Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 5:11 pm
From whom do you hear what "mainstream science" says?

I don't pay a lot of attention, actually, but I do sometimes watch videos. There is a series on Youtube called Closer to Truth, which is quite informative.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote: Science does sometimes get things wrong, and has to later revise some previous position, but that isn't an issue of any kind for me. For example, scientists talk about the Big Bang, which I don't really understand, but I am prepared to take their word for it, as science has a track record of being right. So I believe them, but I don't actually invest -so to speak- anything in that belief, so it is of no consequence to me if they turn out to be wrong.

Thanks for being frank. I think this is how most people operate in regards to what they conceive as "science." They don't generally know any, nor have a particular knowledge, even, of how "scientific method" differs from other ways of deciding things; but they have been told, either by a person in a lab coat, in school, perhaps, or by the news media that "science says X." And so they trust that.

This is what's called, "Scientism,"

According to a quick search: "Scientism is the view that science is the only objective means by which to determine what is true or is an unwarranted application of science in situations that are not amenable to scientific inquiry. Science is a method for asking questions about the world."

Which is a little different to your definition. No matter, we are supposed to be talking about morality, not science.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote: I think most scientists are atheists, so for the most part I'm believing both, which seems unavoidable, really.

This is a stellar example of Scientistic propaganda,

In which case I now predict you will attempt to redress the balance by replacing it with your own, which will no doubt be even more stellar.

the truth is that while perhaps the majority of people who call themselves "scientists" tend to be Atheists, a great many, and a great many of the true geniuses of science, were and are Theists. So what is the true "scientific" opinion, then: is it the majority of less-astute self-declared "scientists," or is it those stellar geniuses who were not? Is it the Dawkinses and the Harrises who are the true voice of "science," or is it the Bacons, Newtons, Penroses and Collinses of the world who represent what "science" believes?

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote: I didn't say atheists are irrational.

Actually, you said they believe all kinds of crazy nonsense: I think "weird and wonderful" were your words. That's fairly irrational, is it not?

I said some believe nonsense, just like religious people do. I think some of your beliefs about God are irrational to the point of being crazy, but that is not saying that I think all Christian beliefs are crazy. The point I was making, as I'm sure you know, was that atheists are no more immune to having crackpot ideas than anyone else is.

But we can go one step further: Atheism itself is irrational, so anybody who believes it is, inherently, already believing at least one irrational thing.

You are merely expressing an opinion, and I doubt that it is even an honest one, but either way it is irrelevant.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote: I don't think atheists do it nearly so much. (plunge themselves into one of the many soul-salving delusions)

But you say that they do it. And I agree.

What would be an example of an atheistic "soul-salving delusion"?

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote: Regardless of what you or I believe, or say we believe, all we know for sure is that we are here now, so it makes most sense to treat this as the main event, just in case there is nothing else.

Except that if there is something else, then that puts you in a very bad position relative to it, potentially. You're weighing temporary gains against infinite potential losses.

I don't see why. Even if I couldn't rule out some sort of afterlife, the chances of it being the type you believe in are not even worth considering.

If you went to a casino, and the croupier told you the following, would you gamble: he says, "This game gives you a chance to win a prize, if you play it very well; no guarantees, but you might get something. But if you don't win, we chop off your head." Would you play?

No, I would go and find a casino that didn't employ lunatics.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote: I honestly don't see why knowing we are going to die would make us think morality is any less important; what have the two things got to do with each other?

. Morality inhibits our options. It tells us we should not do things we want to do, or should start doing things we don't want to do. If our own personal happiness is the goal, and if happiness means me getting whatever I want, then morality is a nuisance at best, a tragic impediment to my fulfillment at worst. And the sooner I get over it, and forget morality altogether (except, perhaps when using it strategically to fool people suits me) the better off I am.

The desire to get to heaven might induce a Christian to behave more morally, but I don't see why a lack of belief in heaven would make an atheist behave less so. But, even if it did, that is not evidence of there being such a thing as heaven.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote: I don't find that assuming eternal oblivion follows death makes morality feel any less important to me.

But in reality, it makes your death utterly unimportant to the universe. You may still fear it as much, or endow it with significance that it cannot possibly actually have; but the fact remains that you will die, and the world will forget you...not that it would change anything for you if they DID remember you.

Yes, my death will be utterly unimportant to the universe; what of it?

Walk in a graveyard. Look at the stones. Ask yourself what you know about those people, and what good it does them for you to be looking at those stones now.

That's the future of your worldview. As one famed poet has written, "The paths of glory lead but to the grave."

I'm sorry, but what is this an argument for?

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 6:42 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 5:11 pm This is what's called, "Scientism,"

According to a quick search: "Scientism is the view that science is the only objective means by which to determine what is true or is an unwarranted application of science in situations that are not amenable to scientific inquiry. Science is a method for asking questions about the world."

Which is a little different to your definition.

Not much. Getting one's information about what "science" allegedly says second-hand is pretty much a method that is not compatible with anything scientific, in itself.

Some definitions of Scientism emphasize the aspect of it that involves believing that only science can ever tell truth, or lead to reliable knowledge. Wiki says Scientism is, "an unwarranted application of science in situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method…”
Others emphasize the quasi-religious trust Scientistic persons have in whatever they are told "science says." All are perfectly legitimate ways to use the term, of course. The essential commonality between them is that a person trusts "science" for things actual science does not deal with...like morals, for example.

IC wrote:The point I was making, as I'm sure you know, was that atheists are no more immune to having crackpot ideas than anyone else is.

That is quite true. Human beings are vulnerable to crackpottery, for sure. However, the difference between crackpottery and good sense is the basis on which one acquires ones beliefs. And an Atheist can be every bit as credulous and naive in his Atheism as any religious enthusiast can be in his enthusiasm. So I'm not sure how that observation clarifies much.

But we can go one step further: Atheism itself is irrational, so anybody who believes it is, inherently, already believing at least one irrational thing.

You are merely expressing an opinion,

Not at all. I'm pointing out that the Atheist has no scientific basis for his Atheism. He claims to follow "science," perhaps, but hasn't proved the non-existence of God in some scientific way. And he hasn't got a logical route either, since all he really is saying is, "Since I haven't seen a god, nobody else is allowed to either." This are absurd and self-contradictory postures to take, and there's really no rational excuse for them.

Those aren't "opinions." They're verifiable and obvious facts.

What would be an example of an atheistic "soul-salving delusion"?

Oh, those are easy to list. One would be that I can be an Atheist and still believe that life has inherent meaning. Or that I can be an Atheist and still believe in objective morality. Or that I can be an Atheist and still go to church or hope for an afterlife. The vast majority of Atheists, it seems, hold onto one or another such soul-salving delusion, because to admit the full truth about Atheism is simply too miserable, dysfunctional and chilling for most Atheists.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote: Regardless of what you or I believe, or say we believe, all we know for sure is that we are here now, so it makes most sense to treat this as the main event, just in case there is nothing else.

Except that if there is something else, then that puts you in a very bad position relative to it, potentially. You're weighing temporary gains against infinite potential losses.

I don't see why. Even if I couldn't rule out some sort of afterlife, the chances of it being the type you believe in are not even worth considering.

You don't know what I believe on that. We've never discussed it.

If you went to a casino, and the croupier told you the following, would you gamble: he says, "This game gives you a chance to win a prize, if you play it very well; no guarantees, but you might get something. But if you don't win, we chop off your head." Would you play?

No, I would go and find a casino that didn't employ lunatics.

Right. So all I'm saying is that we should use the same common sense when it comes to our own eternal destiny. Life is something we are all going to surrender one day; and that day is coming soon. And as Jesus asked, "What shall it profit a man if he should gain the whole world and lose his own soul." Great question, that.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote: I honestly don't see why knowing we are going to die would make us think morality is any less important; what have the two things got to do with each other?

Morality inhibits our options. It tells us we should not do things we want to do, or should start doing things we don't want to do. If our own personal happiness is the goal, and if happiness means me getting whatever I want, then morality is a nuisance at best, a tragic impediment to my fulfillment at worst. And the sooner I get over it, and forget morality altogether (except, perhaps when using it strategically to fool people suits me) the better off I am.

The desire to get to heaven might induce a Christian to behave more morally, but I don't see why a lack of belief in heaven would make an atheist behave less so. But, even if it did, that is not evidence of there being such a thing as heaven.

You asked me why morality would be less important to an Atheist. I'm answering why: I'm not presenting that as evidence of Heaven. That would be a different discussion.

Walk in a graveyard. Look at the stones. Ask yourself what you know about those people, and what good it does them for you to be looking at those stones now.

That's the future of your worldview. As one famed poet has written, "The paths of glory lead but to the grave."

I'm sorry, but what is this an argument for?

An argument for stern realism. You are not going to keep this life. That much, you know for sure. What lies ahead is progressively diminishing capacities, then death. And there's no escaping that.

This is an argument for hope. It's an argument that that might not be the actual end for you...that you might have prospects far beyond those listed above, if the Christian narrative proves true. So I'm asking you if you still have so much ahead of you, so much to lose, that you don't think it's worth thinking of eternity before you get there, and doing something toward your own future prospects.

And if you're right, and death ends all, what have you lost, in the meanwhile? Is the remainder of life so full of promises and opportunities that it's not worth considering?

So I'm just saying, let's be realistic. Let's take a look at where we are, and what's ahead, and be wise in our own interests. That, if nothing else, should be a sentiment any sensible person can get behind, no?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 7:44 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 6:42 pm

What would be an example of an atheistic "soul-salving delusion"?

Oh, those are easy to list. One would be that I can be an Atheist and still believe that life has inherent meaning. Or that I can be an Atheist and still believe in objective morality. Or that I can be an Atheist and still go to church or hope for an afterlife. The vast majority of Atheists, it seems, hold onto one or another such soul-salving delusion, because to admit the full truth about Atheism is simply too miserable, dysfunctional and chilling for most Atheists.

There are a good few atheists on this forum, let's hope some of them will come onto this thread and endorse your assessment of them.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote: Even if I couldn't rule out some sort of afterlife, the chances of it being the type you believe in are not even worth considering.

You don't know what I believe on that. We've never discussed it.

I was only thinking of the entry qualifications, and I wasn't meaning to imply that the nature of whatever afterlife you envisage would necessarily be as absurd.

So all I'm saying is that we should use the same common sense when it comes to our own eternal destiny. Life is something we are all going to surrender one day; and that day is coming soon. And as Jesus asked, "What shall it profit a man if he should gain the whole world and lose his own soul." Great question, that.

I don't believe in souls, so no, not really such a great question.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote: I'm sorry, but what is this an argument for?

An argument for stern realism. You are not going to keep this life. That much, you know for sure. What lies ahead is progressively diminishing capacities, then death. And there's no escaping that.

This is an argument for hope. It's an argument that that might not be the actual end for you...that you might have prospects far beyond those listed above, if the Christian narrative proves true. So I'm asking you if you still have so much ahead of you, so much to lose, that you don't think it's worth thinking of eternity before you get there, and doing something toward your own future prospects.

And if you're right, and death ends all, what have you lost, in the meanwhile? Is the remainder of life so full of promises and opportunities that it's not worth considering?

So I'm just saying, let's be realistic. Let's take a look at where we are, and what's ahead, and be wise in our own interests. That, if nothing else, should be a sentiment any sensible person can get behind, no?

Perhaps you can't imagine how anyone could be less afraid of dying than you obviously are.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 8:22 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 7:44 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 6:42 pm

What would be an example of an atheistic "soul-salving delusion"?

Oh, those are easy to list. One would be that I can be an Atheist and still believe that life has inherent meaning. Or that I can be an Atheist and still believe in objective morality. Or that I can be an Atheist and still go to church or hope for an afterlife. The vast majority of Atheists, it seems, hold onto one or another such soul-salving delusion, because to admit the full truth about Atheism is simply too miserable, dysfunctional and chilling for most Atheists.

There are a good few atheists on this forum, let's hope some of them will come onto this thread and endorse your assessment of them.

Unlikely. Inasmuch as most Atheists are desperate to avoid the consequences of their Atheism, it's most unlikely we'll find one here who has a Nietzschean level of conviction about their beliefs. It's possible we might find one; but in my experience with Atheists -- which is considerable -- that would not at all be probable.

So all I'm saying is that we should use the same common sense when it comes to our own eternal destiny. Life is something we are all going to surrender one day; and that day is coming soon. And as Jesus asked, "What shall it profit a man if he should gain the whole world and lose his own soul." Great question, that.

I don't believe in souls, so no, not really such a great question.

The question is not "Do you believe you have a soul." It's only "Do you have one?"

Perhaps you can't imagine how anyone could be less afraid of dying than you obviously are.

I'm not at all afraid of it, actually. But then, I've taken due thought for the inevitable fact, and have made what would seem the very best provisions for it...no credit to me. I've believed God.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 9:05 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 8:22 pm
There are a good few atheists on this forum, let's hope some of them will come onto this thread and endorse your assessment of them.

Unlikely. Inasmuch as most Atheists are desperate to avoid the consequences of their Atheism, it's most unlikely we'll find one here who has a Nietzschean level of conviction about their beliefs. It's possible we might find one; but in my experience with Atheists -- which is considerable -- that would not at all be probable.

I didn't realise you had such a depth of knowledge; you seem to know more about what it is like to be an atheist than the atheists themselves do.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote: I don't believe in souls, so no, not really such a great question.

The question is not "Do you believe you have a soul." It's only "Do you have one?"

Perhaps if you told me what a soul looks like, or where it is to be found, I could check.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote: Perhaps you can't imagine how anyone could be less afraid of dying than you obviously are.

I'm not at all afraid of it, actually. But then, I've taken due thought for the inevitable fact, and have made what would seem the very best provisions for it...no credit to me. I've believed God.

Well when you eventually get to be up there with God, I just hope he appreciates you as much your fellow forum members do.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 9:31 pm I didn't realise you had such a depth of knowledge; you seem to know more about what it is like to be an atheist than the atheists themselves do.

I don't know more about what it feels like, obviously, for what that matters; but one only has to use logic to see what Atheism requires Atheists to believe, if they follow through on the logic of their own suppositions. However, since a lot of Atheists, as you point out, opt for believing what you call "weird and wonderful things" instead of following out the logic of their Atheism, I'm sure their feeling of being Atheists is rather different from the reality of what Atheism actually rationalizes.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote: I don't believe in souls, so no, not really such a great question.

The question is not "Do you believe you have a soul." It's only "Do you have one?"

Perhaps if you told me what a soul looks like, or where it is to be found, I could check.

I'm talking to it, right now.

At the moment, you have no embodied presence for me to be talking to. You're in Yorkshire, and I'm thousands of miles away. As we're speaking, you're a consciousness online, only. That's a soul: the conscious "Harbal" I'm talking to.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 10:06 pm
At the moment, you have no embodied presence for me to be talking to. You're in Yorkshire, and I'm thousands of miles away. As we're speaking, you're a consciousness online, only. That's a soul: the conscious "Harbal" I'm talking to.

Via the miracle of technology.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 10:22 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 10:06 pm
At the moment, you have no embodied presence for me to be talking to. You're in Yorkshire, and I'm thousands of miles away. As we're speaking, you're a consciousness online, only. That's a soul: the conscious "Harbal" I'm talking to.

Via the miracle of technology.

Indeed so.

In this, technology is quite illuminating, actually. For you and I have never been in each other's physical presence. And yet, there is a "Harbal" and and "IC" who are communicating ideas. Since it's not the physical dimension of being that's being communicated, how is that happening, apart from something that looks very much like a consciousness, an awareness, a personality...a soul.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 10:29 pm Indeed so.

In this, technology is quite illuminating, actually. For you and I have never been in each other's physical presence. And yet, there is a "Harbal" and and "IC" who are communicating ideas. Since it's not the physical dimension of being that's being communicated, how is that happening, apart from something that looks very much like a consciousness, an awareness, a personality...a soul.

The above is a deceit, albeit unconsciously.

You are committing the fallacy of conflating,
a consciousness, an awareness, a personality ..that is empirical
with
a soul which is transcendental, can survive physical death and beyond the empirical.

Your 'no ought from is' 'friend' Hume argued convincingly there is no such thing as a soul that survives physical death.
To Hume the self conforms to the Bundle theory, that is the ontological theory about objecthood in which an object consists only of a collection (bundle) of properties, relations or tropes.

This [Bundle] theory owes its name to Hume, who described the self or person (which he assumed to be the mind) as ’nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement’ (A Treatise of Human Nature I, IV, §VI).
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/ ... ory-of/v-1

Like Hume's no ought from is, you cannot get a transcendental-is for an empirical-is.
Your jump from an empirical-is to suddenly a transcendental-is is purely psychological, same as Hume's no real linkage of effects from cause which is due to a psychological state of constant conjunction.

This tsunamic psychological force within theism is due to an inherent existential crisis that exudes subliminal terror within.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 6:15 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2023 4:34 pm My atheism is nothing more than the rejection of any team's god-claim.

That is exactly the same thing. You've made a distinction-without-a-difference there, Pete.

As for "dishonesty," it's not dishonesty to see the world differently from another person. It might be dishonesty, though, to pretend one agreed with somebody when one really sees the world differently.

More dishonesty. To reject any team's god-claim is not to assert that there are no gods. They are not 'exactly the same thing'. (To reject the claim that there's an even number of stars is not to assert that the number is odd.)

Your 'seeing the world differently' isn't the issue here. It's your deliberate misrepresentation of what an atheist has to believe. 'There's a fairy in my garden'. 'Until you prove it, I reject your claim.' 'Ah, so you claim there's no fairy in my garden. Prove it!' It's called shifting the burden of proof. And it's dishonest.

Let's start with the first [belief supposedly entailed by rejection of any team's god-claim], which is a very straightforward one:

P1: Only God can give mortals life after death.
P2: There is no God. (Atheism: or, if you like, "I reject all God claims." Same thing.)
C: There is no life after death.

Now, you say that "none of those" beliefs is entailed by Atheism. But here, it seems clear to me that this (dis-)belief HAS to be entailed by Atheism.

Explain how you concluded I was wrong about that, and an Atheist can still believe in (literal) life after death.

Nope. Here, the conclusion entailed by the rejection of any team's god-claim is the rejection of any team's claim that only their god can give mortals life after death. And that's not to reject the possibility of life after death by some other cause or means. So there's no entailed rejection of life-after-death claims.

As it happens, I reject life-after-death claims for several reasons, only one of which is my rejection of any team's god-claims, which I consider irrational and so ignorable.

Your problem is the zero-sum game forced on you by irrational belief in your team's god. 'My team's god, or nothing.' Hence: 'My team's god, or no morality.'

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 4:49 am a consciousness, an awareness, a personality ..that is empirical

They are not confirmable by any empirical science...physics, biology, chemistry... They are only things that are existentially experienced and known. And that, I suggest, is because they are constituents of the soul, not of physics.

But I don't find you insightful, so that's all I'll bother to point out about that to you.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 7:43 am To reject any team's god-claim is not to assert that there are no gods.

Yep, it's the same.

If I say, "There's a God," and you say, "There are no gods," then you have rejected my claim alright: and made your own contrary claim about what we can include in the set of "things that exist."

It's your deliberate misrepresentation of what an atheist has to believe.

Show that. Show that anything of what I have said the Atheist has to believe is not the case. Let's start with the below:

Let's start with the first [belief supposedly entailed by rejection of any team's god-claim], which is a very straightforward one:

P1: Only God can give mortals life after death.
P2: There is no God. (Atheism: or, if you like, "I reject all God claims." Same thing.)
C: There is no life after death.

Now, you say that "none of those" beliefs is entailed by Atheism. But here, it seems clear to me that this (dis-)belief HAS to be entailed by Atheism.

Explain how you concluded I was wrong about that, and an Atheist can still believe in (literal) life after death.

...that's not to reject the possibility of life after death by some other cause or means....[/quote]
You're denying the truth of my first premise, then. You're saying it's not true that "ONLY God can give mortals life after death." The logic, as you can see, is fine: but you're alleging the conclusion is not valid because of the untruthfulness of premise 1.

You have another candidate, plausibly?

What "means," other than God, do you suggest is capable of providing life after death?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 5:37 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 4:49 am a consciousness, an awareness, a personality ..that is empirical

They are not confirmable by any empirical science...physics, biology, chemistry... They are only things that are existentially experienced and known. And that, I suggest, is because they are constituents of the soul, not of physics.

But the soul must be dependent on the body then, and will cease to exist when the body dies, it seems. That sounds like something to do with physics.

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 5:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 5:37 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 4:49 am a consciousness, an awareness, a personality ..that is empirical

They are not confirmable by any empirical science...physics, biology, chemistry... They are only things that are existentially experienced and known. And that, I suggest, is because they are constituents of the soul, not of physics.

But the soul must be dependent on the body then

"Must" be? Why "must" and "then"? I'm not seeing the logic you're invoking there.

The soul is not chemical, physical or biological...but is real. How does that argue that the soul is "dependent on the body"?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 6:42 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 5:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 5:37 pm
They are not confirmable by any empirical science...physics, biology, chemistry... They are only things that are existentially experienced and known. And that, I suggest, is because they are constituents of the soul, not of physics.

But the soul must be dependent on the body then

"Must" be? Why "must" and "then"? I'm not seeing the logic you're invoking there.

The soul is not chemical, physical or biological...but is real. How does that argue that the soul is "dependent on the body"?

You said consciousness, awareness and personality are constituents of the soul. Well those things disappear under certain physical conditions, such as brain damage, anaesthesia etc. That seems to suggest they are brain dependent, which means the soul would also have to be brain dependent.