Philosophy Now Forum

Reflex wrote:"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” -- A.E.

The thing is, in order to generate an hypothesis, you need to infer beyond "all we know and understand". If the hypothesis makes no predictions about the phenomenal world, there is no way to judge it true or false and it is essentially an aesthetic choice: do you like the idea, or not?

Reflex wrote:Scientistism, represented by the likes of Krauss and Dawkins, limits scientists to the the already known.

Both are brilliant scientists; neither is much of a philosopher.

Reflex wrote:The point is, an atheist who claims that atheism is simply a 'lack of belief' is either mouthing a meaningless phrase (something a rock would do if it could could make noises), or making a positive statement; i.e., they believe there is no God. ...

Not really, or maybe for the ex-theist but in general this atheist has no thought about the matter, so I don't think about a 'God' as any explanation for whats happening at all in my life, whereas my understanding so far is that the theist has to have their 'God' attached to all the happenings in their life.

Claiming the former is a cowardly way to avoid having to make cogent arguments (which makes them look as dumb as rocks); admitting to the latter makes the whole Santa thing moot.

Still awaiting an answer to my question of how you personally self-consciously disbelieve in Santa?

Reflex wrote:Doesn't that comment embarrass you?

Why? What you said was false.

Reflex wrote:It means that God is 'known' in the sense color is known, but at a deeper level; a level our senses and intellect do not penetrate.

And yet we know the colours by being shown them. What is it you actually do if you haven't used your senses nor your intellect?

Reflex wrote:I don't know. It depends on what do you think it means.

I think it means Spinoza's 'God' and that you appear to think you can know the Noumenon. I also think it angels and pinheads.

Reflex wrote:By discarding baggage.

Such as?

Greta to Reflex wrote:Why do you label the basis of your peak experiences to be "God"? If you'd not been taught about deities how might you have interpreted the peak experiences that believers claim to be God?

Excellent points, Greta. Before I learned about the idea of God, I had already experienced a natural connection/resonance with all, which was unquestionably real to me. But everyone was telling me, "God is the highest. This is what you need to believe in." So I earnestly opened myself to all of it, only to realize that it paled in comparison to what I had already naturally experienced, without anyone telling me "how it was" or "what to do". When I set the notions of God aside, I was back in the flow... no longer obstructing it with ideas. "Magic" happens continually in my life... answering my questions/requests... showing me which way to go... and lining things up against all seeming odds. I can see how COMPLETELY NATURAL it is to experience such connection and harmony in the flow... when one gets oneself out of the way. I would call this observable and measurable! And there is no "god" for me.

The risk of assigning a god to that is, I think, that it would become my knowable creation. And then I could ignorantly bend it to my will. Just as is demonstrated by some of the theists on this site. They can deceptively justify any inconsistencies in their behavior and words, and avoid authentic interaction, all while trying to elevate themselves and condemn others. It's beyond absurd how blatantly self-serving and distorted it is. But the intoxication is so strong in some, they don't care because they're a raging drunk on it... and apparently that's a release for them. I doubt it is what they would truly consider the best of their god. But you know you can't talk sense to a raging drunk, and they won't have the attention or integrity to answer questions, or explain their actions.

Greta wrote:I've had peak experiences that a believer would definitely interpret as God.

Yes, indeed! People have created gods out of far less, I'm sure!

Greta wrote:Yet couldn't our conceptions of God be superficial anthropomorphised notions of noumena that is far deeper again?

YES! It's too bad this line of questioning isn't welcomed and explored by all... but I guess when someone is defined by, and reliant on, seeing the world and identifying themselves in a certain way... they simply cannot realize anything else. For many, to even consider that there are other valid realities is unimaginable... maybe terrifying. Yet to NOT see and understand, is surely only a reflection of the limitations of awareness at this point in time.

Reflex wrote:

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?

What you call 'truths" are probably myths, and fantasies.

Arising_uk wrote:

Reflex wrote:

Greta wrote:It means that God is 'known' in the sense color is known, but at a deeper level; a level our senses and intellect do not penetrate.

And yet we know the colours by being shown them. What is it you actually do if you haven't used your senses nor your intellect?

Does color exist in the 'real' world, or is it some kind of trick the mind plays on us?

Greta wrote: Peak experiences are a valuable part of life for many.

So is the kind of candy people eat. I mean, take a look at Lacewing's posts -- all sweet and mushy, but dare touch her candy and it's all tempermental shrew.

Not sure of the relevance of your "nothing is definite" statement.

In the context of this thread, neither am I. I'm guessing it sounded good at the time. Musta been the pain pills.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: What you call 'truths" are probably myths, and fantasies.

Back at ya.

Reflex wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: What you call 'truths" are probably myths, and fantasies.

Back at ya.

Thanks I agree, those so-called "truths" you mention are probably fantasies.
But to be sure, what do YOU mean by "the truths that science is not equipped to handle"?

DO you have an example or are you just blowing up my arse?

Arising_uk wrote:

Reflex wrote:I don't know. It depends on what do you think it means.

I think it means Spinoza's 'God' and that you appear to think you can know the Noumenon. I also think it angels and pinheads.

Spinoza was a pantheist. For him, nature and God were the same. 'Panentheism,' on the other hand, literally means 'nature in God.' The difference is subtle but important. Many Christians think it's blasphemy to say so, but some parts of the Bible are in accord with panentheism: i.e., "For in him we live and move and have our being" to cite just one example. Or think of it as meaning that God is the light on the other side of a cosmic prism -- mind, perhaps.

Using this model, comparing disbelief in God to disbelief in Santa is demeaning not to the believer, but to the non-believer, whose only excuse is lack of insight with respect to he's or her own nature.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: But to be sure, what do YOU mean by "the truths that science is not equipped to handle"?

Reality as such, as it is within itself. (Remember, you're the one who pointed out that this is a philosophy forum.)

Reflex wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

Reflex wrote:I don't know. It depends on what do you think it means.

I think it means Spinoza's 'God' and that you appear to think you can know the Noumenon. I also think it angels and pinheads.

Spinoza was a pantheist. For him, nature and God were the same. 'Panentheism,' on the other hand, literally means 'nature in God.' The difference is subtle but important. Many Christians think it's blasphemy to say so, but some parts of the Bible are in accord with panentheism: i.e., "For in him we live and move and have our being" to cite just one example. Or think of it as meaning that God is the light on the other side of a cosmic prism -- mind, perhaps.

Using this model, comparing disbelief in God to disbelief in Santa is demeaning not to the believer, but to the non-believer, whose only excuse is lack of insight with respect to he's or her own nature.

Spinoza was an atheist, who feared assassination, murder and had to flee his own religious community and live in obscurity writing clandestine tracts published sub-rosa.

He was keen to talk about the deterministic nature of the universe, but rather than declare for god, he declared for nature. Rather than assigning god as nature, he was in fact declaring nature as god. Nature what was determined, disinterested, without needs, fears or desires or personality.

He's been mistakenly called a pantheist, and that tends to help the theist accept that a man of such enormous intellect was capable of dismissing the usual god, but the theist cannot clings to some comfort in the thought that he still has some kinda god, when this was not the case.
There is no doubt that for his time Spinoza was publicly denounced as an atheist had had no time for religion or blind faith. All religion is organised superstition.

As for "Pantheism", Spinoza's "god" does not really conform to either definition;
1.
a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
2.
the worship or tolerance of many gods.

Don't take my word for it. Consult the world's authority. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZPzivgc7aQ

You've only to glance through Ethics and his 'proof of God" to know clearly that he is talking about something else entirely.
As for scripture the chain of command for such writings does not lead to god but wholly to the mind of men; and there is stops. God is neutral morally. God has no plan, nor any rules. All events happen necessarily.

Reflex wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: But to be sure, what do YOU mean by "the truths that science is not equipped to handle"?

Reality as such, as it is within itself. (Remember, you're the one who pointed out that this is a philosophy forum.)

Indeed, and what do you think "truth" has to do with reality? And what do you think Philosophy can add to that which natural philosophy has already spoken on?

What makes you think that you can do anything more than describe the universe? In what way is it possible that it contains 'truth" - or do you have a more mature view on what truth is?