Cog's Case Against Religion

[Ex-User (13503)]

A pictorial summary of this thread thus far:

Spoiler

. . . . . . . . . . . .

​

 

[onesteptwostep]

Kant really is the cure to people who can only understand the world in an empiricist manner.

How's that? Wasn't it the whole point of the Critique that reasoning not grounded in empirical experience is meaningless?

Not sure about that, but the entirity of Kant was a reaction towards the radical skeptism that was brought on from empirists like Hume.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Hume is cooler than Kant

 

[onesteptwostep]

He wore some Sikh-like hat though, that's all I remember about him.

lol he kinda looks like Sam Smith if you look a bit closer

 

[Cognisant]

XD

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Look at that strong body language. The guy is alpha as fuck

 

[The Grey Man]

Hume was certainly a much better writer than Kant. Reading the Critique of Pure Reason is, for the most part, a chore, and understanding it entirely is virtually impossible without the assistance of other philosophers. Hume's works, by contrast, demonstrate his mastery of English prose, and he deserves to be counted among the first rank of British thinkers for his penetrating skepticism. Still, Kant outdid Hume in reconciling empiricism and rationalism by arguing the apriority of the faculty of the synthesis of the raw data furnished by the senses in time and space (and, negatively, by denying that time and space necessarily exist except as the condition of possibility of this synthesis), and is probably the most original philosopher the West has yet produced.

Again, I will have more to say about this intellectual badass in my next thread, which I will post soonish.

 

[aiyanah]

well if you're working assumption is that it's a "lie" then there's little to discuss with you cause such a jarring level of cognitive dissonance isn't something one becomes accustomed to in a hurry.
why would physical science provide evidence for that which is beyond the physical that we know of? makes no sense to me but the church of atheism and anti-theism seem to believe this illogical logic they've provided.
heavens forbid one mentions that universal creation stories from the ancient scriptures have already been proven to be true by WMAP.

cases against religion can't be taken seriously at all btw, you have the law because of religion and without that you don't get to a point where you are typing out whatever response you may type out to this.
heck you might be robbed while reading this in a world without religion cause i can't see how you would justify anyone following the law without religion.

you might follow it, i might follow it, why would "they" follow it if following it doesn't do them any good and there's no "god" to make it all better?
granted my reasoning at the end here is lazy but the atheists and anti-theists have to recognise that you are dealing with the full bell curve of society, without a fundamental force at the base of society which serves to equalise everyone (because genetics literally renders us different) what fundamental force would you replace "god" with.

and dont say you would replace it with "truth" because you don't actually know what the truth is. you're just flesh and bone man without any divine truths delivered from up high that resonate with the collective and you will struggle to find any worthwhile reason to tell the "truth" because everyone believes satan can be tamed while jesus is forgotten about.

 

[Cognisant]

cases against religion can't be taken seriously at all btw, you have the law because of religion and without that you don't get to a point where you are typing out whatever response you may type out to this.

Is that a death threat?

heck you might be robbed while reading this in a world without religion cause i can't see how you would justify anyone following the law without religion.

I don't fear eternal damnation and yet I'm a lawful citizen, your point seems to be that you don't break the law because you do fear eternal damnation, does this mean that without the threat of eternal damnation you wouldn't be a law abiding citizen?

Indeed we're not really talking about the laws of man are we? Man's law doesn't dictate god's law, correct me if I'm wrong but there's nothing in the Bible to say not paying your taxes is a sin. I think what we're really talking about is morality, that you're saying the legal system was built on a foundation of morality established by religion, does that mean that without the threat of eternal damnation you wouldn't be a moral person?

Why is it that I can be a moral personal without the threat of eternal damnation when you can't, is there something inherently moral about me, is there something inherently wrong with you? Are you a bad person?

 

[Minuend]

cases against religion can't be taken seriously at all btw, you have the law because of religion and without that you don't get to a point where you are typing out whatever response you may type out to this.
heck you might be robbed while reading this in a world without religion cause i can't see how you would justify anyone following the law without religion.

What? You can totally make a value system based on human values. If we say empathy and respect for other people should be core values, we can make values and laws based on that. We don't need religion to tell us that being robbed is really shitty and that we don't want that to happen to ourselves or other people. Even if you're just protecting your own ass, you'd still want robbery to be against the law.

Even wolves has rules in their pack, and they certainly aint religious.

 

[washti]

heavens forbid one mentions that universal creation stories from the ancient scriptures have already been proven to be true by WMAP.

ok i'm baited. sources?
could you quote where on NASA site is mentioned that WMAP mission proved ancient scriptrures?
Or is it some interpretation? Who, where, what why?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

you might follow it, i might follow it, why would "they" follow it if following it doesn't do them any good and there's no "god" to make it all better?
granted my reasoning at the end here is lazy but the atheists and anti-theists have to recognise that you are dealing with the full bell curve of society, without a fundamental force at the base of society which serves to equalise everyone (because genetics literally renders us different) what fundamental force would you replace "god" with.

and dont say you would replace it with "truth" because you don't actually know what the truth is. you're just flesh and bone man without any divine truths delivered from up high that resonate with the collective and you will struggle to find any worthwhile reason to tell the "truth" because everyone believes satan can be tamed while jesus is forgotten about.

So basically, we have to instate a religious ruling class which decides for the population what everyone should believe in, regardless of the epistemic status of that belief? Just for the sake of keeping people under control? We had that shit before, in the middle ages. Needless to say, that sucked big time (except for the religious authorities, naturally).

 

[Black Rose]

biologically we are genetically disposed to group dynamics.

we follow the law because cooperation is the best strategy for survival

everyone is socially conditioned from birth to want to be accepted by the tribe

npc characters / sheep / the masses always follow the herd lol

 

[aiyanah]

So basically, we have to instate a religious ruling class which decides for the population what everyone should believe in, regardless of the epistemic status of that belief? Just for the sake of keeping people under control? We had that shit before, in the middle ages. Needless to say, that sucked big time (except for the religious authorities, naturally).

you are living under this state of control right now, very literally, you might have some complaints about it but you aren't flipping the table over and resetting the game are you?
ergo it must be doing more right than wrong.
a lot more right than wrong to be precise.
and we amend it as we go generally speaking, you do this with the law in reality but people tend to ignore why the law is actually functional at a fundamental level.
this is why the leader of the freeworld is sworn in using a bible, god, whatever that is, will level the scales if you so choose to imbalance them.

the cases against religion, in their entirety, tend to rely on the phenomenon known as "complexity" and how this relates to human motivations, albeit ignoring the "human" aspect of this in favor of arguments that suit a purpose or narrative instead of simply being observations.
there are plenty of bad examples that can be brought up for non-religious systems and the horrors there are likely scarier than what happens when religion goes wrong, as we're seeing now with the popular narratives running the airwaves and ethernet cables with lightweight horrors and half a billion dollars worth of propaganda.

alternatively people want to attack the concept of "god" but how can this be done when an understanding of the concept hasn't even been grasped yet, seems silly to me when people attempt to limit the limitless with limitation so as to lift the self imposed limitations on their own realities.
it's funny cause reality literally mimics this idea, look at sports, without limitations on what the field of play is and what is permitted in the field of play there is no game.
heck not even just the sports, the amoebas and atoms do this too, the universe itself is an example of this and it's all simply mirrored in everything else, religion simply seeks to communicate the rules of the game to whomsoever is inquiring.
yes there are different interpretations of how the game works but those difference are minimal and generally only serve to influence mating decisions...but i digress.

it is also problematic when an "equalizer" is not suggested but the current one is being attacked by thoughtless arguments in a thoughtless era and good rebuttals that are more scientifically considered aren't held in high esteem by the new age church of atheism.
my cynicism is likely showing.

but i digress, not all "believers" are the same and that's where narrative comes in to fill the gaps.
it doesn't matter if the lower half of the bell curve can't elucidate to you what god is or how the metaphysical landscape is setup so long as it get's them to follow the rules of the game in a productive manner.
in the best case scenario they don't even know it's a game.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

people tend to ignore why the law is actually functional at a fundamental level.
this is why the leader of the freeworld is sworn in using a bible, god, whatever that is, will level the scales if you so choose to imbalance them.

so you mean the bible is the reason the law works, or...? What about secular countries like sweden?

it is also problematic when an "equalizer" is not suggested but the current one is being attacked by thoughtless arguments in a thoughtless era and good rebuttals that are more scientifically considered aren't held in high esteem by the new age church of atheism.
my cynicism is likely showing.

well we had this thing called the enlightement a couple of centuries ago. That's what our laws and morality are currently based on. This new wave of atheism has had next to zero effect on our morality and laws – it's just a bunch of people on youtube talking.

but i digress, not all "believers" are the same and that's where narrative comes in to fill the gaps.
it doesn't matter if the lower half of the bell curve can't elucidate to you what god is or how the metaphysical landscape is setup so long as it get's them to follow the rules of the game in a productive manner.
in the best case scenario they don't even know it's a game.

so I guess it would be a fair assumption to say that you put religion in the same epistemic status as any metaphysical narrative – spaghetti monster or whatever – but see it as a useful tool for keeping the sub-100 IQ population in check?

 

[onesteptwostep]

Is Sweden really that secular in its political circles however? I imagine the political elite being religious. I'm really curious about the religiosity of Nordic countries tbh, that's where the Reformed tradition stemmed from (John Calvin, Netherlands etc).

 

[aiyanah]

so I guess it would be a fair assumption to say that you put religion in the same epistemic status as any metaphysical narrative – spaghetti monster or whatever – but see it as a useful tool for keeping the sub-100 IQ population in check?

yes secular countries that have strong mythological underpinings to their cultures.
it's the same thing just dressed up differently but people would rather pretend to be smart about observations than actually be smart about them.

spaghetti monster idea is terrible btw, patently terrible, i don't know why people want to keep on using it as an example when it's so terribly terrible that there's no other way to state how terrible it is aside from noting how terrible it is.
god is anthropomorphised because it makes it communicable to "the people", it doesn't help saying god is infinite energy across infinte time in infinite spaces and all that that entails in tandem with consciousness and balance and possibility vs impossibility and going about explaining these concepts in a manner that can be grasped by the majority and in a manner that applies to them as an individual.
all you'll end up doing is defaulting to the stories that have worked, perhaps we dress them up differently for your delectation. don't like the bible? don't worry you can watch the avengers and get the same thing.
don't like the quran? go read the bill of rights.
some might disagree on the latter but language of consumption makes a big difference, as does actual consumption of information.

a note on epistemology and the holy scriptures and metaphysics.
all these scriptures are doing is mapping out the metaphysical, this is why scientology can exist with a bevy of fiction as it's scripture because the metaphysics has been mapped out well enough to be useful to somebody, perhaps not you or me but somebody.
the religious aspects of anything will be present in how society is structured, people follow that structure not because you come out the womb ready to follow it but because it's better than being wild and aimless and living only by instinct and not knowing what the rules of the game are.
you know it
i know it
your belief system, as it were, is just a strategy for survival. none is inherently right or wrong over another or else you wouldn't have made it to the 21st century.
like i scratched out it's simply a tool for mating choice, a very powerful one and it is certainly not one people should be discarding as casually as they have been cause there's little else other than strong fiction, history and culture that keeps this game called society going.
i would posit that this is why we're seeing an increase in the mainstream coverage of unsuccessful mating strategies but that might offend someone.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Is Sweden really that secular in its political circles however? I imagine the political elite being religious. I'm really curious about the religiosity of Nordic countries tbh, that's where the Reformed tradition stemmed from (John Calvin, Netherlands etc).

I cannot speak for the personal beliefs of politicians, but on paper, there's only one party that has anything to do with religion there, Christian Democrats, who have about 5% of the votes. Other than that it's comprised of a large part leftist-liberals (who obviously hate anything to do with chritianity), and right-center parties with more libertarian views – lower taxes etc. Virtually all politics in sweden revolves around economy and immigration. Religious narratives are virtually absent from the whole scene.

As a fun fact, the whole political structure in sweden pretty much imploded following the recent election, due to the emergence of the anti-immigration party Sweden Democrats (incidentally with Christian Democrats being the only party who don't consider them "nazis").

 

[onesteptwostep]

Ouch, sorry to hear that. Are the conservatives getting pushed out? That's usually bad news for a nation, especially if the country has a long history. Also I'm just curious, how relevant is the monarchy there? Does the PM have to report to the king and so forth?

Also I'm just curious as to why a nation of 5 mil can't handle that immigration problem. Korea's been extremely vigilant about our immigration so we hardly let anyone in lol. We've only allowed people to live on Jeju Island which is like 50 km off the southern coast or something.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

yes secular countries that have strong mythological underpinings to their cultures.
it's the same thing just dressed up differently but people would rather pretend to be smart about observations that actually be smart about them.

once again, I think your view of history seems to be that we went from the middle ages straight into the youtube-atheist era. You're missing a 300-year period of development of largely anti-religious, secular values.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

Ouch, sorry to hear that. Are the conservatives getting pushed out? That's usually bad news for a nation, especially if the country has a long history. Also I'm just curious, how relevant is the monarchy there? Does the PM have to report to the king and so forth?

all parties except Christian Democrats are indeed desperately trying to prevent the anti-immigration party from gettin any influence, which is what caused the chaos we're currently in. The Sweden Democrats are big enough to sort keep their hand on the scales and prevent any coalition from taking power without cooperating with them, yet no one wants to cooperate with them, so it's a complete deadlock situation.

The PM has to report to the king, yes, but it's pretty much just a token monarchy without any real influence on politics.

Also I'm just curious as to why a nation of 5 mil can't handle that immigration problem. Korea's been extremely vigilant about our immigration so we hardly let anyone in lol. We've only allowed people to live on Jeju Island which is like 50 km off the southern coast or something.

sweden has been ruled by leftist-liberals for the past century, and that ideology is extremely pervasive in the country (or has been, until this year's election). This election outcome was the worst outcome for the leftist-liberals in the past century, so in that sense, things are improving.

 

[aiyanah]

yes secular countries that have strong mythological underpinings to their cultures.
it's the same thing just dressed up differently but people would rather pretend to be smart about observations that actually be smart about them.

once again, I think your view of history seems to be that we went from the middle ages straight into the youtube-atheist era. You're missing a 300-year period of development of largely anti-religious, secular values.

yes the culture ebbs and flows between order and chaos.
when there is strong religious value you are in a period of order because the inherent structure that has been decided upon is rigid in order to accomplish a purpose.
likewise when there is loose religious value and a pining for materialism you are in a period of chaos where you can expect to see massive technological developments but can expect the social fabric of society to crumble.
religious values are any values that benefit everyone but you btw.

in times of war you have chaos being generated in order to perpetuate order or encourage order. massive tech developments with a strong social fabric loosely held together by what actually matters, but we aren't there so who knows what actually matters.

i mean...mentioning history is odd, is religious history all bloodshed and violence?
best we not mistake that with human history to be sure.

 

[onesteptwostep]

To be fair secularism really did take over the religious order, as in the hegemony of the religious order died with the rise of the Enlightenment. But we aren't really in an era of the Enlightenment either- after the Enlightenment we had the Romanticist era where liberal Christianity was flourishing (but then declining again) then the World Wars happened. The predicament we are in now with the mess that is religious pluralism, or basically the reign of postmodernism is the point in time we're in now.

Talking about the world in a political manner, we had a narrative up until Bush (War on Terror) but after him we went into a phase of pragmatism with Obama where there was no narrative (postmodernism) then back to this neo-fake-news-narrative with this Trump era. Dunno how much of this is any use since I'm pulling it out of my ass, but take it as you will.

 

[aiyanah]

To be fair secularism really did take over the religious order, as in the hegemony of the religious order died with the rise of the Enlightenment. But we aren't really in an era of the Enlightenment either- after the Enlightenment we had the Romanticist era where liberal Christianity was flourishing (but then declining again) then the World Wars happened. The predicament we are in now with the mess that is religious pluralism, or basically the reign of postmodernism is the point in time we're in now.

Talking about the world in a political manner, we had a narrative up until Bush (War on Terror) but after him we went into a phase of pragmatism with Obama where there was no narrative (postmodernism) then back to this neo-fake-news-narrative with this Trump era. Dunno how much of this is any use since I'm pulling it out of my ass, but take it as you will.

yes
we are in a period of materialism, though perhaps thelema is more accurate, where old ideas of order are being tested because there are all these churches and they all have their own gods so eventually the gods will go to war.
if we're smart about it it can all be done with speech, but then that actually requires unbiased reporting which is where the fake news thing comes in.
the narrative under obama, by my estimation, was humanitarianism. obamacare never goes through in any form with pragmatism being the order of the day.
likewise the pointless visits to africa.

 

[Puffy]

Eh, I'm mostly playing to a third party audience while also making the thread into a sort of index so as to restrict the dominance of certain individuals in the future by redirecting future interactions here, while learning a few new terms along the way.

It's a mix of ego expression and some unlikely yet flickering hope for community betterment.

Sure no worries - that post was just me being in a trolling mood. If my natal chart indicates anything it's that I have the most unrelenting daddy issues of all.

 

[Black Rose]

mom n dad just were not there in a psychological sense.

I'm broken.

where's God?

 

[kora]

Say, would you mind rephrasing what he says in your words?

I can rephrase what TGM says more or less I think. (Feel free to correct me TGM.)

Spoiler

I haven't read much of this thread, but since you've invoked me, I'll comment on the difference between 'why' and 'how' and on ietsism.

A 'why' is the explanation of a phenomenon from a final cause, a 'how' its explanation from an efficient cause. The final cause of a phenomenon is always some intended outcome, a temporal consequence which follows from it if certain conditions are met, whereas its efficient cause is its cause sensu stricto, its immediate temporal precedent from which it follows inexorably. You are right in saying that 'why' is subjective in that the intended outcome must be intended by some one, who is none other than the subject of the objectification of that outcome in some temporally preceding phenomenon, which is attractive or, to borrow a psychology term, has incentive salience to him. To complete the duality, the cause of a phenomenon sensu stricto does not necessarily have incentive salience, nor even any particular motivational property: in this sense, 'how' is objective. To conclude, the 'why' of a thing is its subjective motive, its 'how' its objective cause. Materialists think to assimilate the former into the latter in accordance with their overall metaphysical programme of perversely denying the subject and recognizing only objects, which should be no less an object of ridicule than its physical cognate in the fool who emerges triumphantly from the wilderness to declare that he has found only a multiplicity of trees and no forest.

Concerning ietsism, I'm unfamiliar with the doctrine, but it based on your broad description of it as the belief in an "undetermined transcendent reality", it appears to be an adaptation of Kant's transcendental idealism. If by 'transcendent' you mean 'not immanent', then this transcendent reality would be equivalent to the Kantian thing in itself, which is completely unknowable. All analogies, including your dimensional analogy, are inadequate for describing what it might be because it need not share any of the properties of our immanent intuitive knowledge, including time and space as conditions of possibility for other properties.

I will have more to say about subject-object duality and the thing in itself in my next thread (when I get around to posting it), to which I hope you'll redirect any responses to my previous posts, should you still feel bound to make them.

TGM here is referring to Aristotle's four causes and attributing our general referent for "why" to the category of the "final cause" and "how" as the "efficient cause". The best way to explain what he (and aristotle) mean is through an example. Take any object, say a chair. The efficient cause of the chair is that it was made by a carpenter. The final cause of the chair is to be sat on. It refers to the purpose or the teleological reason for the existence of the chair. Your typical atheist/materialist tends to not consider the world to have a final or teleological cause. Your typical religiously inclined person does, though not all the time I suppose.

Anyway, although "why" and "how" are used interchangeably I guess the basic semantic difference might be something to do with the intentional aspect of "why" whereas "how" perhaps demands more detailing of the steps in creation, that is, the successive actions leading to the existence of the thing independently of the teleological aspect. Personally I think referents for words are messy and we don't use them in a fixed manner most of the time anyway, which is why I'm personally not a fan of turning to old philosophical concepts for my ontology. Still I can see the pertinence of using Aristotle's categories here I guess. Anyway, I think I've explained or rephrased what TGM is saying here.

Here I believe he is saying that the world has inherent intentionality of some kind. I think TGM is some kind of monist Schopenhauer style, he says that materialists are only interested in the efficient causes and empty the world of it's mental/intentional aspect. This is a very strong thesis, and would need an entire thread to unpack.

Here he is saying that Ietsism is the belief in aspects of existence that we do not have access to, that cannot be grasped by the mind. It is similar to Kant's theory he is right. Basically, to put it in non technical terms, the world as you perceive it is always a construct of your brain. When you see a chair, what you're seeing is an image reconstructed by your brain from the photons that arrived at your eye from the chair. This means that you can't ever experience things "in themselves" (kant calls them noumena) but always a representation of them (phenomena).

Spoiler

This difficulty vanishes if we distinguish between what is objective and what is absolute. An objective truth is true for the subject of that object, an absolute truth for all subjects. So, while it may be objectively true for me at this moment that one phenomenon follows from another (e.g. smoke from fire), it may not be true for everyone at all times. To claim that such an immanent causal law is absolute (e.g. to claim that smoke always follows from fire) is to make a problematic judgment; contingent and necessary successions of phenomena are indistinguishable from each other, as Hume famously pointed out.

Now, to tie this back into my original point, it's all the same whether one laments that all causal laws may be situational illusions or rejoices that the shimmering veil of nature appears to exhibit some universal patterns: causes are efficient only in objects/phenomena and do not explain the subject.

Here he is referring to the problem of induction (formulated by Davi Hume). That is, that unlike deductive logic where the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises (all bachelors are unmarried, 2+2=4) the laws of nature which we have derived from observations are not necessary but are simply repetitions of phenomena consistently following each other. For example, we predict that the sun will rise tomorrow because we have observed it rising every day until today, but there is nothing logically NECESSARY about it rising tomorrow, not in the same way that 2+2=4. The laws of nature are all just observed repetitions of events or a gathering of data. I guess by absolute he means necessary, invariable etc and not contingent. So seeing smoke from a fire is objective in the sense that everyone can detect this smoke from the fire if near enough to perceive, but nothing in the world logically guarantees causality and the smoke coming from the fire.

Hard problem of consciousness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness#The_hard_problem

So to summarize, I would say that TGM is saying that materialists only pay attention to observed phenomena and data gathering and take no interest in noumena or the unexplained subjective/mental/intentional aspect of the world, which SEEMS to be beyond the grasp of an efficient causal explanation? This is my rephrasing of his thoughts as I have understood them.

 

[kora]

I'm broken.

where's God?

Ak you should write poetry.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

@higs "all bachelors are unmarried" is an example of analytic statement, not deductive logic. It's truth is purely dependent on the meaning of its terms.

just praticing my Kant game

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I'm broken.

where's God?

Ak you should write poetry.

I put AK's post into a haiku generator:

Broken day today
An only, abscent god is
enjoying the mom

 

[kora]

@higs "all bachelors are unmarried" is an example of analytic statement, not deductive logic. It's truth is purely dependent on the meaning of its terms.

just praticing my Kant game

You are extremely right to correct me Serac. I was shamelessly equating Kant's classical example of an analytic statements with some kind of enthymeme (statements in which the premises are implicit) of deductive reasoning, and I also do tend to equate inductive reasoning with synthetic a posteriori statements. Or you could say I was considering that analytic statements were necessarily so by virtue of being reacheable through deduction if you like. Clearly my own Kant game is rusty and I am shamelessly twisting his concepts around any which way I like. Possibly because I never did give much of a toss about him :'(

I did try though...

Unformalized / No premise : all bachelors are unmarried men

Formalization attempts :
premise 1 : The term "Bachelor" refers to an unmarried man
premise 2 : "Unmarried man" is the referent of the term "bachelor".
Conclusion : All bachelors are unmarried men
-> Most annoying tautological crap ever, possibly invalid as well

Or how about :
Premise 1 : All bachelors are men
Premise 2 : All Bachelors are unmarried
Conclusion : All bachelors are unmarried men.

??????????DafuqamIdoing? I'll stop, clearly I am no logician and am sleep deprived as feck...Man, fuck bachelors. Lesson learned

ANYHOW, I THINK deductive reasoning and a priori analytic statements or tautologies share the element of being necessarily true if the terms or propositions composing them have the correct referent (be it the words themselves or the premises) unlike inductive reasoning. :3 <3

 

[onesteptwostep]

God is still there, towering above you, demanding your faith and your obedience. Who are we to tilt our blade of anguish and pain towards Almighty God? Do you really think any weapon will reach the heavens where God is there watching, full of affection and pretension, knowing one day you will know better? Perhaps it's better to lose your parents and all your belongings, your rights and your mind, your health and your relations with all you know, to be at a lower depth than the accursed Job was before you truly understand, you are no match for God.

 

[Minuend]

I can rephrase what TGM says more or less I think. (Feel free to correct me TGM.)

I was curious because when people idolize others, it tends to be because they are in deep agreement or because they are projecting own views onto them without really understanding or actually being in agreement with them. So, I was wondering which was the case here. Though, I guess i'm just not that interested to follow up.

 

[kora]

I'm being mean about Kant. So what if synthetic/analytic is outdated. The Noumen/phenomenon distinction is total genius.

I can rephrase what TGM says more or less I think. (Feel free to correct me TGM.)

I was curious because when people idolize others, it tends to be because they are in deep agreement or because they are projecting own views onto them without really understanding or actually being in agreement with them. So, I was wondering which was the case here. Though, I guess i'm just not that interested to follow up.

Ah. I thought it might be that :3. Well I still had fun unpacking TGM's excessively erudite (no offense TGM) statements.

 

[kora]

Hey these haiku generators are fun

Kant - A Haiku

by HIGS

Old philosophy
An unmarried kant marries
Out of bachelor

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

intpf - a haiku

Chile meeting place
A menacing post slithers
after the monkey

 

[kora]

Cog - A Haiku

by Higs

Violent sprocket
sneers at different qualia,
Irreligionist


Think I'm going to make this my sole mode of expression from now on.

 

[onesteptwostep]

omg higs do me do me

 

[The Grey Man]

@higs Good analysis, the only thing I'd like to add is that, according to Kant's transcendental idealism, the chair-in-itself does not necessarily share any of the properties of your phenomenal representation of the chair, including extension and space and mobility in time. Time and space are a priori conditions of the possibility of human experience—the motion of matter in time and space takes place in the mind.

For this reason, posing the "hard problem" of how the motion of objects "gives rise to" the subject of experience seems to me to be nonsense in the strictest Wittgensteinian sense, like asking, How wide is red? The motion of objects in time and space as a manifestation of natural forces (causality) presupposes the subject of experience as their unifying principle—objects exist for a subject—so how can the former be the cause of the latter?

Instead of asking how the mind arises from matter, we should be asking what is the relation between the two Cartesian principles, between the unity of subjective experience and the multiplicity of its objects. In my opinion, Western philosophy's best answer to this question is Schopenhauer's double-aspect monism, whereby the Will is understood to be the principle of unity and the 'inner' aspect of itself, natural forces being its 'outer' aspect. Causality is at once a 'world-knot' spun out of the thread of the Will and the thread itself.

Spoiler

 

[kora]

@higs Good analysis, the only thing I'd like to add is that, according to Kant's transcendental idealism, the chair-in-itself does not necessarily share any of the properties of your phenomenal representation of the chair, including extension and space and mobility in time. Time and space are a priori conditions of the possibility of human experience—the motion of matter in time and space takes place in the mind.

Spoiler

Oh I definitely think that the "chair in itself" must share corresponding properties with my phenomenal representation, else every prediction I can make about the world is an absolute miracle. That's literally the only reason I'm a scientific realist, because Halley could predict the coming of the comet. I think there is a correspondence between the structure of phenomena and the structure of noumena. There's a structural correspondence, which is why maths works for predicting, it charts the relations between things, even if the entities themselves are not accurate.

When you say that "Time and space are a priori conditions of the possibility of human experience—the motion of matter in time and space takes place in the mind." -> You're gonna have to flesh out that interpretation or argument or whatever for me cuz I don't see how your first sentence implies that it exists only in my mind. I haven't nerded out on Kant so much but it seems to me like what he says means more that you have to postulate time and space as independent real entities in some form because of the way our own mind is structured. That's my interpretation of that sentence anyway. How could the mental categories of time and space exist phenomenally if the world were not structured so in some form? I thought that was the point, he took idealism and deduced non sollipsism. Again though, my Kant is super rusty.

For this reason, posing the "hard problem" of how the motion of objects "gives rise to" the subject of experience seems to me to be nonsense in the strictest Wittgensteinian sense, like asking, How wide is red? The motion of objects in time and space as a manifestation of natural forces (causality) presupposes the subject of experience as their unifying principle—objects exist for a subject—so how can the former be the cause of the latter?

Spoiler

Okay first of all, there are two Wittgensteins. The first Wittgenstein says that any talk of God, morals, metaphysics, aesthetics or anything that is not verifiable is tosh (which discredits our entire conversation here as nonsense, and especially discredits Schopenhauer as nonsense); the second Wittgenstein says anything subjective is nonsense when spoken about, which also discredits our entire conversation and any talk of phenomena (including the hard problem and probably Kant too.) In short, Wittgenstein thinks most stuff is nonsense, I don't live by his epistemological rules XD.

Yes the world appears to me phenomenally, and this is my only access to said world, but I don't see how this means that it does not exist independently of myself, and I note no argument here that shows me that subjective experience is in any way the unifying principle of causality. The old tree falling in the forest thing. The most intuitive answer is that the tree produces waves that would be interpreted as sound if there was something there to detect it. Your view is coming across as strangely solipsist. Possibly a misunderstanding of what you're saying on my part. (Possibly not read enough Kant .)

Instead of asking how the mind arises from matter, we should be asking what is the relation between the two Cartesian principles, between the unity of subjective experience and the multiplicity of its objects. In my opinion, Western philosophy's best answer to this question is Schopenhauer's double-aspect monism, whereby the Will is understood to be the principle of unity and the 'inner' aspect of itself, natural forces being its 'outer' aspect. Causality is at once a 'world-knot' spun out of the thread of the Will and the thread itself.

Spoiler

Hmmm. The two cartesian principles ? As in his dualism? mind and matter ? Seems to me to be re-stating the hard problem. Asking what is the relationship between the two seems to me to be the same as asking how one could arise from the other. (edit: Well I guess it's more specifically how they interract, but that's also part of the hard problem, it's just that asking how they interract pre supposes dualism, and we'e skipped some steps. There are some really compelling arguments out there for illusionism too.) David chalmers himself (who outlines and formalizes the hard problem) entertains some kind of double aspect monism, as does Bertrand Russell before him, and some branches of Hindu philosophy.

Look, I like Schopenhauer, he's a good writer and has interesting intuitions on all sorts of stuff (not so much on females ), but I never really understood his concept of will. Seems he doesn't really define it. He just introspects, sees his own intentionality and extrapolates it as the thing that makes up the fabric of the world. I mean it's interesting, but for me intention is a FUNCTIONAL aspect of the mind, and is not the defining aspect of phenomenality. I can easily conceive of a cognition that has no will of it's own but has a subjective experience. Say a machine that has a single qualia of red for example. That's all it does. Perceives red and has an accompanying subjective sensation of it. Where's the "will" ? I mean "will" seems to be synonymous with desire, the ability for a cognition to pose a goal and exert force towards achieving it. I don't see how this is a universal aspect of anything. This is why the "hard problem" as a contemporary formalization of the problem is for me, the most superior formulation so far, it isolates what we are talking about very specifically and why throughout the ages we have had this fucking weird dualistic intuition, after all why the hell would it cross anyone's mind to talk about souls? What's the referent ? How odd. It turns out we're not talking about will, or perception, or desire, or emotions, or any of the basic or highly complex functions of the mind, we're talking about the subjective sensation that accompanies all these functions. It's incredibly clarifying. You can't answer a question unless it's been posed properly, that's why it's revolutionary.

Double aspect monism is a reasonable answer to this crazy problem for all sorts of reasons, it's certainly a competing theory. Chalmers himself seems to be a double aspect monist in some sense, same for Bertrand Russell.

PS: I am a very naughty mod who derails threads, I am now going out but on return I will possibly split this discussion from this thread.

 

[kora]

@onesteptwostep


Onesteptwostep - A Haiku

by Higs

Skipping Korean
An earthly, bouncy Jesus
enjoying the faith

 

[Black Rose]

@higs

"Will" is under control theory (feedback mechanism). And control is under causality (everything in motion pushing against itself) Therefore the question of "religion" is in the explanation for that which controls reality. What is it that makes things happen. God(s)? Matter? The theist stance is "I am". (consciousness) or Self Gnosis.

Is there a deity that has control of causality? Is it bigger than me? What does it want?

What do they want? The spirits that are? Is a stone statue a God or just an idol?

I know I have a "Will". The existential question is On Reality. (A choice)

Because it is hard to be numb. I can't deny my own existence.

 

[The Grey Man]

Spoiler

Oh I definitely think that the "chair in itself" must share corresponding properties with my phenomenal representation, else every prediction I can make about the world is an absolute miracle. That's literally the only reason I'm a scientific realist, because Halley could predict the coming of the comet. I think there is a correspondence between the structure of phenomena and the structure of noumena. There's a structural correspondence, which is why maths works for predicting, it charts the relations between things, even if the entities themselves are not accurate.

Spoiler

Correspondence between the noumenal chair and the phenomenal chair is one thing, the former sharing properties with the latter entirely another. From the representation of the chair, we might reasonably conclude that whatsoever exists beyond experience has some property x such that its existence is compatible with that of the representation (otherwise we'd find ourselves in the absurd position of saying that two things that cannot coexist may still coexist somehow), but that doesn't mean it will necessarily have any property in common with the representation.

It's the same with natural laws. We might reasonably say that regularities in the natural world as disclosed by experience point to a corresponding property in some...thing(?) beyond experience. But what is this thing like? Kant believed this thing-in-itself beyond to be completely unknowable merely because human knowledge constitutes our only source of properties that we might attribute to it. I sympathize with this belief, for on what grounds can we say that whatsoever is beyond human experience must by necessity share any property of that experience? Is this not a sort of reckless metaphysical anthropocentrism?

When you say that "Time and space are a priori conditions of the possibility of human experience—the motion of matter in time and space takes place in the mind." -> You're gonna have to flesh out that interpretation or argument or whatever for me cuz I don't see how your first sentence implies that it exists only in my mind. I haven't nerded out on Kant so much but it seems to me like what he says means more that you have to postulate time and space as independent real entities in some form because of the way our own mind is structured. That's my interpretation of that sentence anyway. How could the mental categories of time and space exist phenomenally if the world were not structured so in some form? I thought that was the point, he took idealism and deduced non sollipsism. Again though, my Kant is super rusty.

Spoiler

I don't see Kant as overturning epistemological solipsism, but refining it.

In his day, the main epistemological debate was that between the rationalists, who thought that knowledge was actively acquired by our minds by means of the intellect, and the empiricists, who thought that knowledge was passively received by means of sensibility; Kant's compromise was to say that our minds actively structure experience, and thereby knowledge, by integrating the manifold parts furnished by the senses to form a synthetic whole—a unity of apperception.

Time and space are conditions of the possibility of this synthesis, which is to say that we experience the world as a concatenation of objects that occupy space and move in relation to each other over time (putting aside the subjective aspect and self-knowledge for a moment). These objects are thoroughly characterized by their reciprocal relations to each other in time and space, which means that they are each no more and no less than what they contribute to the structural whole of experience. In other words, individuated, mobile objects presuppose the subject as their unifying principle; the motion of matter in time and space takes place in the mind.

Okay first of all, there are two Wittgensteins. The first Wittgenstein says that any talk of God, morals, metaphysics, aesthetics or anything that is not verifiable is tosh (which discredits our entire conversation here as nonsense, and especially discredits Schopenhauer as nonsense); the second Wittgenstein says anything subjective is nonsense when spoken about, which also discredits our entire conversation and any talk of phenomena (including the hard problem and probably Kant too.) In short, Wittgenstein thinks most stuff is nonsense, I don't live by his epistemological rules XD.

Spoiler

Ack! I should have said, "nonsense in the broadest non-Wittgensteinian sense" :/

Yes the world appears to me phenomenally, and this is my only access to said world, but I don't see how this means that it does not exist independently of myself, and I note no argument here that shows me that subjective experience is in any way the unifying principle of causality. The old tree falling in the forest thing. The most intuitive answer is that the tree produces waves that would be interpreted as sound if there was something there to detect it. Your view is coming across as strangely solipsist. Possibly a misunderstanding of what you're saying on my part. (Possibly not read enough Kant .)

Spoiler

I wish to make a distinction between epistemological solipsism and metaphysical solipsism. I am an epistemological solipsist in that I view knowledge and experience as one in the same thing. I am not a metaphysical solipsist who denies the existence of anything beyond the present moment, or even human experience in general. If a tree falls in the forest and no human is around to cognize it, then it is as if it never happened from any human's (phenomenal) perspective, but this does not mean it really didn't

You ask me how the subjective character of my phenomenal representation of the world means that the real (noumenal) world beyond experience does not exist independently of me, but I don't even know what it means for the real world to exist independently of me. I exist and the world exists—why should there be any talk at all of the one somehow being independent of the other?

Hmmm. The two cartesian principles ? As in his dualism? mind and matter ? Seems to me to be re-stating the hard problem. Asking what is the relationship between the two seems to me to be the same as asking how one could arise from the other.

Spoiler

If asking after the relation between mind and matter is re-stating the hard problem, then the hard problem is itself a re-statement of a problem that's much, much older than even Descartes, so I don't see what's so revolutionary about it.

If, on the other hand, the hard problem is to be understood as the problem of how the mind "arises" from matter, as some have stated it, then it seems to me to be entirely the wrong way of thinking about the two so-called Cartesian substances. As I said before, the subject of experience and its objects are related to each other as an organic whole to its parts. The parts can be explained in terms of their relations to each other, but the whole stands on its own—"les monades n’ont point de fenêtres."

Either way, I'm not sure I understand the value of Chalmers' contribution.

Look, I like Schopenhauer, he's a good writer and has interesting intuitions on all sorts of stuff (not so much on females ), but I never really understood his concept of will. Seems he doesn't really define it. He just introspects, sees his own intentionality and extrapolates it as the thing that makes up the fabric of the world. I mean it's interesting, but for me intention is a FUNCTIONAL aspect of the mind, and is not the defining aspect of phenomenality. I can easily conceive of a cognition that has no will of it's own but has a subjective experience. Say a machine that has a single qualia of red for example. That's all it does. Perceives red and has an accompanying subjective sensation of it. Where's the "will" ? I mean "will" seems to be synonymous with desire, the ability for a cognition to pose a goal and exert force towards achieving it. I don't see how this is a universal aspect of anything.

Spoiler

Do we not exert forces when we see red? Does the human body not have an effect on its surroundings that is caused by an activity of the brain which is in turn caused by photons of a certain wavelength impinging upon the retina? Suppose a massive battleship is to go either left or right depending on whether one of its sailors sees a red or a green signal flag raised on another vessel: how can we say that colour isn't the decisive causal influence here, that it doesn't have a will of its own?

Similarly, wouldn't your red-seeing machine have a different effect on its surroundings than if it were dismantled and could no longer see red, however minute that difference might be? What if it were modified so that it could see red or green? Then it could speak a sort of binary language. It could be used as a control mechanism for an immensely powerful military A.I., so that whole fleets and nuclear arsenals could be deployed based on what colour the machine saw! Would you still say that it had no will?



The great success of natural philosophy has been to explain the relative positions and motion of objects in time and space in terms of the forces they exert upon each other—if something does not exert a force, then it does not exist, from an objective point of view; knowledge of objects doubles as knowledge of natural forces.

Schopenhauer's genius was to identify the subjective correlative of this principle by circumscribing knowledge of the subject to knowledge of the will. The government of the extrinsic motion of individuated objects by occult (indirectly observable) natural forces is mirrored in the unity of the subject as an intrinsic (directly felt) act of will. Thus are the two Cartesian principles—unity and multiplicity, mind and matter—reconciled in a way that I find very elegant.

Chalmers seems like a huge step back after this, but it's possible that I just don't get him.

This is why the "hard problem" as a contemporary formalization of the problem is for me, the most superior formulation so far, it isolates what we are talking about very specifically and why throughout the ages we have had this fucking weird dualistic intuition, after all why the hell would it cross anyone's mind to talk about souls? What's the referent ? How odd. It turns out we're not talking about will, or perception, or desire, or emotions, or any of the basic functions of the mind, we're talking about the subjective sensation that accompanies all these functions. It's incredibly clarifying. You can't answer a question unless it's been posed properly, that's why it's revolutionary.

Spoiler

I don't understand. What is this subjective sensation that accompanies all functions of the mind?

 

[onesteptwostep]

Kekeke bounce Jesus yo!

 

[birdsnestfern]

This Scientology stuff is weird and you do NOT want to believe it, just be aware of it.
Definitely read about INCIDENT and what it is.
If you feel more powerless after learning about any of this stuff, you know its not good.
Learn that you are divine and powerful and recognize what is indoctrination.

Incident (Scientology) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Thetan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Xenu - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[sushi]

I'm re-posting this from the "China's crackdown on Religion" to put the focus on religion itself, if you're interested in talking about religion in politics go to the other thread, likewise I'll try to keep the criticism of religion in general here.

Alright here's my perspective on religion, it's a bunch of people coming together to lie to each other so they can more easily lie to themselves.
There's many reasons for this behaviour:

• If you've had a shitty life the prospect of a heavenly afterlife is very appealing.
• If you've suffered at the hands of others the prospect of them being punished for it by some divine arbiter of justice is very appealing.
• If someone you love has died the prospect that they still exist in some metaphysical sense in which you will one day join them is very appealing.
• Death itself is a horrifying reality, just about any alternative would be very appealing.
• The uncertainty of life is a horrifying reality, I was on the bus today and the driver took both hands off the wheel to retrieve a snack from a plastic container, in that moment I was acutely aware that his negligence could get me killed. I don't believe in a divine plan, I don't feel safe in the "knowledge" that everything happens for a reason, I think shit just happens and I was fucking worried.
• There's a lot of comfort to be gained by simply being part of something, that there are people in this world you have never met with whom you have solidarity.
• It's also really nice to feel special, the creator of the universe didn't just create humanity, he created you, he cares about you, indeed you're important to him because not only did he create you he also chose you to be one of his chosen people, the people he prefers above all others, his people.

If you ask a religious person if they know their deity or whatever exists they might say they do, and if you ask them how they'll say they feel it or they just know or they had some kind of drug induced supernatural experience. That's not knowledge, that's choosing to believe, people choose to believe what they want to believe in spite of the evidence because they want to believe it, that isn't reason that is self delusion.

Instead they might admit they don't know if their deity or whatever exists, they that they merely believe, but they don't mean that their deity or whatever's existence is merely hypothetical. For anyone who has faith that is already beyond question, the uncertainty they're confessing to is uncertainty in their knowledge of that deity or whatever. The distinction is important because the word "belief" is used to hide the delusion, to stop us from calling them out on claiming to know something they don't actually know.

That is the essential nature of religion, people claiming to know something they don't actually know, coming together to lie to each other so they can more easily lie to themselves, it is blatant and willful self-delusion.

Do people need religion?
It could be argued that people are inherently delusional hence why we're not all fatalistic apathetic nihilists and since I'm not like that (all the time) it's a fair assumption that I too have my delusions. Heck maybe the reason I hate religion so much is that it seems everyone else gets to share their delusions whereas mine a more idiosyncratic. Of course I'm not the only atheist but being an atheist isn't really something that unites people, kinda like a no-golfing club, I love not playing golf, I don't play golf all the time.

In any case I don't think people need religion, I can certainly see the appeal and why it has such incredible staying power but I think there's a fundamental difference between my delusion and the religious delusion, that being the open acknowledgement that being anything but an fatalistic apathetic nihilist is delusional. I hope to live long enough to benifit from technological life extension, to go out there among the stars and live what I consider the true life (one where I'm not constrained by the limitations of a finite lifespan) but I don't expect it, y'know hope for the best but expect the worst.

Is religion beneficial?
Putting ethics aside for now, there are many religious people throughout history and modern day who have done good deeds and made achievements that will benefit all mankind, however I don't think any of their deeds or achievements can be directly attributed to religion. On the other hand I think there's plenty of setbacks and atrocities that can be directly attributed to religion even if religion wasn't the sole motivating factor, events like parents subjecting their children to brainwashing, physical abuse (exorcism), faith healing (denying them needed medical attention) and genital mutilation (look up female circumcision).

Then there's the rampant pedophilia and other abuses of power/privilege for which religious institutions have a deeply ingrained culture of denial, a culture which I believe stems from the fundamental nature of religious institutions being gatherings of people for the purpose of mutually assisted self-delusion.

Is religion ethical?
I don't think self-delusion is fundamentally unethical, irresponsible maybe, you certainly don't see many atheists in lynch mobs or protesting outside women's health clinics, there are however many non-religious charities which unlike say the Salvation Army don't discriminate with who they provide help to as a form of proselytization.

religion is necessary as a form of moral guidance ,provider of hope and people helping out each other as a community. its almost act as a form of socialism buffer in a hyper capitalist or social darwinism world. alot of what jesus or X religion had preached is similar to socialism. (no matter how mythological and outlandish the religious stories are)

what you speak of is abuse of religion or the nietzchian attack on religion.

in china or some hyper atheist state example the lack of religion lead to state becoming the religion or assume the role of god. although iran or taliban state is another extreme.

 

[Cognisant]

 

[Old Things]

There are some things in the OP that are just plain factually wrong.

James 1:26-27
"If anyone thinks he is religious without controlling his tongue, his religion is useless and he deceives himself. Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained from the world."