When challenged by a "true believer" to say what i "believe in", since I reject their "One True God", I often just quote Isaac Asimov: "I believe in evidence." :fire:
I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be. — 180 Proof

Sagan standard, quite popular and makes sense from the perspective of proportio divina (evidence should be proportionate to the claim).

However,

Certum est, quia impossibile (It is certain because it is impossible). — Tertullian

The intent of a lie is to deceive. To deceive, the lie has to be plausible. In other words, the probability that a claim is a lie is inversely proportional to its plausibility. The less plausible a statement, the less likely it is a lie. Ergo, Tertullian. Hallelujah! Hallelujah! :snicker:

You are correct. The word "magick" does imply the original Hermetic meaning of causing transformation in alignment with one's will. In terms of teaching magick to anyone, this website is a great place to start. IMO, the best way to teach magick is to both embody said subject through metaphor.

In terms of teaching magick to anyone, this website is a great place to start. IMO, the best way to teach magick is to both embody said subject through metaphor. — Bret Bernhoft

Probably I am lost in the issue, but it looks like another type of religion with their own sects. It is true that I have confused it with paganism, but it turned out that it is more related to Christianity.
(At least according to the information you provided us).

Sorry, I really should have written that differently. When I used the disjunction "OR", I didn't mean they are synonymous with one another. So really how I should have typed it is like this:

• new age (faith in spirituality) vs atheistic faiths (belief/faith in no god)
  
• scientific materialism/logical positivism vs loose or perhaps more "continental" conceptualisations of the universe

Ugh, foolish mistake in my typing, forgive me. I was giving two discussion points relating the similarities in new age vs atheist debate to the materialist vs metaphysics/continental debate.

Thanks for the reply Bret. In the beginning I was attempting to speak upon a potential driving cause of a tendency in many people toward intense new age beliefs, that being the inferiority felt in what science has revealed of the muchness of this universe. Prima facie, to common sense, it appears we are so small. In reality, it does give us all the more reason to think of ourselves as so important too. I believe both perspectives are true depending on the angle which you look at them. Life is important and special, while paradoxically it is not at the same time.

While I am an atheist, I am also a optimistic Gnostic-type of person. Whereas most Gnostics are rather pessimistic about this reality. Ultimately the use of tools such as magick and technologies are a matter of choice. If a person chooses to shut themselves off from their own potentials, so be it. It's when they attempt to limit others in their own individual pursuit(s) of actualization, that a line has clearly been crossed. — Bret Bernhoft

You make a good point that magick/technolgies or imaginative ways of interpreting the world are tools of choice and that if people are closed to them, they may never discover their truth or potential. This is what I tried to talk about in the video and that we mostly live in a western culture whereby the common perspective is heavily influence by materialism in negative ways which reduce imaginative modes of interpreting the world NOT TO EVEN MENTION the degree of social control there is through language conventions and habitual tendencies of speech which convey distaste and disdain for such imaginative interpretations of reality EVEN THOUGH they don't necessarily have to be at odds with scientific materialism (we see that most fervently and efficaciously within peoples integration of psychedelic experiences).

I like the idea of teaching Magick in public schools, but would prefer students are taught the possibility of truth behind different ways of interpreting the world rather than being taught magick per se. This comes down to how much time is required to teach it in comparison with the necessity of teaching philosophical doctrines of analysis which are more primary.

That is interesting to know your Gnostic beliefs don't conflict with your atheistic beliefs, but i can imagine how that might be so.

I recognize your freedom to say so, of course, but in my view 'magick' is in the same family of ways of thinking that the Enlightenment reacted against. Anything esoteric is suspect.

It'd be fine to teach about all religions in public schools, but I don't think it'd be wise or proper to teach it as binding or true. I suspect you wouldn't want bible-thumpers teaching biology, for similar reasons. — Pie

Precisely, it is suspect and it should remain suspect because of the tendency humans fall victim to with sharp unjustified beliefs (centuries of war waged in their god/s name/s). Philosophy first, always.

Can religions be working assumptions and is it prudent/wise to believe in God (re Pascal's wager)? — Agent Smith

I believe so. I wouldn't go as far as Pascal's wager in terms of its appeal to pure agnosticism. Ideas have their merit in so far as their application to reality, as tools to use to interact in new ways. So long as those tools (concepts) apply strongly to some order of logic then we should be safe.

The question then becomes is there not some definite limitations to logic?

Quinne certainly seemed to think so, probably wittgenstein too... I think post-modernist philosophy has a lot to say on that, as well as Goedels incompleteness theorem, as well as, most importantly, the veracity of mystical experiences and the truths that lie within ONTOLOGY as opposed to rationality...

Rationality is a box we place ourselves in to progress in a particular kind of way. Truth lies outside of it.

I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.

When it comes to religious belief there can be no empirical evidence or inter-subjective confirmation. So faith is, in relations to these kinds of evidence, belief without evidence. But people may believe on the strength of experiences that in themselves seem to them to constitute good evidence for their faith; and if that is not wrongheadedly put out into the public arena as something that seeks to convince others, then it will draw no critique.

We are in 21th century already. Those pagans doctrine should not be allowed in schools. It is primitive and it goes against all the basic knowledge the world needs to find solutions to our problems. — javi2541997

You sir have made the error in thinking that you know what the "basic knowledge the world needs to find solutions to our problems" actually is! Many of our ills are encountered through the confines of our understanding of the world, especially in our desires not being met leading to hatred, pain, etc. We have modern medicine and yet 1 in 5 have chronic mental illness, 1 in 8 are depressed. Anti-depressants have 30% effectiveness on depression, psychedelics have 80% effectiveness on depression.
Just because something is outdated, does not mean you can deny possible truths within its doctrines. If anything, we should be looking to our ancestors toward providing some sense of truth in all of its compartments of beliefs and be looking holistically with a fresh perspective to deduce new conclusions. Your thinking is the kind that leads people toward hatred of others with a different religion, the kind wars are waged on. It is not healthy, nor open-minded.

I also think the OP is contradictory. There is not "atheistic faith" because atheism is against this sacred and religious act. Putting "faith" and "atheist" in the same group has no sense — javi2541997

I am the OP and for context I am agnostic. By definition, a belief in a lack of the possibility of there being god is still a belief. Grammatically, one can take "faith" that god does not exist.

FAITH: define
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Any atheist makes the claim that God does not exist only on his/her own conviction and not any proof. Whether that conviction is a spiritual conviction is a question toward ontology, of whether our being is fundamentally spritiual or not. I'd hazard a guess and say most atheists don't conceive of their being as spritual, but then you get rare gems like Bret Bernhoft on this forum who also believe in magick so go figure! :)

While logical positivism is based on proofs and scientific evidences, religion depends on your own belief. — javi2541997

What does epistemology tell us about rationality? That what is true comes down to a justified true belief? Well, Epistemologists disagree about whether belief is the only truth-bearer. Other common suggestions for things that can bear the property of being true include propositions, sentences, thoughts, utterances, and judgements. Plato, in his Gorgias, argues that belief is the most commonly invoked truth-bearer. In epistemology there are

• facts (propositional knowledge),
• skills (procedural knowledge),
• objects (acquaintance knowledge).

Philosophers tend to draw an important distinction between three different senses of "knowing" something:

• "knowing that" (knowing the truth of propositions),
• "knowing how" (understanding how to perform certain actions),
• "knowing by acquaintance" (directly perceiving an object, being familiar with it, or otherwise coming into contact with it).

Remember that without any experience of the world, we couldn't tell what the number 2 is conceptually, or that 2+3=5 or 6x7=42. We need acquaintance knowledge to deduce propositional knowledge (facts). They are completely dependant on the way we make sense of our world. On most views, truth is the correspondence of language or thought to a mind-independent world. This is called the correspondence theory of truth. We have no idea whether there is an intelligence/order on the other-side of the sense data we receive and confirm in our corresponding propositional logic and conceptualisations. The very correspondence of mind to reality is where we take our belief of truth to be existent.

THEREFORE, if we found a system of correspondence that integrates a new set of relational data, on top of or separate from propositional knowledge, logic, mathematics... what are we to do? We use replicability and uniformity between people to claim the truth of propositional knowledge, but what if new ontologies provided this framework for us? WELL, such is already the case wrt mystical experiences... and i talked about that in my video. Meditation and psychedelics provide this experience and have done for thousands of years, they offer a new state of consciousness to analyse ourselves in relation to the world -> therefore new epistemological benefits -> therefore new personally defined truths about ones existence that are repeated in individuals with psychedelic or mystical experiences. Are they as easily expressed as a set of mathematical equations? No. But how long have we been at it with those states of consciousness? Not long! Do we have psychedelic universities? No. Were the early mathematicians in Egypt writing logical calculus forumlas on blackboards to infer theorems from axioms according to a set of rules? No...Things take time...

My point here is that we need a new king of language a language embedded within a new ontology. And I think that in order to create that language, you're going to have to learn how you can go through a looking glass into another kind of perception, where you have that sense of being united to all things. And suddenly, you understand everything.

I hope that clears a few things up about that. Interested to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

Ideas aside, if I may offer a brief critique of the video presentation, it's far too long and rambling for what substance it offers, though I can't say that with much certainty because I could only bear to watch about a fifth of it. Also, the powerpoint-like images presented, which must have taken a lot of work, were more distracting than enhancing. — praxis

Interesting, thanks for share your perspective praxis. I guess I was trying to go for the rambling style youtube video which is common among youtube philosophy vloggers who make videos in response to others peoples NB: It is a fantastic alternative to philosophy forums. I wanted it to be more of a conversational journey in the evening on the lounge rather than a short sharp philosophical video essay at the computer.

The powerpoint-like imagery presented is indeed distracting at times but ideally it should be used to enhanced peoples conceptualisation, understanding and imagination through the extra use of brain power. I think people who find it hard to multi-task may find that difficult, but my reasoning is sound, which is that we need to move toward a more multi-dimensional modality of conveying information, not just text, not just words, imagery too!

This is a common rhetorical device used by evangelical apologists all the time - 'You atheists have faith in reason/science.' Seems an inadequate approach and a gimmick. It's also an example of the tu quoquo fallacy, or an appeal to hypocrisy.

Most atheists I know do not have faith in science or anything else. Faith is the excuse you give for believing something when you have no good reason to believe it. An atheist who privileges science generally sees it as the most reliable method for determining what is true or not, developing tentative models, using the best available evidence at the time. Science therefore is fallibilistic and changes when new facts emerge - which is the opposite of how faith functions.

Atheists do not always subscribe to materialism. Some are into New Age ideas, reincarnation and idealism. Atheism generally holds that there is no good reason to believe in any gods. It does not say there are no gods (a positive claim). That's all there need be to it. There is no faith in 'no god' just as you or others do not have faith in 'no Loch Ness Monster'. As an atheist myself, I am simply unconvinced that there are god/s. — Tom Storm

Yes, my apologies, that was not my intention but an error of how i chose to display it. I have updated the OP to what I actually meant which is thus:

• new age (faith in spirituality) vs atheistic faiths (belief/faith in no god)
• scientific materialism/logical positivism vs loose or perhaps more "continental" conceptualisations of the universe

I was giving two discussion points relating the similarities in new age vs atheist debate to the materialist vs metaphysics/continental debate. Atheists do not always subscribe to materialism, it is true, I said that in my video too.

On your comments on Atheism being a belief in no God/s, it appear in debate that it is a spectrum. "Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities". It becomes grey because the first broadest sense of atheism is almost identical to agnosticism. I see atheism used more commonly in philosophical debates with the context of the narrower sense: of the rejection God/s and belief that no such God/s exists or can exist. If Atheism isn't the correct term for such a belief, I don't know what term is.

You write well and I would be interested in hearing more of what you have to say, especially on my previous comments on epistemology/ontology.

I often just quote Isaac Asimov: "I believe in evidence." :fire:
I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be. — 180 Proof

I think that is a fantastic quote and relates so much to what I was talking with Javi about in this thread. The idea of there being metaphysical truths about reality (common in new age religions) i believe can be subjected to "evidence" through ontology. All the while still pertaining rigidly with the criteria for what we set truth to be in epistemology (correspondence theory of truth).

Life is evidence of the divine. Nothing about the spark of life is reflected in atheism. It's just a dearth of rational thought masquerading as science. — neonspectraltoast

I love that, thanks for sharing. I would say I would have to agree with you, yet atheism could be a powerful tool in the timeline of human history. It may allows us to capture enormous potential in our scientific progress at an accelerated rate, even though it may occur at such an expense of our well-being (to live without a sense of the divine in our lives as atheists, which more often than not in my opinion sees people get swayed in to materialist lifestyle choices, heavy social conditioning, ego traps, selfish decisions, all of which limit our ability apprehend the true beauty of what nature/existing is. IE staring at iphone at the beach scrolling instagram vs listening to the wind and the waves and perceiving it as divine (even in a sense that is not related to an anthropomorphic entity aka god).

Actually the dearth of rational thought is faith. That's the very point of faith, isn't it? — Tom Storm

Good point! I believe rational thought is being used by the two of you in slightly different ways. One being that it brings you closer to the truth, the other being it brings you further from it.

And the sociological-pedagogical evidence for the efficacy of these "practical tools" is what exactly? — 180 Proof

It would be an individually perceived truth taken from the correlation between procedural knowledge (performing of certain rituals) and effects in reality that take place (proposed effect of ritual).

Remember that in epistemology there are:

• facts (propositional knowledge),
• skills (procedural knowledge),
• objects (acquaintance knowledge).

Philosophers tend to draw an important distinction between three different senses of "knowing" something:

• "knowing that" (knowing the truth of propositions),
• "knowing how" (understanding how to perform certain actions),
• "knowing by acquaintance" (directly perceiving an object, being familiar with it, or otherwise coming into contact with it).

Magick could hypothetically be proven true through metaphysical connection to other hypothetical realms so long as the ontology of the being undergoing said connection were able to draw correspondence to a) procedural knowledge or b) propositional knowledge.

Important to note here that some people may regard their own existence (acquaintance knowledge I.E. cogito ergo sum) to be the most veridical. In fact i think many philosophy who tend toward pansychism, neutral monism, or monistic idealism, buddhism (enlightenment) might claim the most fundamental truth is to be found within our own ontology. Funnily enough, isn't this the same appeal to justifications of god through experience? Yes, if and only if such experiences took place in veridical ontologies, in other words, experiences of consciousness which offer more truth than rational computational thoughts within the conditioned complex called sanity! haha.

The less plausible a statement, the less likely it is a lie — Agent Smith

Sounds great. But, I can think of many implausible facets of knowledge which were proven factual/reliable: observer effect, quantum entanglement, decoherence, etc. Imagine how you might feel hearing about those theories 400 years ago). Perhaps its a good rough guide in common sense, just not reliable absolutely.

IMO, the best way to teach magick is to both embody said subject through metaphor. — Bret Bernhoft

It is interesting to see what happens when people relax their rigid rational conceptions of events, things, aspects, qualities. We see it under alterations to consciousness with some psychoactive drugs (cannabis, psilocybin, lsd, etc). Relationships between concepts become loose, free, flowing, imaginative, creative. The space that creates for metaphorical thought is enhanced and so to is the ability to form meaning. Looking at magick in terms of some of its attributes, we can immediately see value in its processes (as described in relation to the value within Altered States of Consciousness-ASC).

To look at magick in terms of a strict doctrine that is true absolutely in every aspect is just missing the point. The point i was making in my video was that the process of imaginative conceptualisation borrowed from new age religions (even from religions) can be utilised alongside scientific knowledge to attain exactly what einsten was getting at when he said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".

It becomes grey because the first broadest sense of atheism is almost identical to agnosticism. I see atheism used more commonly in philosophical debates with the context of the narrower sense: of the rejection God/s and belief that no such God/s exists or can exist. If Atheism isn't the correct term for such a belief, I don't know what term is.

You write well and I would be interested in hearing more of what you have to say, especially on my previous comments on epistemology/ontology. — intrapersona

Thank you. People tend to get fixated by terminology. Generally agnosticism goes to knowledge and atheism goes to belief. I would consider myself an agnostic atheist if pushed. Not sure anyone 'knows' there is/are no god/s. But you can't help what you believe. If you are not convinced there are god/s, that kind of ends the discussion. At least in my case. Most agnostics I know are practical atheists. They might say they don't know if there is a god or not, nevertheless as a matter of practice most do not have a belief in any god/s.

I rarely use the word atheist, unless I am talking to Americans. It pertains to just one thing- the belief in god/s. The nature of time or consciousness have no impact on this. In terms of epistemology and ontology - I leave such weighty subjects to the experts. I don't have a significant interest in the origin of life or the nature of the universe. I hold that no answer in that space will make any difference to how I live my quotidian life. I think these sorts of yearning questions are an inevitable by-product of human beings as meaning making creatures. As you say in the video, most of the putative answers here are wild, speculative and imaginative.

Most questions of metaphysics are just people telling stories to each other to try to ground the 'mystery' of life in some kind of foundational meta-narrative. I am happy to be a partially reflective follower of the crumbling remnants of the post-enlightenment world, who holds no real answers to any of the portentous questions and isn't all that fussed.

One being that it brings you closer to the truth, the other being it brings you further from it. — intrapersona

I'm more about the truth rather than The Truth.

FAITH: define
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. — intrapersona

I think the definition you provided us is completely clear. Faith depends on trust, confidence, beliefs, in something or religious doctrines. So, we can say here that is not possible to develop some kind of "criticism" or knowledge towards the act of believing in God. If you are a true believer you would believe in God's existence so blindly. It doesn't matter if we are debating about their or not existence. For a believer it does exist, simple.
This is what faith is all about. It goes beyond knowledge and criticism.

Secondly, I think you are wrong when you say atheism depends on the "faith" on not believing in God at all. You are confusing here scepticism with faith. I am atheist and I don't believe in God because there are not sufficient proofs to believe about and their doctrines. Thus, I am sceptical towards religious doctrines.
But this is why I can't have "faith" it would be contradictory. Faith is a positive act. Like a subterfuge you used to answer questions you don't understand. Instead of using criticism or logic you just believe in something. But this issue is so far away from being sceptical towards religion

When it comes to religious belief there can be no empirical evidence or inter-subjective confirmation. So faith is, in relations to these kinds of evidence, belief without evidence. But people may believe on the strength of experiences that in themselves seem to them to constitute good evidence for their faith; and if that is not wrongheadedly put out into the public arena as something that seeks to convince others, then it will draw no critique. — Janus

Indeed. Perhaps the secrets within religious experience are some of the best kept secrets known to man-kind. The buddhist monk attaining nirvana, which is unified in its qualities of consciousness with other monks or even sages who have attained moksha (liberation from delusion) requires no logical proof of its truth about reality. For its truth is attained only within the ontology it is sought within and needs no further justification. Perhaps that is why our human thought, philosophy and scientific progress has so many loose ends, we have simply come to a rabbit hole with no end. For, it is the way we define those truths in our being which provides a veridical account of their truth, both within the scientific materialist state of consciousness as well as within an enlightened state of consciousness.

I'm more about the truth rather than The Truth — Tom Storm

The nature of time or consciousness have no impact on this. In terms of epistemology and ontology - I leave such weighty subjects to the experts. I don't have a significant interest in the origin of life or the nature of the universe. I hold that no answer in that space will make any difference to how I live my quotidian life. I think these sots of yearning questions are an inevitable by-product of human beings as meaning making creatures. As you say in the video, most of the putative answers here are wild, speculative and imaginative.

Most questions of metaphysics are just people telling stories to each other to try to ground the 'mystery' of life in some kind of foundational meta-narrative. I am happy to be a partially reflective follower of the crumbling remnants of the post-enlightenment world, who holds no real answers to any of the portentous questions and isn't all that fussed. — Tom Storm

That's a really interesting, relatable and well spoken reply. Thanks for sharing Tom :up: :smile:

Your thinking is the kind that leads people toward hatred of others with a different religion, the kind wars are waged on. It is not healthy, nor open-minded. — intrapersona

No, my thinking is the one which is literally out of all those issues. I do not understand why people feels "hatred" whenever someone is brave enough to critique old religious doctrines

It is interesting to see what happens when people relax their rigid rational conceptions of events, things, aspects, qualities. We see it under alterations to consciousness with some psychoactive drugs (cannabis, psilocybin, lsd, etc). Relationships between concepts become loose, free, flowing, imaginative, creative. The space that creates for metaphorical thought is enhanced and so to is the ability to form meaning. Looking at magick in terms of some of its attributes, we can immediately see value in its processes (as described in relation to the value within Altered States of Consciousness-ASC).

To look at magick in terms of a strict doctrine that is true absolutely in every aspect is just missing the point. The point i was making in my video was that the process of imaginative conceptualisation borrowed from new age religions (even from religions) can be utilised alongside scientific knowledge to attain exactly what einsten was getting at when he said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".

I think we're on the same page here.

I think people who find it hard to multi-task may find that difficult, but my reasoning is sound, which is that we need to move toward a more multi-dimensional modality of conveying information, not just text, not just words, imagery too! — intrapersona

Have you ever been watching a movie and sudenly noticed the soundtrack because it was some how off or too overbearing? I guess being aware of a movie and its soundtrack at the same time is multi-tasking.

The buddhist monk attaining nirvana, which is unified in its qualities of consciousness with other monks or even sages who have attained moksha (liberation from delusion) requires no logical proof of its truth about reality. For its truth is attained only within the ontology it is sought within and needs no further justification. Perhaps that is why our human thought, philosophy and scientific progress has so many loose ends, we have simply come to a rabbit hole with no end. — intrapersona

The cessasion of suffering is proof of nirvana. Everything else is, as you put it so well, a rabbit hole with no end.

Precisely, it is suspect and it should remain suspect because of the tendency humans fall victim to with sharp unjustified beliefs (centuries of war waged in their god/s name/s). Philosophy first, always. — intrapersona

:up:

I think that those who share our attitude want to come together as patricidal siblings, which is to say as equals, meeting in the middle. The 'father' symbolizes 'magical' access to an authority that is either explicitly unintelligible or available only to an official representative. The ideal of science, it seems to me, is that it's equally true and equally checkable by everyone. For practical reasons, this is often no longer the case, albeit ameliorated by transparency with respect to data and the code used to process it. As I see it, there are two complementary temptations or motives working against this ideal fraternity/sorority. One is the desire to play the parent, stealing the autonomy of others, and the other is something like Sartre's bad faith, which is to say evading one's own responsibility, embracing the status of a child.

I hold that no answer in that space will make any difference to how I live my quotidian life. I think these sorts of yearning questions are an inevitable by-product of human beings as meaning making creatures. — Tom Storm

:up:

Most questions of metaphysics are just people telling stories to each other to try to ground the 'mystery' of life in some kind of foundational meta-narrative. — Tom Storm

This seems to apply to what many want from philosophy. Other issues seem drier to me, more like a mathematics with concepts which is aesthetically driven. What's the slickest take on issue X ? Or...what's the least 'sentimental' or 'spiritual' take ?