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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But as for us poor igtheists, who can find only incoherence when others assert that God is real, we can't even find anything said to be real not to believe in.
So you don't reject any of these beliefs?
The flaw, here, of course, is the blind presumption that 'objectivity' = 'reality', when everyone knows, or should know, that reality is not an object, but an idea. So that demanding objectivity as the requisite for God being 'real' is logically absurd. And yet so many atheists continue to persist in it without a second thought.
The limitations of mankind's understanding of existence are not the limitations of what does or can exist. This seems to be the most common delusion adhered to by atheists, according to their arguments. That if they can't somehow know it to be so, or not so, it must not be so.
But you have limited "real" to the 'objective', and thereby defined all non-objective phenomena (like the idea of God) out of reality. You have created a tautological bias.
Why would I? ... And based on what? Why would I believe or disbelieve something I can't possibly know to be so, or not so?
Indeed, "reality" is a concept ─ the abstraction that refers to the real quality shared the countless objects and processes that we find in the world external to the self, and are informed about by our senses.
No, it's not absurd at all. There are two ways things are known to exist ─ as elements of reality (the world external to the self, as I mentioned) and as concepts and things imagined in individual brains. This chair is an example of the former, and a chair ─ anything with 'chairness' ─ is an abstraction, an example of the latter,
No, of course not. Ghosts and wishing wells and love potions go way way back. It's just, they're not real, are only found as concepts / things imagined.
If God is real then God has objective existence and can be found in nature like any other real thing. But not even believers think real gods are out there to be found. They don't expect them to exist in reality ─ otherwise there'd be a real concept of a real God, what to look for in reality, and how to tell whether any suspect you find is God or not, But there's none of that ─ or if there is, I've never heard of it.
No tautology at all ─ things are either real or conceptual/imaginary.
Good sense is the best reason.
Except that it never does become clear. Not if we are being honest with ourselves.
We can't know anything to exist except as a concept imagined in our mind. That "external" (objective) reality you keep talking about as if you know it's out there is. and has always been, beyond your cognitive grasp. "Objectivity" is an ideological illusion, like perfection, and infinity ... ideas that exist only in the mind, so far as we will ever be able to tell. (Very much like the idea of "God".)
There are no "chairs" except in the human mind. There is only energy; being expressed in many different but interrelated ways and forms. We choose to label this elaborate collection of interrelated phenomena and forms "a chair". But that doesn't make them a chair. Nor does it separate them from all the other expressed energy phenomena and forms around it and that are also interacting with it. 'Chairness' is an ideological ideal. It exists only by conception.
A tree stump in the woods is a chair if you choose to "see it" that way. Whatever it is that you aren't seeing, is because you are choosing not to acknowledge it for what it could be, when you see it.
I see no sense in lying to myself, or others, about what I can or can't know.
Even wiser men and women refrain from passing judgment, unnecessarily, and without convicting evidence.
Lying to oneself is indeed bad.
I guess you'll have to go find someone who wants to discuss sky fairies and ask them.
By that reasoning, there's no reason to reject belief in
No, there isn't. Except the functional value of our doing so. "Belief" is about the presumption of self-righteousness. "Faith" is about the value derived from hope.
I'm not the fool who presumes that "God" is singular.
One does one's best to be truthful to oneself. As you know, i use the 'correspondence' definition of truth.
We know we can never make absolute statements ─ the evidence strongly suggests the universe is full of unknown unknowns. But scientific method is based on empiricism and induction, and the maximizing of objectivity and a culture of honesty. Its claim to fame is that it works, not that it makes absolute statements.
Here you are talking to me across great distances, by staring at a high-definition screen and pressing keys. You think the science is real enough, you think the technology is real enough, you think I'm real enough, you think your parents are real, you think the air you breathe is real enough even when you wish it were better quality, You've evolved senses that aid your survival and chances of breeding, and you've inherited a culture where science works and religion is on the decline, though it too appears to have been an evolved human trait.
That "external" (objective) reality you keep talking about as if you know it's out there is. and has always been, beyond your cognitive grasp.[/quote] You say that while relating to reality with every breath, every meal, every tap of your computer keys. You know very well what you're doing ─ relating to and often enough exploiting reality. You know I'm not you. You know what "the world external to the self" is. You know it has entities and phenomena and processes, many of which you use, and the rest forming part of your understanding.
Perfect objectivity is not obtainable ─ it would be meaningless. Very useful degrees of objectivity are readily within our reach, like the cop recording you on camera speeding, like the repeatability of scientific experiments and demonstrations, like most of our judges.
Ah, excellent, you grasp the difference between "a chair" and "this chair", the conceptual and the real!
But all we have for "truth" to correspond to is our functional experience. But functional experience creates value assessment, and value assessments lead to moral dilemmas that require more truth than functionality can provide.
That is also it's abject failure. Science cannot address the problem of value assessment or moral imperative, and so ends up giving all that functionality to a bunch of hyperactive monkeys (humans). Because not only does science neither seek nor find truth, It gives us the powerful illusions that it does, by giving us increased functionality. Which we then foolishly presume to be true.
Only in terms of function. But it comes up miserably short in terms of value assessment and moral imperative.
I think science is the study of physical function, that results in increasing our physical functionality. But beyond that, it's mostly useless. And what is beyond functionality is still very important. Maybe even more important than functionality is. Because determining whether "X" is a weapon or a tool is at least as important as having "X" in the first place.
Moral dilemmas are problems for the individual brain, using our evolved moral instincts ─ child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial ─ and our evolved moral faculties, empathy and conscience, and the morals we acquire by our upbringing, culture, education and experience, which govern social interactions and behavior for occasions. We know about these matters from reasoned enquiry and observation. We also observe that there are no absolute moral statements ─ against the background I've just mentioned, "good" means beneficial or pleasing to me and mine and the causes I support, and bad means detrimental or displeasing likewise.
We'll have to disagree on that. I'd say reasoned enquiry, of which scientific method is an example, has been and is an outstanding success. The statements of science, for example, and the resulting technologies, have been of enormous benefit to humans in terms of convenience and health.
But as I mentioned, reasoned enquiry can. Scientific method is only one aspect of reasoned enquiry. There's also historical method, mathematical method, and the rather flabby history of psychological research is being stiffened at last by hard medical brain research.
BUT there are no absolute truths. Truth is the best opinion of the best relevant brains at any time. It was once true that the earth was flat and the heavenly bodies went round it, but now its not; that light propagated in the lumeniferous ether, but now it's not; that the earth's crust was uniform and rigid, but now it's now.
Science is that part of reasoned enquiry that explores, describes and seeks to explain nature. Perhaps one day it will stop the election of populist leaders like Trump, Johnson, Bolsonaro, Orbán and more; but that goes back to our tribal origins and the instincts that resulted.
We're not far apart. But I think reasoned enquiry will continue to do those things that are outside of science's remit.
Again; FUNCTIONALLY. Not morally. Because it cannot resolve the conflict between selfishness and collective well-being.
Again; FUNCTIONALLY. Not morally. Sure, we CAN heal people of many illnesses. But we still cannot figure out WHY we should bother to do so.
Those are just relative facts. They are not 'truth'. Which is why they do us no good at all in terms of determining the moral imperatives needed for humanity to evolve.
You live on Earth, with the rest of humanity. So; yes, all these practices are still with us. And all science has done for us is make us much more effective at them.
So far, reasoned inquiry has done mostly nothing to advance the moral imperatives of the human species. Except to give us the power to effectively destroy ourselves.
That conflict is built into our instincts. On the one hand we have a whole kit of survival behaviors, learnt and instinctive. On the other hand we're tribal, and our success as a species is marked by and depends every day on our ability to cooperate with our own.
Yes, we can figure that out ─ because we've evolved to do that, again as I mentioned. We heal people because we have empathy, because we have group loyalty, because we dislike people who harm and this is its corollary.
There are no absolute truths. There's no future in wishing there were. We hear about the late Neanderthals, our cousins, and we just shrug ─ they're not us. In turn, if / when the entire human race ceases to exist, reality won't even notice, let alone regret.
And I at least greatly appreciate what's been achieved ─ not least when I had cancer back in 2004.
On the exact contrary, reasoned enquiry has given us insights into the nature and qualities of our evolved moral tendencies and our acquired moral tendencies; and will continue to do so.