lol never mind that.. You are about the only one to agree with me on that.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think that was a brave statement on your part. I can't be sure what you meant, but if it meant something like you couldn't face it, then it is brave to acknowledge it. I think this is where I get irritated at the rationalists and scientists when they look down on the religious. We all live on assumptions and we all have trouble facing things: some of these things are metaphysical, some are more personal. Naive religious people are easy to mock which can set up a kind of reassuring dynamic. They are the ones who cannot face the truth, and we are the ones who can. I would go so far as to say this is the purpose of engaging them in many cases. To get pissed off where they are trying to establish hate in the world is one thing, but to feel superior because of epistemological bravery is hubris.
I don't think it's worthless. I do think it is too vague to discuss it with precision. To come to such a conclusion is of some worth, though, because at least we know which paths probably don't lead anywhere good, or at least not in a foreseeable time.
I don't feel superior to religious people, not at all. Many are probably way smarter than me. It's more like astonishment on my part that otherwise normal or even very smart people can believe in something so obviously flawed.. I guess we must not underestimate the influence of environmental factors.. like upbringing etc. What I meant to say in quoted post was that I simply don't know and possibly can't know..
From this, it seems you assume (or posit) there is such a thing as "pure, unadulterated human mind" which is perfectly rational, logical, functional. That humans are not born tabula rasa, but with already developed abilities or at least potentials to be perfect. Am I correct that such is your underlying assumption (or position)?
I didn't mean you. In fact by your admission I essentially meant people who were not like you. As far as believing in things that are so obviously flawed this also is a universal failing. As far as that last point...I would say that if the universe is as you say it is you can't possibly know, rather than possibly can't.
Actually -oh silly me that I hadn't thought of this sooner!- I had started a thread on this topic months back - To theists: How do you distinguish between reality and wishful thinking? I still have some bitter aftertaste of it.
What do you think makes a person "normal" or "very smart"? How do you assess that something is "obviously flawed"?
But certain things do point me in that direction. The subjective vs objective for instance.. also that there are no such things as souls or God or any other supernatural things. This leaves me with the realization that life is just composed of dead matter like the rest of the universe. Essentially the only difference between a living organism and a pile of dust composed of the same components is the the way it is composed and was build up. This actually either means there is no such thing as an observer or that everything is an observer.. this is where I run into difficulties.. I understand what you are saying, and it kinda poses a problem I haven't figured out yet..
Could you please give a short description of what the results were and why it connects to this thread ?
Normal = not abnormal, like mentally disturbed. Very smart = like in people doing really well in university.. I dunno.. I guess there would be different field of smartness though. For 'obviously flawed' see post 331.
Things that would seem compelling, but if you are simply a part of the "dead matter" of the universe you are simply compelled to think you are being logical about them. So you trust you own ability to perceive and reason enough to decide these things despite the fact that you are merely "dead matter". This is what I feel is at the root of the scientific worldview (in general, there are exceptions of course). A dead universe. Of course they acknowledge life forms, but they reduce these to processes that are dead and not conscious and wholly determined. My point right here is not to argue against this, but to highlight it and then also point out that this kind of worldview may be appealing to certain kinds of minds. In other words religious people are often seen as believing in certain things for psychological reasons´. I think the reasons scientists believe in the 'dead as foundation' universe fits their personalities. I think control is a very deep issue here. Control and order. In the extreme these run counter to life. Thanks for saying this.
Well, it's kinda one or the other right ? Does your not arguing against it mean you agree with it ? You're welcome.. I guess.
I am not sure which peice you are talking about here. That it is dead. That you can trust your reason. I think if I believed in the universe you seem to, I would feel unable to speak about what is true. I could only say I believed this or that, though I would be reluctant to go into it, seeing my beliefs as somethign like hair color. No, not at all. I disagree. But it is very complicated to 1) point out the assumptions in the dead universe theory/outlook and 2) to provide evidence that it is alive. The obvious is often hard to prove. I respect very much that you can be up front with the dead universe thing. I find some rationalists very cagey about this. So I just wanted to spend a moment letting it sit there on the shelf. The dead universe paradigm. Adn then mention that this despite how it seems to some of us, be actually rather appealing to some people. 1) When you said you understood, it left me free not to 'try' to explain more. 2) When you said you hadn't figured it out yet, you were not, for example, simply throwing out something that 'must be true'. Both of these things keep us on track with each other. I know what is going on. You are not simply trying to win or convince me. You are in process. For me, having had this dialogue with you for quite a while, what I am interested in is seeing what happens here. Perhaps you will say something that will make me understand better how someone can hold the position you have and really face it. Perhaps you will show me that my assumptions are incorrect. Perhaps I will learn to better mirror back what someone's philosophy entails. I thing the boundary between what we each believe is interesting and the dialogue for me is good because you don't try to fuck with my mind. I think that is pretty rare. I have often thought you were bothered by the implications of your philosophy, I mean emotionally bothered by it. You have said repeatedly that you are not. I am really curious about this, since it has seemed to me that you were not aware of the implications of that philosophy in some ways that said to me you had investment in not noticing them. This has never turned out to be the case. So there is a mystery here for me. Now we have reached a 'dead universe' description which is, amazingly, one I have used in other forums - not that I am the only one who has used it. So we have a common ground description of a paradigm. Wow! One of us is tending to believe in that one - you - and one does not. But to have some commonness of description is amazing, for me anyway.
What is the criterion for "normalcy"? What is the criterion for "mentally disturbed"? What is the criterion for "smart"? I could go on asking about these criteria, but to get to the point quickly: These criteria, although they exist, are 1. versatile - depending on whom you refer to as the authority on them 2. change over time and culture. Given this, these criteria are fuzzy, and as such, hardly a reliable hold for deductions that assume objective value. How can you possibly know that "there are no such things as souls or God or any other supernatural things"?! For one, a negative cannot be proven. For two, God might exist and might mess with your mind and (temporarily) make you think there is no God, no souls and such. How could you possibly know either way?
If you read the first few posts there, you'll quickly see. But all in all, the positions presented there were basically: 1. The distinction between reality and wishful thinking is so obvious to everyone that it needs no further explaining. 2. The distinction between reality and wishful thinking is obvious to everyone, but it cannot be explained. 3. The distinction between reality and wishful thinking is possible to explain and recognize only within the framework of a particular philosophy or religion. 4. The question about the distinction between reality and wishful thinking is such that it is best to focus on what is in it for the person who is asking it.
It's either a dead universe or it is not. If it is not, that would imply God or something similar. Welcome to my world Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That's how it is to me, but I ignore it in every day life.. I have to. Normal conversation is the outer shell, when I think about anything for more than a second this objective/subjective thing comes into play and I have to ignore it. It's like saying a politically correct thing.. if you know what I mean. It think it would be very disturbing to me to find out that this is not a dead universe.. What I said in the earlier part of this post might shed some light on that. Kinda cool yea, so you came up with the exact same dead universe thing ?
