Indeed. Our ability to imagine and hypothesise demands causal explanation of observable phenomena.

The gradual acceptation and formal transmission of the scientific method and its need for observable causes pushed unobservable, ineffable and supernatural causes into a sphere only accessible by faith.

The godly personifications of natural phenomena were the first hypotheses of a hypothesising species. As better hypotheses come into play it is only sentimentality and power that can explain the resistance to paradigmatic shifts in understanding.

This leaves religion and philosophy to fight over the explanations of the thus far unexplained. — Txastopher

I don'tt believe, or perhaps am reluctant to accept, that the "unobservable, ineffable and supernatural causes" is "only accessible by faith". If one thinks in those terms then faith is a state of consciousness that most have not experienced and has little to do with god as a being that cares about us in the way we think. It then must be that this state of consciousness by which we may experience the inefffable, unobservable can be isolated from religious dogma understood in terms of a god.

I wasn't saying there was an error, my implication was the ancient shaman is severely flawed in comparison to the scientist but they have similar goals and each is somewhat right. My assumption is you agree with that to some extent. — christian2017

I wonder if the answers actually differ as they appear to in our eyes. Is one true and the other false or are they just different points of view? Thus my emphasis on the question rather than the answer.

I wasn't saying there was an error, my implication was the ancient shaman is severely flawed in comparison to the scientist but they have similar goals and each is somewhat right. My assumption is you agree with that to some extent.
— christian2017

I wonder if the answers actually differ as they appear to in our eyes. Is one true and the other false or are they just different points of view? Thus my emphasis on the question rather than the answer. — TheMadFool

Considering you believe in scientific determinism or determinism, i'm sure you believe in absolute truth, that being said i do attempt to word things in such a way that i believe conforms to cliches. I do try to use cliches when possible. To be honest, when out it public i do stretch the truth alot and use polymorphism. The Bible (atleast the KJV and Hebrew) uses alot of polymorphism. Lying and stretching the truth aren't the same thing. If stretching the truth was lying we couldn't justify getting out of bed in the morning.

I understand there can be a difference based on context, however self-centered is sometimes used to mean selfish. — christian2017

Google "selfish vs self-centered".

Considering this is conjecture on both our parts, how would either of us prove it either way. The forum topic was food for thought. But once again neither of us can prove to what extent they understood death. To some measure they did, because understanding is a spectrum. — christian2017

I see philosophers throw around these terms, "knowledge" and "understanding" without any clear meaning to those terms. What do you mean, "understanding is a spectrum"? You can be aware of something, but until you come up with an explanation of what you are aware of, then you can't say that you have an understanding of what it is you are aware of. Understanding is derived from explaining. How did they explain death?

True. But how would you expect these early hunter gatherers to make this leap without alot of knowledge considering they didn't have a writing system.

Have you ever read Noah Harrari's "Sapiens". He argues one of the things that enabled cohesion on a massive scale among humans was fictional concepts like money(gold) and religion. — christian2017

Sure. Humans are a different type of social animal. Do you think that this cohesion would have happened on a massive scale if humans didn't have large brains and opposable thumbs?

'm thinking that the 'glue' of a shared fiction is in the perceived value or 'promise', if you will, that it contains. Things like money and religion are very different things, yet they function to provide cooperative behavior across the globe, and I imagine the common denominator is value, or rather, the promise of value. For instance, you identify as a Libertarian and by identifying as such you are in a sense making a promise that you will act in particular ways. If a group of sapiens all agree to act in a particular way, to cooperate across the globe, that is obviously very powerful.

Scientists across the globe cooperate using the same method and this is clearly powerful for any number of applications, but any particular application? Philosophers across the globe cooperate and exchange ideas, but do they agree on any particular philosophy?

If someone identifies as a scientist or philosopher what can I expect from them? I can expect that they value rationality and that's good because I also value rationality. Still, they may have all sorts of beliefs and values that I don't share. The designation of scientist or philosopher is not specific enough to have much meaning for me. Currently, if someone identified as a stoic I'd be very interested in being their friend. — praxis

I don't see myself as making "promises" when using other's labels to label myself. I'm describing myself with a symbol that approximates my ideas - so that others will know where I'm coming from.

Tell me, what promise are you upholding when the government decides to print more money, thereby devaluing your money? What say did you have? Money is a great example of this "fiction". There's a reason why all governments of every country are in "debt". When governments go under and new governments arise, debts are erased, and money is revalued. It seems like money is a means to limit citizens' power and to give government unlimited power over them.

When I mentioned political ideologies I was pointing out how we use these labels to put people in boxes when many people don't fall neatly into any political group. Other people treat their political ideology like a religion - as their side being righteous and the opposing side being evil incarnate. Ethics is a means of controlling the population - no different than religion.

Science, on the other hand, seems at first glance to be unique among mankind's activities. It is objective, making use of methods of investigation and proof that are impartial and exacting. Theories are constructed and then tested by experiment. If the results are repeatable and cannot be falsified in any way, they survive. If not, they are discarded. The rules are rigidly applied. The standards by which science judges its work are universal. There can be no special pleading in the search for the truth: the aim is simply to discover how nature works and to use that information to enhance our intellectual and physical lives. The logic that directs the search is rational and ineluctable at all times and in all circumstances. This quality of science transcends the differences which in other fields of endeavor make one period incommensurate with another, or one cultural expression untranslatable in another context. Science knows no contextual limitations. It merely seeks the truth.

Considering you believe in scientific determinism or determinism, i'm sure you believe in absolute truth, that being said i do attempt to word things in such a way that i believe conforms to cliches. I do try to use cliches when possible. To be honest, when out it public i do stretch the truth alot and use polymorphism. The Bible (atleast the KJV and Hebrew) uses alot of polymorphism. Lying and stretching the truth aren't the same thing. If stretching the truth was lying we couldn't justify getting out of bed in the morning. — christian2017

Oh. :rofl: it's great to know someone who values truth and consistency.

I understand there can be a difference based on context, however self-centered is sometimes used to mean selfish.
— christian2017
Google "selfish vs self-centered". — Harry Hindu

nope, they mean the same thing atleast in alot of circles or at the very least they have overlapping definitions to the extent that if someone is self centered they very often act selfishly.

Your welcome to post the definitions you retrieved from the internet.

Considering this is conjecture on both our parts, how would either of us prove it either way. The forum topic was food for thought. But once again neither of us can prove to what extent they understood death. To some measure they did, because understanding is a spectrum.
— christian2017
I see philosophers throw around these terms, "knowledge" and "understanding" without any clear meaning to those terms. What do you mean, "understanding is a spectrum"? You can be aware of something, but until you come up with an explanation of what you are aware of, then you can't say that you have an understanding of what it is you are aware of. Understanding is derived from explaining. How did they explain death? — Harry Hindu

How did they explain death?

How would i answer that? Do you want me to post verbatim the conversation they said to each other? There isn't much information i have available beyond the OP and what is written in the book called "Sapiens" mentioned earlier.

True. But how would you expect these early hunter gatherers to make this leap without alot of knowledge considering they didn't have a writing system.

Have you ever read Noah Harrari's "Sapiens". He argues one of the things that enabled cohesion on a massive scale among humans was fictional concepts like money(gold) and religion.
— christian2017
Sure. Humans are a different type of social animal. Do you think that this cohesion would have happened on a massive scale if humans didn't have large brains and opposable thumbs? — Harry Hindu

Yeah definitely. Elephants have large brains but they don't talk in complex ways. The opposable thumbs things does help quite a bit though.

Considering you believe in scientific determinism or determinism, i'm sure you believe in absolute truth, that being said i do attempt to word things in such a way that i believe conforms to cliches. I do try to use cliches when possible. To be honest, when out it public i do stretch the truth alot and use polymorphism. The Bible (atleast the KJV and Hebrew) uses alot of polymorphism. Lying and stretching the truth aren't the same thing. If stretching the truth was lying we couldn't justify getting out of bed in the morning.
— christian2017

Oh. :rofl: it's great to know someone who values truth and consistency. — TheMadFool

:)

Government is an ultimate authority and very often even more so when there is no religion. — christian2017

So you accept without question whatever your government tells you?

It sounds simple, maybe too simple to be useful. For instance, institutional facts may arise out of collective intentions but are not our collective intentions shaped, at least in part, by institutional facts? An extreme example might be something like a death cult where the institutional reality overrides what might be considered the strongest natural impulses.

I don't see myself as making "promises" when using other's labels to label myself. I'm describing myself with a symbol that approximates my ideas - so that others will know where I'm coming from. — Harry Hindu

Why do they need to know where you’re coming from? But more to the point, what happens when you don’t behave in accord with the label? You’re labeled a fraud and are no longer considered part of the group. They say that during the vast majority of sapien existence that would have been a death sentence. That’s quite an incentive to be consistent.

Science, on the other hand, seems at first glance to be unique among mankind's activities. It is objective, making use of methods of investigation and proof that are impartial and exacting. Theories are constructed and then tested by experiment. If the results are repeatable and cannot be falsified in any way, they survive. If not, they are discarded. The rules are rigidly applied. The standards by which science judges its work are universal. There can be no special pleading in the search for the truth: the aim is simply to discover how nature works and to use that information to enhance our intellectual and physical lives. The logic that directs the search is rational and ineluctable at all times and in all circumstances. This quality of science transcends the differences which in other fields of endeavor make one period incommensurate with another, or one cultural expression untranslatable in another context. Science knows no contextual limitations. It merely seeks the truth. — Harry Hindu

You’re arguing for utilitarianism?