I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

I'm not saying faith is bad or inferior.

Well, if religion is about faith why would you look for and note down in a book miracles? Clearly, they (miracles) were proferred as evidence of the divine.

I'm not concerned about the quality of the evidence, nor does the truth of evidence interest me. All that I want to share is that religion is evidence-based.

The gist of what I want to say is the obvious contradiction in religion - that it appeals to our faith and at the same time offers miracles as evidence. Or is it that we can compartmentalize parts of religion that requires faith and parts which are evidence-based?

You don't want to try to interpret things as stupidly as possible — Wosret

Well, the contradiction (above) is real. What do you think of it? Am I being stupid or have I made a clever observation?

Actually, I'll concede the issue. — Bitter Crank

Thanks

Ok but how does bringing in God distinguish fatalism from determinism? Presumably both require causation at some point. Perhaps determinism and fatalism are differentiated along those lines but it seems so contrived. Distinction without difference.

He choose how he would live and he accomplished much. He died young...
He was as complicit in his fate, as we are in ours — Cavacava

I can accept that. So, you do believe in fate.

I don't think confirmation bias is an unequivocal philosophical sin. Look at the flip side - perpetual doubt leads to paralysis of thought and action.

Perhaps there's a good reason it evolved, if Darwin has any credibility. We can make decisions and act on our beliefs.

Thanks for explaining determinism to me. The question that comes to mind is how do we form a coherent theory about fatalism without determinism?

I'll grant you there is evidence. I have no objection to people taking the NT as evidence. What I object to is the rejection of faith as the critical step.

Is there a religion that relies on evidence to attract, keep, and nourish believers? — Bitter Crank

In my humble opinion, faith doesn't have as big a role, as is claimed, in religion. I do agree that as time passes, witnesses die, accounts get distorted, books lose relevance, etc. Today, 2000 years on, the evidence has deteriotated but, ask anyone today why s/he believes in Jesus and the answer will most likely involve the miracles He allegedly performed.

To believe the evidence needs faith but the belief in Jesus is grounded in reason. Can you see the difference?

With fatalism there is actually a thinking and feeling agent.

With determinism, it is all about illusion created by some quanta banging into each other and somehow tricking some of us into thinking it is an illusion and some of us (the determinists) who see through it all and know that it is all about illusion (or is it an illusion of an illusion). — Rich

I'm not sure how well this view can demarcate a clear boundary between fatalism and determinism. Determinism doesn't preclude a thinking and feeling agent.

Why are those deemed "religious" considered weak and inferior to those proclaimed irreligious and/or atheistic? — Lone Wolf

I think that's a miconception. Theism and Atheism appeal to two different qualities of the human psyche.

Religion appeals to intuition and feelings. I think it's wise to entertain possibilities, no matter how unreasonable because the universe-man relationship is not an equilibrium - while we're obliged to fit our theories to facts, the universe is not likewise obliged.

Atheism appeals to reason. It reins in our voluptuous imagination which otherwise would lead to full blown imaginary worlds of ghosts, spirits, demons, fairies, etc. This isn't good because such thinking is, as has been demonstrated, dangerous. Just think of the time when disease was attributed to evil spirits.

There's an undeniable contradiction between the two (god exists and god doesn't) but...there's wisdom in both reason and intuition.

Determinism is different. With determinism, in order for Donald Trump to be elected President of the United States of American in November, 2016 there had to be causes.

With fatalism, it was always the case that Donald Trump was going to be elected President of the United States of America in November, 2016. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

The distinction doesn't seem to make sense. The essence of both, even taking your definitions to be true, is our lives are beyond our control. The mechanism, or lack of it, that leads to this conclusion seems inconsequential apart from a purely theoretical perspective. If you think otherwise, can you tell me how the difference between fatalism and determinism is useful. Thanks.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have faith.

But...

Religion being only about faith is a lie. There's a great deal of evidence provided in miracles and they are, like it or not, very strong evidence for the supernatural. So, we shouldn't be saying religion is about faith as if it rests entirely on that attitude alone.

Why did the people believe Jesus was the son of God? This is a valid question and the answer is the miracles he performed.

I think that most people do not know the difference and what they call determinism is really fatalism — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Well, I think the difference between fatalism and determinism is that the former is an attitude of resignation arising from the latter, which is a truth. The difference you mention doesn't cut it because it relies on entertaining alternate realities - that can be done in both cases.

Fate needn't have an author. It represents the part of our lives we don't control. People also call it luck.

I agree fate needn't follow any rules but the point is we don't have power over it.

If religion is all about faith then why did so-called prophets perform miracles? Isn't the notion of evidence tied inseparably to miraculous events?

I agree the rigor of rationality was of poor quality in the past and don't meet modern standards. However, the point is, evidence was provided and the concept of faith collapses. It doesn't make sense to provide evidence and then appeal to faith.

What is your reaction to the statement "There is no evidence for the existence of God"? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Miracles were provided as evidence of the divine. Faith then becomes redundant.

Do you mean as in fatalism? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Fate and Fatalism. To me, the former is a truth while the latter is an attitude.

For me, there are two types of fate.

1. We do have control over our thoughts and actions. So, we do maintain control over our lives, which direction it takes. However, it's obvious that we live in a world where our sphere of control is limited. People, weather, stock markets are unpredictable and these affect our lives. These unpredictable factors sum up to fate. A constrained version of fate but very real and undeniable.

2. This is the full-blown version of fate where we're totally not in control of our life. Everything has been predetermined. This is controversial and I think it's called determinism. It leads to fatalism - a surrender of the self.

2 may not be true but 1 is difficult to deny. So, there is such a thing as fate.

Is it limited to "religion"? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Well, theMunchhausen Trilemma is inescapable and we must begin somewhere. Let's take the alleged opposite of religion - science. It begins from observations that are repeated, by as many people and instruments as possible, so that we can say, beyond reasonable doubt, that a particular observation is a truth.

All things between religion and science submit to some variation of the Munchhausen Trilemma.

However, my point is that religion is based on evidence and the role of faith doesn't exceed that in other spheres of human knowledge.

My point is that the role of faith in religion is at the same level as in other human knowledge e.g. science.

Nothing

Choice!?

Christianity: Believe in the God of Christianity and that Jesus is the savior OR be damned for eternity

Buddhism: The four noble truths OR suffer endlessly in Samsara

Notice the commonality, which can be loosely translated as eternal suffering if you fail to believe in either of them.

So, if you believe in Jesus, you go to Buddhist hell and if you believe in Buddha you go to Christian hell.

On the other hand, if you believe in Jesus, you go to Christian heaven and if you believe in Buddha, you gain enlightenment.

I don't know if the rationality of religion is done in good faith, since religions seem to have as little problem justifying irrationality as rationality. How can you trust a belief system where 1 in 3 words is a bold-faced lie? — Dwit

Rationality is inescapable. Religion is weird because of it's said to be based on faith which I think is a misconception. Why? If I'm not mistaken, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad performed miracles as proof of their divine connection. So, despite religion being touted as faith-based, it's actually not. That's not to say religious arguments are convincing.

Anyway, about what is beyond rationality, I have a feeling that we haven't yet maxed out on what consciousness can achieve. Can we achieve higher levels of consciousness or does our biology set limits? Will AI succeed where we fail? Are there super-intelligent aliens? How do we reach higher conscious states?

Too many unanswered questions....

No rules
No goals
No chains
No aims
No border
No order
No gain
No pain
The inane
The insane
I'm TheMadFool

Your logic seems to be accepted and understood by a single person in the world therefore it is not a classical one. — Meta

Perhaps there are errors in my version of the argument. I'm only familiar with sentential logic and a little bit of predicate logic. May be you can do better. I'd really like to see that. Thanks

You understand that on my view, subjectivity doesn't at all imply disagreement, right? — Terrapin Station

I don't see how that's possible. Subjectivity is subjectivity IFF there's variety in mental states and, after that, disagreement follows. X likes romance, Y likes comedy, Z likes sci-fi. The preference is subjective and there disagreement.

What I think you're suggesting is that we can all vote for a particular thought/action being moral/immoral. Subjective and no disagreement. However, note that it's not easy to convince people of right/wrong without a good argument and arguments depend on objectivity. There's no such thing as a subjective rationality. They contradict each other.

The paradox tells us about the problems of using unconstrained second-order languages, rather than telling us anything meaningful about knowledge — andrewk

So the problemis with logic? Why is it then that it's relatively easy to understand the paradox using simple logic as I have?

(Y)

Here's my way of seeing it.

P: The statue of liberty exists: Statue of liberty exists is a truth

Q: P is an unknown truth: The statue of liberty exists is an unknown truth: The statue of liberty exists is a truth AND The statue of liberty exists is unknown.

Now the tricky part. I'll clarify as much as I can.

If I say ''Michael is a good man'', I mean to say, "Michael is a man'' AND ''Michael is good''. Decomposing compund statements into its parts is logically legitimate.

Consider now the statement: Q is known.

Q is known = it is known that P is an unknow truth = it is known that P is a truth AND P is unknown.

So, knowing Q, P is known to be true.

Then "P is false" would be a contradiction — Michael

''P is false'' is simply saying ''P is true is false''. So, P is false. There's no contradiction.

From what I know:

Everyday experience evidences that we don't make statements like '' It is true that the sun is shining''. Rather we say ''the sun is shining''.

In formal logic too, an assertion doesn't have to qualify itself with the truth value ''true'' i.e. the proposition P means P is true.

However, falsity needs to be made explicit because simply stating P: ''the sun is shining'' is taken as a truth claim . Thus we say ''it is false that the sun is shining''. In logic this is ~P.

No contradiction.

That's a fine way to look at life. Genetic memories transfer from parent to child. This isn't possible without death. Also, death has the additional function of culling the herd of weaklings - genetic misfits - whose survival would be bad for the herd's overall welfare. All that brings me to the main point - death does have objective meaning. Ironically, the questioner of meaning, life, has no objective meaning.

The way you posed the question seems to ask if there is purpose to one's death, which is also asking about causation - just reverse causation. You are asking if something in the future causes death. — Harry Hindu

I don't know what you mean.


Death is the arch enemy of meaning, so far as life is concerned. It destroys everything - loved ones, memories, cherished possessions, etc. - that life can derive meaning from. That implies a freedom to create our own meaning for life. However, such meanings pale in comparison to having an objective meaning. Such self-contrived meanings are like counterfeit money - may work but is actually worthless.

Yet, the antithesis of life, death, has objective meaning as outlined above.

Anyway, one thing is for sure; death is the problem of everything. The "rational" person says that life is meaningless. Why? Because of death. The christian says that life is meaningful? Why, because they have a solution to the problem of death. — Beebert

Please read above.

Life may be meaningless for you, but you have no right to say that it is meaningless for anyone else — Lone Wolf

I'm interested in objective meaning.

To better present Fitch's paradox, premise 3 should read "Assume proposition Q: P is an unknown truth" — Michael

Amounts to the same thing. Asserting P is the same as asserting P is true.

So, when I say Q: P is unknown, I mean P is an unknown truth. To show that that's exactly what I mean ''P is an unknown truth'' means ''P is a truth AND P and P is unknown''. There's no need to say ''P is a truth''. That's redundant.

Anyway, now that you agree there's a paradox, how do we solve it?

Allow me to rephrase your example:

P: the color of your hair is red

Q: P is unknown: It is unknown that the color of your hair is red

Assume you know Q: It is known that it is unknown that the color of your hair is red.

By knowing Q, you now know the nested truth, which is: the color of your hair is red.

I think your mistake is not forming a proposition. Propositions like P have to be declarative sentences and not questions, as in your example i.e. ''what is the color of my hair?'' is a question

There's an extra step you're missing.

That P is unknown, is known (Q). P being a part of Q, is, let's say, automatically known.

For example:

P: elephants are mammals

Q: P is unknown i.e it is unknown that elephants are mammals.

Then, if you know Q: it is known that it is unknown that elephants are mammals. That means we now know that elephants are mammals

I agree. It's consciousness that creates meaning. So, how does this bear on the issue of death? In different words, does death have a meaning?

Death does have a meaning. That that meaning is teleological further consolidates the view that death has purpose. So, unlike life, empty of any objective meaning, death has objective meaning - a universal purpose that extends from the microscopic to the gigantic.

Does this fact not comfort a person seeking meaning in life?



That's a good point. Seeing death as a opportunity for a clean canvas, a new beginning, is another point in favor of my view that death has meaning.

So, it should relieve the existential angst!?

Bring it close enough, and we can talk sensibly — Sapientia

You're right. I'm being unrealistic. We can't ask an unborn child whether it'd want life or not. But, you will agree that nonconsensual relationships are immoral?

@Wosret @Cavacava

I gave it some thought and realized that the paradox isn't so easy to solve.

The concept of meta-knowledge doesn't cut it. Meta-knowledge is, in essence, knowledge. So, the realization of ignorace is knowledge and counts as knowing something. It still contradicts ''I know nothing''.

Perhaps I didn't word it well. Let's try again:

P is a truth: The USA has 1 president

Q: P is unknown: It is unknown that The USA has 1 president.

Now assume Q is known: We know It is unknown that The USA has 1 president.

Now we know that P is true AND that it was unknown.

Q is the statement ''P is unknown''...

So, if you know Q, you must know P

For example P: there is life on other worlds

Q: There is life on other worlds is unknown

So, knowing Q means you know P

Nothing can come from nothing is about the physical world; an observation made of the external world.

The argument, which is statistical, should be as follows:

All observations show that nothing comes from nothing

Therefore,

Nothing comes from nothing

This conclusion, nothing comes from nothing, now can be used as a premise, in fact I think this is the primary use of the proposition.

Rationality has yielded amazing results. Science and math are the towering examples of pure rationality in action. Even topics like religion, where faith is a cornerstone, employ rationality at some point.

Attainability matters, and is a criterion for determining what is and is not nonsense — Sapientia

So Utopia is nonsense to you? Isn't it the ultimate goal of all nations? It's not attainable at present but this is due to prevailing circumstances but circumstances change and what seems impossible may be achievable in the future.

I agree that we have to be realistic but that shouldn't obstruct the ideal situation, condition, world, etc. Morality, an ideal, serves as a beacon to guide our decisions. Without ideals progress isn't possible.

It seems in this comment that you're understanding "subjective" to imply something like "there is little agreement on x." Is that right? — Terrapin Station

Subjective to me is a matter of taste. An example would be what sort of food, game, movies, music, one likes. The hallmark of subjectivity is disagreement among people e.g. people like different genres of movie, music, etc.

Mine is grounded in reality — Sapientia

If you ground morality on reality then stealing, lying, rape, murder, everything would be moral. Afterall all of the above are real.

Morality is, at least in part, an ideal shaped by the human ability for empathy, to suffer, to feel joy, etc., under the guidance of reason.