1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God guffaws

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by atanu, Jul 18, 2019.

  1. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,777
    Ratings:
    +3,447
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    Philosophical naturalists are certain of competence of their intellect and senses. They hold that all that exists are knowable by the waking state mind-senses. With that presumption some shout hoarse “There is zero evidence for ‘xyz’”. Some also exhibit contempt for others who hold philosophical naturalism as unscientific.

    Probably God guffaws. Ego-mind does not know it’s own existence in deep sleep and in dream but it claims that it is competent to know of all that exists.
    ...

    Except the charvaak’s (ancient Indian materialists) no school of Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh philosophy hold such philosophical materialistic view.

    So, is it a problem of western philosophy-science?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,212
    Ratings:
    +2,496
    Religion:
    None
    It doesn’t matter how many times and how many different ways this accusation is made, it is still not what the people you’re referring to actually believe. Observation is ultimately the only tool we have to gather information about the universe around us and that observation boils down to our physical senses. Acknowledging that fact isn’t to say that we as a human race are or will ever be capable of knowing and understanding everything.

    If there is no evidence for a hypothesis, what is wrong with saying so, especially if people are asserting that the hypothesis is unquestionably true in the absence of any evidence? Again, that isn’t to say the hypothesis can’t be true, only that we can’t know it’s true. This is really the exact opposite of your underlying accusation.

    Nothing personal but so what? Why would something not being an element of a subset of human religious beliefs be a relevant factor in any way? I don’t see the relevance of even bringing this up. Religious beliefs injected in to this kind of discussion only ever serve as a distraction.

    You’ve not even established there is a problem yet. :cool:
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  3. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,777
    Ratings:
    +3,447
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    Nothing personal? Ha. Okay. I take your words for that.

    Hindu or Buddhist philosophies are not religions per se. But are darshanas (views) to aid navigation through worldly existence. They are philosophies. And these darshanas give first importance to ‘pratyaksha’ (direct observation) as a mode of knowledge but do not limit knowledge to it.

    I believe that in your haste to put the post down you have failed to note and address the main point of the post, which too is an observation of our physical senses.
     
    #3 atanu, Jul 18, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2019
  4. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,212
    Ratings:
    +2,496
    Religion:
    None
    I'm not clear what I missed. You made a claim about "philosophical naturalism" which I explained I consider flawed, made a reference to other philosophies which I explained I consider irrelevant (especially in the context of the previous flaws) and asked a concluding question which refers to a problem I don't think actually exists.

    I'm not sure what I could have missed so maybe you need to clarify?
     
  5. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    75,592
    Ratings:
    +37,107
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    Please Atanu, be so kind as to explain to me how getting so angry at philosophical naturalists that you misrepresent their position furthers your own spirituality?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Road Less Traveled

    Road Less Traveled Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2019
    Messages:
    482
    Ratings:
    +109
    In my perception,
    Those that are certain of their intellect and senses, and hold others in contempt are likely those that are the most tricked. There is kool-aid for everyone, not just the outward religious.

    Those that see this, while more lonely yet serene in the lonesome, laugh and see the great humor in all of the things that people and themselves at one point are/were willing to believe and accept without questioning due to fear of not fitting in and fear of loss.
     
    #6 Road Less Traveled, Jul 18, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  7. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,777
    Ratings:
    +3,447
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    I always pay attention to what you say and I must ponder why you consider my post ‘angry’ and also why you consider that I misrepresented the position of philosophical naturalism— metaphysical naturalism.

    For the first part, I can assure that there is no anger. There is mirth, surely.

    For the second, regarding ‘misrepresentation’, I may be wrong. But may I request you to please clarify exactly what I have misrepresented?

    The main point of the post, however, is that it is not necessary that mind-senses are the only sufficient competent tools to know all of ‘existence’. Mind-senses are oblivious of existence of self about half of the time, while in deep sleep.
     
    #7 atanu, Jul 18, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Road Less Traveled

    Road Less Traveled Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2019
    Messages:
    482
    Ratings:
    +109
    If I were them, the intellectual haughty would be the most fun to trick.

    While laughing my *ss off when their threatened activation switches are all turned on inside of them to attack and mock others, while defending their illusions.
     
    #8 Road Less Traveled, Jul 18, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2019
  9. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,777
    Ratings:
    +3,447
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    The point of the post is that it is not necessary that mind-senses are the only sufficient competent tools to know all of ‘existence’. Mind-senses are oblivious of existence of self about half of the time, while in deep sleep.

    The worldview (metaphysical naturalism) which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences, cannot claim that it knows all of the ‘nature’ to be able to make such a positive claim.
     
    #9 atanu, Jul 18, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,777
    Ratings:
    +3,447
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    Metaphysical naturalism holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.

    How, I made wrong accusation?

    There are several problems in this.

    It is an observation that in deep sleep while the self exists, mind-senses appear oblivious of existence.

    So, the claim ‘there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences’, obviously fails.

    Furthermore, study of objects of senses is not the only way to observe the nature. Introversion of mind to its source is a time tested way.

    As explained above, the presumption of metaphysical naturalism that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences cannot hold.

    So assertions that one’s world view is scientific and thus foolproof and theological assertions are all un-evidenced and so woo, are imo often contemptuous.

    I personally am not affected by any of this ‘woo’ slinging. I only wished to note a potential hole in the understanding metaphysical naturalism and faulty conclusions thereof.

    ...
     
  11. Left Coast

    Left Coast Happy New Year!
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    5,240
    Ratings:
    +7,397
    Religion:
    Buddhish
    First of all, by "mind-senses" do you just mean "senses" as ordinarily understood (sight, hearing, etc.) Or something else?

    If the five senses is what you mean by the term, what other competent tools do we have to understand reality? I grant the use if abstract logic which I suppose independent of our senses (though we need our senses to learn and comprehend it). Anything else?
     
  12. bharti

    bharti Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2019
    Messages:
    20
    Ratings:
    +20
    Religion:
    Hindu
    No. What about German idealism?
     
  13. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,777
    Ratings:
    +3,447
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    That, my good friend, is not the issue. I am pointing to arrogance of the ego-mind that presumes “I am fully capable of knowing the nature as it is” and then is contemptuous of all alternative views labelling them as ‘woo’ or ‘folk psychology’. I am talking of eliminative materialism in particular and metaphysical naturalism in general.

    The tools for knowing are not owned; or created; or under control of the ego. And ego is oblivious of its own existence half of the time. But it is arrogant in its presumption “there is nothing but natural elements, principles, relations as studied by natural sciences”.

    Please note that the natural sciences do not inform us “there is nothing but natural elements, principles, relations as studied by natural sciences”.
     
    #13 atanu, Jul 19, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2019
  14. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,212
    Ratings:
    +2,496
    Religion:
    None
    Has anyone actually claimed that? I certainly don’t. I specifically believe that it would be impossible for any being to know everything. I do suggest that a general observation-hypothesis-evidence-conclusion process is that only one we really have to understand what we can about existence within our natural limitations. That process isn’t always followed formally or consciously though, and I believe some of the claims for different ways of thinking ultimately boil down to the same thing without their proponents even realising it.

    I think there is some unnecessary divisive terminology in place to create hard lines that don’t really exist. I would argue that anything that exists is natural by definition, even if it were something we can’t detect or understand. The idea that there is a category of things that is automatically beyond the scope of scientific process seems presumptuous, especially if those things are said to be detectable by humans and to have physical effects upon us and the world around us. I think a more key distinction would be between what we’re capable of observing, studying and potentially understanding (at least in part) and what we’ll never be able to know. Beyond being aware that we’ll never know everything for certain though, there isn’t anything we can do about that second category.

    I didn’t say that though. I said that observation is the only tool we have to gather information about the universe around us. That doesn’t exclude the possibility of things existing we’re incapable of observing (currently or ever).

    I’ve no idea what “Introversion of mind” but it sounds like fancy words for “thinking about things” (things we’ve already observed). Unless you can establish a new source of external information, whatever this phrase actually describes won’t fall outside the standard processes I’m talking about.

    You’re the only one claiming a foolproof conclusion here in your repeated false assertions about what I and other say. Maybe it isn’t other people you need to convince that we can’t know everything for certain. :cool:
     
  15. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,777
    Ratings:
    +3,447
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    Dear Honest

    I am not talking of you. I am referring to the stand of philosophical naturalism or eliminative materialism. You have not mentioned that even once. So, I suppose that there is nothing to discuss.
     
  16. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,212
    Ratings:
    +2,496
    Religion:
    None
    You are talking about principles I generally adhere to but I believe you're misrepresenting them. You've asserted what certain principles mean but you've not demonstrated that the people who adhere to those principles actually interpret them in the same way you do or consequentially operate in the manner you imply.

    You opened the thread with the statement "Philosophical naturalists are certain of competence of their intellect and senses. They hold that all that exists are knowable by the waking state mind-senses." Can you back that accusation up? I would probably be considered a (very amateur) "philosophical naturalist" but don't agree with your statement. Have you considered the possibility that you're mistaken, certainly in relation to this being the general position across the board?
     
  17. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,777
    Ratings:
    +3,447
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    Metaphysical naturalism holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences. Do you hold this view?
     
  18. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,212
    Ratings:
    +2,496
    Religion:
    None
    Yes, but I don’t think I interpret that to mean the same thing you do. Everything that exists is natural by definition, regardless of whether we as human beings are capable of observing it or if it is capable of being observed at all. I think the entire concept of “natural elements” and “natural science” are meaningless in this context. There is only “what is”, regardless of the true nature of that reality, something I don’t believe can ever be known. That isn’t a claim to know everything that is nor is it a claim that any particular thing couldn’t ever exist. It’s also a fundamental position that I am open to changing in the face of good reason to do so (however difficult that might be to imagine).

    My main objection to your position is when you extend from this very wide concept of the nature of reality and apply definitive statements about opinions of the validity and reliability of human physical senses and mental abilities to accurately interpret them. The key difference is between “everything being potentially knowable” and “our ability to know everything”.
     
  19. Left Coast

    Left Coast Happy New Year!
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    5,240
    Ratings:
    +7,397
    Religion:
    Buddhish
    Hope you and your loved ones are doing well, friend. :):glomp:

    I understand what you're saying and I can agree that it's too far to say for certain that nature is all there is, since we don't know what we don't know.

    But I'm still left asking - aside from our senses, what else do we have? What other tools do we have for understanding whatever reality exists outside our heads?
     
  20. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    14,777
    Ratings:
    +3,447
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    So we agree on this point.

    This point is beyond the scope of this thread. We have to discuss Kant and Vedanta. Nevertheless.

    For this thread, my limited purpose was to demonstrate that while there is no doubt whatsoever that methodological naturalism is the best way to study the objects of mind-senses, it is not competent to study the apparently unconscious realms of existence, as in our everyday experience of deep sleep.

    There are meditation methods whereby the unwavering-slumber-less awareness remains as mere witness of the states of mind, including of dream and sleep. The experience of waking sleep is non dual and transformative. But for some of those who have not realised the non dual pure awareness, it is woo.:)

    The problem is that some undiscerning people equate the external neuronal records of a being in samadhi as evidence that samadhi is mere work of a physical brain. They do not realise that a third party waking state record is not same as the subjective non dual reality. You may record neuronal record of a man in deep sleep. But that neuronal record is characteristic of the waking state of investigator and his surroundings and is not same as the subjective sleep state, which is partition-less and non dual.
    ...
    I hope that I was able convey that I am not suggesting to replace science for study of objects. I am pointing to the fact that there is always a need to realise the nature of the cognising subject.

    ...
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...