The problem with atheism – No rational connection between the methodology and object

[greenberg]

As you are still living, I assume you have accepted the dooctrine of karma and rebirth. So get on with a life which is informed by these beliefs and cease to seek assurance from members of this forum

So you think this is what I am doing "seeking assurance from members of this forum"?!?

:bugeye:

Odd that. If someone keeps a relatively low profile, displays a willingness to discuss, openly admits their fears and weaknesses, doesn't call people names, and doesn't come off as overly dogmatic - some people conclude this person must be insecure and "seeking assurance".

Or perhaps your projection of such intentions on me as you do above is some kind of reversed psychology ...

Perhaps I would need to be more in line with "the SciForums standard of discussion" in order not to be misunderstood here ...

 

[lightgigantic]

If you are saying that there are only ants and humans in the world.

for the sake of making an analogy simple, yes

Ants recognize a range of other animals and plants.. perhaps even more than you can.

Most people would think the human form offers a better spread from the macro to the micro, at least in comparison to ants .... and I don't think its an issue of speciesism

 

[Enmos]

it appears that you can also distinguish too

I just hope asserting that Mongolians and Caucasians are distinct species was a fuck up on your part, and not something you actually believe.

do you think that they can perceive our cognition that they can perceive chemicals more sensitively than we can?

Can you perceive my cognitions about you ?
I'm just curious, are you saying that we are superior to ants on all fronts ?

as mentioned earlier, every species can do something unique
even a lemon tree can produce citric acid way better than we can

Yet you are disagreeing with me about ant cognition being superior to ours on several fronts.

 

[Enmos]

for the sake of making an analogy simple, yes


Most people would think the human form offers a better spread from the macro to the micro, at least in comparison to ants .... and I don't think its an issue of speciesism

Dude, you bluntly said ants cannot recognize other species.

 

[greenberg]

Authority does not necessitate truth. It's the easy way out, to let someone do your thinking for you.

There are two issues at work here here:
One, standard definitions or normative descriptions. Dictionaries and reference works of all kinds, in short. Referring to a dictionary and other standard reference works is not "letting someone else do the thinking for you". It's an effort to keep communication meaningful. But if we do not refer to such works, communication becomes a game of Humpty Dumpty: "When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean" - going that way, at some point, it becomes impossible to communicate successfully. Refering to authoritative reference works is an effort of avoiding the Humpty Dumpty situation.

Two, what you actually seem to fear when you fear authority in reference to spirituality, is spiritual bypass. Spiritual bypass can occur when a person hastily takes on various beliefs and practices, thinking that they will magically undo all their troubles and make them happy. Whereby such a person ignores their actual problems and neglects their everyday obligations. In spiritual bypass, it in effect happens that "others do one's thinking for one". Sooner or later, a person who is on such a bypass, will crash.

However, some religious traditions take precautions against this phenomenon of spiritual bypass. So for example the karmic traditions like Hinduism and especially Buddhism, instruct the person to engage with their life as it is, to deal with their own karma as it is. They emphasize graduality and they teach you to watch what is actually going on in your mind.

Whereas a tradition like "mainstream Christianity" and many popular New Age philosophies, I would say are in effect teaching spiritual bypass.

So then promises don't mean anything, it's results you're looking for. The next question is; how you do go about evaluating the results of any particular philosophy?

Generally: Take an instruction, act on it, see where it gets you.
Also, but this takes more reflection and experience: Take an instruction, reflect on whether acting on it would cause harm to oneself or others. If it appears it would, don't act on it. If it appears it would be a safe course of action to take, act on it.

Happiness is not a goal to reach, it is a way of traveling.

Oh? And I should just believe you this, take it on your authority?

Just don't expect me to agree with your evaluations, I make my own.

Do you think I was expecting you to agree with me?

 

[greenberg]

The radical individual who does not use authorities is more than likely simply rehashing pop psychology and the worst parts of common sense.

Heh. Unfortunately, what you say above is a frequent reality among humans. A world of Humpty Dumpties ...

 

[Enmos]

Yea, do you guys start liking humanity already ?

 

[Simon Anders]

There are two cases here: circumstantial incapability and theoretical impossibility. Scientists only start talking about assumed non-existence in the second case - and even there, an advance in theory can reset all the assumptions. This has happened enough times to create an appropriate humility, at least pro forma and institutional, among at least some.

I have certainly encountered this humlity in some scientists. It is often those who are not scientists but are somewhat science literate and fans of science, so to speak, that are the worst offenders. Nevertheless I there is some tendency even in those working with science to make assumptions about what is likely and what is unlikely despite changes in the history of science that should have put these kinds of speculations to bed long ago.

But the basic human condition is such that science has more trouble with assumed wholes and existences where they are not than failure to recognize them where they are. Getting rid of the assumptions of evil spirits and curses has often been the first step in learning about a disease, for example. Humans need little encouragement to see great patterns and wholes everywhere, and name them without having ascertained even their existence.

People can always find examples of why a certain human skill or attribute is bad by looking at negative examples. The problem is some people are bad at just about everything. And some people are not.

What I notice, for example in these forums, is that scientists and their fans often use intuition to state with varying degrees of certainty the liklihood of this or that phenomenon and what are poor lifestyle choices - for example by those who trust their intuitions either more than this group or in different areas. These seeing of wholes - or proclamations about what wholes are unlikely or impossible to exist - are based on intuition. There are also a myriad of ways that intuition forms the basis for their decision making processes, but these are downplayed or denied. The issue is not who avoids positing wholes and using intuition, but how much and in what areas. But this is denied also.

I also see a confusion, often, between having provided decent evidence that a certain model can be used to provide repeatable effects AND the metaphysics that goes along with this model being the only possible correct one. The is also the positing of wholes though it is rarely acknowledged as such.

 

[Simon Anders]

You are wrong. Many of us believe that knwledge is provisional. We give the best explanation we can at any point in time, knowing that the future will almost certainly prove us wrong. We have learned to live with uncertaint, and get on with life. We do not cling.

and then

I have yet to come across a religious doctrine which makres sense to me. I find the word doctrin e.( teaching ) uncomfortable. If you , however, find one doctrineor another satisfying, then adopt it, live according to its tenets and don't waste time on a science forum.

Your sense that Greenberg is wasting time is provisional, I assume.

You are wasting your time on this one. You are asking for the impossible. See if you can learn contentment, happiness is a vague concept, and let tomorrow take care of itself.

What I bolded is I assume a hypothesis. The rest of the quote has implicit hypotheses about how one should live life. I assume you either consider these mere hypotheses or at most provisional. Yes?

If you truly believe something, what others think is irrelevant.

A provisional assertion, I assume again, given the first quote of yours in this post of mine. Also one with interesting potentially even metaphysical implications.

So get on with a life which is informed by these beliefs and cease to seek assurance from members of this forum. Stop thinking so much and starty living !

Another statement, seemingly of fact, with implications about psychology, the specific psychology (and what goes into the well-being) of the referred to person and implicit assumptions about how one goes about affecting change in others.

I assume all this is based on what you consider provisional knowledge, both the implicit and explicit assertions.

You should know that it does not come across as considered provisional.

Given that the provisional ideas you put forward here are about the very same realm that Greenberg seems interested in, are you not, also, wasting time, and further setting yourself up, by the way your provisional ideas are presented, to be an authority for Greenberg. If this latter is not one of your goals, it raises again the issue of your time being wasted. Two people: one exploring possibilities in collaboration with others in the broad realm of psychospiritual approachs; the other describing his own (it would seem it must be provisional) knowledge about what is the correct psychospiritual approach to life, albeit sometimes on a higher level of abstraction - eg. if you believe it just do it. 'It' in this case not the focus of inquiry.

 

[Myles]

So you think this is what I am doing "seeking assurance from members of this forum"?!?

:bugeye:

Odd that. If someone keeps a relatively low profile, displays a willingness to discuss, openly admits their fears and weaknesses, doesn't call people names, and doesn't come off as overly dogmatic - some people conclude this person must be insecure and "seeking assurance".

Or perhaps your projection of such intentions on me as you do above is some kind of reversed psychology ...

Perhaps I would need to be more in line with "the SciForums standard of discussion" in order not to be misunderstood here ...

In short, yes.

I am not a psychologist but I would classify you to some extent as an attention-seeker. I have not all that many of your posts but, from what I have read, the following comes across.

You pose a question and, having had a number of suggestions made, you thgen want to go deeper and depper, that is as you perceive it. Look at a lot of your posta and you will see that you are asking the same thing in different guises, time and again. That suggests a need for re-assurance and attention. For example, you ask a question such as " should one seek advive from others ". If you are told it is worth while to do so, you counter with somethoing along the lines of " how can I know the difference between good and bad advice ?" How can I be sure the person giving the advice is not promoting some agenda which might be harmful to my spiritual agenda ? " From this point the duscussion cn lead to people and their motivation. How does one understand one's own motives ? And so on ad infinitum.

I am not pouring scorn on you or the process of philosophical enquiry; it's more a question of your inability to act. You are in a catch 22 situation. You will not act without guarantees and you ask for guarantees which cannot be given.

Your idea of enquiry is at odds with what one normally understands by that word. You have saud words to the effect that if the notion of karma and rebirth is not true, then life is not worth living. Seventy years is nowhere long enough. So, I suggest your natural inclination is to gravitate towards the sorts of doctrines and beliefs which appear to offer what you want from life. The truth, insofar as we can know it, somehow takes a backseat.

Please believe, I am not trying to put you down. I can't provide many answers but I have lived long enough to realize that there are no certainties. If I ask someone's advice, I will eveluate it from the standpoint of whether it appears to be in my interest to accep or reject it. I do not concern myself with what motivates the other person may have.

I honestly believe that all one can do is to take one's courage in one's hands and act The alternative seems to be to put living on hold whilethe enquiry continues.

My sincere advice to you is to put all further metaphysical speculation aside for the present. Throw caution to the winds, whatever that might mean to you. and act. The outcome can be evaluated later, if you feel it is worth doing.

Try getting blind drunk, telling someone what you really think of them without fear or favour,or do something outrageous and to hell with the consequences. See what it feels like to be free. Do what you like but do something !

All the evidence I have suggests that we have one life; do not let it slip away while you are ruminating !

I have enough sense to know that everything I have said will wash over you head and that you will carry on as before.

I hope you can accept what I have said in the spirit in which it is intended.

 

[lightgigantic]

Emnos

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
for the sake of making an analogy simple, yes


Most people would think the human form offers a better spread from the macro to the micro, at least in comparison to ants .... and I don't think its an issue of speciesism

”
Dude, you bluntly said ants cannot recognize other species.

and given that issue in discussion is cognition and how an ant is more clued into topic of topography than species, what do you suppose I was suggesting?

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
it appears that you can also distinguish too

”
I just hope asserting that Mongolians and Caucasians are distinct species was a fuck up on your part, and not something you actually believe.

ditto above

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
do you think that they can perceive our cognition that they can perceive chemicals more sensitively than we can?
”
Can you perceive my cognitions about you ?

sure - if I couldn't I might as well be talking to a brick wall ....

I'm just curious, are you saying that we are superior to ants on all fronts ?

on the cognitive front, yes

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
as mentioned earlier, every species can do something unique
even a lemon tree can produce citric acid way better than we can
”
Yet you are disagreeing with me about ant cognition being superior to ours on several fronts.

I mean cognition in terms of the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning.
You seem to be talking about innate abilities (which is why I mentioned lemon trees) - so sure, every living entity has some scope for cognition, if it didn't it would just be a dull stone ... but the scope for cognition is thousands of times greater in human beings, unless you want to argue that there is some secret world of science and philosophy within ant society that deals with issues beyond mere animal propensities of eating, sleeping, mating and defense and further accommodates their innate abilities.

 

[greenberg]

Thank you for your comment, Myles.