Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 4:08 pm Deism evolved after the scientific Enlightenment (17th 18th centuries). People often wanted a version of God that was reasonable and suited the orderly view of nature. There were other reasons for Deism to evolve. My guess is that this is the one that appeals to Henry, and appeals to me, except that I prefer the Platonic Form of The Good.

Henry is also independent and rebels against any authority . Deists rebelled against the authorities of churches, religious sects, and kings.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 4:08 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 12:19 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 8:49 am
If one must believe in Creator God, then the deist God according to which the Deist God "installed in the brains of mere mortals the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature"." is true.

However Roger Sperry's disrespects mind which has the same status as brain. For 'brain ' read extended matter' or 'extension'. Mind then is not extended in space but is nevertheless an attribute of nature, as is extended matter. If Sperry instead of writing "brain" had written brainmind he'd have been more correct.

I say more correct because brainmind evolved. Are viruses alive? Life is not all or nothing . Life is not even a spectrum but is at least a three-dimensional array.

Why? How?

Deism evolved after the scientific Enlightenment (17th 18th centuries). People often wanted a version of God that was reasonable and suited the orderly view of nature. There were other reasons for Deism to evolve. My guess is that this is the one that appeals to Henry, and appeals to me, except that I prefer the Platonic Form of The Good.

Henry is also independent and rebels against any authority . Deists rebelled against the authorities of churches, religious sects, and kings.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 6:10 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 4:08 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 12:19 pm
Why? How?

Deism evolved after the scientific Enlightenment (17th 18th centuries). People often wanted a version of God that was reasonable and suited the orderly view of nature. There were other reasons for Deism to evolve. My guess is that this is the one that appeals to Henry, and appeals to me, except that I prefer the Platonic Form of The Good.

Henry is also independent and rebels against any authority . Deists rebelled against the authorities of churches, religious sects, and kings.

Sorry, I don't need the history lesson, it's the sense of your claim. You can believe in a Creator/God without believing They installed anything in our heads. Particularly as there is no warrant for that whatsoever. But once one starts believing, not knowing, one easily leads oneself up the garden path to more beliefs.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 7:10 pm "Installed in our heads"

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 7:10 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 6:10 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 4:08 pm
Deism evolved after the scientific Enlightenment (17th 18th centuries). People often wanted a version of God that was reasonable and suited the orderly view of nature. There were other reasons for Deism to evolve. My guess is that this is the one that appeals to Henry, and appeals to me, except that I prefer the Platonic Form of The Good.

Henry is also independent and rebels against any authority . Deists rebelled against the authorities of churches, religious sects, and kings.

Sorry, I don't need the history lesson, it's the sense of your claim. You can believe in a Creator/God without believing They installed anything in our heads. Particularly as there is no warrant for that whatsoever. But once one starts believing, not knowing, one easily leads oneself up the garden path to more beliefs.

"Installed in our heads" is a picturesque way of saying that we evolved naturally though natural selection. I do not know whether or not Henry believes the creator to be a person but I certainly do not. And I am in no danger of mistaking personification for personhood.
I am sorry if there are still clergymen who preach to a captive flock that they have a loving heavenly Father who will intervene in his own natural laws to save them from natural disasters , but such is not the fault of deists.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 8:47 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 7:10 pm "Installed in our heads"

That's biggy's interpretation. I never said it. I don't believe it.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:20 pm Derail'd & hijack'd: SOP in-forum.

Oh, well, it was worth a shot.

So, let's wade thru some crap...

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 2:08 am ignore the points I raise.

Bein' fractured must include havin' poor recall. I've tackled all your ponts, in multiple conversations, across multiple threads. I've laid out what I think and why I think it on free will, natural rights, God, abortion, trannies, commies, RED MAN DEFIANT, guns, hylomorphism, morality, etc.

Can't see the point in doin' it all over again.

-----

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 5:38 pm I want to embrace you mate

No thanks.

-----

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 7:37 am ours are from our consilient, parsimonious, consensual, warranted, justified, true beliefs

See, I think your all-consumin' hatred of a fiction, your obsession with love while declarin' yourself as just meat, and your sunny nihilism, is all just silly, schizoid, nonsense, but: whatever floats your boat.

-----

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 11:05 pm "Unless, of course, I still don't have a grasp on henry's own point itself.

Oh, you get what I'm sayin'. It's just none of it satisfies you. You wanna get right with God and I'm no help in that. Thing is: I never claimed I could be. I never promised salvation.

-----

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 8:49 am

C'est la vie, B.

-----

If any of you folks bring sumthin' new to the table we can talk, otherwise: I leave you to your circle jerk.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 7:37 am Henry's inconsilient, imparsimonous, non-consensus, unwarranted, unjustified, untrue beliefs are inseparable from his identity, his ego. Just as ours are from our consilient, parsimonious, consensual, warranted, justified, true beliefs. He has to defend them, at all costs, from cognitive dissonance. Admitting error would be a personal failure and reality has to be distorted to protect the ego. He has to interpret reality by the automatic bias of motivated reasoning to maintain his worldview. He would also suffer group alienation from fellow believers. Our beliefs are woven in to an epic personal and cultural narrative of all embracing total subjective coherence.

It's quite normal. We are believing machines. Ever insisted that someone loves you when they don't? How crushing is the realisation that they don't? It feels like a terminal cancer diagnosis. Forget, ignore, deny all you will.

It's a very rare believer who acknowledges reality yet still, apologetically, helplessly, believes.

There is nothing of any philosophical import in this, just hard wired, four billion years in the making, righteous minds; the psychology of belief which is ultimately physiological: we can't not believe. Just make sure that your beliefs, your believing is consiliently, consensually, externally coherent and warranted and justified and true.

Bow your head to the axiom of materialism. And then hold it up. The only 'problem' for materialists is that science and the limits of reason cannot prove a negative, including that one, amusingly. That does not create space, possibility for the unreason of the supernatural. There is no gap for it to lurk in. Apart from in our fears. Common sense; bon courage mes braves. And let's love regardless. Let's try and love Henry for a start. Affront to our egos, our utter incapacity, our failure to change his mind, we inevitably bring out the worst in him, as he is. He's no tetradic troll. Reason itself cannot possibly enlighten unreason. Fear. Finding commonality is the best one can hope for.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:20 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 2:08 am ignore the points I raise.

Bein' fractured must include havin' poor recall. I've tackled all your ponts, in multiple conversations, across multiple threads. I've laid out what I think and why I think it on free will, natural rights, God, abortion, trannies, commies, RED MAN DEFIANT, guns, hylomorphism, morality, etc.

Can't see the point in doin' it all over again.

Okay, going back to all we still do not know regarding how and why the human condition fits into an explanation for the existence of existence itself, it may well be that human brains will never be able to grasp it...ontologically? teleologically? deontologically?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jun 14, 2025 11:05 pm "Unless, of course, I still don't have a grasp on henry's own point itself.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:20 pmOh, you get what I'm sayin'. It's just none of it satisfies you. You wanna get right with God and I'm no help in that. Thing is: I never claimed I could be. I never promised salvation.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 11:18 pm I can't embrace that.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 11:45 pm How about if we take it one point at a time?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 12:03 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 11:45 pm How about if we take it one point at a time?

Good luck with that.

Henry maintains that the Deist God installed in the brains of mere mortals the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".

And yet in regard to human interactions morally and politically, Deists are [like the rest of us] all up and down the political spectrum.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 2:34 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 12:03 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 11:45 pm How about if we take it one point at a time?

Good luck with that.

Okay, that point didn't sink in. How about this one:

Henry maintains that the Deist God installed in the brains of mere mortals the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".

And yet in regard to human interactions morally and politically, Deists are [like the rest of us] all up and down the political spectrum.

On the other hand, that's the beauty of Deism. There is no Scripture. Therefore Deists can pretty much turn it into a cafeteria religion. People pick and choose their own assessment. One that is most in sync with their own existential prejudices. It's just that there is still no philosophical, scientific or spiritual consensus regarding whether or not we do so autonomously rather than autonomically.

What does it mean [socially, politically and economically] for a God to create mere mortals, installing in them -- in their souls? -- the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" of their own volition? I mean, if they all come into this world with this capability and yet come to conflicting accounts of what actually is natural and reasonable...behaviors?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 2:34 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 12:03 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 11:45 pm How about if we take it one point at a time?

Good luck with that.

Okay, that point didn't sink in. How about this one:

Henry maintains that the Deist God installed in the brains of mere mortals the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".

And yet in regard to human interactions morally and politically, Deists are [like the rest of us] all up and down the political spectrum.

On the other hand, that's the beauty of Deism. There is no Scripture. Therefore Deists can pretty much turn it into a cafeteria religion. People pick and choose their own assessment. One that is most in sync with their own existential prejudices. It's just that there is still no philosophical, scientific or spiritual consensus regarding whether or not we do so autonomously rather than autonomically.

What does it mean [socially, politically and economically] for a God to create mere mortals, installing in them -- in their souls? -- the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" of their own volition? I mean, if they all come into this world with this capability and yet come to conflicting accounts of what actually is natural and reasonable...behaviors?

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 10:09 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 8:47 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 7:10 pm "Installed in our heads"

That's biggy's interpretation. I never said it. I don't believe it.

How does that work? You're a Cartesian dualist at least, an Eccles trialist even. Our brains are naturally wired enough to pick up a spirit signal? Or for spirit to nest in? What? I can guess. You don't know. But you do 'know', Jungianly, like The Police, that we are spirits in a material world?

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jun 16, 2025 2:55 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 10:09 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 15, 2025 8:47 pm

That's biggy's interpretation. I never said it. I don't believe it.

How does that work? You're a Cartesian dualist at least, an Eccles trialist even. Our brains are naturally wired enough to pick up a spirit signal? Or for spirit to nest in? What? I can guess. You don't know. But you do 'know', Jungianly, like The Police, that we are spirits in a material world?

It would be nice if Henry can answer those questions without injury to his ego. The folksy tone, his self identification as deist, are friendly but it remains to be seen if his persona can endure an enquiry into his paradigm.