That's why I'd suggest religion perseveres in an otherwise scientific world. It simply provides answers science does not. — Hanover

I would have thought virtually anything can provide us with answers. We have too many of those. Humans will always find a way to derive answers from stories, whether it’s evolution or Jane Austin. Whether or not this is sound philosophical practice is irrelevant to those who seek and find.

But I suspect when you say ‘answers’ you are referring to something more? Truth perhaps? Wisdom?

Anyway, having worked in palliative care, often with theists who are dying, by far the most common explanation offered to explain the importance of their faith is that it provides comfort. They claim to be less afraid , not just of death but also in the ‘knowledge’ that their suffering is not in vain. If comfort or meaning is what you’re looking for, it’ll probably be much harder to find this in science.

I’m not convinced any of us really know why we believe certain stories and not others. I suspect the answer is in cultural and psychological factors. We may think we can point to the intellectual superiority of certain frames or the meaning generated by others, but who knows?

Buddha wouldn't have been Buddha and neither would Schopenhauer been Schopenhauer without a strong sense of identity derived from the suffering of others, yes? — Shawn

It could be argued, based on their putative biographies, that the initial impulse towards their school of thought was entirely personal. Buddha's life of privilege was disrupted by shock (the 'Four Sights'). Schop's, by childhood and the death of his father. Both stories don't seem to have involved empathy. More a case of ontological insecurity - perhaps, 'my world is fragile, I am at risk!'

It's fairly easy to empathise with another. I don't think sympathy arises out of nowhere. — Shawn

Two different things - the former IMO being hard to achieve.

Yes, well isn't it derived from a sense of compassion, or a strong sense of empathy towards others? — Shawn

I don't think so. I have encountered too many philosophical pessimists who don't care much about others at all.

Buddha is a mythological figure and Schopenhauer is an influential philosopher. I wouldn't feel comfortable coming to conclusions about pessimism in general based upon their stories.

I wonder if it's worth separating empathy from sympathy or from compassion. A lot of people have sympathy for others but they don't quite arrive at empathy - the notion that one can put oneself in the other person's position and creatively imagine how they must feel in certain circumstances.

I'm skeptical about empathy. I don't think most of us can put ourselves in the shoes of others. Whatever that is meant to mean. We may imagine a person's situation as applied to our unique circumstances and adapt it to suit our own disposition. Or we have to radically recreate an other's experience to arrive at some pretence of understanding. How, for instance can someone without children understand what it is like to lose a child?

I've tended to prefer the word compassion (but I'm happy to be talked out of it) - you can conclude that others require care and support without having to connect viscerally with what they are experiencing.

I use to think that pessimism had a narcissistic underpinning - we may believe that nothing will go right for ourselves, that we will not be happy (often based on childhood experiences) and then we globalise our emotional reaction. Pessimism seems a pretty easy, even tidy solution to the world's problems. If you can put all things into the basket of 'everything's fucked' one doesn't have to think much further.

Why does one read philosophy? — Constance

There are multiple reasons. One might be to have an encounter with the unfamiliar - to see what's out there and find out what others think. Another might be to find post hoc justification for views arrived at emotionally. The latter seems most common in the discussions I've had with others.

I stopped caring about what my confrères were talking about long ago. — Constance

Who said anything about caring what others think? I simply remarked that my confrères had held a similar view to yours about metaphysics, so it's not such an unusual position.

One has to care about one's finitude in the midst of radical indeterminacy, because our existence is essentially ethically and aesthetically founded on caring. We ARE caring, and caring seeks consummation. Such a thing is generally confined to the usual matters, the owning of things and basic enjoyments. But philosophy takes one thoughtfully where religion once could only go. — Constance

Your wording seems a complicated way of saying something simple and fairly commonplace - that philosophy has the capacity to lead individuals to deeper contemplation and understanding, surpassing the traditional realm that religion once solely occupied. Perhaps yours is a quest for foundational justification for compassion.

Quite the problem to solve. Only one solution I see: The terms of object intimation (the cat) must exceed the idea of locality. It simply cannot be that that cat over there is independent and localized as normal perception tells us. — Constance

Hmm, the bigger question right now is why won’t my cat eat his usual brand? The metaphysics involved won’t reach help us here.

See the above: how is knowledge possible? Well, it isn't. YET, there is no question I see the cat. And so knowledge is simply a fact. Quite the problem to solve. Only one solution I see: The terms of object intimation (the cat) must exceed the idea of locality. It simply cannot be that that cat over there is independent and localized as normal perception tells us. — Constance

‘Reality’ is what most of us chase these days instead of gods. We create models that allow us to do things in the world and eventually these models are displaced by new ones. Do we ever arrive at ultimate knowledge?

What does your very interesting model of metaphysics here provide you with? Is it just a speculative approach that deconstructs the status quo, or can you build things with it?

I claim something far more interesting and difficult, which is acknowledging that the everyday world really is — Constance

Actually, I’m pretty sure that’s what my confrères would have argued. The quotidian is metaphysics. I would have thought metaphysics is unavoidable even if some think their version is ‘real life’ while the metaphysical foundations of others are flights of fancy.

:pray:

Because you and I have spent our lives in a world that ignores metaphysics. — Constance

But is that really the case? I spent much of my young life associated with the New Age movement as it was called back in the 1980's. Most of my friends were idealsits and Theosophists and Buddhists and Hindus and Jungians and Gnostics and Sufi mystics, etc. Quantum physics was seen as proof of idealism, etc. So metaphysics was very much the flavour of the day. I also grew up with Jung, the archetypes and collective unconscious, so I was not exactly immured in 20th century scientism or common sense.

How about my cat: does she exist? How is the word 'cat' such that when I use it, I am dealing with the real? Or is the term just like General Motors? — Constance

But aren't these questions a bit naff? I don't know about yours, but my cat exists. I know this because if I don't feed him he give me hell. I subscribe somewhat to Ferdinand de Saussure's theory of language as being an arbitrary set of signs and signifiers. General Motors is the collective noun for a company.

Any subject or object can be deconstructed into meaninglessness or incoherence, but so what? Not all questions and investigations are useful. I'm fine with reality (whatever that may be) being a pragmatic or tentative construct that helps us to manage our lives. The problem isn't so much in pointing out putative flaws in our construction of the world. The problem is no one has any useful alternatives.

Robert Sokolowski's "The Phenomenology of the Human Person, — Count Timothy von Icarus

Cool, thanks for the references. I was wondering what Sokolowski's status might be. I've dipped my toe into some Evan Thompson and Francisco Varela.

As to how ‘reliable’ it is, obviously anyone is liable to self-delusion, but nevertheless grappling with that existence is an essential part of the philosophical quest. — Wayfarer

Fair enough. I like asking questions, they are not necessarily an indication of what I am thinking, or what I might know - more a desire to cover off on a range of domains and understand better what others think.

You often ask 'why should I bother with this?' But something keeps drawing you back into these discussions. — Wayfarer

For me this quesion goes to the heart of philosophy - what ought we do? I personally see no connection between asking this and any desire to depart from discussions. I ask this question about most things I do as a regular practice. What difference does X make to me or others?

I think It’s essential that you learn to feel what you cannot know. Coming to think of it, this is a large part of what 'mindfulness meditation' comprises - learning that the verbal or discursive element of your being is only one facet of a much greater whole. That also comes out in artistic performance and art generally. But being aware of it is important - a kind of somatic or bodily awareness, not just on the conceptual level. That's what comes from 'zazen'. Also, for anyone that has done awareness training of the kind done at EST and the like, you're taught that ego resists this awareness, as ego's role is to incorporate everything under its gaze. That is what 'letting go' means in relation to contemplative awareness. (And I *think* this is related to the OP.) — Wayfarer

I'm not unsympathetic to the thrust of this but how reliable is such felt knowledge? People often imagine they have access to truth when it is feelings they have access to and those feelings are as likely to be bigoted or intolerant as they are to encapsulate Buddhahood. Probably more so the former. Again, I'm not saying this to dismiss the point; it's more about testing its reliability. And by the way, I'd say my atheism is significantly informed by felt knowledge. Reality, whatever it may be, feels sans-deity to me.

The question-begging (Platonic / Cartesian / transcendent) assumption in (Kantian, Husserlian) transcendental arguments is that "in there" (mind) is somehow separable from – outside of – "out there" (non-mind (e.g. world)). That's how it's always seemed to me which is why I prefer Spinoza's philosophical naturalism to the much less radical (i.e. more anthropocentric) 'transcendental idealism' of Kant et al. — 180 Proof

Fair enough. Don't some expression of phenomenology try to break down the mind/body problem with embodied cognition? I have a superficial understanding (which is all I have time for) of this, but I am wondering why I should care. It's just that we always seem to come back to quesions about what is true and how do we know it. Then, invariably, we end up with responses of religion/idealism/postmodernism/dogmatism. Or something like that.

I agree with the relevance of the distinction of 'transcendent' and 'transcendental' noted above, but the latter is in some ways just as difficult to understand - it to is connected with the concept of the 'a priori' which also is a form of 'always already so'. — Wayfarer

Yes, I keep overlooking this.

This is inexorably connected with what is nowadays (usually dismissively) described as mysticism. But then Wittgenstein also said, not far from those other passages I quoted 'There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical'. — Wayfarer

Yes, I thought this might be the answer. I'm as fond of the ineffable as the next person.

But is the benefit of using this frame? As an individual. I know a case can be made that we have lost something. Humans always seem to have lost something when they look back. But here and now, what do you get from all this?

I tend not to personally suffer from a meaning crisis whatever Vervaeke and Jordan Peterson may assume. If anythign there is too much meaning for me personally. I recognize that dominant cultures are always pretty fucked and monomaniacal, whether they be in the thrall of the Vatican, or in the thrall of contemporary consumerism.

When we say "transcendence", don't we usually mean something metaphysical like 'X transcends, or is beyond, Y' (e.g. ineffable, inexplicable, unconditional, immaterial, disembodied, etc)? — 180 Proof

Yes, that's what I have always assumed.

I guess they are making a case that our understanding of the world is, in some sense, transcendental too - how out there (the world) ends up, in here (mind). But there are assumptions bound up in this to make it work.

What do you think?

It's an interesting frame. Outside the world?

As you know, there are various understandings of transcendental. In Kant it seems to be those factors that make experince possible - part of our cognitive apparatus - space, time, probably maths...

Husserl seems to take a similar view and sees the transcendental as the 'act' of consciousness in shaping, (perhaps creating?) the world.

Wittgenstein seems to take a different approach - essentially, how our understanding of our world is shaped by language. Needless to say, that which is outside of language holds a special status.

It's all very curious to a non-philosopher.

When you consider the transcendental, what frame do you find helpful? It strikes me that your form of idealism (as articulated in your article) has some commonalities with Husserl and phenomenology.

We live in transcendence. We are this. I think one has to take the time to leave the text and realize that we are in this "place" that is alien to the language that we use to understand things. — Constance

I see how you are framing this. Interesting. But I'm not sure what the significance of this is, or where it gets us. No doubt it all depends upon how one views the notion of reality and the possibility of knowledge. Does your account owe anything to Husserl's notion of the transcendental ego?

I want to know the nature of something that is there to be observed, like natural condition is there for a natural scientist, PRIOR to it being taken up by cultures and their institutions and turned into an infinitely debatable construct. — Constance

Fair enough. Sounds like philosophy.

Do you have a definition or a simple, descriptive account of the 'transcendent'?

An atheist,
With feelings so strong,
Denies there’s a God,
Which is something quite wrong. — Beverley

Correction. Many atheists actually don't deny the existence of gods. I am an atheist. I don't make a positive claim like that. Many contemporary atheists would put it more like this: I have not heard any good reasons/arguments for accepting the claim that gods exist.

The rest of the poem basically amounts to saying that there is no god and that a concern for the wellbeing of conscious creatures will be a sufficient surrogate. That's pretty much what secular humanists have been arguing for generations.

But to me it seems clear,
All this is absurd.
For the only difference
Is just in a word. — Beverley

I think you'll find that many theists will disagree with this formulation - the notion of transcendent meaning can't be reduced or substituted by a few nouns or verbs.

I wonder where your thoughts lie on the matter. — Constance

I think religion provides comfort and solace. It supports people to manage the fear of uncertainty, death and the often brutal realities of life. For me, it seems to be an emotional and aesthetic response to experince. And when presented as part of culture and heritage, it plays a critical role in how people make sense of reality. We are habitually drawn to coherence, comfort and harmony - despite a world where chaos and suffering predominate - a transcendental domain promises us an entire realm where unity, and completeness may be found and perhaps intermittently reflected in our lives. Personally, I do not share such a worldview.

That argument only works for that one person.
— Fire Ologist
Yes, it's just evidence. It provides that person with an individual basis to interpret the spiritual world. — Hallucinogen

If I read you correctly then we probably have nothing further to talk about. You are not saying any of this is about what's true, it's merely evidence for the person having the experience. But we already knew this. People believe all kinds of absurdities based on bad evidence. The knack here is to discern what constitutes good evidence.

The believer trusts God. That can only look reasonable to someone else who trusts God. — Fire Ologist

Yes. Although probably only reasonable to those who believe the same things about the same gods. Not the gods they don't trust in. Most religious people I have known disbelieve the spiritual experiences of other religions, even calling such visions lies or demonic.

Yes, so since religions have certain aspects in common, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping those personal experiences having subjective qualitiies specific to the experiencer, so long as universal features aren't contradicted. — Hallucinogen

You are trying to prove Christianity is true by citing religious experince as evidence. You are aware, I suspect, that as far as Islam in concerned, Christianity is false, right? Jesus is not god and and the Crucifixion story is a myth. So an Islamic person who has the experience of Allah and Mohammad is confirming his/her belief that Christianity is not the true religion. That is certainly what Muslims I have met have told me. Conversely, the Christian vison confirms that Islam is not true and Jesus is God. How do you resolve this psycho-cultural conundrum?

I am wondering if you are arguing that all religions are equally proven true if followers have specific religious experiences?

How exactly do we determine which of these stories (...) are true and which are hallucinations, mistakes, or fabrications?
— Tom Storm

Using a model that establishes the criteria for each category. — Hallucinogen

Such as??

St Faustina Helen Kowalska saw apparitions of Jesus Christ in the 1930s, which have served as the basis for a popular devotion.

Marguerite-Marie Alacoque had visions of Jesus in which He showed her His Sacred Heart
Marie-Julie Jahenny had visions of Jesus' Heart. — Hallucinogen

So what? It would be far more convincing if those people had visons or experiences of a god outside of their cultural expectations, like Kali or an Australian Aboriginal creator spirit. The fact that someone in a Christian country sees Christian vision just taps into expectations. Hallucinations or psychological experiences tend to be tied to the culture you know.

Scientists have established methods for investigating subjective phenomena, such as hallucinations, out of body experiences, neuropathic pain and other private experiences that lack an adequate scientific model. — Hallucinogen

Can you cite reputable studies?

I think compared to our inherited bourgous and egological way of life, stocism and other such doctrines were very austere. And indeed Schopenhaur praises asceticism as the solution to the problem of human willfulness. Easy to say, but very hard to do, unless it's inculcated during your formative years. (I speak from experience.) — Wayfarer

I think disposition has much to do with it. I'm not a fan of owning too many things. I feel better with less. Just sold my car. I am now working though my belongings, with a goal of giving away 50% of it all. And then I will review. There's a thread on the spiritual benefits of minimalism (and its challenges) gestating in my head.

(2) If some observation corresponds to some Bible-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Christianity is true. — Hallucinogen

How so?

We can meet people who have had direct experiences (during prayer) of Mohammad and Allah. Are they true too?

I have met people who have had experiences (during meditation) of Krishna and Brahma. Are they true too?

All religions contain people convinced they have had direct and personal experiences of gods, angels, demons, spirits, etc. All religions also have their miracle stories.

Now even more interesting. We can meet with and interview thousands of people right now who also claim to have been abducted by aliens and have been examined on alien ships before being put back on earth.

How exactly do we determine which of these stories, from such disparate and contradictory sources, are true and which are hallucinations, mistakes, or fabrications?

Sure, ok. But you're deflecting here. My point is that it is utterly absurd for a devout Nazi to declare himself a "good Christian." The Nazi is outside the fold. — BitconnectCarlos

From our perspective, yes.

There may be multiple plausible interpretations but there are other interpretations that are completely implausible and therefore flatly wrong. "Open to interpretation" doesn't mean all interpretations are valid. — BitconnectCarlos

What objective basis have you identified that allows us to determine which is valid and which is not?

And the point, to go back to where this began, is that any human belief system can lead to cockroaches and humans being views as analogous.

And before you say 'but scripture is pure' - we can easily point out that scripture requires interpretation. There is no interpretation free understanding of any scripture.

Tom, these are not good Christians. "All Jews are cockroaches" necessitates that Jesus is a cockroach. — BitconnectCarlos

Tell that to the millions who used faith and notions of goodness to justify their projects.

I'm not talking practice. I'm talking Scripture. — BitconnectCarlos

You're almost there. Keep thinking this through. People use scripture to justify any practice, in all religions in all countries.

The problem with religions is that there is no objective basis for morality. It is always an interpretation of or a personal preference of scripture. Scripture is the multiple choice worldview, leading in any direction we, or our priestly class, believe God says we should go.

*

Who's to say humans are worth more than cockroaches? This is where your worldview leads you. — BitconnectCarlos

Sometimes it can, but certainly not always. Sounds like the observation of William T Craig rather than that of an urbane Jewish man.

And in fairness, this is also where a Christian or religious worldviews can lead you. I remember talking to a couple of elderly former Nazi's back in the early 1990's. They were good Christians, of course. Lutherans, as it happened. They calmly described Jewish folk as cockroaches (as per the Nazi propaganda) - and were sure God would be good with that. They even referenced Martin Luther's antisemitic screed, 'On the Jews and their Lies'.

I also recall more recently meeting with a student social worker of Hindu background. In his view, somewhat ironically, the homeless and the beggars were destined to die of poverty and isolation as a result of Karma. 'They are like insects,' he explained. 'We shouldn't help them.'

I don't think misanthropic nihilism is the sole end result of secularism, it's common in religious circles too. Religious nihilism along with a cavalier disregard for the 'sacredness' of human life seems to be part of the practice of many religions.

According to this, "many philosophers have argued that relativity implies eternalism. Philosopher of science Dean Rickles says that, "the consensus among philosophers seems to be that special and general relativity are incompatible with presentism."
— Tom Storm
Relativity does give a strong suggestion, but it is going too far to assert full incompatibility.
The two premises of SR is where the trouble is. I googled "premises of special relativity" — noAxioms

You have accidentally quoted @Michael as me.

There are three kinds of time, and those that ask "what is time" never seem to realize it. — noAxioms

I am not asking what is time, I was specifically interested in @Joshs comment about phenomenology and time.

Seems complicated. Thanks.

This is obviously not the case, so consequently we are forced to acknowledge that our consciousness, one way or the other, can encompass more than that which is given right now. We can be co-conscious of that which has just been, and that which is just about to occur.

This seems to be the nub of it.

We can perceive temporal objects because consciousness is not caught in the now. We do not merely perceive the now-phase of the triad, but also its past and future phases.

Interesting. I never thought about music in such terms before but it is fascinating that we can experience and make sense of a melody or a recurring motif and counterpoint in a composition. Our awareness may not be located in the present.

By phenomenological I meant phenomenological
philosophy ( Husserl, Mwrleau-Ponty.) This does not mean mere introspection, but a method of
reflection on experience that brings out structures unavailable to empirical third person models. — Joshs

Can you say some more in simple terms about what this might be? Do you mean that time is also an aspect of consciousness and therefore located in our cognitive apparatus (but that may be closer to Kant?).

This bit about 'evidence' below interested me:

What is missing is the phenomenological experience of time , which involves a different notion of evidence than empirical naturalism makes use of. — Joshs

Does life have any potential to be anything beyond suffering, or is that too much of a pessimistic stance? I cannot see life as anything other than this, but it could also be something that we simply create out of life. — Arnie

Many people have come to this conclusion. But 'suffering' wouldn't make sense if we didn't also experience contentment. So for me, whether life is predominately suffering or not, depends on experience, disposition and culture and upon how you understand the notion of suffering itself. My own life experience is too complex or multifaceted to be reduced to a single concept like this.

I feel I am very much a novice — Gingethinkerrr

Welcome.

I'm here because I never privileged philosophy in my life. Wanting to find out what I may have missed. I am not a philosopher, nor do I have the disposition for philosophy. But that doesn't mean I'm not interested in views unlike my own. I'm also interested in exploring the presuppositions or building blocks of my beliefs, to see what can be ditched or improved upon. It seems philosophy is extremely difficult to do well. This place is more of a discussion group about philosophical ideas, peopled with the curious, the blinkered, the learned and the monomaniacal.

Why were you smoking at this house? — Jamal

Yes. Oh, the owner died in the 1950's. It was just a big house near where I lived back then, attached to a school. I used to walk past it a lot and sometimes stop by.

This house, once owned by a Catholic gambling czar and alleged petty-criminal here in Melbourne, was always referred to as a wedding cake. Decades ago, I used to smoke cigarettes on the balcony. I'm not ordinarily a fan of the grotesque mansions of the nouveau riche, but this one has some classical appeal.

Don't be a push-over' - I don't see how that's any different to 'have a little hardness to you.' — Barkon

I already said this.

I don't understand your other response. But perhaps we should leave it.

Your words are very garbled. Sorry.

I think it's a pretty vague idea. One person's 'hard' is another's sociopathy. What criterion of value do you measure 'hard' against?

I think the sentiment is an attempt at 'common sense' or what we might call folk wisdom. My mother put it differently - 'Don't be a push over.' I see no moral implications.

Always seemed to me that there was never an expectation in Christianity that 'the world' could be other than a 'vale of tears'. — Wayfarer

Depends on the church.

Whereas because there's no conception of that in secular culture, we expect earthly existence to be as perfect as possible, and then blame the God we don't believe in for spoiling it. — Wayfarer

My criticism of the characters in monotheism are closer to literary criticism. I dislike Mr Casaubon almost as much as I dislike Yahweh.

If you and I were talking about god and scripture, we would likely be talking allegory and I wouldn't bother talking about scriptural truth. I'm assuming we'd both consider this pointless. But some here seem to believe this stuff.

Whereas because there's no conception of that in secular culture, we expect earthly existence to be as perfect as possible, and then blame the God we don't believe in for spoiling it. — Wayfarer

Like most Westerners, I grew up hearing sermons about the perfection of nature and god's design. Still a theme, given my last church attendance at Easter. So all I am doing is providing an atheist's counterpoint.

Theodicy is a top-down, otherworldly, inhuman/unnatural excuse – ex post facto rationalization – for 'divinely permitted' evil in this world. In other words, it's superstitious bullshit. :death: — 180 Proof

And what's truly dispiriting is the awful tap dance believers will do to justify the unjustifiable. This must be what they mean when they say religion is nihilism.

Let's just start with the flood. God presumably kills a large portion of humanity. Was he wrong to do that? You presume that you know better. I admit that I don't know. That's the difference here. — BitconnectCarlos

No, the difference is that I accept that the mass murder by drowning of men, women and children is wrong.

You say that you know better. That's really the fundamental difference. So how much life should everyone have? I understand that to us floods/natural disasters look bad but we also just don't know anything about the bigger picture. — BitconnectCarlos

There's really nothing you can't justify using this approach, just like the Muslims do.

And we weren't talking about 'natural' disasters we were talking about god created ones. Omniscient omnibenevolent disasters, apparently.

With this simple sentence, you've put yourself in the "God" position. You've now judged God and thus assumed the role that you know better about how run the universe. — BitconnectCarlos

Straw man. But I would say that I (and most members here, probably you too) are morally superior to the Old Testament god (at least the character as written) who endorses slavery and commits mass murder even more effortlessly than Pol Pot.

I mean, you're free place yourself in the "God" role but I wouldn't. :wink: — BitconnectCarlos

:up: I think it's proper to take every opportunity to analyse the narratives we are presented with whether it's the Koran or the Old Testament or The Book of Mormon and identify problems and inconsistences. That's our job.

Anyway, there' s no point letting a little thing like god come between us. Take care.