FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-14-2002, 07:55 PM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: US
Posts: 5,495
Talking

Quote:
Originally posted by David Mathews:
<strong>Hello emphryio,

If you have something useful to do, you should go ahead and do it.
</strong>
And so should you..... BTW any answers yet?
John Page is offline  
Old 07-14-2002, 08:35 PM   #22
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: small cold water flat
Posts: 471
Question

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Mathews:
.... Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton and William Shakespeare were ignorant of reality, ..."

Now why does that phrase taken out of context not suprise me ? Did you pick 3 of the greatest minds at random or was it because they were so far ahead of their time ? OR.....???
Bluenose is offline  
Old 07-14-2002, 09:02 PM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Indus
Posts: 1,038
Post

Umm, this forum is being turned into a theology one?

David

I suspect that all of the claims that atheists make regarding their accurate and complete knowledge of reality correspond to the shadows in the cave, and that the light corresponds to that one great mystery which is God.

Why do you "suspect" that the light corresponds to "god", why cant be truth, that truth which doesnt require blind faith and instead requires an inquiring and mind? And I wonder which atheists you are referring to when you talk about claims about "accurate and complete knowledge of reality"? Do theists like yourself make such claims ?

Anyhows...

1. When you say reality, what do you mean?

2. Do you think that this particular reality of yours is complete and inclusive.

3. Which "reality" is correct? Yours or the other umpteen religions' or science. If you think the other religious realities are not "false" as you stated above, then is your reality "false"? Or you think given that all of us view the world around us through our "personal" glasses, we should just continue to respect each others' glasses ? Does this just stop at respect or one should inquire about others' glasses and try to share and understand various viewpoints so that we all can "try" to view through the same glasses?
phaedrus is offline  
Old 07-15-2002, 06:02 AM   #24
WJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 812
Post

I think that the only thing that is false is the dichotomy between science and religion, as they certainly can co-exist. Better said, a belief in the existence of God can strenghten one's so-called intuitional outlook or perspective regarding the history/development behind natural science and what it all means to us.

That said, what *is* dichotomious is the aprior/aposterior. In that regard, modal logic has no value whatsoever in proving the (non) existence of a Being known as God. Nor does it prove or disprove the nature of my/our existence.

David Mathews:

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />
WJ is offline  
Old 07-15-2002, 08:00 AM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: PA USA
Posts: 5,039
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by emphryio:
<strong>Maybe David's just hear to distract us from doing something useful?</strong>
Why no substantial answers, David? Are you only here to be heard?

At least you could state once in a while that, "Hey, you make I good point, I honestly can't refute your position, much as I'd like to."

joe
joedad is offline  
Old 07-15-2002, 04:32 PM   #26
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: st. petersburg
Posts: 622
Post

Hello phaedrus,

Quote:
Why do you "suspect" that the light corresponds to "god", why cant be truth, that truth which doesnt require blind faith and instead requires an inquiring and mind?
David: That is just a suspicion on my own part.

Quote:
And I wonder which atheists you are referring to when you talk about claims about "accurate and complete knowledge of reality"?
David: Those atheists who make such a claim. For example, an atheist who made an argument such as God cannot exist because I cannot perceive God might fall under that classification.

Quote:
Do theists like yourself make such claims ?
David: I make no such claim.

Quote:
1. When you say reality, what do you mean?
David: "Reality" in my view is all that exist, whether known/unknown, perceived/unperceived, comprehended/incomprehensible to humankind.

Quote:
2. Do you think that this particular reality of yours is complete and inclusive.
David: I don't believe that any human view of reality is complete and inclusive.

Quote:
3. Which "reality" is correct?
David: None.

Quote:
Yours or the other umpteen religions' or science. If you think the other religious realities are not "false" as you stated above, then is your reality "false"?
David: My reality is not "false" just incomplete.

Quote:
Or you think given that all of us view the world around us through our "personal" glasses, we should just continue to respect each others' glasses ?
David: Yes, that is an excellent policy for theists and atheists alike.

Quote:
Does this just stop at respect or one should inquire about others' glasses and try to share and understand various viewpoints so that we all can "try" to view through the same glasses?
David: We should try to look through each others' glasses, walk in each others' shoes and develop some appreciation for viewpoints which are contrary to our own.

Sincerely,

David Mathews
David Mathews is offline  
Old 07-15-2002, 04:56 PM   #27
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: st. petersburg
Posts: 622
Post

Hello thefugitivesaint,

[uote] To even assert the premise of ones nonexistence is a joke. To ask whether or not you "are" requires you to "be" in some form or another thus negating the very 'question' itself. The obvious fact is that regardless of whether we are all merely living within an illusion of some powerful demons construction, brains-in-vats or existing in a 'matrix' world of some sort the operational difference, to us, is nil. It would be absurd to raise ones own hands before ones own face and ask, "How do i know these are my hands or if these hands are even there?" There is no possible context in which these doubts could have meaning. As if a man were to buy several copies of the same daily paper just to verify that what the 1st copy said was indeed true. [/quote]

David: While the request may sound absurd and the proof may seem pointless, I cannot automatically accept the reality of "I" as a given. I suppose that there are some circumstances in which "I" is nonexistent, for example the identity that "I" possess in a dream may seem authentic within the context of the dream but once I have woken up it would be counterproductive to count these memories of dreams as recording actual events in my life.

In what sense can anyone say that "I" exists? I believe only in a subjective sense.

Quote:
But, i ask, how can this be? Reality presses itself upon each of us and is unrelenting about its presence. You can define it how you like, percieve it as you wish, hide from it with pearly layers of protective myths but reality cares little for our collective vantage points. Earthquakes, torandoes, floods, famine, disease, etc. all reinforce the lack of control we all think we have concering our lives and the world we live in. Reality cannot be bargained with and we possess no tender it finds valid. It is amoral and is not concerned with our existence. It is and we are part and parcel of it.
David: We can agree that reality is amoral and unconcerned with its impact of individual humans and humankind. However, I am talking about the "reality" as individuals define and comprehend it. Our "reality" is to seem degree a subjective mental construct based upon our own perceptions, preferences, opinions, convictions, ignorances and errors.

The objective reality exist outside and inside us, but the subjective reality is purely and exclusively an abstract concept of the mind.

I think it presumptuous on our own part to assume that our subjective reality actually corresponds in any way with the objective reality. Simply stated, too many things are occurring in the Universe every second for us to keep up with even 1% of what is actually happening.

There are six billion humans on the Earth, more people are born and die every day than we will ever know in our lifetime. All six billion perceive the Universe in some manner which is different than myself. It would be foolish for me to assume that my view of reality is correct, complete and better than anyone else's.

Quote:
If this is, in fact, true then how can you explain the overtly successful endeavour of science and its naturalistic bases? No intellectual and philosophical tool has shaped our world so strongly and had such deeply felt ramifications across cultures around the world. We may not have a complete picture of "reality" but it is quite obvious to me that this aspect of your critique is an empty one as science does well enough with the limited, provisional knowledge it possess.
David: I don't dispute science's success. Science's success is astonishing but science is by no means omniscient nor infallible. Science itself has generated such a volume of data that no individual human could absorb the whole amount. Scientists specialize, becoming specialists in a very narrowly confined field and remaining essentially ignorant of even closely related fields.

Science is also active, with thousands of pages of new research published every year. I suppose that scientists may keep up with their discipline for a limited time, but soon enough the flood of data will engulf him/her.

Quote:
It may be a grandoise beleif to think that we will one day come upon a unified theory of everything or that we will arrive at some complete understanding of the fundamentals of the universe we reside in. Or, maybe we will come to some point were we have exhausted all there is to know and will be able to us that knowledge, if we haven't wiped ourselves out as a species or suffered from some unseen natural event.

Who knows?
David: I say that no matter how perfect mankind's knowledge of science becomes, humankind will probably become extinct at some point within the next five million years. We may take pride in whatever we accomplish but in the long run, the accomplishment will be utterly futile.

Quote:
And as to "denying" or "excluding" anything from "reality" i do not do so. I do, however, examine specific, defined claims and see how they fair well to skeptical inquiry and examination. The notion of "god" is one of them. Does any "god(s)" exist? Well, no proof has been forthcoming after all of this time, no definition has withstood logic and come out intact on the other side, and i see no "gods" prclaiming there actuality. I do see some of my fellow human beings claiming to speak in this or that "gods" name but i see no reason to take what they have to say seriously. I've visited the churches, the temples, the mosques, the synagogues, etc. and they all make the same basic claims in their own particular ways. Not a one of them has ever rung true to me.

Does this rejection of theism entail a rejection of the notion of "god?" Am i fascinated by the shadows on the wall while a whole other perspective lies for me to discover it? Most likely not if my 28 years on this planet can attest to anything. Naturalism explains more than the supernatural ever could and it makes more sense while doing it. A science based on a naturalistic assumption has been successful where other endeavours related to it but based on mysticism and occult foundations have failed.
David: If you are open-minded toward the concept of God that is sufficient.

Sincerely,

David Mathews
David Mathews is offline  
Old 07-15-2002, 05:36 PM   #28
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hoboken, NJ USA
Posts: 177
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by philechat:
<strong>Am I the only one who construed Christianity as precisely that cave of shadows and freethought as the blinding light of reality?

The parable could go both ways, Rev. Mathews. It all depends upon our perspectives.

And as a side note, have you read the religious texts of Hinduism, Buddhism, Greek paganism, the Koran, etc.etc.? Ever wondered why those texts are "false" compared to the Bible?</strong>
Well put. Christianity is Platonism for the masses.

--slacker
slacker is offline  
Old 07-15-2002, 09:35 PM   #29
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Indus
Posts: 1,038
Post

David

That is just a suspicion on my own part.

Reasons for the suspicion?

Those atheists who make such a claim. For example, an atheist who made an argument such as God cannot exist because I cannot perceive God might fall under that classification.

Ahh, then it shouldnt be a generalisation. Well the atheist who has made such an argument is not claiming "complete and accurate knowledge", he/she is basing the argument based on "current" evidence. You might argue saying that God is beyond evidence and is grounded in faith, but you cant win the argument, since the argument is based on "evidence", that empirical evidence which has helped science establish itself as one of the more successful metanarratives. Everyone is entitled to their own belief system, only when one tries to sell it to others or impose, the argument starts.

"Reality" in my view is all that exist, whether known/unknown, perceived/unperceived, comprehended/incomprehensible to humankind

You say all that exists and then add qualifiers like unknown, unperceived...etc. Isnt that an inconsistency? How can unknown and unpercieved exist?

I don't believe that any human view of reality is complete and inclusive.

My reality is not "false" just incomplete.


Ok, then you must think your version of reality is privileged? (otherwise you wouldnt subscribe to it right?) If yes, then why do you think this reality of yours is privileged? What about the islamic version or hindu version or buddhist version or the scientific version, do you think they are more incomplete compared to your version?

We should try to look through each others' glasses, walk in each others' shoes and develop some appreciation for viewpoints which are contrary to our own

I would believe that most atheists have already looked through the theistic glasses and walked in religious shoes and then developed an appreciation for the non-theistic version They cant appreciate "faith", they prefer the inquiring mind without the trappings of a religious framework. I dont know how you approach religion, but doesnt having faith in a book or entity "limit" the inquiry, since the boundary is drawn?

JP
phaedrus is offline  
Old 07-16-2002, 03:29 AM   #30
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: st. petersburg
Posts: 622
Post

Hello phaedrus,

Quote:
You say all that exists and then add qualifiers like unknown, unperceived...etc. Isnt that an inconsistency? How can unknown and unpercieved exist?
David: The Unknown and unperceived can exist quite easily. Presumably there are planets around stars in the Andrmomeda galaxy, though we do not know that they exist and it is impossible to perceive their existence with any telescope today.

Presumably, x-rays existed for millennia although man did not know nor perceive their existence.

Quote:
Ok, then you must think your version of reality is privileged? (otherwise you wouldnt subscribe to it right?) If yes, then why do you think this reality of yours is privileged? What about the islamic version or hindu version or buddhist version or the scientific version, do you think they are more incomplete compared to your version?
David: I don't consider my view of reality privileged except in the sense that it is my view of reality. I do not know anyone else's view of reality because it is nearly impossible for people to describe their view of reality accurately and completely.

Sincerely,

David Mathews
David Mathews is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:46 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.