Secular Nihilism

[Tassman]

I think it's fair to summarize in context,

When considering entities within a specific construct of what we believe to be reality:

Proof is knowing truths within that reality, and absolutely excludes possibility of another truth within that reality. Example, within this reality, sugar tastes sweet. We have this kind of proof.

When considering a specific construct of what we believe to be reality, as a reality:

Proof is knowing truths about that reality, and absolutely excludes possibility of another reality. Example, this is the only true reality, it's not like a Matrix illusion with an actual but unknown reality existing beyond. We don't have this kind of proof.

Thus, when considering all things about all realities:

There is only faith that this is the only true reality, and there is only faith that sugar tastes sweet, or even exists at all, in the true reality.

Therefore, everything we think we know about a true reality is based on faith.

Not so. Sugar can be analyzed and determined to be sweet by Chemists and Bio Chemists without the need for anyone tasting it at all. It may require “faith” in the validity of the scientific method, but this faith is based upon accumulated, tested, and verified knowledge.

This is opposed to “faith” in the existence of a deity based on no evidence whatsoever, apart from a subjective experience of said deity, which cannot be verified. Can you see the difference?

This is a sad attempt to reduce ALL knowledge to your level so you can argue, invalidly, that we all function at the same faith-based level and that religious faith is not so stupid after all. Well, it is in fact.

[Tassman]

Tass, this changes nothing. Your belief that what goes on in your correspond to reality is purely a faith position. You can not escape it. And it is not "overwhelmingly probable" there is no "probable" in this model. It either is or is not. I have asked you a number of times to offer a logically deductive argument showing otherwise - and the fact that you can't only proves my point. And I am not telling you to doubt your senses, I say that we have to take reality by faith without evidence (evidence that you are not being deceived). Computers, TVs, radios and such would work just as well in the Matrix, or if reality was a computer simulation. This is not evidence for your position.

Well Tass, when you find a "natural" explaination for entanglement let us all know, after 60 years we are getting no closer. And the question is not whether the supernatural exists (heck everything we know may be supernatural as we discussed in the past) it is about how the supernatural interacts with the natural - and on that point - who knows? Just because we are ignorant of the method does not tell us that it can't happen. Like I said - we are severly limited in our understanding, even of the physical universe.

The Quantum Entanglement argument is irrelevant to a discussion about how the ‘non-material supernatural’ world interacts with the ‘material natural world’ because, as I’ve pointed out several times, Quantum Physics is concerned ONLY with the natural world.

As for our “severe limitations” in understanding the 'natural universe', our knowledge and understanding is increasing exponentially…as opposed to our understanding of the 'supernatural universe' which has not increased one iota in millennia….apart from contradictory 'divine revelations' from various deities over time, none of which were verified.

This, of course, highlights the different levels of faith required for belief in the natural as opposed to belief in the supernatural. There is no valid comparison between the two. One position requires “faith”, unsupported by verified evidence, whereas the other position is based on "faith" supported by an abundance of continually growing consistent evidence. And yes, we can trust our senses unless insane or deluded…to say we can’t means we cannot trust ANY evidence.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

The preferred mode of discourse among the religiously inclined is PROCLAMATION!
i.e. drown the infidels out!

Now THAT is a sissy thing to say...

I mean, are you 39 and still living at home??

AND...

You are still demanding, in your petulance, material proofs of an immaterial God...

I mean, given your prosaic and materialistic mental perambulations,
You have to look at the matter OBJECTIVELY...

And objectively, what you have is reports of encounters...
The reality is not of itself susceptible to material proofs...

Yet the reports are remarkably consistent...

And your only reply so far is that the Immaterial God is not materialistically provable...
Christians agree...

I mean, I can PROVE to you that God does NOT exist...
The very CONCEPT of God is self-contradictory...

The only problem is that this kind of materialistic thinking
Has nothing to do with God...

So what you are up against is the fact that your materialistic mindset
Can neither prove nor disprove
That which is Spirit and uncreated...

It cannot touch it at all...

Arsenios

[Tassman]

Now THAT is a sissy thing to say...

I mean, are you 39 and still living at home??

Um…what’s this nonsense all about???

AND...

You are still demanding, in your petulance, material proofs of an immaterial God...

I mean, given your prosaic and materialistic mental perambulations,
You have to look at the matter OBJECTIVELY...

And objectively, what you have is reports of encounters...
The reality is not of itself susceptible to material proofs...

Yet the reports are remarkably consistent...

Yes, the “reports are remarkably consistent” according to the cultural expectations of a particular social group or society. The “god experience” is NOT consistent within different Christian denominations or within different Muslim sects. And the 'god experience' is not consistent between the different religions today, nor has it been throughout history.

And your only reply so far is that the Immaterial God is not materialistically provable...
Christians agree...

I mean, I can PROVE to you that God does NOT exist...
The very CONCEPT of God is self-contradictory...

The only problem is that this kind of materialistic thinking
Has nothing to do with God...

So what you are up against is the fact that your materialistic mindset
Can neither prove nor disprove
That which is Spirit and uncreated...

It cannot touch it at all...

Arsenios

I am not up against anything at all. The god concept is of little interest to me except as a sociological/psychological phenomenon. But it seems to be important to the likes of you, so if you want to convince others of gods’ reality then the burden of proof is on you. Merely saying that the ‘god experience’ has transformed your life is not evidence. Why should I believe you? Especially as you come across as a bit of a nut-case.

Jamie.

[Child_Of_Wisdom]

And yes, we can trust our senses unless insane or deluded…to say we can’t means we cannot trust ANY evidence.

How do you know you are not insane or deluded believing you are arguing with someone on theologyweb but really living out a fantasy in your insane deluded mind full of medication in a padded white room?

Can you provide a rational justification for why you trust ANY evidence? Can you rule out hallucinations or coincidence? Then why trust any evidence?

Why not be a pyrrhonist?

[Child_Of_Wisdom]

, I presume that you are basing your case on the First Cause Argument as per Aristotle/Aquinas.

I am not trying to make a case for first cause arguments either. Don't run ahead like that and deal with the issue which is epistemic justification for your beliefs.

The point I want to make to you is that you rely on faith as we all do and your faith is an unreasonable faith.

[Rainbow Brite]

You misunderstood here and skipped the rest.

Not so. Sugar can be analyzed and determined to be sweet by Chemists and Bio Chemists without the need for anyone tasting it at all. It may require “faith” in the validity of the scientific method, but this faith is based upon accumulated, tested, and verified knowledge.

We agree on that...within what we believe to be reality. But if you test an imaginary widget in a dream then you only have proof about an illusion.

We can't prove that what we believe to be reality is the true reality. We only have faith it is. Since we can only have faith that this reality is the true reality, no proof, we can only have faith that everything in this reality is real, no proof.

There's not really any debate here, this is just a fact.

[Tassman]

How do you know you are not insane or deluded believing you are arguing with someone on theologyweb but really living out a fantasy in your insane deluded mind full of medication in a padded white room?

I possibly am, but one has no other option than to carry on with the probable reality of being the (ahem) superior mind in this probably real Tweb debate. The alternative is to curl up in a corner and whimper.

How do you know that your ideation is not delusional? And how do you cope with it?? Go to church to worship your delusional deity??

Can you provide a rational justification for why you trust ANY evidence? Can you rule out hallucinations or coincidence? Then why trust any evidence?

Can you? Then provide it and try not to be so one sided and demanding.

One accepts the evidence which is the most probable, as opposed to the merely possible based in my case on the metaphysics of Philosophical Naturalism whereby ALL concepts related to consciousness can be reduced to natural causes and are therefore testable. I.e. ALL alleged "supernatural" things are explainable in purely natural terms and can be verified by empirical testing and validated by peer review.

[Tassman]

I am not trying to make a case for first cause arguments either. Don't run ahead like that and deal with the issue which is epistemic justification for your beliefs.

Aren’t you? Then where did your “infinite regress” comment come from?

It is you who have set the agenda of metaphysics, not me. As far as I am concerned metaphysics, especially the speculative metaphysics about non-empirical and transcendent realities adopted by theists (e.g. medieval metaphysics) is nonsense. But, sadly for the theists, it’s all they’ve got.

My beliefs are epistemically grounded in empiricism as it is expressed in methodological naturalism (i.e. the scientific method) and metaphysically supported by Philosophical Naturalism.

And the epistemic justification for your belief is. ………………? Try to remember there are two sides to this discussion.

The point I want to make to you is that you rely on faith as we all do and your faith is an unreasonable faith.

Unreasonable! Really!! And the basis for this personal opinion of yours is…..….….?

My beliefs are backed by experience and empirically tested beliefs. Yours as a theist are by definition rooted in supernaturalism. They can only be based on subjective and unverified experience of an unverified supernatural deity and supported by academic medieval philosophy.

[Tassman]

You misunderstood here and skipped the rest.

We agree on that...within what we believe to be reality. But if you test an imaginary widget in a dream then you only have proof about an illusion.

We can't prove that what we believe to be reality is the true reality. We only have faith it is. Since we can only have faith that this reality is the true reality, no proof, we can only have faith that everything in this reality is real, no proof.

There's not really any debate here, this is just a fact.

No it is NOT a fact. You persist with your cherished but erroneous notion of ALL beliefs being of equal value. THEY ARE NOT!!! Once again, it is POSSIBLE that the results of Chemists testing of sugar are an illusion. However, given the accumulation of tested and peer reviewed knowledge about chemical compounds etc over many years, it is PROBABLE that their findings are accurate and reflect reality.

There is a REASON why don't accept ALL things equally on faith. Namely, we accept SOME information as being more likely to be true than OTHER information. The reason is that we use our learnt critical skills, which have been honed by experience, to assess and evaluate the information that besieges us daily.

[seer]

The Quantum Entanglement argument is irrelevant to a discussion about how the ‘non-material supernatural’ world interacts with the ‘material natural world’ because, as I’ve pointed out several times, Quantum Physics is concerned ONLY with the natural world.

Tass, how do you know that this is a natural world? As opposed to a supernatural world. Perhaps entanglement is evidence for it's supernatural nature. Can you prove that this universe had a "natural" beginning, that it is presently being supported by purely "natural" means? If not - why call it natural?

This, of course, highlights the different levels of faith required for belief in the natural as opposed to belief in the supernatural. There is no valid comparison between the two. One position requires “faith”, unsupported by verified evidence, whereas the other position is based on "faith" supported by an abundance of continually growing consistent evidence. And yes, we can trust our senses unless insane or deluded…to say we can’t means we cannot trust ANY evidence.

Once again Tass, offer us a logically deductive argument that the world in your mind corresponds to actual reality. That you are not being deceived. Show us the evidence - if you can't please be man enough to admit that you take all of reality by faith.

[Rainbow Brite]

No it is NOT a fact. You persist with your cherished but erroneous notion of ALL beliefs being of equal value. THEY ARE NOT!!! Once again, it is POSSIBLE that the results of Chemists testing of sugar are an illusion. However, given the accumulation of tested and peer reviewed knowledge about chemical compounds etc over many years, it is PROBABLE that their findings are accurate and reflect reality.

There is a REASON why don't accept ALL things equally on faith. Namely, we accept SOME information as being more likely to be true than OTHER information. The reason is that we use our learnt critical skills, which have been honed by experience, to assess and evaluate the information that besieges us daily.

Depends on how you look at it.

1. You may not consciously see that you require much faith at all to believe that what appears to be reality, right in front of you, is the true reality. And likewise it seems belief in a God that you can't see or test requires great faith. This is true for all practical purposes, within what we believe to be reality.

2. But considering possibility that this reality is illusion and that a different true reality exists outside the box, since we don't have absolute proof that this is the true reality -- like Neo couldn't prove his Matrix reality was the true reality, and it wasn't -- then it turns out faith in everything we think is tested, tried, and true is nearly absolute and required, relied upon by everyone and everything in order to function within what we believe to be reality. And then, still from our view of possibilities outside the box, a faith in God is more or less an accessory item in comparison to this almost absolute faith that this reality is the true reality.

So oddly enough -- which is perhaps why you are having difficulty getting your mind around it, because philosophy does require some deeper thinking outside of the box -- it turns out that from this #2 latter view, atheists can only do their best arguing from a faith-based position, where our reality must first be assumed to be true in order to claim facts and proofs about it. Just as from the #1 view, theists might rely on faith far more than atheists do to support their positions.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

As far as I am concerned metaphysics... is nonsense.

My beliefs are epistemically grounded in empiricism as it is expressed in methodological naturalism (i.e. the scientific method) and metaphysically supported by Philosophical Naturalism.

Empiricism is experiential materialism...

So you are a materialist...

And you close your eyes to the nature of your own experience of materiality...

Now if you really want to be consistent, you must subject your own cognitive processes to scientific methodology, but the problem you will have is that they are all, being only your own, subjective, and it is that which you scorn...

So the lie goes on, and your date with death draws near, and in your understanding, death is annihilation of self, and hence you are a nihilist...

Arsenios

[Child_Of_Wisdom]

Empiricism is experiential materialism...

So you are a materialist...

And you close your eyes to the nature of your own experience of materiality...

Now if you really want to be consistent, you must subject your own cognitive processes to scientific methodology, but the problem you will have is that they are all, being only your own, subjective, and it is that which you scorn...

So the lie goes on, and your date with death draws near, and in your understanding, death is annihilation of self, and hence you are a nihilist...

Arsenios

I just want Tassman to read this again because he is probably to puffed up to realise what you are saying.

Oh and there is such thing as an epistemic justification regress problem Tass.

[Tassman]

I just want Tassman to read this again because he is probably to puffed up to realise what you are saying.

Oh and there is such thing as an epistemic justification regress problem Tass.

I just want Child Of Wisdom to read this again in the expectation that he might just respond to it rather than merely resort to smart-alecky remarks. And no there is no "justification regress problem", but there is an infinite regress problem in Thomistic metaphisics which is what I was clearly referring to.

Originally posted by Child_Of_Wisdom

I am not trying to make a case for first cause arguments either. Don't run ahead like that and deal with the issue which is epistemic justification for your beliefs.

Aren’t you? Then where did your “infinite regress” comment come from?

It is you who have set the agenda of metaphysics, not me. As far as I am concerned metaphysics, especially the speculative metaphysics about non-empirical and transcendent realities adopted by theists (e.g. medieval metaphysics) is nonsense. But, sadly for the theists, it’s all they’ve got.

My beliefs are epistemically grounded in empiricism as it is expressed in methodological naturalism (i.e. the scientific method) and metaphysically supported by Philosophical Naturalism.

And the epistemic justification for your belief is. ………………? Try to remember there are two sides to this discussion.

The point I want to make to you is that you rely on faith as we all do and your faith is an unreasonable faith.

Unreasonable! Really!! And the basis for this personal opinion of yours is…..….….?

My beliefs are backed by experience and empirically tested beliefs. Yours as a theist are by definition rooted in supernaturalism. They can only be based on subjective and unverified experience of an unverified supernatural deity and supported by academic medieval philosophy.