Freethought & Rationalism Archive

No Robots · 07-28-2006, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But how can we be reasonably certain that Christ as you describe him was right?

The essence of what he says conforms to what I observe.

Quote:

Is it your position that intelligent people by random genetic chance have an advantage over less intelligent people regarding finding the truth?

Radical egalitarianism is one of the superstitions of our time. Does everyone play basketball like MJ? Then why expect everyone to think like Socrates?

Quote:

Do you believe that originally all that existed in the universe was an eternal being?

I believe that Being itself is all that has ever existed, does exist, or will ever exist. Individual things are our way of perceiving Being.

Quote:

Do you believe that God established morality?

Moralism is a kind of distorted love, a desire to control and manipulate others in order to achieve egoistic interests under the guise of seeking the general welfare.

Quote:

What about animals? Do they have a spirit?

Absolutely. Omnia animata: everything thinks. Man is distinguished from other creatures only in the diversity of his interactions with his environment.

Johnny Skeptic · 07-28-2006, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But how can we be reasonably certain that Christ as you describe him was right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

The essence of what he says conforms to what I observe.

What particular things are you talking about that Christ said, and what particular things have you observed?

Amaleq13 · 07-29-2006, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Christ, the original genius, provides us with the means to apprehend reality. As Spinoza puts it:

A man who can by pure intuition comprehend ideas which are neither contained in nor deducible from the foundations of our natural knowledge, must necessarily possess a mind far superior to those of his fellow men, nor do I believe that any have been so endowed save Christ.

Can you provide an example of an idea expressed by Jesus that was "neither contained in nor deducible from the foundations of our natural knowledge"?

Wads4 · 07-29-2006, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Spinoza defines intuition very carefully:

This kind of knowledge proceeds from an adequate idea of the absolute essence of certain attributes of God to the adequate knowledge of the essence of things.

One Spinoza student likens it to the Zen principle of satori.

We can easily compare distorted science, particularly with regard to race, with the distortions of religion.

As an atheist I do not hold with Spinoza's pantheism and mysticism,-nor I am afraid, with the concept of Satori.
It is true that sometimes Science can go off on a wild goose chase and end up with a deviant product, like extreme Eugenics,-Hitler style. But I see nothing wrong with gradual improvement of the human race by eugenic application of voluntary selective breeding, as in sexual selection which humans do all the time, stem cell research and elimination of disease and deformity. If science makes a mistake it goes back and corrects it,-it does not turn it into a permanent world religion.

Wads4 · 07-29-2006, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Further conceive, I beg, that a stone while continuing in motion, should be capable of thinking and knowing, that it is endeavoring, as far as it can, to continue to move. Such a stone, being conscious merely of its own endeavor and not at all indifferent, would believe itself to be completely free, and would think that it continued in motion solely because of its own wish. This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but they are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined.

--Letter 62 (Spinoza to John Rieuwerts)

But what would happen if this thinking stone attempted to change direction, and then found it was unable? Its concept of it's own freewill would then be abruptly disillusioned,-and it would realise it was mistaken in believing it had freewill,--which I think is what you are saying. Likewise human freewill is an illusion; true, we can make choices, but only over a limited range of the different deterministic paths that are available to us. We can choose our chains out of a small selection on offer.

Wads4 · 07-29-2006, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Their meme, which they understood as their spirit or essential self, is immortal: they live in the hearts and minds of millions.

Spinoza is the founder of modern Bible interpretation. Here he sums up his methodology:

I may sum up the matter by saying that the method of interpreting Scripture does not widely differ from the method of interpreting nature - in fact, it is almost the same. For as the interpretation of nature consists in the examination of the history of nature, and therefrom deducing definitions of natural phenomena on certain fixed axioms, so Scriptural interpretation proceeds by the examination of Scripture, and inferring the intention of its authors as a legitimate conclusion from its fundamental principles. By working in this manner everyone will always advance without danger of error - that is, if they admit no principles for interpreting Scripture, and discussing its contents save such as they find in Scripture itself - and will be able with equal security to discuss what surpasses our understanding, and what is known by the natural light of reason.

Unfortunately this is a very imperfect system:
The interpretation of Scripture is contingent upon the content of Scripture. If Scripture can be regarded as "garbage in", then you will only be able to interpret garbage out of it.
Likewise, the imperfect and limited study of Nature will only produce rash, hasty and erroneous conclusions, --especially if one is observing Nature with a fixed theistic paradigm of it in one's mind. Or in other words, it is incorrect to look at a Rose and conclude "God-did-it"
It takes a Darwin, followed by the whole paraphernalia of modern scientific investigation with modern instruments, to be able to examine Nature in minute detail, -and thereby come to a different interpretation, which is necessarily better than a prior incomplete methodology.

One should beware of turning Spinoza into a God-like authority on interpretive methods.

Wads4 · 07-29-2006, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Their meme no longer spreads to other humans, correct. However, there is a flip side to immortality. As I said earlier, the idea is to identify our own life with that of Being itself. This is what Christ meant by "I am one with the Father". In his own earthly life he saw himself as nothing but a manifestation of Being itself, which is eternal. Further, Being itself is what it is by virtue of our individual existence. Without us, it wouldn't be what it is. So immortality is a kind of triple fail safe: we live eternally within the species, within Being, and within ourselves. Death is an illusion, a superstition.

So then the concept of immortality was invented in order to make you immortal? You cannot change Existence by inventing an alternative version of it. Life goes on, and that is a universal immortality,--unless something happens to wipe it out, which is quite possible. Individuals die and stay dead, -though of course they may have a line of descendents, who will probably go extinct after a while;--we know that happens frequently.
What use is immortality if it does not apply to oneself,-but only (say) to a Cochroach?

Toto · 07-29-2006, 03:11 PM

Interesting op ed in the NYTimes about Spinoza: Reasonable Doubt

Quote:

THURSDAY marked the 350th anniversary of the excommunication of the philosopher Baruch Spinoza from the Portuguese Jewish community of Amsterdam in which he had been raised.

...

The exact reasons for the excommunication of the 23-year-old Spinoza remain murky, but the reasons he came to be vilified throughout all of Europe are not. Spinoza argued that no group or religion could rightly claim infallible knowledge of the Creator’s partiality to its beliefs and ways. After the excommunication, he spent the rest of his life — he died in 1677 at the age of 44 — studying the varieties of religious intolerance. The conclusions he drew are still of dismaying relevance.

No Robots · 07-29-2006, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Interesting op ed in the NYTimes about Spinoza: Reasonable Doubt

Thanks, Toto!

Johnny Skeptic · 07-29-2006, 06:05 PM

Message to No Robots: Please reply to my post #82.

07-29-2006, 06:05 PM	#90
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	What is your best argument against the Bible? Message to No Robots: Please reply to my post #82.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.