This is not funny.
Has anyone actually had the experience where such a thing as quoted above was said to them?
A real interpersonal conflict, and the other person comes up with deep philosophical questions?
A God We Know Nothing About
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
This is not funny.
Has anyone actually had the experience where such a thing as quoted above was said to them?
A real interpersonal conflict, and the other person comes up with deep philosophical questions?
two facts, yes..
ut i still didn't reach a conclusion..if you reached one..please share
But matter isn't matter anymore. We've taken a word that generally referred to solid and liquid objects and then later engulfed gases and using it for everything. But that everything and even those solid objects are not very solid. Certainly many are swayed by the dead metaphor, but the door is open in science and there are scientists investigating parapsychology and what most would consider non-material phenomena. The ones doing this under those labels are certain fringe, but the center is encountering bizzarre phenomena which show unmediated actions over distance, as one example amongst many. My point is that the methodology itself is not a problem and some scientists are not either. We do have a heavy double metaphysical heritage that scientists as a culture and religious people as a culture carry. And this baggage is limiting. But that's the culture and people break out of cultures and there is nothing in trying to repeat phenomena that stops one from investigating anything.
but that is not a universally held position within science.
Nor is this.
if only!
You have to trust yourself. I mean look at the two statements above. In the first you are essentially asserting that it does not matter if they follow it themselves and in the second you are talking about their ability to deny this. They cannot deny your awareness of it.
If they can then there is a kernal of this in you - and I certainly still have these kernals in me.
Sort of a jump:
do you see how much effort is put into combatting 'irrational' thought in forums that are of absolutely no interest to science groupies?
Why is that?
I hesitate to take these questions literally, but.....
his or her mockery betrays his or her naivte about the issues.
I was trying to go at a related issue in my metaphysics, common sense and science thread.
I think some people confuse - one day, but not the next - Science, with common sense. So they think that the philosophical issues, sarcastically thrown at you, us above - are somehow resolved by science, whereas a good number of scientists are happily smashing notions of self in ways not unlike Buddhist ones.
On another day a science groupie might attack the 'naivte' of a religious person because the latter does´not accept certain counterintuitive truths.
Not that it is easy to look hell in the face, but I think it is honorable and thorough to do this AT THE VERY LEAST in relations to what one thinks are one's own beliefs, in this case science.
And this is all setting aside the fact that we are in a Religion subforum in a Philosophy forum. Sigh.
But what when it doesn't look like mockery at all? When the other person looks genuinely angry and upset while saying, for example 'How do you even know you exist?! You have no self!'
The statement might be philosophically naive, but the accompanying emotions don't suggest naivete at all.
Or perhaps I need to overhaul my notion of naivete.
I've always thought that naivete implies niceness and harmlessness, absence of any negative emotions.
I do think it is philosophically naive to bring up serious philosophical issues while in an interpersonal conflict.
Tell me about this 'one day, but not the next'! I have seen so much of it.
I am not sure I understand - do what exactly in relation to one's own beliefs? To see if and how one uses them ambigously or opportunistically?
What do you mean?
The word 'matter', as it tends to be used, implies, among other things, that it is about something that can be fully empirically investigated and that there is no metaphysical factor involved in how matter exists and functions.
Ever tried what it is like to be a person in the field of science, among scientists? In actual, person-to-person communication, I think very non-scientific attitudes have the upper hand. So how much does it really matter what proper science says or does, when at the end of the day, it comes down to the personal attitudes of your co-workers and boss?
I agree. This is why I kept qualifying the term science with 'traditional Western'.
You sound very optimistic!
I don't understand ... I have thought that the situation was basically one of 'We are enlightened and you are not, and an unenlightened person cannot recognize an enlightened one; but you should certainly consider us enlightened and do as we say you should' - and me thinking that I should do as the enlightened tell me to do. Do you think this is not the case here?
Do you think there is something else at work here - such as me having the same tendency to deny (or at least wish to correct) other people's perceptions?
Interesting!
Indeed, there are no real scientists here, and the few that aspire to be don't post much.
There are also no serious philosophers here except perhaps for two; and those two seem to have a very particular agenda for posting here anyway.
And the methods often employed at this forum are certainly less than scientific, less than philosophical.
Other than that - Whose 'irrational' thought is being combatted here? There are some posters who state clearly (or at least this attitude becomes apparent when talking to them) that they are here to teach and correct others. Many others seem to be chasing their own demons.
What do you think, why much effort is put into combatting 'irrational' thought in forums that are of absolutely no interest to science groupies?
I find metaphysics in all descriptions.
As a general rule, sure. But there are exceptions, a lot of them.
OK, but most traditional Western scientists were theists for a long time.
I do don't I? I feel like their hold is slipping off me. I do not think I will be alone in this.
I think the judgments about what is not possible or likely are already in you and me. They seem huge 'out there' but that is because they are in here.
Oh, probably. I mean, I find pretty much every pattern in myself. but no, I am not running down that line. I'll speak about me. I got several paradigms shoved into my brain in childhood and earlier. This places offers and opportunity to bounce off these viewpoints as if they were out there. I think this process locks down if it is only seen as out there because the doubt is within also.
Or they post in forums where they have their expertise. I am no expert in science, but I do have one degree in it and have maintained an interest for a long time. Most of the groupies strike me as rather confused themselves about science, epistemology, how language is an enormous issue in 'truth', etc.
It's funny but if you look at philosophers, like the ones who would get in analogies, up to the 20th century, and often beyond, these guys, since they are mostly guys, are like artists. I mean they make up a lot of terms, a lot of their work is gestural or can be interpreted in many ways. But a philosopher seems to be more of a logician, I think because the field has a 'render unto science, that which is science's......' kind of attitude. It seems like a system for straigtening out common sense and placing it beside science.
Which was part of my thread on Justification. It seemed to me that rationality could take a back seat to being on the right team. I saw this in the latitude the 'rational' team members allowed themselves and each other. A latitude in the precise areas they based their primary criticism of their opponents. Means justified by ends I suppose.
yes, we can come and meet our demons. And notice how they are undefeatable. This visit I notice that my own reaction to my own posts dominated my reactions. I am still surprised by this. '
I mean I still hoped that real dialogue could happen here or there where it did not. I still hoped someone would say, my god, perhaps i cannot know that or know that is not possible or even rational. But these were peripheral feelings.
Control and identity issues.
I mean it is sciforums. You could just eliminate Religion. It is not as if there are no other venues. Keep philosophy of science/epistemology and toss out the rest of the philosophy forum including ethics, which is hardly science. Or you could cast things like ethics and politics into a NONscience subforum.
But there it all is like a big piece of fly paper.
Makes me think of those couples where one is rational, supposedly, and the other, usually the woman, but not always, is more flaky. Often the husband needs a real crisis to realize that these have been roles and ideas about what is really going on.
I could certainly have misread that poster's intentions. But I thought they were mocking what they saw as random silly metaphysics. I took it as flip and snide, not as real philosophical questions.
counterintuitive is mocked on one day and then defended on the next day from a position of superiority. Of course one can believe that certain counterintuitive things are true and others are not. But they get milage in their mockery simply because the other person's is counterintuitive one day.
An excellent dynamic, relation based interpretation, but not what I meant. I meant what it would mean if things were deterministic, or if we are made of matter that is constantly being replaced, or if some interpretations of Einstein's notions of time were true, or if the self is a mere epiphenomenon.
Right or wrong it seems to me many people have not digested what they feel so smug about having eaten. This also includes the religious. I mean some of the anger here aimed at religious people is because they may not have noticed how evil their God seems to be. I can have that reaction to religious people also. I have it in relation to science groupies also. I think ideas are primarily words in the brain to many of them.
Well, that person, I thought, was raising philosophical issues sarcastically, as if it would be silly and stupid to even take the questions seriously like the people these saracastic remarks were aimed were taking other silly questions seriously.
Which seems silly to me in a Philosophy forum. Nor do I think the issues raised stand as resolved even in science.
Well, I just wanted to see what it was like to ask such questions. I've seen them fired at me several times. My apologies to those who didn't get the sarcastic nature of my questions.
Anyway back to the challenge at hand. I'm still waiting for the theistic dignitaries that claim to know God to provide us with something tangible, heck I'll settle for something intangible, anything at all about God. Resident experts continue to evade the subject. I can only conclude that no one knows anything which actually makes me feel pretty good considering the thread title.
How can someone believe God is knowable if one undergoes some type of mental exercise(meditation), yet if someone claims the same without going through the mental process then that guy is nuts? Way too much emphasis placed on the mental condition by way of thought. It is not hallowed ground, it is not special, it does not transcend reality. It is normal behavior for beings such as us, a fascinating attribute of intelligence, nothing more.
As mentioned earlier, even you are capable of bringing a few qualitative definitions to the table
the problem with your foray into a quantitative explanation of god is that it violates even qualitative models (eg A god with rotting molars).
Kind of like a person trying to pass themselves off as a car mechanic yet they can't change a tyre when required (IOW the obvious question is, "Where the hell did they get trained?")
Oh, I got that you asked the questions in a sarcastic tone. I thought that was clear from my post.
I just know, from personal experience, that such questions come up for real as well, with intense negative emotions accompanying them.
Beware of the day when your intelligence leaves you.
So if you found out that one of your beliefs was held by someone who was crazy, you would decide, despite the different ways you came to that idea, you had been wrong all along?
There are those who claim to have come to know God through the discipline of meditation. For some of them it is a higher level of consciousness, a pinnacle of pensive pursuits. The rest of us are mere mortals until we can successfully attain the heights of the god knowing philosophers. However, on occasion there are the completely whacky, the people whose mental deficiencies places them at the bottom of the intelligence barrel.
Both the great philosophers and the mentally ill come up with exactly the same conclusions at times. I'm not worried about right or wrong but I care about how one got there. They both think they're right and I really don't care but don't go on pontificating about how the unwashed atheist needs to do an about face. I think a mentally ill theist knows more about God than a religious philosopher, at least the evidence indicates such.
This leaves out quite a number of other categories, but OK.
Sure, and some schizophrenics will say their brain is really a machine which matches the opinions of many scientists.
Well, let me know when I refer to atheists as unwashed and tell them to do an about face. If I do either of these things or both of them, please let me know. I can't imagine I have asserted anywhere that atheists should change their minds and believe in God.
I have no idea what to do with this remark. Maybe it fits in in a discussion with some third party.I think a mentally ill theist knows more about God than a religious philosopher, at least the evidence indicates such.
Hey wise acre, I'm just taking a shot at the religious philosopher who shall remain nameless but can't give me an example of something he knows about God. Whereas I could find any number of zanies who would be more than pleased to tell me all about it.
I just think it funny that so much emphasis is put on the mind and its seemingly supernatural ability to remove itself from this reality to visit God yet someone losing their mind can accomplish the same thing without even trying..
I just think it funny that so much emphasis is put on the mind and its seemingly supernatural ability to remove itself from this reality to visit God yet someone losing their mind can accomplish the same thing without even trying..
As mentioned, you already have a levy of qualities of god at your disposal ... hence the god with rotting molars doesn't hold
Life is full of such ironies
I forgot to include the drug induced hallucinogenic losers who also accomplish the same thing. Quite a select group. Philosophers, freaks and morons all sharing a common knowledge of God.
Have you ever considered that the moment someone makes an assertion about God to an unbeliever they can be asked to back it up AS IF they thought the other person should believe what they say. In such a context it is both rational and respectful not to make such assertions, since they are taken this way.
A person can, however, point out faulty assumptions and logic in those who makes statements about, for example, God not existing, because these are not assertions about God.
Not all rational beliefs can be proved to others.
I would guess you have no idea how very specific your concept is of a religious experience, what a tiny subset it is of how people conceive of and experience religious experiences.
By the way, who said atheists were unwashed and should do an about face?
No one, in those exact words. (I saw a girl the other day, a perfect 10, yesterday I met a 4).