View Full Version : Atheist Realism?
I would like to know the belief of atheists on what consitute reality
what is reality for them?
Then I want to challenge their belief. (EDIT: not really what I want a the end itself, in fact I want to see if it differs from my view and other theist views, challenging is still part of my job if I feel it the view inconsistent)
So everybody is invited but it would be better first to listen carefully to what the atheists have to say.
synthesizer-patel
05-12-08, 10:34 AM
I would like to know the belief of atheists on what consitute reality
what is reality for them?
Then I want to challenge their belief.
So everybody is invited but it would be better first to listen carefully to what the atheists have to say.
why not ask everyone - then as a starting point you can see the similarities between the way atheists and theists, deists, pantheists etc view reality
One stumbling block that you have given yourself, is that you have already stated that you want to challenge their beleif - so you've clearly already made up your mind on what atheists think, and that it's wrong before you've even had an answer - in that respect, you may as well just go straight ahead and challenge it before anyone gives an answer - as you're not going to listen are you :)
Are you SAM in disguise?
codanblad
05-12-08, 10:50 AM
Well i can't speak for anyone else, but not believing in god qualifies me as an athiest. i think organisms are equipped with the ability to experience sensations and lead meaningful lives, and that because i can't explain how the universe was created doesn't mean that it had to be god. I wouldn't mind having a religion, it'd be nice to believe that to be happy all i had to do was what a book told me to.
I've heard some religious people saying 'isn't it worth the risk of getting into heaven? why don't u just come to church?'. I don't like God's abandoning of everyone to hell, for the sake of them choosing their own life, when he was the one who gave them free will. its like pulling a trigger then not taking responsibility for the bullet. What right does lucifer have to torment our eternal souls? why has god given him such power? what crime deserves eternal damnation?
just wanting to point out athiests don't really have gatherings, scriptures etc. yet we're seen as the opposite side to religion, and as such have to compete with your collection of works, clergy etc.. i'm not trying to make a point of my athiesm, i just think religion is a crock of shit. am currently studying religion at uni, so call my opinion foolish but not uneducated.
Why are you studying "a crock of shit"?
codanblad
05-12-08, 11:00 AM
just checking it out, thought it'd be useful knowing about something people take seriously. you learn a lot about society, a little about history.
ronan,
Then I want to challenge their belief.There is no incentive to respond then since you are determined to assert they are wrong whatever they say. You are clearly not interested in what they might say but merely want to exort your own, apparently narrow minded, agenda.
How about you begin by describing what you think is reality and we can contrast that with potential alternatives.
ronan,
There is no incentive to respond then since you are determined to assert they are wrong whatever they say. You are clearly not interested in what they might say but merely want to exort your own, apparently narrow minded, agenda.
How about you begin by describing what you think is reality and we can contrast that with potential alternatives.
Every graduate student who stands up to defend a thesis knows its going to be challenged. To fear your ideas being challenged is contrary to rational discourse.
kenworth
05-12-08, 11:21 AM
I would like to know the belief of atheists on what consitute reality
what is reality for them?
Then I want to challenge their belief.
So everybody is invited but it would be better first to listen carefully to what the atheists have to say.
reality for me is the information i get from my senses
I'm not an atheist but I'd like to put forth my notions of reality.
Reality to me is inference. Perception is data, my senses and experience are the tools I use to interpret the data. The result is reality, my inference of the data accessible to my senses and interpreted by my knowledge and experience.
SAM,
Every graduate student who stands up to defend a thesis knows its going to be challenged.Unless it is correct and they have done their work fully. But that scenerio is one of a teacher/student relationship where critique is expected. If the teachers are honest they will also impartially praise good work. There is no such inplication here only open hostility to anything that is said.
To fear your ideas being challenged is contrary to rational discourse.It is not an issue of fear but an exercise in pointlessness when the examiner has asserted you are wrong before you begin. I see no rational discourse in such an approach.
We usually present our thesis to the department and anyone can challenge or question an idea. That said, if you are unable to defend your idea for fear of hostility, thats another, personal issue. One does not need to convince an ally as much as one needs to convince an opponent.
spidergoat
05-12-08, 11:45 AM
I don't know what reality is, I don't think any of us experience it.
reality for me is the information i get from my senses
Ok good starting point, I would just ask: are you (as the "I" who get information from your sense) part of reality?
synthesizer-patel, I am sorry to appeared so rude, I am not here for fighting but for having fun. as SAM said, do not be afraid of your belief
codanblad, why are you so upset? The debate not even started. and please give only your realism first, then you can attack the attack given on your realism.
cris, I have other threads to express my opinion, I created this thread especially for the atheist to express their view of what is reality. please feel free to express your view.
Spidergoat, do you want to say that we do not know reality because of a present lack of knowledge or because of an impossibility to know the reality?
spidergoat
05-12-08, 12:00 PM
We can only experience reality indirectly. Knowledge isn't reality, it's a model, which will always be incomplete. Even if we discover all the physical laws and symmetries, all the manifestations of them are infinite. There is no self that experiences reality, even indirectly. The self is a construct of the mind, an illusion.
Spidergoat, are you a theist?
If not , can you understand and agree with the belief of a theist that consider that god=reality (as you described it) ?
I've got a model of a toothache and it really feels as if it belongs to me. I know I am an illusion but I sure feel real.
synthesizer-patel
05-12-08, 12:12 PM
synthesizer-patel, I am sorry to appeared so rude, I am not here for fighting but for having fun. as SAM said, do not be afraid of your belief
Apology accepted - but I wasn't accusing you of being rude - just pointing out that by telling us that you had already prejudged what your response was going to be, it made asking the question pointless.
A better way to approach it would have been in a debate format - i.e "I beleive atheists consider reality in XYZ way - and I can prove it with ABC, they are wrong because 123 - discuss"
just a suggestion like :cool:
spidergoat
05-12-08, 12:13 PM
I'm an atheist. I think the application of that term is problematic, it implies a sentience, a plan, where none seems to exist. Any term would be a reduction, a symbol, for the complexity of reality. Why do we need a term. "The universe" works well enough. There is too much cultural baggage associated with "God". For one thing, it means we should be more inclined to accept the demands of Kings and Priests who claim to be doing God's will.
kenworth
05-12-08, 12:19 PM
Ok good starting point, I would just ask: are you (as the "I" who get information from your sense) part of reality?
off the top of my head.i am part of other people's reality.but to the "deep" I,I am only part of reality as a lens that distorts the information it is given.
iceaura
05-12-08, 12:20 PM
I would like to know the belief of atheists on what consitute reality There are quite a few of those, with some considerable differences between them.
Which ones did you have in mind ?
I would just ask: are you (as the "I" who get information from your sense) part of reality? Are you sure that question exists ? If I were to point out that descriptions of reality exist both with and without the inclusion of an "I" as part of them, how should that question be answered ?
greenberg
05-12-08, 12:20 PM
It is not an issue of fear but an exercise in pointlessness when the examiner has asserted you are wrong before you begin. I see no rational discourse in such an approach.
I disagree. The OP merely stated what is otherwise implied - namely that when input is asked for, it is to be expected that it will be challenged.
This is a discussion and debate forum.
Anyone posting here should expect that what they say will be challenged.
This is how discussions and debates can take place to begin with.
synthesizer-patel
05-12-08, 12:31 PM
I disagree. The OP merely stated what is otherwise implied - namely that when input is asked for, it is to be expected that it will be challenged.
This is a discussion and debate forum.
Anyone posting here should expect that what they say will be challenged.
This is how discussions and debates can take place to begin with.
No - the OP implies that (s)he knows what's going to be said before its been said - that's plain predjudice - not the most insidious kind of predjudice admittedly but predjudice nonetheless - it immediately alerts any potential posters that they are dealing with a lightweight, and therefore they are less inclined to participate in the discussion.
SAM,
That said, if you are unable to defend your idea for fear of hostility, thats another, personal issue. One does not need to convince an ally as much as one needs to convince an opponent.You are still missing the point. Why even prepare to defend a position when told whatever you say will not be accepted anyway?
Reality and all the objects in it exists completely independent of the mind.
I call this objective reality.
No observer can perceive objective reality directly. Perception is necessarily colored by interpretation, expectation, etc.
We make up our own version of reality in our mind which is based on (part) of objective reality, let's refer to it as subjective reality.
Some people here have argued that it is impossible to know whether objective reality exists because of it's own premises. I disagree.
We know the senses aren't perfect. For instance, the eye can only sense a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
We also know that some animals can perceive more of the spectrum than we can.
The same goes for all the other senses: smell, hearing, touch and taste.
So we know, as an objective fact, that the senses can only sense a specific portion of objective reality.
When our brain is fed this data it interprets it based on:
- memory of previous experiences;
- character, which is the product of in part genetic but mostly environmental circumstances in our childhood;
- knowledge/believes;
- immediate environmental demands.
Then value is assigned to anything that is perceived according to above circumstances.
And so we end up with our own version of reality; subjective reality.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=78920
SAM,
You are still missing the point. Why even prepare to defend a position when told whatever you say will not be accepted anyway?
Well if the only reason you want to offer an opinion is to garner acceptance, clearly you need not offer it for defense.
reality is what we experience.
Reality and all the objects in it exists completely independent of the mind.
I call this objective reality.
No observer can perceive objective reality directly.
since we can never experience a reality outside our mind, there's no reason to assume that there is something "out there". the thing that we call "outside" is inside our mind.
there is no me (mind) that is separate from the world. there is only a world and this "i" is a part of it.
Only if you are an idiot.
Does anyone had any luck defining what religion exactly is?
I actuealy heard a good one tonight but it also applied to superman and we didn't seem to get it to work
SAM,
Well if the only reason you want to offer an opinion is to garner acceptance, clearly you need not offer it for defense.In a balanced open minded debate if one has done due diligence to the issue then one expects both some degree of acknowledgment and appropriate critique.
The opening post implied neither.
Ronan,
I would like to know the belief of atheists on what consitute reality
what is reality for them?From the atheist perspective of a disbelief in theist claims then the atheist would not find the theist concept that God represents reality a credible proposition.
What else atheists might consider reality will likely have an unlimited number of alternative and potentially conflicting perceptions and in many cases no perception at all. Since there is no atheist agenda outside of a disbelief in gods then having a multitude of perceptions is dubious.
For the theist their god is reality, or that reality is defined by that god. Nothing more need be said.
Outside of a theist paradigm reality could be defined many ways.
synthesizer-patel
05-12-08, 05:50 PM
Ronan,
From the atheist perspective of a disbelief in theist claims then the atheist would not find the theist concept that God represents reality a credible proposition.
What else atheists might consider reality will likely have an unlimited number of alternative and potentially conflicting perceptions and in many cases no perception at all. Since there is no atheist agenda outside of a disbelief in gods then having a multitude of perceptions is dubious.
For the theist their god is reality, or that reality is defined by that god. Nothing more need be said.
Outside of a theist paradigm reality could be defined many ways.
Indeed - below is a theist's notion of reality which differs very little from my own
why is there an assumption from you (Ronan) that I must see reality in any way that's different from a theist? - its my perception of UNREALITY that's likely to differ - and even then only very slightly as I only beleive in 1 less unreal entity than you do
Reality to me is inference. Perception is data, my senses and experience are the tools I use to interpret the data. The result is reality, my inference of the data accessible to my senses and interpreted by my knowledge and experience.
scorpius
05-12-08, 10:25 PM
I would like to know the belief of atheists on what consitute reality
what is reality for them?
Then I want to challenge their belief.
So everybody is invited but it would be better first to listen carefully to what the atheists have to say.
,reality is all that exists.
shouldnt this be in philosophy section?
Spidergoat, I agree with you about the too many way that the word "god" have been used to refer to but what is the problem if someone say to you that reality (as you descibed) is for him what he call "god"?
It is in fact a common belief for theists. I would say that theists that belief in this kind of god would be equivalent (if not the same) as atheist who believe like you in a inefable reality.
Why not agree?
It does not imply that you are a theist more than implying than theist are atheist. It is just the same belief. (which personnaly I would agree too)
Note about the word: universe
It seems that this word refers to what we observe in other word to what we can describe (galaxies, electrons, molecules, dogs...), while reality as you defined is something we cannot express.
off the top of my head.i am part of other people's reality.but to the "deep" I,I am only part of reality as a lens that distorts the information it is given.
Are you talking of a subjective reality when you refere to other people's reality?. If your deep "I" is only a lens, who is the observer?
,reality is all that exists.
I agree if you define existence as what is in reality but do you think that it does not say anything?
shouldnt this be in philosophy section?
I do not think so, I want to hear from atheist because of the often forgotten fact that they also have believes. And also as the discussion with spidergoat suggest, the atheist and theist are in fact not so different.
There are quite a few of those, with some considerable differences between them.
Which ones did you have in mind ?
I want to know all of them ;)
Are you sure that question exists ? If I were to point out that descriptions of reality exist both with and without the inclusion of an "I" as part of them, how should that question be answered ? good remark, that's why I think it is not correct to say that reality is what we observe, reality is beyond that, and I join spidergoat for that. It is why I ask the question: to show the fallacy of this kind of view
Ronan,
From the atheist perspective of a disbelief in theist claims then the atheist would not find the theist concept that God represents reality a credible proposition.
So you are close to any agreement?
What else atheists might consider reality will likely have an unlimited number of alternative and potentially conflicting perceptions and in many cases no perception at all. Since there is no atheist agenda outside of a disbelief in gods then having a multitude of perceptions is dubious.
For the theist their god is reality, or that reality is defined by that god. Nothing more need be said.
Outside of a theist paradigm reality could be defined many ways.
What if reality is defined as something inefable (as spidergoat, an atheist pointed out)? would god be a good word as the word reality is?
In this case I do not see why atheist refuse the theist claim that god has to exist (meaning: a reality (behind our false/partial perception) has to exist.
Please forgot the fight between atheist and theist (I agree that there are theists who believe in a external god but here I am talking about particular theist that believe in a god as a transcendental reality (Kant's noumena))
Indeed - below is a theist's notion of reality which differs very little from my own
why is there an assumption from you (Ronan) that I must see reality in any way that's different from a theist? - its my perception of UNREALITY that's likely to differ - and even then only very slightly as I only beleive in 1 less unreal entity than you do
I do not assume that you must see reality differently tahn a theist I finaly want to show you that for many theist the word god signify what atheist refers to when using the word reality.
They are then the same, these kind of theist, atheist are both realist and not anti-realist.
The "a" of a-theist is then misleading (for this kind of atheist that believe in the existence of a inefable reality) because they are not "anti"- realist.
kenworth
05-13-08, 01:35 AM
Are you talking of a subjective reality when you refere to other people's reality?. If your deep "I" is only a lens, who is the observer?
yes i am talking about their subjective reality.
the deep "i" would be my core functions,the observer.the "i"that is made up of my experiences is the lens.
Crunchy Cat
05-13-08, 01:54 AM
I would like to know the belief of atheists on what consitute reality
what is reality for them?
...
...
...
A prescence of information that is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory.
Michael
05-13-08, 02:46 AM
My perception of reality is a mental construct. This is how I perceive what is real. But, as to what "reality" really is? I don't know if I can truely know.
synthesizer-patel
05-13-08, 05:39 AM
I finally want to show you that for many theist the word god signify what atheist refers to when using the word reality.
Well its an assumption on your part so far, as you have yet to show it - I've yet to find a theist who claims that they experience god directly through their physical senses - and no theists on this board have said anything even close to that so far.
They are then the same, these kind of theist, atheist are both realist and not anti-realist.
I agree that theists and atheists are very similar - like I said - there's only one god we disagree on the existence of - all the rest we agree 100% on - if there's that little between us we are sure to agree and share values on loads of things.
The "a" of a-theist is then misleading (for this kind of atheist that believe in the existence of a ineffable reality) because they are not "anti"- realist.
I'm not trying to be unkind, but I think you are struggling with comprehension a little.
Atheist very simply means "without god" it carries no other baggage than that - it doesn't even necessarily mean that atheists don't beleive that there is a god - it merely mean that they choose to be without god. It certainly carries no baggage on the subject of being anti-realist.
Ineffable reality is an oxymoron - if something is ineffable it means that it is incomprehensible, or too vast to be communicated - if something is real (like reality) then by its nature it is comprehensible.
The atheist tendency to be a materialist / rationalist tends to exclude the ineffable.
I just can't see you going anywhere with this.
Well its an assumption on your part so far, as you have yet to show it - I've yet to find a theist who claims that they experience god directly through their physical senses - and no theists on this board have said anything even close to that so far.
There are as many kind of atheists as there are theists and here I want to see if we can agree that some theist have the same idea of reality than some atheist (please note that I am not talking about all theist neither all atheist).
Kant view is shared by many sceintist and atheist such as spidergoat.
It is a belief in the existence of a reality that is unknowable.
The unkowability was put forward by Hume in the european tradition.
Many theist believe in an exisetnce of a god that is seen as the encompassing reality. Many of them believe in the inefability of god while many other say they never experienced god (reality as a whole) but believe in its existence.
I agree that theists and atheists are very similar - like I said - there's only one god we disagree on the existence of - all the rest we agree 100% on - if there's that little between us we are sure to agree and share values on loads of things.
if god=reality, all atheist who are realist (meaning that they believe in the existence of a reality) are in fact believing in the existence of god. (don't forget the if)
I'm not trying to be unkind, but I think you are struggling with comprehension a little.
This kind of statement should always be preceded by self reflection ;)
Atheist very simply means "without god" it carries no other baggage than that - it doesn't even necessarily mean that atheists don't beleive that there is a god - it merely mean that they choose to be without god. It certainly carries no baggage on the subject of being anti-realist.
But if god=reality and if to be an atheist is compatible with being a realist, you have to admit that we get a contradiction. The only option is then to classify all realist as theist
but many will do not want because they say they do not believe in god. I understand this fear because of the two many usage the word "god" have been used to refer to. But here we defined "god" as refering to reality. So they should not worry.
The other consequence is that all theist that belive in this kind of god=reality are realists.
Ineffable reality is an oxymoron - if something is ineffable it means that it is incomprehensible, or too vast to be communicated - if something is real (like reality) then by its nature it is comprehensible.
The atheist tendency to be a materialist / rationalist tends to exclude the ineffable.
Ineffable reality is not an oxymoron.
Reality can be impossible to express. It is not implied by the meaning of reality that it is not ineffable. You have to prove your claim if it is.
please note that by abuse of language what is real sometime refer to what you can touch, see, etc., but here the meaning of reality that we are refering to is the Kant's noumena, the transcendental reality that kant and hume suppose we have no direct access.
I just can't see you going anywhere with this.
I am going wherever I am going, let see, I am not alone, you are also part of the journey ;)
Let's move, I wanted to hear more of atheists,
is there some atheist that do not believe in an exisetnce of reality?
is there some atheist that believe in particular reality (composed of string, particles...)?
synthesizer-patel
05-13-08, 08:19 AM
There are as many kind of atheists as there are theists and here I want to see if we can agree that some theist have the same idea of reality than some atheist (please note that I am not talking about all theist neither all atheist).
So some atheists share views and values with some thesist and vice versa? For some theists this is an earth shattering revelation that they will burn you at the stake for - but not many.
Kant view is shared by many sceintist and atheist such as spidergoat.
It is a belief in the existence of a reality that is unknowable.
The unknowability was put forward by Hume in the european tradition.
Many theist believe in an existence of a god that is seen as the encompassing reality. Many of them believe in the inefability of god while many other say they never experienced god (reality as a whole) but believe in its existence.
Spidergoat says that he doesn't beleive any of us experience reality - and he has a point - our sensory inputs are very likely filtered through socialisation, experience etc - that doesn't make it unknowable - indeed there are many things included in reality that we can have a shared experience of despite our perception filters.
For example while I don't know if the colour green looks the same to everyone - I do know that if I ask someone what colour a jacket is and point to a green one, they'll tell me its green.
The emotional and physical responses to colour are similar too - for example we and many other animals have a hardwired instinct to view black and yellow animals as either poisonous, dangerous or distasteful (because they usually are).
In short, a shared and knowable reality that has nothing to do with cultural conditioning - its a result of natual selection - which in turn results from real physical and biological processes - nothing ineffable about that.
In contrast - the many thousands of different views and images of god vary massively throughout human culture, even sometimes within the same religion, and are apparently entirely absent from animal behaviour.
This suggests strongly that the concept of god is one that comes from a cultural filter / cultural conditioning and not from a shared and knowable reality.
Of course you could argue that if you distill away the cultural filters what you are left with is a kind of "god essence" - but then that would make you a pantheist or a deist - not a theist
So your "IF" god is real - is a massive and somewhat shaky IF
Of course you could argue that if you distill away the cultural filters what you are left with is a kind of "god essence" - but then that would make you a pantheist or a deist - not a theist
That a valid theist perspective!
Anyway here we are arguing about word but I maintain that is a valid theist perspective because many theist that consider themeselves theist beleve in this kind fo god (words are defined in some part by usage, I do not deny that meaning sometime have to change as I was arguing earlier but not just by saying what you say, you have to explain.)
So your "IF" god is real - is a massive and somewhat shaky IF
you transform completely my point !!!
I said: "if god=reality" not: "if god is real"
What I said meaning: if we define god as reality
please do not transform my sayings
Crunchy Cat,
A prescence of information that is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory.
can you elaborate more?
Crunchy Cat
05-13-08, 08:54 AM
...
...
...
Crunchy Cat,
can you elaborate more?
Maybe, what isn't the statement conveying that would be needed for you to understand?
synthesizer-patel
05-13-08, 09:11 AM
That's a valid theist perspective!
Anyway here we are arguing about words, but I maintain that is a valid theist perspective, because many theist that consider themeselves theist beleve in this kind of god (words are defined in some part by usage, I do not deny that meaning sometime have to change as I was arguing earlier but not just by saying what you say, you have to explain.)
I wasn't aware that was a valid theist perspective - I'll take your word for it though.
It is however a very unusual theist perspective - most xtians, muslims etc etc are very firmly of the view that only their religion is the correct one and all other non beleivers are wrong and will be punished.
If god constitutes reality as you beleive, and if all religions essentially boil down to the same fundamental truth about god, why is there not some kind of shared experience or knowledge of god across cultures, and even across species, like in so many other aspects of reality?
Why in fact is it the complete contrary to that with religion experience, dogma, beleif etc, in fact so culturaly singular, and so (apparently) species specific?
you transform completely my point !!!
I said: "if god=reality" not: "if god is real"
What I said meaning: if we define god as reality
please do not transform my sayings
My bad - sorry - although it doesn't transform my argument against your point.
which is (I repeat):
If god constitutes reality as you beleive, and if all religions essentially boil down to the same fundamental truth about god, why is there not some kind of shared experience or knowledge of god across cultures, and even across species, like in so many other aspects of reality?
Why in fact is it the complete contrary to that with religion experience, dogma, beleif etc, in fact so culturaly singular, and so (apparently) species specific?
A prescence of information that is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory.
presence where?
I wasn't aware that was a valid theist perspective - I'll take your word for it though.
Take a look at some Hindu philosophy that talk about Brahman.
why is there not some kind of shared experience or knowledge of god across cultures, and even across species, like in so many other aspects of reality?
Why in fact is it the complete contrary to that with religion experience, dogma, belief etc, in fact so culturally singular, and so (apparently) species specific?
I think you confuse moral laws didacted by religious institutions and belief that arise from teachers such as Jesus (in some interpretations and texts), Krishna ... or mystics such as Meister Eckhart and St. Augustine in the christian world and many sufis in the islamic world and yet more in the Hindu world. They often describe god as the encompassing reality, the "one" (even if it can probably be interpreted differently, the point is that it is a not so uncommon belief for theist)
The teachings across culture have similarities concerning this oneness.
Instead of fighting atheist and theist should work together to avoid manipulation by institutions (being scientific or religious (if there is any difference ;-) => another debate ).
Crunchy Cat
05-13-08, 09:36 AM
presence where?
'Where' in human terms refers to a cross section of 4-dimensional space. The concept of 'where' might not apply to reality itself. For example, if m-theory is on the right track then the root of all reality is Calibi Yao space. While objects such as branes (universes) can have a location in a Calibi Yao, the Calibi Yao itself has no container as there is no 'outside' of it (a concept that wouldn't apply).
Crunchy Cat,
So what do you mean by presence of information? (are you talking about semantic information? or about Shannon view of information?)
kenworth
05-13-08, 10:05 AM
are you getting around to replying to my post?
synthesizer-patel
05-13-08, 10:28 AM
I think you confuse moral laws didacted by religious institutions and belief that arise from teachers such as Jesus (in some interpretations and texts), Krishna ... or mystics such as Meister Eckhart and St. Augustine in the christian world and many sufis in the islamic world and yet more in the Hindu world. They often describe god as the encompassing reality, the "one" (even if it can probably be interpreted differently, the point is that it is a not so uncommon belief for theist)
The teachings across culture have similarities concerning this oneness.
Hinduism is unusal compared to many religions as it seems more of a mix of pantheism, monotheism, and polytheism - at least as I understand it from my krishna devotee friend - its the exception that proves the rule.
Christian, judaist, and muslim teachers may well describe god as an encompassing reality - but its always their encompassing reality - not any other religion's and that's the point - god as an encompassing reality wouldn't insist that all other religions were wrong - wouldn't preach that all other beleivers will be punished in the next life, or should be persecuted in this life - it would, by your own admission, be a self evident truth that can be distilled from each religion - even by atheists - it isn't, therefore god does not equal reality - indeed existence of atheists alone kind of proves the point.
That doesn't mean god might not be something else of course.
Instead of fighting atheist and theist should work together to avoid manipulation by institutions (being scientific or religious (if there is any difference ;-) => another debate ).
Agreed, but you started it Nyeaaahhh!! :)
Crunchy Cat
05-13-08, 10:39 AM
Crunchy Cat,
So what do you mean by presence of information? (are you talking about semantic information? or about Shannon view of information?)
I am referring to units of difference that exist. What those units are is anybody's guess.
yes i am talking about their subjective reality.
the deep "i" would be my core functions,the observer.the "i"that is made up of my experiences is the lens.
So for you the deep "I" is part of what you call objectivereality and the "I" which is made of of your experience is part of what you call subjective reality, is that right?
Hinduism is unusal compared to many religions as it seems more of a mix of pantheism, monotheism, and polytheism - at least as I understand it from my krishna devotee friend - its the exception that proves the rule.
Christian, judaist, and muslim teachers may well describe god as an encompassing reality - but its always their encompassing reality - not any other religion's and that's the point - god as an encompassing reality wouldn't insist that all other religions were wrong - wouldn't preach that all other beleivers will be punished in the next life, or should be persecuted in this life - it would, by your own admission, be a self evident truth that can be distilled from each religion - even by atheists - it isn't, therefore god does not equal reality - indeed existence of atheists alone kind of proves the point.
That doesn't mean god might not be something else of course.
Hindusim is far from being an exception
and as I told you, do not confuse religious institution and personal belief.
It is their encompassing reality because they often grow in an environment where we educate them to defend their community but when you see most of the mystic and teacher, they were often open to other religion seeing in them a common basis.
Agreed, but you started it Nyeaaahhh!! :)
I told you that is was not my intention, (anyway we should not fight over this and in fact my critic was general, it was not addresses to you personally)
I challenge as well theist whose statement I felt invalid with argument to support my claim. But this thread was about atheist.
I am referring to units of difference that exist. What those units are is anybody's guess.
Do you want to say that we cannot know what the difference are?
Don't you think that differences are always relative to a background?
What would be the background in this case?
synthesizer-patel
05-13-08, 11:45 AM
Hindusim is far from being an exception
and as I told you, do not confuse religious institution and personal belief.
I didn't think hinduism really had a religious institution - with the exception of something like ISKON perhaps.
Forgive my lack of knowledge on it - I have a very old friend who's a krishna devotee (a relatively recent convert) - but we don't really discuss it in detail - we mostly just play blues (me badly - him sickenly well) together.
It is their encompassing reality because they often grow in an environment where we educate them to defend their community but when you see most of the mystic and teacher, they were often open to other religion seeing in them a common basis.
But more often they're not - read a history book sometime - in fact a newspaper will do - that's the point - no shared reality - god therefore does not equal reality
I told you that is was not my intention, (anyway we should not fight over this and in fact my critic was general, it was not addresses to you personally)
I challenge as well theist whose statement I felt invalid with argument to support my claim. But this thread was about atheist.
I didn't think we were fighting
kenworth
05-13-08, 12:12 PM
So for you the deep "I" is part of what you call objectivereality and the "I" which is made of of your experience is part of what you call subjective reality, is that right?
yes.,but only objective to a certain extent,ie.what might seem bright to me would not seem bright to a partially sighted person.
I didn't think hinduism really had a religious institution - with the exception of something like ISKON perhaps.
Forgive my lack of knowledge on it - I have a very old friend who's a krishna devotee (a relatively recent convert) - but we don't really discuss it in detail - we mostly just play blues (me badly - him sickenly well) together.
When I was talking about your confusion between religious belief (theism) and institution I was referring to your talk about islam and christianity where you were talking about punishment... (I should have put a space)
But more often they're not - read a history book sometime - in fact a newspaper will do
Do not use this kind of remark it does not help, give arguments, and strong one, if you want to continue having a debate.
- that's the point - no shared reality - god therefore does not equal reality
No shared reality between institution, not between teacher, sufi, mystic... who are the creator of religion but they are not the one who sustain it and they are not the one who create institution. The one who creates religion are often not anymore connected to what the teachers say (often we are not even sure to what they say).
The claim was not that god is reality.
It was that if we consider god to be equal to what realist refers to when they talk about reality, namely Kant's noumena, then it follows that atheist (who agree with this view) and theist(who agree with this view) share a common view of god/reality.
The second claim when we started to study religion and history was that the view that god is the encompassing reality (Kant's noumena) is shared by many mystic, teachers of religious movement who are themselves theist as well as many of their followers
SnakeLord
05-13-08, 12:21 PM
It was that if we consider god to be equal to what realist refers to when they talk about reality, namely Kant's noumena, then it follows that atheist (who agree with this view) and theist(who agree with this view) share a common view of god/reality.
I don't follow the argument. You're just substituting a word with a given meaning with a completely different word with a completely different meaning. Can't say I see the value in it.
If you really want to you can call a tennis racket 'god' - that is your right, but I don't see where there's any worthwhile discussion in it.
It's good to see my 'belief' isn't being challenged.. :rolleyes:
I don't follow the argument. You're just substituting a word with a given meaning with a completely different word with a completely different meaning. Can't say I see the value in it.
If you really want to you can call a tennis racket 'god' - that is your right, but I don't see where there's any worthwhile discussion in it.
Did you read the thread?
For many theist god is what Kant's noumena is , namely an ineffable reality. That i not just replacing a word by another, it is to show that in some case when people use the word god they are in fact referring to the same thing that other people refer to when using the word "reality"
Reality and all the objects in it exists completely independent of the mind.
What are the objects that are inside what you call objective reality?
What are the objects that are inside what you call objective reality?
Anything.
yes.,but only objective to a certain extent,ie.what might seem bright to me would not seem bright to a partially sighted person.
Objective to a certain extent?
you mean there is no completely objective reality?
What does it imply?
About the deep "I", does it belong to (partially)objective reality ?
I have difficulty to understand what you mean, can you be more explicit and more rigorous (why saying objective before and now partially objective?)
Ronan, where does consciousness come from ?
SnakeLord
05-13-08, 12:53 PM
it is to show that in some case when people use the word god they are in fact referring to the same thing that other people refer to when using the word "reality"
Ok, I'm very pleased for them. What now?
kenworth
05-13-08, 01:01 PM
Objective to a certain extent?
you mean there is no completely objective reality?
What does it imply?
About the deep "I", does it belong to (partially)objective reality ?
I have difficulty to understand what you mean, can you be more explicit and more rigorous (why saying objective before and now partially objective?)
i would say that there is an objective reality but as creatures we are not capable of observing it.
i would say that there is an objective reality but as creatures we are not capable of observing it.
True. Objective reality cannot be directly or accurately perceived.
Ok, I'm very pleased for them. What now?
What now ? The corollary, of course. When people talk of reality they really mean God; it's just that they don't know.
i would say that there is an objective reality but as creatures we are not capable of observing it.
What percent of this objective reality do you think we perceive?
kenworth
05-13-08, 01:44 PM
I'm diagnonally parked in a parallel universe, I shall pay you with a token of gratitude.:D
there's only one shop i know of that accepts gratitude as credit and it doesnt sell anything i want to buy..nevertheless,your ruler is on its way.expect it 3 galactic years before the apocalypse..
SnakeLord
05-13-08, 02:24 PM
When people talk of reality they really mean God; it's just that they don't know.
What is this meaningless codswallop?
The word 'god' has clearly defined meaning. If you want to change it to include everything from 'the universe' to 'baked beans' then that is fine, (although idiotic), but it is not an argument that people saying "baked beans" actually mean "god" but just don't know it - except in the mind of the imbecile.
Crunchy Cat
05-13-08, 04:14 PM
Do you want to say that we cannot know what the difference are?
I don't want to say any such thing. I don't know if we'll be able to acquire that level of knowledge... but it's certainly worth a try :).
Don't you think that differences are always relative to a background?
Nope. Take numbers for example. 1 is different than 2 and that difference can be seen without any 'background'.
What would be the background in this case?
N/A
What is this meaningless codswallop?
The word 'god' has clearly defined meaning. If you want to change it to include everything from 'the universe' to 'baked beans' then that is fine, (although idiotic), but it is not an argument that people saying "baked beans" actually mean "god" but just don't know it - except in the mind of the imbecile.
Oh the dictionary has become rather fluid these days, everyone gets to redefine their beliefs as they see fit. ;)
What is this meaningless codswallop?
The word 'god' has clearly defined meaning. If you want to change it to include everything from 'the universe' to 'baked beans' then that is fine, (although idiotic), but it is not an argument that people saying "baked beans" actually mean "god" but just don't know it - except in the mind of the imbecile.
Gotcha, me hearty !
SnakeLord
05-13-08, 05:39 PM
Oh the dictionary has become rather fluid these days, everyone gets to redefine their beliefs as they see fit.
It is true that the meaning of words evolve but it isn't of any worth when someone merely takes one defined object, (eg an apple), and calls it something else, (eg a banana).
stretched
05-13-08, 08:15 PM
I would like to know the belief of atheists on what consitute reality
what is reality for them?
Then I want to challenge their belief.
So everybody is invited but it would be better first to listen carefully to what the atheists have to say.
Birth, death and taxes.
Ok, I'm very pleased for them. What now?
That was all my point: many atheist believe that they are atheist but in fact all atheist that are realists have in fact the same belief of many theist who believe in the god I described : an encompassign reality.
we should not call this guys atheist:
Einstein, Planck, St Augustine, Meister Eckhart, many sufis and hindu are theist (a particular kind) or realist (I woudl say also a particular kind because some other believe that everythng is made of particles), choose the word you prefer ;)
Ronan, where does consciousness come from ?
It comes from reality/god :)
It has to
by definition, reality is from where all our experience come from
Birth, death and taxes.
Ok, you mean that taxes are part of reality, but do you think that reality can exist without taxes?
what about death and birth?
In that case what are the property of reality that are allways present?
i would say that there is an objective reality but as creatures we are not capable of observing it.
True. Objective reality cannot be directly or accurately perceived.
Both of you finnally fall also in the Kantian view :) which is what I was talking about.
I don't want to say any such thing. I don't know if we'll be able to acquire that level of knowledge... but it's certainly worth a try :).
Ok so at least for now on you cannot tell us about reality.
Nope. Take numbers for example. 1 is different than 2 and that difference can be seen without any 'background'.
if you talk about the symbols "1"and "2" the background is the blank backgroudn of your screen
if you talk about numbers as such, it is interesting but I think you need at least to define the rules of number before being able to know the difference between 1 and 2 (it is a matter of your axioms and definition, in other words with your mathematical background)
going back to your description of reality, you mean that difference are difference that are in the mind (mathematical numbers) ?
What is this meaningless codswallop?
The word 'god' has clearly defined meaning. If you want to change it to include everything from 'the universe' to 'baked beans' then that is fine, (although idiotic), but it is not an argument that people saying "baked beans" actually mean "god" but just don't know it - except in the mind of the imbecile.
Oh the dictionary has become rather fluid these days, everyone gets to redefine their beliefs as they see fit. ;)
Right SAM, Snakelord you cannot say that god has a clearly defined meaning.
The variety of theists will prove you that.
I'm being sarcastic.
Ok but you were still right
sarcasm and truth can go together and they should be together to have more effect :p
Crunchy Cat
05-13-08, 11:48 PM
Ok so at least for now on you cannot tell us about reality.
Of course I can (and I did). I can only tell you about what I have visibility into (which was done) and I can explain what I don't have visibility into (which was done).
if you talk about the symbols "1"and "2" the background is the blank backgroudn of your screen
I am not talking about symbols. I am talking about difference. A unit of 1 is different than a unit of 2 regardless of whether or not there are humans to symbolize it.
if you talk about numbers as such, it is interesting but I think you need at least to define the rules of number before being able to know the difference between 1 and 2 (it is a matter of your axioms and definition, in other words with your mathematical background)
Why would I need to define rules? Difference is an inequality.
going back to your description of reality, you mean that difference are difference that are in the mind (mathematical numbers) ?
No. Differences are mind independent.
Of course I can (and I did). I can only tell you about what I have visibility into (which was done) and I can explain what I don't have visibility into (which was done).
So you also agree with a kantian view (at least until you find the answer :p )
No. Differences are mind independent.
Can you say that number as concept are mind independent ?
and if you talk about the numbers of apple, or the numbers of electron, then you have a background for counting.
Crunchy Cat
05-14-08, 12:21 AM
So you also agree with a kantian view (at least until you find the answer :p )
No idea, I don't know what a kantian view is.
Can you say that number as concept are mind independent ?
Any concept requires a mind. Quantity on the other hand doesn't require a mind.
and if you talk about the numbers of apple, or the numbers of electron, then you have a background for counting.
Which would be irrelevant becuase those objects exist whether or not I count them.
No idea, I don't know what a kantian view is.
educate your self and read again the thread, maybe the questions I am asking you will become more clear.
Any concept requires a mind. Quantity on the other hand doesn't require a mind.
you mean quantity is not a concept?
Which would be irrelevant becuase those objects exist whether or not I count them.
So you want to say that apple and electron exist in the reality?
Crunchy Cat
05-14-08, 01:03 AM
educate your self and read again the thread, maybe the questions I am asking you will become more clear.
Nowhere does this article or any other web resource describe what a Kantian view is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant
You're going to have to show what it is.
you mean quantity is not a concept?
It is a concept that corresponds to mind-independent reality and reality exists whether or not there are humans to conceive it.
So you want to say that apple and electron exist in the reality?
If you wanted to be technical a more correct statement are that some cross sections of reality yield differences that humans label apple and electron.
Nowhere does this article or any other web resource describe what a Kantian view is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant
You're going to have to show what it is.
Be independent, you did not understand what I was asking you:
educate yourself about Kant and then come back to read the thread again!
It is a concept that corresponds to mind-independent reality and reality exists whether or not there are humans to conceive it.
That is your view but how you prove that ?
Kant and Hume would say that we cannot
If you wanted to be technical a more correct statement are that some cross sections of reality yield differences that humans label apple and electron.
Ok so you are saying that information is reality but we interpret as being electron and apple because of our human mind: this is basically Kant's view and all what I said in this thread is about that. (I am not refereeing to all Kantian view, but the particular one about reality behind our experience)
We cannot know what this reality/information/god is but we assume(BELIEVE) that it exist.
I'm not an atheist but I'd like to put forth my notions of reality.
Reality to me is inference. Perception is data, my senses and experience are the tools I use to interpret the data. The result is reality, my inference of the data accessible to my senses and interpreted by my knowledge and experience.
I agree with SAM. (Are you going to challenge that, ronan :)?)
Note the subjective nature - we can only draw inferences about "reality" based on some axioms:
- There exists some things external to our perceptions, with an existence independent of our own. (ie objective reality exists)
- At least some properties of real things are consistently perceivable.
- Our senses/perceptions inform us reasonably reliably of at least some properties of these real things.
- The principle of induction holds
Why atheists specifically?
Do you think that all atheists think the same thing about the nature of reality?
Why not challenge everyone on what they think about the nature of reality?
You want to challenge something you don't yet know about?
Perhaps you think you already know what all atheists think about the nature of reality?
Pete, did you read the whole threads before posting?
I said that it was not my intention to generate fear from atheist.
I do not believe that atheist share the same view and that I know what is this view. This is basically why I created the thread: to know
From now on, most atheist who talked share a (in some extent I agree) Kantian view about reality which is in some sense (but not completely) mine as well
What is your view of reality?
Theist are welcome also but the thread is created for the view of atheist to keep the thread better ordered. You can create a thread on theist view if you want. It is a good idea.
Sorry, ronan. I deleted that post after I saw that it had been addressed.
I'm not an atheist but I'd like to put forth my notions of reality.
Reality to me is inference. Perception is data, my senses and experience are the tools I use to interpret the data. The result is reality, my inference of the data accessible to my senses and interpreted by my knowledge and experience.
for S.A.M.reality is what we see and interpret. It is for Kant, the phenomenal reality and for Hume what we can only know.
My challenge for this is: From where does it come from?
in other word: Can something (phenomeanl reality) can come from nothing ?
I agree with SAM. (Are you going to challenge that, ronan :)?)
Note the subjective nature - we can only draw inferences about "reality" based on some axioms:
- There exists some things external to our perceptions, with an existence independent of our own. (ie objective reality exists)
- At least some properties of real things are consistently perceivable.
- Our senses/perceptions inform us reasonably reliably of at least some properties of these real things.
- The principle of induction holds
You seem to differ in some points with S.A.M.
She does not talk about objective reality
She talk only about reality which is according to her the inference from the perception (data), sense and experience (tools)
You seem to say that there is a reality behind, this is Kant's noumena
When you talk about "real thing", do you want to say that they exist in the objective reality? How do you prove it?
induction is not enough!
It is not because you know the data:
1 2 3
that the laws behind is
f(0)=1
f(n+1)=f(n)+1
it could be many other things such as
f(-1)=1
f(0)=1
f(n+1)=f(n)+f(n-1)
You will only know that after you discover that in fact it continue this way:
1 2 3 5 8 13 ...
Ronan,
My challenge for this is: From where does it come from?Implying that everything must come from somewhere, which is an invalid conclusion. There is a far more compeling explanation that there is no need for an origin.
in other word: Can something (phenomeanl reality) can come from nothing ?Which is a contrived notion to condition the audience to conclude everything must come from somewhere to which of course your answer is a god and is necessary.
Once you realize that an origin is not a necessity then all arguments that lean on that requirement to support a god concept simply become vacuous.
You seem to differ in some points with S.A.M.
She does not talk about objective reality
She talk only about reality which is according to her the inference from the perception (data), sense and experience (tools)
You seem to say that there is a reality behind, this is Kant's noumena
When you talk about "real thing", do you want to say that they exist in the objective reality? How do you prove it?
Both Sam and I proceed as if our perceptions match some objective reality - we both operate on the axiom that objective reality exists.
The actual truth of that axiom (whether objective reality really does exist or not) is unknown and fundamentally unknowable.
We have a choice - we can choose to believe that objective reality exists, or we can choose to believe that it doesn't. Choosing to believe that there is no objective reality would be useless - it gives no functional guidance. That leaves only one option; the option that every sentient being takes, which is to behave as if the outside world is not just a figment of your imagination.
induction is not enough!
Induction is a necessary axiom.
If induction doesn't hold, it is impossible to draw any inferences about reality... which makes the whole exercise meaningless.
If reality exists and it is possible to know anything about it, then the principle of induction must hold.
It is not because you know the data:
1 2 3
that the laws behind is
f(0)=1
f(n+1)=f(n)+1
it could be many other things such as
f(-1)=1
f(0)=1
f(n+1)=f(n)+f(n-1)
You will only know that after you discover that in fact it continue this way:
1 2 3 5 8 13 ...
Correct... you can only make inferences based on the data you have. If more data demonstrates a conflict with past inferences, you change your inferences. Does that change reality?
Ronan,
we should not call this guys atheist:
Einstein, ....Even though he is on record saying 'to a jesuit priest I am an atheist"?
My challenge for this is: From where does it come from?
in other word: Can something (phenomeanl reality) can come from nothing ?
How is that a challenge of my view of reality? It appears to be two separate questions. Separate from my view of reality, and separate from each other.
Ronan,
What if reality is defined as something inefable (as spidergoat, an atheist pointed out)? would god be a good word as the word reality is?No, since the word god carries with it vast baggage of implications.
In this case I do not see why atheist refuse the theist claim that god has to exist (meaning: a reality (behind our false/partial perception) has to exist.Perhaps because you cannot conceive of a scenario where your god is unnecessary. You seem to have created a personal notion for yourself of a necessary dependent reality, when no such dependency is a necessity.
Please forgot the fight between atheist and theist (I agree that there are theists who believe in a external god but here I am talking about particular theist that believe in a god as a transcendental reality (Kant's noumena))A tortuous path where many philosophers fundamentally disagree with Kant, and others offer contradictory definitions. It is also a concept where most have enormous difficulty understanding.
SnakeLord
05-14-08, 04:28 AM
That was all my point: many atheist believe that they are atheist but in fact all atheist that are realists have in fact the same belief of many theist who believe in the god I described
You are merely swapping one given word with another word and then saying "look, everyone believes in it". You might as well just say that an apple is god and thus - as pretty much every atheist believes an apple exists they actually believe god exists which means all atheists are theists. It's a retarded argument.
All these atheists are atheists - they don't have belief in gods. If you want to assert that 'reality' or 'dog turd' are god and thus those atheists really do, you'll have to define entirely what you mean by god because you're confusing the word. If what you mean by 'god' is simply reality or dog turd with no distinguishing features then I suggest you just call it dog turd and done with it.
Snakelord you cannot say that god has a clearly defined meaning.
The variety of theists will prove you that.
Well, there are many different 'types' of god, but I doubt you'll get a warm reception if you just label any random thing as 'god' and think it is sufficient.
Ronan,
No, since the word god carries with it vast baggage of implications.
Here we are talking about a particular kind of theists we believe in a particular kind of god, please read the thread, the discussion did not stop here.
Perhaps because you cannot conceive of a scenario where your god is unnecessary. You seem to have created a personal notion for yourself of a necessary dependent reality, when no such dependency is a necessity.
I am like many atheist, I have difficulties to imagine that something can come from nothing, in a other thread you also say that you share this feeling. And I also agree with the ineffability of this reality/god.
A tortuous path where many philosophers fundamentally disagree with Kant, and others offer contradictory definitions. It is also a concept where most have enormous difficulty understanding.
I am talking about the one we agree with Kant (not all his statements but his statements regarding the encompassing reality). And it is common to many atheists as it has been shown in this thread.
You are merely swapping one given word with another word and then saying "look, everyone believes in it". You might as well just say that an apple is god and thus - as pretty much every atheist believes an apple exists they actually believe god exists which means all atheists are theists. It's a retarded argument.
It is not merely a swapping of word, did you follow the discussion:
some atheist believe in Kantian view that there is an encompassign reality out there but that we cannot know what it is. (in part because we are part of it)
Some theist also believe in this kind of encompassing reality, they call it god.
All these atheists are atheists - they don't have belief in gods. If you want to assert that 'reality' or 'dog turd' are god and thus those atheists really do, you'll have to define entirely what you mean by god because you're confusing the word. If what you mean by 'god' is simply reality or dog turd with no distinguishing features then I suggest you just call it dog turd and done with it.
You are not part getting to my point, imagine people from two culture with a different language, at some point for living happilly together, they have to conclude that what they call dog is the same as what the other call "chien" (french word for dog)
I am not saying that all theist believe in this kind of god neither I am saying that all atheist believe in an inefable encompassing reality.
bvi
Well, there are many different 'types' of god, but I doubt you'll get a warm reception if you just label any random thing as 'god' and think it is sufficient.
It was not a random thing, please read the thread .
I am talking about the ineffabel encompassing reality that many atheist believe in it, similarly many theist believe in a inefable encompassing god
Does that change reality?
of course not! but that makes the reality unknowable by induction !!
Both Sam and I proceed as if our perceptions match some objective reality - we both operate on the axiom that objective reality exists.
From what S.A.M. you cannot infer that she believe in the existence of an objective reality, at least it is not clear enough. S.A.M. do you believe in the existence of an objective reality?
Once you realize that an origin is not a necessity then all arguments that lean on that requirement to support a god concept simply become vacuous.
But at least agree that atheist who believe in the existence of a reality (which is defined as the somewhere from which arise what we perceive are in fact the same as the theist who believe in a ineffable encompassing god from which the world of appearance (perceptions) arise.
In a another thread, I don't remember which one, you said that you share the feeling that a reality must exist because something cannot cone from nothing.
I don't think there is many atheists who say that there is no reality behind our sense and that the only reality is the mind. It is basically a idealism.
Ronan,
Even though he is on record saying 'to a jesuit priest I am an atheist"?
remove this one if you want, there are others :p
How is that a challenge of my view of reality? It appears to be two separate questions. Separate from my view of reality, and separate from each other.
It does not challenge your view because you talk about a reality behind the senses but for me (you differ about that) S.A.M. did not talk about a reality behind the sense,she said that the reality is her inference, not what from which she get the inference.
Your view is similar to mine, I believe in a ineffable encompassing reality/god behind our perception. We cannot describe it.
of course not! but that makes the reality unknowable by induction !!
Reality can't be "known" with absolute certainty by any means. It can only be inferred, like Sam said. And the only possible method of inference through perception is by induction.
From what S.A.M. said you cannot infer that she believes in the existence of an objective reality, at least it is not clear enough. S.A.M. do you believe in the existence of an objective reality?
Neither can you infer that I believe in the existence of objective reality from what I said.
However, it is clear that we both behave as if it exists. Everybody does. There's no other way to behave.
Your view is similar to mine, I believe in a ineffable encompassing reality/god behind our perception. We cannot describe it.
We can certainly describe reality, if our inductive inferences from our perceptions are reasonably reliable match with reality. If that is the case (and in a general way, it's useless to suppose anything else), then describing our inferences describes reality (with due acknowledgement of the fallibility of both perception and inference, which may be trumped by better perception and/or inference).
Calling reality "god" does not appear to be useful, unless you are attempting to attach god-like attributes (consciousness, for a start) to reality.
It comes from reality/god :)
It has to
by definition, reality is from where all our experience come from
Well, yes I can see what you mean with consciousness coming from reality.
But 'reality/God' does not compute in any way. Not to me at least.
Are you saying God equals reality ?
synthesizer-patel
05-14-08, 06:47 AM
Are you saying God equals reality ?
Yes he is
Why?
Because he says so - at least that's seems to be the best he's come up with so far :confused:
for S.A.M.reality is what we see and interpret. It is for Kant, the phenomenal reality and for Hume what we can only know.
Does not compute with your earlier statement that objective reality cannot be accurately perceived.
Or are you applying different meanings of the word 'reality' simultaneously ?
May I suggest using objective reality and subjective reality ?
Yes he is
Why?
Because he says so - at least that's seems to be the best he's come up with so far :confused:
lol it is typical though..
Does not compute with your earlier statement that objective reality cannot be accurately perceived.
Or are you applying different meanings of the word 'reality' simultaneously ?
May I suggest using objective reality and subjective reality ?
Thats an assumption that objective reality does exist. If it cannot be perceived, does it exist?
From what S.A.M. you cannot infer that she believe in the existence of an objective reality, at least it is not clear enough. S.A.M. do you believe in the existence of an objective reality?
Of course, if I had decided that only that which I perceive can exist, that would limit the scope of my expectations and explorations. My ideology is that if only that which I can perceive can be proved to exist, then indeed, I must figure out ways to expand the scope of my perceptions. Which requires I believe it is possible that which I cannot perceive must also exist.
SnakeLord
05-14-08, 06:54 AM
did you follow the discussion
Certainly. What I am, (obviously unsuccessfully), trying to point out to you is that the discussion is completely meaningless. Let me restate it:
You believe in UFO's. I call UFO's 'god'.. that means you believe in god. The two words used describe something with the exact same properties. Where is the merit in such discussion? Why would I not just call a UFO a UFO and done with it - why call it 'god' which will do nothing but confuse the mass majority of humans on this planet?
"The universe" works well enough. There is too much cultural baggage associated with "God" - Spidergoat
"the word god carries with it vast baggage of implications" - Cris
I am saying the same thing and further stating that I see no worthwhile point within your post. So one guy calls it football and another guy calls it soccer while both describing the exact same thing.. so what? You are seemingly attempting an incredibly daft argument to try and get an atheist to say "yes, I believe in god", (this 'god' having identical properties to something else with a given word). Frankly I find it idiotic and a waste of kilobytes.
You are not part getting to my point, imagine people from two culture with a different language, at some point for living happilly together, they have to conclude that what they call dog is the same as what the other call "chien" (french word for dog)
Fine, and when I go to France I will have to make a comparison between what 'chien' relates to in my language - but 'god' and 'reality' are both part of my language. If a French man says 'god' and points at a steaming pile of chien poo, I will consider it a hilarious coincidence, or the man barking! mad because of the defining characteristics, or baggage, of 'god'.
However, next time someone asks me if I believe in god I shall say yes and point at the UFO in the sky. Let's just hope they follow your understanding. :bugeye:
If reality can't be "known" with absolute certainty by any means. It can only be inferred, like Sam said. And the only possible method of inference through perception is by induction.
But that is not a perfect method so you have to conclude that you cannot know the reality by this method.
Neither can you infer that I believe in the existence of objective reality from what I said.
I only read you :p you said that for you there is an objective reality
We can certainly describe reality, if our inductive inferences from our perceptions are reasonably reliable match with reality. If that is the case (and in a general way, it's useless to suppose anything else), then describing our inferences describes reality (with due acknowledgement of the fallibility of both perception and inference, which may be trumped by better perception and/or inference).
Induction seem to be reliable about phenomenal reality(the perceptions) because it makes prediction about it but you cannot know it is reliable for reality behind our senses
Remember you are maybe dreaming
Calling reality "god" does not appear to be useful, unless you are attempting to attach god-like attributes (consciousness, for a start) to reality.
It is not just calling reality god, It is showing that "god" is for some people (some theist) what for other (some atheist) "reality" is
it is like showing that "dog" for some people (english speaker) is "chien" for other (french speaker)
Thats an assumption that objective reality does exist. If it cannot be perceived, does it exist?
Yes, what else would your senses be receiving stimuli from ?
What do you mean with that first bit ?
Are you saying God equals reality ?
Some people do.
Pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism#Debate).
Yes, what else would your senses be receiving stimuli from ?
What do you mean with that first bit ?
You cannot, remember?:bugeye:
We believe objective reality exists because as we come up with tools that test the limits of our perception, we realise that there are many things which exist beyond our ability to perceive them. Hence we realise we are limited in our perceptions.
Some people do.
Pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism#Debate).
Then why call it God, why not just reality ?
kenworth
05-14-08, 07:00 AM
Both of you finnally fall also in the Kantian view :) which is what I was talking about.
and what is the kantian view?
You cannot, remember?:bugeye:
Maybe my IQ dropped severely the last couple of minutes but I have no clue whatsoever what you are on about.
Maybe my IQ dropped severely the last couple of minutes but I have no clue whatsoever what you are on about.
You cannot perceive objective reality. Or at least I cannot. Maybe you can?:confused:
You cannot perceive objective reality. Or at least I cannot. Maybe you can?:confused:
Where did I say I could ?
Read your last few posts, you are now devolving into nonsense.
Does not compute with your earlier statement that objective reality cannot be accurately perceived.
Or are you applying different meanings of the word 'reality' simultaneously ?
May I suggest using objective reality and subjective reality ?
It is not that I define god as being reality in the simplest sense.
For people god is something else, I do not know their belief. I wanted only to pointed out that(I feel like I am again repeating what I already said):
for some theists god is the ineffable encompassing reality that some atheist believe exist behind our senses.
Both for many atheist and theist , this god/reality is ineffable.
Please, try to see my point, I think that I share a view with what most people said here. I want just to point out that the divide atheist/theist is not always required.
I was starting with a statement saying that I was challenging your point because I believed you would come up with reality that I will find inconsistent,for example based on particles or string, but it finnaly turns out that you share this kantian view (so common in scientific mind)
And this view is the view of many theists as well including me.
I wanted to set this up to in order to talk about one interesting points but I think it has to wait because you do not even recognize what I am trying to say.
Remark: When I am talking about what you call objective reality I use the word "reality" without adjective (Kant's noumena), if I want to talk about subjective reality, I will use the two words: "phenomenal reality" which correspond to the world we perceive.
Read your last few posts, you are now devolving into nonsense.
Wtf ? You are devolving into nonsense if you are saying that senses receiving stimuli is the same thing as accurately perceiving objective reality.
:crazy:
Then why call it God, why not just reality ?
It is a matter of choice, I can ask you as well why are you not calling it god?
accurately perceiving objective reality.
:crazy:
Sheer nonsense.
and what is the kantian view?
You can check it out on the net, basically (I have to simplify ):
1) There is a reality (he call it noumena or transcendental reality)
2) We cannot know this reality
3) We have prewired concept like time, space, causality (it is more complex, please check out on the net)
4) these concept build our world of perceptions (our phenomenal reality) as a consistent world)
I am only referring to the first two points 1) and 2) in this thread.
Most of his critics have fight against the 3) point
It is not that I define god as being reality in the simplest sense.
For people god is something else, I do not know their belief. I wanted only to pointed out that(I feel like I am again repeating what I already said):
for some theists god is the ineffable encompassing reality that some atheist believe exist behind our senses.
Both for many atheist and theist , this god/reality is ineffable.
Please, try to see my point, I think that I share a view with what most people said here. I want just to point out that the divide atheist/theist is not always required.
I was starting with a statement saying that I was challenging your point because I believed you would come up with reality that I will find inconsistent,for example based on particles or string, but it finnaly turns out that you share this kantian view (so common in scientific mind)
And this view is the view of many theists as well including me.
I wanted to set this up to in order to talk about one interesting points but I think it has to wait because you do not even recognize what I am trying to say.
Remark: When I am talking about what you call objective reality I use the word "reality" without adjective (Kant's noumena), if I want to talk about subjective reality, I will use the two words: "phenomenal reality" which correspond to the world we perceive.
Ok, fair enough. I see you point now :)
But I cannot understand why you want to call objective reality God.
I usually use 'reality' where I mean 'objective reality', but it seems confusing to people in these kind of discussions.
I am also not sure whether I agree with Kant completely, I'll have to check.
Sheer nonsense.
Yes it is. Did you spawn a brain tumor just now ?
SAM, my original post:
Reality and all the objects in it exists completely independent of the mind.
I call this objective reality.
No observer can perceive objective reality directly. Perception is necessarily colored by interpretation, expectation, etc.
We make up our own version of reality in our mind which is based on (part) of objective reality, let's refer to it as subjective reality.
Some people here have argued that it is impossible to know whether objective reality exists because of it's own premises. I disagree.
We know the senses aren't perfect. For instance, the eye can only sense a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
We also know that some animals can perceive more of the spectrum than we can.
The same goes for all the other senses: smell, hearing, touch and taste.
So we know, as an objective fact, that the senses can only sense a specific portion of objective reality.
When our brain is fed this data it interprets it based on:
- memory of previous experiences;
- character, which is the product of in part genetic but mostly environmental circumstances in our childhood;
- knowledge/believes;
- immediate environmental demands.
Then value is assigned to anything that is perceived according to above circumstances.
And so we end up with our own version of reality; subjective reality.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=78920
You seem to have edited you post below. I think you will see that we agree.
I cannot understand how you interpreted senses receiving stimuli as acurately perceiving objective reality.
You either misread, made a thinking error or are doing it on purpose.
You cannot, remember?:bugeye:
We believe objective reality exists because as we come up with tools that test the limits of our perception, we realise that there are many things which exist beyond our ability to perceive them. Hence we realise we are limited in our perceptions.
It is a matter of choice, I can ask you as well why are you not calling it god?
Because, it is misleading. I don't go around calling a birds strawberries either :p
kenworth
05-14-08, 07:40 AM
You can check it out on the net, basically (I have to simplify ):
1) There is a reality (he call it noumena or transcendental reality)
2) We cannot know this reality
3) We have prewired concept like time, space, causality (it is more complex, please check out on the net)
4) these concept build our world of perceptions (our phenomenal reality) as a consistent world)
I am only referring to the first two points 1) and 2) in this thread.
Most of his critics have fight against the 3) point
ok,and if i agree with that..............................?
Crunchy Cat
05-14-08, 10:30 AM
Be independent, you did not understand what I was asking you:
educate yourself about Kant and then come back to read the thread again!
You wanted me to learn about Kants philosophy to understand what a 'kantian view' is (as you seem to think I agree with it). You also wanted me to read the thread again, thinking that the meaning of the words you used in the opening question would change once this new information was gained. Is this different than what you were asking for?
I had already pre-read multiple Kant web resources before your original request and I have no idea what a 'kantian view' is so I cannot answer your question by asserting whether I agree or disagree with it. If you don't wish to define a 'kantian view' explicitly but rather hide behind the guise of 'independence' obligation then I won't be able to answer your question.
That is your view but how you prove that ?
Kant and Hume would say that we cannot
Because it corresponds to reality it is true; therefore, it's not a 'view' but instead an 'observation'. Proving it (I am assuming you mean providing 'evidence' for it) is simply a matter of examining the Earth and seeing where homo sapiens begin and comparing it to the age of the Earth. This planet has been around longer than humans by a long shot and our universe has been around longer than the planet. Kant and Hume would therefore be incorrect in this case.
Ok so you are saying that information is reality but we interpret as being electron and apple because of our human mind:
Paritally correct. I am saying that reality is a presenece of information that is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory. If asked, I would also say that huamans are difference detection machines that collect energy to persist. We label differences of reality and remember / communicate the labels for future identification.
We cannot know what this reality/information/god is but we assume(BELIEVE) that it exist.
Considering how much we have learned about reality, there is no reason to think humans won't be able to eventually understand it in it's entirety (of course I cannot claim that we will either as I don't know). That reality exists is a rather self-evident observation (a fact).
I also wouldn't give reality a label of 'God' as that presumes it is a life form that is sapent, omnipotent, and omniscient... none of which are supported by any evidence. Of course such a labeling is consistent with the pyschological phenomena of anthropomorphization which is a survival mechanism.
this is basically Kant's view and all what I said in this thread is about that. (I am not refereeing to all Kantian view, but the particular one about reality behind our experience)
If that's what you meant by a 'kantian view' then my assertions don't match up with it. Also, if you are only reffering to one aspect of Kant's philosophy then the phrase 'kantian view' is deceptive as it implies a view based on his complete philosophy.
Because, it is misleading. I don't go around calling a birds strawberries either :p
That's right it is misleading because of its many usage.
Similarly the word "reality" (even more when use as an adjective) is also a misleading word: some people expect to see some particles or some strings inside this reality, some expect to see some chair, table , computer, dogs, humans, chocolate... in it.
By taking reality as ineffable, I feel that the word "god" represent well this aspect of reality.
Matter of choice...
May I offer something for everyone's consideration.
The Kantian view which keeps getting referred to is that a thing , in and of itself, is unknowable. So I may see a stone, handle it and so on but my understanding is subjective because my senses filter the data which is then interpreted by my brain. In other words, I cannot know what it is to be a stone; I can only have a subjective impression of one.
So, whatever reality is, it is not knowable directly.
Difficulties arise when a claim is made that there are "things, essences" or whatever that I cannot know because of the limits of my senses. This is often said of God, souls and such like. There is not a shred of evidence to support such claims. Moreover, if valid, such claims would open the floodgates to all sorts of nonsensical beliefs. Why stop at God ? There must be countless other things I cannot know such as leprachauns, unicorns and so on.
It follows that it is impossible to make a case for the existence of something that I cannot perceive; If I cannot do so, neither can anyone else other than the deluded.
That's right it is misleading because of its many usage.
Similarly the word "reality" (even more when use as an adjective) is also a misleading word: some people expect to see some particles or some strings inside this reality, some expect to see some chair, table , computer, dogs, humans, chocolate... in it.
By taking reality as ineffable, I feel that the word "god" represent well this aspect of reality.
Matter of choice...
Ineffability is by definition unknowable; why talk about it ?
ok,and if i agree with that..............................?
read the thread...
It means that you are theist ;)
please read before jumping :p
because you believe in one of the possible god present in the religions of the world
let me explain: imagine someone (A) who believe in the existence of something that he call "truc" that is descirbed by being yellow with three heads then he met another guy (B) who is a believer of a famous religion that believe in a god named "baloon" that share exactly the same properties.
(A) consider himself as an atheist because for (A) "truc" is not a god beause it does not match a god description according to him (because he do not know that a famous religion share the same description of god that the something he call "truc")
if (A) then hear the description of "balloon" from (B), he will then realize that it is the same than what he call "truc". he can know say that he believe in "baloon"
But "baloon is a famous god (I mean a god from a famous religion). So we can say that he is a theist but that he did not know before.
In fact, it is the way I became aware that I was a theist ;)
I can predict that you will be reluctant to accept that but it is not something to be frightened about, as many said it is a matter of word.
But it become a matter of word only after we know that god and reality are the same (at least in the way we described them here)
It is not like swapping word "banana" and "apple" but like swapping "dog" and "chien"
kenworth
05-14-08, 11:14 AM
read the thread...
It means that you are theist ;)
please read before jumping :p
because you believe in one of the possible god present in the religions of the world
let me explain: imagine someone (A) who believe in the existence of something that he call "truc" that is descirbed by being yellow with three heads then he met another guy (B) who is a believer of a famous religion that believe in a god named "baloon" that share exactly the same properties.
(A) consider himself as an atheist because for (A) "truc" is not a god beause it does not match a god description according to him (because he do not know that a famous religion share the same description of god that the something he call "truc")
if (A) then hear the description of "balloon" from (B), he will then realize that it is the same than what he call "truc". he can know say that he believe in "baloon"
But "baloon is a famous god (I mean a god from a famous religion). So we can say that he is a theist but that he did not know before.
In fact, it is the way I became aware that I was a theist ;)
I can predict that you will be reluctant to accept that but it is not something to be frightened about, as many said it is a matter of word.
But it become a matter of word only after we know that god and reality are the same (at least in the way we described them here)
It is not like swapping word "banana" and "apple" but like swapping "dog" and "chien"
so because you think god and reality are the same i must?
i think this might be where you are getting confused.
as a result of everything i have said i admit that in my opinion only a perfect, "filterless" being (ie. god) can perceive objective reality.
this does not mean that i believe in god.infact....i dont.
i dont think that anything is capable of perceiving objective reality.
where do you get the idea that god and reality are the same thing?
May I offer something for everyone's consideration.
The Kantian view which keeps getting referred to is that a thing , in and of itself, is unknowable. So I may see a stone, handle it and so on but my understanding is subjective because my senses filter the data which is then interpreted by my brain. In other words, I cannot know what it is to be a stone; I can only have a subjective impression of one.
So, whatever reality is, it is not knowable directly.
Right and it apply to reality as a whole (which is what I am talking about, not specific thing..)
Difficulties arise when a claim is made that there are "things, essences" or whatever that I cannot know because of the limits of my senses. This is often said of God, souls and such like. There is not a shred of evidence to support such claims. Moreover, if valid, such claims would open the floodgates to all sorts of nonsensical beliefs. Why stop at God ? There must be countless other things I cannot know such as leprachauns, unicorns and so on.
It follows that it is impossible to make a case for the existence of something that I cannot perceive; If I cannot do so, neither can anyone else other than the deluded.
My point was not about the limit of the sense but because of the senses, namely the first case, that because of the senses I have a subjective view and I cannot know reality in itself. But in fact it is more than that and I follow Hume for that (from which Kant get inspired): We have only impression in our mind and from that we cannot infer anything about reality as a whole or in part.
Ineffability is by definition unknowable; why talk about it ?
because as you will see it is not so simple (the unknowability is not so sure)
Please note that ineffable means : impossibility to express (I used the word because of its weaker meaning that will become evident later)
Ok, I think most of you now understand what I was trying to say about theist/atheist.
I will use the word realist from now on to refer to people who call themselves atheist or theist who believe in the existence of something behind their senses that is not what they perceive with their mind. This something I will call it reality because I feel that if I use god, many here will not want to follow me (and I think now you understand that we can use both word knowing to what it refers)
Let's start by recalling something:
Hume was arguing that we cannot know the reality. He is considered as the most skeptic philosopher.
But is it really impossible to know about reality?
Hume could have been more skeptic: we cannot know that we cannot know.
Hume take the path that we cannot know, let's take the other path: we can know.
How can we know?
sense are known to be not reliable because of subjectivity and error.
So what else?
Enlightenment? (I imagine some will start laughing but be careful, enlightenment also is a word with many baggage) let's define it just as that: the way to know reality
Then going back to the debate between theist and atheist: we can redefine them even if even atheist should be considered theist because it is about ontology not about epistemology but let forget that to make everybody happy in this thread (I know it won't be possible but I try)
theist (the special kind we believe in the existence of something behind the sense) : believer in the existence of reality an believer in the possibility to know this reality (while keeping the inefability, I can come back later on this, it is not so important for my point)
atheist (the special kind we believe in the existence of something behind the sense) : believer in the existence of reality an believer in the impossibility to know this reality
(I will not be able to answer this thread for some time, at least not atthe rate I was doing these last days, I will be busy for some weeks,)
I will probably recreate a thread on this specific topic if I see that this post will be misunderstood (which I am afraid will be)
That's right it is misleading because of its many usage.
Similarly the word "reality" (even more when use as an adjective) is also a misleading word: some people expect to see some particles or some strings inside this reality, some expect to see some chair, table , computer, dogs, humans, chocolate... in it.
By taking reality as ineffable, I feel that the word "god" represent well this aspect of reality.
Matter of choice...
Very well, but the word 'God' implies an intelligent being.. at least to the vast majority of people.
I think this is much more misleading than using the word 'reality'.
By the way, I don't really agree with your usage of the word 'ineffable' either.
'Imperceptible' seems a better choice, or even better: 'not fully or accurately perceptible' or 'largely imperceptible'.
[QUOTE=ronan;1859106]Right and it apply to reality as a whole (which is what I am talking about, not specific thing..)
What do you mean by reality as a whole ? I know of no such thing. I can only know some part of reality subjectively. Anything beyond that is beyond my experience and, therefore, unknowable by me in any sense.
My point was not about the limit of the sense but because of the senses, namely the first case, that because of the senses I have a subjective view and I cannot know reality in itself. But in fact it is more than that and I follow Hume for that (from which Kant get inspired): We have only impression in our mind and from that we cannot infer anything about reality as a whole or in part.
Are you saying my mental impressions, in Hume's sense, are not inferences ?
because as you will see it is not so simple (the unknowability is not so sure)
Please note that ineffable means : impossibility to express (I used the word because of its weaker meaning that will become evident later)
If something is impossible to express, how do you expect to discuss it. Remember what Wittgenstein said ? " What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence "I regard that as sound advice.
Ok, I think most of you now understand what I was trying to say about theist/atheist.
I will use the word realist from now on to refer to people who call themselves atheist or theist who believe in the existence of something behind their senses that is not what they perceive with their mind. This something I will call it reality because I feel that if I use god, many here will not want to follow me (and I think now you understand that we can use both word knowing to what it refers)
If you use god, as has already been pointed out, this term is not interchangeable with reality. Most thists would argue that god created what we call reality and that he therefore stands outside it. You are in danger of conflating theism with pantheism, Best define your terms more clearly because, at the moment, you have fallen between two stools.
Let's start by recalling something:
Hume was arguing that we cannot know the reality. He is considered as the most skeptic philosopher.
But is it really impossible to know about reality?
Hume could have been more skeptic: we cannot know that we cannot know.
Hume is best described as a "mitigated" sceptic.
Hume take the path that we cannot know, let's take the other path: we can know.
First let's be clear about Hume's position if you wish to argue against it. Talking of taking another path is not good enough. You must show Hume to be in error. Do that and we can proceed !
How can we know?
sense are known to be not reliable because of subjectivity and error.
So what else?
Enlightenment? (I imagine some will start laughing but be careful, enlightenment also is a word with many baggage) let's define it just as that: the way to know reality
Then going back to the debate between theist and atheist: we can redefine them even if even atheist should be considered theist because it is about ontology not about epistemology but let forget that to make everybody happy in this thread (I know it won't be possible but I try)
theist (the special kind we believe in the existence of something behind the sense) : believer in the existence of reality an believer in the possibility to know this reality (while keeping the inefability, I can come back later on this, it is not so important for my point)
atheist (the special kind we believe in the existence of something behind the sense) : believer in the existence of reality an believer in the impossibility to know this reality
(I will not be able to answer this thread for some time, at least not atthe rate I was doing these last days, I will be busy for some weeks,)
I will probably recreate a thread on this specific topic if I see that this post will be misunderstood (which I am afraid will be)
Can I suggest that you answer the above questions before we proceed; the alternative is more confusion.