Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
TWO: Human beings cannot know all that exists in the universe. The universe is forever in flux, full of mystery that will forever be marveled and explored by Man as long as he survives.
Surely, this is true. As I’ve said, however, there does seem to be an uncanny relationship between (1) an orderly universe that operates according to discernible laws and principles, and (2) the existence of humans with minds and faculties capable of investigating and analyzing this universe. I find this somewhat evidential in its own right, even apart from any arguments about the extraordinary fine-tuning of the universe and our little corner for the existence of life.
This second Truth just underscores what I said about the First. If the natural order (universe) is beyond our full comprehension, then any higher reality certainly is. We can know this higher reality – if it exists – only as it reveals itself or otherwise intrudes into our reality.
THREE: The first reality for human beings manifests itself in all the great many beliefs and faiths throughout the world; from Astrology to Zoroastrianism. Many books also stem from these beliefs; the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, Speaking of Faith, The Celestine Prophecy, the Book of Mormon, and others. These are the books about men such as Jesus, Mohammad, Moses, and Joseph Smith.
This loses me. LearnMe’s “first reality” is “personal reality,” meaning reality as we perceive it. I don’t see why he would equate this with religious beliefs and faiths.
I’d say our first level of personal reality is our assessment of what science teaches about the natural order. Even here, science isn't even close to being a monolithic entity. Each individual must decide for himself what constitutes the best scientific evidence and thinking about the natural order. With something like geology, there may be close to a scientific consensus. But in disciplines like physics, cosmology, and consciousness studies, however, there is a wide diversity of views and much speculation.
Perhaps an individual concludes that the best scientific evidence and thinking point toward atheistic naturalism. This, then, is his personal reality, with no need for religious belief or faith. But perhaps he concludes that the best evidence and thinking point to something more, a higher reality. Science can’t take him any further. If he wants to go further, he must look elsewhere. The search may culminate in agnosticism or some level of atheistic or theistic conviction. A rational individual accepts that he will never achieve certainty.
The various scriptures are irrelevant at this point. Unless and until I reach a conviction about Christianity (for example), the Bible is irrelevant. It doesn’t define my personal reality or assist me in defining it to any greater extent than does the Koran, the Gita, or the atheistic philosophy of Bertrand Russell.
FOUR: The second reality, all that exists in the universe, known or unknown, is disclosed to Man most accurately and peacefully by way of well-documented history (rather than religious books) and empirical science (rather than theology). Universal truth is all we can accept as reality, the truth, with the most certainty and least conflict. What we can all most reasonably accept as true for all concerned.
I once again make essentially the same point. Yes, science – with all its flaws and checkered history – is our most reliable tool for investigating and analyzing the natural order.
But you can see once again what LearnMe has done here. He has assumed a priori that “the universe” is equivalent to “reality.” This is an unwarranted assumption. This is philosophical naturalism.
As I’ve suggested above, if science proceeded solely on the basis of methodological naturalism rather than the question-begging and answer-assuming basis of philosophical naturalism, the best scientific theory might well be “an intelligent designer occupying a higher reality, even though science can take us no further.” Philosophical naturalism forecloses any such theory from the get-go. Any other theory, no matter how utterly speculative and unfalsifiable, is entitled to a fair hearing so long as it posits an explanation that may be characterized as naturalistic.
Your response to His Assumption Two fails to fully take advantage of the opportunity to point out the increased likelihood that some Source exists that establishes both the orderliness of our Reality and our unique ability to discern and assess it. That it would be of a higher order is intrinsic to its status as the Source.
His Assumption Three would have lost me, as well, except I recognize his desire to bifurcate the spectrum into science and religion to delimit the content of theism to what is represented by existing religions. What you point out about the application of science to the determination of what we will consider ontologically is something he avoids like the plague since there is no way to get irrefutably to his atheism from there. He will NOT acknowledge that there is any question about that as you clearly reveal there is.
In His Assumption Four, he confirms that is his objective as you clearly point out. He seems to believe that there is no question about the atheistic naturalism that is his religion. Assumption Five and those that follow clearly reveal that was his objective in formulating his Assumptions and presenting them as so-called Truths. While I agree with you about the higher power, I again caution against the use of intelligent design terminology and recommend sticking with consciousness as the substrate which implies a conscious Reality and mandates it to be God.
A couple of additional thoughts or clarifications occurred to me:
1. My discussion could easily be attacked as Pollyanna-ish in the sense of giving believers far too much credit for depth of their quests. "Oh, come on, Irkle - most believers are either born into a religion or stumble into one for social, cultural, political or economic reasons unrelated to Truth. They don't engage in any sort of quest like you're describing." This is undeniably true. It's true of a lot of atheists, too, particularly since the New Atheists made atheism something of a hip fad (as, weirdly, Christianity was back in my college days). My discussion is talking about that relatively small community of genuinely sincere, diligent believers and nonbelievers who have really done the legwork, could tell you what they believe and why, and aren't threatened because you believe something different.
2. By the same token, I don't insist that only beliefs arrived at after a long and diligent quest are legitimate or valid. A single transformative experience or flash of intuitive insight may send someone directly and enthusiastically into a particular belief system. I don't pooh-pooh or denigrate this. When I was a Christian newbie in Campus Crusade for Christ, I used to say to my wife, "It would be great in a way to be as simple-minded and accepting of everything as these folks, but that's just not me." If the sort of God in whom I believe actually exists, I believe he calls people in very different ways for very different purposes.
3. LearnMe's view of religious believers seems to be that their beliefs are invariably shallow and superficial (if not entirely mindless) and that they just sort of dive in and live in a constant state of cognitive dissonance as science makes them look silly. Yes, there is lots of this - my point #1 above. But the process is exactly the reverse for a genuine seeker, and I don't think LearnMe grasps this. As I've stated previously, orthodox Christianity is counterintuitive and not really all that emotionally appealing; its not the sort of religion most people would be likely to invent or choose for themselves from a menu of religious possibilities. If emotions and feelings were really driving the bus, I think most people whose quests had led them to a belief in a higher reality would gravitate to something like one of the New Age communities. But this isn't how it works for a real seeker. It's not a matter of "OK, I guess I'm a theist. Which version of theism looks appealing?" It's a matter of looking back at all the legwork - all the science; all the personal experiences and observations; all the study of others' experiences and observations; all the history, philosophy and theology - and asking "What best makes sense of all that?" This is why I describe Christianity as my template; regardless of whether it's 100% ontologically correct, it has the greatest explanatory power for all the knowledge, experience and observation I've accumulated over the decades.
Your response to His Assumption Two fails to fully take advantage of the opportunity to point out the increased likelihood that some Source exists that establishes both the orderliness of our Reality and our unique ability to discern and assess it. That it would be of a higher order is intrinsic to its status as the Source.
I keep coming back to Bernardo Kastrup, not that he is the only proponent of idealism but because he does publish in peer-reviewed journals and I find his writing very clear. In The Idea of the World, he posits (as most consistent with the evidence) a single Source. It's a Consciousness responsible for the external reality that we all experience in approximately the same way. "Our reality is God's dream," as the old saying goes. We are islands or bubbles of consciousness - "alters," Kastrup calls them - within the greater Consciousness, and we experience both the external shared reality and our own inner reality.
This resonates greatly with me. I've always had an intuitive sense that our reality is very "thin" (if that's the word) and not quite real in the way materialism thinks. Idealism also makes sense of the Christian notion of creation ex nihilo, from nothing.
Panpsychism also has me fascinated - the notion that consciousness is fundamental at the atomic or subatomic level, which is roughly consistent with idealism. The notion that consciousness is emergent - i.e., somehow mysteriously emerges out of naturalistic processes in the brain - is becoming increasingly impossible even to take seriously.
A couple of additional thoughts or clarifications occurred to me:
1. My discussion could easily be attacked as Pollyanna-ish in the sense of giving believers far too much credit for depth of their quests. "Oh, come on, Irkle - most believers are either born into a religion or stumble into one for social, cultural, political or economic reasons unrelated to Truth. They don't engage in any sort of quest like you're describing." This is undeniably true. It's true of a lot of atheists, too, particularly since the New Atheists made atheism something of a hip fad (as, weirdly, Christianity was back in my college days). My discussion is talking about that relatively small community of genuinely sincere, diligent believers and nonbelievers who have really done the legwork, could tell you what they believe and why, and aren't threatened because you believe something different.
2. By the same token, I don't insist that only beliefs arrived at after a long and diligent quest are legitimate or valid. A single transformative experience or flash of intuitive insight may send someone directly and enthusiastically into a particular belief system. I don't pooh-pooh or denigrate this. When I was a Christian newbie in Campus Crusade for Christ, I used to say to my wife, "It would be great in a way to be as simple-minded and accepting of everything as these folks, but that's just not me." If the sort of God in whom I believe actually exists, I believe he calls people in very different ways for very different purposes.
3. LearnMe's view of religious believers seems to be that their beliefs are invariably shallow and superficial (if not entirely mindless) and that they just sort of dive in and live in a constant state of cognitive dissonance as science makes them look silly. Yes, there is lots of this - my point #1 above. But the process is exactly the reverse for a genuine seeker, and I don't think LearnMe grasps this. As I've stated previously, orthodox Christianity is counterintuitive and not really all that emotionally appealing; its not the sort of religion most people would be likely to invent or choose for themselves from a menu of religious possibilities. If emotions and feelings were really driving the bus, I think most people whose quests had led them to a belief in a higher reality would gravitate to something like one of the New Age communities. But this isn't how it works for a real seeker. It's not a matter of "OK, I guess I'm a theist. Which version of theism looks appealing?" It's a matter of looking back at all the legwork - all the science; all the personal experiences and observations; all the study of others' experiences and observations; all the history, philosophy and theology - and asking "What best makes sense of all that?" This is why I describe Christianity as my template; regardless of whether it's 100% ontologically correct, it has the greatest explanatory power for all the knowledge, experience and observation I've accumulated over the decades.
I think what you are demonstrating here is the impossibility of understanding where someone is coming from unless you have either been there or have something similar to compare it to. Without at least some type of framework, a person has no place to build their theory of mind of another person. Even then you have to actively listen to that person and ask clarifying questions seemingly without end.
I had experiences similar to Mystic. I believe my mind was following the Jesus narrative as someone exposed to a different religion would identify it with whatever diety/sage they knew of. I think that's brain priming. Does the person make their experience fit or does the experience fit the definition? IDK but you can't understand a peak experience or whatever someone wants to call it unless you've had one. Also they are like orgasms. If you have to wonder if you've had one you haven't.
I think what you are demonstrating here is the impossibility of understanding where someone is coming from unless you have either been there or have something similar to compare it to. Without at least some type of framework, a person has no place to build their theory of mind of another person. Even then you have to actively listen to that person and ask clarifying questions seemingly without end.
I had experiences similar to Mystic. I believe my mind was following the Jesus narrative as someone exposed to a different religion would identify it with whatever diety/sage they knew of. I think that's brain priming. Does the person make their experience fit or does the experience fit the definition? IDK but you can't understand a peak experience or whatever someone wants to call it unless you've had one. Also they are like orgasms. If you have to wonder if you've had one you haven't.
When we're having to wade through someone's views and opinions, it's going have to be concise and to the point. The demands of long lengthy manifestos are rarely met here; i.e. rarely worth the time and expense.
One topic focused on is better than many jumbled together. The ability to write extensively in a forum isn't a sign of wisdom. Putting "truths" in the title guarantees nothing, including that one can talk something into becoming a truth.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 09-29-2021 at 06:45 PM..
I had experiences similar to Mystic. I believe my mind was following the Jesus narrative as someone exposed to a different religion would identify it with whatever diety/sage they knew of. I think that's brain priming. Does the person make their experience fit or does the experience fit the definition? IDK but you can't understand a peak experience or whatever someone wants to call it unless you've had one. Also they are like orgasms. If you have to wonder if you've had one you haven't.
To a considerable extent, Near Death Experiences bear this out. There is clearly a cultural component, which is why, after a great deal of study, I refuse to take elaborate, content-laden NDEs at face value. It's the simplest of them, the core phenomenon itself, that interests me. Aspects of the core phenomenon make it impossible for me to accept a completely mundane explanation - and I've heard them all. I believe the core phenomenon is a genuine contact with a higher reality (afterlife) overladen with cultural conditioning. But the cultural conditioning doesn't extend to experiencers "getting exactly what they should have expected" - not at all. Believers and nonbelievers alike often get exactly what they wouldn't have expected.
My prime antagonist on the defunct IANDS discussion forum - she literally despised me - was a woman who'd had two profound NDEs many years apart. These were real NDEs - i.e., she was genuinely near death, not just having an ineffable experience. She firmly believed in a higher reality almost solely on the basis of these experiences. Nevertheless, she was a truly militant, in-your-face atheist, to the extent of insisting that even fellow experiencers who continued to hold religious beliefs were delusional dolts who didn't understand their own experiences.
I haven't had an NDE or visionary encounter, but I have had so many Damn Weird experiences across almost the entire field of other paranormal phenomena that I started keeping a diary of them 30 years ago. The ones worth documenting weren't more than two or three a year, but they did add up to quite a catalogue. Enough of them were complex enough and objective enough (in the sense that I certainly didn't produce them or misperceive them) to call the naturalistic paradigm into question for me even if I'd done no studies and learned that tens of millions of people have reported identical experiences. It's clear to me that some of us are simply better "receivers" (whatever that may mean) for these phenomena.
When we're having to wade through someone's views and opinions, it's going have to be concise and to the point. The demands of long lengthy manifestos are rarely met here; i.e. rarely worth the time and expense.
One topic focused on is better than many jumbled together. The ability to write extensively in a forum isn't a sign of wisdom. Putting "truths" in the title guarantees nothing, including that one can talk something into becoming a truth.
When LearnMe posted his "Ten Truths" under that title in 2019, you were the second person to respond, to wit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424
Fairly good, except for Eight and Ten, which are bogus.
No person's "truth" will ever fully match another's. That's #11, and the fine print disclaimer for the entire set
#12 is "No person's accounting or description of any 'truth' makes it reality"
#13 is "It's better to know and sense a truth, than rely on words and sentences for its description"
So apparently your Attention Deficit Disorder is a more recent phenomenon, or perhaps your insistence on pithiness varies from poster to poster.
Jesus, what clowns some of you folks are. (Oops, I went Irkle there for a moment.)
i think it's a great topic that IrkBerk has introduced, it is pertinent to the forum, it is expressed articulately, it demonstrates depth, and it provides examples from the forum to illustrate points.
Currently, there are following religions:
1. religion with a god or gods of choice
2. atheism, which is religion declining existence of any god
3. agnosticism, which is religion of intellectualism, not having gut to choose one of the above yet pretending to be pseudo spiritual
4. science as religion of those, who believe that they can find answers to any question by mechanical investigations and discarding any spiritual options
5. COVID. That is a new god.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
