okej so what I am understanding by your post here is: that the man Foghorn is secretive and will not say what he thinks you guys should have been able to understand - or you are trying to convey an idea that he makes himself secretive and wants to have that image for no reasons at all other than it is some sort of image?
Right?

I just started participating and thus I did probe a bit... that is quite normal and if you are going to ignore me on that ground I would think you are a very sensitive person...
Right?

so - what do you have to say as to the criticism I am reading about you. Do you think there is something in this? Is it some sort of image or are you not able to give reasons for what you state or are you of the opinon that you were clear on the matter and other should have understood your point?
Or what else?

I am new - and friends (hold on now) I am Swedish (dumb and slow) so enlighten me and pardon my bad English...

Swedes aren't dumb and slow on average. Sometimes insufferable though. I used to have meetings with the Swedish riksgalden and they issued debt at the time not because they needed the money but to maintain "access to the market". The Swedish director loved rubbing that in and preferred to give an update right after Italy or Greece.

The modern definition of 'rationalism' is 'provable by empirical science' or mathematicazation of same. Basically it always comes down to one or another form of positivism. The Greek rationalist tradition started with Parmenides, and was utterly different to what is nowadays known as 'rationalism'. In fact, scientific rationalism is irrational, in that it disposes with any notion of purpose, telos, the why of existence. — Wayfarer

You might at least acknowledge that science was deprived of any notion of purpose by religious fundamentalists who insisted that religious texts were definitive - and that science was suspect of heresy.

Had science had been recognised as the means to establish valid knowledge of Creation, and pursued and integrated as divine truth, it seems to me that a sense of telos would follow from the relationship between the surviving organism, and causal reality in evolution; in that the organism must necessarily evolve toward a valid relationship with reality, in its design and behaviour in order to survive.

For homo sapiens, it's not merely physiological and behavioural - but also intellectual. Knowing what's scientifically true and doing what's morally right in terms of what's true - applying technology in accord with a scientific understanding of reality, would have made a paradise of the world. Again, implying the purpose of following in the knowledge of the Creator, given to humanity to understand.

You might at least acknowledge that science was deprived of any notion of purpose by religious fundamentalists who insisted that religious texts were definitive - and that science was suspect of heresy. — counterpunch

I wouldn’t acknowledge it, because I think it’s a caricature of history. As I’ve said, you hold a very one-eyed, black v white image of history but the reality is hugely more complex than you allow.

I am new - and friends (hold on now) I am Swedish (dumb and slow) so enlighten me and pardon my bad English... — Iris0

You ask a lot of questions which is fine, especially if they are genuine - but how about giving us something to actually chew on? In relation to the subject of God, what do you believe and why?

In fact, scientific rationalism is irrational, in that it disposes with any notion of purpose, telos, the why of existence. — Wayfarer

That is, itself, an irrational belief.

I wouldn’t acknowledge it, because I think it’s a caricature of history. As I’ve said, you hold a very one-eyed, black v white image of history but the reality is hugely more complex than you allow. — Wayfarer

Should I first write a definitive history of the Church in diary form, explaining day by day - everything that occurred from the establishing of the Papal Court of the Inquisition in 1235, 6th September about 4 'o clock in the afternoon, through the trial of Galileo, 1635, unto the present day, to support a claim that religion has a problem with science? You're deflecting!

Answer the argument - that religion jealously guarded any sense of telos as its own sacred ground, and science wasn't allowed the least implication beyond its practical applications in industry, such that your criticism, that science has no telos is a fait accompli.

That is, itself, an irrational belief. — Kenosha Kid

It is a simple fact that Galilean science dispensed with the notion of final and formal cause and that the notion of teleology was banished from the biological sciences.

Answer the argument — counterpunch

You’re like.a tonsured cleric hammering the pulpit. Heresy!

It is a simple fact that Galilean science dispensed with the notion of final and formal cause and that the notion of teleology was banished from the biological sciences. — Wayfarer

WF speaks to an impoverished view of evolution. It's true, that evolution is driven by random genetic mutation, and has no particular destination in mind, but nonetheless, even the most primitive organism had to be correct to reality, that is - capable of surviving to reproduce within the physical, chemical, and increasingly biological reality of its surroundings. Those that were unsuitable were rendered extinct, over and over - a filtering process that; while based on blind forces, occurs in relation to a reality with definite characteristics. In short, the fact science excludes teleological assumptions from its methodology, does not mean a scientific understanding of reality, does not have teleological implications.

It is a simple fact that Galilean science dispensed with the notion of final and formal cause and that the notion of teleology was banished from the biological sciences. — Wayfarer

It is an irrational belief that a theory of a non-teleological universe is inherently irrational.

Riksgälden is the institution that keeps the external governmental debts ... so you then have some experience from the "most secular country in the world" - that is us.

I believe that humans are simplistic - and we cannot do other that that. Because we have been taught a certain way of interpreting our selves, this life and all that surround us - and we do have a necessity to find some comfort in the strong beliefs on - something. Being true...the god of sciences is now in vogue and technology the altar everyone bows down to.
Our own superficial being and what we can gain the short time here is our goal. Sadly.

What is a human? Well now, we have the narratives from Mr Darwin to guide us - don't we... or we are guided by the narratives of Mr Marx or Mr Locke on how to live together, or we are guided by some mans thought on something we hold true.
Don't we...
I believe we do not know everything - but that the notion of believing that we do know everything gives us this security we need to exist in a world that is unpredictable and difficult to navigate in.
And we do navigate.

The modern definition of 'rationalism' is 'provable by empirical science' or mathematicazation of same. Basically it always comes down to one or another form of positivism. The Greek rationalist tradition started with Parmenides, and was utterly different to what is nowadays known as 'rationalism'. In fact, scientific rationalism is irrational, in that it disposes with any notion of purpose, telos, the why of existence. — Wayfarer

But none of that has to do with what I pointed out.

And if your argument isn't really in opposition to what I said, but rather stating a new argument about the nature of living as I described it and that one cannot live by rationality, reason, and logic as a foundation because you lose the "why" of existence, any sense of telos, then that is simply wrong.

It is entirely possible to find meaning in the things that purely are, the exact nature of everything, without applying any further concepts to it in order to sense a meaning. You can absolutely accept that our existence is basically meaningless, absolutely pointless, but still invent a why your existence is meaningful to you rooted in what already exists, in of itself.

The struggle to find a "why" of existence is futile if that search is trying to externalize the meaning of our existence. To invent a God, or being that can answer us why, and to imagine an answer that will be understandable to all at the end of time. It is basically just a psychological life crisis that takes shape in such a futile attempt to desperately find meaning. There's absolutely nothing in the universe observed so far to suggest or hint at any such cosmic meaning of existence.

The problem is that people are psychologically unable to accept the disappointing truth of existence, so they invent a comfort, a drug, a blanket to hide under so as to not have to deal with such a cosmic horror of pointlessness. But the biggest problem with this isn't that everything is pointless, it's that few attempts are made to be satisfied, ok with this fact, and find meaning in the truth and existential situation that purely is as it is. The world is what it is, existence is no more or less than what you can experience through life. So find meaning in the things that do exist, in the intoxication of fantasy, art, imagination, without deluding such ideas to be true, a world within that is limitless, without having any cosmic meaning in of itself.

I can look up at the night sky, understand that all of it is pointless, that it's just physics and chemistry producing all of what I see, and I can still be in awe, without having to bullshit any of it and apply delusions upon it in order to feel a sense of meaning. For me, it's pointless to muddy the sense of reality more than it already is with our limited senses of perception. If the line between what is true, or likely, and our fantasy, imagination, and art is blurred, we get delusions of existence.

Living with rationality, reason and logic as the foundation, means living with an exact line drawn so as to not be deluded by concepts that are closer to madness (by the definition of the word) than reality.

That tells us a little about why you think others believe things, but not really about your views on God. I guess your response leaves a couple of possible interpretations. 1) that you think human knowledge is fallible and therefore God is a possibility or 2) that you think human knowledge is fallible and God is just the name we give to what we don't understand.

what an interesting post you just wrote!
But - if everything is (because we can imagine it to so) without goal and without any sort of meaning, and all is just due to a stochastic variable - why did we not stay apes? They do actually walk on two legs but do still not have (nor do ravens - the smartest bird (animal) alive) the capacity of abstract thought and written language what will enable them to give their knowledge to their offsprings - and they cope and live in reality - MUCH BETTER than we humans do.

So why this joke (humans are a joke in this world being meaningless and giving in to what ever they see and want anyways) that is destroying the planet with our lust for all we see and can possess?

maybe rather the latter... because we simply DO NOT KNOW... now do we. When reading philosophy God is a huge issue... the million dollar question - and is and will be.
But (as I already suggested in another post in this thread) humans seem to experience God - have done and still do.
And when you see their accounts on what and who - they more or less come down on one identified jewish person: Jesus. Are they all delusional and even when and if they did not ask for it - being they were muslims or jews - or secular or atheist (have seen loads of these testimonies on youtube or are they saying - WHAT?
These testimonies do beg a question: if they are true then what?

WF speaks to an impoverished view of evolution — counterpunch

It is precisely the view advocated by Dawkins & Dennett to liberate mankind from the delusion of spirituality.

I can look up at the night sky, understand that all of it is pointless, that it's just physics and chemistry producing all of what I see, and I can still be in awe, without having to bullshit any of it and apply delusions upon it in order to feel a sense of meaning. — Christoffer

See you in the gutter, we'll see if then you can still be so smugly satisfied with pointlessness.

What do you mean - define - spirituality... what is that!

why would humans end up in the gutter just because their lives are meaningless and they fill them with what they know and want?

But (as I already suggested in another post in this thread) humans seem to experience God - have done and still do. — Iris0

Well to be fair, many, many people claim to have been abducted by aliens too.

And when you see their accounts on what and who - they more or less come down on one identified jewish person: Jesus. Are they all delusional and even when and if they did not ask for it - being they were muslims or jews - or secular or atheist (have seen loads of these testimonies on youtube or are they saying - WHAT? — Iris0

Muslims and Jesus? You sure? Islam describes Jesus as a profit who was not the son of God nor did he get crucified. Don't forget the Hindus who experience Brahma and Vishnu too.

These testimonies do beg a question: if they are true then what? — Iris0

You're on a philosophy forum. If they are true.... then your life changes forever, no? Belief can be yours too.

Of course some people propose to have such evidence, it's their reason for being atheists. E.g. "If God existed, I wouldn't lose my job/my partner wouldn't get cancer/the Nazis wouldn't kill Jews."
— baker

Not logically. One could say something like, 'There is no perfect, omnipotent God who would not allow a Holocaust." — Kenosha Kid

Enter the difference between God and demigods.

By definition, anything that happens has, obviously, been allowed for by God (for whatever reasons perhaps only known to him). This is why God is mostly an entirely useless concept with next to no explanatory power.

A demigod, ie. a very powerful entity, on the other hand, is a much more useful concept. For demigods take sides, give, take, condemn, punish; demigods do what humans normally do, but with much more power and resources.

I guess that when most people claim to believe in God, they're actually professing belief in a demigod.

When people bemoan the lack of justice or wellbeing in the world and how such is proof that God doesn't exist, or doesn't care, or is powerless, or is a psychopath, they are actually talking about a demigod.

You mention Darwin and how he lost his faith in God. This is a good example of someone losing faith in a demigod (whom he previously mistook for God).

as I said - from the Greeks and in all philosophy God is a mayor question and has been and will be - because we simply do not know! No one does. Listen to humans involved in this like the jews - they all say (their sages: no one knows God) and also it is written in the Bible that Jesus said No one knows God... so it is. No one knows God.

So it is like a sort of horizon we are trying to catch but will not be able - and this keeps us open.
I took the case with the Black Holes - they kept on looking even if no one had seen one - and it made them discover lots of things they otherwise would not have looked for.
That is good... but if our lives anyway are useless and meaningless - why knowledge? It does then all not serve any purpose either - other than technology? Right...
What is then the meaning of all if we do not stay open?
The logic of (this is the theme of this thread as I understand it) atheism is to close that horizon and say it just does not exist and as Dawkins said: now we do not have to worry... about what?
For me it seems illogical to close doors you have not even opened... or you tried to open but your rationality did not cope with them - and thus you let your LIMITS rule you?
Why?
Does not make sense to me.

why would humans end up in the gutter just because their lives are meaningless and they fill them with what they know and want? — Iris0

No, I'm saying I want to see if the other poster can still be so calm and confident even when he is in the gutter.

People sometimes brag that they can handle the meaniglessness of life and that they don't need crutches like religion. Sure, as long as their health and wealth are still relatively intact, that long it's fun to be a nihilist. But what happens to those people when, for one reason or another, they lose that health and wealth?

oh, so God is then when you loose you health and wealth - the crutch?
:wink:

I dare every wannabe stoic to be happy and content even when poor and sick.