Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Can Atheism Account For Rationality

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    That's because, unlike the distinction between a rock and tree, there is no evidence of this supernatural thing that you are trying to make a distinction of. Except that which you make up out of whole cloth, that is.
    Where is your evidence that this universe is natural? What does that even mean?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      That's because, unlike the distinction between a rock and tree, there is no evidence of this supernatural thing that you are trying to make a distinction of. Except that which you make up out of whole cloth, that is.
      I disagree. Supernatural things don't have to have an actual existence to be categorized. The category "mythical beings" is an entire category about things that don't exist. Indeed, that's pretty much the definition. "Unicorn" is a category related to a thing that does not exist (as best we can determine). There's no problem with terms that refer to a category that does not have elements that exist in the universe.

      As best I can tell, Seer wants to preserve the possibility that the universe arising from a god is perfectly natural. There is nothing about the definition of the terms that precludes that, but he doesn't see it. He's somehow stuck on not liking the definitions of the terms and seeing them as somehow "different" from the definitions of any other terms. I've tried every way I can to get him to see the problem with his reasoning, but he's apparently not going to see it from me. I doubt he'll see it from you either.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        As best I can tell, Seer wants to preserve the possibility that the universe arising from a god is perfectly natural. There is nothing about the definition of the terms that precludes that, but he doesn't see it. He's somehow stuck on not liking the definitions of the terms and seeing them as somehow "different" from the definitions of any other terms. I've tried every way I can to get him to see the problem with his reasoning, but he's apparently not going to see it from me. I doubt he'll see it from you either.
        Carp there is no problem with my reasoning, you are the one who is arguing in a circle and accepting definitions with no rational justification; that because we define natural and supernatural one way means that they actually are that way. There is no logical or objective reason to accept that.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          Carp there is no problem with my reasoning, you are the one who is arguing in a circle and accepting definitions with no rational justification; that because we define natural and supernatural one way means that they actually are that way. There is no logical or objective reason to accept that.
          Seer...you have the cart before the horse...and you're not seeing it. I don't think I can help you. Perhaps someone else can.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            Carp there is no problem with my reasoning, you are the one who is arguing in a circle and accepting definitions with no rational justification; that because we define natural and supernatural one way means that they actually are that way. There is no logical or objective reason to accept that.
            I know I said "last word," and I have been 100% on that for the past several weeks. But I had a thought about how to get you to see your problem, so I thought I'd give it one last go.

            Simple question: do you think that we can divide concepts/things into "those that can be investigated by science" and "those that cannot be investigated by science?"

            "Yes" or "no" is all that is required.
            Last edited by carpedm9587; 07-16-2019, 01:25 PM.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              Simple question: do you think that we can divide concepts/things into "those that can be investigated by science" and "those that cannot be investigated by science?"
              Yes...
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                Yes...
                OK. So what word would you like to use for the things that science can investigate - and what word would you like to use for the things that science cannot?
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  OK. So what word would you like to use for the things that science can investigate - and what word would you like to use for the things that science cannot?
                  Investigable, not investigable.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Investigable, not investigable.
                    OK, then...

                    Using your preferred words: we live in a largely "investigatable" universe. It is possible the origins of this universe are also "investigatable." If they are not, then they are "not investigatable."
                    Using the previously used words: we live in a largely "natural" universe. It is possible the origins of this universe are also "natural." If they are not, then they are "supernatural."

                    All you have done is substituted one term for another to appease whatever angst you had about "natural" and "supernatural." Nothing about what I have said has changed one iota.

                    That's how words work.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      OK, then...

                      Using your preferred words: we live in a largely "investigatable" universe. It is possible the origins of this universe are also "investigatable." If they are not, then they are "not investigatable."
                      Using the previously used words: we live in a largely "natural" universe. It is possible the origins of this universe are also "natural." If they are not, then they are "supernatural."

                      All you have done is substituted one term for another to appease whatever angst you had about "natural" and "supernatural." Nothing about what I have said has changed one iota.

                      That's how words work.
                      So what if some aspects of the "natural" are beyond understanding and non-investigatable, does that make them supernatural?
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        So what if some aspects of the "natural" are beyond understanding and non-investigatable, does that make them supernatural?
                        The terms "natural" and "supernatural" are not exactly opposing one another, despite our using them that way in this discussion. Supernatural is definitively about "not investigatable by science." "Natural," would then seem to suggest "investigatable by science," but language is sometimes a bit fuzzy. The term also means "not created/done by human hands." So it rather depends on which definition you are using for any given conversation.

                        Generally, however, it would seem to me there are two groups of things that are "not investigatable." The first is that group for which there is simply no way for the scientific method to be applied because the thing in question does not conform to predictable/repeatable/intelligible principles. The notion of "gods" generally falls into this camp. So too with angels, devils, ghosts, unicorns, and so forth. We tend to use "supernatural" for this group. The second is that group of things which presumably does operate on predictable/repeatable/intelligent principles, but for which there is no way to derive an experiment to test hypotheses related to the thing in question. The origins of the universe may well be an example of that "noninvestigatable" class. We do not tend to use "supernatural for this collection of things. "Intelligent design" seems to fit into that camp as well, but it's actually "god did it" in disguise, so it actually fits into the former camp.
                        Last edited by carpedm9587; 07-16-2019, 08:07 PM.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Where is your evidence that this universe is natural? What does that even mean?
                          Because that's the term that we coined to define the world of our empirical observation. Supernatural is the term we use to define an imagined possible world that we can not observe. There is no evidence of the latter, only the former, the world that we call natural. Of course you're welcome to call it supernatural if you like, but that wouldn't make any sense.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Carp there is no problem with my reasoning, you are the one who is arguing in a circle and accepting definitions with no rational justification; that because we define natural and supernatural one way means that they actually are that way. There is no logical or objective reason to accept that.
                            seer, if there is only one world, then the term used to define it is "natural," Supernatural means other than natural, and it has nothing to do with whether the one is the cause of the other.
                            Last edited by JimL; 07-16-2019, 09:17 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              On the basis of my experience of "I" and "self" and "consciousness."
                              We feel as though we immaterial beyond the material brain, there is no reason to believe that we actually are. The evidence suggests otherwise.

                              I am not 100% sure what "beyond the brain" means to you. If you mean it spatially - then no - I don't think we can "project consciousness." If you mean "independent of," then again no. All evidence I know of suggests the mind stops when the brain stops. If you mean "transcending the biology of the brain," then I would say "yes." That is essentially what an emergent property is: it's a property that emerges as a function of complexity (we think) whose nature is not detectable in the individual elements that make up the complexity. You will not find "mind" in a neuron. You WILL find mind in a collection of interconnected neurons of sufficient complexity, yet it is the same neurons. This emergent property is transcendent - and immaterial. It does, however, depend on the immaterial for its existence.
                              Yes, the evidence suggests the mind stops when the brain stops. Therefore the ‘mind’ can be best viewed as the brain (or “collection of neurons” if you prefer) in action. No brain, no mind.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                I would say there is as much "objective comparison" as there is for any other two things. In this case, the comparison has to do with the applicability of the scientific method to investigate. In this case, the two "things" in question are not objects so much as they are "classes of things." It's like comparing "geological things" to "astronomical things."

                                But I agree that the supernatural (most likely) does not exist outside of human mythology.
                                And this last is the crucial point, I think. There's no evidence of anything 'supernatural' having existed outside of the minds of our species.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X