Science > Philosophy > Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate]
| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Bob" |
| Date: |
02 Nov 2005 09:57:17 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 16:21:00 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
IOW, it takes physics to produce physics. Mathematics alone is not
sufficient.
Just my 2 cents, although I tend to agree. It is more than a
mathematical model which depends only on (and is an elaboration of)
its axioms, which can be arbitrary with the only proviso that they not
be logically contradictory with one another (internal consistency).
The models built by physics must also be consistent with our
experiences, in particular with designed, public, reproducible
experiences (experiments).
That is true of models. But it does not speak to what physics is.
What we agree is
the real, objective *physical* world *is* the model we construct using
the rules of physics, that yield a *physical* model of the world.
I do not agree. The real objective physical world is not a model we
construct using the rules of physics.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
03 Nov 2005 01:10:41 PM |
|
|
(Bob) said:
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 16:21:00 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
IOW, it takes physics to produce physics. Mathematics alone is not
sufficient.
Just my 2 cents, although I tend to agree. It is more than a
mathematical model which depends only on (and is an elaboration of)
its axioms, which can be arbitrary with the only proviso that they not
be logically contradictory with one another (internal consistency).
The models built by physics must also be consistent with our
experiences, in particular with designed, public, reproducible
experiences (experiments).
That is true of models. But it does not speak to what physics is.
What we agree is
the real, objective *physical* world *is* the model we construct using
the rules of physics, that yield a *physical* model of the world.
I do not agree. The real objective physical world is not a model we
construct using the rules of physics.
Right. But what we *agree* is the world, is described by the current
model. I had an inorganic chem prof in graduate school who liked to
use the word "rationalize" in a technical way. He said inorganic
chemistry and science in general had the goal of rationalizing --
developing a rational explanation of -- our experiences. The model we
construct using the rules of physics is what best rationalizes our
current experience or at least what we think, and agree, is our
experience. It *can't* be whatever is really out there, or phlogiston
would suddenly change into oxygen and the aether would exist and then
not exist.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
05 Nov 2005 05:03:11 AM |
|
|
Jim07D5 wrote:
[snip]
Right. But what we *agree* is the world, is described by the current
model. I had an inorganic chem prof in graduate school who liked to
use the word "rationalize" in a technical way. He said inorganic
chemistry and science in general had the goal of rationalizing --
developing a rational explanation of -- our experiences. The model we
construct using the rules of physics is what best rationalizes our
current experience or at least what we think, and agree, is our
experience. It *can't* be whatever is really out there, or phlogiston
would suddenly change into oxygen and the aether would exist and then
not exist.
Or flat space would turn into a curved one. Physical reality of course
does not change through physics, which shows that physics only creates
a model of reality. Of course the model itself can and does change.
I think humanity's mindscape in the twentieth's century is too much
stricken by science, like a rabbit in the headlight. There is an
instinctive and slavish mythologizing of science's powers which I think
is unhealthy. Science is but one field of thought.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
03 Nov 2005 02:32:05 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:10:41 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
I do not agree. The real objective physical world is not a model we
construct using the rules of physics.
Right. But what we *agree* is the world, is described by the current
model.
I do not agree that the current model describes the world in entirety.
I had an inorganic chem prof in graduate school who liked to
use the word "rationalize" in a technical way. He said inorganic
chemistry and science in general had the goal of rationalizing --
developing a rational explanation of -- our experiences. The model we
construct using the rules of physics is what best rationalizes our
current experience or at least what we think, and agree, is our
experience.
I like that usage of the term "rationalize". The model we construct
using the rules of physics definitely does not rationalize our current
experience or at least what we think and agree is our experience.
There is far more to physics than a model.
It *can't* be whatever is really out there,
What can't be whatever is out there - the model? Of course the model
is not whatever is out there. I do not understand your point.
or phlogiston
would suddenly change into oxygen and the aether would exist and then
not exist.
Nor do I understand this claim.
I suspect you are shifing from the Realist to the Idealist Worldview
back and forth to suit your purposes.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
03 Nov 2005 03:07:28 PM |
|
|
(Bob) said:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:10:41 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
I do not agree. The real objective physical world is not a model we
construct using the rules of physics.
Right. But what we *agree* is the world, is described by the current
model.
I do not agree that the current model describes the world in entirety.
The description of the gaps is "Goddidit". ;-)
I had an inorganic chem prof in graduate school who liked to
use the word "rationalize" in a technical way. He said inorganic
chemistry and science in general had the goal of rationalizing --
developing a rational explanation of -- our experiences. The model we
construct using the rules of physics is what best rationalizes our
current experience or at least what we think, and agree, is our
experience.
I like that usage of the term "rationalize". The model we construct
using the rules of physics definitely does not rationalize our current
experience or at least what we think and agree is our experience.
There is far more to physics than a model.
It *can't* be whatever is really out there,
What can't be whatever is out there - the model? Of course the model
is not whatever is out there. I do not understand your point.
Well, I am a skeptic about actually developing a theory of everything.
Its like this for me. The only fully accurate map of Ohio would be --
Ohio itself.
or phlogiston
would suddenly change into oxygen and the aether would exist and then
not exist.
Nor do I understand this claim.
I suspect you are shifing from the Realist to the Idealist Worldview
back and forth to suit your purposes.
Then maybe you can also inform me of my purposes.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
04 Nov 2005 06:32:34 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 21:07:28 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Then maybe you can also inform me of my purposes.
To support the atheist position.
You can always tell an atheist - he/she/it always waste time trying to
demean the proofs theists give to support their position, when they
should be offering reasons to support theirs.
That's because in general atheists are dull people who have in
irrational anti-religious bigotry that has nothing to do with
metaphysics.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
04 Nov 2005 08:17:40 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:436b546b.83883312@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 21:07:28 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
You can always tell an atheist - he/she/it always waste time trying to
demean the proofs theists give to support their position, when they
should be offering reasons to support theirs.
That's because in general atheists are dull people who have in
irrational anti-religious bigotry that has nothing to do with
metaphysics.
You can always tell a theist - he/she/it always waste time trying to
demean the clear thinking atheists give to support their position,
when they should be clearing up their own scrambled brains.
That's because in general theists are dull people who have an
irrational religious bigotry that is nothing but ***** metaphysics.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
04 Nov 2005 08:47:24 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:17:40 GMT, "John" <a.b@c> wrote:
the clear thinking atheists give to support their position,
You can't support your position.
Prove that God does not exist.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
04 Nov 2005 10:25:46 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:436b746d.92077765@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:17:40 GMT, "John" <a.b@c> wrote:
the clear thinking atheists give to support their position,
You can't support your position.
Prove that God does not exist.
Prove that it does.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
04 Nov 2005 12:21:38 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:25:46 GMT, "John" <a.b@c> wrote:
Prove that God does not exist.
Prove that it does.
I have many times - look it up if you are really interested - which I
doubt because you are too dull to understand science.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
04 Nov 2005 12:23:43 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:436ba68b.104907843@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:25:46 GMT, "John" <a.b@c> wrote:
Prove that God does not exist.
Prove that it does.
I have many times - look it up if you are really interested - which I
doubt because you are too dull to understand science.
All you ever do is to indulge in your metaphysical *****. If you claim
you have a /scientific/ proof of the existence of god then go right ahead
and enlighten us mere mortals - which I doubt because you are too dull to
understand philosophy.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
04 Nov 2005 03:52:52 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 18:23:43 GMT, "John" <a.b@c> wrote:
All you ever do is to indulge in your metaphysical *****.
That's because you are too retarded to understand anything above the
level of masturbation.
If you don't have anything constructive to offer, bugger off.
Troll.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
04 Nov 2005 04:40:01 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:436bd7fb.117563906@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 18:23:43 GMT, "John" <a.b@c> wrote:
All you ever do is to indulge in your metaphysical *****.
That's because I'm too retarded to understand anything above the
level of masturbation.
Then just keep bashing that old bishop Bob.
If you don't have anything constructive to offer, bugger off.
The immutable brane has spoken.
Troll.
Buddy.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
04 Nov 2005 01:26:31 PM |
|
|
(Bob) said:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 16:25:46 GMT, "John" <a.b@c> wrote:
Prove that God does not exist.
Prove that it does.
I have many times - look it up if you are really interested - which I
doubt because you are too dull to understand science.
Could you provide some guidance on how to find it?
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
04 Nov 2005 03:54:19 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 19:26:31 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Prove that God does not exist.
Prove that it does.
I have many times - look it up if you are really interested - which I
doubt because you are too dull to understand science.
Could you provide some guidance on how to find it?
Use newsgroup search in Google on alt.philosophy with keyphrase
"Supreme Being" or "Existential Metaphysics".
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "turtoni" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
04 Nov 2005 04:55:24 PM |
|
|
Prove that God does not exist.
Prove that it does.
I have many times - look it up if you are really interested - which I
doubt because you are too dull to understand science.
Could you provide some guidance on how to find it?
Bob:
Use newsgroup search in Google on alt.philosophy with keyphrase
"Supreme Being" or "Existential Metaphysics".
Bob, does your "Supreme Being" have any religious affiliations?
--
"He who fights monsters should look into it that he himself does not become
a monster"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
05 Nov 2005 06:45:10 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 17:55:24 -0500, "turtoni" <turtoni@alt.philosophy>
wrote:
Bob, does your "Supreme Being" have any religious affiliations?
No. The Scholastic Philosophers, in particular Thomas Aquinas, went
out of their way to avoid bringing any religious beliefs into their
metaphysical deliberations.
The last century's pre-eminent Scholastic Philosopher, Etienne Gilson,
had this to say about religion and metaphysics:
+++
"Religion has its own work, which is to educate people who are too
dull to understand philosophy, or too untutored to be amenable to its
teaching. This is why religion is necessary, for what it preaches is
fundamentally the same as what philosophy teaches, and, unless common
men believed what it preaches, they would behave like beasts. But
theologians should preach, not teach, just as philosophers should
teach, not preach. Theologians should not attempt to demonstrate,
because they cannot do it, and philosophers must be careful not to get
belief mixed up with what they prove, because then they can no longer
prove anything. Now, to preach creation is just a handy way to make
people feel that God is their Master, which is true even though, as is
well known by those who truly philosophize, nothing of the sort ever
happened."
--Etienne Gilson, "Being and Some Philosophers", p. 52
+++
--
"The scientist is possessed by a rapturous amazement at the
harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such
superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking
and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
"This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work,
in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles
of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that
which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages."
--Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Turtoni" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
05 Nov 2005 09:21:52 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:436ca8d4.14976359@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 17:55:24 -0500, "turtoni" <turtoni@alt.philosophy>
wrote:
Bob, does your "Supreme Being" have any religious affiliations?
No. The Scholastic Philosophers, in particular Thomas Aquinas, went
out of their way to avoid bringing any religious beliefs into their
metaphysical deliberations.
Why do *you* name your act of existence governor, "Supreme Being" ?
The last century's pre-eminent Scholastic Philosopher, Etienne Gilson,
had this to say about religion and metaphysics:
+++
"Religion has its own work, which is to educate people who are too
dull to understand philosophy, or too untutored to be amenable to its
teaching. This is why religion is necessary, for what it preaches is
fundamentally the same as what philosophy teaches, and, unless common
men believed what it preaches, they would behave like beasts. But
theologians should preach, not teach, just as philosophers should
teach, not preach. Theologians should not attempt to demonstrate,
because they cannot do it, and philosophers must be careful not to get
belief mixed up with what they prove, because then they can no longer
prove anything. Now, to preach creation is just a handy way to make
people feel that God is their Master, which is true even though, as is
well known by those who truly philosophize, nothing of the sort ever
happened."
--Etienne Gilson, "Being and Some Philosophers", p. 52
+++
This is full of arguable statements.
--
"He who fights monsters should look into it that he himself does not become
a monster"
--
"The scientist is possessed by a rapturous amazement at the
harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such
superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking
and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
"This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work,
in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles
of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that
which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages."
--Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
05 Nov 2005 11:09:31 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 10:21:52 -0500, "Turtoni" <turtoni@alt.philosophy>
wrote:
Why do *you* name your act of existence governor, "Supreme Being" ?
The name "Supreme Being" was chosen to signify that there cannot be
any Being superior to the Supreme Being.
Another way of putting it is that Pure Being is the highest
ontological category.
Of course, for many people Pure ***** is the highest category they
are able to attain. For them, the cause of their pathetic existence is
the Supreme Bullshitter, the Being whose essence is *****.
Atheists are like that.
--
"The scientist is possessed by a rapturous amazement at the
harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such
superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking
and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
"This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work,
in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles
of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that
which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages."
--Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
06 Nov 2005 12:31:49 PM |
|
|
(Bob) said:
<...>
Of course, for many people Pure ***** is the highest category they
are able to attain. For them, the cause of their pathetic existence is
the Supreme Bullshitter, the Being whose essence is *****.
Atheists are like that.
So what you are espousing is a theistic notion?
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
06 Nov 2005 02:56:04 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 18:31:49 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Of course, for many people Pure ***** is the highest category they
are able to attain. For them, the cause of their pathetic existence is
the Supreme Bullshitter, the Being whose essence is *****.
Atheists are like that.
So what you are espousing is a theistic notion?
I would call it a metaphysical notion.
But I do not know what you mean by "theistic notion". If by it you
mean theology, then most definitely I am not espousing it. If by
"theistic notion" you mean the Supreme Being, then I am most
definitely espousing it.
The difference between the Supreme Being and Being is that the Supreme
Being is Pure Being whereas Being is capable of different modalities.
One of the modes of Being is the Universe.
--
A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of
complete fools.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
06 Nov 2005 06:28:04 PM |
|
|
(Bob) said:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 18:31:49 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Of course, for many people Pure ***** is the highest category they
are able to attain. For them, the cause of their pathetic existence is
the Supreme Bullshitter, the Being whose essence is *****.
Atheists are like that.
So what you are espousing is a theistic notion?
I would call it a metaphysical notion.
But I do not know what you mean by "theistic notion". If by it you
mean theology, then most definitely I am not espousing it. If by
"theistic notion" you mean the Supreme Being, then I am most
definitely espousing it.
The difference between the Supreme Being and Being is that the Supreme
Being is Pure Being whereas Being is capable of different modalities.
One of the modes of Being is the Universe.
One Of The Modes Of My Being Is Satisfied By Your Answer.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
04 Nov 2005 10:45:58 AM |
|
|
(Bob) said:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:17:40 GMT, "John" <a.b@c> wrote:
the clear thinking atheists give to support their position,
You can't support your position.
Prove that God does not exist.
It is always possible to design an undisprovable god. In fact, that
can be one of its assigned properties, making it bulletproof.
Incomprehensibility is another shield against disproof.
Its design also has to rise to a level that makes it worthy of being
called a god. This is where the tricky bits can come in.
One god that appears to have attributes of the traditional Christian
"God" is defined at:
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Problem_of_Hell
and its existence is pretty well disproven. But even this argument can
be defeated by an appeal to Universalism or Annihilationism -- or
Incomprehensibility.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
05 Nov 2005 06:06:08 AM |
|
|
Jim07D5 wrote:
spam@uce.gov (Bob) said:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:17:40 GMT, "John" <a.b@c> wrote:
the clear thinking atheists give to support their position,
You can't support your position.
Prove that God does not exist.
It is always possible to design an undisprovable god. In fact, that
can be one of its assigned properties, making it bulletproof.
Incomprehensibility is another shield against disproof.
Yes, and it's useless to discuss about unknowables - whether that is an
incomprehensibe God or a reality that exists independently of us.
Its design also has to rise to a level that makes it worthy of being
called a god. This is where the tricky bits can come in.
The "natural" definition is that God is the fundamental explanation of
the whole of our experience. It's an open question whether such
explanation exists, and if it does what properties it has (i.e. how it
explains everything else).
One god that appears to have attributes of the traditional Christian
"God" is defined at:
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Problem_of_Hell
and its existence is pretty well disproven.
Right, but only depending on what you mean by "traditional". I concede
that the idea of hell is monstrously stupid no matter how some
Christians try to use cosmetics to hide its ugliness. On the other
hand, arguably, traditional Christianity is defined in the Gospels. If
you read them, especially John's, you shall find that Jesus is
described on the whole as an extremely likable person - the very
antithesis of the hellfirebreathing modern televangelist. He made out
with prostitutes, Roman soldiers, and tax collectors (all taboos at
that time for a learned Jew), went around preaching love and peace,
celebrated at weddings and converted water into wine (which to me says
that he liked to have a good time), played with children, protected a
woman from lawful stoning, spoke plainly about a wonderful philosophy,
and told interesting stories. If you read this ancient text with an
open mind you will see very little that sounds like hell threatening in
it. I really don't think that something like hell is what Jesus had in
mind at all. And I think what Jesus had in mind should be called
traditional Christianity. Or maybe, authentic Christianity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
05 Nov 2005 10:10:31 AM |
|
|
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> said:
Jim07D5 wrote:
spam@uce.gov (Bob) said:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 14:17:40 GMT, "John" <a.b@c> wrote:
the clear thinking atheists give to support their position,
You can't support your position.
Prove that God does not exist.
It is always possible to design an undisprovable god. In fact, that
can be one of its assigned properties, making it bulletproof.
Incomprehensibility is another shield against disproof.
Yes, and it's useless to discuss about unknowables - whether that is an
incomprehensibe God or a reality that exists independently of us.
In some sense it is useless, in the sense of trying to make the
unknowable knowable, except as it might hone the mind.
Its design also has to rise to a level that makes it worthy of being
called a god. This is where the tricky bits can come in.
The "natural" definition is that God is the fundamental explanation of
the whole of our experience. It's an open question whether such
explanation exists, and if it does what properties it has (i.e. how it
explains everything else).
It is also a question of the sense in which it is an explanation. If
it sets the mind at ease, or makes for successful application to
everyday problems, etc.
One god that appears to have attributes of the traditional Christian
"God" is defined at:
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Problem_of_Hell
and its existence is pretty well disproven.
Right, but only depending on what you mean by "traditional". I concede
that the idea of hell is monstrously stupid no matter how some
Christians try to use cosmetics to hide its ugliness.
There is a contradiction in applying any cosmetic touches. Hell loses
its purchase as a concept if it is anything less than overarching,
eternal suffering, contrasted with the eternal bliss of Heaven.
On the other
hand, arguably, traditional Christianity is defined in the Gospels. If
you read them, especially John's, you shall find that Jesus is
described on the whole as an extremely likable person - the very
antithesis of the hellfirebreathing modern televangelist. He made out
with prostitutes, Roman soldiers, and tax collectors (all taboos at
that time for a learned Jew), went around preaching love and peace,
celebrated at weddings and converted water into wine (which to me says
that he liked to have a good time), played with children, protected a
woman from lawful stoning, spoke plainly about a wonderful philosophy,
and told interesting stories. If you read this ancient text with an
open mind you will see very little that sounds like hell threatening in
it. I really don't think that something like hell is what Jesus had in
mind at all. And I think what Jesus had in mind should be called
traditional Christianity. Or maybe, authentic Christianity.
I agree. The Jesus Seminar has a version of the NT that ranks the text
on its likelihood of being spoken by Jesus, being consistent with what
Jesus said, and being unrelated. The problem is, IMO, is that what
Jesus taught is just too damn difficult for most people, including, I
guess, me. But as an ideal to be pursued while forgiving ourselves and
our fellows for not having attained, there is a picture of Jesus that
is quite admirable.
I'd say that this has little to do with any god or with the existence
of any god, but it has some bearing on arguments for and against.
Jesus spoke and acted as a man of faith, in his times, and while
preaching a radical departure behaviourally from the precepts of the
past, he did not depart from his faith in a god. At least, he did not
overtly challenge his followers' belief in a god; he challenged
certain of their beliefs, like the idea that their god demanded or
sanctioned an eye for an eye. For some of them, this was seen as a
challenge to their god's existence as they depicted it.
It does, however, show that it is possible to save a god from being
argued out of existence, by imbuing it with qualities that reflect at
least *some* of Jesus' teachings, such as those represented by the
Sermon on the Mount. A god who will shepherd us, eventually, into the
fold, is not a god that creates people that populate Hell.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
02 Dec 2005 02:04:28 AM |
|
|
Jim07D5 wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> said:
[snip]
The "natural" definition is that God is the fundamental explanation of
the whole of our experience. It's an open question whether such
explanation exists, and if it does what properties it has (i.e. how it
explains everything else).
It is also a question of the sense in which it is an explanation. If
it sets the mind at ease, or makes for successful application to
everyday problems, etc.
Putting the mind at ease and making for successful application to
everyday problems is a pretty good definition of what an explanation
is.
Still, the way you put it, it sounds like you are touching the issue of
religion and wishful thinking. I always wondered about that suggested
link, and for two reasons:
According to Christianity, at least as commonly understood, life on
earth is a test. Each one of us must believe almost unbelievable things
and act in ways that appear unnatural. Further one must choose the
correct Christian church and faithfully follow its instructions. Only
in this way a few of us will manage to go to heaven, which is presumed
to be a good place, but the great majority of us is going to
everlasting torment in hell, where not even suicide is an option.
According to Buddhism, at least as commonly understood, life is
suffering. Again, one must follow a very specific discipline throughout
many successive reincarnations this time, just in order to escape the
circle of suffering into the peace of nothingness. Most people will
apparently have to undergo thousands or hundreds of thousands of lives
or suffering (living many of these lives as animals or insects) before
making for that escape. Now, does anybody judge these two views to be
"wishful thinking"? To me they both sound like a nightmare, way
scarier than what Hollywood manages in its horror flicks. How come then
so many people think that religion is just wishful thinking?
On the other hand, if religion were wishful thinking, what would be
wrong with that? Let's assume for the sake of discussion that God
does exist and is perfect in all respects. Then surely God would not
make us in a way that we could imagine a better God than what she
really is, or, in other words, a better explanation for all our
experience than how reality in fact is, because, first, a benevolent
God would not do such, and, second, it is a logically impossible thing
as God is perfect and nothing better than perfect is imaginable.
Therefore, if God exists then wishful thinking is precisely what we
should be doing.
One god that appears to have attributes of the traditional Christian
"God" is defined at:
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Problem_of_Hell
and its existence is pretty well disproven.
Right, but only depending on what you mean by "traditional". I concede
that the idea of hell is monstrously stupid no matter how some
Christians try to use cosmetics to hide its ugliness.
There is a contradiction in applying any cosmetic touches. Hell loses
its purchase as a concept if it is anything less than overarching,
eternal suffering, contrasted with the eternal bliss of Heaven.
Right. Even so some people try to keep hell intact as infinite
punishment while at the same time allow God to somehow wash his hands
of it. The most popular cosmetic touch is that it isn't really God
who sends people to hell, but people themselves who choose to go there.
Which is as irrational an idea as one is apt to come across.
On the other
hand, arguably, traditional Christianity is defined in the Gospels. If
you read them, especially John's, you shall find that Jesus is
described on the whole as an extremely likable person - the very
antithesis of the hellfirebreathing modern televangelist. He made out
with prostitutes, Roman soldiers, and tax collectors (all taboos at
that time for a learned Jew), went around preaching love and peace,
celebrated at weddings and converted water into wine (which to me says
that he liked to have a good time), played with children, protected a
woman from lawful stoning, spoke plainly about a wonderful philosophy,
and told interesting stories. If you read this ancient text with an
open mind you will see very little that sounds like hell threatening in
it. I really don't think that something like hell is what Jesus had in
mind at all. And I think what Jesus had in mind should be called
traditional Christianity. Or maybe, authentic Christianity.
I agree. The Jesus Seminar has a version of the NT that ranks the text
on its likelihood of being spoken by Jesus, being consistent with what
Jesus said, and being unrelated. The problem is, IMO, is that what
Jesus taught is just too damn difficult for most people, including, I
guess, me. But as an ideal to be pursued while forgiving ourselves and
our fellows for not having attained, there is a picture of Jesus that
is quite admirable.
I think that Christian ethics are too difficult for everybody, barred
none. The question is why should they appear so be so difficult. One
reason is lack of understanding. I claim that far from being unnatural
Christian ethics are trivially obvious once one understands the place
of consciousness within reality. A second reason is that understanding
is not sufficient: we must literally undo ways of thinking that are
hardwired in our brains since toddlerhood. Here is an analogous case:
It is well known that one can walk barefoot on brightly burning embers
without hurting oneself. There are explanations why that is so. Still I
suspect that everybody, barred none, finds it difficult to make the
decision and step into the glowing mess.
Some time back in this thread I claimed that experience and
understanding form a dialectic, or maybe I should have said a dialogue:
understanding is built on experience, and experience is transformed by
understanding. Well I would now like to suggest that our condition as
conscious beings is best described as a trialogue between experience,
understanding, and will. Understanding clearly affects our will
(understanding the phenomenon of firewalking makes it much easier to
make the decision to step in). Also clearly will affects our experience
(after all only those who decide to walk onto embers will experience
how it is :-)
Now I suppose the best life consists in developing all three -
understanding, experience and will - in a harmonious manner. Still
asymmetric development is possible, even if not optimal. So one can
develop understanding while one's will stays behind (i.e. one does
not act according to one's understanding - this would describe me
for example). Or maybe one can have little understanding and develop
one's will based mainly on experience - I suppose in this case we
can say that one's life is driven by faith. So I define faith as a
way of life where people, without thinking as it were, follow
experience rather than understanding. It is fair to call such way of
life irrational, because it is not based on reason. Nonetheless, if we
accept that good experience is the ultimate good then faith is as
intelligent (i.e. as efficient for reaching this goal) as reason. Or
maybe more so.
I'd say that this has little to do with any god or with the existence
of any god, but it has some bearing on arguments for and against.
Jesus spoke and acted as a man of faith, in his times, and while
preaching a radical departure behaviourally from the precepts of the
past, he did not depart from his faith in a god.
According to my model of reality above Jesus was a person of both
understanding and of faith.
At least, he did not
overtly challenge his followers' belief in a god; he challenged
certain of their beliefs, like the idea that their god demanded or
sanctioned an eye for an eye. For some of them, this was seen as a
challenge to their god's existence as they depicted it.
I think that Jesus deeply challenged many of his followers' beliefs,
and not only about God. Jesus was a revolutionary in the best sense of
the word. Wherever one's position about the existence of God may be,
I think Jesus is the most interesting characters in world history. In
the sense that if the good fairy would offer me the opportunity to go
back in time and have a long walk with any character of history, I
would rather go back and talk to Jesus than to anyone else.
It does, however, show that it is possible to save a god from being
argued out of existence, by imbuing it with qualities that reflect at
least *some* of Jesus' teachings, such as those represented by the
Sermon on the Mount.
Well, a god that is argued out of existence is a god who does not
explain anything. Atheists are doing a pretty good job pointing out
these gods.
A god who will shepherd us, eventually, into the
fold, is not a god that creates people that populate Hell.
It's obvious, isn't it? I find it amazing how intelligent and
educated believers can insist otherwise. I think it's ultimately a
sign of cowardice and a failure of intellectual honesty.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
05 Nov 2005 11:19:25 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 16:10:31 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
Yes, and it's useless to discuss about unknowables - whether that is an
incomprehensibe God or a reality that exists independently of us.
In some sense it is useless, in the sense of trying to make the
unknowable knowable,
You can know something about the unknowables. For example, just
because the specific time that a particular radioactive atom will
decay is intrinsically unknowable does not mean you can know something
about radioactive decay when you study it experimentally.
That is why physics is not solely a mathematical model. Mathematical
models fall short of disclosing the nature of material reality when
the quantity of interest is uncomputable (intrinsically unknowable).
Because physics includes direct observation of experiments, it reveals
much more about the nature of the world than mere mathematical models
ever could.
except as it might hone the mind.
Read Albert Camus' masterpiece "The Myth of Sisyphus" and discover
what is meant by "lucidity".
That'll hone your mind alright.
It is also a question of the sense in which it is an explanation. If
it sets the mind at ease, or makes for successful application to
everyday problems, etc.
Or frees you to be lucid.
Camus uses the example of Don Juan as the archetypal lucid person.
Knowing that the world is absurd, Don Juan treated it in the only
manner it could be treated - he made love to every woman he met.
Talk about lucidity - Ol' Don Juan was as lucid as they come. Can you
find anything more lucid than making love to every woman you meet?
You can't.
--
"The scientist is possessed by a rapturous amazement at the
harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such
superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking
and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
"This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work,
in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles
of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that
which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages."
--Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
05 Nov 2005 03:01:54 PM |
|
|
(Bob) wrote in news:436ce76f.2740000@news-
server.houston.rr.com:
Talk about lucidity - Ol' Don Juan was as lucid as they come. Can you
find anything more lucid than making love to every woman you meet?
Lots of opportunities for wisecracks there.
I'll refrain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
05 Nov 2005 03:46:29 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 15:01:54 -0600, Publius
<m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
spam@uce.gov (Bob) wrote in news:436ce76f.2740000@news-
server.houston.rr.com:
Talk about lucidity - Ol' Don Juan was as lucid as they come. Can you
find anything more lucid than making love to every woman you meet?
Lots of opportunities for wisecracks there.
I'll refrain.
You are lucid.
--
"The scientist is possessed by a rapturous amazement at the
harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such
superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking
and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
"This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work,
in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles
of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that
which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages."
--Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
05 Nov 2005 07:33:36 AM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2005 04:06:08 -0800, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
Yes, and it's useless to discuss about unknowables - whether that is an
incomprehensibe God or a reality that exists independently of us.
It is useless for you because you do not know any physics or
metaphysics.
Try selling that ***** to the likes of Greg Chaitin - he will laugh
you out of the room.
--
"The scientist is possessed by a rapturous amazement at the
harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such
superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking
and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
"This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work,
in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles
of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that
which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages."
--Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Turtoni" |
|
| Title: Re: Ontology in the Age of Science [was: Free will is of a hollow debate] |
05 Nov 2005 09:33:26 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:436cb46b.17944078@news-server.houston.rr.com...
On 5 Nov 2005 04:06:08 -0800, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
Yes, and it's useless to discuss about unknowables - whether that is an
incomprehensibe God or a reality that exists independently of us.
It is useless for you because you do not know any physics or
metaphysics.
Try selling that ***** to the likes of Greg Chaitin - he will laugh
you out of the room.
Yes. I would like to retract my statement about discussing these idea's as
being useless.
In fact discussing anything isn't useless.
--
"He who fights monsters should look into it that he himself does not become
a monster"
--
"The scientist is possessed by a rapturous amazement at the
harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such
superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking
and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
"This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work,
in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles
of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that
which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages."
--Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
