Who am I? Why am I here?

[PLP]

…and still didn’t make it.

Neithan:

But this is all philosophical speculation, and I can just as easily counter with other philosophical speculation.

You say that like it’s a bad thing. That’s what makes philosophy fun!

Materialism and Idealism are two epistemological extremes which, when taken to logical consequences, are intellectually repulsive, although many will ‘force’ them in order to fit larger belief systems (such as Atheism or Existentialism, respectively).

Keep in mind that I force my atheism to fit my epistemology, not the other way around. I really don’t have an a priori interest in being an atheist. If I discovered it were false, I would abandon atheism in a New York second.

What I am committed to is truth, knowledge and goodness (not to mention Justice and the American Way). I’ll follow the truth and the good wherever it leads me.

 

[PLP]

Sparetherod:

PLP…time to get off the fence…

I’m not on the fence. I’m definitely an atheist.

it’s fun to debate the rationale for God or Allah. Fact is , it’s irrelevant.

Fun is way more important than “relevance”.

And often the relevance is in the journey, not the destination. We’re not having a contest where the “loser” has to change his beliefs. The relevance is that we’re all learning how to think and argue logically and philosophically, which seems like a good thing to me.

People believe anyway. Religious moderates, who ignore most of their holy books, do validate the 1st century philosophy in them. These books are engines of fundamentalism. Do you feel you are under any real obligation to respect these beliefs which are eroding respect for science, at the very least, and threatening our lives, at worst?

I don’t know. I used to be a lot more wound up about this sort of thing. I respect people for being sincere, for doing their best to think things through, for being polite and tolerant. The regulars here (unlike in some forums) have exhibited all these qualities.

There are a lot of ways the world is not to my liking. But I’m just one guy among six billion. There’s no particular reason the world should be the way I personally want it to be. I say what I have to say, other people say what they have to say, and somehow or another the world keeps going on. Or perhaps someday it won’t, in which case no one will be unsatisfied.

I do the best I can with what I have, I respect other people for doing the same, even if we do disagree. If anything more is required, it’s the world’s problem, not mine.

 

[Sparetherod]

Obviously Rod, there is a difference in the motivations behind your own atheism and PLP’s. Yours seems much more emotionally driven.

Actually, our reasons are very much the same, and atheism entails no motivation in itself. The consequences of theism motivate me. As a physician, I’ve seen people die from it.

How can you say that theism erodes respect for science, when the modern scientific method originated amongst theists?

They did make it a little tough for the infidel to get past Aquinas’ peer review. We all remember how they set up the Copernicus Institute to push the bounds of knowledge. And now they can’t understand why 90% of the National Academy of Sciences is atheist/agnostic.

In fact, there is an entire school of thought surrounding the assertion that it is philosophically untenable to use logic, science or ethics to defend atheism.

And there is an entire school of thought that thinks Adam and Eve played with dinosaurs…same one maybe?

What makes you think that a world without theistic religion would be a safer world? Did you forget about the Nazis and Communism already?

9/11 was my second clue. Sister Mary Reparata and her ruler was my first. Wait, you’re right, I got to go to Mass, this atheism stuff is the same thing as Nazism, isn’t it?

PLP…good luck…I’m outta here. I’m not even going to ask that you tell these guys you’re a little worried about them. Been a pleasure to watch your arguments unfold.

To everyone else, thanks at least for the restrained name calling. Maybe one day it’ll seem like I was talking some sense. See you at the next manger at the courthouse protest.

 

[Neithan]

9/11 was my second clue. Sister Mary Reparata and her ruler was my first. Wait, you’re right, I got to go to Mass, this atheism stuff is the same thing as Nazism, isn’t it?

Nazism and Communism were atheistic religions, which should clue you in that a world without God is nothing close to utopia.

PLP…good luck…I’m outta here. I’m not even going to ask that you tell these guys you’re a little worried about them. Been a pleasure to watch your arguments unfold.

Maybe you should take a page out of his book and restrain your obvious arrogance and condescension? But I’ll admit it anyway… I’m a little worried about you, man. I’ll say a prayer for ya

God Bless!

 

[Neithan]

PLP:

Under scientific materialism, “truth” is a rather prosaic property of ontological statements

So is there no ‘absolute standard’ of truth? How do you measure the ‘truth’ property in an ontological statement? Is it purely verbal, or can it also be a mental idea or something physical (like a written math equation)? What is ‘truth’ made of, materially?

I’m going to post a thread on Metaphysical Scientific Materialism in due time; I want to address some lesser topics first; please be patient. Metaphysics is the most intractable of philosophical topics, and we’re not going to even be able to discuss all the issue in a few days.

Well you’ve definitely got my attention here. ‘metaphysical materialism’ seems to me at first glance an oxymoron.

Yes, the issue of abstract ontological entities is thorny indeed. Somewhere, there’s a real story (i.e. real ink on real paper with definite shapes) which describes Goldilocks. Perhaps we need nothing more than than that real story to ground ontological discussion about Goldilocks.

Is that enough? Once you have that real story, what do you say, “Goldilocks is ink on paper forming the letters G-O-L-D…” or
“Goldilocks is a young girl who meets three bears…”
Both are true, but only the first one is real.

Here’s where we get to the thorny part of theistic metaphysics. If it is indeed the case that an intelligent (that is, self-conscious and free-willing) mind cannot be explained without an intelligent cause, then how do we explain God?

God *is *cause. When you have this idea in your mind, signified by the word (in English) cause. The essence of that idea is in God. To ask “what caused God” is the same as asking “what youed you?” Doesn’t make sense.

Just lumping everything mystical or unknown under the label “God” doesn’t seem to me to do anything but try to handwave around our ignorance. And it hides even more completely the second part of the scientists credo: "I don’t know, let’s find out."

Agreed… God is not a ‘God of the Gaps’ but I disagree that we should leave Him out of the picture entirely.

No. Not illusion. Abstract, perhaps

What is an abstract material entity exactly? Is it imperceivable even to enhanced human senses?

Strictly speaking, we cannot “observe” anything but the operation of our own minds. Even the construct of ordinary reality is completely theoretical and indirect. Once you’ve swallowed enough indirection to get to rocks and trees, the tiny bit extra indirection to get to minds is no big deal.

Not sure what you’re getting at here… if all we observe is the operation of our own minds, how can we be sure that rocks and trees truly exist outside of them?

What I am committed to is truth, knowledge and goodness (not to mention Justice and the American Way). I’ll follow the truth and the good wherever it leads me.

Me to (minus the ‘American Way’ ). But this means that you are committed to ‘abstract material entities’ right? (To add to my above question regarding truth) is there an ‘absolute good’? Can we scientifically measure the property of something ‘good’ as opposed to ‘ungood’?
What is ‘good’ and ‘ungood’ (or ‘evil’) for a materialist, anyway?

 

[hurst]

PLP:

Well, let’s keep discussing this. Can one rationally deny the existence of any entity without perfect knowledge? Can one rationally disbelieve in, for instance, the existence of pixies, fairies, unicorns? Can one rationally assert that there are no Apaches hiding in one’s living room*?

You make an interesting point here.

PLP:

Can one make even positive assertions with certainty? Is it absolutely certain that there is a couch in my living room? I saw it there ten minutes ago, but is it still there? Is it there only when I’m looking? Was I merely hallucinating? Am I merely misremembering?

lol. These are actually good questions. It paradoxically leads us to the certainty that we are not the ones keeping these things in place.

PLP:

Well, it is certainly the case that if God existed, and the nature and properties of God can be obtained only by revelation by virtue of grace, then it is definitely the case that God has not revealed Himself to me personally.

Perhaps you might be interested to know that God at times reveals things to those with faith to give them the task of sharing grace with others who have no faith.

I recently was reading about such a revelation, and the thought came to me that I should tell you about it. This thought wouldn’t go away because the revealed grace included a promise to give faith to those without it (“conversion of those who do not have the faith”), and I recalled this post of yours.

Furthermore, it is the simplest of things to do, and only requires that you obtain a special blessed piece of material and keep it with you or near you. There is a short prayer to be said once a day, but you don’t have to say it if someone else says it for you.

If you are open to experiencing the promise of Grace, then I encourage you to try it out. What can you lose? You can tell the other atheists about it, and say you will report back to them on what you discover.

The Green Scapular of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to Sister Justine Bisqueyburu in Paris, France, on Jan. 28, 1840. Actually the fifth of a series of apparitions, Justine was given the design of a new scapular. Sister heard an interior voice telling her that this Scapular would convert many souls, that copies should be made as soon as possible and distributed with confidence.

http://www.memorare.com/mary/grscapborder.jpg

The Scapular is actually a badge, since it is only one piece of cloth. The cloth is green as is the cord which holds it. On one side is an image of Our Lady and on the other an image of the Immaculate Heart of Mary pierced by a sword. On this side there is also a cross and the prayer: “Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.”

Later, in another vision Our Lady told Sister Justine that one need not be enrolled in this Scapular, it only needs to be blessed by a priest and worn—or it may even be placed in the pocket, under the pillow, hidden in the room, etc. of a sinner or faithless person without that person knowing it. Each day the prayer on the Scapular should be said. If the person given the Scapular is not going to say the prayer then the person giving it should say it. Sister Justine was told that the graces would be given in proportion to the confidence of the petitioner.

Sr. Justine was hesitant at first, but eventually revealed the devotion to her Spiritual Director Fr. Aladel (who was also the director of St. Catherine Laboure of the Miraculous Medal). After much delay, the scapulars were produced and distributed with many conversions and cures following.

The Green Scapular emphasized the theme of Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Bl. Pope Pius IX twice strongly recommended its promotion and use.

http://www.memorare.com/mary/grscapborder2.jpg

Free Green Scapular
For one free, blessed, Green Scapular please send a stamped self-addressed envelope to:

The Community of The Monks of Adoration
2241 Englewood Road
Englewood, FL 34223

monksofadoration.org/mom/mom120.html

So in summary, the steps are:

1. Send in for the free Green Scapular
2. Put it in your room somewhere, or in your wallet.
3. Tell me when you did this, and I will pray for you each day:
   “Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.”
4. Wait and see if you miraculously receive grace
5. Report back on results

If you are willing to risk being ridiculed for trying this sincerely, then I am willing to pray for you with confidence.

hurst

 

[PLP]

hurst:

If you are willing to risk being ridiculed for trying this sincerely, then I am willing to pray for you with confidence.

Why would anyone ridicule me? And if they do, heck with them anyway.

Of course I’ll do it, with all sincerity. How could I not?

I’ll send the SASE today or tomorrow; happily, I ran out of stamps just as they raised the price of postage (a miracle?), so I’ll have to get more.

 

[hurst]

PLP:

Why would anyone ridicule me? And if they do, heck with them anyway.

Of course I’ll do it, with all sincerity. How could I not?

I’ll send the SASE today or tomorrow; happily, I ran out of stamps just as they raised the price of postage (a miracle?), so I’ll have to get more.

Great!

Just let me know when it arrives.

hurst

 

[reen12]

quote: Sparetherod

In no other areas of human discourse would these answers be sufficient.

Ah, and here is where the “pedal hits the metal.”

I have told my fellow “believers” that I hold that it is a losing
endeavor -to engage in debate - with those who hold with logical
positivism. The logical positivist will win - every time, IMO. :tiphat:

For if those other “areas of human discourse” rely on
the senses: measurement, replication of “experimental”
results, etc…
physical, rather than metaphysical - you are, of course, right.

That is,

quote: Sparetherod

In no other areas of human discourse would these answers be sufficient.

“Le coeur a ses raisons…”

“The heart has it’s reasons which reason knoweth not.”

And those reasons are sufficient for the human heart,
mind and soul.

Theism is not ‘illogical’, but theism is not proveable,
by the application of the scientific method.

So, in terms of those “areas of human discourse” - which
rely solely on the senses - measurement, replication of “experimental” results, etc
…physical, rather than metaphysical -

quote: Sparetherod

In no other areas of human discourse would these answers be sufficient.

…you’re right.

quote: reen12

“Le coeur a ses raisons…”

“The heart has it’s reasons which reason knoweth not.”

And those reasons are sufficient for the human heart,
mind and soul.

Best,

reen

 

[reen12]

Well, well, well…look at what I just found.

thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

Dawkins sounds more like Moses - coming off the
mountain - than Moses. I give you a new Law to
live by…science!

Riiigghhtttt…

Where did I put my copy of the Hebrew Scriptures?
I felt such a chill, reading Dawkins’ words…

reen12

 

[Sparetherod]

thehumanist.org/humanist…es/dawkins.html

Dawkins sounds more like Moses - coming off the
mountain - than Moses. I give you a new Law to
live by…science!

Careful, when you post sites to reasonable thinking, you run the risk of derailing the faithful who might be taken in.

Dawkins, Dawkins, He’s our man!!!

Rod

 

[PLP]

reen12:

I have told my fellow “believers” that I hold that it is a losing endeavor -to engage in debate - with those who hold with logical positivism. The logical positivist will win - every time, IMO. :tiphat:

This is not the case. Canonical LP of the Vienna Circle, being a theory of meaning, suffers from real problems with vicious self-reference. Only weaker forms of positivism can survive (e.g. evidential positivism and verificationism).

 

[PLP]

While there are some commonalities, I think there are enough substantive differences between science and religious faith that they don’t deserve to be placed in the same category.

 

[reen12]

quote: Sparetherod

Dawkins, Dawkins, He’s our man!!!

Why am I not surprised. :tiphat:

Best,

reen12

 

[reen12]

quote: reen12

I have told my fellow “believers” that I hold that it is a losing endeavor -to engage in debate - with those who hold with logical positivism. The logical positivist will win - every time, IMO. :tiphat:

quote: PLP

This is not the case. Canonical LP of the Vienna Circle, being a theory of meaning, suffers from real problems with vicious self-reference. Only weaker forms of positivism can survive (e.g. evidential positivism and verificationism).

Despite the shortfalls of the “Canonical LP of the Vienna Circle*”…*the situation of the ‘believer’ remains:
*one *cannot ‘prove’ the existence of a deity.

Ceding your point on the weakness - with reference to
the “vicious self-reference” of the LP’s of the Vienna Circle -
in the attempt to arrive at a self-evident ‘definition’ of
“meaning,” I repeat:

quote: reen12

I have told my fellow “believers” that I hold that it is a losing endeavor -to engage in debate - with those who hold with logical positivism. The logical positivist will win - every time, IMO…

Though, it was a nice try - in terms deflective.

Again, I am in the hope that readers of the thread will
take a moment to scan Dawkins’ new “Commandments.” :tiphat:

thehumanist.org/humanist…es/dawkins.html

As I said:

quote: reen12

Dawkins sounds more like Moses - coming off the
mountain - than Moses. I give you a new Law to
live by…science!

Riiigghhtttt…

One wonders if Dawkins had even heard of the LP’s of
the Vienna Circle. [as I say, deflection from my main
point - *cannot prove existence of deity - still, a nice try. :tiphat:

Reminds me of Yaakov’s Existential Psychotherapy!
Whoaaaaa! Talk about “self-reference!”

quote: reen12

Or perhaps the stance of the Existentialists is embraced:
*L’Homme révolté *! “Create” meaning, where none “exists.”

A kind of “hollow” ‘reality’ is encountered, in this stance,
I think, in terms of: “Who am I? Why am I here?”, the
thread topic.

As I say, taking a dekko at the cerebrational “offerings” of Dawkins puts discussions of “meaning”…in terms of Who am I?
Why am I here?.. in perspective.

Best,

reen12

 

[Redbandito]

Sparetherod:

Maranatha, OK, I’ll bite.

Well, assuming that I’m not psychotic at the time, if Jesus appeared at midfield of a full stadium and healed all the amputees in the stands…I would believe. I’ve always wondered why god hates amputees, since he never seems to answer their prayers. Actually, just one obvious interaction with my world might convince me, you name it.

This is a huge assumption and horribly misled. What makes you think God hates amputees or doesn’t answer their prayers? Just because God doesn’t always answer prayers to the affirmative does not mean God does not love us. For someone claiming to have reason on their side, this is a wholely irrational argument.

Secondly, I believe the difference lies in the modernist view of happiness versus the ancient philosophical view of happiness. Modernists believe happiness means “to feel good”. The Ancients believed it meant actually “to be good”. Thus, for the modernists,
the “feeling” is the “end”. For the ancients, the “feeling” was the product of the “being”.

Furthermore, IF our ultimate end is something beyond this life (which requires that we become virtuous), then it follows that a little pain and suffering (or a lot) in this world in order to obtain our ultimate end is well worth it. Thus, Catholics “rejoice in (their) sufferings” (James 1:2).

Finally, Jesus stated in John 20:29, “Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed”. There were many people in His time that saw Him and disbelieved. I think it is a little overly simplistic to say, “If God would do such and such, I would believe”. Would you, really? God interacts with this world all the time, and you don’t believe now. How would it be different if He appeared to you in person?

 

[Redbandito]

EnterTheBowser:

I think it is rather silly to say that because we will all die eventually, the things we do have no meaning. This is probably simplistic, but: if a finite amount of a thing is meaningless, then endless amounts of it are similarly meaningless. Life is like food - just because the meal is gone when we’re finished doesn’t mean it didn’t taste good while we’re eating it (thank you, Anne Pitlyck!).

If we were created by nothing, and for nothing, then life is meaningless. I don’t mean to be to direct here, but to argue anything else is just linguistic gymnastics.

 

[Redbandito]

Sparetherod:

You try to define my position as irrational by saying I need proof of reality? If that’s what it takes to make your point, you’re welcome to it. When has relying on good evidence ever let you down?

You’re not making the distinction that he made. The difference is between proof and evidence. There is evidence that gravity exists. However, the “THEORIES” of gravity that exist require a degree of faith. I have faith that when I flip the switch, the light will come on. Why? Because the overwhelming evidence suggests that. However, that is not a metaphysical certainty. It is not an absolute proof. There is a difference, and you are not making the distinction.

 

[Redbandito]

Sparetherod:

And you got this from a two thousand year old story that nobody else at the time seemed to know about, right?

What are you talking about? There is all sorts of historical evidence from Jewish and Pagan historians. You aren’t looking very hard if you don’t know that.

 

[reen12]

Note: the link in post #233 needs re-posting
[as it stands, in that post, it will not take one to the article]

thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html

reen12 :tiphat: