exhibiting. Your attempts at mystical speculation say more about you than you realise.
I don't think Thomas Hobbes is relevant, though. He considered God to be material. That's about as useful as your own speculations. Where did Hobbes think God actually lived??

Not the case, oh mysterious stranger. Unknown unknowns remind us to be cautious about making claims with certainty. Your comments say rather more about you than you realise too ... the walls have eyes and ears, Hob ... er ... Brad.

I don't think there's any reason to entertain the existence of Iron Age myths, but there is cause to entertain the possibility that the way we perceive reality is more limited than we realise.

The point about unknown unknowns is that they are UNKNOWN. Thus you can only remain mute on them. They are powerless to remind us of anything.
And what you seem to be doing is filling an unknown space you reserve for unknown unknowns with your set of unrealised unknown knowns (based largely on your childish preconceptions of mysticism).

If you are serious about not entertaining Iron Age myths then desist.

Hobbes, I make no exotic claims, that's your invention. It's only logical to operate on the principle that we don't know everything, ie. unknowns exist, and thus should not speak as if we know everything. Yes, we can comfortably discard obvious absurdities such as Iron Age deities, but that doesn't preclude other interesting possibilities.

I am pleased to have you deem my thoughts "childish"; it reminds me that, unlike some, I at least haven't become a dessicated old curmudgeon who's lost their sense of wonder

thedoc wrote:I don't know what will happen after death, but I know that there are many who will try to assert that they know. I'm reminded of a conversation I had with my father, and the conversation came around to Heaven and he said that he had been told that in Heaven we would spend all day praising God and singing God's praises, my father said that if that were true he wasn't sure he wanted to go there. I didn't know what to say at the time, but I knew that was one person's idea of what Heaven would be for them, and I would have to agree with my father, praising God and singing God's praises all day didn't sound like paradise.

I totally agree with you doc. We would all go insane under such stagnant conditions.

And that is precisely why that “old paradigm” concept of the afterlife is nonsense, and is right up there with the “72 virgin” drivel in Islam.
_______