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

[lightgigantic]

Greenberg

Regarding only the title and not the OP, there is another problem with atheism that can be summed up as "No rational connection between the methodology and object". Namely, typically, scientific atheism teaches us to investigate everything but ourselves. Millions are spent on space exploration, nuclear physics, studying animals and plants, studying the human body, behavior and diseases. But in all this, the "who we really are" is taken for granted, not further explored.

part of the reason for this is that the sphere of physics greatly revolutionized all the spheres of science (like biology for example). This influenced how theories were formed. For instance the synthesis of urea gave many great hopes that life could also be synthesized (and the hope is still fervent today) – so suddenly everyone starts cramming life into reductionist paradigms. Another classical example is where the decision was made to view the treatment of mental illness as some sort of chemical issue.

Even though that study is usually done with some relation to "us" (how "we" are endangered by pollution, how "we" can benefit from growing a specific kind of plant etc.), it is not clear who or what this "us" actually is. With lacking clarity in these matter, that study is irrational, having no clear connection between the methodology and the object.

hence the Vedas open up with the suggestion, the first quality of a learned person is that they know who they are ... or at the very least, they can control their senses and not get waylaid by lust, wrath, etc

 

[Enmos]

Emnos


I can make quite an extensive list of things I understand more completely than an ant.

"more completely" ? That is nonsense lol

I said a list of things you understand completely.

 

[lightgigantic]

Raithere

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
aka "moral relativism" ”
Hardly. Philosophy treats all different moral positions. Personally, I tend towards humanism and pragmatism. Of course, I retain Ferris Beuller's codicil "Isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an ism he should believe in himself."

Regardless of where your personal philosophical views stand, in your previous post you just offered a glorification of moral relativism in the guise of philosophy in general.


“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you can assert how cognitively inferior things are just as knowledgeable about the affairs of cognitively superior things (like say,ants knowing just as much about human affairs as humans) ”
As I've already demonstrated, one does not require complete knowledge or have to be "just as knowledgeable".

so an ant is just as completely knowledgeable about humans as a human?

No, I'm a flexible guy. I'd be happy to meet on God's terms.

BG 11.53 The form you are seeing with your transcendental eyes cannot be understood simply by studying the Vedas, nor by undergoing serious penances, nor by charity, nor by worship. It is not by these means that one can see Me as I am.
BG 11.54 My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding.
… Probably not as flexible as you think …
“

you couldn't distinguish a printing error from a tumor ”
Actually I can. I have had quite a bit of exposure to medical diagnostics. It's not that difficult really. Anyone of average intelligence can grasp the concepts and understand the indicators. Especially if one compares a normal result to an abnormal one.

a little bit of adherence to normative descriptions goes a long way, eh?

 

[Enmos]

so an ant is just as completely knowledgeable about humans as a human?

Should I add "humans" to the list ?
Expect a few questions though..

 

[lightgigantic]

Should I add "humans" to the list ?
Expect a few questions though..

expect even more if you invite an ant to enlighten us about human culture and society

 

[Enmos]

expect even more if you invite an ant to enlighten us about human culture and society

Ants aren't making the claims you have made.

Provide a list please.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ants aren't making the claims you have made.

Provide a list please.

if ants aren't making the claim there is no need to provide a list

 

[phlogistician]

“ Phlogistician



take the issue up with your local etymologist. It’s a definition from the dictionary
:shrug:

It's not about what is written in the dictionary, but the fact that you were using allegory.

I can only assume that if you think it’s a difficult task to find you mention either directly or indirectly that there is no proof/evidence behind the claim of god, that you are working with some screwy definition of atheism … I mean particularly if you want to work with the notion that an atheist is someone who has not considered the existence of god (seriously, how do you form a value statement, like “you guys are nuts/deluded/speaking an untruth/following something that has no basis in reality/etc”, without considering their point of view … )

Find it, link it. Stop hiding behind more prose. Facts only, please.

you just claimed that an atheist is someone who has not considered the existence of god.
If you have to come to a religious forum to peddle that definition, I think your purpose is defeated at the onset ….

That's one of the routes to atheism. I didn't say it was the only one. I mentioned it because you implied atheism was an active viewpoint, I pointed out that far from it, people who have never considered god are still atheists.

Seems you don't grasp this, and are getting a bit desperate.

 

[greenberg]

Primarily the moral and general cognitive relativism espoused by Western Philosophy as a whole. I will not accept such relativism and its consequences, I hold it is immoral, decadent.

That Philosophy is open and honest enough to acknowledge and discuss different ethical positions does not mean that it espouses moral relativism. In fact, moral relativism is a rather narrow view espoused by relatively few.

Note I spoke of "Western Philosophy as a whole". Western Philosophy is not uniform; the individual philosophies it is comprised of are sometimes even mutually exclusive with each other, but all in all, there are many different philosophies within the phenomenon of "Western Philosophy". Taken as a whole, Western Philosophy is relativistic: Namely, it is implied that none of the philosophies it is comprised of is authoritative or superior to others. If none is superior, anything goes, hence moral relativism.

You prefer instead religion which has promised these things for thousands of years and has yet to deliver on a single promise?

To use an analogy: When I set out to cook a dish, I look at a recipe and the photo of the dish. Now, in advance, I can not know or test, whether doing as the recipe says will indeed lead to the delicious-looking dish. But at least the promise of a delicious-looking dish is there. Without that promise, I would never even set out to try out the recipe, I wouldn't even read it.
Over time, as I try out many recipes and strive to improve my cooking abilities, I can tell a bit just from reading the ingredients or the instruction what the dish will be like. But still, I cannot know in advance, so I must be careful, humble and patient to do my best and follow the recipe, and also consider my so far gained cooking expertise - there may be things that the recipe doesn't mention but that someone who knows how to cook, does know.

So, yes, it is important to have a promise, to aim high, to be ambitious. Without that, one cannot hope to achieve much.

And as for various religions not delivering on their promises - I differ there with you. Perhaps you just haven't been so fortunate so far to meet the people and have the experiences that I have.
I know from personal experience and practice that several of the instructions I have learned from "Eastern philosophy" and acted on bore results as they promised.

Thirdly, Western Philosophy directly or indirectly operates on the premise that this one lifetime of about 70 years is all there is to human life. Western Philosophy requires unquestionable faith in death. I've lost that faith long ago.

You're simply wrong here. There are many philosophical doctrines that presume a spiritual level of existence.

"Presuming a spiritual level of existence" is not good enough for me.
And as far as I know, within Western Philosophy, there is no conception that would be equaivalent to those of karma and rebirth.

 

[greenberg]

Talking to you has become futile.

You admit to rejecting Western philosophy because it does not meet your requirements. How is one to interpret such a statement ?

You implicitly state as an aim that you are seeking a philosophical system that will support your personal happiness and not be based on the premise that we have only one life.

This is your implication - that I am "seeking a philosophical system that will support my personal happiness and not be based on the premise that we have only one life".
What makes you think I am still seeking such a system? And where have I stated that I am still seeking such a system?

Go East young man !

You can introspect and meditate as long as you wish but you will discover nothing that will help you in your quest. At best you may achioeve some form of tranquility and insight into your behaviour. You will not find answers to the big questions.

I think some tranquility and insight into my behavior is a mighty good start to begin to be able to answer the big questions.

At the risk of sounding cocky. can I say that I am quite content with things as I see them and feel no need to go looking for answers elsewhere.

Whenever you demand evidence from others, you are looking for answers elsewhere.

 

[Enmos]

if ants aren't making the claim there is no need to provide a list

Yea, keep dodging

Or maybe you didn't understand. You are saying that things that are inferior to us are completely knowable. I'm asking you to make a list of the things your have complete knowledge about.

 

[Raithere]

Regardless of where your personal philosophical views stand, in your previous post you just offered a glorification of moral relativism in the guise of philosophy in general.

Hardly. Unless your philosophy is so insecure that exposure to other doctrines undermines your own.

so an ant is just as completely knowledgeable about humans as a human?

I'm not going to belabor the point. I've already made this very clear. You're either not getting it or ignoring it deliberately.

Probably not as flexible as you think

Been there, done that.

a little bit of adherence to normative descriptions goes a long way, eh?

You keep bandying about terms as if you've stated something significant. I don't adhere to normative descriptions, they merely facilitate communication.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Namely, it is implied that none of the philosophies it is comprised of is authoritative or superior to others. If none is superior, anything goes, hence moral relativism.

Yes, I already stated that it was your need to cling to authoritarianism that drove your opinion. The problem with this is that all religions claim to be authoritative which brings you back to ground zero.

To use an analogy: When I set out to cook a dish, I look at a recipe and the photo of the dish. Now, in advance, I can not know or test, whether doing as the recipe says will indeed lead to the delicious-looking dish. But at least the promise of a delicious-looking dish is there. Without that promise, I would never even set out to try out the recipe, I wouldn't even read it.

Seems an awfully naive approach. And I don't really believe it. If I promise you a pudding made of oysters, chocolate, cayenne pepper, and grape juice is delicious are you going to try it?

So, yes, it is important to have a promise, to aim high, to be ambitious. Without that, one cannot hope to achieve much.

Funny that. I've always been most successful when I've followed my own ambitions and goals. Following someone else's doesn't work so well in my experience. But whatever works for you.

And as for various religions not delivering on their promises - I differ there with you. Perhaps you just haven't been so fortunate so far to meet the people and have the experiences that I have.
I know from personal experience and practice that several of the instructions I have learned from "Eastern philosophy" and acted on bore results as they promised.

I think Eastern Philosophy has a lot to offer. I've incorporated much of it. As for religion delivering on its promises, I don't see it. I would agree, however, that Buddhism and particularly Taoism are almost purely philosophical in nature and have managed to avoid many of the political accretions that hinder other religions. One can get to a similar place within the Abrahamic religions as well, there's just a lot more to dig through.

And as far as I know, within Western Philosophy, there is no conception that would be equaivalent to those of karma and rebirth.

And you give these concepts credence for what reason?

~Raithere

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Emnos

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if ants aren't making the claim there is no need to provide a list ”
Yea, keep dodging

Or maybe you didn't understand. You are saying that things that are inferior to us are completely knowable. I'm asking you to make a list of the things your have complete knowledge about.

No
You’ve got it the wrong way around
Things that are superior to us are completely unknowable (at least by empirical standards)

 

[lightgigantic]

raithere
“

so an ant is just as completely knowledgeable about humans as a human? ”
I'm not going to belabor the point. I've already made this very clear. You're either not getting it or ignoring it deliberately.

or you are being seriously obtuse – I mean even straight and simple empiricism runs into a few pitfalls if it is incomplete of a few essentials ....
“

Probably not as flexible as you think ”
Been there, done that.

great
then perhaps you won’t mind if we test your experience, yes?
“

a little bit of adherence to normative descriptions goes a long way, eh? ”
You keep bandying about terms as if you've stated something significant. I don't adhere to normative descriptions, they merely facilitate communication.

If you didn’t adhere to normative descriptions you wouldn’t be able to distinguish a printing error from a tumour ... unless you want to argue that the ability to make that judgment is an innate propensity in all human beings. For some reason however you feel that there is no issue of normative descriptions in theistic comprehension – this is kind of like saying it doesn’t matter which way you hold the hard copy of a scan since you wouldn’t want to appear rigidly authoritarian or dogmatic.

 

[Enmos]

“ Emnos


No
You’ve got it the wrong way around
Things that are superior to us are completely unknowable (at least by empirical standards)

Unknowable in what sense ?
And what is "superior". Make a list of superior things.

 

[Myles]

I know a number of London hotels which offer superior accomodation. Possibly they can answer your question.

At 1,000.00 Euros a night they are unknowable. Does that help ?

 

[Enmos]

I know a number of London hotels which offer superior accomodation. Possibly they can answer your question.

At 1,000.00 Euros a night they are unknowable. Does that help ?

lol
Superior is always in relation to something else.
Of course he means God.. I wonder how he can know about God if God is by his own definition unknowable.

 

[Myles]

lol
Superior is always in relation to something else.
Of course he means God.. I wonder how he can know about God if God is by his own definition unknowable.

Don't you know your latin. Of course he means god; superior means above and that is where god is.

Have you never heard anyone showing surprise by saying: " Heavens above " ?

 

[greenberg]

Yes, I already stated that it was your need to cling to authoritarianism that drove your opinion.

What exactly is wrong with "clinging to authoritarianism"?

We always cling to one authority or other. We would go mad if we wouldn't - because it is impossible to act, make decisions, live from day to day without believing that one version/interpretation of/doctrine about reality is the superior one, the authoritative one. Whether we consider ourselves to be the authority, or some other person, or scripture, or a scientific theory does not change the fact that we do "cling to authoritarianism".

The problem with this is that all religions claim to be authoritative which brings you back to ground zero.

Not me, but you perhaps. You seem to think that I (or other people who do) accept certain religious doctrines on account that those doctrines themselves state that they are superior. But this is not the reason I accept them. I accept those doctrines through support of my personal experience and through agreement of pondering views.

If I promise you a pudding made of oysters, chocolate, cayenne pepper, and grape juice is delicious are you going to try it?

Given the ingredients, it does not promise something that might be delicious to me. I do have some cooking experience by now.

And similarly in some religious traditions, I have not encountered a mixture of "ingredients" that would make me doubt the "edibility" of the result. Although this has occured in regard to some traditions/philosophies/wordlviews.

I've always been most successful when I've followed my own ambitions and goals.

Then you perhaps have more specific ambitions and goals than I do.
My main goal is to be truly happy, a happiness that is beyond aging, illness and death. The only question is how to get there.

Following someone else's doesn't work so well in my experience.

I do not see being religious as a matter of "following someone else's ambitions and goals".
It's my own ambition, my own goals. A religious practice only offers a possible way to make proper use of those ambitions and to achieve those goals.

And as far as I know, within Western Philosophy, there is no conception that would be equaivalent to those of karma and rebirth.

And you give these concepts credence for what reason?

Because it is only with concepts like karma and rebirth -and some important others- that life makes sense to me, and is worth living.